NdoorTX wrote:Interesting discussion. I would have been all for the amenities and extravagances originally proposed if you had asked me a year ago. Now with all the delays, expense and possibility of having to reconstruct the features every so often after a flood, I am for a more natural looking and feeling Trinity River as it meanders by DTD. I had a hard time imagining how attractive a meandering, narrow river with grassy fields and the occasional stand of trees would be appealing. But having come from a trip to the Rockies ( Vail, Avon, Edwards specifically) I think this is by far the best solution. The Colorado River and it's tributary streams were SO LOVELY and appealing as they wound their way through the fields at the foothills of the mountains. It would seem "naturalizing" the Trinity would be the most eco-friendly, cost efficient and quickest way to get our dream park. Bring back a more natural course, add groves of trees where aesthetically pleasing and let the bottoms grow without mowing and landscaping- perfect! Granted, there won't be a Rocky Mountain backdrop- but a Dallas skyline is hard to beat too.
cowboyeagle05 wrote:I like how everyone has the instant solution because we are all frustrated with a lack of any plan actually moving forward except the bridges. Keep in mind everyone with your "visioning" the Army Corp of Engineers has a lot of NO's when it comes to what can be done between the levees and to the levees. No plant life except grass on the levees, mowing is a requirement according to the last I checked between the levees. Also, they have to approve of any new trees to be planted inside the flood zone in case they negatively affect the flow of water and/or safety. The Army Corp of Engineers primary goal is to make sure the tons of water that fills those levees several times a year doesn't flood Downtown and become Katrina part deux Dallas Edition. All the other stuff people have being fantasizing about is just kids stuff.
Hannibal Lecter wrote:Ah, the mythical lakes.
There's never been a plan to build lakes. The so-called lakes were what we in Texas call stock ponds. Say "lake" and people think White Rock. In actuality all the proposed ponds total about 1/3 the size of Bachman. Combined. Puddles with delusions of grandeur. Because of the underlying sand they could only be a few feet deep. Oh, and they had to be a large distance away from the river so that floods wouldn't erode the land between and merge them into the river, and a large distance away from any of the bridges to they didn't jeopardize their pier. Oh, and they were to be filled with piped in water because the Trinity water is too polluted.
Well, technically the corps' approved plan has the three main lakes with a combined total of 256 acres of 'open water' (12-18 feet deep), compared to Bachman lake's 205 acres (less than 14 feet deep).
Tnexster wrote:Do they really care about public input or is this just an exercise to make us think they care about it?
tamtagon wrote:Just like the Cowboys season, I'm too beat-down by a generation of losing to get excited by what seems like the right plan for this public wilderness! I will skeptically wait to see the rest of it, especially how the levee-filling choke point at the standing wave entrance to the forest will be corrected.
Among the most significant design elements to be introduced is a series of new pedestrian bridges that will link east to west, providing low-altitude views and access to the park spaces below. "The floodway gets a lot more little floods than big floods," says Van Valkenburgh, "and the bridges have the advantage of greatly increasing the number of days that the park is accessible."
They will land at the tops of the levees, which will be buttressed and extended out to connect with the city. Here, easily accessible on overlooks above flood level, will be playgrounds, cafes, performance spaces, and other amenities.
quixomniac wrote:If anyone has better pictures than the DMN article, that would be much appreciated.
It's hard to gauge what exactly is planned from what's been shown so far.
It just looks like one cross section of one specific place.
Henry C Long wrote:You've got to wonder how solid their engineering and research if they believe the 1908 flood killed 5,000 and they are comparing the 30 foot levee height to the 52.6 foot Trinity River crest . . .
or maybe is it just sloppy writing and editing by D Magazine.
DPatel304 wrote:Here is a more critical article on the latest renderings:
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/van ... r-11407004
The article criticizes the plan for being too artificial and likens it to 'six flags', which seems odd to me. From what I've seen, it seems like they are taking more of the 're-wild' approach, which is a really good thing. I know they mention some man-made structures, but, it seems like those would all be on top of or outside the levees, and the actual trinity river area would remain pretty wild.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests