Austinist: The Accidental Gentrifist: Beyond the Only Slightly Bigger Box

Benj

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:11:17 -0600

Cool, Drew. Not only do you rock, but you have excellent taste in prose. Also, thanks for serving this great & fair nation, despite whatever financial recompense you may have been offered. But, for the record, and as it came up in conversation with a fellow ist-ist the other night, Mueller is not, technically, an example of gentrification. It is a rather disappointing use of land, and undoubtedly disappointing people will spend lots of their dollars to live there. But it is not, I repeat, an example of the dreaded gentrification. It is however, a complete violation of the original vision offered by their initial planning efforts: a 'city within a city' reflecting the uniqueness of Austin. (And yes, Social D totally rocks.)

waltereg0

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:45:40 -0600

I have almost no idea what this Mueller controversey is about, something to do with a portion of east austin being gentrified apparently, but I want to say that is a fantastic story. I lived in Oakland too (41st btwn Broadway & Piedmont Ave) and was in the reserves there so I know Alameda NAS well. I even saw part of the Matrix 2 car chase being filmed. That's a really fantastic story and I hope you plan on submitting it to a short story site or something, because it works well beyond the subject of gentrification. Nice work.

mdahmus

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:51:41 -0600

Dear Benj, Your comment hurt my brain a little bit. I think I salute you, but I'm not sure.

Benj

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:32:00 -0600

abc, Okay, give me a shot: 1. The aesthetic homogeny of Mueller (or any planned neighborhood) is less than older neighborhoods, which can be copied for the same dollar. 2. It’s that there IS a committee dictating color schemes, not *how* they dictate it. 3. The plots, floor plans, and expected costs were public long before it was an ‘option’ to buy. That’s how I knew. 4. Actually, yeah, a couple homes are close to being finished. I’ve actually spent a lot of time literally on the site. Sorry if I don’t have a flickr account to prove it. And I’ve seen the plans. I don’t think I need to wait to conceptualize what I’ve already seen on paper, and now actually do see. Because, you know, my eyes are in fact open. 5. $325 is not ‘prevailing’, no fucking WAY. In fact, it’s only that much in one single neighborhood close to Mueller, and I use to live there. (It is a very nice place) I now live in another one, and have lived in yet another. If you want my realtor’s number, he can get you into any number of bigger houses within two miles Mueller for less than $200 per sq foot. Sure, not every house on the market, but many. I live less than a mile away, west of Airport, and we paid a lot less than that. And a lot less than they’re asking at Mueller. And we definitely bought at this neighborhood’s peak. Go east of Airport and you’ll do even better. I don’t know where you’re getting that (325) figure from. Do you have a source, link, or reference? Or did you … make it up? 6. There is no reasonable comparison between buying in Mueller and buying Central several years ago. It's not just about a dollar/sqft ratio. 7. You know, you called me a ‘dolt,’ and in the same breath implied that Mueller, or any other central suburb, can seriously be considered an ‘ecosystem’ in the same sense as a wild area, or even an ecotome. Did you just learn that word? Is it your second-favorite, after ‘vector’? 8. Focusing on what kinds of pets cats can be like wasn’t the point. In case you missed it, the thrust was how Mueller is a black hole for certain quintessential Austin elements, and the aesthetic style of the homes and the HOA rules—in that there are codified subjective interpretations of policy against the inevitable—are the most obvious examples of this. Until, of course, your comments. So…thanks? If you want to argue ‘facts’ in an opinion-based venue, fine. But repeating the same erroneous bullshit from your first comment? C’mon. Evolve a little. I thought by ignoring your first plunge it was pretty obvious that I don’t agree or care enough to respond. And yet here I am, matching wits with the ‘open your eyes’/ ‘dolt’ strain of debate. You realize that as you argue with me, using playground epithets, you’re telling me my age, what I would spend on a house, etc. Why don’t you assay something I actually *said*? Until then, you’re just arguing with yourself. Which is fine, just leave me out of it.

