WalMart Will Wait

Two WHOLE months?! jeepers. They really are pillars of the community and willing to work with us then. Wow. I take it all back. Wal Mart is teh bomb and not teh suck.

I never understood the concerns that the "Smart-Growth for Northcross" folks preached. As I see it:

1) It's not like Wal-Mart is building a store on undeveloped land.
2) The city is over-taxing property owners, and passing propositions which sales taxes could help pay for (i.e. A Huge New Wal-Mart).
3) I bet those North-Crossers don't mind going to Wal-Mart down south, where we have 6 of them, so why not reduce overall Austin traffic and put a Wal-Mart near y'all?

The fact of the matter is that neighborhoods should not have the final word if a business is moving in. That is the system we live under, and it seems to benefit most everybody. To be honest, I hate Wal-Mart. I been there a total of 4 times in my entire life (21 years). Let the people of Austin decide if Wal-Mart is right for them by either shopping there or not. If Wal-Mart is truly an undefeatable vice, well that just tells you the nature of humans these days. If people truly hate Wal-Mart, then they'll stop building them.

yeah! all you f'ing californians or something. I mean. I don't shop at walmart but I have a friend that does. yeah. A friend see. and that friend likes to hang with another chick and a dude and shop at walmart cuz that's what gets her motor running. and if that other friend would have just karate chopped that sign with his leg like I said then walmart would have never moved in. the end.

ps. f the cali bastards.

pps. walmart can suck it.

ppps. I love walmart.

pppps. walmart blows.

ppppps. thanks for the partay.

Comments like Tarvin's remind me to stay humble, because even a beautiful democratic city like Austin can be full of stuck up pieces of shit.

M1EK, isn't Crestview full of old people? Like retirees and shit? They can't have much longer to go.

Just be patient, is all I'm saying.

Benji,

So if the owner of this plot was a rancher (not a corporation) wanting to sell it to a one-guy company (not a corporation) who wanted to build a 600,000 square foot one-level standard suburban sprawl strip, it'd be OK, because there wouldn't be big corporations involved?

Of course not. The interest of the city is in the eocnomic activity (benefits) and the corresponding costs. In this case, a shopping center which covers an entire lot with asphalt isn't generating squat for the city (of course, neither is the surrounding low-density single-family 1950s sprawl, all things considered). How long should the rest of the city cover the payments so that the neighbors nearby get to enjoy the empty shell of a former mall?

If the people in Crestview didn't want Wal-Mart there, they should have done something years ago when the mall was put in place. They didn't seem to have a problem with an ugly, crappy shopping building then and letting it get zoned for exactly what Wal-Mart is. Having selective veto power is not the answer. I'm guessing if it were a Neiman Marcus or Saks they would have had no issue with it. My guess is that they don't really like the clients that frequent Wal-Mart and the fact that it will be open 24 hours more than they just don't want the store there. Like M1EK mentioned, they screwed everyone out of great commuter options. Karma can be a bitch.

Crestview and Allandale do not care about for black people.

Northcross is a bad location for this 200,000 square foot Walmart for the same reason it was a bad location for a mall: It's in the middle of a neighborhood and not on a highway, for all of the traffic it generates to hop on and off. Notice that nobody is complaining about the 1.7 million square foot Dominion development just a few miles north - because it's in the right place, fronting Mopac and Braker and in a largely commercial/warehouse region.

The City Council had their chance to rezone Northcross over the last x number of years. Sadly, they didn't, and now everyone in the area has very limited options on how northcross redevelopment will occur.

M1EK, Walmart was the one that decided to wait 60 days based on the community outcry, NOT the city.

Now, not only am I looking for an explanation on the traffic issue I brought up (which you decided to ignore with more irrelevant filler about your bitter experiences from the past), but I am also looking for one on how exactly Walmart is going to sue the city for a 60 day moratorium that Walmart themselves put in place. I think your getting a bit ahead of yourself with that theory.

I think this is a worthless attempt for those folks that live by Northcross to act "south austin" and reject Wal-Mart. It's pretty lame how opposing Wal-Mart has become trendy.

Go back to your shanties North Austinites.

