Austin's urban growth.... (Houston, Dallas, River Oaks: taxi, to live, cost of)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by madrone2k

Minor comment: Houston has already completed part of its 3rd outer loop (Grand Parkway, aka State Highway 99).

Good thing or bad? I think Houston has reached the stage in its evolution that further developments like that are mainly intended to spur profits for real-estate speculators and developers.

As for Austin, my gut feeling is that all the opposition to highway development (back to the 70s, at least) seems to have led to the opposite situation relative to Houston. Too little highway development vs. too much ... at least for the inner part of the metro area.

When I lived in Austin in the early 70s, people were all convinced that traffic there would never be as bad as in Houston. Now, it is certainly worse than it was in Houston then. To my mind, comparing them now is a wash.

what is interesting is that this path could force us to 1) have a more dense core 2) enable us to afford mass transit solutions.

Once you invest in all the roads and have spread out so far it is impossible to get the density you need to afford mass transit.

The roads will now take too long to build (20 years) but relieving the blocks to density would immediately improve austin as developers start taking down sfh and replacing with 4-8 plexes.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by DTXman34

You're joking, right? That's called density! There's a huge difference between a multi-use skyscraper and a low density sea of big box stores with giant parking lots. How much land is that skyscraper taking up compared to a big box store with a parking lot?

Not kidding. When you jam a bunch of skyscrapers into the center of a city that was not built for them so that you can pack a bunch of people in there (and brag about having the tallest building west of the Mississippi), you may prefer to call it density, but it is, indeed, sprawl, just vertical, not horizontal. And it is just as offensive to people who don't like sardine can living as what you prefer to call sprawl is to you.

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Not kidding. When you jam a bunch of skyscrapers into the center of a city that was not built for them so that you can pack a bunch of people in there (and brag about having the tallest building west of the Mississippi), you may prefer to call it density, but it is, indeed, sprawl, just vertical, not horizontal. And it is just as offensive to people who don't like sardine can living as what you prefer to call sprawl is to you.

A city not built for them? No city is technically "built" for them. They progress to that stage when they're out of options. Do you think NYC and Philly were built for skyscrapers in the beginning? There was no such thing in the 17th & 18th Centuries. Over time, that changed for obvious reasons. Look at cities around the world. There is no such thing as vertical sprawl. The more you pack in, the more dense it is. We began to spread out more because hyper density has its flaws as well. See NYC in the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

Sprawl has to do with how much land you're using. It doesn't matter how high up you build.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Not kidding. When you jam a bunch of skyscrapers into the center of a city that was not built for them so that you can pack a bunch of people in there (and brag about having the tallest building west of the Mississippi), you may prefer to call it density, but it is, indeed, sprawl, just vertical, not horizontal. And it is just as offensive to people who don't like sardine can living as what you prefer to call sprawl is to you.

Except those skyscrapers subsidize everyone else, unlike sprawl, which is itself subsidized.

Live how you like, but you should pay for it yourself.



You're basically taking a term, and making it meaningless. What configuration of people _isnt'_ sprawl by your definition? People close together is "sprawl". People far apart is "sprawl".

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by DTXman34

A city not built for them? No city is technically "built" for them. They progress to that stage when they're out of options. Do you think NYC and Philly were built for skyscrapers in the beginning? There was no such thing in the 17th & 18th Centuries. Over time, that changed for obvious reasons. Look at cities around the world. There is no such thing as vertical sprawl. The more you pack in, the more dense it is. We began to spread out more because hyper density has its flaws as well. See NYC in the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

Sprawl has to do with how much land you're using. It doesn't matter how high up you build.

Sprawl really has to do with how many people you are going to stuff into an area. Texas having land that NYC and Philly don't (are you from one of those places originally, perchance?) hasn't had to go the skyscraper route because we've had elbow room that those places simply don't and haven't because of geography. That's one thing that my comment about being "built for it" means. Another is that Austin has traditionally been an "outdoors" type of town, and skyscrapers are for people whose lives are primarily spent indoors in bee hives and they like it that way. Even Dallas, where I lived before I moved to Austin and which had some skyscrapers even way back then, tends to spread out more than up because there's room to do so.

I'm not crazy about either kind of sprawl, either horizontal or vertical, to be honest, but one kind is to my mind a heck of a lot more human and less dehumanizing than the other.

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Except those skyscrapers subsidize everyone else, unlike sprawl, which is itself subsidized.

