Californians/Former Californians - A Question For You (Houston, Dallas: condo, credit)

[eepstein]

That is not true. Much and california's air pollution, especially in the central valley has a lot to do with the topography. I went to school in the central valley and most of the cities have little if any power plants and not a whole lot of traffic either. The weather patterns in the central valley and stagnant for much of the year, and trap pollutants (much from the bay area) into the air. I spent many years in the central valley and know about the reasons for air pollution. Unfortunately, because of the topography, the air pollution gets bad, but never necessarily for the same reasons it does here.

Since auto emissions is one of the sole causes of air pollution, I would guess that Metro Austin pollutes more than any central valley city does.

And there is no doubt that Houston pollutes more than Los Angeles does. It also uses more overall energy than Los Angeles or New York.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Taking out natural features that contribute to pollution is completely irrelevant. Much of CA has terrible air pollution. It really doesn't matter why. If air quality is important, CA cities are in many cases a poor choice. Texas - in spite of less stringent regulation, has better air. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT WAS ACHIEVED.

California has natural beauty that many value highly. No argument from me. You can't discount that either.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by eepstein

That is not true. Much and california's air pollution, especially in the central valley has a lot to do with the topography. I went to school in the central valley and most of the cities have little if any power plants and not a whole lot of traffic either. The weather patterns in the central valley and stagnant for much of the year, and trap pollutants (much from the bay area) into the air. I spent many years in the central valley and know about the reasons for air pollution. Unfortunately, because of the topography, the air pollution gets bad, but never necessarily for the same reasons it does here.

Since auto emissions is one of the sole causes of air pollution, I would guess that Metro Austin pollutes more than any central valley city does.

And there is no doubt that Houston pollutes more than Los Angeles does. It also uses more overall energy than Los Angeles or New York.

True, to an extent, about the central valley part. Yosemite is probably the best example of this. Yosemite National Park has for years had problems with air quality, and obviously it's not due to the density of the cars within the park (though they have been limiting access to the park from cars for years now). All that lovely Bay Area smog and with the pre-bust boom in housing in the central valley really has caused some serious issues. Dunno about Austin being worse than say Fresno wrt auto emissions though.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by eepstein

It's quite amazing to me that NO ONE see's how the city of Austin operates. Austin is probably one of the few cities (or only i've seen) city in the country where it's main skyline is dominated by high end residential skyscrapers for the rich. There are NO plans for any more office buildings. All sorts of building and improvements downtown to make life easier for those residing there. What's going on outside the 2-3 mile perimeter of downtown??? NOTHING. No improvements, no nothing. Just people sitting in traffic on Mopac in their Tahoe's and pickups on their cell phones while texting. The city couldn't care less about these people. They try to convince you to come and enjoy downtown, and spend money. Also, with the big events as well. Tourist dollars (ACL & SXSW), and where do they all go?. To the city of Austin and it's downtown plans!

.

So would you like the skyline better if it was mainly hotels like in San Antonio or New Orleans?

To me, having the highest buildings be residential is far preferable to office towers, which are vacated at night and the weekends, or even hotels, which are vacant during quiet off season times. I'm proud that this town is made up of people who are forging ahead with their own ideas, making Austin Austin, what it is and what it should be. They want urban living in a Sunbelt city but with city park amenities like in the Northeast, all with a Southwestern flair.

[eichlerfan]

Originally Posted by dave bacon

Born and lived in Marin for 18 years, 35 in San Diego, 3.5 in Austin/Round Rock. Cali USED to be the greatest state in the country, but is now way too crowded and expensive IMO. I love Austin, especially the people, and have absolutely no desire to move back to Cali.

I SO agree. CA was a wonderful state to grow up in, but sadly it's changed a lot. Hopefully one day it will return to what I remember, but I'm sure that won't happen for a very long time if ever again.

[bgrn198]

Originally Posted by cBach

So would you like the skyline better if it was mainly hotels like in San Antonio or New Orleans?

To me, having the highest buildings be residential is far preferable to office towers, which are vacated at night and the weekends, or even hotels, which are vacant during quiet off season times. I'm proud that this town is made up of people who are forging ahead with their own ideas, making Austin Austin, what it is and what it should be. They want urban living in a Sunbelt city but with city park amenities like in the Northeast, all with a Southwestern flair.

Obviously he's never been to downtown Miami

[mickey65]

Originally Posted by eichlerfan

I SO agree. CA was a wonderful state to grow up in, but sadly it's changed a lot. Hopefully one day it will return to what I remember, but I'm sure that won't happen for a very long time if ever again.

I agree. I had a lot of good times back in the 80's in Cali, that I'll never get back...good times.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by bgrn198

Obviously he's never been to downtown Miami

Actually I have.