Two things:

1. If you don't have anything contructive to say about Wal-Mart coming to Northcross, don't say anything at all. It's wonderful to see how everyone feels, stating the pros and cons, but it's also appalling when I see comments like Stew's.

2. I would like to see where you are getting your facts about traffic in the area, M1EK.

It wasn't clear to me that the city council planned to stop this particular development. My understanding was that they planned to discuss it and possibly impose stricter procedures on similar (100,000+ sqft) future developments. That seems like a good idea to me if we, as a city, want to make it less likely that such developments get built.

Regarding this development, I was never particularly opposed to a Wal-Mart being built at this location. It just bothered me that Wal-Mart was misrepresenting this store as "urban," while the plans clearly indicated that this would be a suburban (car-centric) development.

I would love to see Wal-Mart build something truly urban here. Put the building right up against the street with a wide sidewalk and pedestrian entrances. Add a floor of office space and a few floors of Wal-Mart branded condos on top.

Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of the suburban lifestyle. If they could successful transition into something truly urban, it would be a wonderful sight to see.

Shawn,

This goes back to the move towards form-based zoning, in my view. Like you, I'd love to see a multi-story, arterial-fronted, building (and would then prefer a local store, then a Target, and only LAST a Wal-Mart); but tenants come and go; the important thing is the building.

However, even the half-assed building they're currently proposing is better than most big boxes, including many in more central parts of town, has good transit accessibility (thanks to the transfer center being on Northcross Blvd), and is approximately one trillion times better than the existing mall. Plus, it generates some actual revenue to pay the city back for all the previous, expensive, pandering they've done to these neighborhoods.

But the neighborhood probably knows (correctly) that Wal-Mart's the only one that wants in - so if they can stop this particular tenant, the building won't get built. Thing is, no matter what you or I want, the mixed-use high-density pedestrian-oriented retail isn't going to get built here; there aren't nearly enough people within walking distance, and there are enough superior options nearby for the automobile drivers to make this kind of thing obviously unprofitable.

Shilli,
The site plan is approved. It was reviewed by City staff and met all zoning and technical requirements. Unless something was overlooked, the site plan can't be contested.

Josh,
My point was badly made. Hell, it wasn't even made.
But my point is...Austin's decreasing quality of life,
whether it be traffic congestion, air pollution, loss of open and green space, skyrocketing taxes and cost of living due to real estate appreciation, etc. is all due to growth. Population growth.
More people, primarily due to inmigration.
If we don't want the stretch from Georgetown to San Antonio completely developed, we have to get a handle on population growth.
I hope I'm wrong, but I believe no amount of urban planning or design can counter the growth that is projected. It might lessen the impacts somewhat, but the impacts will still be felt.

Of course, there is also the issue at a global scale of population growth also in terms of resource depletion and degradation of the global environment.

Have a nice day y'all. Smile at someone you don't know today.

M1EK, Walmarts in other states aren't on freeways because freeways in other states don't have frontage roads, just exits. I can't think of another walmart supercenter in Texas that isn't on a frontage road.

Whether or not you like frontage roads, they're here and will continue to be here. Bus lines can and do run on them, and also on the cross streets that intersect those highways.

Again, I urge you to think about the Dominion, currently being built at Braker and Mopac (1.7 million square feet of retail, much larger than the proposed Walmart), the transit options, and traffic impacts of that location.

btw, I've lived in 78704 and north central austin; the only difference in the two is that I can afford a house in Northloop.

josh and others,

Northloop is car-dependent suburban sprawl; it's just from the 1950s instead of the 1970s, or 1990s, or [...]. The only real urban neighborhoods in this town developed before WWII.

As for frontage roads - they're a BUG, not a feature, and the bus lines that DO run on them are just awful. Consider how far you have to walk to cross the highway from the bus stop on one side to your destination on the other side. Now compare/contrast to buses running on Burnet Road.

(Unlike most people who shoot their mouth off here, I've ridden both - I've ridden the local 183 route, as well as the express routes hundreds of times; as well as the #3 a hundred times or so - there is a dramatic difference in how usable they are because of the fact that one must travel on frontage roads and the other one is on city streets).

