Dave Grohl weighs in on Austin's gentrification (San Angelo: school, tax)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by petro

Do you get equally upset about the hundreds of acres of pristine hill country that are being destroyed so that a limited few can live in sprawling faux-tuscan McMansion estates with a view? I'd say, I'd rather see one mediocre music venue on a single city block replaced with housing for hundreds.

You are confusing a building with culture. It is the contents that provide the culture, not the other way around. But without the building, you can't have the culture. Feel the same way about a "mediocre music venue" replaced by a failed bank building?

Besides, last time I drove through it, there are still millions of acres of "pristine hill country". Can't say the same about the cultural icons we destroy on a regular basis.

[petro]

Originally Posted by scm53

You are confusing a building with culture. It is the contents that provide the culture, not the other way around. But without the building, you can't have the culture. Feel the same way about a "mediocre music venue" replaced by a failed bank building?

Besides, last time I drove through it, there are still millions of acres of "pristine hill country". Can't say the same about the cultural icons we destroy on a regular basis.

Quite the opposite, you are the one who keeps bringing up condos and a temporarily closed music venue (last I heard, they were planning on reopening). The point is, a business (music venue in this instance) can change locations, no problem. But once the hill country is developed into the Disney version of Tuscany, it's gone forever.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by petro

You dislike these?

Sorry, I misread your comment. What I dislike is the systemic destruction of the city's culture, history and uniqueness. I could write a whole lot on this topic, but that essentially sums it up and I've got a bunch of people I need to talk to on the other side of the world in a few.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by petro

Quite the opposite, you are the one who keeps bringing up condos and a temporarily closed music venue (last I heard, they were planning on reopening). The point is, a business (music venue in this instance) can change locations, no problem. But once the hill country is developed into the Disney version of Tuscany, it's gone forever.

Did AWH change locations, no problems? Did Liberty Lunch change locations, no problems? Did Antone's change locations, no problems? Did Las Manitas change locations, no problems? For something that you think is so easy, the track record is "quite the opposite".

And no matter how much you want to sneer, there are millions of acres of the Hill Country for your viewing pleasure. Which I don't think is your real issue any way ....

[Eastcoasting]

If loving Austin is wrong I don't wanna be right.


SCM53 you have peaked (oops, meant piqued) my curiosity, I am still slowly making my way round to all of the Austin icons but I would like to know which ones you consider to be in the most immediate danger/dire straights.

Perhaps a separate thread?

Thx

Originally Posted by scm53

You are confusing a building with culture. It is the contents that provide the culture, not the other way around. But without the building, you can't have the culture. Feel the same way about a "mediocre music venue" replaced by a failed bank building?

Besides, last time I drove through it, there are still millions of acres of "pristine hill country". Can't say the same about the cultural icons we destroy on a regular basis.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Did AWH change locations, no problems? Did Liberty Lunch change locations, no problems? Did Antone's change locations, no problems? Did Las Manitas change locations, no problems? For something that you think is so easy, the track record is "quite the opposite".

AWH closed in 1980.

Las Manitas _opened_ in 1981. They're not even contemporaries. Change happens. Complaining about any and all change, when that change brought in stuff you valued is contradictory.
If Austin was stuck in the 70s Las Manitas would never have existed.


(oh, and AWH opened _because_ Vulcan Gas Company closed Armadillo World Headquarters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by petro

Do you get equally upset about the hundreds of acres of pristine hill country that are being destroyed so that a limited few can live in sprawling faux-tuscan McMansion estates with a view?

I have no issues with people building nice houses in the hill country. I'm not jealous of people with lots of money. This earth is here for us to enjoy. We should preserve lots of land via parks and let people build on the rest.

[orngkat]

Change happens alright...just how many of these trendy taco bars do you think will be around in 5-7 years? Are these VMU condos being slapped up built to last more than twenty years? Austin cannot sustain its present giddy growth IMO.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by scm53

You are confusing a building with culture. It is the contents that provide the culture, not the other way around. But without the building, you can't have the culture. Feel the same way about a "mediocre music venue" replaced by a failed bank building?

Besides, last time I drove through it, there are still millions of acres of "pristine hill country". Can't say the same about the cultural icons we destroy on a regular basis.

Well, the building does reflect the culture. That's why it matters when interesting buildings are destroyed to build ticky tacky ones, whether they be suburbs or downtown condos.

Again, those of you who denigrate the housing (and those who choose to live in it) in outlying areas can't see (or prefer not to acknowledge, it's hard on here to tell which) that the skyscraper condos you so cherish are no different, really, in terms of being sprawl and boring sprawl at that. And are no different in destroying something that should be cherished if one truly loves Austin.

As for the claim that downtown was "dead" in the 1970's/1980's, I certainly spent enough time and money there (though the only place I went to on 6th Street was Maggie Mae's and, just off of it, Chez Nous. I also worked downtown, on Congress, during that period and it was far from "dead" or boring.

Change will always come, yes. However, if one truly carries for a city, one advocates for thoughtful change that takes the already existing culture of the city into account, not "let's make this a "World Class City" by seeing how many ticky tacky high rises we can throw up and how much money we can make off of them before the whole thing crashes!".

[scm53]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Well, the building does reflect the culture. That's why it matters when interesting buildings are destroyed to build ticky tacky ones, whether they be suburbs or downtown condos.

My only point was, you can't preserve Austin's unique culture by just moving the cultural icons around. Las Manitas wouldn't be Las Manitas if you just plugged it into where La Condesa is now. Nor would you preserve the cultural status by putting a mustache wax store in where Las Manitas was. It is way more complex than that.