U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2011, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,790 posts, read 39,693,537 times
Reputation: 24218

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
right, right, right... i know what you're saying but between sprawl and urban, urban is the best option. everybody knows that.
Thanks for the belly laugh. If it were true that "everybody knows that", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That you think it's the best option doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you, or even that it's, hard as that might be for you to believe.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Houston (Bellaire)
285 posts, read 502,739 times
Reputation: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
What my post said was that upward sprawl has its own serious problems (far beyond the "view" aspect which you focused on), and that those should be taken into account when advocating it as a "solution".
I focused on the "view" aspect because that is the only issue you alluded to in that post. Please, share with us this portfolio of "serious problems" associated with "upward sprawl" - and be specific. How are they unique to high-rise/urban development?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
We need to make sure that any solution isn't just as bad as the problem we're trying to solve, in other words. After all, weren't the suburbs that create the kind of sprawl you, personally, object to, a man-made solution to an existing problem, a solution that became a problem, perhaps worse, in and of itself? Same thing here.
But was the proliferation of low-density low density housing the solution to a legitimate "problem" or simply the manifestation of a collective desire to have more personal space? A lot of factors contributed to the age of sprawl but I'm not sure it's fair to say that sprawl was a "solution to an existing problem."

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
The point was, there's not an easy solution, no matter how we might want there to be.
Hence my point from before - you acknowledge that outward sprawl is bad and think "upward sprawl" is equally so. Since all conceivable forms of land-based development could possibly be grouped into either category, what solution do you recommend? Again, I'd like you to be specific - remembering that "no growth" is not an option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
One solution that a lot of people seem to be hell-bent on is to destroy the things that create the kind of lifestyle and community that makes people want to move to Austin in the first place. Somehow, to me, that doesn't seem a lot like a solution, though, granted, if it means that people stop moving here because it's no longer desirable and, after it has been decimated and turned into a poor copy of Anywhere, USA, move away, that's a solution of sorts. Sort of like bombing the house to get rid of an infestation is a solution.
Does the construction of some high-rise buildings infringe on your ability to have the "lifestyle" you enjoy in Austin?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:46 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,062 posts, read 3,474,555 times
Reputation: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Thanks for the belly laugh. If it were true that "everybody knows that", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That you think it's the best option doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you, or even that it's, hard as that might be for you to believe.
Sorry if I didn't take much time to respond. I'm at work and I got busy. But I'm just wondering, why is it that everybody gets sensitive when we're talking about these pointless things? I'm a human being just like you are. So I mean no intent to patronize you or make you feel lesser simply because you don't like urban living.

That being said, I don't prefer things over another "just because". I see your side of the story and I wholeheartedly empathize with it. As I've mentioned, my father is 61 and hasn't yet retired but retiring in a city like San Francisco would be the last thing on his mind, and for good reason.

As you may already know, I live in San Francisco. I find that there's more things to complain about here than there is in all of Texas' cities. One of the things I have asked myself is why an urban city like San Francisco has to be so expensive. The public transportation here is not accessible to everyone despite what everyone says. All of these are similar to the points you adressed against urban. And while all those arguments seem to paint sprawling cities in a positive light, I find that by its very intent, urban living is still the best option.

There is still more disadvantages to sprawling cities than there is to urban cities. My argument is that, even though "urban living" is not the "utopia" that everybody paints, its still the best option towards making a more cohesive and functioning city. Yes, urban cities don't provide to everyone, but my suggestion is to work on urban cities being accessible and viable for all people.

I'll write more when I have time.... my break is over.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,180,181 times
Reputation: 2824
"As others have said before - Austin is going to grow whether you like it or not. The question is whether you'd prefer to see tens of thousands of trees be bulldozed for more pavement and houses, or if you'd prefer more tall buildings, more open land and trees, and less pollution."

