We Need More Freeways! (Houston, Dallas: transplants, houses, neighborhood)

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by FueledByBlueBell

Yes, but then they pick places like RR, and worse, where land is flat and cheap. No offense to anyone that lives in these areas but I'd rather live a more ethically pleasing or cooler area. This post isn't intended to flame, but just stating that they will build in less desirable areas. Look at how far people drive to Dell... not all but some.

Sorry, but this IS offensive and inaccurate, to boot.

There is real beauty in areas that are not the Hill Country, but it takes actually looking to see it. I can find some absolutely flat areas east - mostly the fields that grow the food you eat and the clothing you wear - but I can just as easily, even more easily, find trees and lakes and rivers, all quite esthetically (not ethically, I don't think, do vistas have ethics?) pleasing. I find beauty in both kinds of places - one of the joys of living in Central Texas, for me, is the fact that if I get bored with one kind of beauty/topography, I can drive about 50 miles in any one of five different directions and find something completely different for some variety.

As for "cool", well, that's in the eye of the beholder (though the beholder usually thinks their idea of "cool" is the only one, I've noticed ).

[ScoPro]

I think it's nice to live next to Round Rock.

But hey, the people & traffic are here, so the roads & signal systems are in dire need of improvement. The traffic on East Avenue, Congress, 19th Street, Burnet Road, & Lamar sucked in 1959.

You folks (and myself) who moved here are part of the problem. Don't think you can build a wall around your central Austin area, unless you just want it to be inhabited by wealthy elitists.

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

And even if you did I personally would not want to live in a city that is built around freeways with cement covering every square foot of former ranch land - I can go to Houston for that experience if I am feeling masochistic.

Not an accurate statement and probably even offensive to many Houstonians.... I wonder if the light rail marketing campaign from years back still has lingering effects from its irresponsible campaign. Yes, the Houston road system is more functional and roads have been widened and added but it is also a much larger land area, yet still full of trees.

Originally Posted by riaelise

Suburbs do have trees, you know.

Yes, that should go without saying.

[FueledByBlueBell]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Sorry, but this IS offensive and inaccurate, to boot.

There is real beauty in areas that are not the Hill Country, but it takes actually looking to see it. I can find some absolutely flat areas east - mostly the fields that grow the food you eat and the clothing you wear - but I can just as easily, even more easily, find trees and lakes and rivers, all quite esthetically (not ethically, I don't think, do vistas have ethics?) pleasing. I find beauty in both kinds of places - one of the joys of living in Central Texas, for me, is the fact that if I get bored with one kind of beauty/topography, I can drive about 50 miles in any one of five different directions and find something completely different for some variety.

As for "cool", well, that's in the eye of the beholder (though the beholder usually thinks their idea of "cool" is the only one, I've noticed ).

Ok, fair point. There are some pretty areas especially around Georgetown.

[centralaustinite]

More roads = more traffic! If you want less traffic, build fewer roads. Really.

The Paradox of Efficiency Quote:

This surprising lack of change is the result of something economists call the "rebound effect." It's a phenomenon familiar to urban planners, who long ago discovered that building more roads doesn't ease traffic jams—it merely encourages more people to get in their cars and drive.
The underlying principle is a decidedly counterintuitive fact of life. You might think that learning to use something more efficiently will result in your using less of it, but the opposite is true: the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

More roads = more traffic! If you want less traffic, build fewer roads. Really.

The Paradox of Efficiency Quote:

This surprising lack of change is the result of something economists call the "rebound effect." It's a phenomenon familiar to urban planners, who long ago discovered that building more roads doesn't ease traffic jams—it merely encourages more people to get in their cars and drive.
The underlying principle is a decidedly counterintuitive fact of life. You might think that learning to use something more efficiently will result in your using less of it, but the opposite is true: the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it.

Well, Austin has followed that theory, under-building the roadways, and the result is this:
Austin among worst commutes in U.S., report says | Austin Business Journal

Steve

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Well, Austin has followed that theory, under-building the roadways, and the result is this:
Austin among worst commutes in U.S., report says | Austin Business Journal

Steve

That is reality.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Well 60% of households in this area are childless so the schools argument is meaningless to them. Even of the 40% with children not all of them are of school age. The generalization that all city schools are sub par and all suburban schools are so much better is a bit much. And even then there is still the option of private schools.

And maybe just maybe if folks did not have such a huge appetite for large homes and yards that serve mostly as decoration they could open up new home prospects for themselves in more rational locations. Just for the sake of perspective the average home size in 1950 was 983 sq. ft. AND family sizes were significantly larger back then.

And there are other reasons to be in an established area with jobs and rooftops than merely being closer to your job. Like not only having an HEB but also having, gasp, other grocery stores to shop at.

Where in my post did I state that *all* city schools are subpar? I said many of the affordable, centrally located schools are. Also, of course not all suburban schools are "so much better"... but you can get into a great school district in the burbs without having to spend 400K for a home. As for private schools, I was talking about affordability here. My point among other things was that if people are going to bandy the "central living" argument, then things being affordable would certainly be nice.

I've lived the cramped, "central living" for many years. Too many years. I don't want it, and I don't need it. As for other grocery stores, they're coming. In addition to HEB, there is also Sprouts. Not much, but something.

As for the having to pay for things we don't need thing...I am all for private toll roads. I'll be glad to pay for them. I don't ask for public handouts for conveniences that I like. But more importantly, I am for enhanced public transportation...or is better public transportation something "people don't need"? Makes me really appreciate New York's system, where suburbs and city alike have efficient transportation.

[orbius]

Either build roads or build realistic and effective public transport its that simple. Give the corporations the finger and build them without access roads like they do in most of the country to keep the sprawl out. But just build the darn things.
Austin is going through its fat Elvis stage where every artery is clogged and its pretending there isnt a problem.
I think the sooner the newcomers come in and kick out the old guard the better frankly. Most of them live in some secluded quiet part of the hills and want to hurt the rest of us to the point we leave so they can return to the idyllic 1970 fantasy they have of Austin. 'Dont build it and they will leave' is their motto. Well guess what bubba you and your ilk lined your pockets during the boom and brought all the business development here you cannot have it both ways.

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

More roads = more traffic! If you want less traffic, build fewer roads. Really.

You might think that learning to use something more efficiently will result in your using less of it, but the opposite is true: the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it.

The above only works if there's an immediate, viable alternative.

Right now, there's not.

Either the city/county/state buys up all the outlying available land and forbids developers to build on it, or an immediate, comprehensive public transit system is built. Obviously neither is going to happen. And since nothing else is done, what we end up with is the below; Austin having almost as long average commutes as econonic powerhouse cities that are much more populated and/or larger in land size with greater traveling distances.

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Well, Austin has followed that theory, under-building the roadways, and the result is this:
Austin among worst commutes in U.S., report says | Austin Business Journal

Steve