Wondering about the Trinity River Vision
by Steve-O
Trinity River Vision — bold vision for the future or cronyism on an epic scale?
Which is it?
Pardon me if I am a little confused.
I’m kind of partial to the project, myself. As Bing Thom Architects — one of the project’s planners — say on their Web site, “This project was initiated by the strong desire of the community to reconnect their city with the Trinity River.” And I’m moved by that. It is an ambitious plan that could completely transform this city into the type of opportunity city that I believe Fort Worth can and should be.
But then there’s the rapidly escalating price tag — numbers between $435 and $700 million are being bounced around and the project timeline is measured in decades.
But if it changes the city as it promises, wouldn’t the TRV be worth it?
The answer to that question — for me at least — was yes. At least until last week. That’s when federal funding for the project was derailed by Dallas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, a move prompted in part by local Democrats.
The main reason for the Democrats objection seems to be the hiring of J. D. Granger as executive director of the Trinity River Vision Authority. That’s Granger as in the son of Rep. Kay Granger-R, the former mayor who has championed the flood control project. Oh, and then there’s the awarding of $1.9 million in no-bid consulting contracts to Republican consultant Bryan Eppstein of Fort Worth. Kinda cozy.
So, is this just another salvo in the neverending rivalry between Fort Worth and Dallas? Or is this just petty politics as Mitch Schnurman suggests?
Certainly, I’m the first to believe the worst about Kay Granger. She’s the type of Republican who has spent most of the past seven years rubberstamping anything that Dubya has wanted. But as dim a view as I may have of the Congresswoman from the 12th District, the information about J.D. Granger and Bryan Eppstein hardly qualifies as a news flash. Is this enough reason enough to derail a project that has drawn support from Democrats like state Rep. Marc Veasey and U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards?
And even if I don’t agree with her positions on every issue, part of her job is to bring home the pork. And to some in the Fort, that’s part of the problem. To them, the TRV isn’t so much about Fort Worth connecting with the river — it’s about community powerbrokers connecting with the public teat.
So what is the Trinity River Vision? Brilliant urban planning? Partisan boondoggle? Corporate welfare? Eminent domain abuse? I’m trying to understand it, but all I have now is more questions than answers. To me, it seems like there is more to this story. If you have any thoughts on this, drop me a line.
15 Comments, Comments or Pings
brandon
It is *not* part of a representative’s job to bring home the pork. NOT. NOT. NOT. That opinion is jaded, at best. Ill informed at worst.
I believe it started with the works programs of the thirties (of which the intent was providing jobs, the infrastructure was a pleasant side-effect). Since then, we’ve come to believe a major role of government is to provide. It is not true. And it is not sustainable.
I think that a lot of the TRV can be achieved without federal funding. If it is worth it to us, we should be willing to pay for it, whether through developer incentives, local taxes, through the city’s Barnett revenues, or a combination. Anything that can’t be built with that kind of funding is a pipe dream.
Oct 26th, 2007
Steve
Jaded — absolutely. Ill informed — probably. I’m looking for answers, but right now I have more questions. Thanks for your comment, Brandon.
Oct 26th, 2007
brandon
Well, if you ever find any, please share. The TRV is pretty on the surface, but I’m concerned about the funding (where does it come from, and now: where is it really going) and whether all of this was ever realistic.
Oct 26th, 2007
chris
Let’s start with the question of FW “reconnecting” with the river. What does that mean, exactly, in the context of a stagnant pool in the dead center of Fort Worth’s urban/industrial runoff? This isn’t Austin with Town Lake fed not only by the upper Colorado but also by natural springs in the area — and Town Lake isn’t a real pleasant place to be in the water, I can tell you from experience. It is pretty at night, though, I have to admit.
The point here isn’t to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars so we can have “pretty at night.” And the point isn’t to “reconnect” with the river. The point, as far as I can see it, is to redevelop the lower north side, which, for reasons I’ve never fully understood, can’t be redeveloped while the levees still stand. Go figure. Seriously, though, what the proponents have sold all this time is the idea of extended downtown northward, I guess as far as North Side Drive. Why it takes TRV to redevelop that land is something I can’t quite fathom, nor is it clear to me why this would be an urgent priority after 30+ years of vast nothing between Calhoun and Jones in our existing downtown. Maybe if they could move the Convention Center down there and give us Hell’s Half Acre back, maybe then I’d be interested. Sorry, I digress.
OK, so now we learn that the Granger family and a Republican consultant stand to make decidedly nontrivial amounts of money from this project. OK, so that’s plenty of reason to fire Kay next year, but does that justify killing the project outright? Probably not. But I think it’s fair to ask ourselves what our grandchildren are going to think of this project, assuming it’s built as proposed, and then decide if it’s worth it. Are they going to be grateful that we decided to reconnect with the this particular river in this particular way? Will they use this waterway at all? Will the maintenance costs be a burden? Will the rerouting of flood waters have unintended consequences? Were there better ways we could have spent our civic dollars?
I think one’s view of this project, in the end, depends on one’s best guesses about those particular questions.
