South Lamar Plaza getting ready for teardown (Austin, Avery: to buy, taxes)

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Or, of course, the employees of the businesses that are already there have the choice of living in the surrounding neighborhoods (in a variety of kinds of housing) and walking to work or of living in another part of town and driving to work and parking in the already existing parking lot.

One does wonder where those businesses will relocate to and the impact that and the transportation needs of their employees and customers will have. It doesn't just go away, you know, because someone else moved in.

From my understanding the current development now has no residential component. Even if it did the new development will be adding residential capacity at this location, a location that is close to many good jobs that can in turn pay for the high rents. High rents also mean more property taxes collected per square foot, a benefit to all Austin taxpayers.

Business don't necessarily have to relocate. Some have decided to not reopen, but ones that want to remain can probably find a spot since the new development has 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

From my understanding the current development now has no residential component. Even if it did the new development will be adding residential capacity at this location, a location that is close to many good jobs that can in turn pay for the high rents. High rents also mean more property taxes collected per square foot, a benefit to all Austin taxpayers.

Business don't necessarily have to relocate. Some have decided to not reopen, but ones that want to remain can probably find a spot since the new development has 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space.

I understood it has a handful of apartments. . .not more than a few, certainly nothing close to what is being built.

[passionatearts]

Whatever you guys want to call what's happening - "inward sprawl," "sprawl," "sideways sprawl" - it doesn't change the fact that this part of Austin doesn't have the transportation infrastructure to handle a dense development like this one. All that's going to happen is that once the new development opens, everyone is going to drive their cars there, causing parking and traffic snarls in the area. South Lamar ≠ Downtown

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by passionatearts

Whatever you guys want to call what's happening - "inward sprawl," "sprawl," "sideways sprawl" - it doesn't change the fact that this part of Austin doesn't have the transportation infrastructure to handle a dense development like this one. All that's going to happen is that once the new development opens, everyone is going to drive their cars there, causing parking and traffic snarls in the area. South Lamar ≠ Downtown

You can put the growth in the suburbs, where car trips are long and opportunities to walk are non-existent and cul-de-sacs lead to feeders which lead to collectors which lead to freeways and there is one way to get from point A to point B. Or you can put the growth in the urban core, where car trips are short and opportunities to walk, pedal, take transit are many, where there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B.

Which do you think causes more time spent in traffic, more gas spent, more CO2 emitted?

Densification, multi-mixed use, creating a sense of place, creating pedestrian friendly environments makes, interconnecting roads and walkways. . .these are the ways to deal with traffic woes - it also happens to be the way you create vibrant, interesting, diverse cities.

[Trainwreck20]

You can put the growth in the suburbs, where car trips are long and opportunities to walk are non-existent and cul-de-sacs lead to feeders which lead to collectors which lead to freeways and there is one way to get from point A to point B. Or you can put the growth in the urban core, where car trips are short and opportunities to walk, pedal, take transit are many, where there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B.

Or option C, move the jobs to the suburbs, where I currently walk to the grocery store, several restaurants, and the park, as well as riding my bike to the library and pool, all the while without entering any of the dangerous roads downtown that would prevent me from doing the same there. Opps, my job is already out here, nvm . Or option D, whatever that may turn out to be...

Nothing is every quite that black-and-white. 'Incentivizing' one solution over another is not the best option, to me. Letting a dynamic market take care of the direction works much better, with only very high-level regulation. Obviously, the market has gotten to the point where this area is ripe for redevelopment. That is great, and I agree that is a positive direction to go. OTOH, I don't think that one solution is mutually exclusive - mass transit and 'job sprawl' can and will also figure in the future of Austin (am I allowed to say 'job sprawl'?).

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You can put the growth in the suburbs, where car trips are long and opportunities to walk are non-existent and cul-de-sacs lead to feeders which lead to collectors which lead to freeways and there is one way to get from point A to point B. Or you can put the growth in the urban core, where car trips are short and opportunities to walk, pedal, take transit are many, where there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B.

Or you can put the growth in between, in Urban Islands, scattered throughout the city. You keep forgetting that best-of-all option. It's clearly not an Either/Or situation.

Densification, multi-mixed use, creating a sense of place, creating pedestrian friendly environments makes, interconnecting roads and walkways. . .these are the ways to deal with traffic woes - it also happens to be the way you create vibrant, interesting, diverse cities.

Yes, and the way you make an entire city interesting, rather than jamming all the development into an overextended core, is to spot smaller units of development around the city and spread all that goodness you mentioned around.

[orngkat]

The new Lamar Village design looks like a bunch of shoe boxes stuck together to me but that look is popular right now. We stopped going downtown or that direction a few years back. Every time we tried, the traffic and crowds negated any positive aspect of attending. If it's not in or near our hood, we give it a second thought knowing it will be a huge hassle. And thankfully, we have just about everything we need or want close by. I like the idea of villages within the big city.

[passionatearts]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You can put the growth in the suburbs, where car trips are long and opportunities to walk are non-existent and cul-de-sacs lead to feeders which lead to collectors which lead to freeways and there is one way to get from point A to point B. Or you can put the growth in the urban core, where car trips are short and opportunities to walk, pedal, take transit are many, where there are multiple ways to get from point A to point B.

Which do you think causes more time spent in traffic, more gas spent, more CO2 emitted?

Densification, multi-mixed use, creating a sense of place, creating pedestrian friendly environments makes, interconnecting roads and walkways. . .these are the ways to deal with traffic woes - it also happens to be the way you create vibrant, interesting, diverse cities.

Like others have said here, it's not always a one-size-fits-all solution. I'm in favor of dense development in areas that have the infrastructure to handle it - places like UT campus and Downtown. The area of South Lamar we're talking about doesn't have the transportation infrastructure to handle the kind of density you're describing. Either we need to scale back the density to something more appropriate for a suburban area or upgrade the infrastructure along South Lamar in order to handle the increase in people.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Or you can put the growth in between, in Urban Islands, scattered throughout the city. You keep forgetting that best-of-all option. It's clearly not an Either/Or situation.



Yes, and the way you make an entire city interesting, rather than jamming all the development into an overextended core, is to spot smaller units of development around the city and spread all that goodness you mentioned around.

Originally Posted by orngkat

The new Lamar Village design looks like a bunch of shoe boxes stuck together to me but that look is popular right now. We stopped going downtown or that direction a few years back. Every time we tried, the traffic and crowds negated any positive aspect of attending. If it's not in or near our hood, we give it a second thought knowing it will be a huge hassle. And thankfully, we have just about everything we need or want close by. I like the idea of villages within the big city.

This, I think, is the most reasonable solution. After all, most people in Austin already don't go downtown, because the traffic hassles and crowds far outweigh the appeal these days, and there's so much more available elsewhere in town. Why not take advantage of that and instead of trying to force everyone to live near a place they don't go anyway because YOU want that specific kind of "urban density", encourage walkability all over the city in individual "urban islands" or "villages", as mentioned above?

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

This, I think, is the most reasonable solution. After all, most people in Austin already don't go downtown, because the traffic hassles and crowds far outweigh the appeal these days, and there's so much more available elsewhere in town. Why not take advantage of that and instead of trying to force everyone to live near a place they don't go anyway because YOU want that specific kind of "urban density", encourage walkability all over the city in individual "urban islands" or "villages", as mentioned above?

Maybe you don't but I disagree. I'd like for you to show me the data that says "most" people in Austin don't go DT.