Where's the very last place in the Austin Metroplex you'd live? (HOA, mortgages)

[suit-n-tie white guy]

Gary Bradley Bankruptcy Expose

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by Austin97

counties have control over it in the sense that they can make developers pay for all infrastructure. Right now taxpayers subsidize this. People live far out because it is cheap, paying for infrastructure would make it a lot more expensive. (schools, roads, utilities)

They have some indirect control in unincorporated areas but the main tool for controlling the type of growth remains zoning, a tool that no county in Texas has.

[supernaut112]

The main question we should ask is this: Are some areas of Austin so poorly/randomly developed or otherwise undesirable that there will be little or no chance of luring large businesses to them or providing public transportation once they reach a certain population density?

We can all agree, I think, that the problem with Austin is that its infrastructure was not constructed in a way that it provided for growth. If the same mistakes continue to be made, it becomes a big problem for future generations of Austinites.

[Aquitaine]

It seems beneficial to look at models of how other cities have handled this, since Austin is hardly the only place with these problems. Doesn't seem to have any trouble luring businesses, though, but the transit question seems like the tougher one.

What cities comparable in size and density to Austin have done a better job, or are working on solutions now to do a better job? I don't know places like Seattle and Portland or Raleigh well enough to talk about their mass transit.

[supernaut112]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

It seems beneficial to look at models of how other cities have handled this, since Austin is hardly the only place with these problems. Doesn't seem to have any trouble luring businesses, though, but the transit question seems like the tougher one.

What cities comparable in size and density to Austin have done a better job, or are working on solutions now to do a better job? I don't know places like Seattle and Portland or Raleigh well enough to talk about their mass transit.

That would seem to be the best idea — to perform a comparative analysis between Austin and other cities. The problem is, Austin has some serious sprawl issues compared to other cities.

Seattle has an exemplary public transportation system in place, but then again, even though they have suburbs, the city and the 'burbs are more compact.

There is also a shorter distance between Seattle and other cities/communities. Case and point: It's only 30 miles between Seattle and Tacoma, two major cities. This suggests that even the "far-flung" 'burbs in Seattle are still close to the downtown area.

Austinites consider 30 miles an acceptable commute. But how many people in Washington State would live in Seattle and work in Tacoma? My guess is very, very few.

[Aquitaine]

I wonder if that has anything to do with Seattle's "burbs" being much, much more populous than Austin's. The Seattle metro area is 3,439,809 while Austin's is 1,716,291 -- just half as large. So Seattle can count on more people taking a mass transit system into town.

Seattle just opened one of their rail lines a couple years ago, so I suspect that their transit system was less exemplary when they were Austin's size. The downtown areas are comparable and Seattle's transit system definitely wins there.

[supernaut112]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

I wonder if that has anything to do with Seattle's "burbs" being much, much more populous than Austin's. The Seattle metro area is 3,439,809 while Austin's is 1,716,291 -- just half as large. So Seattle can count on more people taking a mass transit system into town.

Seattle just opened one of their rail lines a couple years ago, so I suspect that their transit system was less exemplary when they were Austin's size. The downtown areas are comparable and Seattle's transit system definitely wins there.

Of perhaps the converse is true? A close friend moved from Austin to Seattle for the very reason that he didn't drive, and even though he lived central (here), it was still too hard to get around, given his profession. From what he tells me, Seattle's downtown area is far bigger and far more populous than Austin's, with the 'burbs tucked in really close to the city center. It has that "compactness" that you find in older European cities. Sounds like Seattle has the optimal population density to make public transportation work, too.

He tells me that the PT there is awesome. There's no need for a car, no matter where you live. I'm slightly envious of him at times. Until I think of the rain.

[Aquitaine]

Maybe it's just how they draw the map, then, because according to Wiki, the downtown areas are about the same in terms of population.

[supernaut112]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Maybe it's just how they draw the map, then, because according to Wiki, the downtown areas are about the same in terms of population.

The construction/composition of a downtown area also defines how many people can live there, too. DT Austin used to consist primarily of two-story limestone buildings constructed at the turn of the century. Which is aesthetically pleasing, but not too space efficient. Seattle appears to be more vertically oriented. Lots of older skyscraper apartment buildings w/ smaller floorspace.

One thing that my friend did say about Seattle is that residential spaces are much smaller than they are in Austin. Perhaps not along the lines of NYC, but definitely more modest.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Let's put it this way. We raised two kids quite happily and well and never lived in a house larger than 1600 sq. ft., even when we could have easily afforded a much larger house, even close in. (The one we lived in the longest before the one out here on the ranch is 1450 sq. ft., with 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, a huge country kitchen, two living areas (one of which is a great size for an office for two), and a utility room. A second bath would have been nice, but it was not a major problem not to have it, even when one of the kids was a teenager and one was a toddler. Both of us at one time ran businesses and did work at home, as well.) 3,000 sq. ft. is not a necessity - it's a luxury - but way too many people think that it is impossible to raise a family in anything less than that. 2500 is pushing it, for some.

When people think that houses of that size are a necessity of life, rather than something that would be nice to have, we've got a problem that contributes greatly to sprawl.

We agree and we disagree sometimes, but in this case, 100% agree. A big house is nothing but big problems. Give me an average sized house in a convenient location....with a shorter commute and more family time!