Josh,

Click on my name at the end of this posting for my awful art project showing the problem with transit service on frontage roads. You have no idea what you're talking about, son.

And Northloop is car-dependent suburban development, yes. When most streets don't have sidewalks and most houses present a garage face to the street rather than a nice big porch, you've got yourself suburban design, whether it was done in 1955 or 1985. 78704 isn't where I was going with "urban", BTW; try Old West Austin, Clarksville, Hyde Park, etc.

A porch is what makes a place urban? Paging San Francisco, New York, and Boston! You're no longer cities! You lack a porch! Clarksville, Hyde Park, etc are exceptionally low density neighborhoods of nothing but single family houses, with or without porches and garages, none of which cost less than $400,000. Meanwhile, most of the houses in Northloop, like mine, have a front porch but no garage, cost at or less than 200k, and with sidewalks running down Guadalupe, Ave. F, and Duval. Ever been to the area? I guess YOU have no idea what you're talking about, "son."

Oh, and "urban" requires sidewalks on MOST OR ALL streets, not just the big ones, son. Take a look at the neighborhoods I mentioned - most of the interior streets have sidewalks, not just Lamar or Enfield (or Speedway or Duval).

M1EK, what's unfortunate about your posts is your obvious dislike (hatred?) of the residents of the Northcross neighborhoods (or anything north of Hyde Park for that matter) over something that happend 6 years ago. Calling Cresview residents "fuckers"? You hope Walmart sues the city even though you (as an Austin resident) would have to help flip the bill!?

Your vengeful attitude (saying we deserve this structure because you endured such injustice in 2000) in your posts shadows the fact that you are correct on some of your points. How do you expect anyone to get behind you when you comment like a 15 year old would, "son"? (How incredibly condescending)

I think feeder roads are a terrible idea, I'm with you all the way on that. We didn't have them where I grew up (a much larger city than Austin) and somehow we got by. Again, I do NOT think a Walmart at Northcross is a bad idea.

I know this will be difficult for you to do (probably impossible), but completely ignoring your history with the neighborhoods around Northcross Mall, do you honestly believe this is a good location for a Walmart Supercenter of this size? Do you not think that perhaps a smaller, more thought out Walmart would be a better choice?

josh,

As for urbanism: I posted a series of links which shaped my, and essentially most modern planners' definitions of the term, but apparently if you even post a couple links these days, you get sent to moderation limbo. Try googling on "new urbanism" and the Stapleton project in Denver.

Edward - if you put a link in your post like this (just copy and paste):

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/?oid=oid%3A429467

it should post okay (the site makes it live). I think it's just the html that's blocked for spam reasons.

I went to the meetings about the new transit center. I would estimate that 85% of the neighborhood favored that development which has pretty dense residential and commercial. Most Also most people live in a home for only 4-5 years on average. So most of the people that opposed the 2000 plan dont even live in Crestview anymore. So hating the current residents because of what previous residents did is kind of wierd. Personally I voted for the 2000 plan but didnt live in Crestview at the time. The same goes for most of my friends in the neighborhood against the current Walmart.

The 15% against the transit center are older and the people who are pro Walmart. These are also the residents who have lived in crestview for a long time and were against the original 2000 plan. So basically the people who helped kill the 2000 plan are thrilled with Walmart.

Also this will be a superwalmart its going to have to draw from the entire city to be profitable. So basically I would rather have multiple small stores throughout the city than one giant store on anderson. If we are worried about car use and accessibility one giant store instead of multiple smaller stores doesnt make alot of sense.

Stew:
More development doenst mean lower taxes. Look at Houston. They are much larger but dont have lower taxes. I dont know why people always think city with more development and larger populations will have lower taxes. Austin doubling in size wont decrease taxes. We will double the current number of city related costs. Also moving shoppers from one store to a new store doenst increase tax revenues that much. Lastly, a development like Walmart where there are alot of police calls around walmarts can end up increasing city related expenditures for police.

kenneth,

it's NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. That's a talking point of rg4n, for sure, but it's just NOT TRUE. And stores on freeway off-ramps are STUPID. I'd like the workers at Wal-Mart to be able to ride the bus to work, wouldn't you?

crestview:

One giant store vs. many smaller ones IS more accessible to those without cars. Multiple small stores means many parking lots instead of one parking garage, for one thing.

