The Last Waltz Done Live At Club Deville
Review: The Cherry Orchard at The Blue Theater
EAST Interview: Nick Henning at Pump Project
Weekend Music Preview: Fabrication 7, Car Stereo (Wars), & More!
Show Preview - An Evening with Daniel Johnston
The full letter from Larry Warshaw is reprinted below.
Marcia,
This letter is in response to your allegations (from the stage to an audience of 10,000 Austinites) that we somehow reneged on our agreement with regard to the trees at our BartonPlace project. Your accusations were ill-informed and unfair. I can only assume that your comments stem from the recent Statesman article about the trees. Surprise, Surprise, the Statesman wrote a very unbalanced, one- dimensional, sensationalist and unfair story that left out important facts and lumped us together with another developer who did in fact break the rules. Unfortunately, this is the second such story they have written like this about BartonPlace. Here are the real facts about BartonPlace:
Trees:
The reality is that most of the trees that were taken down needed to be taken down no matter what happens to the property. Most of the trees on the property were ‘grafted’ pecan trees that were genetically engineered and planted 100 years ago for the express purpose of producing the maximum amount of nuts. This type of pecan tree has a life span of between 100 and 120 years because the limbs grow in a different way than on native pecan trees. The limbs grow more perpendicularly to the trunk which causes them to drop huge limbs as they get older. These trees were beginning to drop their limbs onto the trailers, cars and people. These grafted trees would have needed to come down within the next several years under any circumstance – development or no development. This information was passed along to the Statesman, but it was left out of the story. We did also have to take down some native pecans which would have lived longer (their limbs grow more vertically and hence the trees are stronger and produce fewer nuts. These trees would not have had to come down if not for our development, but there were few of these natives and we also planted new native pecans on City Parkland. Everything we did with regard to the trees we did legally under the rules and regulations of the City, under the supervision of the city arborist and our arborist, and according to the plan that we set forth with the Zilker Neighborhood Association.
We saved all the native pecans fronting Barton Springs Road and we designed the project around the oldest native pecan in the middle of the property. In addition to this, we allocated $250,000 to move 5 smaller native pecan trees onto city parkland across the street. We spent about $200,000 of these funds digging out the root balls and preparing these trees for transplant. Unfortunately, about a week before they were to be moved, we were hit by the recent storm and it destroyed four of these five trees. I am sure you are aware that this storm killed hundreds of trees all over Austin. We are still moving the one tree that survived, and to make up for the four that did not survive the storm (even though it was a natural disaster beyond our control) we will be planting more replacement trees on city parkland. Contrary to what you announced from the stage, we continue to work cooperatively with the Zilker
Neighborhood Association.
The recent Statesman story about trees that raised everyone's emotions about the issue unfortunately left out all of this information and lumped us together with another developer who illegally took down over a hundred live oak trees on another project, and this gave many people, perhaps yourself included, the mistaken impression that we took down trees illegally or somehow broke our promise to the neighborhood. None of this is true and we have fielded dozens of ‘hate emails’ because people think what you told them is true and that we are the developer taking down trees illegally.
Finally, we are also reclaiming much of the wood (from both native and grafted trees) and re-using it back in the project.
Overall, our plan was hailed by the city as a very positive outcome on all fronts.
Trailer Park:
The woman who owned this property prior to us (Susan Frost) decided to sell the property for redevelopment. The taxes on the property had gone up to a level where she could no longer afford to keep the trailer park operational. She was tired of owning and running a trailer park. Short of some type of tax relief program to preserve trailer parks, which would have to be enacted through State Law (good luck in Texas), someone was going to buy and redevelop this property. This is the nature of a changing and growing city. While the loss of a trailer park and the trees is significant for many, we believe we came up with a redevelopment plan that offered much to the City in return. The project offers a permanent trail easement connecting the neighborhood to Town Lake. The property became deed restricted so that they restaurants on Barton Springs Road cannot be displaced in the future as so many small businesses are through urban redevelopment. The project donates $500,000 to Affordable Housing – to be spent back in the Zilker Neighborhood on a future affordable housing development. BartonPlace is participating in Austin’s Green Building Program. We followed Neighborhood Compatibility Standards and we complied with the Town Lake Overlay.
In short, it is a responsible project and we developed AND WE FOLLOWED a responsible tree plan supported by the neighborhood and the City. The list goes on.
Community Support:
You should be aware that the Zilker Neighborhood Association and the Save Town Lake Organization endorsed the BartonPlace project, fully aware of all our intentions with regard to the trees and the redevelopment. The City’s planning Commission and City Council also voted unanimously for the project. Please give some credit to the people who belong to these groups that they did their due diligence about the project before they gave it their support. These are serious community organizations run by deeply committed activists and it is difficult to get them to support any development, let alone one in their neighborhood. The statesman has failed to mention this support in their articles and so it’s easy to assume that our project was not supported by community activists.
