Austin Sprawl?

[skyphen]

Austin is often lauded as being a progressive oasis in the state of Texas. Is this true or is it just Austin boosters blowing hot air? What is Austin doing differently than Dallas and Houston to mitigate sprawl and make for a more walkable, dense urban core? Is it working? What about its metro area? It seems people move to the suburbs there just as much as the other Texas cities and the traffic is just as horrific, if not more so. How are they managing their growth? What do you think Austin will look like in five to ten years? What is the difference in the way the city of Austin is managed and the way its citizens vote than the larger cities? What about racism and environmental concerns? I guess my question is, is it really all that different? Just what is really different about Austin? My first inclination is to say "nothing", that there is only a greater concentration of some of the things that other cities have. I mean, is it really a San Francisco or Portland in the middle of Texas?

[musicman]

Austin isn't any different than sprawling cities. i will say they ignored their freeway system for too long which caused the traffic situation to be horrible.

[swtsig]

Austin isn't any different than sprawling cities. i will say they ignored their freeway system for too long which caused the traffic situation to be horrible.

bingo.

austin is no different that houston or dallas at this point.

[WesternGulf]

Austin is the most progressive or liberal city in Texas as far as voting but the physical characteristics of the city as far as how it is built is no different than any other Texas city.

[TheNiche]

Austin is often lauded as being a progressive oasis in the state of Texas. Is this true or is it just Austin boosters blowing hot air? What is Austin doing differently than Dallas and Houston to mitigate sprawl and make for a more walkable, dense urban core? Is it working? What about its metro area? It seems people move to the suburbs there just as much as the other Texas cities and the traffic is just as horrific, if not more so. How are they managing their growth? What do you think Austin will look like in five to ten years? What is the difference in the way the city of Austin is managed and the way its citizens vote than the larger cities? What about racism and environmental concerns? I guess my question is, is it really all that different? Just what is really different about Austin? My first inclination is to say "nothing", that there is only a greater concentration of some of the things that other cities have. I mean, is it really a San Francisco or Portland in the middle of Texas?

The City of Austin is different from other central cities in Texas, but only in the sense that they take the same political philosophy further. For instance, they are often extremely difficult to deal with if a developer needs a variance, but at the same time, they're much more generous with subsidies when it comes to the kinds of things that they think they want...and no matter what happens, there will always be a vehement BANANA contingent with pull trying to suppress anything new. Dallas is somewhat less so, and Houston even less. It is all dependent, seemingly, upon the geographic composition of their constituents. Austin takes in the fewest decidedly suburban areas, Houston takes in the greatest. Looking at each of the metro areas at a regional level, however, ignoring political boundaries, they are very similar. That may change in the long term, but for the time being, I think it is a fair assessment.

Another thing to bear in mind, though, is that when people go on and on about how nice Austin is, it's kind of like how many Houstonians worship the Inner Loop as a nice place, except that they really aren't talking about the area encompassed by Loop 610, but about Montrose, Heights, West U, River Oaks, and the Galleria area. Austin, to most people, is inclusive of Downtown, the greater UT area, SoCo, and S. Lamar...never mind that their densest areas are actually east of I-35, or that the city limits encompass parts of Austin that are really quite forgettable.

[Heights2Bastrop]

For years, people have migrated to the lakes area west of the city to

[skyphen]

As a native Texan, I have traveled to Austin often and have enjoyed myself there, but I really haven't gotten what was just so great about it that it has become what it has become. I can understand the attraction of the outdoors, but I feel like the Inner Loop of Houston and even parts of Dallas are no different than Austin as far as the people and things to do. That is, you can find in pretty much any large city what you can find in Austin. I think it is just packaged a lot better in Austin than in other Texas cities, and maybe comes in a prettier, smaller, less intimidating package too. Austinites seem to disparage Houston and Dallas a lot, saying there's no other place worth living in Texas because they are so conservative, so I just really began to wonder what they were doing that was so much more progressive than Houston and Dallas. I'm liberal and I haven't had much of a problem living here. I have my gripes, and I think we could stand to be a little more vibrant and touristy (Houston especially)... I thought maybe I was missing something, but !he consensus so far seems to be they're not doing much of anything differently, as I had thought based on my visits there. San Francisco, Portland, Seattle... these are cities that ARE progressive and DO most of the things Austin seems to only talk about.

