The Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge is one of 3 signature bridges being built in Dallas, designed by Santiago Calatrava. The 3 bridges are part of what is now known as the Trinity River Corridor Project.
Earlier today I blogged about a letter in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in which the letter writer opined about Fort Worth's need for a visionary of the same ilk that brought Fort Worth the murky vision of the Trinity River Vision.
Among other points, I said, regarding the Trinity River Vision, "All that vision saw was copying what was being done in Dallas with its Trinity River Corridor Project. And then downscaling the Dallas Vision."
Anonymous commented to that particular blogging, and in that comment, said "As for Trinity River Vision, its initiatives and ideas far predate the Dallas effort and is in no way copying them. The FW project is superior in scope and vision, IMO."
Well.
I arrived in Texas in 1998. It was not long after my arrival that I learned of a project in Dallas that was to renovate the Trinity River as it flowed through Dallas. The Dallas mayor at the time, Ron Kirk, championed the project, with Dallas voters, in 1998, approving a bond proposal. At that time I believe the word "vision" was in the title for the Dallas project.
I believe it was sometime after the turn of the century I first read of Fort Worth's plan to do its own renovating of the Trinity River. I believe this was originally called the Trinity Uptown Project.
Unlike Dallas, the citizens of Fort Worth have not had the opportunity to vote on their controversial vision.
I believe I am correct when I say Fort Worth copied Dallas. That is definitely how it struck me at the time Fort Worth's vision was born. Including announcing that 3 signature bridges were part of the Fort Worth vision. Just like the Dallas vision.
Except, Fort Worth lost its signature bridges, while Dallas did not.
So, I believe the Anonymous commenter is erroneous when he claims the Trinity River Vision far predates the Dallas Trinity River Vision.
Wikipedia has articles about both the Dallas and Fort Worth projects. The Dallas article is quite detailed, while the Fort Worth article is a bit sketchy. And contains errors. Like saying the Town Lake was going to cover 33 acres. That lake long ago shrunk down to small pond size.
Both the Dallas Trinity River Corridor Project and the Fort Worth Trinity River Vision have good websites, which give you a good idea what these projects entail, and you can clearly see that, despite the Anonymous commenter's comment that the "FW project is superior in scope and vision," that that clearly is not the case.
Of course this is somewhat of a subjective matter. Maybe the Anonymous commenter attaches great import to the Trinity River Vision's vision of building the world's premiere wake boarding facility as part of its vision, while I think that the wake boarding part of FW's vision is just embarrassing.
Maybe the Anonymous commenter attaches great import to Happy Hour Inner Tube floats on the Trinity River, while I think that that is just embarrassing.
Maybe the Anonymous commenter attaches great import to building an un-needed flood diversion channel, while I think adding that just to get pork barrel funding is just embarrassing.
Who does J.D. Granger's job for the Dallas Trinity River Corridor Project? Did a Dallas Congresswoman get her out of work son the job? Or is nepotism frowned upon in Dallas?
