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.
Having been here for 27 years, I always appreciated that Austin was down to earth, laid-back and tolerant (most of the time). So I am trying real hard to tolerate all the new things that are proliferating that I don't care for, like pretentiousness and exclusivity. An example might be the appearance of tear-downs in my once down-to-earth neighborhood being replaced by $700K 4 br, 3 bath houses marketed to the Range Rover crowd. Bleecchhh!! Or the profit-driven multi-storied apartment complexes popping up all over the place that cater only to young professionals. Where are all the aging Austinites and young families who would like to stay central supposed to live if these kind of developments continue? A lot of things now seems to be about making someone rich and not about sustaining those things one can't put a price on.
Having been here for 27 years, I always appreciated that Austin was down to earth, laid-back and tolerant (most of the time). So I am trying real hard to tolerate all the new things that are proliferating that I don't care for, like pretentiousness and exclusivity. An example might be the appearance of tear-downs in my once down-to-earth neighborhood being replaced by $700K 4 br, 3 bath houses marketed to the Range Rover crowd. Bleecchhh!! Or the profit-driven multi-storied apartment complexes popping up all over the place that cater only to young professionals. Where are all the aging Austinites and young families who would like to stay central supposed to live if these kind of developments continue? A lot of things now seems to be about making someone rich and not about sustaining those things one can't put a price on.
This message brought to you by the committee to keep Austin dull, suburban and sprawling.
Those "profit driven" multifamily housing units that you so deplore ARE the affordable answer to 700K units to Range Rover crowd - unless you prefer Buda.
This message brought to you by the committee to keep Austin dull, suburban and sprawling.
Those "profit driven" multifamily housing units that you so deplore ARE the affordable answer to 700K units to Range Rover crowd - unless you prefer Buda.
You know, Komeht, you MAY have lived here during the time of the things you spoke of earlier, but I'm pretty darned sure you didn't understand or appreciate them one whit. This based entirely on everything I've seen you post which boils down to "BIGGER TALLER BUILDINGS ARE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!"
No woman that I know of has ever been able to convince a man who's truly convinced of this idea that bigger is better and the solution to his problems is NOT true and that quality and how you do things matters so much more, so I'm pretty sure, again based on what you post, you're not going to be convinced that what you advocate is NOT the solution you think it will be, but just the opposite.
This also means that thinking outside the box for solutions other than the either/or one you present of skyscrapers or suburbia (both equally bland, by the way, in my opinion, and so no solution to the problem presented) is not something you'll be able to grasp or engage in.
Quality of life is so much more than warehousing people in suburbia or skyscrapers.
You know, Komeht, you MAY have lived here during the time of the things you spoke of earlier, but I'm pretty darned sure you didn't understand or appreciate them one whit. This based entirely on everything I've seen you post which boils down to "BIGGER TALLER BUILDINGS ARE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!"
No woman that I know of has ever been able to convince a man who's truly convinced of this idea that bigger is better and the solution to his problems is NOT true and that quality and how you do things matters so much more, so I'm pretty sure, again based on what you post, you're not going to be convinced that what you advocate is NOT the solution you think it will be, but just the opposite.
This also means that thinking outside the box for solutions other than the either/or one you present of skyscrapers or suburbia (both equally bland, by the way, in my opinion, and so no solution to the problem presented) is not something you'll be able to grasp or engage in.
Quality of life is so much more than warehousing people in suburbia or skyscrapers.
Really, if you wanna be so appropriate and so "matter-of-factly" then no form of city development will answer to the "quality of life". I've met people who live out in the suburbs who are quite happy and great people and consider their quality of life to be wonderful. I also have met wonderful people who live in a high densely and urban city who also consider the quality of life so wonderful. That being said, the way Austin was back then was most likely great because of the atmosphere created by the people, where people seemed to have a sense of selflessness and less dependent on cars or any form of structure, organization or machine.
But we're not talking about that... we're talking about a city. Austin is becoming more of a city. You don't like it, very well, but please do not ruin it for the thousands of people who are enjoying the city become a city. A true city in its purest form always answers to all walks of life and all forms by creating a true urban and dense environment. Even if you look back into time and how those natives built their cities... they made it to where it answered the needs of an entire community and it worked out mostly well until a more dominant civilization came around and well, you know how the story goes.... It's exactly what is happening now. You want more rural... go to a rural area. You want more suburban... go to a suburban area. You want more skypscrapers.... go to NYC. You want whatever it is you're talking about, the way Austin has been described for every decade and every generation, which is quite frankly annoying, pretentious and just too esoteric, then good luck finding a city like that that still has something similar to what Austin had in those days.
I hear good things about Santa Fe, NM. I also hear good things about Asheville, NC. Boise, ID, maybe? Providence, RI. Ahh, you get the point.
Again, keep in mind that no one is saying that bigger is better just because. On the contrary, developing to answer the needs of a broader community is kinda the gist of what is trying to be done in Austin; hence, multi-mixed development. What becomes the quality of life will be the product of the people that are attracted to the city and quite frankly Austin is still at the top of this list. The way I see it, Austin seems to fare well for every generation, and every decade and adapts very easily to trends. That's a pretty good freaking quality Austin has that no one can dispute.