M1EK, it certainly is amazing how my definitions (and others, apparently) differ so greatly from yours..

marty,

If you mean the definition of "in the middle of a residential neighborhood", then bullshit. The definition (self-serving) being used by rg4n would exclude anywhere but possibly the Arboretum.

There are NO single-family lots even across the street from the actual plot being used for Wal-Mart; it's separated from single-family use by some other retail and some old hotel use to the south; a very wide swath of retail to the north, and an even wider swath of retail to the west and east.

If that's "in the middle of a neighborhood" then so is Whole Foods at 6th/Lamar; so is the Barton Creek Square Mall; so is Lakeline Mall; so is Highland Mall; so is Capital Plaza; so are the mega-strips along North I-35 [...]

I have absolutely no idea how it would be impossible for "a worker on a bus" to the walmart at, say, rundberg and I-35, but could get to one at Burnet and Anderson.

Also, I don't understand the claim that just one neighborhood killed rail in 2000 (proof?). Whether or not that happened, the new rail plan, approved by voters, does go through Crestview. So because one area allegedly was against a failed rail plan 7 years ago, a neighborhood doesn't have the right to voice its concerns about the arrival of a 200,000 square foot, 24 hour a day megaretailer?

Thank god this is America, not the United States of Some Internet Urban Planning "Expert."

"I'm trying to call the bad people on their misrepresentations and lies so that the much larger audience of people who are reading don't get misinformed."

I think I'm probably not the only one who feels less inclined to put much stock in anything you say because of your style of communication. And "misinformed" is a pretty relative statement, btw.

Im sure the same people opposed to Wal-Mart in Nortchross are the same ones who bitch and moan about a sluggish economy. In our neighborhood, we call those people hypocrites.

josh and Ron,

I'm just dang positive that it wouldn't matter if I posted the same exact arguments in flowery victorian prose; I've dealt with your kind before. And seeing as how I don't particularly like wasting my time pussy-footing around when I think somebody's either being disingenuous, you're stuck with me the way I am.

Thanks for your input. Really.

marty,

Maybe so. But if all I accomplish is drowning out the misrepresentations and disingenuousness of guys on your side, I'm gonna call that a minor victory for the forces of actual facts and knowledge.

Your pal,
M1EK

"I've dealt with your kind before."

You mean, the kind that asks you questions that you don't answer, disagrees with your blanket generalizations and attacks on people with legitimate concerns, and points out that you argue on the internet with the smugness of an arrogant prick?

We must be difficult for you.

"your kind":

People who, when they start getting their arguments shredded by actual facts, fall back on the "but you're being mean to me!" defense. And then follow up by calling their opponent an arrogant prick.

Ref: josh's attacking me for having the temerity to use the actual, accepted, definitions for urban versus suburban building design (backed up by a little group called the Congress for the New Urbanism, as well as every professional planner in the friggin' world). Like his claims about transit service on frontage roads (which I even spent a bunch of time drawing some ugly pictures in MS-Paint for).

Ref: urban vs. suburban: Here's a blog post from the author of one of the best books on urbanism (old or new); which has the added bonus of containing links to both the chapter of a book on the "three rules for urbanism" subject (mostly oriented towards retail, but applicable nonetheless) as well as the infamous animated GIF showing them distilled into their simplest form.

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2004/09/the_three_rules.html

This combines 2 of the 4 links from the post I made earlier today which never showed up.

You know, half the fun is posting, just knowing M1EK can't accept not getting the last word in, and always taking one final opportunity to prove his superiority over the rest of Austin.

What about the workers that were building the Walmart who have now been put out of work at Christmas time?

There are lots of cities that are technically bigger than Austin, but it doesn't mean most of them are "urban".

Anna,

I'm not optimistic that the most exurban neighborhoods can be fixed. The non-grid-pattern ones are, I think, eventually doomed (oil gets more expensive -> driving is too expensive, but you still can't serve them with transit).

