City Council Will Not Stop Wal-Mart

These people only pull out the "neighbor" banner when it is time to crush something. My "neighbors" (who love crushing stuff) are really pretty pathetic. They won't lift a finger to help an old neighbor or return the odd escaped dog(call goes right out to the pound).

Lot's of faulty but effective arguments have sprung up, but the "no wal-mart" signs give away the real heart of the matter. It really isn’t even worth arguing and probably why wal-mart no longer sends reps to meetings. (If the neighborhood can shift gears a little, I know WM would be happy to make some revisions which they don't have to do)

Brewster doesn't realize that making everyone work their way to I-35 actually creates more vehicle miles than centrally located retail options. Not to mention Austin has poor east-west corridors…… Pull out a map and put your finger right in the center….. That’s Northcross. It is a great place from which to serve Austin and it happens to be one of the bigger intersections in Austin.

The plans the developer has look pretty good. When I saw that the green space would increase and they are retaining the ice rink, that confirmed for me that they’re trying to do something really nice with attention to social activity.

I love how the “Triangle” is now the model of a good development. I remember everyone absolutely hated the Triangle in this stage of development. That's exactly how it was, and now all the positive references. Why would we listen to the "haters" this time?

PS.

Brewster, thanks for solving flooding and high home prices in Austin. You are the best! All of this without ever thinking of yourself! Keep it up! I know your big box ordinance will make my life easier! I like driving to multiple places for my stuff and that's good for traffic and the environment. I am eagerly awaiting what huge sweeping code revision you will come up with next! You are awesome....

Urban Transportation Commmission 2001-until explicitly removed by Daryl Slusher in 2005.

Wall*Mart? are you speaking to me?…My friends…Trying to hurt you again?…Yes Wall*Mart, I understand…

Brewster is a bigot who hates my kind of demographic. Why should I believe him?

Apples and Oranges indeed.

The Huntsman project was on an old industrial site (requiring environmental remediation)that is up against the dog butt side of the neighborhood speaking socio-economically. It is probably a welcome buffer from the great unwashed.

These people only pull out the "neighbor" banner when it is time to crush something. My "neighbors" (who love crushing stuff) are really pretty pathetic. They won't lift a finger to help an old neighbor or return the odd escaped dog(call goes right out to the pound).

Lot's of faulty but effective arguments have sprung up, but the "no wal-mart" signs give away the real heart of the matter. It really isn’t even worth arguing and probably why wal-mart no longer sends reps to meetings. (If the neighborhood can shift gears a little, I know WM would be happy to make some revisions which they don't have to do)

Brewster doesn't realize that making everyone work their way to I-35 actually creates more vehicle miles than centrally located retail options. Not to mention Austin has poor east-west corridors…… Pull out a map and put your finger right in the center….. That’s Northcross. It is a great place from which to serve Austin and it happens to be one of the bigger intersections in Austin.

The plans the developer has look pretty good. When I saw that the green space would increase and they are retaining the ice rink, that confirmed for me that they’re trying to do something really nice with attention to social activity.

I love how the “Triangle” is now the model of a good development. I remember everyone absolutely hated the Triangle in this stage of development. That's exactly how it was, and now all the positive references. Why would we listen to the "haters" this time?

PS.

Brewster, thanks for solving flooding and high home prices in Austin. You are the best! All of this without ever thinking of yourself! Keep it up! I know your big box ordinance will make my life easier! I like driving to multiple places for my stuff and that's good for traffic and the environment. I am eagerly awaiting what huge sweeping code revision you will come up with next! You are awesome....

Crestview,

I'm in Crestview myself, and I witnessed firsthand how quickly a sidewalk project was shutdown once the contractors showed up and the little orange fence appeared ten feet into yards down the length of the street. The fence went down within days and the contractors have never returned. My street is still without a sidewalk while remaining excessively large.

Yes, Crestview has largely not objected to the Huntsman redevelopment, but this neighborhood has a long way to go before it sheds its NIMBY personality. Support of an inevitable development at a former chemical plant at the fringe of the neighborhood "on the other side of the tracks" is not going to undo years of NIMBY behavior.

