New courthouse bond (Austin, San Diego, Jefferson: lawyers, houses, construction)

[Trainwreck20]

Pros/cons? I can see the need for a new courthouse, both for space and age reasons, but I kind of agree with some of the folks that say Austin should allow that plot of land to be privately developed and added to the Tax roles.

[hound 109]

Con - My annual property tax will go up for something I don't need or want.


Memo to city and county leaders: If you put a bond proposal out for a billion dollar train, or a 300 million dollar courthouse, instead of for improving our existing roads & mobility, we will vote it down. Items needed on next bond:

- 300 million (or a Billion...whatever) to improve existing roads (adding lanes, adding left turn & right turn lanes, create medians and/or center lanes where possible). Remove or improve 3 dozen current bottlenecks. Split the 300 million (or a Billion...whatever) between the 10 council districts (or between the 4 county precincts). Do.This.First.

Then:

- A task force with lots of smart people to think of out of the box ideas to reduce rush hour traffic. (early shifts/late shifts? Work from home day? Free breakfast tacos for car poolers/bike riders/gondola passengers).....whatever.


- Then (& only after money's are dedicated for existing roads....& ideas are implemented for reducing rush hour traffic.....ONLY THEN) consider a second bond for NEW roads.

- Then only after those items are addessed: a bond for parks/arts/salamander statues/unisex bathrooms, new police stations, whatever.

- THEN (and only after those have been voted on)...a bond for a billion dollar train and a 300 million dollar county courthouse. (which we'll vote down again.)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Pros/cons? I can see the need for a new courthouse, both for space and age reasons, but I kind of agree with some of the folks that say Austin should allow that plot of land to be privately developed and added to the Tax roles.

Pro:
We actually do need more space

Con:
Why does it all have to be combined in one building (the two different courts).
Why does it have to be on one of the best/most expensive blocks downtown.
It will further expand the "dead zone" in that area of downtown (having like 1 "coffee shop" in the ground floor won't do anything).
It (again) puts an inhospitable frontage (bollards and the like) fronting one of our 3 parks.
Their claims of "private development" of the other half of the block fall flat. Who is going to want to develop anything meaningful on that land, when the county has already said they're taking it back in 20 years.

[centralaustinite]

They should have replaced that courthouse 20 years ago!

[Trainwreck20]

Why does it all have to be combined in one building (the two different courts).

Not sure on the 'con' here? Why is it bad to build a bigger building instead of two smaller ones? Can't they utilize some of the same facilities (holding area, security, secure garage, etc)? Not arguing, but not sure on the negative aspect.

What is going to be done with the old courthouse if this new one happens?

[Austin97]

Pros and cons should be related to building it downtown vs more centrally located AND the cost compared to other comparable projects.

Con:
Bad parking situation downtown
Costs twice per sq ft of other courthouses in expensive cities.

In the heart of California's Gold Country, a new one-room Lake Tahoe courthouse is estimated to cost a baffling $747 per square foot for construction.
In the state's far north, along the Feather River, a three-room courthouse in Plumas County will cost an extraordinary $644 per square foot for construction.
And down at California's southern border, a huge, new courthouse in San Diego is estimated to cost $523 per square foot for construction. The price skyrockets to $900 per square foot when all other costs, such as land, are included.
"That strikes me as absurd," said Dean Dalvit, a Colorado-based architect and engineer. "The courthouse here in Jefferson County, which is referred to by the locals as the Taj Mahal -- even that building did not exceed $200 per square foot."
He questioned whether the Administrative Office of the Courts, the overarching bureaucracy that handles court rules and finances, is planning to "gold-plate the walls."
Data from RS Means, a company specializing in construction cost estimating, puts its highest construction cost for courthouses at $269 per square foot in New York City. It estimates that a courthouse in San Diego should cost about $195 per square foot, including the cost of union labor -- an amount that is less than half of the AOC's estimate..
.....

"Yes there's truth in courthouses being more sophisticated buildings, but again how can you justify that? It blows me away. If I can build that building in Colorado for $200, I should be able to build that building in California for $220. Unless they're gold-plating the walls."
Assembly member Fletcher was just as incredulous
"There's no way to justify this," he said, "when New York City can do it for $200. It's just another in a long line of inexcusable errors by the AOC."

Pros:
Easy to get to for existing law firms who are all downtown

[Eastcoasting]

I'd simply like to see a skyscraper taller than Burj Khalifa.

Texas.

Home of the worlds tallest skyscraper.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if the footprint is large enough and if the geology can support such a structure but I'd kick in a couple grand to see it happen.

[Trainwreck20]

Looking through all the cost discussions and justifications why 'elsewhere' (either northeast or just a bit north) is not really cheaper, it seems that none of the talk mentions opportunity cost of not developing that site as taxable land. Sure, if you move it out of downtown, you won't earn parking revenue after hours at the courthouse, but, hell, something as simple as a surface lot on that site would surely earn more money than after hours at a courthouse. And that doesn't even get into the possibility of a commercial or residential development (or combination) that should result in a substantial bump to the tax base.

I do understand that there is some significance to having a centralize governmental 'complex' and proximity to existing 'infrastructure' (lawyers, mainly, but food, jails, bondsmen, etc. as well, I suppose), but I would at least like to see a pie in the sky number on what the lost tax revenues (comparing the two or more sites, anyway) would be. Maybe it is not that big, maybe it makes sense, but I would like to see the math discussed.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Eastcoasting

I'd simply like to see a skyscraper taller than Burj Khalifa.

.

We could call it the Lehm-Burj Khalifa.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Not sure on the 'con' here? Why is it bad to build a bigger building instead of two smaller ones? Can't they utilize some of the same facilities (holding area, security, secure garage, etc)? Not arguing, but not sure on the negative aspect.

What is going to be done with the old courthouse if this new one happens?

Goes to the cost and placement issues. One of their "reasons" for not placing it on the airport location is that the combined size was too large for the _one_ site they examined.