The older grid-pattern neighborhoods (like "northloop") can be salvaged with small-scale infill (like we used to do in this country before we slapped a suburban-development-only zoning code on most cities around WWII). For all the grief I've given McCracken for pandering on this stuff, his commercial design standards/VMU proposals are a good start for the arterials - but somebody needs to have the guts to stand up and tell neighborhoods that they are going to have more density INSIDE their boundaries down the road than they do now. That hasn't happened yet - every attempt to do so has failed due to panderorama. And without more people in the lower-density (but salvageable grid pattern) neighborhoods, that nicer VMU development isn't going to be economically viable.

You keep saying that Crestview killed the rail project. But most of those people have moved or been moved into nursing homes or died. Alot of the current residents of Crestview were in college in 2000. The remaining residents are all for the Walmart. They are happy because they killed the 2000 rail plan and are getting a Walmart. They could not be happier. I think they dont like the Crestview station though.

Second I was not talking about how Crestview supports the current rail project. I was saying that Crestview supports the increased density at the new development around the Crestview station. You keep saying Crestview is against density but that plan was pretty dense and had pretty strong support from the neighborhood from most everyone except for the old people.

For people like WannabeLikeMike who quotes

"Yes, many "Walmart is the Evil Satan Keep Austin in the Dark Ages and Weird" people signed the petition like they sign every other petition for every other liberal cause. So what"

Why are you even in Austin if you hate it so much. Austin is liberal. Austin is wierd. It has been liberal for a long time. Did you somehow miss that when you moved here? If you dont like that move to Houston or Dallas.

I didnt move to Houston because I have no interest in listening to a bunch of people that will talk about how great Bush and Limbaugh are for the country.

Yes, I was technically incorrect when I said this proposed Wal-MegaMart is "in a residential neighborhood." It is, however, near one (about 2 blocks away).

People are going to use two-lane residential streets like Shoal Creek for short cuts, esp. when traffic's bad on MoPac. If you don't believe me, take a walk down Exposition on any weekday about 5:30.

That's just not fair to people who have been living in those homes for years, to have a steady stream of cars on their street 24 hours a day, 365 days a year just so the rest of us will have a place to buy cheap DVDs. If that makes me a "tree-huggin', Wal-Mart hatin', Democrat votin' Keep Austin weirdo" then so be it.

jent,

Now that I've got a family, I have better uses for my time than waiting hours and hours to speak in front of our council. I spent 5 years on the Urban Transportation Commission working with traffic engineers, just like the ones you mentioned (maybe even the same ones) and have every confidence the roads can handle the traffic - at least as well as the typical central Austin major arterial handles it.

The "major artery" argument is for people who are interested in the issue enough to analyze the arguments - and I know very well that the City Council is _not_ among those folks. They're making the purely political decision about how likely it is they're going to get sued versus how likely it is they'll lose the next election if they pander insufficiently.

What's the difference between a $9.99 piece of plastic crap from China sold at Wal-Mart and the same exact piece of plastic crap sold at a local store for $14.99?

I say enough with your nationalist/protectionist ideals. Thinking global means shopping global, you can't have it both ways.

Stew
"What's the difference between a $9.99 piece of plastic crap from China sold at Wal-Mart and the same exact piece of plastic crap sold at a local store for $14.99?"

Walmart will get companies to go to seperate manufactures to produce crappy products just for sale at Walmart. They slap the same label on but its a low grade product made with a different manufacturer. So the product is often a little cheaper but its also crappier.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapper.html

"The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower-cost contract manufacturer. He suggested producing a separate, lesser-quality line with the Snapper nameplate just for Wal-Mart. Just like Levi did. "

Marty- so I s'pose you do know how everyone in your neighborhood thinks!
People who don't shop or work at Wal-mart may not know enough about it to say.
According to some the traffic study was a lie.
Just the exhaust fumes from the increased truck and auto traffic will pose a problem we don't
need. And whose landfill are they gonna use?
The situation has a different impact on people who own homes and pay taxes in the area than on those that don't. Some people own homes now so that in their future they might be able to sell and support themselves when they're too old to work and don't want to impose on their kids. Some people are concerned that soon enough the only places left to work will be places like Wal-mart. Great. We'll all have to work at places like that and move back in with our parents in their 1950's single family sprawling residences. For what it's worth, those residences have monetary value. And trees-which are becoming more and more necessary.
Who do you think will benefit from Wal-Mart being at Northcross "Mall"? Wal-Mart and only Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart won't go out of business just because one store doesn't cut it. The other stores are prepared to float a store as long as necessary. That's why Austin doesn't need another one. Or another Target-do you think they're that much different??

