South Lamar Plaza getting ready for teardown (Austin, Round Rock: real estate, new house)

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by OpenD

As a matter of fact, it's predictable this new development will increase the amount of auto traffic because it is displacing businesses that might typically have a couple of customers each and increasing the capacity of the Alamo cinema by several hundred seats.

But it also includes apartments, which is an important part of any walkable, dense urban space.

Originally Posted by OpenD

Since each of the Alamo theaters draws patrons from a wide enough area that most of them drive... just look at the parking lot at any of them, it's obvious... on that factor alone I'd say this is more "inward sprawl" than anything.

No such thing, of course. But perhaps you're right about increased traffic. Remains to be seen.

[OpenD]

[quote=jb9152;26809739]But it also includes apartments, which is an important part of any walkable, dense urban space. [quote]

Sure, and those folks are going to get up in the morning, have their coffee and toast, and drive to work, like everybody else. It's a simple equation... more people = more traffic.

No such thing, of course.

What, "inward sprawl"? I think it's exactly the right description, and it helps offset the goofy notion that "infill" is some magic panacea for a city's woes. I'd like to see more Outfill... developing "density islands." that are far enough away from the city core to actually reduce traffic flow to and from it.

But perhaps you're right about increased traffic. Remains to be seen.

It can be no other. More people = more traffic.

[passionatearts]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You have this exactly wrong. Having businesses in close proximity to where people live produces opportunities to walk, increases likelihood of people not needing a car or a second car, and shortens car trips when needed. Infill is the solution, sprawl is what causes bad traffic.

Besides which, I'd rather create an urban scape where we have happy people, not happy cars. For too many decades we've listened to traffic engineers as they've destroyed our cities piece by piece in an effort to make traffic flow. And it's futile, you'll never solve traffic problems by building bigger roads, but the more infill like this we have the less dependent we become on cars.

You can't just plop a large development in the middle of a suburban area and expect it to not have a massive impact on traffic. I predict that over the next few years, the area around the South Lamar Plaza is going to cause major traffic headaches on South Lamar Blvd. All those people paying $2,500/month in rent are not going to be without a car. Look at all the people living Downtown - most of them have cars, too. Why? Because Austin's public transportation system is horrible.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Ok, you don't like the architecture...I guess a strip mall which is 75% parking lot between the shops and the street is better...

Now you are being a bit silly - they didn't say the strip mall was better, just that the new architecture didn't do anything for them, and I kind of have to agree. OTOH, once it gets built, maybe it will look a better than the mock-up.

[TexasHorseLady]

[quote=OpenD;26810017][quote=jb9152;26809739]But it also includes apartments, which is an important part of any walkable, dense urban space.

Sure, and those folks are going to get up in the morning, have their coffee and toast, and drive to work, like everybody else. It's a simple equation... more people = more traffic.




What, "inward sprawl"? I think it's exactly the right description, and it helps offset the goofy notion that "infill" is some magic panacea for a city's woes. I'd like to see more Outfill... developing "density islands." that are far enough away from the city core to actually reduce traffic flow to and from it.



It can be no other. More people = more traffic.

All of this. "Inward sprawl", much as some might hate to admit it, is a very good description of it.

The businesses that are already in that center are very walkable for the neighborhoods that are right there. (You did realize that there are neighborhoods of the dreaded single family homes as well as apartments right behind that shopping center, right?)

And "density islands" is a great solution. There's no law of nature that says that all density has to be in one central location and that that's God's Plan for the Universe. If there are many neighborhoods with employment and businesses and amenities and a variety of kinds of housing right there so that nobody has to walk more than, say, 15 or 20 minutes or drive more than 5 or 10 minutes to get to what they need to get to and they don't have to drive to downtown for amenities that they need or for work, that goes quite a ways towards solving the traffic problems, as well.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Sounds nice, but I don't see how replacing one set of businesses with another set of businesses accomplishes any of that. As a matter of fact, it's predictable this new development will increase the amount of auto traffic because it is displacing businesses that might typically have a couple of customers each and increasing the capacity of the Alamo cinema by several hundred seats. Since each of the Alamo theaters draws patrons from a wide enough area that most of them drive... just look at the parking lot at any of them, it's obvious... on that factor alone I'd say this is more "inward sprawl" than anything.

Replacing single use with mixed use is conducive to exactly what I'm talking about. And there is nothing pedestrian friendly about a strip mall. Strip malls are, by design, car friendly. They purposefully are created to make sure are cars are really happy. But strip malls are very hostile towards pedestrians.

Also, there is no such thing as "inward sprawl". Sprawl, by definition is outward. You opponents of urban mixed use don't get to co-opt a term and turn it into something else.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AustinGuy

I'm curious about how bad the traffic on South Lamar is going to get after all the additional apartments and condos planned are added. Plus when you add the Trader Joes & additional shopping at Seaholm, it is bound to create more of a mess between Barton Springs and Sixth along Lamar especially.

Perfect opportunity for the new Metrorapid along the S Lamar corridor.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Replacing single use with mixed use is conducive to exactly what I'm talking about. And there is nothing pedestrian friendly about a strip mall. Strip malls are, by design, car friendly. They purposefully are created to make sure are cars are really happy. But strip malls are very hostile towards pedestrians.

Also, there is no such thing as "inward sprawl". Sprawl, by definition is outward. You opponents of urban mixed use don't get to co-opt a term and turn it into something else.

Dang it! I actually agree with a couple of your posts and you go and say something like this. "Inward" sprawl toward what and from where and (outward) sprawl(not a trademarked term, I don't think) are darned descriptive. Each sprawl 'center point' can result in 'sprawl' in many directions...some inward toward this mystical perfect urban core point, others away from said center of the universe.

If Far West suddenly mowed down every tree between 'it' and the city center and developed every square inch TOWARD town, would you not agree that represents some sort of 'inward sprawl'. Sure, the 'sprawl' is outward from the original 'center' of ITS origin, but it would be 'sprawling' toward the larger center of the city, thus an 'inward' sprawl.

Heck, we've got people using 'words' like prolly, irregardless, supposeably, 'center around you', "That's not too big OF A problem", 'growing' a business, etc, etc. At least "inward sprawl" offers an image that most folks can understand.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

Dang it! I actually agree with a couple of your posts and you go and say something like this. "Inward" sprawl toward what and from where and (outward) sprawl(not a trademarked term, I don't think) are darned descriptive. Each sprawl 'center point' can result in 'sprawl' in many directions...some inward toward this mystical perfect urban core point, others away from said center of the universe.

If Far West suddenly mowed down every tree between 'it' and the city center and developed every square inch TOWARD town, would you not agree that represents some sort of 'inward sprawl'. Sure, the 'sprawl' is outward from the original 'center' of ITS origin, but it would be 'sprawling' toward the larger center of the city, thus an 'inward' sprawl.

Heck, we've got people using 'words' like prolly, irregardless, supposeably, 'center around you', "That's not too big OF A problem", 'growing' a business, etc, etc. At least "inward sprawl" offers an image that most folks can understand.

No. Words have meanings. Infill and densification is not sprawl, it is precisely the opposite of sprawl.

[TexasHorseLady]

Komeht, I know that you would LOVE for that to be the case so that you can use those words to MAKE your case for piling people on top of each other, but it's not. Inward sprawl is a perfectly acceptable and understandable term for what's being advocated, just maybe not in your world because you'd have to accept that maybe your idea isn't a perfect solution for a lot of people and creates sprawl of its own kind.