Grape Ape

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:59:33 -0600

I think the main point is that the Mueller development is nothing more than a replication of what Cedar park, Round Rock and the rest sprawlville is, unoriginal, boring and restrictive.

abeecee

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:14:43 -0600

Benjamin, open your eyes, man. Look around at older neighborhoods. Even in places like SoCo and Rosedale, houses are very similar to one another. What is different in a neighborhood of similar bungalows, or similar ranches, is the cladding and the colors ... and expert that you are on Mueller, I guess you didn't know that the committees controlling development at Mueller are only allowing the same paint/stone schemes about once per block. None of the houses is even CLOSE to being finished, anyway, so you really have no idea what you're talking about where "looking the same" is concerned. Sheesh. Secondly, Mueller was not an option for you to buy in, until about four months ago. And you must have a wild idea of value on a home if you prefer to spend about $325 a square foot for a house (the prevailing cost close to Mueller) versus $140 a square foot (for homes at Muller). Now if you were buying several years ago (which would surprise me, given your age), you would have done better ... in many neighborhoods in Austin. Today, there is very little if anything to compete with the pricing of Mueller homes, for "central" Austin. Finally, banning cats from view? Don't be a dolt. Every single animal support group -- SPCA, World Wildlife Federation, Audubon, etc., bans cats from being let to roam outdoors. Domestic cats are just that -- domestic. They were never wild animals and they have no need to be outdoors. Unleashing a predatory domestic animal -- totally unnatural to its environment -- is a crappy idea: they kill birds and small rodents that are integral to the ecosystem. They become vectors for parasites. A percentage inevitably go stray and start breeding litters of feral cats that have to be captured and put down. It's a bad idea to let cats live outdoors. And yes, I have a cat.

Grape Ape

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:06:30 -0600

That's what I thought. I'm not sure how anyone can refer to it as a neighborhood with those types of restrictions on "your" property. Seems more like a controlled complex to me.

mdahmus

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:29:52 -0600

The HOA sucks. Real neighborhoods don't have them; and they're banning some of the things that neighborhoods which were supposedly models for Mueller have and enjoy (like on-street parking on both sides; colored houses; etc)

Benj

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:00:56 -0600

"Nuclear Wessels" was in my first draft! I swear to Kirk!

Grape Ape

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:41:45 -0600

I have not seen the HOA agreement, but my understanding is that it was very long. I was under the impression that there were provisions such as no liquor stores or taverns/pub type establishments allowed in the area; you couldn't plant your own trees and that outdoor furniture and playsets had to be bought from specific vendors and/or had to be made to look alike in color and such. Seems a bit generic and controlling to me, but then again, any kind of "master planned" community usually is. Any residents that have signed the HOA willing to share or is there a line item that says you won't discuss the HOA rules?

elvislives

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:14:47 -0600

Great article. Only critique is that you totally missed a perfect opportunity to use "nuclear wessels" in context. http://nuclearwessels.ytmnd.com/

Benj

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:48:30 -0600

No hard math here... more to do with notions of 'infinite divisibilty' and other philosophical incongruities inherent to geometry. And yes, for the record, algebra kicks my sorry ass.

Benj

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:09:01 -0600

ivarley, Thanks for your comment. I always feel grateful when somebody reads the AG, even more so when they take the time to leave a good comment. Since your thrust seems to be against a relatively brief portion of this column, I guess there's a lot of room for response. I have lived literally next to Mueller or within a half mile from it for most of the last decade. I do know it well. I also explored buying a house there and pretty quickly (based on plans, lot size, and cost) knew it couldn't compete with both the value, enjoyment, and expected return on buying an older house nearby, which is what I did. Now that the first half dozen houses at Mueller are (nearly) complete, I feel even better about my decision. The houses built so far look almost exactly like.... well, like everything else. Maybe I should have clarified that my principle objection is aesthetic in nature. We have a wealth of historic homes, really awesome custom homes, and a ton of pre- and post-war bungalows that ooze with their own inherent architectural value. Why can't somebody borrow from these when they sit down to draw up new plans? Why is there no sense of history, specifically in terms of aesthetic preservation? We like trees, springs, creeks, and amphibians. I dig all of that. I just want an extension of this worthwhile value placed on preservation. But really, the last few nails in the coffin were the most obvious principles of 'preservation' actually being acted on here: the HOA Rules. Maybe you can tell me, are they still going forward with those? Enforcing homogeneous gardening, written permission to post all but a few types of signs, and banning cats from public view? As per new neighborhood norms, will you be given a specific list of color schemes to paint your house? I honestly don't know, because I stopped caring awhile ago. I just know that the last I heard wasn't exactly keeping anything weird. I'm the first to admit gentrification is an odd, complex, and double-sided beast, specifically that it doesn't preserve cultural identity, whatever value you may or may not place on that. But I wouldn't switch my lot (no pun intended) with most options, least of all Mueller.