I could comment intelligently on the social and economic impacts that a Wal Mart would have, both pro and con. But you all have that covered. So I will stick to the very superficial and make the obvious comment that Wal Mart is simply ugly, inside and out, and devoid of any aesthetic character that could add to the attractiveness of the area. I live downtown, so I would hope that I am exempt from the South Austin ire- I don't want to sit at your lunch table anyway. I but you South Austinites would have a fit if anyone messed with your "keepin it wierd" aesthetic. I remember well the days of ugly south Austin- The Burnet Northcross area has been re-modeling and re-vitalizing-- just because it is ugly now, does not mean the residents should not try to make it a nicer destination, different from every other strip mall around. Just like you all did. And you know what? I don't think many people would deny that Neimans and Saks would be preferable- they are way nicer places to shop and have in the vicinity for lots of reasons. There's nothing wrong with having taste.

Jake, good sir,

I live in South Austin, yet I have a dog in the Northcross fight and my opinion does count, contrary to your "opinion". As a property owner/taxpayer I own the curb in front of your house as much as you do. The street that your house is on belongs to you and I equally. Sorry if this is scary to you. It benefits me if a company (Wal-Mart) is able to buy property (Northcross) that is for sale as much as it benefits you. It's called the sale and acquisition of private property.

I want to live in a town where hopefully more than a mom and pop Big Box store could occupy the dying empty hole that is Northcross Mall. And you know what? I am actually right because as our society has been functioning for 325 + years, businesses are allowed to buy property just as people are allowed to do so.

And Jake, here is the sad part. If Austin City Council wanted to use eminent domain to buy out some of the Northcross neighborhood houses to build a Wal-Mart, I would have been totally on your side. But the fact that Wal-Mart is occupying a concrete eyesore that's for sale, I mind you, we must expect the space to be sold to them. Otherwise you wouldn't be assured that the next house you're interested in is actually for sale to "you".

And finally, if you want to talk about the ills of traffic that will plague the currently traffic-free North Austin, get back to me when y'all stop shopping at Barton Creek Mall, Whole Foods, and So-Co or once y'all quit going to First Thursday, ACL Fest, Trail of Lights & Barton Springs.

Jake: Your impotent rage is really quite funny. You can't stop Wal-Mart. It will be built.

Wes,

I challenge you to a good old fist fight. Let me show you how potent my fists are. Name the time and place. Bring your lunch.

It's cool to see so much discussion here, although it worries me to read some of the more antagonistic posts. I hope this whole issue is resolved in a way that benefits the Northcross-area neighborhoods (who after all are the most directly affected) and also the rest of us Austin residents (who of course are somewhat affected by taxes and infrastructure), including myself (I live in northwest Austin about 4 miles from the site). My interest stems in part from the fact that family members live very close to the site.

I understand the frustration of folks like M1EK who see problems in the area neighborhoods as they exist now. He's right that we need better transit through north central Austin, and of course we eventually need higher-density development there as well. However, I am concerned about attacks on the area residents. Good solutions only result from compromise and diplomacy, not from condescension and an unwillingness to listen. So I would urge caution, empathy, and moderation.

And that community has already spoken -- they overwhelmingly don't want a Wal-Mart Supercenter. When I went to the Crestview meeting, for example, not a single Wal-Mart supporter showed up (only one undecided). However, there are still legal questions about the feasibility of blocking the development. If the Supercenter gets built, I hope we all help to make sure that it does not destroy the greater community (beyond just the immediate neighbords). All Austinites benefit from independent, local businesses such as Encore, Rooster Andrews, Thundercloud, Texspresso, Alamo Drafthouse, Waterloo Ice House, Conan's, James Avery (regional), etc., because money stays in the area, decent jobs are created, and venture business acumen is fostered. Let's help keep those sorts of businesses alive regardless of what happens at Northcross.