Live how you like, but you should pay for it yourself.



You're basically taking a term, and making it meaningless. What configuration of people _isnt'_ sprawl by your definition? People close together is "sprawl". People far apart is "sprawl".

Yeah I agree with you. I can understand why many wouldn't want to live in a high rise; however, it's not what constitutes the meaning of the word "sprawl." Downtown Austin cramming in a bunch of high rises and skyscrapers is literally the definition of density.

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Sprawl really has to do with how many people you are going to stuff into an area. Texas having land that NYC and Philly don't (are you from one of those places originally, perchance?) hasn't had to go the skyscraper route because we've had elbow room that those places simply don't and haven't because of geography. That's one thing that my comment about being "built for it" means. Another is that Austin has traditionally been an "outdoors" type of town, and skyscrapers are for people whose lives are primarily spent indoors in bee hives and they like it that way. Even Dallas, where I lived before I moved to Austin and which had some skyscrapers even way back then, tends to spread out more than up because there's room to do so.

I'm not crazy about either kind of sprawl, either horizontal or vertical, to be honest, but one kind is to my mind a heck of a lot more human and less dehumanizing than the other.

That's the definition of density. I can understand why you don't like it, but calling it sprawl is like saying the color of the sky is green. What you're advocating for is literally sprawl -- more elbow room for expansion. That's what you want Austin to be -- single family homes on large lots. And to be fair, most of Austin is like that already. It's called suburban sprawl. I know that's a dirty word on the CD forums, but it actually has meaning to it.

Skyscrapers/mid-rises doesn't necessarily mean they're for indoors people. So you mean to tell me that the high rises and condos in Miami aren't for outdoorsy types? I guess they're all sitting in their high rise apartments all day ignoring the beautiful beaches .

I totally understand your preferences and what you would like Austin to be. But you want low density development aka sprawl.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

SAnother is that Austin has traditionally been an "outdoors" type of town, and skyscrapers are for people whose lives are primarily spent indoors in bee hives and they like it that way.

....

I'm not crazy about either kind of sprawl, either horizontal or vertical, to be honest, but one kind is to my mind a heck of a lot more human and less dehumanizing than the other.

Careful with your stereotyping THL, most everyone I know that lives downtown are exactly the opposite. They LOVE being so close to the "lake", trails, Zilker, etc. Conversely, I know plenty of folks who live in single family homes whose idea of being "outdoors" is once a week when they have to mow the lawn and the time they spend between a building and their car (esp. here in Austin where the heat provides a convenient excuse for those who are a bit less "motivated").

I respect your opinion and while I don't agree with your "dehumanizing" statement, I do think it's useful to consider that given the prices involved, most anyone who lives downtown wants to live downtown and has determined that is their preferred lifestyle. Personally, I find sitting in traffic by far the least attractive aspect of living in a large metro area, far more so than living in a hi-rise. But, that's me.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

Careful with your stereotyping THL, most everyone I know that lives downtown are exactly the opposite. They LOVE being so close to the "lake", trails, Zilker, etc. Conversely, I know plenty of folks who live in single family homes whose idea of being "outdoors" is once a week when they have to mow the lawn and the time they spend between a building and their car (esp. here in Austin where the heat provides a convenient excuse for those who are a bit less "motivated").

I respect your opinion and while I don't agree with your "dehumanizing" statement, I do think it's useful to consider that given the prices involved, most anyone who lives downtown wants to live downtown and has determined that is their preferred lifestyle. Personally, I find sitting in traffic by far the least attractive aspect of living in a large metro area, far more so than living in a hi-rise. But, that's me.

Sitting in a car for 2 hours a day is way more "dehumanizing" than living in a skyscraper.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Sitting in a car for 2 hours a day is way more "dehumanizing" than living in a skyscraper.

I currently live way out in the country but have a house five minutes from downtown, in Barton Hills so south of the river.

It takes me, on average, one hour to drive from 15 miles north of Georgetown to that house in town. (After a short time here on C-D, for the past few years I have periodically measured that time and it comes in at an hour, five minutes one way or the other). I've had clients that have lived in Hutto, worked in a downtown office building, who consistently reported 20 minute drives to work. (Took almost that long for her to get from parking to the floor of the high rise that her office was on.)

Even if it were a two hour drive daily, two hours in a car is vastly different from 24 hours in a bee hive.