Radio IST List: Graham Williams
I Am So Popular: Love Me Doo-Doo
Book Festival Interview With Jonathan Foer
Fun Fun Fun Fest Previews: Street Dogs and Betaplayer
Wine: Austin Cellar Classic Is Tomorrow
The image above is a representation of what the Austin skyline will look like by the end of the decade. Just preparing you so it's not such a shock.
Image source unknown. Thanks to TJ Turner and Shawn Shillington for the tip.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Fun Fun Fun Fest
Contribute
Latest Tip:
ACL Fest is full of shit. http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/music/entr
[more]
wow, that building at 5th and congress will be fugly.
I don't find this scary at all. Scary is when nice residential neighborhoods are torn down to build luxury townhouses, like every inner loop area of Houston. A thriving downtown means high density land use. Many of these buildings are replacing surface parking lots, which I think is a good use of land.
Really? You pick out the 5th and Congress building as ugly? I think it is probably the nicest looking proposal downtown.
Of course, I don't find the thought of Austin developing a dense downtown to be particularly scary or shocking, so my perspective may be somewhat different from that of the target audience of this post. Giant highways in every direction, endless single-family housing developments, those are things I find shocking and scary. Dense development downtown is something that should be encouraged, not feared.
I'm not so much scared as I am skeptical that Wynn and these developers are relying on these residents to "live, work and play" downtown.
The standard for these buildings is now commercial, office, residential--an attempt to keep these urban transplants on their feet and out of their cars...I just really don't see this happening as much as they hope it will.
Yes, scary for people who've been here for over a decade, and watched their small town turn into a big one. The flipside of course, is that given the inevitability of the growth, I'd prefer to see us go up, then go out. I have never once winced at the majesty of New York or Chicago's sky line (not to say that some of you haven't), I actually like big ole buildings, and think the idea of concentrating the commerce in a small square footage will preserve much of the soul of the city, even if not it's modest skyline. Hopefully the wisdom to encourage less motor vehicle traffic will expand into mass transit to benefit those who don't live walking distance to the action and we can move away from the trend of driving our huge SUV's half a block to buy milk (even if you can squeeze in five minutes of a DVD for those screaming kids).
If you build it, they will come.
Just my input again about development. While there are some benefits to density, it will take its toll on most of us. If you haven't noticed, the price of parking has gone up over the last year in the downtown areas for anyone who can't walk there. It will eventually become like Say Seattle, where it costs $18/day or $4/hr. to park in any of the lots or garages downtown. Evening parking on weekends will go up to about $10-15 depending on where you are downtown, but it will happen. Density is great, but it would have been nice to have planned for it.
I see beauty
I see opportunity
I see a city transformed
Let the fun begin!
JEJ has a good point as well. If you build it they will come. Crime rates will go up, our unfortuante homeless population will grow; putting even more strain on the inadequate programs we have now. More and more local businesses will be shut down as chains move in and the people who shop them come to town (for some reason it's cooler to shop at a Gap in Ausint than in Cedar Park) Rush hour times will turn the city ctreets into gridlock taking more than an hour to get from 2nd and Congress to 1st and Barton Springs. Good times, let the fun begin!
I'm not against the development, just that it was approved with no plan in mind for how to deal with the growth.
Grape,
1. Crime rates go up when residents leave urban areas, not when they enter them. The highest crime cities are in sprawling areas without downtown residents like Dallas and Houston, not areas with dense urban populations.
2. How do any of these buildings increase the homeless population? If anything, increasing the housing supply and the downtown population should increase the opportunity for people to find housing and increase public support for services for the indigent.
3. Chains uniformly prefer suburban strip malls and gallerias to urban settings. Creating a large inventory of small, street front retail locations is a great way to enable local retail businesses to operate. Local businesses flourish in urban environments - chain stores flourish in the suburbs.
4. The only traffic downtown now is waiting to get on to MoPac, I-35, or to cross the bridges (and the lines for the highways are much worse than those for Congress and First). Enabling people who work downtown to live downtown should make that better, not worse. How often is someone who lives downtown and works downtown going to drive out to Cedar Park?