Thanks for the opinions and keep 'em coming!

[713 To 214]

Austin is the most progressive or liberal city in Texas as far as voting but . . .

I think this is a falicy. With the 1st elected black district attorney in Texas, the 1st openly lesbian Sheriff elected in Texas, openly gay elected council member who was in a runoff in the most recent mayoral election, and the largest voter-approved rail system in Texas, I'd say that Dallas is probably the most "progressive or liberal" city in the state. Austin just gets the most pub from liberals outside the state who don't know any better.

[N Judah]

Austin's attracted a lot of the same type of high tech industry as some of the "progressive" cities mentioned, and has a lot of the amenities you would associate with a city that has a disproportionate # of students relative to other cities.

I'm not sure it is comparable to SF, Seattle, or Portland, but, having said that, I wouldn't compare those cities with each other, either.

[Vertigo58]

Some newer areas/communities nestled in the hills above Lake Travis remind me of the seaside villas in San Diego. Just love those Spanish/Meditteranean Revival & Italiante stucco structures. The terra cotta and tiled roofs are just too cool.

Best bet would be to go online and just search for Austin attractions, etc.

The rivers, creeks and hills are enough to make me want to live there. and everyone is right the freeways are something to be reckoned with. HWY 35 is stuck in the stone age.

[TheNiche]

I think this is a falicy. With the 1st elected black district attorney in Texas, the 1st openly lesbian Sheriff elected in Texas, openly gay elected council member who was in a runoff in the most recent mayoral election, and the largest voter-approved rail system in Texas, I'd say that Dallas is probably the most "progressive or liberal" city in the state. Austin just gets the most pub from liberals outside the state who don't know any better.

Are gays and blacks a good measure of what is perceived by outsiders as "liberal"? Or is it a better measure of "demography"? For that matter, is mass transit a good measure of "liberal"? Or is it a better measure of "population"?

I suspect that Austin's reputation is in part tied to that it has a large population of affluent (or upwardly-mobile) white liberals, rather than poor brown-skinned liberals...like other Texas cities. Neither of those groups really seems to care about the other, insofar as their voting practices are supportive of one another. And as far as it relates to yuppie tourism, high-tech industry, and the like, poor brown-skinned populations are entirely irrelevent except possibly in pre-2005 New Orleans.

[GovernorAggie]

I'm sorta with you on this, Niche. It has gotten ancient seeing single factors as the litmus tests for how "progressive" (whatever that means) a community is. I mean, could it be that cities choose people for elected office because they like their approach to the position?

Besides all that, I think the definition of "progressive" and "conservative" is conditional and abstract at best--and a farce at worst. Houston's economy is "progressing" at an extremely high rate, but is viewed by some as "conservative". On the other hand, Pittsburgh's and Baltimore's economies are not coming along at the same rate, but are "progrssive".

See? Conditional and subjective. And I'd even through in "unimportant".

[JDawgATX]

