Austin's Future Skyline (Round Rock, Spring, Lakeway: apartment, condo, how much)

[TexasHorseLady]

Komeht, I know what sprawl is, and no, I'm not thinking I'm being "rhetorically clever" - when I'm being that, I know it.

Yes, you can have high rise sprawl. It's just that those who love high rises, much like those who love suburbs, don't recognize sprawl when it's their own preference that's in question. It's always someone ELSE that's creating sprawl.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by OpenD

4) Urban Villages. Create low-rise to mid-rise mixed-use developments throughout the city to spread infrastructure impact around, and keep the scale of the architecture to human proportions.

High-rise living is definitely not for everyone, so it's goofy to suggest that the only valid solution to population growth in Austin is a forest of high-rise development downtown.

And consider that the population center of Austin is now approximately where the Highland Mall is. And there is currently a lot of underutilized property in that general area. There are even a couple of MetroRail stops already installed in the area. And the ACC acquisition of the mall itself will surely spark new interest in the area. Why not look to that area for the next wave of urban growth?

Your #4 is my 2a. We are talking 800K people. Mueller, a huge property has about 1400 households planned. Im sure there will be plenty of low rise multifamily units, but I doubt there is enough space for only that style.

<<Austin metro area will grow to more than 2.7 million by the year 2025,>>

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

OpenD and I have gone back and forth on this one quite fiercely for a good time now. lol. But I can understand where he is coming from.

I like tall interesting looking buildings. So I think it would be awesome. But what I think he is saying is more like a Washington D.C. or Paris type area. (please correct me if I have you wrong OpenD) But I don't think he is suggesting keeping the horrible wasteland of an area that is currently there between the Capital and UT. Vibrancy and beneficial projects like residences, museums, retail and offices can all be added together in mixed use fashion up there in mid-rise DC/Paris kinda environment.

Paris has 14 high rise buildings.

<<The population of the city of Paris was 2,125,246 at the 1999 census, lower than its historical peak of 2.9 million in 1921.>>

<<The principal factors in the process are a significant decline in household size, and a dramatic migration of residents to the suburbs between 1962 and 1975.>>


THL keeps mentioning how austin shouldnt copy other places. My only point is that urban planning follows well known patterns. Austin will follow one of those patterns. However, the institutions will be unique which are what give austin its flavor.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

So sprawl of high rise buildings (which, frankly, is what it looks like we're getting, from the very well done graphic that started this thread) is an improvement?

Don't worry, you're getting your way, and Austin's on its way to being recreated as just another high-rise city rather than doing any outside the box thinking. But don't think you're going to get your way that everyone's going to think your preference is the best thing since sliced bread, because that's not going to happen as long as people are still using their brains.

To me, sprawl of high rise residential is far better than sprawl of single family homes. Highrises are far less destructive to everyone and everything else. It effects a block. Single family home sprawl effect huge areas to meet that same 800 housing units, plus the added traffic that the auto dependent lifestyle creates for the rest of the metro region every time a new 800 home suburban development is built. It doesn't just effect that area, but the whole region.

I would much rather see a parking lot downtown turn into 800 housing units than more of the hill country turn into a cut and past copy of an LA suburb of single family homes. Not to mention the traffic that is caused by only allowing car-dependent developments.

Single family homes auto based and never ending suburban growth is going to happen no mater what in America, and especially Texas. Even if someone were to want to stop the sprawl they can't. It will just happen further and further out of the city limits, which is what happens when people aren't allow to build in Austin. But forcing everyone to only live such a lifestyle is wrong. Clearly there are many who want to live a urban lifestyle. The demand for it is huge. By all the NIMBY trying to force the entire population into single family auto only sprawl while severely restricting supply for where all the demand is, it makes the urban environment a playground for only the super rich. Which raises the COL for not just that playground but the entire region. It is why Austin which has the strongest NIMBYs of all the cities in Texas has by far the highest COL of all the cities in Texas. The market has never been allowed to operate freely where the greatest demand exist.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Komeht, I know what sprawl is, and no, I'm not thinking I'm being "rhetorically clever" - when I'm being that, I know it.