5. Free parking is a government subsidy for those too lazy or selfish to take public transportation (just like the highways). Take the bus or ride a bike.
This is the plan: Growth. Density. Discourage people from driving downtown by themselves. Build more public transportation. Enable people to live near where they work. The fact that the plan doesn't enable people to drive by themselves along empty streets and park for free in the middle of the city doesn't mean there isn't a plan.
Shilli,
To clarify
1. Crime rates downtown will go up, there will be more muggings and such, just like in big cities. Even if it's directly related to the amount of new ppl moving there it will go up in number.
2. With more of a downtown area and more people, it's more people that could possibly give hand outs to the homeless, they will come from surrounding areas therrefore increasing the homeless population in the dowmtown area - again, look at big cities and tell me they have smaller homeless populations than Austin
3. The retail spaces being provided for are not affordable to what most ppl would consider local. Now, well off local businesses (that may have started here but expanded) may be able to move there, but they usually are not mom & pop shops like a lot of us like
4. Just for the record, it's taken me 45 minutes to get from 2nd and Congress to 1st and Barton Springs a few times. Do you actually work downtown and drive during rush hours?
5. I'm not saying free parking, I'm saying parking in general. The same parking lot ppl paid $5 to park in last fall behind Manuel's is up to $10 on the weekends. It will soon be more than that, personally I don't like riding my bike in slacks and a jacket when I'm going out to dinner. Also, do you really think everyone is on board to pay $18 / day to park their cars so they can go to work? Again, see big cities
Another note - the vast majority of people who work in downtown Austin do not live there and are not able to afford to do so. The people who do spend time down here are mostly younger people who work at places like Dell and other companies who are far from the downtown area and they can't afford to live there either.
The topic has been brought up before, the downtown redevelopment is going to be a playground for the rich and the well off who are able to afford homes within a few miles of downtown. I guess I'm glad I'm one of those people, but that doesn't mean I should just say piss off to everyone else who enjoys this city but soon won't be able to afford to spend time in its center.
You all support big cities and how great it is, but have you ever lived in one or more? Just visit NYC for a day and find me a place to live in the Times Square area when I'm making $100K or less a year. Oh yeah, find me a parking spot too please.
I work downtown. I live near downtown. I recognize that my opinion that there is not enough traffic and too much parking is not widely held (I think more traffic and less parking would increase support for and use of public transportation, which I believe would be an improvement in this city and would solve some of the problems you mention).
I think adding more residences downtown would make Austin a better place, including in terms of affordability, local business, crime, and life for the indigent. This books explains it quite well:
http://www.booksite.com/texis/scripts/oop/click_ord/showdetail.html?sid=3401&isbn=0865476063&music=&buyable=0&assoc_id=&spring=
I moved here from NYC, which is where I learned to love urbanity, after growing up in suburban Texas. On of the benefits of living in NYC is that you don't have to have a car (I didn't and knew few people that did) and don't need to worry about parking.
That book is great btw and kudos for having actually lived in NYC and having some real perspective here. However, most people would like to see results now (I'm guessing when you lived in NYC, it wasn't all 10 story buildings and all of the sudden there high rises all over and everyone adapted immediately). The city is not going to be able to keep up with the demands placed on it at the same rate that condo developments go up. Taxis, buses, in routes and out will not be available for at least a decade or more (and we won't be getting a subway). I will agree that in 20 years or so, this redevelopment may actaully begin to make sense in some sort of way, but just because you build a bunch of condos add retail space and take away parking doesn't mean you are going to change the habits of hundreds of thousands of people overnight and definately not as fast as these developments go up.