As you know, Austin is growing at an enormous rate. All of the City’s planning for the last 20 years has called for a ‘compact city’ with a more dense urban core so that people can walk more, drive less and so that we can create a more sustainable model of a city. This is good for air quality, energy reductions, local businesses, traffic reductions, etc. There are indeed trade-offs to be made as Austin goes through this transition to a more dense, compact city. Yes, we lose a trailer park in the middle of the city, and we lost some native trees, but long-term, we believe what we gain is better than the alternative for Austin.
Constructive Ventures:
Of course we are in business to make money, but we also take our responsibility to develop positive projects for Austin very seriously. Not everyone will always agree with our developments, but for you to presume that we have no moral or ethical compass driving us, and to presume that we have broken promises and to broadcast this from the stage without all the facts is incredibly damaging to us. Worse yet, who knows what kind of damage you caused to Rick Engel and Austin Java? It is unfair and unfortunate that you did this without the benefit of more information.
I hope you will consider these points and if you think they have some merit, I hope you will consider a way to undo the damage you have done. If you would like to get together to talk about any of this in more detail, we are 100% available.
Sincerely,
Larry Warshaw
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yet another case of someone talking about things that they don't know anything about. Play the piano Marcia, because you obviously know nothing of Austin tree ordinances. The Statesman sucks too.
This smells of good old fashioned anti-condo resentment.
I'm okay with that. Personally I think that place was way cooler as a trailer park. Now it's just another douchey upscale development in what used to be a fun place to hang out.
I find it ironic that over-abundant pecan trees--which are life-support systems for large rat colonies--had to be cleared for another condo development.
Would Marcia Ball prefer a few more Circle Cs? A couple more Belterras? Where would she have us develop to accomodate the people who move here just like she did? Or would she prefer that we just stick our heads in the collective sand and let it all sprawl to Bee Cave, Dripping Springs and points beyond?
I think we know the answer. She should stick to the piano.
Mark me down as pro-condo, because they are far more Earth-friendly than single-family houses. But this was utterly irresponsible behavior by the developer.
Yes, they had clearance from the city, just like Wal-Mart at Northcross. That doesn't excuse, however, the wanton clear cutting of a large pecan grove for a friggin parking lot. Yes, that's right, look at the diagram in the Statesman.
Sure you have to cut a few trees in any urban building project. But Larry Warshaw's bleating about what a great development this is doesn't change the fact that most of those large trees could've been saved if he just gave a damn.
Pecan trees shed their limbs and they must be... I don't know what the word is for it but it's like trimming, or cutting away, or... well, the point is that nobody in this day and age knows how to do it because it's like super expensive when you can just knock them down! Who ever heard of trimming or pruning (is that even a word?) trees so that they don't fall on someone's Hummer and knock a big hole in the roof. Of course they had to be clear cut! It's not like trees help the environment anyway! Hell, didn't someone write a song that goes, "TREES! Huh! Good God! What are they good for? Absolutely nothin'! (Say it again!)" Damn trees taking up all the money space. Don't they know they are up to no good, sitting around and just living off of welfare and shit?
Maybe we could impose a moratorium on trimming and cutting down trees.
We could call the anniversary of that day 'Prune-teenth.'
ducknutz, the trailer park wasn't going to stay there long under any scenario. The more likely alternative was that somebody grabbed it up and DIDN'T attempt to preserve anything - not the native pecan that survived the storm; not the local businesses on Barton Springs.
This is the thing that so many of the paleoliberals fail to get, man. Unless you are the buyer, you don't get to decide what will happen to the property when you run off a developer - you may, in fact, just be running it straight into the hands of a much worse developer.
Face it, Austin's doomed.
While I believe this development is a positive step forward for the area, I'll be the first to admit that riding by everyday and seeing what has been done makes me cringe a little. Between the dust and rather desolate landscape behind the fence and the fact that neither Java or Uncle Billy's have convenient parking anymore it would appear to most right now that this is a bad idea. Shady Grove is now having to pay someone to sit at their entrance to ensure no one parks there and goes to another establishment. It will take some time, but when all is said and done, things will be better than they were.
when all is said and done, things will be better than they were.
If I had any money, that is not what I would wager on.
Kenneth,
The parking for Barton Place will be underground, so the lot is not being cleared for a parking lot, but for the footprint of the building itself. It would have been great if theoretically they had been able to preserve all the trees but if you're "pro-condo" the building has to go somewhere, right?
I do agree that the construction is ugly but it often is. We're having to make tough choices on growth in this town but on balance this seems like a responsible project.
- YoHoHo
I just wish the granola mafia could muster this much outrage for the 100,000 times as much land that gets cleared for suburban sprawl (which can only be stopped by allowing density in the urban core - since the state doesn't let us enforce land use laws more stringent than a gentle suggestion).
