Dave Grohl weighs in on Austin's gentrification (Dallas, Waco: real estate, condo)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

Shop local. Listen local. Eat local. Keep it weird. Rinse, repeat. Went to Sway on Friday night. Man was that good. Lots of folks hanging out after fun fun fun. I digress.

I bet Barley Swine is on your list as well.

You do realize it is in a strip mall, right?

[lndigo]

In the preservation of places like Spicewood or Elgin, density is an ally, not a foe.
A nicer skyline and a livelier core aren't going to compromise anybody's suburban or rural lifestyle. . .

That being said, going back the original point of this thread, Austin's character is being crushed under the weight of its popularity. Austin is in a transition stage between Austin, TX, and just Austin: a big city. Rent is already more affordable in places like central Seattle, central Minneapolis, or Chicago's north side than it is in central Austin. Artists and musicians are going to find new, inspiring meccas where the traffic isn't so bad nor the swimming holes as crowded. Meanwhile, the original Austin residents, especially in the gentrifying east side, will continue to be priced out. Some will move out to the suburbs, others may move to Houston.

Vermont, Missoula, or Madison are looking pretty nice to me right now, and I'm one who would leave right about now if my family and social life weren't so heavily based in Texas. I was actually asked if I wanted to move out to Colorado with some friends of mine recently. The idea is tempting, but after seeing what trendy does to a place, Colorado is the last place I'd want to move to (which is ironically where I wanted to end up when I was a kid).

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by lndigo

In the preservation of places like Spicewood or Elgin, density is an ally, not a foe.
A nicer skyline and a livelier core aren't going to compromise anybody's suburban or rural lifestyle. . .

Well, one, a lot of people don't consider what's being done to the Austin skyline making it "nicer" but quite the contrary. And a lot of people have lived here for quite a long while and have seen their Austin lifestyle compromised beyond recognition in service to the idea of "density" and "urbanism" (as if that was ever what Austin was about or what made it the place that so many people wanted to move for so long), so that's not true. That you have moved here from elsewhere and think that Austin should be changed DOES compromise the lifestyle of people who have lived here for decades and they are going to speak up about it. Like I said, you can relax, because momentum is going to make sure that Austin turns into what you moved here and think it should be, and then you can move on to the next Austin, Winnipeg, or whatever, and remake it in your own image when everyone else decides that Austin, for some strange reason, isn't "in" anymore and moves on to the next "hot" place, rinse and repeat.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change (though when I moved to Austin decades ago I took it as it was because if i wanted to live somewhere different, I would have moved somewhere different), but change for the sake of change and, worse, in imitation of somewhere else doesn't serve Austin long-term, and something precious is lost in the process.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

Only if that is your goal - which yours obviously is. I'd rather live in Charleston than Chicago. Santa Barbara than Shanghai. You and the rest of the urbanist fanboys want to fundamentally transform Austin into something it has never been. All Grohl is saying is, there is a price in doing that - destroying something unique in all of America. That isn't a positive.

I've learned one thing this past election cycle and that is to ignore candidates that say "_____ will destroy our neighborhood." 99% of the time it is hyperbole aimed at SFH homeowners (I am in that general category BTW) that want to slam the door on changes to a neighborhood once they have bought into it. They have this idealized notion that everything is perfect now and changes will bring in undesirable demographics and businesses that cater to them.

Sorry but to have kept Rainey Street as a SF neighborhood would have been dumb. It was its time to morph into the urban neighborhood it is becoming now and that is the general take away I have from this discussion. That cities evolve and high growth cities have to evolve faster than the 1% growth ones. Land use should not be static because the needs of the citizens of a city do change over time.

And don't try to compare Austin to Santa Fe with a population of 68k (145k metro), just not in the same league at all.

And lastly artists can be creative in dense areas. CBGB was not out in the burbs!

[lndigo]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Well, one, a lot of people don't consider what's being done to the Austin skyline making it "nicer" but quite the contrary. And a lot of people have lived here for quite a long while and have seen their Austin lifestyle compromised beyond recognition in service to the idea of "density" and "urbanism" (as if that was ever what Austin was about or what made it the place that so many people wanted to move for so long), so that's not true. That you have moved here from elsewhere and think that Austin should be changed DOES compromise the lifestyle of people who have lived here for decades and they are going to speak up about it. Like I said, you can relax, because momentum is going to make sure that Austin turns into what you moved here and think it should be, and then you can move on to the next Austin, Winnipeg, or whatever, and remake it in your own image when everyone else decides that Austin, for some strange reason, isn't "in" anymore and moves on to the next "hot" place, rinse and repeat.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change (though when I moved to Austin decades ago I took it as it was because if i wanted to live somewhere different, I would have moved somewhere different), but change for the sake of change and, worse, in imitation of somewhere else doesn't serve Austin long-term, and something precious is lost in the process.

