Californians/Former Californians - A Question For You (Houston, Dallas: employment, buy)

[bgrn198]

Originally Posted by cBach

Actually I have.

The elevated transit system is a joke there, but Little Havana was interesting if a bit seedy. However, I spent the bulk of my time on South Beach.

We have nowhere near the Miami look. They have more of the art deco look on buildings, with ultramodern condos. We have the old southern rural architecture on (converted homes to buildings) with ultramodern condos. Our former residential stock (W. 6th) is now commercial, and our former commercial stock has been razed and is now high end residential. That is nothing like Miami.

I was talking about eepstein and his downtown condo comment about Austin being the only city with highrise condos being built

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by jb9152

What I *will* say is this - people vote with their feet.

I agree, but they are moving with their feet all over Texas. Yet, you will hear many other Austinites saying other Texas cities outside of Austin are no good, yet those are still gaining considerable population as well! Can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by eepstein

Austin is a big COLLEGE TOWN, and will never be anything more. It will never compete with Dallas, Houston, or even San Antonio. The idea that promoting totally unplanned sprawl (just like Houston) makes it something more, is rediculous.

I've said before and will say again, the cities don't promote sprawl! It's actually an opposite problem, where the cities have absolutely no control over areas outside their city limits. The counties in Texas have almost NO power and can't do a thing about sprawl or other development outside city limits. This is an issue in any unincorporated area of a metro, Austin being NO exception. This is something that has to be changed at the state level.

Originally Posted by eepstein

You really can't compare two cities so different in size. It is true that Los Angeles ranks highest in overall pollution in the nation. But, considering Houston is a close second

Eepstein, this is not true. This is part of the false marketing campaign, if you'd like to call it that, promoted by Al Gore and even some in Hollyweird years ago.
Hoffdano has the correct info below:

Originally Posted by hoffdano

LA is not the only city in CA with poor air quality. The American Lung Association's list of 25 cities with poor air quality is littered with California cities.

Most Polluted Cities - American Lung Association (http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html - broken link)

Only two Texas cities - Houston and DFW, make the list. And Houston is top 10 only in ozone.

Exactly, the Texas cities only rank on one measure of air pollution, when there are several types.

But he's right in that Austin's pollution is worsening, possibly because of cars sitting in traffic or starting and stopping.

[kiacook]

Californians are to the 2010s as the Okies were to the 1930s.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by kiacook

Californians are to the 2010s as the Okies were to the 1930s.

except the Californians have lots of $$

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by wehotex

except the Californians have lots of $$

Not quite so much any more. Those expensive houses are not selling for nearly as much any more (if they are selling at all.) These economic times have been hard on people in CA, too.

[eepstein]

Yes, I did forget about Miami I guess.

Originally Posted by bgrn198

I was talking about eepstein and his downtown condo comment about Austin being the only city with highrise condos being built

[eepstein]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

I agree, but they are moving with their feet all over Texas. Yet, you will hear many other Austinites saying other Texas cities outside of Austin are no good, yet those are still gaining considerable population as well! Can't have it both ways.
It's mainly the larger metro areas that are gaining population in this state. DFW, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin is probably where 90% or more of people moving to TX are heading.



I've said before and will say again, the cities don't promote sprawl! It's actually an opposite problem, where the cities have absolutely no control over areas outside their city limits. The counties in Texas have almost NO power and can't do a thing about sprawl or other development outside city limits. This is an issue in any unincorporated area of a metro, Austin being NO exception. This is something that has to be changed at the state level.
Outside their city limits you are correct. However, HOW you determine your city limits early on give you a better idea of how sprawl will be controlled. I always refer to Portland as an example. An urban growth boundary which was determined many decades ago. However, Portland does still have some sprawl issues, but they don't have to do with Portland proper, they have to do with the suburbs.

With regards to Austin, you don't think that the Austin City Limits sprawling from Slaughter & I-35 all the way to Avery Ranch isn't urban sprawl??


Eepstein, this is not true. This is part of the false marketing campaign, if you'd like to call it that, promoted by Al Gore and even some in Hollyweird years ago.
Hoffdano has the correct info below:

This is a tricky thing to measure. Yes, Houston does rank 7th on that list on Ozone, but I am really talking about TOTAL pollutants released. The fact that cities 2-6 are a FRACTION of the size of metro Houston, it can be surmised that Houston really does pollute more overall just by it's shear size. The central valley cities listed there and on that list SOLELY because of the valley they reside in and stagnant wind patterns most of the year.


Exactly, the Texas cities only rank on one measure of air pollution, when there are several types.

But he's right in that Austin's pollution is worsening, possibly because of cars sitting in traffic or starting and stopping.

Yes you are correct.

[shmatbert]

Thanks for all the input former Calis. I didn't intend for this to become a comparison between the two states. I love California and I think I understand what some of you are saying about California back in the day. It's very similar to the feelings of a lot of long-time Austinites - remembering a time when things were simpler, quieter, less crowded...Thank you again!

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

True, to an extent, about the central valley part. Yosemite is probably the best example of this. Yosemite National Park has for years had problems with air quality, and obviously it's not due to the density of the cars within the park (though they have been limiting access to the park from cars for years now). All that lovely Bay Area smog and with the pre-bust boom in housing in the central valley really has caused some serious issues. Dunno about Austin being worse than say Fresno wrt auto emissions though.

Regardless of the topography and the auto emissions, the air in Austin that goes in my lungs is better and healthier than the air I would breathe in most areas of California.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by eepstein

Yes you are correct.

Have you actually read the American Lung Association ratings including their methodology?

They assess air quality on three metrics - ozone, short term particle, and year round particle. Because they report concentration, the different sizes of each city are irrelevant. Houston may emit more total ozone than Fresno, but you would breathe more ozone in Fresno than you would in Houston.

For some reason you want to discredit Houston's size vs. score but fail to do so for Los Angeles, similar in size.

The simple truth is that if you live in Sacramento, you will breathe in more ozone than you would in Houston or DFW (or Austin). Sacramento also scores high (poorly) on short term particle pollution.