I think for most its not all about the condos themselves, but the concern is more about the people that will inhabit them. For now it is mostly people from other cities, young yuppies or whatever stereotype is being perpetuated these days, but over time it will become a mix and that it what we need. Someday LoudMouth, you and ducknutz will be able to live downtown or close by too. You might have to be roomies, but you'll be able to afford it.
Fuck that. I would never buy a condo. I;m fucking TEXAN god damnit! I want a yard!
In regards to condos vs. single-family home: two words: BBQ Pit. A real one, made of stone. No place to put something like that in a condo. Mine looks great in my backyard.
Plus, why would anyone want to BUY a condo and pay homeowner's fees that when combined with a mortgage are double to triple the rent of a nice apartment complex? What is the point?
Oh sure, I'll buy a condo just so I can paint the bedroom a sexy shade of baby blue. That'll make it all worth while! Hell, while I'm at it why don't I just buy the unit directly across the street from this one so I can get some privacy around here? It's not like the view is good anymore!
What I want to know is when GrapeApe and mdahmus are going to move out of their single family homes and into condos? After all, they're both near retirement age, right? They should be clearing things up for the families that are just staring out since there is only one elementary school that is kind of near downtown and that one is already overcrowded, just ask Wynn's kids.
Pecan trees and pro-condo/anti-condo issues aside, is there any sort of plan for all the extra Barton Springs traffic congestion this is going to cause? It's a nightmare as it is now and they've already widened the road once. Guess maybe there'll only be bikers, pedestrians and Cap Metro to deal with since gas is becoming almost as ridiculously pricey as one of those BartonPlace units.
LM, you have no fucking clue of which you speak.
Do some research before you post! Kinda like Marcia Ball should have.
Barton Place residents will enter from Toomey Rd. Restaurant patrons will entrer from Barton Springs, just like they do today. So there will be NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD. This was all hashed out at Planning Comm. and City Council and widely reported.
Even if there was access to BS Rd., condo traffic is minimal compared to any similarly sized commercial use.
I live close enough thanks.
And to suggest there won't be additional traffic on Barton Springs is absurd and naive. You could tell residents everything you want, but Barton Springs will see more traffic regardless.
MD, you need to take your alzheimers medicine, gramps.
there will be NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON BARTON SPRINGS ROAD.
Obviously, the planning commision, city council, and yohoho have been smoking hydro.
LM, I lived in a condo with one kid for quite a while (age 7-10 there) - only bought the house when kid #2 was on the way, and would have been just as happy with a 3br condo, except for the fact that you had to go super-luxe at that time to get a 3rd bedroom.
Hint: This is the point where you should admit you were talking out your ass.
Dearest mdahmus,
We all know you're somewhere between the ages of 55 and 80 and your children are now in college. Why else would you sound like such a crotchety old fogey?
Hint: this is the point where you admit that you either don't practice what you preach or move into a high rise instead of your waste of space single family house.
Crotchety? At least M1KE isn't on here spouting rhetoric about the good ole days when people drove horse and buggies up Congress and Janis Joplin was the top draw at Threadgills.
He doesn't seem to be living in a deluded reactionary world with his head under 14 inches of sand.
Sure thing, cram-o. Whatever you say.
You can't see me rolling my eyes but my eyes are ROLLIN'!
For the record, I lived in a condo as well, but had to move into a home for the same reasons as Mike. Hopefully in the next year or two that could change as the downtown area becomes more affordable and the availability of larger condo spaces increases.
LM, you jackass, I lived in a condo for 7 years, the last 2-3 with wife and kid; and would happily still be living there if we could fit. The school over there was closer and arguably better than the one my youngest kid will go to next year; but we couldn't quite all fit in the old place; and there were no 3-bedroom moderately-priced units around back then (everything 3 bedroom in the area was super-luxury stuff). We still miss the old place and may move back into it someday. If I could have arranged to buy the place downstairs or nextdoor and knock down some walls or something, it would have rocked.
PS: Arguing that we should loosen restrictions on the market to let it actually satisfy demand for higher density development is NOT advocating that everybody live in condos. Fuckwit.
MD, MD, MD! It's everybody but you, buddy!
So wait. If I can't afford a 2 bedroom high density condo in Austin because they are very luxury and too expensive and instead I move into a 3 bedroom house that is right in my price range in Manor, that's excusable, right? That's pretty much what you did. Sure, I'll have to commute by car every day since bus service doesn't go out to Manor and I work in Austin, but at least I'm not extending my carbon footprint into the future by (gasp!) breeding. After all, it would fit my needs and be what I can afford which is what you were thinking when you moved into your single family unit, right?
I don't think anyone is saying people should only live in downtown condos. I think what they are saying is that:
a. zoning laws that prevent tall(er) condos from being built are jackass
b. complaining that condos being built where empty desolate dirt parking lots once stood (ie, the Austonian and W downtown) is jackass
c. complaining that relatively green building decisions for condos (or anything else) vs just thinking no development will ever occur on prime real estate is jackass
d. traffic, energy, and global concerns are such that -- if we can -- we should make the decision to promote and encourage higher density urban living since Austin (and Texas cities in general) have historically been car-centric and sprawling
I don't think you know my friend mdahmus very well.