You know, Komeht, you MAY have lived here during the time of the things you spoke of earlier, but I'm pretty darned sure you didn't understand or appreciate them one whit. This based entirely on everything I've seen you post which boils down to "BIGGER TALLER BUILDINGS ARE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!"
No woman that I know of has ever been able to convince a man who's truly convinced of this idea that bigger is better and the solution to his problems is NOT true and that quality and how you do things matters so much more, so I'm pretty sure, again based on what you post, you're not going to be convinced that what you advocate is NOT the solution you think it will be, but just the opposite.
This also means that thinking outside the box for solutions other than the either/or one you present of skyscrapers or suburbia (both equally bland, by the way, in my opinion, and so no solution to the problem presented) is not something you'll be able to grasp or engage in.
Quality of life is so much more than warehousing people in suburbia or skyscrapers.
Another amazingly ill-informed post from one of "the people who just don't get it".
First of all questioning my 40+ of having lived in and appreciated Austin is from bizarro land. Loving Austin at any point doesn't preclude me from wishing it were better. In any case, I'd lay off such lines of attack as you lose.
Secondly, Austin is the fastest growing city in the US. The projected growth rates right now are over 6% a year,more than double the nation as a whole. Stopping growth is not an option. What is this magical "oustside the box" solution that you speak of? I've never once see you post some kind of alternative solution other than to be a nay-sayer.
The antidote for sprawl is density. If you have another option, please, educate us.
Thirdly, density is not equally bland as sprawl. More density means more life on the streets, more shops and restaurants, fewer big box stores, more local businesses, fewer miles in cars, less time spent on freeways, more time spent on foot, more time spent with friends and family, fewer car trips, less acres of concrete parking lots in baking sun, better air quality, less stress on environment, less gas burned, higher tax base, better city amenities, more efficient city services, etc. etc. etc. There is no equivalency.
I am an absolutist on this point, sprawl is death, density is life.
I remember when I moved here in 1977, that people were saying the "good old days" had come and gone. People have probably been saying that since its beginnings, especially when it started to grow rapidly in the 1930's.
Thirdly, density is not equally bland as sprawl. More density means more life on the streets, more shops and restaurants, fewer big box stores, more local businesses, fewer miles in cars, less time spent on freeways, more time spent on foot, more time spent with friends and family, fewer car trips, less acres of concrete parking lots in baking sun, better air quality, less stress on environment, less gas burned, higher tax base, better city amenities, more efficient city services, etc. etc. etc. There is no equivalency.
I am an absolutist on this point, sprawl is death, density is life.
well we have had this discussion before with the same people and the same points..
THL is ok with under 10 story buildings or smaller. That is still density and you would probably be ok with that too. You two actually agree.
The antidote for sprawl is density. I am an absolutist on this point, sprawl is death, density is life.
Well, I reckon there's no point in continuing the discussion. All YOU have to do is tell us the magic dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable places to live. Nothing above 15th St? Nothing west of MoPac? Do we need to relocate Dell, Samsung, Emerson, etc to be within this magical density? Oh, wait! There are actually cities and towns OUTSIDE of the dense magicland known as 'the urban core of Austin'. What shall we do with them? Wall them off? Perhaps a drawbridge?
Well, I reckon there's no point in continuing the discussion. All YOU have to do is tell us the magic dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable places to live. Nothing above 15th St? Nothing west of MoPac? Do we need to relocate Dell, Samsung, Emerson, etc to be within this magical density? Oh, wait! There are actually cities and towns OUTSIDE of the dense magicland known as 'the urban core of Austin'. What shall we do with them? Wall them off? Perhaps a drawbridge?
I think what he means to say is that sprawl takes away the general aspects of what makes a great city. If we're talking "cities" here, promoting an urban density as much as possible within the Austin CBD is generally the "magicland". If you want specifics, its also generally known that anywhere between 183 and Ben White is where this "magic happens". At the very least, I think its appropriate to promote this development to keep the populations overspilling to the more rural and natural environments of Central Austin. So no one is saying to cut all suburbs from Austin... that's just ridiculous for anyone to suggest that.
I say work with the land we have now and stop annexing more land and more land and more land... and stop building so many highways and cutting down trees, etc. Can't we all agree on that much?
Well, I reckon there's no point in continuing the discussion. All YOU have to do is tell us the magic dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable places to live. Nothing above 15th St? Nothing west of MoPac? Do we need to relocate Dell, Samsung, Emerson, etc to be within this magical density? Oh, wait! There are actually cities and towns OUTSIDE of the dense magicland known as 'the urban core of Austin'. What shall we do with them? Wall them off? Perhaps a drawbridge?
Everyone chooses where to live. That's a personal choice. But the city does not have to continually subsidize the sprawl while it discourages development in urban core. The city should encourage development in the center to make it as attractive to development as possible and make central Austin a vibrant, interesting and affordable place to live.
It would be incredible to bring employers such as Dell and Samsung into the CBD.
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.
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.
