"Urban" Wal-Mart Will Look Like a Wal-Mart

I know this is late, but RE: The parking garage. Northcross is a transit hub and thus is a massive center of pedestrian traffic. That's why Walmart values the location, and it's why a parking garage would have been vastly superior to a parking lot. The hostile parking lot one has to cross at the Walmart at IH-35 and 71 illustrates this point nicely.

Thanks for the post but I don't agree we are happy. I am the Business Liaison Chair and office next to the WalMart site. RG4N Board is guarded & has a wait and see attitude as do I. Still worried about traffic, security, hours that are not shorter, garbage, safety for disabled when crossing, and water and air pollution. Don't know if will be as "green" as promised or not. Are happy that we brought 5 neighborhoods together, created stronger ties between neighbors and businesses, & got the City of Austin to publicly admit through IBIZ program we are a recognized community like Hyde Park or SoCo.

More info & stats on my post at http://ownersview.com/2010/01/think-before-you-buy/ and Koski Fox TV interview about both views at http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/local/20210-Austinites-React-to-Wal-Mart-Plans.

In other words, you guys were liars when you said you wanted a more urban project, because you got a slightly less urban Wal-Mart than the original plan, but you're happy about that; but you'd be even happier if it were even less urban.

The only way they'd be happy is if Walmart suddenly became a lot like The Domain.

I know a lot of people think this, but that's not true; the leadership of RG4N is actually thrilled they got a smaller (less urban, too) Wal-Mart. Both something like The Domain and something like the Triangle would generate more traffic (and more evil multi-family residents); and by the same metrics they're now choosing to cheer, would have been worse outcomes than either kind of Wal-Mart.

Jeez. And this sucks, too.

as for wording, you still have:

"despite the fact that it was always planned to be located in a sea of surface parking"

this implies that the more urban Wal-Mart had surface parking, not a parking garage.

But most importantly of all, this shows that RG4N was lying when they said they were all about urban and mixed-use, considering how they've crowed about the outcome here. Even if you only viewed the 2-story store as slightly less shitty, you wouldn't cheer the 1-story store as a victory, would you>

As far as baby steps, transit, whatever; a parking garage is slightly more urban than a surface lot - and is slightly less convenient for drivers; hence eating away (slightly) at some of the inherent disadvantages to transit.

Also, IIRC, the pedestrian connection between the store and the big transfer center was better in the old plan (with garage); it's far easier to construct an acceptable pedestrian path across a couple of garage entrances than across 24 rows of surface parking.

Finally, the transit issue WRT this store is for the employees, not the patrons (although I'd like to think a few customers would bus it to shop, most would never do so).

The parking garage is irrelevant to whether this is pedestrian-friendly or "urban." The only reason W-M removed the garage was that the store shrank by 50%. It was always planned to be a 100% impervious cover development, parking garage or not.

Kenneth, again, the pedestrian path from the transfer center would have been a lot nicer/safer with the garage than it will be with the surface lot. There's one (small) difference right there. And there's more differences than just that; if you look at the two plans side by side.

RG4N can thank themselves for this. They could have had an "urban" Wal-Mart that was more attractive and partially better in terms of the parking garage and such. So this is their reward for forcing a replan to get their way. Congratulations RG4N!

@South Mouth, I feel for you. Most of the people in Bouldin are a-holes who only care about themselves and what they want.

Actually, the 2-story plan had a parking garage, not surface parking. Baby steps, I know, but still better than the standard sea of surface parking.

I thought that was what I said - "the parking garage has been removed." I tweaked the language in the post to make it clearer.

I'm not sure it matter much either way. I don't think denser suburban is a baby step towards urban. Car-centric is still car-centric. A stack of shit two stories high is still a stack of shit, although I guess I prefer it to a one-story stack of shit twice as wide, so maybe you have a point.

The two story garage (though clearly car-centric) was a huge step toward improving the situation. By reducing the impervious surface, you reduce run-off, heat island effect, etc. Also, by increasing density, you reduce the overall land being developed.

As far as car-centric is concerned, I would understand the complaint if you were in Chicago, DC, or NYC where there is a clear transit centric infrastructure, but it just isn't like that here and only more transit options will change that - not just hoping that people will take the bus, the light rail to nowhere (that will only run at rush hour if it ever runs) or a bike (when going to Wal-mart to buy enormous quantities of goods).

While I agree in general, I'm not sure your point is accurate here. My understanding is that Northcross is now, and under both the original proposal and the current proposal would be, almost completely impervious cover. Your second point would be correct if building 200,000 sqft here would have stopped Wal-Mart from building another 100,000 sqft on a greenfield somewhere, but I'm not sure that is the case either.

Regarding transit, I don't think it is a pre-requisite for pedestrian friendly development. I understand that most people are going to be driving to Wal-Mart, but I still would rather see the building up against the street, with sidewalks and doors facing the street, and the parking lot (or garage) in the back.

Yeah, I've already written on the ridiculousness of that one on my blog. Anything less than a very tall office building is going to look silly in that location. That lot is surrounded by a 5 story and 8 story building and faces the Palmer parking garage.

Actually, we have a NIMBY fight against urban density going on here in my neighborhood (Bouldin), where the mullahs are fighting a neat mixed use project proposed for 801 Barton Springs. It's pretty cool, includes a couple of restaurants and places to grab a cup of coffee on the creek, but myopic neighbors are fighting the height of 120' -- they won't even let the developer go to 60' -- even though next door building is 138'! Please, if you care about sustainability and good urban design, help my own people see the virtues in having a walkable city. This one comes up at PC on 2/9.

It fits in perfectly with the neighborhood. Anderson's a lost cause now.