As one who cares deeply about Austin, I am extremely disheartened by the degradation of our beautiful surroundings. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Austin is losing its aesthetic integrity and a part of its culture.
I wonder if those who appear to have a pro-development point of view and a cynical view of an Austin lost have actually experienced a greener and less populated Austin.
Yes, some have, Petunia. Austin has lost alot of qualities in the last 5 (probably 10) years that made it such a wonderful place. Now it's like a second home for Coasters who are waiting for real estate spikes to die down in their home states.
There are alot of local yokuls here that are trying to make cash off the influx of these domestic immigrants. Sadly, though, every condo development, high end hand bag store, and swank lounge is just one more step towards making Austin as boring and plastic and lame as LA and NYC.
LM, that 2br condo cost $96K when I bought it; about the same as a suburban tract house at the time. It's gone up a lot more in price since then because the inadvertent alliance between suburban fucktards like you and Laura Morrison's Keep Austin Expensive Brigade have limited supply far below demand - but it didn't have to.
I wonder if those who appear to have a pro-development point of view and a cynical view of an Austin lost have actually experienced a greener and less populated Austin.
Oh, come on Petunia!
I wonder if any of us have experienced a greener and less populated Texas. Or United States. Or Earth. Right?
I mean, why don't you get the hell off the native americans' land and go back to Europe, you Renaissance-loving Da Vinci cribbing squatters!
Or better yet, let's just sit around and lament the fact that the Clovis peoples decimated the large mammal culture that ruled North and South America for thousands of years before they wandered across the land bridge. After all, none of us have ever seen a beaver the size of a volkswagon and it's all their fault for over populating and over hunting these beautiful creatures.
Unless you want to institute population controls a la China (and I'd love to hear about how it is our right to have 2 people expand into 5 children, oh boy), you're not going to revert to 1970, 1895, 1491, 400AD, 5000BC, etc.
Yeah, as if the urban sprawl epidemic doesn't
kill trees or pollute our environment. The hyper-development of urban centers is happening world wide. This shit isn't unique to Austin. People only become concerned/aware when it happens in their backyard.
Those that oppose higher density are quite frankly selfish b/c the benefits of living in central Austin will only go to those that already own homes. I love trees, but the gains from developing land around existing inner city infrastructure outweighs what some people see as the loss of "aesthetic beauty" or "culture".
And I wouldn't call driving from strip mall to whataburger much of a culture. I would easily ditch my yard if I could lose my car.
Sadly the people who are talking about "the way it used to be" are probably the ones who thought Tambaleo was an Austin institution and that don't know what Electric Lounge was. The same complaining going on today is the same thing that went on 5, 10 and 15 years ago. For some reason people still think we'd be better off with a car dealership at 5th/6th and Lamar than a Whole Foods headquarters.
I'm not sure about you, but I have had the unfortunate task of driving out the eastbound access road of Toll 45 and seeing what is going on at 130 and 45. Wow, just wow. You want to talk about decimation of natural land. Head out that way and see what anti-density is doing for us.
Well said, Grape Ape. That whole area should be named Morrisonville. Or maybe Jacktown. Or Loudmouthburg.
I just think you guys are complete hypcrites, you've got unrealistic ideas about where and why and how people live, and not only that, you're like a mini-gestapo! You want ME to buy a condo, but you won't do the same. Instead of talking about real life and why people would chose to live in the suburbs instead of downtown, you try to divert attention to Laura Morrison and what a creep she is. You get pissed off at me for making wild assumptions about you, pretending to know all about you, and then you do the exact same thing to me, but it's alright because you two can do no harm and know everything.
But neither one of you know that I have lived in Austin for almost 20 years and I remember the Electric Lounge, Liberty Lunch, and Les Amis. As much as you believe you can see the future and know what's best for Austin, I think you're both completely full of horseshit. I think maybe 1 out of 100 people would want to ever buy a two bedroom condo downtown when they could buy a three bedroom brand new house for less and comute in. You want to know why the condos are largely unoccupied and why they can't even get people to rent them? It's because they're too expensive. Lower the price on them to $50,000 and I'll buy one. But if I can buy a brand new sprawling house in the country for less, I'll fucking buy a sprawling house in the country.
Condos absolutely must cost less if they are going to get sold. Not only that but they benefit nobody if they're standing empty or being used as a vacation home. So what's the point of knocking out an urban forest to build more "homes" that nobody wants to live in? It's all a waste.
