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
This is part of a weekly series of posts about architecture in Austin by local architects. The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the outlook or beliefs of Austinist or anyone else in the IST network.
This column is by J. Brantley Hightower, an architect practicing in San Antonio, Texas. J. Brantley Hightower has taught at several schools of architecture throughout the state and is a contributing writer to Texas Architect.
a tale of two cities
If you only knew them as dots on a map, you might expect Austin and San Antonio to be very similar. With downtowns a mere 70 miles apart, you would be correct in assuming they share similar geographies and climates. Studying the map further you would note both cities are bisected by rivers and, depending on how detailed the map, you might also see that while Austin has lined its river with hike and bike trails, San Antonio has surrounded its water feature with restaurants and bars. While this would seem to imply San Antonio is the hipper, cooler place, you do not need me to tell you it is not. MTV has yet to shoot a season of “The Real World” in a pimped-out mansion on the Riverwalk. There is no “San Antonioist” blog. Indeed, for all of its layered history and cultures, San Antonio as it exists today is a much less compelling place than its younger sibling to the north.
Of course that is a highly subjective judgment and there are plenty who might argue the other side of that conclusion. Still, having spent five years in Austin as an architecture student in the late ‘90s and having just finished my fifth year in San Antonio as a working architect, I feel I have a reasonable comparative perspective. While my objectivity might be somewhat tainted by the fact that I was a young and idealistic student when I was in Austin while I am a grizzled working stiff now that I am in San Antonio, few would argue that Austin and San Antonio are very different cities. Looking into what makes them so would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor.
Had we compared these two cities a century ago, the results would have been very different. San Antonio at the turn of the twentieth century was much like Austin at the turn of the twenty-first. San Antonio was the place to be in Texas if you were a young and ambitious architect. Notable turn-of-the-century architects such as Alfred Giles, James Riely Gordon and Atlee Ayres designed many of the cultural landmarks of the state from their respective headquarters in the Alamo City. This concentration of design talent was matched with a diverse, progressive and civic-minded citizenry that financed the creation of public amenities like parks, theaters and the ubiquitous Riverwalk. Anglo, Latino and German cultures all contributed to what was then a lively cultural and built environment.
While the residue of that diverse energy remains, more recent development has caused it to fade. To serve the needs of the tourists that now seem to outnumber workers downtown, San Antonio’s skyline has come to be dominated by generic high-rise hotels. At the street level, many of the historic structures that once defined the pedestrian character of the city have fallen victim to the need for parking. The result is a downtown considerably less dense and somehow less real than it was fifty years ago. Tourism is not a bad industry for a city to have - it has contributed to an economic diversity that has allowed San Antonio to avoid the severe fiscal downturns that crippled places like Houston and Midland in the past few decades. Then again, the city has also not experienced any great developmental leap like the one recently brought by the tech boom in Austin. San Antonio is not without wealth, but the wealth it does have has not recently overflowed into civic projects the way it did a century ago. Worse, many wealthy residents have forsaken San Antonio proper for urban enclaves such as Alamo Heights and Hill Country Village - separate municipalities with disproportionate incomes and homogenous demographics. The net result has been the wealthy have taken their potential civic engagement and (perhaps more critically) their tax dollars away from San Antonio.
With development dispersed, San Antonio’s downtown has remained underutilized in the way the downtowns of Dallas, Houston and Austin once were. Older homes close to the city center that would have been gentrified and sold for $750,000 long ago in Austin remain dilapidated and underutilized in San Antonio. The kind of downtown condominiums that have been popping up in Austin for the past decade have only recently and timidly begun to be built in San Antonio. Since many of them are entering a severely handicapped real estate market, it is unlikely any more will be built for many years. So long as few people live downtown, it will continue to empty out on nights and weekends, leaving only the sunburned revelers on the Riverwalk.
While there is plenty to bemoan about the recent building boom Austin has experienced, it has resulted in a lively urban core and a unique civic pride. This energy or Zeitgeist is probably one of the most compelling things Austin has working in its favor. While all the self-conscious weirdness may get annoying, that attitude results in a citizenry that is more likely to demand better, more progressive buildings that cumulatively create a better, more progressive city. It also helps preserve that which is uniquely Austin.