I must mention to M1EK, however, that there is a major flaw in your supposed urbanist stance. In your City Comforts citation, you showed a great ideal for urban design -- put the parking in back. Yay, we agree on that. Unfortunately Wal-Mart is doing the exact opposite. Have you seen their plans? I have. I saw a picture from their engineering firm, Doucet, which was made public at the Crestview meeting. It puts the huge parking lot (and an additional parking structure) right next to the street. The Wal-Mart store will be at the back, away from Anderson Lane (and Burnet). Strictly *suburban*, and that's the problem.

-- Will

I was premature in the "sole merit" comment. There's also the fact that nobody else wants in to Northcross, and thus, we get some tax revenue to make up for the absurd amount of public money spent on these neighborhoods over the last few years (a million or so for the destruction of Shoal Creek for cyclists; then add on the couple hundred thousand bucks spent recently for sidewalks).

Will,

I don't want the neighborhoods to again get their way at the expense of the rest of the city. The items I mentioned above really have killed rail transit for a generation, and really have destroyed the primary artery for bicycle commuters - the second at a cost of over a million dollars (not paid for by these folks; paid for by all of us).

Now, either they sue the city (and we all pay the legal bill) or they win without suing (and we all pay due to the loss of tax revenue from Northcross).

And these people don't want urbanism. Again, it's a lie: they do not, in fact, want dense urban development. All you need to do is listen in to a neighborhood listserv for a while and realize that 90% of their objections to Wal-Mart would still be true for an urban Target (who DOES know how to address the street in a good urbanist style), and their metrics for opposing Wal-Mart would be offended even WORSE by a "Triangle-style" development that some CLAIM they want. (IE: many are basing their opposition to this project based purely on square-feet of retail; a Triangle-style development covering the footprint of Northcross would be even _more_ retail, thus they'd be even less likely to support that when push came to shove).

"Allandale Resident":

I know many are using the supposedly incorrect TIA as justification for calling the site plan approval 'illegal'. I have seen nobody I trust be willing to go on the record as stating that the TIA actually was incorrect; just a lot of claims that since it doesn't match observed traffic from existing Wal-Marts, that it MUST have been done incorrectly.

I had a chance to talk to a person I know that lives in the area. They claim to be part of the organized effort and told me that there is a shared view among some that not only do the main issues bother them, but that they don't really want "those" people in their neighborhood. You can deny it all you want, but the truth is that the building will be smaller than the mall retail space, the roads in the area are set up to support that traffic that will come, just as it did when Northcross was a functioning mall. They said that they are not the only one who feels that the "riff raff" as they called it, are not welcome in their neighborhood. It appears that there are some racial issues that need to be worked out up north.

As it was said before, I'm sure there would be no issue if this were a Saks or a Neiman Marcus going in that space.

Edward,

There's no other north-south corridor on which one could create a bikeway like the LAB. Shoal Creek Boulevard (plus the H&B trail farther south) _IS_ that one place. And the neighborhood interests destroyed its utility and safety by prioritizing both-sides on-street parking over safe bicycle travel.

Allandale Resident,

I recently looked at a Google map for the Northcross area and considered the driveway situation. There appear to be six driveways, of which two appear to be exclusively for mall traffic. The other four could ostensibly be shared with the Schlotzky's, the Rug Store, and the Northcross Center strip mall behind the mall.

Do you know specifically where the traffic counters were placed? Do you have proof of this?

I have a hard time believing any of this will result in a significant change to the TIA. The RG4N people and recent ANA article on the traffic stiuation have all the appearance of digging through City code, the Northcross redevelopment TIA, and the actions of City staff with micrometers and magnifying glasses looking for the smallest infractions in the TIA process. It does not appear to be a coldly neutral review of the procedures followed by the involved parties, but rather an agenda driven witch hunt. Do you disagree with this?

Also, what are your views on the fact that the ANA, and the Crestview NA, and other various entities were notified of the Northcross development site plan application a YEAR ago, and NONE of them so much as lifted a finger to find out what was going on. Until it was revealed that a "Wal-Mart" was going in, that is.

