Where's the very last place in the Austin Metroplex you'd live? (Portland: big house, bankruptcy)

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by supernaut112

At first I thought you'd posted an aerial view of Round Rock, then I noticed that the houses were different colors.

That's what I thought - even had some neighborhoods in mind. Was going to go try to find an aerial view of them last night, but it was really late here and I headed for bed instead.

[verybadgnome]

Mass transit is not viable without density which is why sunbelt cities have systems don't work well while the older NE cities work decently. You need density because most people will walk or bike to the stations and the population in the 1/2 mile capture areas around stations is very different when comparing all single family houses to a mix of SF and multi-family.

Old world cities like Munich with about the same population as Austin but 3 times the density have incredible mass transit systems, but they would not work here because our poor land use dictates our limited transportation solutions.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Regarding the aerial view: if you do an aerial view of some of the Austin neighborhoods on google you see much of the same thing. It isn't unique to RR, or Pflugerville, or Hutto, or Cedar Park. Subdivisions exist everywhere.

Unless you are talking about the mansions along the river or on the lake, the Austin neighborhoods are comparable to many of the evil burbs neighborhoods from the looks of it.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

It's fun to watch the opening to 'The OC' with everybody piling out of the burbs in their identical SUV, but Hollywood makes money selling that image. Just like Hollywood (and the fashion business) make a killing selling anything as 'unconventional.' So many of my friends from school are unconventional, underemployed 30-somethings that, in my generation, the unconventional ones are the ones who are married with kids and in a stable job at 30. I'm not referring to me here, either - I'm somewhere in between. I think we've just gone a bit overboard with our embrace of alternative-ism in a way that I can't help but think my grandfather, coming home from WW2, wouldn't look at with complete astonishment.

The intro to the HBO show weeds captures it perfectly
<<the houses made of ticky tacky and they all look the same...>>


Weeds intro Season 1 original good quality - YouTube

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

The urban/rural resentment is just as tiresome as the 'oh how great it used to be' vs. planned community resentment. It's just NIMBY dressed up in a different suit.

It's a bit inconsistent to be proud of Austin's desirability while also complaining about how people then actually move in and fill up the green space. This conversation is hundreds of years old, and that was also the last time anything new was added to it.

you only have to drive down 360 to see how good a job the city is doing preserving the hills. You get all the libertarians who want people to do whatever they want with their property, but it is the role of mayor/city council to enact policies that create a vision for the city. We can be a city where every inch of close in space is developed or they can maintain and grow austin;s natural spaces and help austin to stay an outdoor focused city.

I used to laugh at the SOS people, but now I think they are exactly right. They should fight with whatever tools they have (including ridiculous endangered salamanders and birds) to keep development from overrunning everything.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

Sprawl: I have said before, once outside of city limits, cities have NO control over this! This is a state, not city problem. Until the state allows counties to have some power or say on development in unincorporated areas, nothing will change and sprawl will continue. Don't like the sprawl? Petition the state to let counties have power.

Size of homes: Why does it matter if the home is 1500 or 3500 square feet if the lot is the same size? How much land it takes up is what matters with sprawl, not the home size. A half century ago you would find many more single-story homes; today, they build up rather than out and the lots generally are the same or smaller.

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)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by supernaut112

Oh, don't get me started.

I was so looking forward to Metro Rail. As in, for years. I thought it would be so different than what it turned out to be. As it stands, I'd have to drive further to catch one of the stops than I would if I just parked somewhere downtown. Which is ridiculous.

Just because it didnt work for you doesnt mean it is ridiculous. Over time people who feel that rail is important will move closer to rail. There will be building density next to rail lines. More people will ride it so they will expand stations and capacities of a single train.

cap metro may also have other lines, but the one they made is actually very good and certainly was incredibly inexpensive.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Regarding the aerial view: if you do an aerial view of some of the Austin neighborhoods on google you see much of the same thing. It isn't unique to RR, or Pflugerville, or Hutto, or Cedar Park. Subdivisions exist everywhere.