As for traffic, my question remains unanswered: How could a 1/3 growth in retail space at Northcross result in an unmanageable traffic situation when the retail area at Northcross is zoned for four times the currently planned development?

My thesis still stands - the outcry is all about Walmart and is only secondarily about the mixed use nature of the redevelopment. Hence the signs which say "NO WALMART" as their top billing and the bolded text specifically highlighting 24-Hour Wal-Mart Supercenter all over the RG4N website's information sheet.

If the RG4N supporters stopped acting cowardly and would just come out and say it, perhaps we could have an enlightened discussion of the real issues. I think they're afraid of being called racial and elitist bigots.

I dont know who many times we can go over this. I have lived in crestview for awhile and gone to the meetings. The neighbors I have talked to are for the crestview station. Its pretty dense. They are not only for it. They are pretty excited about it. I keep hearing arguments that crestview would hate dense multifamily/mixed use at northcross. But we just supported that. I mean just last month. They are currently breaking ground and we are currently supporting it. Thats a pretty good indicator we support that kind of thing.

Someone wrote " wouldn't expect the same benevolence for similar projects in the neighborhood interior. ... at the intersection of Arroyo Seco and Woodrow." I have no idea what the neighbors would think about something at that intersection. But the fact that we just supported the Crestview station is a much better indicator that we would support the same thing at northcross than the fact that you dont think we would support some hypothetical development on Arroyo Seco.

Second any arguments about traffic and cars that are pro walmart are just a little bizarre. If the walmart is really going to be 225,000 square feet the only way it can possibly survive is to bring in people from a pretty good distance. It would be better to have multiple small stores throughout the city than one mega store in my opinion. Why? Not only will it cause more pollution but we will have to pay to deal with more cars trips (and more maintance of existing roads and enlarging existing roads).

So it might be closer for the guy across the street. But in general people will be driving farther and longer to reach potential stores.

Excuse me? I think anyone who rents DOES have a right with this issue as well. I live in the apartment complex across the street from Northcross Mall and I have lived here for five years. I like this neighborhood and that is why i've stayed so long. I feel my voice should be heard like anyone elses.

I am for Wal-Mart being built. It would be nice to have one to walk to instead of getting in my car and driving to one. Face it, Northcross Mall needs something to liven it up again.

This board ate my text :(

My mysteriously truncated sentence should say, "That is a net growth of less than 30%."

Jake,

Did you not read the part which said I was considering a Crestview purchase? And besides, the only bit of your argument which conceivably doesn't apply to me is the effect on home values. Everything else (traffic included) will affect me.

I don't know what kool-aid you've been drinking to come up with the overwhelming traffic problem, but you have clearly not examined historical traffic for that mall and the projected growth from the development.

That mall currently has 286,000 rentable square feet of retail space. Half of that will go away to make room for the new Walmart. The new Walmart will be 225,000 square feet. That is a net growth of

If Lincoln decided to add a second floor of retail over one third of the existing mall, revamped the mall, and then aggressively marketed the addition and renovations to fill the mall again, do you think the same traffic situation would occur? Would you be laying out there in front a bulldozer under those conditions? I think we all know what the answers are.

This is strictly about Walmart and the kind of people you think are going to shop there, isn't it? You're just not man enough to say it.

Any of you in favor of the Wal-Mart, I have one quick question: Where do you live?

If you don't live anywhere that surrounds Northcross, then your opinion in favor of the development does not count.

Guys like Lange...You RENT. You have no dog in this fight.

Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion. But never your own facts. And if you believe this is a good thing, you aren't processing the facts.

This development negatively impacts us and will hurt our home values. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

The traffic will overwhelm every intersection within a 1 mile radius. It will even backup traffic on Mopac every day.

Whether or not that post is truly from Council Member McCracken, he is dead-on right.

This development is bad news for Austin and especially for the residents around it.

If you think it's so good, contact Lincoln and tell them they can start building in your front yard.