The RG4N folks have not said, "After looking into the TIA for Northcross, we think the TIA estimates are a bit low, and we would like to see the development include some traffic upgrades," after all. Instead it has been an end-of-the-world scenario with threats of lawsuits and laying in front of bulldozers, and as my own Crestview NA newsletter proclaimed, "An unmitigated traffic disaster."

All objectivity has been tossed out the window by the RG4N folks. All of it.

I don't represent RG4N so I am not responsible for what they have or have not said. I don't represent the leadership of ANA so I don't know what happened to the notice, if it was received. The leadership has, however, stated that they don't remember getting the notice (I know, I know). The City has confirmed that they don't know for sure who did receive the notice(I know, I know). The neighbors themselves, however, would have had no way of knowing anything unless they were notified by someone.

Regarding the first two questions, I used to know (6 weeks ago) all the details, but no longer feel 100% certain to post that information here. I'm sure I'll get slammed for that, but I don't believe in posting something as fact when I'm not absolutely certain about the veracity of it. I will, however, search some archives and see if I can't answer your question. Regardless, though, you can't say that the Schlotsky's or the Northcross Center don't receive a significant amount of traffic. They do. I witness it every day.

Re. "I agree that the Schlotzsky's probably receives a good portion (perhaps even a majority) of its traffic through one of the Northcross driveways."

Actually, I don't think you can drive into the Schlotsky's parking lot from Northcross - it's separate. Obviously it's traffic still affects Anderson Lane, though.

Pel is correct about Schlotzsky's access. I just came from the area and drove through the NC parking lot. There is also Conn's, which is rarely crowded and the restaurants, which are on the burnet side. Those restaurants have their own driveways, but it would be logical that people on Anderson or Northcross Drive would cut through the NC parking lot to avoid sitting at a light just to enter the fast food places on Burnet. The NC Center was actually bustling in the last half hour. In particular, the inside half of the center near the Norris Conference Center. I'm not sure if all of the shops are busy or not, but on that side are a chiropractor, beauty salon, nail salon and two clothing stores.

The truth is that nobody knows what would happen unless the models were run with more accurate numbers. The model is complicated and there are a number of significant problems in the TIA. I know you think that the opposition group is throwing in the kitchen sink, but it's all real issues that traffic consultants and engineers, including the City's, believe to be worth re-considering.

And you're right about the amount of scrutiny being unprecedented. I don't believe that that's a bad thing because I have a huge stake in it.

Allandale Resident,

It is clear there are some potential discrepancies. However, you have now moved from the realm of fact into one of opinion when determining their level of significance.

For instance, you may believe that people on eastbound Anderson would cut through Northcross to get to the restaraunts on Burnet, but I do not necessarily believe they do. It's a right turn onto Burnet from Anderson (little waiting at light), and then right into the necessary driveways versus dealing with the speed bumps and dodging pedestrians in the Northcross mall area.

Perhaps a lot of people access Schlotzsky's from a Northcross driveway, but it can't be said with certainty that all of them get there that way.

And there the's the fact that we don't know exactly where the traffic counters were placed. And there's the other fact that there is a specific set of variables established to account for at least some of these things (pass through & internal capture).

The number arrived at was some ~8,000 daily trips. Even if we give the skeptics the benefit of the doubt and reduce the number to 5,000 daily trips (probably VERY generous), I still fail to see how this is provocation to bring the development process to a screaming halt.

It is insulting to call Lincoln liars, to criticize a licensed engineer's TIA as wrong, and to insinuate the City staff as being incompetent by saying, "No, you guys are just wrong."

You could probably have a dozen traffic engineers assess traffic at that mall and wind up with a dozen different variations on the TIA.

This is the comment section that keeps on giving.

Spiteful, arrogant diatribes against a neighborhood, as if it was a person.

Soul-crushingly dull arguments about how cars enter Schlotzky's.

And the sincere desire to inflict physical violence upon another poster in a parking lot somewhere.

Austinist, I love you.

I have to agree with 'God' - These posts are so ridiculous they are entertaining.

Why don't you just come to the next RG4N community meeting and get your questions answered there?

i think i just threw up in my mouth a little bit