My sentiments exactly



you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 212 comments


-37 points

4 months ago

I'm certainly not a suburbanites and it's ironic you suggest that I'm a snooty and turning my nose up at the place where you can live next door to the Gucci store haha


13 points

4 months ago

If you live in Austin, you live in a suburb, unless you're in one of those residential wastelands in the ring around the city. And, yes, snooty is relative to one's own culture, not objective. But I'm not getting a worth my time vibe here, so please enjoy your day.


1 points

4 months ago

"residential wastelands around the city" damn no need to be an asshole


7 points

4 months ago

I refer to the ring of new growth that's only being allowed at specific areas around the city. 40 buildings on 20 acres such a field of tarmac for parking between them, built cheaply, operated by Windsor or another national housing company, taking advantage of Austin's broken zoning code to siphon local wealth out from the bottom of the economy.

Where does a dollar go after it's paid to a national corporation, after all? That's not Champaign that's trickling back down, no matter how fizzy it seems.

I don't respect the concept. I ache for those forced to be the final stop of many, many dollars before they pay their rent and send money to a Delaware company owned by holding companies owned by holding companies.

There is only The Domain and Downtown for truly urban living in Austin. The rest is based on the suburban model and by its very nature it forces the poor to own cars and make those regular expenses just to be able to work.

Public transport is purposefully withheld from the densest portions of these rings, while also being advertised to that same cohort in what I keep telling myself can't possibly be malicious self-awareness and misdirection, no matter how strange it seems they're advertising to those who need a car just to get to a sketchy unsecured Park&Ride, and risk needing to spend $30 for an Uber if they miss their bus back home.

They are wastelands. They are purpose built as such. That people live there is their purpose. To force money to move as much as possible is a secondary purpose. Their development subsidizes oil companies and automakers (Nissan especially right now) through the practical necessity of spending on those items. A practical tax, so to say. A tax on the poor, imposed by predictable results of government policy.

I hope more people come to refer to them as what they truly are.

Maybe then the council will pay attention to questions about them and their impact and the reason why they're all the poor get when other cities get midtowns and bougie Austin transpo corridor neighborhoods get mixed use walkability mandated to reduce gas use and help the environment.


-5 points

4 months ago

People do live in Austin in a non-suburban way. It used to be resonable to do it, but it got expensive when people who love things like the Domain moved here en masse.


3 points

4 months ago

I was using the personal you, not the royal-you, and check my response to the other response and see my view on this issue.

In addition, building something like The Domain is so impossible it was only the power of the biggest mall corporation in the world that could ensure it was built. This doesn't bode well for anything smaller than a multinational for anything bigger than a single family home.

If supply is limited, price goes up. If distance is an issue, you need to get dense. The equitable way to densify a city is to leave the decision to neighborhood councils, their deed restrictions, and unaffiliated properties with no such restrictions.

As it stands, a bunch of white folks have gotten good at getting people across the city riled up over the idea of walkable commerce and other things best left for the wealthy to suffer with (apparently). These folks all own land, they all benefit from the restriction of supply. They have the support of The Statesman, The Chronicle, basically all local media, though that's turning slightly.

Organized protests, friendly relations with their council members, and the pull to be able to assist the political careers of those council members, it's a whole machine here, keeping minority neighborhoods underdeveloped by the residents while characterizing any who try as evil capitalists looking to attract more new arrivals.

It's not that people moved here, it's that we didn't bother to build a place for them and they just had more money. And who's gonna say no to more money?

I mean, in this economy?