Well, first of all, I'm from here. Second of all, Winnipeg is the polar opposite of Austin. That being said, I may not have the capacity to understand this city's character and transformation with the depth that you do due to my age, but I do understand why you're frustrated, as I've just now expanded on in my prior post. But my point is: if people are going to come, how is density worse for the city than sprawl? I simply don't believe it is. And furthermore, how in the world does a more developed skyline negatively affect your quality of life? It's an aesthetic thing, it's just a matter of taste. Personally, I think Austin's skyline is art, but I'm sorry that you don't like it.

[Danbo1957]

Since when did any of us posters use downtown? The University area, capitol complex, downtown, 6th Street and the Warehouse district are just updated versions of what they have always been. The CBD is to be used, not museumed. And frankly, those 10,000 people who spend $2500 a month on those high-rise downtown condos are just adding to the tax base.

We live in a clean, vibrant, wealthy, educated city-- I'm amazed that the place is still livable after adding one million inhabitants over the last forty years...

[orngkat]

I have so many thoughts on this topic since I have lived here so long and through two busts now. Men have always built towers and so they continue. I think a skyline should show some history and new things as well. It makes me sad that it is now hard to see the capitol and the Frost building from many angles. I recently vacationed in Vancouver and was struck by the number of tall glass towers - it resembled an emerald city and was very beautiful with mountains and forests in the distance. But it also struck me that they must have destroyed a lot of beautiful old architecture to erect those towers. There is nothing great about density if the other things aren't being addressed as they have been in Vancouver - wide sidewalks for pedestrians, safe bicycle lanes, multiple transportation options, a culture that respects pedestrians, frequent green spaces, services one needs close by (not just trendy bars and restaurants). It was interesting that many of the groceries and other service businesses were under street level. I don't think Austin is thinking very long term in all their endeavors lately. Trendy works for a little while and for a certain group of people but we are not thinking about the big picture and the long view. The affordability issue being brought up is just fluff when the average homeowner who has lived here for decades can't afford their property taxes anymore. I believe there is a good chance we will bust again because of our shortsightedness in all these matters.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Austin has had strip malls for a long time. There is B/W documentary from the 60s touting the shiny new one at the NE side of Congress and Oltorf as a great, car-friendly retail addition.

Twin Oaks Shopping Center was built in the '50s. It was really a new concept to Austinites. My parents bought several new appliances at Clyde Hill's store.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

Since when did any of us posters use downtown? The University area, capitol complex, downtown, 6th Street and the Warehouse district are just updated versions of what they have always been. The CBD is to be used, not museumed. And frankly, those 10,000 people who spend $2500 a month on those high-rise downtown condos are just adding to the tax base.

We live in a clean, vibrant, wealthy, educated city-- I'm amazed that the place is still livable after adding one million inhabitants over the last forty years...

That right there.

DT during the '70s & early '80s looked like a ghost town with a lot of boarded up storefronts on Congress. Really kinda depressing to drive up to the Capitol then.

Today it's an exciting "happening" place. The only gripe I have is the CoA's propensity for closing off half the streets dang near every weekend in the central core for the latest charity du jour race.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

And frankly, those 10,000 people who spend $2500 a month on those high-rise downtown condos are just adding to the tax base.

I'm sorry my comment about $2500 apartments got turned into a density, urbanization fight - because it isn't the buildings, it IS the people in them. If someone is materialistic enough to accept anything to "add to the tax base", I wonder if they "get" Austin at all? Those people in Peter Pan Land downtown are the chief contributors to the materialism, the ostentatiousness, and all of the cancers that have descended upon us in the last twenty years and threaten the unique nature of Austin - as Grohl observed. We aren't better because we have a W Hotel, with Teslas and Maseratis lined up in the valet line - and no Liberty Lunch across the street.

We spend so much time on the preservation of every obscure species on earth - wonder why there isn't as much time spent on the preservation of Austin? Charleston seems to understand well how to modernize, without losing your soul in the process.