And you can stamp your feet and shake your fist and tell me I'm evil for wanting to live in a house instead of a condo, but... you're actually living in a house. I'm renting an apartment. By your logic, you have no right to bitch at me and I have every right to yell at you. I don't give a fuck how much you paid for your condo, your house, whatever... I'm not buying a fucking condo. Ever. I don't know anyone personally that would buy a condo because nobody wants to live in a shoebox. You can say, "Build more condos and they will come," but until you move into one, you have no reason to think that anyone else would want to either. You control yourself, your purchases, your desires. Stop trying to control me or tell me what I want and need because I know what I want and need and your desire for more room for your children doesn't have shit to do with me never ever wanting a condo.
Not only have I lived downtown for ~6 years (including owning a loft for 4+), I have walked to my job for the past 2. My blood pressure has probably never been lower since I don't sit in traffic and/or have to listen to Jason & Deb on the 101x morning show.
I might be 1 of 50 people in Austin doing this, but I'm doing it and I'd gladly pay an extra buck for my tomatos or toilet paper if it means I can walk to Whole Foods and buy it rather than drive elsewhere. When I left my last job, I exclusively looked at jobs downtown. I took a paycut to never ever get on 360 again.
Also: In my building, there are just a couple of empty condos and there's no shortage of renters for owners who rent them out. Same goes for my friends who live in other buildings in the downtown area. I'm not sure of what's going on in the new developments like Milagro, etc but searching the MLS listings doesn't turn up an inordinately large number of units in any of the new buildings.
So, when you and Ducknutz and anyone else wants to claim it can't be done -- it CAN be done.
Dear dumbass, I lived in a condo for 7 years; still own it; and would still be living there _if_ we could fit. And nobody's telling you what you SHOULD do; it's you and Morrison and Jeff Jack who are telling property owners they can't build more condos and apartments to help with affordability.
You want your house? Fine. Don't expect me to keep subsidizing it with freeways and utilities - but in return you damn well better let people build condos on their own damn land.
Oh, and LM -- I don't think you should be forced to live in a condo. But like I said earlier on here, arguing AGAINST condos because you don't like them isn't rational either. I hope they tear down all the dirt parking lots downtown and flood the market. It might cost me a few bucks in appreciation short term, but it'll drive up the likelihood of a real supermarket, etc!
You can say that but I have a friend that's looking for a place downtown and claims that there is no shortage of out of state landlords that would love to rent their condos out even for the low low price of about $1000 a month. That's not low to me, that's low to her.
If you don't want to drive, that's great for you. However, there is no shortage of people who not only don't mind driving, but love to drive. What you might see as a benefit might be someone else's deterrent and no amount of moral high-ground is going to make you right just because you'd like to think you are right.
This is like when ABOR says that sales are going great, home prices ae stable, but I notice that not only rents are dropping dramatically but sales prices are plummeting. You can say, "Home prices in Austin are stable," but I won't believe you unless I see evidence of it outside of a write up in the Austin Biz Journal.
LM, no one is saying everyone should live in a condo. We are saying that condos filled with people who want to live in them, is better than just perpetuating sprawl and ignoring the demand for density. Affordibility will come with time.
And for those of us with houses near the city center, we'll pay in taxes as that land becomes more valuable (regards to the condo fees comments). I said it before, I lived in a 1000 sq. ft. condo and had to upsize to a 1500 sq. ft. house. If and when 3-4 bedroom condos become available and when affordibility kicks in, I'd be more than willing and wanting to live in a condo downtown. And while we are living in houses, we are living in older houses that have always existed, we chose not to pay to have another new piece of land flattened so we could build a new crappy material house and be forced to drive our cars everywhere, but we chose to purchase, at a premium, an existing structure near the city center so we did not have to drive everywhere or live in strip mall hell.
And btw, I was not pointing you out in reference to the Tambaleo comment. I give you much more credit than that when it comes to knowing about this city.
Considering people paid $1000+/month to live in the Riata complex at 183/Oak Knoll in 2000, paying that much to live downtown in a brand new loft is a good deal.
As for people loving to drive: Even the people I know who love to drive and who are auto fanatics don't love driving to/from work in stop/go traffic on Mopac, 360, and I-35. If you know people who enjoy taking 40 minutes to go less than 10 miles while the bake in the 100+ degree heat at $4/gallon, I'd love to meet them.
DiarrheaMouth, get your head out of your ass.
With less condos your rent is going to get higher. Austin isn't going to suddenly become an undesirable place to live. Demand for housing is only going to increse. Less supply will make your rent rise.
And this isn't about morals dumbass, it's fuckin facts. Your car obsession = more pollution, more crime, more dependency on foreign oil, more obese people, more strain on our energy supply,more strip malls, more consumption, more out sourced jobs......
ratz, someday you're going to learn that you are not always right. Try not to kill yourself when that day happens. It's nice to have really really stupid people around to make the rest of us look like geniuses.
grapeape, what I am saying is that unaffordable condos that were built by out of towners for wealthy people that would never live in them and only have a superficial understanding of the Austin market is doing nobody any good. What's the point of the Spring and the Austonian if nobody can afford to live in them except for people that can afford to lose money? Why build them if most people would only consider living in them if they were desperate or much less expensive than they currently are? If they're sitting empty, then why build more? This is like asking why build more hotels that only fill up twice a year? Why? Who knows, but the hotel companies keep on building them anyway.
