Commenter Miggy offers more reasons against putting the courthouse on Republic Square:
You lay out several reasons to oppose it in the current location but also give it thanks for removing the Intel shell. I disagree - the shell was the beginning of a taller structure (hence the sturdiness that both required and resisted demolition since it didn't have enough weight on it to fully collapse it). There was a big effort to sell the shell and continue to build it out back in '02/'03 when it reverted to the city. It came up again when shell was up for demolition in ‘07. Both occasions were unsuccessful even though in the latter case, developers were willing to offer AMOA the double height ground floor as a community benefit - something they probably wish now that they hadn't passed up. The structure had embedded energy - i.e. what it took to construct it, and then required energy to destroy it and needed landfill space to clear it. Such a waste.
Now - about the courthouse itself. As I see it, the reasons for opposition are:
It is unnecessary based on case-load. An expansion isn't required - and if it is - expand into the other federal building up on San Jacinto. Also – The courthouse on Lavaca is undergoing a $1.5M renovation as it is and there is neighboring space if expansion is required.
The security issue is a red-herring. A federal bankruptcy court is no more likely to illicit a terrorist attack than the many unprotected offices of representatives and Senators who each have many many offices- many in non-federal buildings. I have to imagine someone would be more interested in targeting one of those spots - or the active criminal courts. Moreover- their plans to keep the existing courthouse throws water on the argument anyway.
Taking a one-block by one-block square of valuable downtown land largely unencumbered by the capital view corridors off the tax rolls permanently doesn't help Austin at all. This is where density should be targeted and this building is far from helping that goal. Also to say that the bunker-on-three-sides structure is pedestrian unfriendly would be an understatement.
It cuts off part of the transportation grid by claiming the block of San Antonio Street. It's not a heavily used street today - but that's less than far-sighted use of our transportation network and would only contribute to traffic problems. Part of the claimed street could be used to extend Republic Square Park, but the GSA's early offer of financial assistance for such work was later welched on.
There was an executive order signed by Jimmy Carter and renewed by every president since including Bush – and I have not seen yet – but presumably Obama as well – that required GSA projects to be built in economic empowerment zones. That’s a flexible term but it certainly doesn’t apply to downtown west of Congress and East of Lamar. It did reasonably fit the downtown community’s recommended location on the St. David’s owned tract next to the ARCH which no one is likely to build on anytime soon because of its proximity to the homeless shelter. That’s when the GSA could be the hero – build where others fear to tread and maybe bring something positive with them.
Cost – Part of the defense being now given is that the $63M price tag for construction is less than the cost over-run for the San Diego court – the only courthouse ahead of Austin in the GSA’s line. That hardly inspires confidence. It’ll likely be more than $63M – and for what? A superfluous courthouse and an odious monument in the heart of our downtown that pays no taxes and doesn’t even contribute a couple of coins to the neighboring park?
Sadly, lobbying will probably do no good in this case as the leads on the project are federal judges w/ lifetime appointments. Perhaps Republican Representative Lamar Smith, whose district it is in, and who voted against the stimulus package will have the ethical backbone to not turn around and use some of those funds on this wasteful project. The realist in me sees that Judge Austin has been giving the high-pressure sales pitch for endorsement letters out of a lot of local groups who privately either a.) oppose it or b.) aren't aware of the alternatives or c.) are indifferent....and that will probably pass the thin test for public acceptance.
On a final note – the moving of the Post Office to over near Club de Ville and Red River makes no sense to me either. How many office workers will find that location convenient? And how will that dead retail streetfront (or worse-yet – similar suburban parking lot and drive-thru) help the still nascent Red River entertainment district which is already threatened by any number of other forces. I don't know what the reasoning was but just based on my surface knowledge - they should have kept in the bottom of the Ovation building as planned.
I don't agree that it would have been better to leave the Intel shell in place. Yes,the City might have found some developer willing to use it as the skeleton for an office building. But the hefty demolition cost would have deterred every developer interested in another design. Leaving it in place, in other words, would have shrunk the pool of interested buyers drastically. It blighted that area of downtown and needed to go.
