Foes of Wal*Mart Gather: Battle at NorthCross

I went to a few of the meetings for the Crestview station. Overall the neighborhood was very supporative of the development. The developers were very friendly and listened to neighborhood development. They altered certain aspects the neighbors didnt like. The problem I have with the walmart is it would be better to have multiple small grocery stores located throughout the town than one large one. Basically this will increase car driving and move away from having a walkable city.

I went to a few of the meetings for the Crestview station. Overall the neighborhood was very supporative of the development. The developers were very friendly and listened to neighborhood development. They altered certain aspects the neighbors didnt like. The problem I have with the walmart is it would be better to have multiple small grocery stores located throughout the town than one large one. Basically this will increase car driving and move away from having a walkable city.

JTL,

Pointing to multi-family which your neighborhood probably opposed at the time as a sign of virtue today is the height of gall, yet is sadly typical even down here in central Austin, as my neighbors try to take credit for the Triangle (fought by most), etc.

If you think more vibrant retailers are waiting in the wings to move in to such a low-density area, you're more optimistic than I. There's a reason Northcross couldn't make a go of it - it was medium-density retail in the middle of low-density residential.

I live in the neighborhood north of Northcross, and this neighborhood-bashing is a little ridiculous. There are large multi-family developments ringed all around the neighborhood on all of the main arteries - Anderson, Steck, Burnet, and Shoal Creek. Our section of Shoal Creek happens to have bike lanes and two car lanes in each direction.

I'm personally not in favor of Hyde Park or West Campus style development where single family homes are knocked down and replaced with ugly concrete 4 or 6-plexes on stilts with parking and ground level, interspersed throughout the development. I can't speak for other people in this regard though.

The Northcross Mall as it stands is such a blight, that almost any vibrant retail would be better. Getting rid of that ugly sea of asphalt in front of it would be a great start.

Yes, a Crestview-Station-like (or Triangle-like) development would be better. Too bad the residents of the nearby neighborhoods have opposed any and all multifamily projects in or near their neighborhoods for years and years and years.

Just out of curiosity. Would Hope and M1EK agree that a crestview station like development at northcross would better than the proposed walmart. It would seem this would add population density to central Austin. Additionally considering that its a super walmart they are planning on having people drive there from all over the city. It seems this would increase driving and car usage. Ideally it would be better to have smaller grocery stores located all over the city. Basically it seems to me having 20 HEBs located through out the city would seem to better for the environment and having a walkable city than one giant super walmart in north Austin.

Shawn,

I agree with about half of that - but there's no way a developer is going to pay the big bucks to build true urban (rather than "destination center" edge city stuff) without a massively higher population density than exists in that area today.

As for the neighborhoods - they have, in fact, been responsible for a lot of the stuff that's held Austin back - destroying the utility a vital commuting artery for cyclists (Shoal Creek) in order to preserve PARKING; obstructing a light rail plan which would, unlike today's commuter rail POS, have actually worked; opposing any and all multi-family anywhere near them; etc.

The new regs, without a concomittant increase in nearby residents, will primarily result in cosmetic changes to barely satisfy requirements. No VMU, in other words; and you'd be a fool to invest the money in denser commercial development

Think about why Northcross failed in the first place - originally, it had a large catchment area for drivers - no competing malls further out. It was therefore feasible to build medium-density retail even in the middle of low-density residential; since people from farther out would drive in to it.

As malls (and strip centers) got built further out, though, Northcross' catchment shrank to the point where the number of people for whom it was the closest major option wasn't enough to sustain business. We can change standards all we want, but the best you'll be able to hope for without major increases in residential density in that catchment area are minor cosmetic changes (like orienting the strip mall to the main street like the new crapshack at 38th/Guadalupe).

M1EK,

I think it is a little unfair to single out this neighborhood as a bastion of residential suburbia clamoring for commercial urbanity - the City regulations are basically in line with them on this point, freezing residential development in the 1950's style with the McMansion ordinance (of which I know you are no fan) while demanding commercial urbanity with the new design regs.

I'm not sure that this dichotomy is necessarily unworkable. Urban style commercial centers surrounded by single family residential neighborhoods could work, especially if a few apartment buildings are in the mix (which I believe is already the case) and the commercial space is built as VMU, so that the overall population density is high enough.

I think the important thing to recognize (which Hope is indicating that she does recognize, although this is not entirely consistent with the rhetoric in the group's web-site) is that Wal-Mart, although unpopular, is not the enemy here. The enemy is suburban style development. Replacing Wal-Mart with Target or H.E.B. would be no solution. Replacing the design with something that engages the street with pedestrian friendly entrances and relegates parking to the rear would be a major improvement for the area, regardless of the tenant.

Dividing the overly large lot into four walkable blocks with real streets through and around it, connecting those streets to the streets of the adjacent neighborhood, and building real VMU in the space could turn this area into a real urban center for the neighborhood, instead of the suburban blight that it is now.

Hope,

I have more than enough experience with your neighborhoods to know that most people in them want nothing more than the preservation of the 1950s suburban sprawl that currently characterizes them and their environs. But even if you've discovered a previously unknown subgroup of people who would like to walk the long distances through the car-dependent pedestrian-hostile neigborhood to get to a nice urban retail development, you still have to show me why on earth a developer would want to build such a development in such a low-density area given that it would be an almost guaranteed money-loser (most people in the area would still arrive via their cars; this ain't exactly Hyde Park).

In short: urban-style retail development generally follows urban-density residential development. If you have successfully fought the latter, don't expect the market to supply the former.

I am one of the organizers of Responsible Growth for Northcross. The majority of people in our audience last night raised their hands when asked if they had ever shopped at Wal-Mart. THe issue is that our vision for the area is a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use redevelopment, like those at the Traingle, Mueller and planned for Crestivew, that align with the city's new model for urban development. The current plan is a completely different type of development. This is much more than an anti-Wal-Mart fight. Even if Wal-Mart pulled out tomorrow, we would still fight to have Lincoln Property, the site owner, work with us to go back to sqaure one on the site plan and create a plan that meets the goals I outlined.

Don't be mistaken: the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Although you and I and some other urbanists might be against Wal-Mart, it's for entirely different reasons than these neighborhood folks are against it - among other things, some aren't shy to imply that they dislike the fact that poor people of sub-standard skin hues might frequent the place. Other loathsome sentiments are easy to find.

I think I'll be rooting for the proverbial zeppelin accident over the meeting site, myself.