Cram, you know you can't compare 2000 to today. Hell, if you want to compare any time period to today, compare 1985 to today, that would be more accurate.
Point taken LM, I agree that it sucks if the majority of condo owners have them as 2nd homes, but I think we are seeing much less of that than originally anticipated. I even felt that way when all of this first starting happening, then I started paying more attention and looking into it more and understood the direction and the forces driving it (npi).
Oh Loudfarts please do enlighten me with your flatulence. If you are such a genius then why are you always bitching and moaning about how the world is so unfair? You're such a titty baby.
The more the cost of oil increases, the more these condos will fill up. Austin will be damn lucky if all of the downtown bldgs. on the drawing boards get built.
That's a completely wrong stereotype. Most of those condo owners are living in them full-time, and most of the rest are renting them out to people who are living in them.
Truthy, though. Especially if you're used to bitching to other paleoliberals. "The condos are just a plot by The Man, man!"
"Downtown is so crowded that nobody can afford to live there!"
Well, quite frankly, the point is that every supposedly rich person living in Spring is one less rich person living in Circle C bitching about toll roads; or living in Belterra dumping their shit into Barton Springs.
I am truly amazed that this exact same conversation has happened at least 50 times since I started reading Austinist - mostly by the same people passionately stating the same positions. It almost makes me want to find the middle ground. Unfortunately, those with a grasp of economics 101 win this one in my mind, every time.
mdahmus, do you know a single condo owner? I don't. I do know a couple of wannabe condo renters that are holding out for the big inevitable crash since the market is flooded with condos that nobody wants to buy or rent but eventually will have to drop if anyone that bought one ever wants to make money off of it. The problem right now is that there are some fools that think they can make big money off of the condo they bought. What they don't know is that the people out looking know that they can talk down whatever price the desperate owner has set.
You want to have some fun this weekend? Get on craigslist, contact some owners, arrange to meet them and then see how desperate they are to unload their condo. According to my friend that's renting, the developers are at the point where you can walk into their main office and haggle them down to whatever might seem reasonable (for you, not for me). The renters can set a price for the developers to work with and they're so desperate they'll do anything to retain you.
I never ever said that downtown was so crowded nobody could afford to live there. I said that downtown is too expensive and nobody can afford to live there. Now what I meant is that downtown is so expensive, you can buy a large house for less than you can buy an idiotic condo. Who the hell is going to want to live in a glorified apartment when they can have a brand new house, a yard, a BBQ pit, and a mailbox of their own right next to the front door?
Yes, Ryan, I am sick of this tired old conversation too. The bike conversation is an oldie too.
I take that back. I know one condo owner but her condo is on MoPac near Spicewood Springs and she bought it years ago. I don't know a single person that lives in a downtown condo other than our illustious mayor and I don't know him.
LM,
If I wasn't afraid of you clogging my toilet with your bile, I'd invite you over in a heartbeat. Then you'd know someone who lives downtown in a condo!
"mdahmus, do you know a single condo owner?"
DEER GENIUS:
IN CASE THIS WASN'T OBVIOUS BEFORE, I (STILL) OWN A CONDO. I KNOW MYSELF PRETTY WELL, THANKS.
Can I make that flashing, bold, and italic all at the same time?
If "nobody" means "you", then "yes", in the sense that air quotes mean "you're not firing on all 'cylinders'". It's pretty damn full of people these days. You should come down and walk around for a while.
I'm not convinced that the cost of oil will cause condos to fill up. Seeing as 70% of the folks living in downtown condos don't work in downtown (based on the DAA's own paid study), there are still alot of folks commuting somewhere else to work. If anything, the rise in the cost of oil will drive folks to move closer to where they work.... in the suburbs and outside the downtown area.
Condo dwelling is a lifestyle choice (albeit a really lame one). The first thing to go when things get really tight is lifestyle choices.
Talk about lame...ducknutz yeah, architecture is a lifestyle. And it is about choices. I will miss the airstream trailers too. But, the choice of urban density is far less of a fuck up.
No, ducknutz, living downtown and commuting to any given suburb almost always results in less overall driving than living in one suburb and commuting to another suburb - even if they're adjoining suburbs. (Rarely can you convince somebody to live right next to an employment 'center' in the same suburb - so they end up on the other end of Round Rock from Dell, or in Georgetown or Cedar Park, with an even longer commute than they'd have from downtown).
And from downtown, transit is actually a good option, whereas it will never be feasible for the suburb-to-suburb commute.
