South Austin vs North Austin (Spring, Portland: 2014, apartments, live)

[pjoseph2]

Originally Posted by sinking

That would creep me out.

This is from the NY city subway. See what google can dig up for you

[4orty9]

I just moved from FL to Pflugervillve. I would love to live in the SoCo area because of the local businesses and VIBE down there, but the nice areas are just flat out too expensive for the sq footage and the affordable areas seem to make me want to park my car elsewhere, buy a pitbull and lock myself in my apartment with 18 some odd deadbolts on the door. Although Pflugerville isnt as hip as DT area we live in an AMAZING apartment close to a lot of shopping (ikea, home depot, super target, yada yada but there are more 'Chili's' restaurants than there are Torchys or the like.

Depends what ya wanna spend.

[cBach]

Personally a well established neighborhood like Hyde Park would appeal to me moreso than a hip neighborhood in SoCo. Why? Because you're more likely to get native Austinites that have been here, are active and engaged in the community, and are here because their life is based here, not because magazines have said this is the next hip cool place. Native Austinites are cool by nature, they don't have to pretend to be. I just love hanging around them.

I think in SoCo you'll find some very interesting people, but I believe the turnover rate is high. They'll come to Austin for a few years and then be gone, moving onto Portland or wherever. So if you're looking to buy a home and get established in the community, that is not the place to do it. Further South Austin and Further North, that's the more affordable areas, and then I prefer far South Austin to Far North Austin, but I far prefer Northwest Austin to anything in either North or South.

I like the "Californicated" hills west of 360 the best personally, but natural scenery is at the top of my list and I telecommute so my list is probably different than someone who would have to commute downtown everyday for instance.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by UTHORNS96

North Austin. It's more diverse and laid back and is more "subtly Austin". North Austin still has the vestiges of what Austin used to be, before it became hipster mania and everyone was concerned with being "weird" and "austiny".

EXACTLY. But Burnet Road is becoming Soco'ed.

[steve78757]

North Austin, up to the north edge of Crestview is my favorite area of town. Some of the old Austin vibe still remains here. "SOCO" went from crack pipes and hookers to a cool and hip place in what feels like a flash. North of the river has always contained the best of Austin... in my view. Campus, West Campus, Clarksville, Pemberton, North University, Hyde Park, North Loop, Rosedale, Allendale, Brentwood, Crestview...the north side has it all, always has.

[sojourner77]

Good article on the topic:


North Austin vs. South Austin: And the Winner Is... - Austin Monthly - September 2016 - Austin, TX


Different aspects and quirks are discussed. Very entertaining article.

[je4xff]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Good article on the topic:


North Austin vs. South Austin: And the Winner Is... - Austin Monthly - September 2016 - Austin, TX


Different aspects and quirks are discussed. Very entertaining article.

This kind of shows how the definitions of south vs north are not aligned very well. Most of what people consider south Austin is really central Austin. I like how "north" Austin doesn't start until 45 blocks north of the river, but "south" Austin starts at the edge of downtown and gets to claim the river and Zilker. Because yea, the river runs through the south part of town. If you used similar boundaries for north of downtown, then the Capitol, UT, and Hyde Park would all be included as part of north Austin. But we all know those areas are way too cool to be considered part of lame north Austin, lol.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by je4xff

This kind of shows how the definitions of south vs north are not aligned very well. Most of what people consider south Austin is really central Austin. I like how "north" Austin doesn't start until 45 blocks north of the river, but "south" Austin starts at the edge of downtown and gets to claim the river and Zilker. Because yea, the river runs through the south part of town. If you used similar boundaries for north of downtown, then the Capitol, UT, and Hyde Park would all be included as part of north Austin. But we all know those areas are way too cool to be considered part of lame north Austin, lol.

It's definitely a fuzzy and subjective subject.


Maybe we can all actually discuss it based on facts instead of insulting people when they disagree (not you je4xff).


If you're simply dividing Austin into just north and south, then sure, the river makes a reasonable line. Though that's purely a geographic distinction then. And it would include "east" and "west" Austin in the "north".

Once you try and put a "central" austin in the middle, with "north" and "south" alongside (and maybe/maybe not east and west), I don't think the river makes sense anymore.

Just because that's where Austin stopped on Waller's 1839 map, doesn't mean the line hasn't moved (and continues to move).


personally, I think
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2608...7i13312!8i6656

has more in common with

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2650...7i13312!8i6656

than with

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1756...7i13312!8i6656


One option would be the most restrictive, and limit central austin purely to where the mass of development has occurred. Ignoring corridors (Burnet, South Lamar, etc.). Basically trying to cut out where SFH starts.

This basically would put "central" austin only a bit south of river. Basically just a little bit south of Riverside/Barton Springs. Stretching north to about Dean Keeton/29th. West to Lamar.

Personally, I think that's probably a bit too restrictive, and that Central would include the oldest, innermost "suburbs". But on both/all sides.


Another option would be to pick a year, and basically assume that most everything in city limits then is central now. Austin had a map like this that went back to 59, though that's _probably_ a bit too late. Maybe WWII as the cutoff?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160425..._by_Decade.pdf

[sojourner77]

Some of the attributes compared:


Uchi (south) is good, and so is Fonda San Miguel (north)
Anderson vs. Bowie (toss up IMO)
Never been to Walnut Creek, but I've been to Barton Creek - anyone been to both?
The article didn't mention Eeyore's B-day (north) but they made a BFD out of ACL (south)


Didn't know that Dale Watson instead now plays in South Austin, and so does Bob Schneider.

[TexasHorseLady]

The river was always the divider between North and South Austin, and it makes sense to leave it that way. Playing around with it based on making things come out the way you'd personally prefer it to be is entirely too subjective. I realize a great many of you either weren't born or weren't here during the tug of wars between North and South Austin with the rope crossing the river, but that was very demonstrative that the river is the dividing line and always has been.

As for which is best.

Years and years ago, we thought the Austin we knew and loved, the Keep Austin Weird Austin, was gone. We lived north of the river then, and it had always been centered around the area north of the river up to about 51st or so. Then I discovered that it was still here - it had simply moved south where nobody would ever think to look for it to escape the influx of "let's make Austin just like New York City/LA/San Francisco/Portland" newcomers so hell bent on destroying it. So we moved south where all the cool stuff had moved. Years after that, I noticed that a lot of those things were moving northwest, far outside the original area either north or south where they had been before. Bottom line, both north and south have their pockets of cool, and hopefully always will have. You just have to be able to find them, and chances are they will be where you least expect it.