Vast sections of Austin are "fugly" let's not kid ourselves (Victoria: 2015, co-op)

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Just go to Google Images and type in "San Francisco wires". Here's one example of many:

Much of that is due to the cable cars (as shown in the pictures). I'l give SF a pass on the wires just because they have a pretty effective and efficient public transportation system. Austin can't say the same. We have wires for the sake of having wires, not to move people efficiently around the city.

Also, SF is a much older and denser city, so burying cables is a lot more difficult. I routinely see COA streaming more overhead cables across open fields.

[Antny12]

Austin has plenty of businesses that look run down all along all the major roads really- quite shocking. And there are houses that look like a complete mess with garbage all over and stuff all over the front lawn..and of course the overgrown grass and lack of landscape is also bad. But the biggest eye sore is the amount of people sleeping all over the sidewalk-under the highways- it's sad and it's something that needs to be taken care of.


I didn't even find far west area/balconies area to be that aestically pleasing other then it's natural beauty. Austin doesn't have bunch of nicely done businesses, retail areas, or charming archetecture that exists beyond a few downtown and the suburbs. The arboretum and domain would be the exceptions.

[Aquitaine]

Just because statistics have political implications doesn't mean they are opinions. At least they're an attempt to introduce more objectivity

It is a hypothesis -- (Austin is segregated) -- that relies on economic and housing statistics as evidence.

What the statistics describe is the allocation by neighborhood of socioeconomic class and the movement to the 'burbs of the lower and middle classes. That's your objective observation. The rest is politics.

[TexasPorVida]

Originally Posted by Antny12

Austin has plenty of businesses that look run down all along all the major roads really- quite shocking. And there are houses that look like a complete mess with garbage all over and stuff all over the front lawn..and of course the overgrown grass and lack of landscape is also bad. But the biggest eye sore is the amount of people sleeping all over the sidewalk-under the highways- it's sad and it's something that needs to be taken care of.

So does every city the size of Austin. Have you ever seen the camps of people under highways in California cities? The ghettos of NYC? The Lower 9th Ward? Overtown? South Chicago? The neighborhoods around the Houston Ship Channel?


This site cracks me up, that is why I keep coming back. It is as if people think there is some utopian city out there.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

It is a hypothesis -- (Austin is segregated) -- that relies on economic and housing statistics as evidence.

What the statistics describe is the allocation by neighborhood of socioeconomic class and the movement to the 'burbs of the lower and middle classes. That's your objective observation. The rest is politics.

But that's the thing, many who are in the lower and middle classes still remain in Austin and haven't gone anywhere. Despite what some would like to believe. Not all areas within the city limits are filled with high wage earners. Case in point, go down 183. Or that area by Reagan High. Northeast. Parts of Metric. Rundberg.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by TexasPorVida

So does every city the size of Austin. Have you ever seen the camps of people under highways in California cities? The ghettos of NYC? The Lower 9th Ward? Overtown? South Chicago? The neighborhoods around the Houston Ship Channel?


This site cracks me up, that is why I keep coming back. It is as if people think there is some utopian city out there.

He has to make every thread about the homeless in Austin --- in spite of the fact he's never lived in Austin and doesn't do a single thing to help those less fortunate.

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by riaelise

But that's the thing, many who are in the lower and middle classes still remain in Austin and haven't gone anywhere. Despite what some would like to believe. Not all areas within the city limits are filled with high wage earners. Case in point, go down 183. Or that area by Reagan High. Northeast. Parts of Metric. Rundberg.

in part that is because Austin is filled with low wage jobs and those workers have to live somewhere.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by homeinatx

Move to Dallas if that's what you like, or better Sugarland. I agree that Austin is generally an architecturally undistinguished city, but Steiner Ranch would be exhibit A: bland, cookie cutter houses entirely without architectural merit thrown up on formerly pristine hillsides. I am not duped by limestone cladding - talk about fugly. Steiner Ranch housing has as much relation to hill country architecture as my ass. If you wanna see hill country architecture, go to Boerne or Fredericksburg or Mason. Aesthetically, Steiner Ranch is a crappy Temecula very far from the sea.

The main commercial arterial roads through Austin are not conventionally pretty: Burnett, Lamar, Airport, but they have some historical layering: 1940s to present architectural styles - some great neon on Burnett and North Lamar and are home to much of what makes Austin interesting. Take the stretch of Airport from 35 to Koenig/2222 - its home to some of best restaurants in Austin at every price point : Bullfight, Kome, Tyson's Tacos, one of the last thriving video stores in the country with a great collection of foreign art films, Coldtowne Theater, a fabulous dive bar in Barfly, Quality Seafood, where most restaurants in the city get their fish, a terrific billiards hall in the Grand. I could go on. I could do the same for North Lamar, which also has some vernacular mid-century modernist gems dotted in the mix, and the best Asian markets in the city once you get around 183. Get out of your car. These are some of the streets that make Austin interesting. I'll take substance over superficial aesthetics anyway, especially since those superficial aesthetics are fugly - to borrow your word- in their own way. Any building which houses something interesting is better than a limestone clad CVS??? And there are some very beautiful residential neighborhoods lurking adjacent to those commercial strips.

Well, yes there are interesting shops/restaurants and they "make do" with the crappy architecture. You have to have lived in an older city like New Orleans to understand what I mean. Even the less interesting neighborhoods, when they came time to be gentrified, were architectural gems. I'm thinking Bywater and Midcity. I think the problem was that for many years Austin was kind of a poorer city and its architecture reflects that.

I think the only solution is to allow highrises all the way to 183, forming a block from MoPac to I-35. It's the only way.

Although I despise the traffic, Steiner Ranch is gorgeous. Nothing compares in the rest of Austin, to be honest.

[Antny12]

South Chicago has nowhere near the amount of homeless that Austin does- at least not visually speaking. I can remember maybe seeing a handful of homeless in all my years of living in Chicago. Austin is unbelievable when it comes to this- but I'm not gonna jack the thread. I was just pointing out that there's bigger fish to fry- although I agree somewhat with the OP that Austin for all its "it's so cool and great here* has some areas that Re in some serious need of rehabilitation. Especially considering what it costs to live in a city that lacks so much. And you know what? I actually love where I live in the Suburbs plan on raising my family here so I'm not trying to knock Austin- but sometimes people need a reality check. There's work to do in Austin.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

Much of that is due to the cable cars (as shown in the pictures). I'l give SF a pass on the wires just because they have a pretty effective and efficient public transportation system. Austin can't say the same. We have wires for the sake of having wires, not to move people efficiently around the city.

Also, SF is a much older and denser city, so burying cables is a lot more difficult. I routinely see COA streaming more overhead cables across open fields.

Only recently has Austin started putting up traffic poles instead of stringing them from creosote poles. To be honest, I think money would be better spent on other things. Planting trees would be a better alternative.