Oct 28th, 2007
chris
Somehow, a longish comment I composed here last night vanished within a couple of clicks of my having posted it. Perhaps I rubbed yon moderator the wrong way, or else the Internet sprites stole my electrons away. But it’s a bummer, I know that.
Short version: what will our grandchildren really think of this project if it’s built? Discuss.
Oct 29th, 2007
Bernie
I think it must have been the Internet Sprites… as far as I know, we’re not doing comment moderation around here (at least not so far)
Oct 29th, 2007
Steve
Sorry your comment vanished, Chris. Not sure what happened. When considering how posterity will view this project — and I think that is an excellent question — I think that if it comes to fruition as the plans say it should, it could really change this city for the better. If it pisses out half-formed while making hundreds of millions of dollars vanish, then I’ll bet they’d say “What WERE they thinking?”
I for one like dreaming big, but I think there are some legitimate causes for concern.
Oct 29th, 2007
chris
I think I must have misclicked after posting in a way that caused the comment not to post. Oh well.
I’m the big sourpuss about this project on the FW Forum, so take this all with appropriate doses of salt, but here’s my view:
1. The proposal is for a stagnant waterway at the bottom of Fort Worth’s drainage watershed. Every bit of urban contaminant that the western half of Tarrant County can put into the river will end up in this lake.
2. The counterargument is Town Lake in Austin, but Town Lake is fed by underground springs as well as the Colorado, and is nasty to be in regardless. I say this based on personal experience.
3. What will be the maintenance price tag be for this? Will future generations pay it, or will the thing just languish? As a basis for comparison: Lake Worth turns 100 in seven years and it’s still waiting for its first real dredging.
4. The real point of the project, Bing Thom’s thoughts notwithstanding, is to jumpstart redevelopment of the lower north side, extending downtown northward. First of all, it has never been made clear to me why this isn’t possible with the levee system. Secondly, until downtown can extend east past Calhoun Street, why bother crossing the river?
5. Public money is finite. At the risk of oversimplifying, if I had to choose between this and a truly useful streetcar/light rail system, I’d take the latter. If I had to choose between this and a truly significant city hall — a structure as important to future generations as the courthouse is to us — I’d take the city hall. The notion of “reconnecting” with the river is nice, but this is the Trinity we’re talking about. We can rearrange its flow all we want but it will always still be the Trinity.
Oct 30th, 2007
Bernie
This is one of those projects for which my position has continued to evolve.
I, for one, applaud the desire to bring the Trinity waterfront back into the city. This city was founded on the Trinity River, and the levee system psychologically separates us from it. Recently, though, people have returned to the river as a recreational resource. Cyclists, fishermen, rowing teams, whitewater kayakers, and even waterskiers all use the Trinity River and its greenbelt for recreation. A downtown waterfront would be an additional recrational boon for vacationers, business travellers, and FW workers on their lunch breaks.
I think, however, we’re putting the proverbial cart before the horse here. Chris- one thing your absolutely right on is that we need light rail before we need this redevelopment. Trinity Uptown should grow up around transit lines, rather than the lines being built to accomodate a scattered development. With T.O.D. being all the rage these days, how is it that Trinity Uptown’s planners have forgotten about this?
Plus, the chances of this project actually looking anything like those beautiful models are slim to none. All one has to do is look at the cutbacks on the TCC campus as an example. Billions of dollars later, we’ll have a TRV less than half as grand as we’ve been sold so far.
Honestly, the TRV model looks beautiful, and it’s easy to see why people would get excited about it. It just looks more and more like a boondoggle of epic proportions every day.
If I could redesign the project today, I would give the city a downtown river front without changing the course of the river, and without a Town Lake, and I’d tell the private developers to build their own infrastructure.
I don’t see any reason for the rest of us to pay to help developers make money, and help the value of Chris Turner’s $410,000 condo double in the process. Seriously, is that a good use for our tax money?
Oct 30th, 2007
petew
Chris, your post got caught by Akismet. Sorry about that. I’ve released the comment from the spam filter. It’s still learning, I suppose. I’ll try to do a better job of checking it in the future.
Nov 4th, 2007
chris
No worries, Pete. I run a few blogs of my own and know how tricky filtering comment spam can be. Thanks for releasing the original comment — I was happy with how I linked from it.
Nov 4th, 2007
brandon
Bernie,
As old as this topic is getting, I don’t know if you’ll see this, but it is my understanding that you can’t have “a downtown river front without changing the course of the river” *and* get rid of the levee system that “psychologically separates us from it”
If we want to get rid of the levees, we’re going to have to move the river. Conversely, if we want to retain the river’s current path, we have to come up with a levee & riverfront-development-interface (for lack of a good word) combination that we like. And when redesigned, levees, like taxes, never shrink. They only get taller and more unwieldy.
Unfortunately, I think the TCC campus was designed under the assumption of re-routing the river, so there’s another monkey wrench in the works. I’m in full agreement that this whole thing is looking more and more like an epic boondoggle as time passes.
Nov 6th, 2007
Brad
For an alternative look at
what is really need is the extended white settlement road connector to NorthMain.
Nov 20th, 2007
Brad
meant to say citizenswhocare.net
Nov 20th, 2007
Reply to “Wondering about the Trinity River Vision”