When you read about how some people in Austin, don't want any more "Transplants" from CA or anywhere else.. (affect, figure)

[love roses]

I disagree. All of the employers in Austin aren't strictly located downtown. There are other employers out here.

[jwb123]

the "suburban crap" will be the salvage heaps and slums of the future when gas goes up to $10 a gallon or so. Just sayin'

We live where we work, and thus are not car dependant... Just sayin'.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by Jenbar

We live where we work, and thus are not car dependant... Just sayin'.

Are you sure you're not a Clinton fan? I'm kind of getting that vibe. Just kiddin'



Anyways, good for you in living close to your employer. It's a good thing there will always be huge campus employers around, and the ability to sustain Walmarts, Targets, and their 3000 mile supply chains to sustain the suburbs.

[Trainwreck20]

Hmmmm...I would have to commute far longer if I live in the Mueller development or downtown. I currently fill my gas tank about once a month and live (in the suburbs) within walking distance from groceries, dinning, quality schools, and parks. Me moving downtown would be anti-productive in almost all respects. While obviously not all the people in my neighborhood work that close, quite a few do (Freescale, various medical professionals, and various office type workers with offices outside the city)

On the other hand, if I took a job downtown, I would look at living closer to work. I personally hate commuting very far. But the assumption that the historical model of work in the city center and live in the suburbs may not change to live/work in the city center, it may morph into a live/work in one of many suburban centers.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

But the assumption that the historical model of work in the city center and live in the suburbs may not change to live/work in the city center, it may morph into a live/work in one of many suburban centers.

That's not a bad thing either. Most of my concern is aimed at far-flung suburbs that are far away from employment and shopping, and a style of development that eats up the countryside at an alarming pace.

[Trainwreck20]

It's a good thing there will always be huge campus employers around, and the ability to sustain Walmarts, Targets, and their 3000 mile supply chains to sustain the suburbs.

If the city density goes up, then all those chains will follow to the city center, as well. And the supply chain will then be 3010 miles long...

I am not against densification, I think it is a necessary and positive change, but the assumption that it is the end-all/be-all is probably not true (at least imho).

[Chris2000]

I'm of the belief NO way is the "correct" way to be. So live the way you want to live, And don't concern yourself with the way other people chose to live. I notice more and more and more people judging what other people are doing, and how they are living (probably to make themselves feel better about who they are).
I think that if you are happy and have the things you want in life then you are a success. Really thats all that matters.
I'm the kinda of person who likes my 3000Sf home in the suburbs. I'm happy there and really couldn't care less what other people think about it. Cause in the end, Their opinions don't affect my life at all. They never will.
Chris2000

[geoquiz3000]

Multi-centered cities are definitely the future--well, they're the "now" in many places actually. It's certainly true that condos downtown are too expensive and small for most families who live elsewhere in the City. We've made the decision as a society over the past 50 years plus to subsidize highway construction and much infrastructure development, which coupled with cheap gas and plentiful land, has allowed many of us to live in far-flung suburban and exurban locations. As fuel costs rise it will be interesting to see what we're willing to do in order to allow millions to retain this lifestyle (gas tax "holidays," drilling everywhere imaginable, turning all our corn into ethanol, etc.)

That being said, many of the older suburbs are indeed becoming "urban" in terms of density, walkability, etc. and have or will form major centers for work, entertainment, and higher density housing. Truth is though, most people drive at least 20 minutes to get to work every day. There are even "retrofits" of traditional cul-de-sac suburbs into more urban forms. The references to Congress for the New Urbanism made earlier should direct you one group's idea of a middle road between highrise downtown condos and suburban single-use single-family tract homes on a quarter acre. Many new urbanist development are in suburban environments and the densities, while greater than most 1970s-1990s sprawl, are closer the 1940s-1960s densities (garage apartments, alleys, narrower side yards, smaller front yards closer to the streets, privacy in the backyards, etc.) found in some of central Austin's neighborhoods.

We're in a stage where downtown living is popular for a significant number of people, but the supply is small, so prices are high. The more of something there is, the cheaper it will get. In Austin, the price and demand pressure is exacerbated by our general popularity as a place to relocate. Maybe in 20 years or more when there are a large number of apartments, mixed-use structures, and condos in the central core, pricing will seem more in line with other options. That may not help folks now, but we're an impatient lot and cities last for centuries.

If you consider how much highways cost; how much more per capita infrastructure costs in low density vs high density areas; the added fuel costs of commutes; the lost or degraded farmland and natural areas; and a host of other things that come out of sprawl, it may only be cheaper due to our public policies favoring and subsidizing this type of development. To you and me, it's cheaper, but society is perhaps subsidizing it considerably.

It may be interesting to consider that there has been a tendency for cities to sprawl throughout history, especially when outside threats like invasion were unlikely--and indeed in Europe sprawl, single family detached living, and other "American-style" suburban traits are much more common than I'd expect. I've heard the theory maybe people generally want more space (to a point) and will seek to gain it as long as their income and resources will allow it, that it's somehow hardwired in most of us. Maybe that's why so many of us are willing to pay taxes to subsidize it.

Anyway, it's nice to say that no one else's opinion matters, and as long as you have the financial resources and the desire to live your chosen way in your chosen place, that's probably true. Again, I'll be curious what decisions we'll make as a society if and when we see $10/gallon gas (or extreme and long-lived drought, or an inability to live on credit indefinitely, etc.) Unfortunatley, other people's opinions (like voters in the rest of Texas, or in Ohio/Florida/etc., or in Congress, or the Whitehouse, or possibly, though not hopefully, in the banks of China or Hong Kong) do affect us all the time.

[electricninja]

Free spirits are always welcome. On the other hand, there's the saying, "You made your bed, now lay in it." If you were a Californian some other blue state refugee who voted for absurd taxes and needless regulations while the going was good (until it wasn't), please leave your old voting habits behind. We have a good thing going here and don't want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

Originally Posted by geoquiz3000

I'll be curious what decisions we'll make as a society if and when we see $10/gallon gas (or extreme and long-lived drought, or an inability to live on credit indefinitely, etc.) Unfortunatley, other people's opinions (like voters in the rest of Texas, or in Ohio/Florida/etc., or in Congress, or the Whitehouse, or possibly, though not hopefully, in the banks of China or Hong Kong) do affect us all the time.

Blue state voting habits cause $10/gallon gas, not supply chains. Ask Europeans.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

If the city density goes up, then all those chains will follow to the city center, as well. And the supply chain will then be 3010 miles long...

I am not against densification, I think it is a necessary and positive change, but the assumption that it is the end-all/be-all is probably not true (at least imho).

High density has it's good points and bad.
I grew up in NYC. Didn't need a car at all.

But once I got old enough I fled to more "open" spaces.
I've since landed on a 45 acre ranch.

I had my fill of density and want elbow room now.