Why is Austin infrastructure so bad? (Round Rock, San Marcos: how much, townhomes, salary)

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by Snowpacked

This tells me that people are too dumb to run their own operations. Which seems to go against the current political trend.
They need someone to tell them what to do and how to do it. There are plenty of opportunities in small towns, but people are too shallow and lazy to work hard to accomplish their goals.

It's more about the need for scale. Operations can run just fine until they hit a plateau, which can only be broken by tapping into bigger ponds.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Not the only thing - work from home or other methods of reducing the number/distance of commute.

Exactly. Also staggered work hours.

And the city and county could do their part by locating their offices out of downtown.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

No, the demand for construction relates to the number of people coming. Houston would be far worse if it's infrastructure didn't accomodate for its growth.



There's no such thing as upward sprawl.

Sure there is. Look at a downtown full of skyscraper condos. Like it or not, that is upward sprawl. Urbanists just don't like to call it that because they then have to acknowledge the reality of it.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by WhatTheFox

That is what confuses me. On one hand they send out their PR/Marketing folks to say good things about Austin and get it on to the Top Ten lists. Then when word spreads and people start to flock ... Austinites resent transplants.

I don't get it. Were they craving for some attention? Was their a disconnect between public opinion and the City council (who sent out those PR folks)?

It's all very weird.

You are confusing the city council and chamber of commerce with the residents. The residents made their feelings crystal clear long, long ago when participating in planning for the city's future. Then some city council folks got in that didn't agree with the citizens they purported to represent (as evidenced by things like, when they didn't get the vote they wanted for a particular issue, having the same vote 7 times until they got the answer they wanted by wearing down the voters and realizing that this was a technique they could use again and again to their advantage), with the resulting mess we're talking about now.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Snowpacked

The marketing side sold Austin for the groups of investors that need the attention for their projects to be successful. That is obvious.
Many that have lived in Austin for 30 or more years know better. Austin did not need any attention and was not in any financial trouble, so the investments and the ridiculous outcome was not needed. There are hundreds of other cities that need the money more than Austin did.

This right here. It was the city council that wanted/needed the money/attention, not the citizens.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Bah, most Austinites don't really resent the transplants except on these types of forums .

I don't resent the transplants (except those that move here because they "love Austin" and promptly try to turn it over into where they came from, but I wouldn't like ME if I did that to some other community that I moved to). I do resent what was done to Austin by those who encouraged the excessive growth, though. The transplants (except for the aforementioned) are just as much victims of the hype as anyone.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Austin97

When a city doesnt grow, young people are forced to move to other places to get jobs. Middle aged people have to move to get career advancement, taking their children with them. You likely have never lived in a stagnant or slowly growing community so you have no idea what happens. All the young people leave and you are left with a bunch of old people.

Thing is, the way Austin was before, with the University, young people came here to go to school and then loved it so much they decided not to leave. (With the result that there was a time when Austin had more bartenders with law degrees per capita than anywhere in the country.) It was only when it changed that they started moving elsewhere for better opportunities. So that doesn't quite fit into your neat little box.

[ScoPro]

THL comin’ on strong!

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Sure there is. Look at a downtown full of skyscraper condos. Like it or not, that is upward sprawl. Urbanists just don't like to call it that because they then have to acknowledge the reality of it.

Actually you are failing to understand the definition of a generally recognized urban planning term. The main issues with urban sprawl are destruction of nature, spread of roads, and low density usage requiring many more resources to support a given number of people. You can try to define "sprawl" in a way you choose to, but you arent in agreement with the entire field of urban planning. Growing a city up is much less resource intensive and brings tons of benefits as far as allowing amenities like mass transit to get critical mass.

If you read the quote below there is disagreement about the definition of sprawl. But all of the disagreement is about how to quantify spreading out not up.

Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl mainly refers to the unrestricted growth in many urban areas of housing, commercial development, and roads over large expanses of land, with little concern for urban planning.[1] In addition to describing a particular form of urbanization, the term also relates to the social and environmental consequences associated with this development. In Continental Europe the term "peri-urbanisation" is often used to denote similar dynamics and phenomena, although the term urban sprawl is currently being used by the European Environment Agency. There is widespread disagreement about what constitutes sprawl and how to quantify it. For example, some commentators measure sprawl only with the average number of residential units per acre in a given area. But others associate it with decentralization (spread of population without a well-defined centre), discontinuity (leapfrog development, as defined below), segregation of uses, and so forth.

The term urban sprawl is highly politicized, and almost always has negative connotations. It is criticized for causing environmental degradation, intensifying segregation and undermining the vitality of existing urban areas and attacked on aesthetic grounds. Due to the pejorative meaning of the term, few openly support urban sprawl as such. The term has become a rallying cry for managing urban growth.[2]

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Actually you are failing to understand the definition of a generally recognized urban planning term. The main issues with urban sprawl are destruction of nature, spread of roads, and low density usage requiring many more resources to support a given number of people. You can try to define "sprawl" in a way you choose to, but you arent in agreement with the entire field of urban planning. Growing a city up is much less resource intensive and brings tons of benefits as far as allowing amenities like mass transit to get critical mass.

If you read the quote below there is disagreement about the definition of sprawl. But all of the disagreement is about how to quantify spreading out not up.

Didn't I just say that urbanists do not want to use the term because they would then need to acknowledge the reality of what building up really is? It is equally destructive of quality of life in a city unless someone wants to live in a beehive. But since those kind of urbanist WANT to live in a beehive, and don't want people to want to live in suburbs with room, they really REALLY don't want to acknowledge that it is equally problematic and is, indeed, sprawl.



Thanks for proving my point for me.