Listen up, Wal-Mart and Lincoln--and any of their supporters. It will never be built. NEVER. You have no idea of the level of civil outrage that is barely being held at bay. It will be stopped by all means necessary.

Mr. McCracken,

It is hard for me to take you seriously when it is clear you are engaging in public political damage control over City's approval of the Northcross site plan. Since you are contributing to the disinformation being spewed by RG4N crowd, I feel compelled to respond.

1. "Wal-Mart Told Us They Would Do The Right Thing"

You "trusted" the Wal-Mart reps when they said their site plan would follow the new ordinance that isn't even in effect yet when you have been repeatedly told by developers that Lincoln properties won't move away from their "land-flipping, highway-power center mindset?"

You had to wait until a blog post on a Statesman picture showing the planned general building placement to find out the non-compliance? Are you serious?

2. "Wal-Mart Is Evil With Their 24 Hour Service And Super-Large Store"

The total retail square footage for the entire project, according to my calculations, is less than a 30% increase over what's existing at Northcross today. (New Wal-Mart plus existing retail space cut in half, or: 225k + 286k/2). That's for an area zoned for up to 1.2mil square feet of retail space.

As for the 24 hour service, you better put your money where your mouth is and call for all businesses to observe a Britain-style 11pm to 5am blackout on working hours. Including the coffee shops, bars, and late night restaraunts. Or perhaps your standard only applies to stores of a certain square footage?

Are you sure this isn't about Wal-Mart bashing and the Costco/Target comparison is irrelevant?

3. "Traffic on Steroids"

You are concerned about a 300% increase in traffic over the existing Northcross traffic? We are talking about the same Northcross traffic which is severely stunted and truncated compared to its glory days, right? The last time I checked, three times not very much is... not an incredible amount more.

Besides, I go back to the 1.2mil square feet zone that has been in place for years. (decades?) Northcross actually plans to resume "normal" traffic for the fraction of their total zone allotment, and you really think the roads are going to be clogged? You sound like my Crestview Neighborhood Association newsletter which recently Chicken-Littled, (and I quote), "an unmitigated [traffic] disaster."

4. "Crestview and Allandale Are NOT Practicing NIMBY"

The only reliable bit of evidence in your favor is the non-interference by Crestview on the Hunstman redevelopment. I wouldn't use the Triangle as an example in favor of neighborhood support, as I recall a great many people opposed to that project when I lived off of North Loop six years ago.

As for Huntsman, I am glad it is turning out as it is (my son plays ball at the NAO fields there), but that location is on the fringe of the neighborhood, where it is easy to write off development plans. I wouldn't expect the same benevolence for similar projects in the neighborhood interior. God help us if multi-family residence tried to appear at the intersection of Arroyo Seco and Woodrow.

In fact, I suspect the Crestview RG4N contingent is just following Allandale's lead on this Northcross business.

It should tell you something, too, that the Allandale RG4N folks took no action until the very public November article appeared in the paper. Now that is a shining example of a neighborhood who is invested and involved in the redevelopment of their blighted retail centers.

How about the possibility that these RG4N types enjoy their relatively traffic-free roads and are content to let Northcross remain empty? Is that at all possible?

--

I sympathize with you on the less-than-stellar nature of this Northcross redevelopment and the fact that they slid in under the radar on the eve of your Mixed Use Ordinance going into effect.

However, at least Wal-Mart is doing something innovative, at least we have some new urbanism with multi-level retail, parking garage, and non-stucco/concrete/brick exterior, and at least Northcross is having some life being breathed back into it. Can't we compromise on the fact that a Wal-Mart Supercenter is going in there, respect some property rights, and try to work up some changes with Lincoln and Wal-Mart to put a few more new-urban features in there without giving them the finger?

-- Paul Lange, Crestview resident

Full Disclosure: I'm the head of a family of five, a renting Crestview resident for the past ~two years, considering a home purchase in the neighborhood, I have three children that go to school in the neighborhood, and I work downtown.

