Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You’ll be surprised but the density of West Campus is over 36,000 ppsm and is approaching 40,000. To the SW of that intersection the density is over 70,000 (6-12 blocks) ppsm.
Outside of that gas station and random parking lots, a lot of West Campus is residential and only the outskirts have any major commercial development.
To be fair Houston grew much earlier than Austin so even though it tore down a lot of its history it still has substantially more traditional urbanism in its downtown than Austin.
It would be hard to find a street like this in Austin.
That being said I think Austin takes this thread against San Antonio. It has a good bit of new urbanism and while it’s kinda bland it does provide a further reaching urban street scape than San Antonio does. The urbanity in San Antonio pretty much falls of a cliff outside of downtown but at least Austin can extend its urbanity to west campus, E 5th east of I-35, SoCo, etc.
In the Dallas/Houston thread, I initially thought the tales of "empty downtown streets" might hinder Houston, but it didn't-I think they held up well against anywhere, not just Texas. That's because an "urban streetscape" refers to permanent structures, which is not pedestrians or food trucks.
I like the term "new urbanism" though, just because something is old and established does not equal urban. If SA falls off a cliff outside of downtown then they have a problem considering the size of the city.
However, 78207 is San Antonio's densest zip code (7500 ppsm), and appears to be west of downtown.
Last edited by Losfrisco; 10-06-2022 at 03:16 PM..
Austin's urban core is pretty small in comparison to San Antonio's. The area around the UT Campus is pretty dense but other than that it doesn't have the same level of urbanity as San Antonio overall. S.A. has way more urban neighborhoods not everything has to be shiney and new and multilevel to be considered urban.
... just because something is old and established does not equal urban...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio
... not everything has to be shiney and new and multilevel to be considered urban.
I subscribe to the opposite theory.
I see urban as gritty, worn, lived in.
That's why I didn't get the whole Uptown Dallas argument in the other thread. That place looks too new. Too unlived in to be considered the urban spot.
San Antonio neighborhoods, (both downtown and surrounding) has that lived-in grit.
Texas posters, and many others on here confuse urban with exciting. Any new hot spot of entertainment is what is considered urban.
I disagree. For me if it has to have some grit. Nice and rough around the edges. Austin and Uptown Dallas will eventually earn that urban smell. San Antonio already has it. How do you describe that smell? People who have visited London, or even spots like Pittsburgh or Cleveland should know what I meant.
That's why I didn't get the whole Uptown Dallas argument in the other thread. That place looks too new. Too unlived in to be considered the urban spot.
San Antonio neighborhoods, (both downtown and surrounding) has that lived-in grit.
Texas posters, and many others on here confuse urban with exciting. Any new hot spot of entertainment is what is considered urban.
I disagree. For me if it has to have some grit. Nice and rough around the edges. Austin and Uptown Dallas will eventually earn that urban smell. San Antonio already has it. How do you describe that smell? People who have visited London, or even spots like Pittsburgh or Cleveland should know what I meant.
That's why I didn't get the whole Uptown Dallas argument in the other thread. That place looks too new. Too unlived in to be considered the urban spot.
San Antonio neighborhoods, (both downtown and surrounding) has that lived-in grit.
Texas posters, and many others on here confuse urban with exciting. Any new hot spot of entertainment is what is considered urban.
I disagree. For me if it has to have some grit. Nice and rough around the edges. Austin and Uptown Dallas will eventually earn that urban smell. San Antonio already has it. How do you describe that smell? People who have visited London, or even spots like Pittsburgh or Cleveland should know what I meant.
Old city planners had only one option-urban, and people in general did not have the option to be suburbanites even if they wanted to.
I agree completely that Austin's pedestrians, food trucks, and even skyscrapers don't really equal an urban streetscape. I dropped a pin on their flagship downtown concourse and got this:
S.A.'s urban core has so much potential and it is apparent that it is evolving with all the smaller scale urban residential midrises being constructed with a few new tall residential buildings, but nothing like in Austin.
Many of the urban gritty historic neighborhoods are steadily transforming vacant lots and old buildings etc, gentrification and urban renewel is definitely taking root in some of the neglected portions of the urban core.
I would say San Antonio has the most adaptive reuse type of contruction moreso than the other Texas cities.
San Antonio's historic preservation is probably one of the most stringent in the nation and seems to cherish most every historic structure in my opinion versus a new modern structure in its place.
I applaud S.A. for its historic perservation but I think more ultra modern style architecture will compliment all the historic stuff. S.A. is pretty conservative when it comes to its architecture.
The other Texas cities are flashy and care more about their big city image (bragging rights tallest in Texas) while S.A. is more about sense of place despite also being a big fast growing metropolis.
Last edited by SweethomeSanAntonio; 10-06-2022 at 10:46 PM..
The only urban area I can really think of outside of the downtown area is the pearl district. And even that is pretty small and isn’t really a full blown neighborhood.
That's why I didn't get the whole Uptown Dallas argument in the other thread. That place looks too new. Too unlived in to be considered the urban spot.
San Antonio neighborhoods, (both downtown and surrounding) has that lived-in grit.
Texas posters, and many others on here confuse urban with exciting. Any new hot spot of entertainment is what is considered urban.
I disagree. For me if it has to have some grit. Nice and rough around the edges. Austin and Uptown Dallas will eventually earn that urban smell. San Antonio already has it. How do you describe that smell? People who have visited London, or even spots like Pittsburgh or Cleveland should know what I meant.
I don’t think I agree with this. I think both the shiny new urbanist developments along with older traditional urbanist development are both urban. I think uptown Dallas already has the urban feel. It’s the most urban neighborhood outside of a traditional CBD in the state of Texas. Pedestrian experience, built form, and transit access matter more to me in what is an urban neighborhood than having grit.
The only urban area I can really think of outside of the downtown area is the pearl district. And even that is pretty small and isn’t really a full blown neighborhood.
To be fair, those are projects lol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