This is from personal experience, BTW. First year here, I lived within a long walk of IBM; then I moved near downtown. Driving miles actually went _down_ - didn't have to drive to the grocery store; didn't have anywhere near as far to go for other errands; more than made up for the 8 mile commute (when I didn't just ride my bike).
How many times do I have to explain myself before what I am saying sinks into your hard head?
If I have $300,000.00, prime US money, to spend on a home, why the hell would I want to live downtown when I could buy a small house in Austin or a large house pretty damn near Austin for the same amount of money?
That is why the prices on these condos must drop if the builders want real, working people to live in them.
Living downtown and all the conveniences that implies but doesn't hold up to is not enough draw when I could have a house, a yard, a dog, a garden and a BBQ pit.
Where you got the idea that it's better for someone to drive to Dell from downtown Austin as opposed to Round Rock or Hutto is beyond me, but that says a lot as to just how dellusional you must be.
Shit man, I just looked up home prices for new construction very near here and I could apply for a 2 bedroom, 2 bath house for $80,000 today. Why the fuck would I ever want to live downtown in a condo? With all the money I would be saving on rent, I could buy a Prius, keep it stocked with fuel, and buy seeds and water for Armageddon.
LoudMouth, the reason is that the guy driving to Dell from the other end of Round Rock has almost as long a work commute, and all his other driving will be 10-20x as long. He also can't ever take the bus to Dell if he lives in Round Rock; but he might if he lives downtown (poor example since RR has no Cap Metro service; consider instead the shit along 183 - I could take a very nice express bus to work that was only about 5 minutes longer than driving; my suburban cow orkers couldn't and would never be able to - bus service out there is never going to be as concentrated).
Even with gas prices high, nobody is going to take a bus to work when they can drive, and absolutely nobody is going to take a bus to HEB, Best Buy, and the Domain when they can drive until it becomes more practical to convert your garage into a barn and buy a mule to get to work. Even then, most people would rather take the mule and wagon in than ride the bus. You must think very well of people to believe they'll confrom to what's best in your opinion even if it means saving their own asses. You seem to be forgetting that these are the same people that voted G.W. Bush into office not once, but twice. People are, as a whole, stupid and selfish.
Some people will ride the bus, but I really do not see most of society cashing in their Mobil card for a monthly bus pass.
If you can find an affordable house in central Austin then more power to you. But, this is about maximizing prime downtown land and creating a livable urban core vs/ doing nothing and feeding the suburban lifestyle. And whether you or lamenutz dislikes condos is irrelevant. Get it straight man, the footprint of a condo v/s the footprint of an equivalent suburban neighborhood has less impact on the environment.
So don't cry about the trees in shady grove when the real crime is the bullshit development which surrounds our city.
I don't really see the allure of a BBQ pit.
Feel free to live in a condo. I'm not trying to stop you. I'm sure there will be plenty to go around after you graduate high school in a few more years. That doesn't mean that I will ever find them an attractive alternative to single family living or a good investment.
Or a yard with dead grass.
Plus, that doesn't mean that I and many more people like me that have been running their mouths (as a vast majority in this case - check out the Statesman site) value the condos more than the trees. Those trees make Austin a great place to live. You want to pave them over for parking lots and overpriced shoebox living so that a handful of developers can get rich. You can argue for that all you want but hundreds of Austinites have been and will continue to put our foot down on this.
On top of that - if the suburbs want to stop the sprawl, that's completely within their power, especially if those suburbs are in Hayes or Williamson or some other county not named Travis. It's not your place to say, "Hutto, you have enough sprawl already, let's end it all, ok?". That's the place of the people that actually live in those towns. You want to discourage development that they actually might be welcoming with open arms! If you want to stop sprawl, buy some goddamn land already, don't allow anyone to develop it, and shut up already.
Uh, if the *only* option is sprawl and we don't allow developers to develop condos on land that they bought, then what? You seem to consistently be thinking that people want to take away your option of living wherever you want -- when, in reality, people want to add the option for you, me, and whomever else to live in a more urban dense living situation.
If you don't want people tearing down shitty pecan trees and trailer parks, you and the people who feel otherwise should buy the land already and don't allow anyone else to develop it. Unfortunately, you and your ilk won't take your own advice on and you certainly won't shut up already.
They're not shitty pecan trees and a shitty trailer park. You don't seem to understand that the spirit of Austin, what makes Austin so cool it's beyond-cool, is revulsion for anything too fancy, shiny, and new, a respect for all things natural from Barton Springs to "shitty pecan trees", and nonconformity.
It is not your brand new condo, your brand new ab implants, or your brand new Neiman Marcus status symbol flip flops.
You're obviously oblivious to what makes this town so special. You deserve the empty candy shell you'll inherit.
A trailer park is the exact opposite of the definition of "respect for all things natural".
"I'm not trying to stop you."