To be sure, San Antonio contains tremendous untapped potential as a city. Its downtown is ripe for redevelopment and, once the economy improves, a number of projects could begin to energize the city. I am not proposing that San Antonio should become another Austin - for one, the people here (myself included) are simply not cool enough to pull it off. In the end, cities should be different - that is part of what makes visiting them so compelling. What I am suggesting is that there is plenty San Antonio could learn from its neighbor to the north and conversely, plenty of warnings Austin should heed from its neighbor to the south.
There is also plenty the 18-year old version of me could have learned from the 32-year-old version, but that is another column for another day.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Um...just the fact that you think MTV and "ist" blogs define cool makes you, well, exceedingly uncool. Also, I moved to Austin from San Antonio 14 years ago and downtown redevelopement was well underway there....not here in Austin. Talking about wealth and San Antonio and not mentioning it's thriving art scene, PACE, Blue Star and municipal museums again proves you are clueless.
Lastly, what's with the competition with San Antonio?
Harsh. Dunno. I kind of agree with the article. Every time I visit San Antonio I rarely want to stick around long term. I'm trying.
I love these articles but I can't help but notice a trend. For all the greatness that urban density brings, both aesthetically and environmentally, none of the authors bother to discuss the negatives - specifcally affordability and diversity. The downtown condo/urban scene is primarily wealthy and white. This isn't unique to Austin, and despite calls for affordable housing, we are left with a white yuppie scene that outsiders can only appreciate by driving in.
I am no fan of sprawl, but it remains the only option for many.
For now, eventually density will lower the overall cost of housing closer to the city center.
One more issue - not everyone wants to raise a family in a 1000 sq ft apartment
One more issue - not everyone wants to raise a family in a 1000 sq ft apartment
Amen. Contrary to the opinion of liberal city planners and well-heeled Austinist contributors many Texans want large single family homes and a bit of land to call their own.
Wes and Random, you are correct that many people want a single family house, but just like not everyone wants a condo, not everyone wants a single family house.
95% of the $1,000,000+ homes for sale on the Austin MLS right now are single family homes, not condos. 77% of all the homes for sale on the Austin MLS are single family homes. Building more condos downtown gives more people the option to live downtown. It doesn't stop people from building sprawling mcmansions in Lakeway. No one is being forced to live in a condo.
I want a beach house in Hawaii, but I can't afford it.
Because I ought to be able to have what I want, regardless of how much it costs, I demand that you immediately change the tax and regulation system so that my particular housing choice is subsidized by people who don't live in a beach house in Hawaii, you know, just like how, today, people living in suburban sprawl are being subsidized out the wazoo by the condo and apartment dwellers.
Get cracking.
Aloha,
M1EK
We already subsidize the hell out of Hawaii, especially coastal real estate. I'm sorry that you still can't afford it.
Wes, you misunderstood the analogy (incredibly), and, no, coastal real estate in Hawaii isn't really subsidized. Your suburban homestead is - you get a free ride on roads paid for disproportionately by urban drivers (and even non-drivers); and many city services cost a lot more to deliver to you than to me, yet I pay far more in taxes to support them than you do.
Also, a hell of a lot of people live in apartments in the suburbs today - getting the disadvantages of both high and low density while getting the advantages of neither. We're supposed to ignore those people, though, right?
I understood your poor analogy and yes, coastal real estate in Hawaii really is subsidized by mainland taxpayers.
Hawaii receives $1.44 in Federal spending for every $1.00 its residents pay in Federal taxes (FY 05), ergo we subsidise the hell out of Hawaii. Texas OTOH receives $.94 for each $1.00 paid to the Feds.
Coastal real estate is also subsidized through the availability of Federal flood insurance. No one on the coast could get a mortgage if it weren't for the subsidy since flood insurance isn't readily available in the private market.
No, Wes, you didn't get it at all.
Single-family suburban living is preferred at the current price for something like 40% of Austin. (50% live in apartments, 10% live urban, let's say).
The current price is artificially low.
If the price was, let's say, doubled, do you think 40% of Austin would still 'prefer' it?
And flood insurance is irrelevant on the coast in Hawaii. You just saw 'coast' and thought 'hurricane', didn't you? The excess federal spending in Hawaii is due to all the military bases, BTW, and doesn't really help the local economy that much IMO.
Federal flood insurance is irrelevant to Hawaii? Hawaiians will be glad to know that so that they can quit paying for it! I'm also sure that Hawaiians are grateful for military spending since it's kept the Japanese out of their backyards for over 60 years.