Okay Ive lived in Austin all my life I can tell you that we are different than Houston and Dallas in some ways and that we are similar in others. Granted Austin has not done the best job in the world to stop urban sprawl especially west of the city in the hills, but we are making great leaps and bounds building up the inner core and downtown area. As far as traffic is concerned, alot of that is not the city of Austin's fault. Blame the State of Texas and the Federal government for not allocating enough money to the area. Granted if Austin went ahead and requested federal grants back in the late 50's and 60's like Houston and Dallas did, we would probably have a much better freeway system than we do now. The thing was at that time they city did not believe it would ever be a large city, now we are paying the price of what our former city leaders and voters did back then. We are getting Commuter rail starting sometime in mid 2008, though it may not be the best choice that voters approved, its still better than nothing at all. I think the city is doing a great job in making sure there is a good mix of residential, office, and retail in the core so people will not have to rely on cars all the time. I think that in effect the traffic will not be any more congested once most of the residential highrises are complete because most people living in them will not need to drive around to get what they need when they can just walk down the street and have everything they need right there. It will take another 3 to 5 years but that is where we are headed. In a few years the city will not be recognizable as our downtown will be the 3rd densest and tallest downtown behind Houston and Dallas. Alot of critisizm about Austin in here is mainly about the people and how the people boast so much. I can agree some people go too far with that but don't just judge a city by how some people make it sound like its the best place in the world to be. We have a huge homeless issue here wich I feel is something that needs alot of attention in helping to relieve. The city needs to push the state and Fed for more money for road improvements though I doubt we will see much of anything the way things are going. We have our problems too don't get me wrong but overall, I think we are doing pretty well in trying to deal with some of those issues while in others, we need more work to be done.

[MidtownCoog]

"Progressive" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

It's a nice way of saying Liberal Tax Loving voter with a grudge.

[webdude]

At least it sticks, try putting 'progressive' with 'conservative', its like oil and water, 'conservative' and 'backwards' goes very well together though.

[CDeb]

Back to the topic....

Sorry, you cannot blame the state and federal governments for the state of Austin's freeway system. Do you think they just said, "Hey, let's build up Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio and screw Austin?" Nope.

What you have today is the direct result of Austinites and their leaders attitudes of the 1950's and 1960's which was, "If you don't build it, they won't come."

Well, they didn't build it, and they came anyway, and now they're hosed.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Getting from East Austin to West Austin during rush hour can be a massive pain. It's not much better going north-south, especially on I-35.

Not enough capacity and even fewer options. Not good for a growing metropolitan area.

[MidtownCoog]

Back to the topic....

Well, they didn't build it, and they came anyway, and now they're hosed.

How "wierd". I love Austin, but 1/2 the city has the charm of 1950s Pasadena. That's not a slam. There are some nice parts of Pasadena.

[musicman]

As far as traffic is concerned, alot of that is not the city of Austin's fault. Blame the State of Texas and the Federal government for not allocating enough money to the area.

LOL. Austin's leaders are the ones to blame.

I think the city is doing a great job in making sure there is a good mix of residential, office, and retail in the core so people will not have to rely on cars all the time. I think that in effect the traffic will not be any more congested once most of the residential highrises are complete because most people living in them will not need to drive around to get what they need when they can just walk down the street and have everything they need right there.

good luck with that. not having to rely on cars all the time is not the same as not needing a car period.

[Heights2Bastrop]

I suppose that group trying to stop construction of a new WalMart in Austin is doing so because being anti-WalMart is the

[TheNiche]

As far as traffic is concerned, alot of that is not the city of Austin's fault. Blame the State of Texas and the Federal government for not allocating enough money to the area. Granted if Austin went ahead and requested federal grants back in the late 50's and 60's like Houston and Dallas did, we would probably have a much better freeway system than we do now. The thing was at that time they city did not believe it would ever be a large city, now we are paying the price of what our former city leaders and voters did back then.

The city needs to push the state and Fed for more money for road improvements though I doubt we will see much of anything the way things are going.

I've seen the early freeway planning maps for Austin. If half of what they'd planned had been built, it would've been pretty amazing in comparison with Houston. It didn't happen because there were locals that didn't want it to happen...it wasn't for lack of other locals trying.

Austin has had the largest allocation of TXDoT funds per capita of any major city in Texas in recent years. It is also completely out of proportion with its growth, relative to other Texas cities.

[Trae]

Do you have a link to those maps?

[TheNiche]

Do you have a link to those maps?

This was the plan drawn up in 1962 for central Austin. It remained entirely intact when approved in 1969, but every single new freeway shown except Mopac was cancelled in the 1970's.