Yes, you are. So is Laura Morrison and Jeff Jack and the reactionary nitwits in neighborhood associations who try to stop things like VMU.
HTH.
"Even with gas prices high, nobody is going to take a bus to work when they can drive,"
Huh. I just said I did. And the bus wasn't empty back then either, you nitwit. And it's full enough now that Cap Metro actually had to move buses around to stick a few more on those routes (982/983). Must be ghosts or something.
Well shit - I guess immobilized trailers weren't all natural but at least they cared enough to work around the orchard instead of chainsawing the whole thing then saying, "A storm blew it down". Like I'm going to trust anything that comes out of Larry Warshaw's pedophilic mouth.
You may ride the bus, mdahmus. A couple of your neighbors may ride the bus. Hell, I may ride the bus. That does not mean the vast majority of people that can afford to drive will stop driving, especially if they play so fast and loose with money that they would buy a downtown condo.
Loudmouth, your nostalgia for a time when Austin was a "town" is really futile at this point. Not everyone wants to live in squalid hippy huts.
Heaven forbid something be "fancy" in this city or just make sense urban planning wise. And nonconforming in Austin means what? Keep Austin Weird? Austin is nonconforming because inner city neighborhoods don't have fucking sidewalks in them? Nonconforming because we like parking garages as opposed to public transportation? Nonconforming because half this city wears burnt orange? Nonconforming b/c there was a trailer park in the middle of our city? I appreciate your treehugging but it's the wrong place at the wrong time.
LoudMouth, you said "nobody". Your own words. Do you have an evil twin? Split personality?
Lots more people are riding those express buses these days. And a hell of a lot of people in those condos CAN feasibly take the bus to their suburban jobs - whereas nearly zero of them could do so when they lived in the burbs.
Damn, you are stuck in the mud, mdahmus!
You lost me when you said it's better for peopel to commute from downtown to outlying area rather than just live in the outlying areas and work in the outlying areas.
It's fucking obvious. The outlying areas to outlying areas commute won't have a transit option, ever; and the other trips are likely to be a lot longer on average, so even if the work commute is as short or shorter, you'll still drive more miles than if you live downtown.
So everyone that lives in an outlying area and bikes the 5 miles to work is hurting the world and the 9 out of the 10 people that live downtown and work in outlying areas that drive to work daily are helping the world?
That's how you think?
No, but all those people who live in outlying areas who come downtown to eat, go to Barton Springs, go to ACL Fest, go to SXSW, go to the Alamo South Lamar, go to UT's campus, go to the Capital, go to the government offices, go to the various museums, go to Waterloo Records, go to all those very businesses you purport to love for all their kitschy Austin originality and weirdness, go to Town Lake for a walk, go to the Green Belt to jog, etc all are not helping the world.
And all those same people are constantly doing 2 or 3 or 4 extra trips a day to get milk, a DVD rental, a pizza, etc in longer hauls because it takes -- generally speaking -- a mile or two (at least) to get from your house to the egde of your planned community and then onto the nearest highway (service road or not) towards the strip mall. If those same people lived downtown and they forgot the milk on the way home from work, they'd walk to Whole Foods and pay the extra $1.
Similarly, since a large chunk of what makes Austin fun and unique and awesome and whatever else (ie, nightlight, daylife, outdoorslife, culturallife, festival life, whateverlife) is in the downtown/central area, if you live right next to Dell (which no one who works at Dell does, because you'd have to live at a Red Roof Inn or something similar), you are likely driving 10, 20, 30 miles roundtrip to have a dinner date or whatever else.
And sure, there are people (maybe you!) who want to own a house in the middle of nowhere and just fire up that BBQ pit, but if you think that all the people who live in suburbia aren't doing many many many commutes a day to this kind of stuff, you're batshitcrazy.
cram got it. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
I get it.
Sprawl will stop when we build 500k condos downtown.
But wait. The Austin sprawl is ever wider, while downtown is full of unsold condos. When they finally do fill, traffic will be even worse downtown (all these folks have cars, surprise), it will be insanely crowded and no fun, and we will still have huge sprawl, which will happen no matter how many condos go downtown.
These condos are all about big money for Developer Wynn and his buddies; we are being sold a bunch of horseshit while they pick our pockets.
Sprawl continues and always will. Why not keep downtown relatively pleasant instead of having maximum density and minimum fun? AND sprawl?
Oh right, I almost forgot. Where's the money in that?
Where are you getting the information that people who live in Round Rock are coming into Austin to eat, drink, and shop? Most of them probably don't patronize Waterloo, Book People, and Whole Foods when they can go to Target, Barnes and Noble and HEB stores all within their neighborhood. They probably shop less at Lakeline Mall than Austinites shop at Ikea and the Round Rock outlets.
I don't know why you have such a low opinion of suburbinites to think that they as a whole can't plan their shopping trip in one haul or that people in Austin as a whole don't run out to Target or Applebes whenever the mood strikes.