Look, I understand that suburban living is subsidized through tax dollars spent on roads. It get that but lots of other things are subsidized by tax dollars too. Do you eat food? Drink water? Did you receive an education? Watch sports? Ride the bus? Ride in an airplane? Borrow money? Invest? Use the internet? etc, etc, etc... All of these things are subsidized through tax dollars but for some reason single family homeownership the only issue that you feel warrants your self-rigeteous indignation.
Wes, flood insurance at the coast in Hawaii is irrelevant - if you knew anything about Hawaii, you'd know they don't suffer much in the way of hurricanes. It doesn't fit into your crazy libertarian box, sorry.
The sum effect of the tax and regulatory system in place right now is that suburban single-family homeowners are subidized by people living in more urban neighborhoods. You can wish this away like most libertarians because you happen to LIKE you some free commuting highways, but it doesn't make it any less true. Those downtown condo dwellers are paying the bill so your suburban home is artificially cheap.
Mike: Your analogy was terrible but by all means keep defending it. I don't deny that suburban lifestyles are subsidized by tax dollars but if tax subsidies are your main concern then why aren't you equally upset over public goods other than roads which are supported by taxes?
Wes, 'supported by taxes' isn't the issue. Subsidizing behavior which has large negative externalities is the issue.
Suburban single-family living is 'preferred' currently by something less than a majority at its current, artificially low, price. You somehow turn this into "everybody wants a house and a yard".
Well, I want the beach house in Hawaii. So do a lot of people. That's a meaningless statement, really. Am I willing to, or can I afford to pay for it? Or, as you suburbanites have done, can I get somebody else to pay for it?
As Random already pointed out you're conveniently ignoring the positive externalities of suburban sprawl.
I understand that not everyone wants a house and a yard, you're clearly one of those people. I would also never look down my nose at you for choosing to live in a townhouse.
Wes, there are no positive externalities of sprawl. Look up the definition of externality if you're unclear on the concept.
Mike: I've been on vacation and I'm sorry that I didn't respond to your luidcrous comment earlier. Highway construction, new home construction, and retail - all of which are associated with sprawl - create tons of economic activity in this country. Let's be honest Mike, you're just not that bright. Please stop posting now and save yourself further embarrassment.
Wes, your examples are more along the lines of the "broken window fallacy" than positive externalities. Highways built for suburban commuters don't move much freight or provide much additional mobility to urban residents in most cases.
And secondly, what are some examples of cheap density?
Every major city in the world?
Are you serious? Cheap compared to what?
Let me ask you a question; would you like to live in say, the Hyde Park for the same price as you could live in Cedar Park? That is what will happen eventually. The more dense the central area, the cheaper the outlying areas become and those outlying areas become closer to the city as density increases.
You are totally smoking crack. People will continue to desire to live "close to the action", particularly all the yuppy douchebags that keep flocking to this city. Austin will have to stack up condo developments like a bunch of high-falluting Towers of Babel before a neighborhood like Hyde Park will be as affordable as Cedar Park.
Cheap compared to similar housing in that market. Do you think density is the factor that makes housing more expensive? If so, the big apartment districts on Far West, Stassney, and East Riverside would be the most expensive areas in town!
I think there needs to be a much more frank and honest discussion how density would work in 1) an area that does not have the geographic limitations that often necessitate density and 2) in a state that was, in large part, founded by people looking for more space.
Also, I do think the Austinist and urbanists around the country paint both suburban sprawl and urban density with a broad brush. Sprawl is inherently bad, density is inherently good. Sprawl may be unattractive and bad for the environment, etc. But it has allowed many middle to low income families to buy a home, raise a family and not have to live on top of each other. That’s nothing to scoff at. You can say that this is a cultural phenomenon, even go so far as to say it is a bad one, but the positives as well as the negatives have to be addressed.
Dear everybody, add this movie to your Netflix.
http://www.radiantcitymovie.com/
Actually, Random, there aren't any positives to sprawl for society. You're destroying land necessary for food production to make cheap generic housing. Food production isn't growing nearly as fast as the population and reduced farmland doesn't help. You replace natural land and trees with concrete and wood and lawns that require more and more water to maintain. It's a locust effect. Europe and other western countries don't have sprawl like this and they also don't have ridiculously cheap real estate. Of course, they don't feel artificially entitled to own land either.