Credit to texasfreeway.com

[KinkaidAlum]

This was the plan drawn up in 1962 for central Austin. It remained entirely intact when approved in 1969, but every single new freeway shown except Mopac was cancelled in the 1970's.

Credit to texasfreeway.com

Count this native Texan as thankful that that plan didn't take form.

Town Lake covered with freeway concrete rather than hike and bike trails?

An expressway whizzing close to the state capitol grounds?

Highways tearing apart central neighborhoods and creating artificial barriers?

Yuck.

There are more important things than freeways that help people move in and out of a city; like quality of life issues for the people who actually live there!

[TheNiche]

Highways tearing apart central neighborhoods and creating artificial barriers?

Yep, that was the 1970's-style self-interested "But I live here and all those other people don't, so screw them" mantra that killed it. Austin is notorious for that kind of crap, shrouded under a thin rhetoric of civic-mindedness.

[Trae]

Count this native Texan as thankful that that plan didn't take form.

Town Lake covered with freeway concrete rather than hike and bike trails?

An expressway whizzing close to the state capitol grounds?

Highways tearing apart central neighborhoods and creating artificial barriers?

Yuck.

There are more important things than freeways that help people move in and out of a city; like quality of life issues for the people who actually live there!

Not all of it is bad. The only freeways I wouldn't like are the ones covering the trails and the two freeways going on the capitol grounds. The Crosstown Expressway should stop at I-35, and the Central Expressway turns into a parkway going into Central Austin. The Town Lake Expressway doesn't happen at all.

[TheNiche]

Not all of it is bad. The only freeways I wouldn't like are the ones covering the trails and the two freeways going on the capitol grounds. The Crosstown Expressway should stop at I-35, and the Central Expressway turns into a parkway going into Central Austin. The Town Lake Expressway doesn't happen at all.

Back in this day and age, some of Houston's freeway plans referred to Memorial Dr. and Allen Pkwy. as freeways. Considering Austin's small size at that time, I'd be willing to bet that these might've been closer to what they'd had in mind.

Also, none of the freeways would've actually been on Capitol grounds.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yep, that was the 1970's-style self-interested "But I live here and all those other people don't, so screw them" mantra that killed it. Austin is notorious for that kind of crap, shrouded under a thin rhetoric of civic-mindedness.

Thank God for the 1970s. Without those silly self-interested folks who paid lip service to things like preserving our state's history (capitol grounds and buildings), creating greenspace (Town Lake and parks), and caring about inner city neighborhoods like Tarrytown, central Austin could be as stellar and unique as Round Rock today!

Of course, I am left to wonder why you don't consider freeway interests as a self interest?

Are the needs of those who require more and larger freeways somehow less selfish than those who want to protect their property, preserve their neighborhoods, and keep their towns intact?

[webdude]

If Houston had more of those 70s civic mindedness, discovery green would have been here sooner, maybe even more of it, or maybe there wouldn't be a need to built it from the ground up if some green had been preserved . Bayous wouldn't have so much fecal material in too. Then again, it is hard to have that kind of civic mindedness with the lack of natural beauty to preserve and love of concrete.

[TheNiche]

Thank God for the 1970s. Without those silly self-interested folks who paid lip service to things like preserving our state's history (capitol grounds and buildings), creating greenspace (Town Lake and parks), and caring about inner city neighborhoods like Tarrytown, central Austin could be as stellar and unique as Round Rock today!

Of course, I am left to wonder why you don't consider freeway interests as a self interest?

Are the needs of those who require more and larger freeways somehow less selfish than those who want to protect their property, preserve their neighborhoods, and keep their towns intact?

As was mentioned earlier, many thought that old Austin could be preserved by simply doing nothing, and they were very clearly wrong. The fact is, had transportation infrastructure been better, Austin's downtown could've benefited much more from the tech boom, resulting in a much more vibrant city center, and many years sooner. Instead, the bulk of those firms went (and continue to go) to new offices in the suburbs.