The big lesson from Austin’s City Council elections (Cedar Park: schools, subsidized)

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

I love change. Change is fine with me as long as it's change for good. But many of us don't care that "urbanists" don't like sprawl. There are sensible ways to grow our city without taking choices away from people. We don't like insensible high density.

Don't like density? then don't live there. Think about all the potential homeowners being corralled downtown, who you don't have to bid against in the SFM market. Be thankful for the urbanists, and the vacuum they provide for suburbanites like yourself.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Don't like density? then don't live there. Think about all the potential homeowners being corralled downtown, who you don't have to bid against in the SFM market. Be thankful for the urbanists, and the vacuum they provide for suburbanites like yourself.

They share features of a vacuum however they certainly aren't providing anything for suburbanites.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Think about all the potential homeowners being corralled downtown, who you don't have to bid against in the SFM market. Be thankful for the urbanists, and the vacuum they provide for suburbanites like yourself.

Another urban myth. You mistakenly believe that "potential homeowners being corralled downtown" are competing against "suburbanites like yourself" - that the demand is totally fungible. It isn't. The narrow markets - mainly singles, childless couples, and empty nesters - are competing just for those properties.

I'd love to hear from the RE agents here, but I seriously doubt that anyone says, "Well, if we can't get on the 11th floor of the Four Seasons, then we'd like to look at a 3/2/3 in Cedar Park."

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by scm53

Another urban myth. You mistakenly believe that "potential homeowners being corralled downtown" are competing against "suburbanites like yourself" - that the demand is totally fungible. It isn't. The narrow markets - mainly singles, childless couples, and empty nesters - are competing just for those properties.

I'd love to hear from the RE agents here, but I seriously doubt that anyone says, "Well, if we can't get on the 11th floor of the Four Seasons, then we'd like to look at a 3/2/3 in Cedar Park."

You are trying to directly connect opposite ends of the spectrum, and it's not like that. There is a ripple effect from the demand and prices in the central city that is radiating outward towards the suburbs.

You remember the phrase "drive 'til you qualify" we all do. It's the ripple effect from demand. Density downtown is meeting that demand, and relieving pressure from the SFH neighborhoods in central Austin, which in turn relieves pressure from the next neighborhood further out, and so on.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

You remember the phrase "drive 'til you qualify" we all do. It's the ripple effect from demand. Density downtown is meeting that demand, and relieving pressure from the SFH neighborhoods in central Austin, which in turn relieves pressure from the next neighborhood further out, and so on.

Density downtown is meeting its own demand - nothing more. It is a niche market. I can't put my hands on it, but the study Charles Heimsath did for the DAA identified three main markets for downtown residential - singles, childless couples, and empty nesters/retirees. Notice what's missing? Families with kids - that's who is moving to the 'burbs - and their demand will never be met by a single unit downtown. It isn't "drive 'til you qualify" - because if it were, no one would live at Lake Travis. It is "find a place that meets your needs and buy". That's different for everyone, and changes with the phases of their lives. And people need to have the freedom to make the appropriate choices for their family without - as many do here - being sneered at.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by scm53

Density downtown is meeting its own demand - nothing more. It is a niche market. I can't put my hands on it, but the study Charles Heimsath did for the DAA identified three main markets for downtown residential - singles, childless couples, and empty nesters/retirees. Notice what's missing? Families with kids - that's who is moving to the 'burbs - and their demand will never be met by a single unit downtown. It isn't "drive 'til you qualify" - because if it were, no one would live at Lake Travis. It is "find a place that meets your needs and buy". That's different for everyone, and changes with the phases of their lives. And people need to have the freedom to make the appropriate choices for their family without - as many do here - being sneered at.

You are exclusively using the term "downtown" and I am using the term "density". You can have density with families in central Austin, and not have them live in a hi-rise downtown.

I live in Tel Aviv currently, and there are families galore, living in mid-rise and 3-4 story buildings. This arrangement constitutes about 80% of the available housing stock in this city, maybe more. These families all come out and hang out with the park 1-2 blocks away with soccer fields, playgrounds and open park space and there is more than enough room for them. Our culture prizes private property, large backyards and there is nothing wrong with that. It's great that the option is available. But if there was more options in Austin like what I see here, it would take up some of that demand, and relieve pressure on the SFH market.

It's not the "Hi-rise condo or Cedar Park" scenario you put forth. It's a spectrum of options that could relieve the price pressures.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

You are exclusively using the term "downtown" and I am using the term "density". You can have density with families in central Austin, and not have them live in a hi-rise downtown.

Actually, it was you that was using the term "downtown":

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Think about all the potential homeowners being corralled downtown, who you don't have to bid against in the SFM market.

Look, I am all for filling in the "missing middle" lacking in Austin's core. To date, as Chris observes, we have concentrated at the extremes - SFRs in the burbs, high rises downtown. There is a place, especially on the corridors, to put mid rise apartments. But I too have lived in places where families are raised in buildings like that, and you won't see that here in any of our lifetimes. It isn't the lack of supply. It is the lack of demand. It requires a cultural view that Americans simply don't have - especially Texans. We value freedom and individuality. Other cultures, such as the one you are living in now, value community, especially the last five letters of that word. My German neighbors couldn't believe that a single person lived in a place as big as mine. Most Americans would never make that judgement.

Won't even get into the missing infrastructure, such as more plentiful neighborhood parks to allow kids to recreate as they would in a SFR backyard. But now - today - families, for multiple reasons, are going to prefer the 'burbs, no matter how much that wads up the panties of a vocal bunch. The challenge is to build a transportation system that accommodates that desire. The "don't build it, they won't come", as well as the "screw them, they live irresponsibly, unlike me" hasn't worked. It has caused the problems we have today and has us thirty years in the hole. To continue either approach is irresponsible. Hopefully, that recognition is the big lesson from Tuesday's election - that the solution is one that works for the entire city - and not just the cabal that has ruled up to now.

It isn't either/or. It is some of both.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

What's wrong with sprawl? I prefer it over congestion.

Sprawl creates congestion by it's very nature. Been on any of our freeways in and out of Austin recently? Show me a sprawled out city not chocked in traffic congestion and I'll showed you a failed city.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Sounds like sour grapes from somebody who can't handle the fact that lots of other people don't share his definition "adaptation to change". Not all change is good.

I really wish people would learn to use the terms "sour grapes" correctly before misapplying it to me.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

You don't have an exclusive license on what is "sensible" and what is "insensible". It is quite clear that you dislike what you pejoratively label as "sprawl". Obviously, to the families that choose to live that way, it is quite sensible.

There are ways to accommodate decentralized development, blending it with density in the right places. But to close off the choices of many because "those of us" deem it "insensible" is nothing but elitism.

I'm calling sprawl exactly what sprawl is - so not quite sure how you take offense to that.


No one is talking about closing "off the choices of many". This is about putting density in the right places - you know - the city core.