heyzeus

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:52:21 -0600

This may be a dumb question, but wouldn't that "line to infinity" have to be slightly curved to hit all three of the top dots, then circle the globe and come back to go through the three lower dots? If it's a line, therefore straight, wouldn't it just go through the top three dots again after circling the globe?

skechada

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:34:21 -0600

What are some of the HOA issues cropping up? I'm asking as a potential resident there...

ivarley

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:47:45 -0600

Great story, about the consultants unable to really think outside the box, even when they're exhorting other people to do so. Pretty much sums up consulting (and educational bureaucracy, to boot). Yuck. I disagree with you about the applicability of that to Mueller, though. One thing that most people don't realize about Mueller is that it wasn't a plan hatched by some dastardly development company, or some meddling city council member. It was envisioned and planned by volunteer Austinites in neighboring communities. They all got together 15 years ago and said "OK, the airport is going to turn into something, so let's make it something good." They've been working hard on it since then. Did they succeed? Probably not 100%, but it's going to be a lot better than it could have been. Take the homes. It's true that they aren't individual, organic, custom home plans. The neighborhood groups originally wanted that to be the case, but eventually realized there was just no way to accomplish it - it would take 10 years longer to develop Mueller, and in the mean time it would be hell for everyone living there. As a compromise, they selected a handful of different builders and divided up the streets so that there'd at least be a few different styles going on, with the requirement that no two homes look alike within viewing distance (so, they have to stagger the home types even within builders by at least 3 or 4 lots). It won't be as patchwork-looking as many Austin neighborhoods, of course, but it won't look like suburban box houses, either. At this point in the process, it may "resemble the same shit cropping up everywhere else", but come on - they haven't even finished a single home yet. When it's all done, and given a handful of years to mature, I hope it'll be a lot more unique than that. Or, take lot size. True, there's only 6 feet from house to house, and the streets are narrow. But there again, they made a conscious decision to reduce the lot size and leave lots of park space, which I think will be more conducive to community involvement and "city living" than would be big lots. I've lived in housing that dense before (in San Francisco and New York), and for all its problems, "having to look at McHoods every day" isn't one of them. Don't get me wrong: I too would prefer all the homes to be unique, and for the area to just spring into life independently as a cool Austin neighborhood. But, have you ever seen that happen in the past 20 years? Left to chance, most vacant areas with high property value these days become strip malls or condos. I'd say that Mueller, while not perfect, is a hell of a lot better than it could have been if not for the consistent community organizing of the surrounding neighborhoods. I'm a future Mueller resident (in case you didn't guess), so I'll concede that I'm far from impartial on this. But while there's no shortage of problems (the HOA, for example, which many of us are already organizing to change), I think you should learn more about it before assuming it's going to be generic austin suburb #432.

abeecee

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:48:53 -0600

Organic development? Austin was a very small core of -- excepting the wealthiest neighborhoods -- very dense development until the post-war era, when all of the useless, "claptrap" 2-bedroom cottages on enormous lots (yay! fabulous idea in drought-ridden TX!) filled in all over the near north and east. Then in the sixties through the eighties, hideous ranches that bypassed the best of the various mid-century aesthetic movements and took into consideration nothing of their locale, encroached west and further north. And what, pray tell, would you have rather seen in terms of residential living, at Mueller? It's a fairly central location, so large lots would not be appropriate (not to mention being ill-advised, ecologically, in Austin). You say the houses are clone homes. It's true that they are production houses. But maybe you think that they should each have been custom homes, and cost several hundred thousand more? But no, because if the set up at Mueller had allowed for half the homes at higher prices, with large lots and big garages, you would have cried elitism and would be bitching about the development modeling on suburban sprawl. Finally, let's see ... $300K to live 3 miles from the capitol? Sounds like a damn good deal to me. Have you priced anything central at all, in the last 10 years? 1200 square foot homes just blocks from Mueller, in existing neighborhoods, are about $400K.