I haven't read every comment in this thread yet, but I'll give my opinion on this. Thinking of New York, for example, as a very urban, upward grown place, really how much more open land and trees are in the city really? I've been there several times, and excepting Central Park and a few other green spaces, I'd say over the centuries that NY has cut down thousands of trees and not necessarily rid themselves of pollution (even noise pollution) or saved themselves lots of greenbelts, etc. Skyscrapers can only go so high without running into engineering problems, so then more land has to be used to build another skyscraper. Austin is not as large as NY so if we want all of the transplants to live downtown, then more land will have to be cleared to build more towers, as Austin only has a few right now, and they are mainly business towers, not residential.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,180,181 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lije Baley View Post
OTOH .......sprawl could mean what happens here in Houston. Most of the time, except for places for the basics like groceries and buying a pair of running shoes, it seems like I have to drive 30 minutes to get everywhere else.
This wasn't really my experience when I lived there, except for the time before my wedding when I moved back to Clear Lake to live with my mom and commuted up to the Town and Country area for work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,180,181 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
It's still more disturbing to chop and spread through natural beauty. If the human race is going to mess up, at least it can mess up in the smallest amount of space possible and not in God's beautiful country.

My opinion is that if you're going to live outside of a city, then you should be willing to live a rural life, or working alongside with nature and not against it. I think homeinatx provided enough reason why "sprawl/suburban" is bad for the environment.
This makes sense to me, but who says people living outside of the city core aren't doing that? Sure, some don't, but there are a few towns around Austin that have their own community Gardens, farmers markets, backyard farmers and gardeners and people/groups trying to preserve these towns original history and small town feels. Some of these towns are even trying to woo business/employment so that their citizens don't have to leave town to work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:34 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,062 posts, read 3,474,555 times
Reputation: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by love roses View Post
This makes sense to me, but who says people living outside of the city core aren't doing that? Sure, some don't, but there are a few towns around Austin that have their own community Gardens, farmers markets, backyard farmers and gardeners and people/groups trying to preserve these towns original history and small town feels. Some of these towns are even trying to woo business/employment so that their citizens don't have to leave town to work.
I have no problem with sprawling towns that are less than the size of a million people. I think if people truly wanna get away from city life then living in a town like that would be the perfect choice. But spreading into a suburban area is a bad idea, imo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,180,181 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
Upwards is not sprawl. In terms of land use - an acre with a 10 -40 story residential building uses much less land, requires far fewer water, utility, transportation resources per capita and generates far greater tax revenues per capita than a SFH on an acre twenty miles from places of employment, recreation and retail. Urban people should be able to live, work, shop and play without getting in a car. Farmers should farm. The exurbs give us all the horror of urban living - traffic, congestion, stress with none of the charms: culture, civility, individuality and all the tedium of rural living: distance, boredom, isolation, with none of the charm: nature, space, serenity.

P.S. And what is wrong with Vancouver? It has very beautiful natural environs and has managed to preserve them. Austin has less beautiful natural environs, but better than any other city in Texas, except perhaps El Paso, and is in danger of entirely destroying them.

I'm only questioning the water usage thing. How do 10,000 people living in a high rise use less water than 10,000 people living outside of a city center in a house? Everyone will shower or bathe, water plants (it's possible to have patio/rooftop gardens), give a pet water, and drink water. So the water gets piped vertically instead of horizontally.....I don't get how that uses less water. Window washers will also use water to clean the outside of the buildings and maybe water will be used to clean the streets in front of the high rise.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,180,181 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio View Post
I think people can legitimately argue the merits of suburban or urban living. That's a great debate, where decent points can be made by either side. And where I live is suburban. Most of Austin is. So I'm not judging anyone, believe me.

But this thread purports to be simply asking, what is the definition of sprawl? And clearly, only the OP would classify "sprawl" as "tall buildings". At least so far. I think most people can identify which of these two pics represent sprawl:


A. Sprawl (source: city-data post //www.city-data.com/forum/17365982-post68.html)


B. Tall Buildings (source: wikimedia)
I'm not so sure. In the high rise picture, I see towers pretty far back and I'm sure they meander out of view of the camera too.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Hutto, Tx
9,247 posts, read 24,180,181 times
Reputation: 2824
But when residential towers are built all around Lady Bird Lake and the Lake is no longer open to the public, only residents and said towers have been built all around, then how is that saving the environment? I may be exaggerating a bit, maybe there would be a small park available to the public. With all the new residents being told that West Austin is the only part of Austin worth moving to, then where can the city expand, except into it's precious hills? Yeah, there are a few brave souls who go East (which is probably where most people should be urged to move) but even doing that is going to impact the environment in some way.


note: I was actually trying to answer one of migol's posts, but for some reason it didn't end up here....Oh, well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top