I drive by the eyesore known as Anderson Lane frontage on my way to work when I'm not taking the 45 minute stomach-churning bus ride instead.

Councilman:

Everyone I know either wants a dense, multi-use project at Northcross, or says he does. Why don't we have it? Northcross has been languishing for years. In plain view. Where were these new-urbanist developers all these years? And where was Council?

That a couple of developers may see the political uproar as a chance to snatch a project at a discount does not surprise me. But it hardly counts as proof that we'd get dense development any time soon. Mueller was closed seven years ago; we've yet to see a house there. If Lincoln and Wal-Mart are run off, it will be years before urbanist development replaces Northcross, if ever. I personally would love to see hard evidence that a smart, urban development is a realistic possibility.

You call Wal-Mart a "highway power center." That's accurate, I suppose, if the highway is the only place it's allowed to build. But by banishing big boxes to highways, we guarantee a lot of cross-town, traffic-jamming driving that would be unnecessary if retail could locate near its customers. That's not "smart" growth.

As for the neighborhood groups' pro- or anti-density allegiance, this is a side issue, IMHO, relevant to whether their new-urbanism objection is pretextual. If you've read enough blogs and bulletin boards, you should know that the incendiary issue is Wal-Mart itself. Lots of people think it's low-brow, bland, cheap, pick your adjective, and some despise it on political/moral grounds. Neighborhood activists wouldn't be threatening to throw themselves in front of bulldozers over a Costco, or even a Costco and a Whole Foods (even if they were open around the clock).

Although the opposition is often portrayed as nearly unanimous, that's obviously not true. After all, the common complaint is that thousands of people will shop there regularly. Each should count as a vote in favor. Shoppers unfortunately are not a cohesive group.

Personally, I think it is better to upgrade a derelict mall with retail that is in tremendous demand. It's not the best we can do there. But it's not necessarily permanent. Maybe in 8 or 10 or 15 years, when the site is again "dead" (presumably as dead as it is now), the property and the owner will be primed for mixed-use, urban redevelopment.

Yes, anonymous jerk, and I haven't hid it:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000115.html

I figured I was gonna get the boot for opposing commuter rail (standing up for the residents of Austin), and I was right.

Urban Transportation Commmission 2001-until explicitly removed by Daryl Slusher in 2005.

A short addition:

Note that as far as I'm aware, none of the current City Council members have ever tried to commute to a job on a frontage road by means other than the private car. I _have_, and am not exaggerating the dramatic additional difficulty it presents compared to a similar commute to an office located on a 2-way roadway.

Brewster,

Obviously I disagree with much of what you posted. I'll just pick the one I know the most about, though; this peculiar idea that it's better to put large retail destinations on "highways" rather than at the intersection of two city arterial roadways, next to a major transit center. Only in Texas (where frontage roads are viewed as the normal state of affairs rather than an occasional last-ditch tool to provide access when all else fails) would we even be having this conversation; note that the new Wal-Mart in Atlanta being compared to this one is _NOT_, I repeat, _NOT_ "on the highway".

I refer readers again to my (artlessly drawn but hopefully at least readable) diagram linked to if you click on "M1EK" at the end of this posting. It's simply impossible to deliver high-quality transit service on highway frontage roads -- but it's very easy to do so on arterial roadways. All you need to do is take a look at those #3 buses going up and down Burnet Road vs. the #383 buses going up and down Research Blvd. if you don't believe me - both are operating in relatively the same density development; but one is a success and one is a failure.

Frontage roads also destroy the ability to travel by foot (for nearby pedestrians) and severely hamper travel by bicycle; but in this case, transit is probably the most important mode to worry about. Remember, though, that when dealing with frontage road development, we also have to somehow convince TXDOT to build sidewalks along the frontage road in the best-case scenario (and, of course, they've designed some 'highways' in ways that make even the provision of such sidewalks by the City of Austin impossible - US 183 near Braker Lane, for instance; in this photo-essay: http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/183sidewalks/183sidewalks.html

Pushing all our big boxes (and other employers/destinations) to frontage roads simply means the people travelling there can't do so by any means other than the private automobile. This doesn't hurt high-tech office workers on US 183 as much as it does the potential employees of Wal-Mart, of course.

