Trammell Crow Tramples Foes

Natural gas supplies are also peaking and building more power plants that run on natural gas (which is better than coal, I suppose) is only cutting into those depleting supplies. If I'm not mistaken, Canada is one of our top suppliers and they have had production decreases as existing sources are slowing down.

I think the only natural gas upside right now is that we know where most of the oil is (or isn't), but the search for natural gas deposits is about 30 years behind the curve.

It's still just a stop gap because, like oil, there's a finite amount of it and it comes from millions of years of carbon sequestering + sunshine energy.

Two words, natural gas.

Sorry, mdahmus, but that sounds like fuzzy science to me.

You guys should hole up in your condos with guns and get ready for this scary peak oil thing to happen. The rest of us will keep on living and driving our wonderful cars to the suburbs. I'm gonna go mow my lawn and use my leaf blower now, thanks.

ducknutz, you're engaged in a combination of wishful thinking and survivorship bias. There's no guarantee that just because our society survived the last N energy transitions that there's going to magically be another one that we make it through.

Economics can't trump thermodynamics.

Hogwash, cram. Quit buying into the chicken little doomsday scenarios.

There will be a slow, uncomfortable ramp up to meet demand and/or transfer to other energy sources, but it's going to happen. Ethanol is a joke, for sure, but don't think for a second that there won't be a replacement for oil-based energy and gas-driven cars. The market will provide before you know it and you'll be looking back at this like it's the Y2K bug.

ducknutz,

There is no easy market driven solution that will miraculously replace gasoline.

The market is hardly rising to meet demand.

Dodge's solution is what? To keep selling RAM pickups and to give you gasoline at $3/gallon for the next 3 years.

The next earliest American hybrid is due when? 2010, I believe.

Honda cut its production of two of its hybrids already and is attempting to retool for a new one.

Additionally, just like we are approaching and/or have passed peak oil, the same goes for natural gas production in the coming years. Guess what powers most of our new power plants? Remember those rolling blackouts in Texas and California? And when the antiquated power grid went down in the entire northeast and upper midwest? What is going to happen when you try to plug your mythical electric car into the wall? The infrastructure and planning isn't there for this change because people like you (and most of Washington DC, to be fair) think the market will just solve the problem.

And before you suggest corn and soy based ethanol: It isn't scalable if you (and most of the world) want to continue to eat. Tack on top of that the falling water table levels and we have a recipe for disaster.

This isn't cyclical, it's the beginning of the end game for our society that is propped up on cheap oil supplies. I certainly hope there is a technology/energy solution that solves the problem, but in the interim society isn't prepared. There won't be a discontinuous leap from gasoline and wonder-energy-technology-X. There's going to be a period where we can't eat 49 cent tomatoes from Chile and have to pay $10+/gal for gas and probably not have exploding population growth (ie, it'll be hard for a family to feed 1 kid.. much less 4 or 5 that get hauled around in an SUV right now).

But sure, keep wishing upon a market forces star. We're also supposed to be going to Mars, remember?

slickshu,

I think you missed the point, so I'll try to clarify with smaller words:

Just because you talk out of your ass does not mean Mike is talking about of his ass.

"Using your words, how do you jibe "except a few cases" with "anywhere, at all times"?"

The main point she made during the campaign to attempt to rebut the "you always oppose density" argument was that she remained silent about a few projects around OWANA.

She remained silent because the people who wrote that neighborhood plan made it impossible for her to have even a snowball's chance in hell at winning if she opposed projects along certain corridors - and she's a bit smarter than the average person in BATPAC, so she kept her mouth shut. The OWANA plan is a model for how it's supposed to be done - identifying places to put new density rather than just saying "NO" (Hyde Park) or saying "put it in another neighborhood" (CANPAC). City Council loved it. It's now city code.

She didn't support those projects; she just kept quiet.

Had we (yes, I worked on that plan, although not in zoning/FLUM) not tied her hands so well ahead of time, I have no doubt she would have opposed all those projects as well.

If you think she's not against density anywhere and everywhere, how can you possibly explain attempting to rally the ANC against the Spring condominiums despite the fact that they are downtown or her ridiculous ads about the Green redevelopment, also downtown? To say nothing of 7Rio; like all of the above strongly supported by people living and working in the area; but, of course, she'd be able to see it from her mansion, so it can't be allowed to be built.

Slickshu, you're a lying sack of crap. Morrison's actions (opposing density in every concrete case) clearly match my generalization about her. My actions (sometimes letting the market work, other times using it as a tool to obtain public benefits) clearly do NOT match your generalization of me.

And you're still a gutless coward hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, both here and at the Chronicle.

Did anybody catch what Slickshu proposed as a growth-management policy? I must have missed it.

ducknutz, gas prices aren't driving the demand for dense development. Demand began surging while gas was still cheap. Some people simply prefer denser, urban eviornments. While density is not such a great thing in itself, it offers offsetting benefits -- more retail diversity, more people, etc. That's why some of the most productive places on earth are also the densest.