Take today and this weekend for instance. People are still going to go out downtown and they will come from all over. Do you think they'll ride their bikes to 4th street or do you think they'd go outside to wait for a bus to take them to a restaraunt downtown in this weather? They won't -and they won't get into this mind set unless it is shown as useful and efficient from the beginning and that is where the problem is. The closest bus stop to me is about a mile or so away and I live a 5 minute drive from downtown. What choice do you think I'm making if I need to be somewhere at 6 tonight? Better yet, do you think I or anyone else who drives now would have walked to the bus stop this morning in 25 degree weather with sleet or would they have rather been able to drive to work and park downtown?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think people need to step back and look at who's pockets are being lined, the problems that will come out of this and how to effectively get the citizens of this city on board with the big picture.
As for me, I grew up in suburban South Florida and got my love of urban living while living in an urban college town (State College, PA; which has unfortunately sprawled all to hell since then).
Shilli, Grape Ape is what is known around these parts as a no-growther. Despite the fact that the powers our county government has are nearly zero, and the city not much more; their ilk generally think we should have somehow stopped people from moving here (thus the "would you rather have crappy sprawl or dense urban development" question never gets answered by them).
M1EK, If you would actaully read before spewing, all I was saying is that density needs to be done right. If you think that the infrastructure of this city is set up to support the growth that is going to take place in the downtown area by the end of this decade then you are surely mistaken.
Its like I said, people are not all of the sudden going to stop driving just because there is a functional downtown area. I guess people from Round Rock are going to jump the F train to come into the city? Cedar Park residents aren't going to drive to downtown - do you really think they'll bus it? And how do you propose all of those people who work downtown (the vast majority) who don't live there get back and forth to where they do live. Lakeway, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Dripping Springs etc...?
Personally I'd love it if I didn't have to have a car and could be assured of adequate and timely public transportation, especially for getting to and from the downtown area.
I'm all for growth, just growth done right.
Grape,
Shilli's already TOLD you how development downtown reduces traffic EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION:
(1) SOME downtown workers live downtown
(2) OTHER downtown residents reverse-commute to the burbs.
(I lived in Clarksville, not downtown but fairly close, and was a member of #2).
There has never in the history of the US ever been a city that managed to build infrastructure in anticipation of growth; not for urban density or for suburban sprawl. It just doesn't happen. Forcing downtown density to be subject to this rule while ignoring all the sprawl that's happening before highways get built is just code for "I want more suburban sprawl but am savvy enough not to just say so".
Be nice if some of those downtown condos were actually affordable for the average joe.
The condos will start getting affordable when the close-in neighborhoods start allowing them to be built. If we only let condos get built on the most expensive land in the city, what the heck do you think's going to happen?
Please indulge us as to what close-in neighborhoods should allow development of high rise condos that would make living in downtown affordable for the average person.
Your neighborhood Grape! Let's tear down your house and turn it into a high rise condo. First and Bouldin, right? That would be awesome. We could call them the "Grape Ape Bridges Lofts at Bouldin." I can smell the money rolling in already. Oh, wait, we have to make them affordable? That blows. Forget that crap. Market price, bitches! Except that by the time we get these things built there will probably be ten-thousand other new condos on the market, which will probably mean that we can't get that much money for them. But then, if there are all these condos on the market that aren't selling for all that much, then lots of people will be able to afford them. Problme solved! Good news for you Grape, we don't need to turn your house into condos after all.
I smell sarcasm in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can understand the jibberish in which it was presented. I asked a legitimate question. Which neighborhoods should be up for development in your mind?
From what I understand Mayor Will Wynn is a developer who owns properties in downtown. Am I the only one that thinks this smacks more than a little of conflict of interest that he sits on the city council that decides the cities development policy or do we just play what's good for Will Wynn is good for the city?
Grape Ape,
In my ideal world, any neighborhood would be required to allow for small-scale multifamily infill. (Not on the main roads on the boundaries; here, I mean on the INTERIOR). Kind of like what used to happen naturally in cities before we wrote all these stupid suburban zoning laws.
IE, if you can build a little block of condos or flats which matches the height of the surrounding buildings plus N% (N being a small but non-neglibile number, like 20), go for it. Allows for gradual infill which doesn't dominate the single-family houses that remain.
Brewester McCracken for President!