As for the remaining points - I'm happy the neighborhoods have learned to not make the strategic error that NUNA did vis-a-vis The Villas On Guadalupe. That's a far cry from evidence that they now support urban mixed-use development "like the Triangle". A Triangle-style development, expanded to cover the footprint of Northcross Mall, would be bringing in not only roughly the same amount of retail as this proposal, but thousands of units of multi-family; and the nearby neighborhoods have opposed previous efforts to increase multi-family in the area quite recently (hotel conversion at south edge of property).

Regards,

Mike Dahmus (M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile)

Urban Transportation Commission 2001-2005

Okay, straight from the horse's mouth...

First, props to Shilli because it was from his post that I actually found out that the Northcross redevelopment was not going to comply witht the Design Standards and Mixed Use Ordinance and how bad this Lincoln redevelopment was going to be.

To correct some misinformation in the previous posts (which are generally well-informed and accurate), here are the facts I know:

1. The Council was told by Wal-Mart reps that the project was going to comply with the Design Standards and Mixed Use Ordinance when we were first told about this project the week before it hit the press. That turned out to be untrue.

2. Whether the neighborhoods would have the same reaction to a Costco or Target is apples and oranges, because this Super Wal-Mart will be 24 hours/7 days a week and will be 225,000 square feet. Costco is 153,000 square feet, located on a highway, and closes at 8:30 pm M-F, 6 pm Sat. and Sun. The largest Target in Central TX is 171,000 sq. ft, located on I-35, and closes at 9 pm M-S, 8 pm on Sunday. I.e., no other retailer does anything remotely comparable to Wal-Mart's model. That's probably a factor in why people don't like liviing next to a Super Wal-Mart. It's a completely different experience from other power center retailers.

3. It appears likely that Lincoln and Wal-Mart have been untruthful about the traffic impact of this highway-style development. Lincoln's sworn site plan stated the Wal-Mart component alone would produce 10,685 car trips a day. That is twice as many car trips as the Ikea produces, and 30% more car trips than the combined Cabelas's/Wal-Mart development in Kyle. Also, when we ran the actual, real world trip counts for Wal-Marts in Austin, we found that the three Austin Wal-Marts produced 15,000, 22,000 and 28,000 trips during a December Mon-Wed. time frame. Okay, where do the caveats start...December is a high traffic month, Monday-Wed. are the lowest traffic days of the week, during this same three days Ikea and the Kyle Cabela's/Wal-Mart produced dramatically lower traffic counts (5,000 and 7,000 respectively). At a minimum, Wal-Mart and Lincoln have some explaining to do, and they have a responsibility to start telling the truth.

4. It's a bum rap on the neighborhoods to try to label them as NIMBY's. They are supporting significant Triangle-caliber densities (which are far denser than the Northcross power center) at Crestview Station.

Here is a tale of two developments: Crestview and Northcross. Northcross is 28 acres, with 0 units/acre of residential density. It is a highway-style power center with a Wal-Mart and 4 pad sites...an embarrassing low-quality development all the way around. Under standard retail industry standards, it will be dead within 10-15 years (Wal-Mart only stays in in a building for 8-10 years). Even by Lincoln's low-ball numbers, it will produce 28,000 car trips a day, which is 500% higher than Ikea, 300% higher than the current traffic counts at Cabela's/Wal-Mart and 300% higher than Northcross's current traffic count. And, Lincoln's sworn traffic counts are almost certainly bogus.

By contrast, Crestview Station (located 1.89 miles away) has 73 acres, and it will have 60 units/acre density, 1,100 residential units, 150,00 square feet of retail, and it is extremely popular with the neighborhoods.

It is completely unfair to dismiss this as anti-development NIMBY'ism when these exact same neighborhoods have openly supported Muller and UNO-level densities just 1.89 miles away at Crestivew.