People need to get out of their yuppie/hipster bubble from time to time and see how other people live.
To say there are no positives to sprawl is ignorant and elitist. I'm not saying sprawl is great, and I'm not even saying that there are more positives than negatives. But to completely discount something that's helped people to build a livelihood for themselves is ridiculous.
An "artificial entitlement to own land"? Are you insane? Not to get into an argument about political theory or any of that garbage, but the the right to own land is a fundamental human right and a key component to freedom.
Listen, if you want to tell the suburban family raising three kids that they need to move into a 1000 sq foot condo that cost 3 times as much as what they're paying now so that you can feel better about where you live, then be my guest. But I have a little more respect for people than that.
Now it's a fundamental human right to own a piece of the earth? That concept alone runs completely at odds with freedom. Oh, I can't go somewhere because some other human "owns" it? You, as most americans do, completely misunderstand the entire concept of "freedom". As I already mentioned, I HAVE been where other people live. Other western developed countries don't have the same problem with sprawl because they don't have the ridiculous, completely artificial and completely american notion that they're entitled to "own" a piece of the earth. You have a fundamental human right to have some living space, but you have no fundamental human right to own anything. And I'm still waiting on hearing a single positive aspect of sprawl for society. It sounds like it's actually you that wants to feel better about where you live.
Given its history, holding up Europe over the United States as a model of freedom is asinine. Freedom is being able to make a decision regarding your own life without someone telling you "no". Your definition of freedom is a list of privelages bestowed upon you by some asshole with a divine right. It is so fucking convenient when those "rights" are in line with your idea of the way the world should fucking work. I almost wish George W Bush could govern you under THAT system so you could see how ridiculous it is.
It is evident that your idea of what is good for society is some arbitrary list that you find acceptable. Either that or you have the workings of human society figured out and an further study of sociology and political science is pointless.
Were you that guy at the health care rally today whose only input was to continuously yell "U S A! U S A!" over and over at the pro-health care reform folks? Just wonderin'.
Grow up. Someon can have a positive view of the united states over Europe and not be a right wing nationalist. Go back to campus and "change the world" or someother bullshit.
I've yet to see you actually answer any of the questions posited back to you in this thread, so that's why I asked if you were just knee jerking and blathering rather than trying to engage in a discussion.
So far, this reads like one of those teaching-intelligent-design-because-i-don't-understand-the-definition-of-a-theory-but-get-offended-that-my-not-quite-valid-viewpoint-is-being-stepped-on arguments. Just because you say that owning land is a fundamental right (and/or piece of freedom) or that suburban sprawl has positive impact on society doesn't necessarily make it so.
My bad for assuming that you might not have anything to contribute in terms of backing up your assertions.
Oh, and I've got a pretty positive view of America. There's room for improvement, but in general -- even with our love of suburban cul de sacs and Applebees -- it's a pretty neato place!
Questions? Negatives to density? None, really. My ENTIRE point has been that there are people that benefit from the extremely low prices that result from sprawl. And I am sorry if they are lower middle class or non hipster types that you prefer not to associate with, but they deserve a some say in the way this city develops.
Let me ask a question that expands on a previous point - how would you explain the benefits of your vision of density to a lower middle class family trying to make it?
I'm confused. You explicitly said:
But as I said earlier, there's negatives as wells as positives associated with encouraging this type of development. I just feel that we should discuss these in greater detail.
And now you're saying you can't think of negatives to urban density?
Can you answer my other question about the positives (to society) of suburban sprawl?
In the meantime, a quick answer to your question-- if density lead to affordable density because, like apartments in northwest or southeast Austin, there were just a crapload of places to live then the explanation to a lower middle class family is easy. They wouldn't have to own multiple cars to get groceries, go to a movie, get to their jobs, etc. They would either be able to walk to a lot of those things and/or take public transportation. They, like people who live in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Jersey City, etc would be able to live out the fringe of the super dense core or they could -- like people did before the real estate explosion in the mid 90s in NYC -- live in the super dense core.
Take out the additional car payment, the additional car insurance, the use of gallons of gasoline to get a gallon of milk, etc and you're able to spend a bit more on your rent in an urban core. But, the jobs and infrastructure need to be there. So all that said, I will admit it's a chicken and an egg problem.
