What would you like to see Austin gain in coming years? (Burnet: apartments, rental market)

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Is this not enough development downtown for you?

I like those new buildings, myself. I really don't know what the problem is. I can't wait to see the Austin skyline once these new buildings are complete. A futuristic skyline is something that every Austinite can be proud of.

The way I see it, the skyline is like the face of the city. A city's skyline is like when a person goes out in public, especially a woman, she wants to present herself to the world the best way she can. When visitors or passer-byers come to Austin, if they see a cool skyline, it will leave them with a lasting, favorable impression of Austin. Doesn't most every Austinite want every visitor and passer-byer to leave Austin with a favorable impression of Austin? I think they do .

[TexasHorseLady]

If we're going with that comparison, I'd say that Austin is being made to appear like a woman with layer upon layer of inappropriate make-up slathered on to give a false, and distinctly unflattering, impression.

There was a reason that people have moved to Austin and not been able to leave for so long. That's all being destroyed and buried by people who think that every place should be just like every other place (or just like where they came from).

[LiveUrban]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

I like those new buildings, myself. I really don't know what the problem is. I can't wait to see the Austin skyline once these new buildings are complete. A futuristic skyline is something that every Austinite can be proud of.

The way I see it, the skyline is like the face of the city. A city's skyline is like when a person goes out in public, especially a woman, she wants to present herself to the world the best way she can. When visitors or passer-byers come to Austin, if they see a cool skyline, it will leave them with a lasting, favorable impression of Austin. Doesn't most every Austinite want every visitor and passer-byer to leave Austin with a favorable impression of Austin? I think they do .

I agree. I'm not sure why people are so against new towers downtown. Our skyline is marveled by many.. practically half of my friend list has a picture of Austin's skyline as their Facebook cover photo right now. It's for sure the face of the city, what people identify with when they describe Austin.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

If we're going with that comparison, I'd say that Austin is being made to appear like a woman with layer upon layer of inappropriate make-up slathered on to give a false, and distinctly unflattering, impression.

There was a reason that people have moved to Austin and not been able to leave for so long. That's all being destroyed and buried by people who think that every place should be just like every other place (or just like where they came from).

I don't believe for a minute that most people who move to Austin want to change it into a place just like where they come from. Nothing stays the same. Everything changes. People change. Cities change. It's not 1972 anymore. As much as I wish it was 1972 and I was 18 again, it ain't gonna happen. It's 2015 and complaining that Austin isn't like it use to be isn't going to help anything. None of us who were alive in 1972 are not the same as we are in 2015. And no other city is the same today as it was in 1972. Austin will continue to change. I predict Austin will be as different 43 years from now in the year 2058 as it is as different today as it was in 1972. What can you do but just roll with it? Fighting it will only leave you frustrated and wear you down emotionally.

[jdevelop2]

Originally Posted by Dabroncos1

Can't stand half the people on this board

Shut up.

its a thousand times more of a city than Austin is.

Austin is just a big suburb.

You're a moron

go drink your mocha light coffee on congress somewhere while reading a book.

Austin really isn't that unique.

Wow. All this is one post. And people wonder why transplants sometimes get a bad rep. If there is one thing this city DOES NOT need its this type of nonsense and attitude which belongs in neither Austin or Texas.

Please take that back to where you brought it from.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

And no other city is the same today as it was in 1972.

That isn't universally true. Cities with strong senses of place, and attendant preservation codes have maintained there character over decades. Austin has no preservation codes, and is willing to become anything that anyone with a buck wants it to become.

Unless it is in the wrong watershed. Otherwise, no problem.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

That isn't universally true. Cities with strong senses of place, and attendant preservation codes have maintained there character over decades. Austin has no preservation codes, and is willing to become anything that anyone with a buck wants it to become.

Unless it is in the wrong watershed. Otherwise, no problem.

We may not have preservation codes except in a few areas, but we have powerful neighborhood associations who have the muscle to stop developments even if they conform to the current zoning, e.g. the 65 room east Austin hotel that was shot down two weeks ago.

Also the more preservation codes, the less redevelopment that occurs and the higher the cost of housing. TANSTAFL = there ain't no such thing as a free lunch

Then you have cities that have not changed much, e.g. Wichita Falls, because they have been stagnating for decades.

Anyway I would like to see Austin get more choices in housing whether it be micro units, alley flats, townhomes, 4-plexes, 6-plexes, or mid and high rise condos. More choices that fit a wider range of lifestyles and make better use of scarce developable land, while increasing the tax base. To do this will require a massive rewrite of the development codes which thankfully is in the works.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Also the more preservation codes, the less redevelopment that occurs and the higher the cost of housing. TANSTAFL = there ain't no such thing as a free lunch

I used to believe that "more redevelopment = lower cost of housing". Until I looked at a brand new 2BR apartment downtown for the oh-so-affordable price of $5500/mo.

There hasn't been a single project developed in the urban core in the last ten years that is lower cost per sq. ft. than the city median. All of the density, from downtown to S Lamar to Burnet Road has come at a premium prices. So much for the "free lunch".

And please don't make the false choice of either Megalopia (aka Geography of Nowhere) or Wichita Falls. There are beautiful cities in this country and world wide that don't have a single building over 160'. Charleston, Savannah, Washington DC here alone. Paris, Prague, Barcelona, etc. Not exactly Wichita Falls.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

I used to believe that "more redevelopment = lower cost of housing". Until I looked at a brand new 2BR apartment downtown for the oh-so-affordable price of $5500/mo.

There hasn't been a single project developed in the urban core in the last ten years that is lower cost per sq. ft. than the city median. All of the density, from downtown to S Lamar to Burnet Road has come at a premium prices. So much for the "free lunch".

And if those areas were not developed the way the were the costs of not doing so would have been spread out beyond the core. Increases in supply cannot increase costs, that is a non-starter.

DT is so expensive b/c the city has been developing amenities there along with a cultural shift if attitudes about urban life in America. It has also been getting more expensive b/c of the increased amount of money coming from outside the state. We cannot stop people investing here and driving up prices.....And one more reason for the high prices is that we had 3 years of so where development was in limp mode because of the recession and lack of financing for big projects, we are now in catch up mode.

Right now we people renting in east Austin paying less in rent than the property taxes charged. Landlords will do this for a while but in the end those areas will have to be redeveloped in order for the property owners to even break even, much less turn a profit.

[scm53]

We cannot stop people investing here and driving up prices.

Nothing is inevitable. Again, there are dozens of vibrant, alive cities - here and world wide - that have kept their sense of place and haven't sold their souls for whatever glass and steel monstrosity someone wants to build. They are quite happy to "stop people from investing here" in a way not in keeping with the city's existing character.

Not so Austin - which has aided and abetted this pimping out by diverting capital spending from other parts of town. Fortunately, 10-1 is a stake in the heart of that.