As Crestview, the Triangle, UNO and Mueller demonstrate time after time after time after time, central city neighborhoods regularly support intense, dense redevelopment, so long as this development is mixed use, high quality, and new urbanist. Neighborhoods rebel at unimaginative land-flipping motivated, low-quality highway power centers located in the middle of neighborhoods that produce traffic on steroids. The great American cities would never allow a development of such a low caliber as proposed by Lincoln.

How many times do we have to repeat this exprience? Several developers have told me that if Lincoln will move away from their land-flipping highway-power center mindset, these developers would love to be part of a Triangle/Crestiview type mixed use redevelopment of Northcross. Can you imagine how great the Anderson/Burnet area could become if instead of a low quality highway power center that died within 10 years, it instead became a mixed use town center that became a model for infill redevelopment? This is a future worth fighting for, in my opinion.

Brewster McCracken

Shawn,

As a friend pointed out to me, the Triangle isn't done yet - when it IS done, it could, if grown proportionally to fill the footprint of the Northcross tract, easily have more square feet of retail alone than the current proposal. The neighborhood would never support something like this - which is why you don't see any proposals of this kind on the rg4n.org site.

It would be interesting to see where RG4N and the HOAs line up if Wal-Mart comes back with an urban plan. Those groups have mentioned developments like Triangle and Mueller, but much of their focus is anti-Wal-Mart, not simply pro-urban. I doubt we will find out, because I think if Wal-Mart makes any changes, it will probably just be a smaller store and non-24-hour operation (the city may prohibit 24-hour operation anyway), while keeping the same suburban footprint. That would be dissapointing to me personally, but it might satisfy some people opposed to the current plan.

jent,

I eagerly await the proof in the pudding. Please supply a reference. I'd be happy to bet that if what gets proposed there is roughly the same density as the Triangle, it would not achieve neighborhood support (except as a last-ditch effort to avoid Wal-Mart).

In other words, where were these people 6 months ago?

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THEY APPROVED THE 20 EXTRA DUMPSTERS THAT WE LOBBIED FOR? PLUS, DID THEY INCLUDE A BURGER KING INSIDE AND NOT A MICKEYDEES? THEIR BURGER RAPPERS ARE NO GOOD. TOO GREASY.

M1EK,

Once again, if you had taken half the time at the city council meeting that you spend patroling the Internet gracing the community with your uninformed opinions about the situation, you'd be much better suited to comment on the neighborhood's suggested development plan. I understand you have a family and can't make such trips, but alot of the standing room only crowd were in the same situation. They realize though that an evening away from the family may pay far greater dividends into the future.

Back to the so-termed "rosy colored" painting that poster "crestview" is offering, some time researching rg4c's stance will show that what the group is proposing actually IS the exact multi-family development that you claim you'd get on board for. Understandably you are so preoccupied with a supposed wrong that occurred over six years ago that you've been unable to decipher that in fact the community is hoping to build something in the same vein as the urban plans at the Triangle, Mueller Redevelopment, and Guadalupe Lofts. It's in their materials that I'm sure is easily accessible to concerned citizens such as yourself.

jent

"crestview",

Even if I were to take your rosy-colored view of events as absolute fact, you still have to deal with the obviously more reactionary neighborhoods of Allandale, North Shoal Creek, etc.

And obviously I don't subscribe to your rosy-colored view. Yes, the neighbors supported a moderate-density semi-urban mostly-residential project which is going where a chemical plant used to be - because they were smart enough to figure out that the other options for the site might be something they liked a lot less. I already gave you credit for being smarter than the average NIMBY (like my neighborhood).

But that's a long ways from something apporaching the density of the Triangle or the rest of central Austin.

The proof's in the pudding. So far, I've seen some very vague rhetoric about a higher-quality project, but no indication that the subscribing neighborhoods would support a large multi-family component to same. Tearing down a mall to build only single-family houses is worse, IMO, than putting up an urban Wal-Mart. So is leaving the mall alone to decay for another ten years.