For what it's worth, you're not hip if you can afford to buy a condo downtown. You're almost certainly a working stiff, myself included, and how hip is a guy who works a white collar job? No amount of Lonestar is going to change that reality either. :)
My whole point as been that TO ME, density is better than sprawl. You keep talking about what's good for society as if there is some objective approach to this.
My version of a good society is one that more or less allows people to live their lives as they see fit. Your version of society involves creating fanciful NYC-esque futures for people. Ones that probably match your view of a "perfect" city. I don't want to seem flippant, but you're really overestimating the appeal of places like the Bronx and Queens and the quality of life they provide.
Again, assuming if we've left the hipster and yuppie bubble, we've all met people that have left New York or San Francisco for places like Atlanta, Austin, Houston, Dallas, etc. And typically the people that have made this move are people looking to raise families or improve their quality of life - Probably not a Williamsburg resident.
Random, you're hilarious, so I have to keep this going. Everything that goes against your ideas so far has been ignorant, elitist, yuppie and/or hipster. And comes directly from Williamsburg. You're just so full of regurgitated clichés that you've read somewhere that I could just eat you up. Isn't he so cute!
To be more serious for a second though, I'm going to sum up your argument. Your argument is; despite the sprawl model not being sustainable and basically horrible for the earth and society and the future of mankind, screw all that because you want some cheap land with a yard. You don't care about the pollution, the destruction of land, the gas wasted, etc. etc. You can't get your cheap land out in the countryside or in west Texas. You want your cheap land on the outskirts of a city, by golly, and anybody with any other ideas is infringing on your divine right to have exactly what you want. I say kudos to you. You're living the American dream.
Want to talk about regurgitated clichés? And your arguments are what, now? Original? Fresh? C'mon, now. They've all been said before, as I assume we are not the first people to have this argument.
Putting your mindless hyperbole aside, I must repeat the same points that seem to be conveniently ignored by you.
First, off this isn't about me. It isn't about you. We’re reading and arguing on the friggin’ Austinist, so I’m assuming we appreciate density and urban living more than the average person.
Second, no one has bothered to address the potential realities of what your anti-sprawl ideas will do to those that stand to be the most affected. If policies are implemented that are designed to achieve your desired result real people are going to feel it. Not just in terms of their pocket books, but also their quality of life.
You turned this into an argument about political theories because what you’re talking about doing only works in a theoretical vacuum - it is like arguing with a college student. I don’t care about your vague concept of “society” or cynical view of the “American Dream” - I want to know what you think this will really do to people. When these things are debated in city council meetings and state legislators they don’t have the option of being as dismissive about “sprawl” because it affects REAL PEOPLE. So humor me, how would you explain this to the suburban family trying to raise a family?
As you obviously can't read, I'll pointlessly say it again. Europe. Western countries, besides the USA. They already have societies where ridiculous sprawl isn't an issue. Hmmm. Seems like I already answered your questions. Pity you've never answered anyone else's.
Europe? That's it? You would tell them about Europe? And that would help them how?
You want your cheap land on the outskirts of a city, by golly, and anybody with any other ideas is infringing on your divine right to have exactly what you want. I say kudos to you. You're living the American dream.
You're goddamn right. God bless Texas!
Also, I love how Europe is denounced for "its history". I wonder if America has ever had problems with freedom. No, surely not. I'm sure nothing bad could ever happen here. Everyone of all stripes has been able to do what they want with their life pretty much since we kicked out the Brits.
Random, I think a big part of the problem is the fact that a 1,000 sqft condo downtown costs 3X the cost of a 2,000 sqft single family house 50 miles from downtown. I'd love to see that ratio flipped, but I don't see how we are going to get there without (1) building a lot more condos downtown and (2) allocating costs more accurately to the people creating those costs. I think if the ratio was flipped, a lot of the people currently choosing to live in single family houses would decide that they'd rather save the money and live in a condo.
I agree. I really do think we should make an effort to encourage denisty in the city center. If the demand is there, market forces will encourage a move from the suburbs to the inner core.
But as I said earlier, there's negatives as wells as positives associated with encouraging this type of development. I just feel that we should discuss these in greater detail.
What are the negatives (to society/the community) associated with a dense urban core?
And since people have already listed the negatives (to society/the community) associated with sprawl, what are the positives (to society/the community) associated with sprawl?
Because, I don't consider "having a backyard" a benefit to society -- and I can't really come up with (m)any unless you can prove that people are somehow happier with a backyard and that leads to something greater for society?