The elevated transit system is a joke there, but Little Havana was interesting if a bit seedy. However, I spent the bulk of my time on South Beach.

We have nowhere near the Miami look. They have more of the art deco look on buildings, with ultramodern condos. We have the old southern rural architecture on (converted homes to buildings) with ultramodern condos. Our former residential stock (W. 6th) is now commercial, and our former commercial stock has been razed and is now high end residential. That is nothing like Miami.

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by eepstein

Originally Posted by XLadylawX
My take on the above as compared to California:

1. Cost of housing-Cheaper but close in to downtown the prices are very high so the difference is not as much as you think. Also, with the current real estate market (accounting for Bay Area and San Diego exceptions), the cost of living is quite comparable to both Austin close in and out in the suburbs.
That is what I have been trying to tell people for a long time. Of course, in the media marketing campaigns, that info is all ommited. So what happens is people come to Austin expecting it to be a "bargain" compared to CA, and are shocked to know they can only goto the suburbs for affordability.

2. Quality of public schools-Not sure given the graduation rate here. Still, I don't plan to leave the education of my son to the schools so I can work around that issue.
With the exception of the richest parts of Austin, the ISD as a whole isn't very good. They have massive budget problems therefore creating a real bad environment for many students. RRISD and LLSD are far better in that regard.


3. Low Crime-Agreed but not a factor for us since we are very savvy and cautious about placing ourselves in hostile situtations.
Although violent murders are lower in Austin, it's overall property crime rates are quite high.


4. Weather-Are you kidding me? Not going to justify that one with an argument. Go to Weather.com and plug in any weather zone in the State of California for incontrovertable proof.
Yes, there is no argument here. Ever since I have lived in Austin and complain about the mainly summer weather, the locals always tell me "well, it's not as bad as Houston" Forget the bay area, places like Sacramento, Denver, Colorado Springs, and Tucson all have FAR nicer overall climates than Austin. Way sunnier, less humid, less windy, etc. The climate in a good chunk of the bay area is probably among the nicest in the world.


5. Cannot agree. Even the music scene here is limited to very few genres. The big name concert scene in Austin is non-existent unless you are a Country fan.
Country music is HUGE in Austin. Don't believe me, take a look at the arbitron ratings of radio stations in Austin (for those of us that still listen to terrestrial radio). The country stations here are ALWAYS on top and have been for years. You are right, the live music scene is yet another "media hype" that tries to catagorize Austin as something different or better than other places. It simply isn't.


6. What??? Beaches, mountains, reservoirs and year round weather to enjoy all. Have you tried to hike the trails in Zilker Park in the dog days of August?
Yet another media play trying to indicate to people that some hills and short bush like trees are a comparison to anything California or Colorado (for that matter) have to offer. Dog days of summer?? Sure, people hike and walk the trails at Zilker Park all day long 100+ degrees. You ask them, why they do it? Here's what you'll hear. "Well, it's not as bad as Houston".

Eepstein, I know some give you a hard time because they don't like what you say, but I think most of what you say is all quite true and logical and not misleading, unlike some others.

As far as the weather comments "it's not as bad as Houston", are laughable. The two climates are MUCH too similar, especially when compared to all of these other places. It's like splitting hairs sometimes. Take it as code for "well you're right but we won't admit it!"

[cBach]

Originally Posted by mickey65

I agree. I had a lot of good times back in the 80's in Cali, that I'll never get back...good times.

I wonder if some people on here (not specifically meant for you, but your post is a good example...) are just going through what everyone does as they age, reminiscing about the old times and how good they were? Am I sensing that perhaps some people think that moving to a new city will reverse the aging process. I don't know about that, but if there's a city that could do it, Austin is it.

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by XLadylawX

I don't slam Texas but I think that there are a lot of unrealistic expectations about the streets being paved with gold here.

This is true, but more a case with Austin than other areas of Texas. Austin is the area that is hyped up the most, some others aren't really hyped at all.

Originally Posted by XLadylawX

There are obvious exceptions but I had a personal brush with "the rest of Texas" recently and it left me very unsettled. I have a white friend who lives in a small town in East Texas and she works for the school district. When she told some of her co-workers that she planned to march in this year's MLK parade in her little town, she was encouraged not to do it. No goggles there just horror. My white friend was devastated.

I really do believe that Austin and its residents are a "little different" as compared to the rest of Texas. I think the city and its boosters like to market that notion too so it is not just this outsider's perspective.

ALL of the major metros (well, at least Austin, Houston and Dallas) are unlike the rest of Texas. Austin isn't alone in this. In fact there are several ways in which Houston is even more progressive. In Texas, the major cities are a different world entirely from the rural and small towns like your above example.