Unless you are talking about the mansions along the river or on the lake, the Austin neighborhoods are comparable to many of the evil burbs neighborhoods from the looks of it.

Exactly. How is that aerial any different than many neighborhoods in Austin? If anything the lots are about that size. Only difference is maybe some of the housing stock.

Subdivisions aren't "teh evil". They are what they are. We solidly middle class (and even upper middle classed) have to live somewhere and not all of us are down with acreage.

I don't want to live in small homes. I've spent the greater part of my life living in small spaces and don't want to be creative about space ever again. It doesn't really matter to me if big homes go out of style. We purchase for our needs, not the needs of a future tenant. Adding on to a small space can be pricey, so for us, it was just better to get a larger home. If that means we are living in Anywhere USA, so be it. Coming from the asphalt jungle known as New York City, Anywhere USA -- so gleefully derided -- is a welcomed change.

[sxrckr]

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)

Counties can make developers pay for roads within a developement, but not outside of it. Developers don't pay for schools, the district spends the money to build new ones. Counties and/or other outlying entities like MUDs need to be allowed more power in some form of zoning rights.... currently they have next to none from what I understand. An out of state developer can come in, tear down all the trees and build a massive apartment complex in the middle of nowhere, encouraging sprawl, causing crowding of the schools, all while making a huge profit.

[Aquitaine]

Developers don't pay for schools, the district spends the money to build new ones.

...money they receive in large part from the property taxes on the new development.

Hasn't Austin just seen this happen in the SW? Some schools got crowded from new development so they built new schools and now it's better? How else is this supposed to happen? Developers have to build schools themselves? That will just drive up housing prices anyway.

The cost of school expansion should be factored into the tax base just as the cost of utility expansion should be. Sometimes it even works out that way.

n out of state developer can come in, tear down all the trees and build a massive apartment complex in the middle of nowhere,

It's very revealing that you said 'an out of state' developer. So if your neighbor who has lived in Austin for 30 years decides to build a massive apartment complex, that's okay?

all while making a huge profit.

Both the State of Texas and the Federal government tax profits (the state actually taxes gross revenue via its Franchise tax) so I hope they are, though I suspect you don't actually know what their profits are and just ascribing this behavior to them because they're a corporation and so much easier to vilify than an actual person.

StanPac lost money in 2011 but did very well in Q4, though not well enough to make up for Qs 1-3. They are just as exposed to the economy as everybody else.

One thing causes sprawl and crowding: people wanting to move to the area. This is what you want to stop. Builders don't build if they don't think people want to move there, and they spend a small fortune trying to figure out where people will want to move in 1, 5, or 10 years. I'm completely comfortable laying down requirements and restrictions on builders to keep a certain percentage of green space (as happened in Circle C) but this is never a reasonable conversation precisely because of the "use everything at our disposal" attitude of groups like SOS. The way things are now, if you're a builder, you are going to initially propose the absolute minimum so that you can later give ground and get press for giving concessions to the city, to the environmental groups, or what have you. Whatever you start with is not going to be good enough because the guy on the other side of the table just sees you as representing the "out of state" folks who want to chew up your scenery and (oh noes!) make a profit.

I have a lot of respect for the folks on both sides who actually have to huddle together and figure this stuff out. I think there's a lot to be learned from how we answer that question. Very hard to do so when the default position people who want to keep the pretty hills they drive out twice a year is "no, absolutely not, I don't care who owns the land."

There's a family that owns the big preserve behind Avana in Circle C. I think it's some rancher family - I don't know the details, but our agent explained that it was privately owned. So somebody put his money where his mouth was to keep development from going further. Consequently every property that has a view of the preserve is sold at a premium because of it, even though they make no guarantee that it will remain private for the rest of your life. If they sold it tomorrow and put in a golf course or a shopping mall, you bet I'd be disappointed, but by what right can I stop them that isn't just me thinking of myself and my own property value in a cheap disguise?