I agree that the single family home is not going away. Lots of people want that and even sky high gas prices won't change that preference. But there are lots of people who want something different, and the City ought to make room for that kind of environment, too.

The laws of supply and demand apply to housing as well as gasoline . . .

Supply & Demand affects the price of gas. Americans are used to (and love) driving their cars. Driving cars will never fall out of fashion. The market is sensitive to that. So whether through domestic production, reduced usage, conservation or a complete switch to a new source of energy to fuel electrical plants, it will become affordable again to own and use a car, thereby causing a new flight from the condo ghettos of the city. This is all cyclical. The return of electric concept cars (and other fancy new cars that use less gas) is proof that the market is quickly rising to meet this demand.

I hate to burst the bubbles of the New Urban Density folks, but the gas crisis will not last that long before the market provides an innovative way for people to enjoy their cars, commute to work, and enjoy nice large houses in the suburbs again.

Exactly!

Someone needs to challenge Dahmus' penchant for truthiness -- with the point being (well made, if I may say so myself) that the reality is somewhere in the middle.

With that lesson learned, I'll fade out for the evening -- my work is done here.

To the same extent that "car-loving" Morrison is "against all density, anywhere, at all times", Dahmus wants to "cede any and all controls on development to the market -- and blindly hope it is done in a positive manner."

So you're saying that if part A is complete fabricated bullshit (ie, what Mike said) than part B (ie, what you said) is also complete fabricated bullshit?

That's a pretty strong compelling argument for listening to you: "I can prove his words are full of shit because I also can state random crap!"

You're going to make peoples' brains explode with that kind of truthiness.

Using your words, how do you jibe "except a few cases" with "anywhere, at all times"?

No, Slickshu, that's a load of crap. You can measure Morrison's general words by the specific fact that she's opposed every density project under the sun except a few cases where the people who wrote the OWANA plan tied her hands.

You can measure my general words by the specific fact that I've told you exactly what I want to do in a way that specifically contradicted your claim - just a couple of comments upstream from here. Allowing additional height in return for public amenities is most definitely not covered by "cede any and all controls[...]and blindly hope".

You're a lying sack of crap cowering behind anonymity. About what I expect from Jeff Jack or one of his minions at BATPAC/ANC.

To the same extent that "car-loving" Morrison is "against all density, anywhere, at all times", Dahmus wants to "cede any and all controls on development to the market -- and blindly hope it is done in a positive manner."

Funny how some take enjoyment in employing heated rhetoric about others -- but can't seem to take it themselves.

fair enough. i think i knew all the above in terms of your views (because i just slapped my head and said 'duh').

bluejar, I don't ever expect mainline bus routes to get any closer to the new library than they are now - consider that the big N/S routes all have to cross the river on either S 1st or Congress; they aren't going to go many blocks out of their way just to hit the library (to be fair, the biggest routes don't even go out of their way to hit the current library - even though it would be a far easier trip!)

In other words, people commuting in from the suburbs to go to work aren't going to tolerate a bus route which spends an extra 10 minutes to run by the library, and neither is Capital Metro going to be willing to do so. The smartest thing to do is to put the library closer to where you know the buses are going to run for now and forever more - either on the Guadalupe/Lavaca corridor or between it and Congress.

Thanks, cram, but it's a bit less interventionist than that. The current state of affairs is that the government forces you to develop low-density sprawl almost everywhere, even if you want to build something dense and walkable. So it's not that I want to let the market do whatever it wants (I do hate suburban sprawl); and it's not that I want to mandate density; but that I want to stop mandating so much low-density crap in the firm belief that we'll get a lot less sprawl that way than futilely trying to fight the state on developing the exurbs.

Does the market want to give us more density? Yup. What happens as soon as we lift the artifically low zoning caps in places like West Campus? Cranes pop out of nowhere. Can we harness the market to give us some other things we want? Double yup. Make some height an entitlement, and make some additional height contingent on public amenities like Great Streets and street-level retail. Works like a friggin' charm, especially compared to saying "no" to everything.

Morrison's making that "no" even worse - the McMansion ordinance (task force she led) changes to duplexes, explored quite aptly here by Austin Contrarian, will close pretty much the last door for secondary dwelling units in the center-city - those are the most affordable living units we've got (more affordable even than multi-family). Given that she and her cronies have opposed all multi-family density everywhere _too_, slickshu is just blowing out their ass.

cram, noice.

I don't know where you got the idea that Mike wants to "cede any and all controls on development to the market -- and blindly hope it is done in a positive manner", but I'm 99.99999% positive you are absolutely wrong.

From reading everything Mike has written over the past couple of years on here and sometimes looking at his blog (when he links to it), he doesn't seem to think the market will do the "right thing". He's more than welcome to correct me, but I always gathered he wanted the government to encourage smart and responsible dense growth instead of just hoping people would start choosing density over sprawl.