Yes, you can have high rise sprawl. It's just that those who love high rises, much like those who love suburbs, don't recognize sprawl when it's their own preference that's in question. It's always someone ELSE that's creating sprawl.

No lady, I'm afraid you don't know what "sprawl" is. Sprawl is not a word for any development you don't happen to like. It refers specifically to decentralization, low intensity suburban use. There is no such thing has "high rise sprawl" in the CBD.

Moderator cut: rude, personal

[TexasHorseLady]

There is the equivalent of sprawl upwards. I grant you the word is not quite exact, but the concept is the same - stacking a lot of people on top of each other, what term would you prefer for something that's no more desirable than the suburban sprawl you abhor (and that I'm not too fond of myself, frankly). But what I'm seeing in the graphic is highrises moving outwards further and further in imitation of suburban sprawl, only taller.

Replace a parking lot with a mid-rise, I have no problem with. Most of the parking lots downtown, as said, replaced things that were much more interesting, and I'd LOVE to see equally interesting (but not high rise) replacements for those lost buildings. The State of Texas has much to answer for in that regard.

[BevoLJ]

If you are ok with replacing parking lots with mid-rises, why not high-rise? What is it about high-rises that you find so bad?

[twange]

Originally Posted by Austin97

My only point is that urban planning follows well known patterns. Austin will follow one of those patterns. However, the institutions will be unique which are what give austin its flavor.

Yes. And there are so many other ways that contribute to a city's culture, atmosphere and uniqueness: music, art, food, festivals, parks, ethnic diversity, politics, sports etc...Those things are thriving in Austin! I've been here five years now and consider myself pretty involved in a number of very interesting musical communities that I think rival anywhere in the U.S. as far as quality goes. Musicians from other places still notice a distinct flavor and attitude here and always enjoy performing in Austin (except for SXSW, which is a big pain for most musicians). I went to an incredible jazz concert in a private home last night (50+ people) and the musicians were simply overwhelmed by the amazing vibe. House concerts aren't unique to Austin but they are very much in the "mom & pop" spirit that is Austin.

I don't think Austin is in danger of becoming a boring cookie-cutter city (if there's such a thing). People are still attracted to move here for the same reasons as 30-40 years ago. But there are a lot more people now. So the city's DESIGN has to adapt - not the core values. Just keep the big and tall buildings in the CBD and I'm all good.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Single family homes auto based and never ending suburban growth is going to happen no mater what in America, and especially Texas. Even if someone were to want to stop the sprawl they can't. It will just happen further and further out of the city limits, which is what happens when people aren't allow to build in Austin. But forcing everyone to only live such a lifestyle is wrong. Clearly there are many who want to live a urban lifestyle.

Spot on. Rec to you. But the corollary is also true. There is a VERY strong element in Austin city policy that is a result of at large elections at off times, which results in a nine member council that lives in three inner city zip codes, and is beholden to the special interest groups that put them in office. They have an incredible attitude that says "only my lifestyle is a valid expression of Austin" - almost anthitecal to the live and let live vibe of Texas writ large. There has to be an Austin that had space for a mid-rise SoLa, a high rise W. 5th, and a SFR Circle C. Density makes so many things possible - starting with effective transit. The funny thing is, that effective transit can enable a sensitive expression of the underlying desires that cause sprawl. A good commuter train network, coupled with an effective last two mile network (made possible by density) means people can raise their families in SFRs in Llano, or Buda, or Georgetown, yet get to work without building six lanes in each direction as far as the eye can see.

But we have to find a political expression that recognizes the health of the city as a whole, and not just the true believers.

[migol84]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

what I'm seeing in the graphic is highrises moving outwards further and further in imitation of suburban sprawl, only taller.

You mean to say that Austin's downtown looks like a suburb of some sort?