M1EK,

I just saw your other post

"What other realistic alternative is there, given that the surrounding neighborhoods will fight tooth and nail any attempts to increase residential density to provide enough customers for a high-quality high-density urban retail development?"

What are you talking about. We just supported a high density residential development. I mean that just happened. Like right now we are supporting a high density urban retail / residential development. Its actually right next to our houses. We didnt fight it tooth and nail. There were meetings people are pretty excited about it.

Walmart is worse than Costco as far a how they treat employyees and their business practices. So Costco would be better than Walmart. Personally I would prefer a development with dense residential and small retail. Mostly because I like having smaller stores throughout the city than 200,000 in north Austin. More smaller stores leads to people being more likely to walk to a store. Walmart will need to pull in people from all over the city to be successful.

I know you might think we are lieing but crestview residents would probably support a dense residential development. My evidense is that we just supported a dense residential development that just started happening at the old huntsman facility. Im not talking about the supporting rail. Im talking about the dense residential being put in around the station.

Lastly Lincoln works with Walmart. When Trammel Crow came they said that Lincoln made a play for the Huntsman track. They thought Walmart would be going into the northcross property. Not because he had heard of a lease but simply because that was what Lincoln was looking to do.

This place has being going downhill since the white man stole our land.

ps. this place has been going downhill since they closed the Armadillo.~

Monk,

dear jeebus. Please leave. I can only assume that is a joke. but anyone wanting to be pretentious enough to play that card and choose Marfa is welcome to go.

;-)

Well, it is official. I guess I am going to pack up my things and flee...Austin has offically become mediocre. Maybe Marfa.

Christopher,

This Wal-Mart project makes a dent in the oceans of parking lots. What other realistic alternative is there, given that the surrounding neighborhoods will fight tooth and nail any attempts to increase residential density to provide enough customers for a high-quality high-density urban retail development?

Unrestrained development has been the name of the game since after world war two when the centers of cities were gutted and cheap outlying development created to satisfy demand. Now that people are conscious and desire something better than oceans of parking lots , they're belittled and characterized as reactionary. Compromise is fine but where is the compromise in years of destroying urban life carried out by every predominant business model in the name of the "market".

What can the Council do, except to buy the place?

Wouldn't that money be better spent on open space or library books or keeping roads paved or health clinics open?

North Austinites should be happy about this development. No one is going to want to yuppify/"gentrify" a neighborhhood that has a walmart in it. Maybe if we had a walmart down here (say, where Bicycle Sports Shop resides or Office Depot currently languishs) we wouldn't have a bunch of developers licking their fattened chops to obstruct every nice view from South Lamar. I would rather have one big box store than twenty big box condo complexs

It is correct in saying that "no one I know" likes WalMart. But most of the people I know are more well informed (well, la-dee-da for me). BUT. Saying that, who's responsible for making people who do like WalMart realize it's worse for them in the long run? Sure they can get cheap milk there but they're squeezing the life out of some poor dairy farmer to get it that cheep and the quality is getting worse to boot. It's a larger issue of creating a socially conscious community. Buy a decent bike and it will last your kid longer, buy him jeans that cost $5 more and you won't have to buy the same ones next year. The concepts of cheap and affordable are often contradictory in the world of WM. Though their concept of inexpensive does usually mean cheap. I'm tired of hearing people say that they want WalMart there because it saves them money. bah.

crestview,

So you'd support an Urban Target of exactly the same size in this very location, then, right? Or a similarly sized Costco? Both would help the workers a lot more by your argument - they sell higher quality merchandise, treat their employees better, and still provide low prices.

Even though neither one has expressed any interest in moving in - it'd be interesting to be able to know for sure whether you and others would REALLY support Wal-Mart's competitors here (I'd prefer either one to Wal-Mart myself) in a similar footprint. I suspect most will lie anyways, of course.

OK, I guess it's a done deal then (sigh). If this was any corporation but Wal-Mart, I'd be hopeful that they will work with the neighborhood groups to make it more resident-friendly (like doing as Tim suggests: building it closer to the street with a parking garage instead of behind a vast asphalt prairie).