You can have your beef with Mike all you want, but your petty personal tangents without any substance on the growth issue (other than to incorrectly state "facts") doesn't convince me you're an authority on the issue(s).

Don't believe everything you read, especially if it comes from Dahmus. Density is here, it's how our city will develop -- the real question is whether we will ensure that it is done properly, so that it is sustainable and appropriate not just now but for future generations. The alternative is to cede any and all controls on development to the market -- and blindly hope it is done in a postive manner. This is the Dahmus/Galindo model. Your pick.

but she is against density, in general. she will change her tone (i hope)

these gas prices are going to make everyone a believer in city cores///

crosses fingers.

Poor Mike, you just can't pass an opportunity to display your deep bitterness toward Laura Morrison, can you? She's yet to be sworn in and you're already blaming all the world's ills on her. Earthquakes in China, famine in Africa, ethnic and religious strife in Middle East, imprisonment of disidents in former USSR, cute seals being clubbed to death -- I'm sure you can find a way to connect Laura Morrison to all this and more.

Seriously, can't you give us all a break and wait until she casts her first vote on the dais before you blast her (the vote hasn't even been certified)? I promise you'll have 3 years to subject us all to your ranting screeds -- just give her the courtesy of taking her seat.

tim you said that very well, it always seems the people first to mainly criticize the public transportation because they have either never been on it/ or maybe once.

sometimes yes you have to wake up early to catch that early bus that does not get behind the slowest moving cars in the world... but the alternative is sleep! sleep is lame.

the public library is going through a lot of road and accessibility studies... trust that people will be able to access it in the future...

sorry but i might get on a list somewhere; but i am thankful gas prices are raising; go gas prices, GO!

Tim,

The "good" public transportation downtown is mediocre at best because of all the cars.

I can attempt to take the Dillo all the way down 6th from my office to Waterloo Records or I can walk/bike and have it take almost the same amount of time because the bus gets stuck behind cars, beer delivery trucks, and/or random lane closures.

A dedicated lane would solve a lot of the problems. Rail of some sort would be even better. Those Futurama tubes would be the best though!

Ducknutz, if you want to live in a city where people don't live downtown, Detroit is a great option. Plus, they love the automobile up there!

And we have good public transport downtown. It's everywhere else that we don't have it.

The belief that Austin doesn't have good public transportation is nonsense. It's quite good for the number of suburbs we have. It could be a lot better, but it's not bad.

Of course, if you don't take public transportation it's going to make you feel better to believe that it's bad.

Grape Ape, too bad we just elected Laura Morrison. Against all density, anywhere, at all times. Just got the city council to pass additional duplex rules which make it even harder to build or maintain 2-dwelling-unit properties in the center city.

Like with the .4 FAR (killing garage apartments and duplexes), the Planning Commission recommended differently, but the City Council is scared to death of Jeff Jack's reactionaries. Those of you who didn't drag yourself out to vote for Galindo better understand what you just bought us - a lot MORE of this kind of crap.

The new talk among scholars is how the "American Dream" of the suburbs is quickly coming to an end. Housing prices in the burbs is dropping off dramatically and energy costs are going up while city core values stay the same or are even rising in some cases with most new developments being much more energy efficient. Mass transit use is up across the board and people are quickly moving to be one car families and looking for housing near the city center. People can complain about the price of gas all they want, but in an odd way it is driving (no pun intended) the behavior that is good for this city and other cities across the country. One professor even went as far as to say we are witnessing the end of urban sprawl as we know it. If anything, Austin needs more density in the city core and if great mass transit means blocking off some street lanes so be it, people will have less of a need to drive a car anyway.

Ha, the people that just paid a couple hundred thousand to live in the 360, with a view that will be ruined within a couple years.

shucks.

Rail, running in the street in its own lane. You know, how every other city that succeeded with rail in the last 30 years has done it. Don't need to knock down buildings or completely close off any roads (unless you're running on a particularly narrow street).

quality public transit downtown? hahahahahaha

I'm curious how we're going to have quality public transit downtown (like light rail) without either blocking off roads entirely or knocking down condo buildings to make room.

This is a really bad spot for a library - transit access will be very poor. And the primary issue with these new developments should be forcing parking design that can be converted later into other uses - it's going to be hard to sell less parking, especially with car-loving Laura Morrison joining the council to do the dirty deeds of car-loving Jeff Jack and the rest of the car-loving ANC, but at least we can attempt to make sure it can be repurposed later in saner times.

Awesome. I am really happy they did this. I was concerned that we might have a condo shortage in Austin. I was beginning to get concerned that all the young, affluent hipsters wouldn't have any where to live. Thank heavens.

And yeah, those awful smelly cars really just ruin it for me. I wish the oil companies would quit holding on to the patent for the teleporter because smelly cars just stink up downtown Austin and make it a really miserable place to drink mojitos and shop for $300 hand bags.

Oh how I wish the city will plow some of that $60 million into the library being built there next to Green.