I know it's become fashionable to hate Wal-Mart haters, but they truly are one of the world's most evil corporations. They abuse & underpay their employees, ruin neighborhoods, sell shoddy Chinese-made merchandise, force small businesses into bankruptcy, build horribly ugly stores, and keep an army of high-paid lawyers on retainer to sue anyone who tries to stop them.

Having a huge walmart is going to consolidate grocery stores. Instead of having more grocery stores closer to peoples homes we will have this huge megastores in north Austin. This will increase traffic and car use leading to more traffic and traffic related expenses (ie expanding roads, road repair, police responding to traffic accidents etc). Just because someone buys something doesnt mean they should be able to do whatever they want. Thats a stupid argument and its what led to the giant craphole that is Houston.

Lastly walmart is not a savior to the poor. They produce low grade products that dont last long. They find retailers to produce low grade products just for Walmart and slap their label on them. The poor get a small discount but have to replace the product in a shorter periods of time so they have to go buy the same product again. While this is great for walmart its not great for the customer buying the product.

Sounds like my HOA. Bad elements? In Austin? What are you worried about, importing some graffiti artists from Zilker Park? Austin has next to no bad elements. We live in some sort of crime-free wonderland.

Mike,

If you think it's silly to lob around accusations about racism and greed, check out your own neighborhood's email list, which has had some particularly odious examples of both (talking about how Ohlen Road was going to be a superhighway for bad elements to enter Allandale, for instance).

There's a difference between saying "Nobody likes Walmart" and "Nobody I know likes Walmart." I don't like Walmart, but I do shop there. But plenty of people do like Walmart, the working poor among them. These groups aren't particularly well organized politically, though, and frequently don't think they have the time to participate in this kind of debate, especially in a political system that continues to fail them anyway. (If they were, perhaps they could also organize to fight Walmart's real evil - not traffic or parking but the depressed wages and worker benefits that force people to consider shopping at Walmart so attractive in the first place.)

I live in Allandale. I think these conversations about managing urban growth are vitally important. It's silly to lob accusations like racism or greed around like some of us have been doing, but I think the issues here are far more complex than the (mostly white, higher income) opponents of the development are addressing.

Many of us bus riders walk to places. Including all the people who take the bus that has a stop in the Northcross Mall parking lot. It's really irritating that I have to walk 1/4 mile from a bus stop to go to a store that the bus stop ostensibly was built for. Put the parking behind, under, or over the store. It's better advertising to have your store close to the street and you might find you have more pedestrian customers. It's that whole chicken and egg scenario.

Of course there's no public support for Wal-Mart. Almost nobody _likes_ them, but there's plenty of us who think these neighborhoods don't get a veto power over tenants they don't like, and that our city shouldn't set ALL taxpayers up for the legal bill that would result from pandering in the way those neighborhoods want.

If we end up with some residential multi-family in Northcross as a result of this hootenany, I'll almost like the rg4n.org crowd, but I bet we won't.

I'm kind of starting to come around on this idea. I hate WalMart and don't shop there myself. But how is it better or worse than the mall? It's basically a straight hatred of the company itself, which I can understand. Local business and economy has done nothing to make that mall work so far, and the whole area is strip centers and furniture stores already. It's not exactly going to blight the area. There might be some scary people of color who might come in and terrorize the citizens of Allandale, or so it seems they fear. I can see where it would be a good thing for them to build street level and hide the parking, but who's going to really walk there anyway? The people in the apartments nearby, they will walk there anyway. It would just be a three story monstrosity looming at street level at that point. It's going to succeed because people are going to shop there, no matter that they claim they won't. What's the alternative? A dead mall with a skating rink? Being realistic and looking at it from a capitalistic perspective, the market will decide what happens. Smart growth means planning, not stopping. I can't imagine it's truly going to lower property values or cause any real harm, it will just put more money in their pockets. But unless someone who cares and has money is going to step up to the plate and do something better there's not much to do besides lay back and enjoy it.