Mueller Area Development Updates

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's houses on smaller lots. When Kevin was talking about density, he meant entirely full of VMU.

I'm glad you presume to know what people mean without asking them. Fact is, it's more dense than a traditional suburban neighborhood. And it's more dense than many quasi-urban neighborhoods in East Austin just adjacent to downtown. Density doesn't just mean mixed use development.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I'm glad you presume to know what people mean without asking them. Fact is, it's more dense than a traditional suburban neighborhood. And it's more dense than many quasi-urban neighborhoods in East Austin just adjacent to downtown. Density doesn't just mean mixed use development.

I'm deducing from a good six years of interacting online with Kevin exactly what he meant. I'm surprised you're contesting what he meant, actually.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, as I said, these look like the ones near us. They have tiny lots, and the houses are probably about 8 feet apart or less even. Plus, they have almost no driveway or front yard space. One of them I noticed even has a city installed bike rack near the curb, which I thought was neat. They're also building some more townhouses closer to us that look to be even closer together.

[Digatisdi]

I'd love to see the parking lots torn out of the regional retail section and replaced with garages and VMU

That on its own would be a big bonus to density

[Syndic]

wwmiv, I think you're confused, bro. I'm using 'density' in its correct definition, so it doesn't matter how you or anybody else is using it. It's not black and white. There's no definite designation of whether something is or is not dense. It's all relative. Not only that, but there is VMU development at Mueller and there's more in the works. So, yeah.

Sometimes, I feel like people not from North Austin really miss the point with Mueller. You don't understand the importance of it. You can't really understand what it means for this huge gap in your area to be filled in with development after being empty for your entire life. It's like having a cleft-pallet on your face for your entire life and it finally getting fixed. Even if the surgery isn't perfect, your face is still finally whole. That's how we feel about Mueller. Even if it's not perfect, it will still make North Austin feel whole.

[KevinFromTexas]

I still think Mueller is unique, and I'm glad it's there. And of course it was an interesting process. Still, I'm wanting more. I think it's great that the retail is there. I know for sure if I lived there I'd be riding my bike to those stores, especially to the grocery store. With that in mind having it be a neighborhood where people can do that, it wouldn't have hurt to beef up the density since others would likely commute the same way. If I can carry 50 pounds of groceries on my bike and in my backpack (and I'm a little wimp),then I'm sure just about anyone can. Besides, getting around on foot or on bike in your own neighborhood is so much more satisfying than doing it in a car.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Model of Mueller:



Apparently, it's now 40% complete. And progressing rapidly. I still hate that the developers felt the need to insulate Mueller from the less-affluent surrounding area with parks as a (racist) buffer. I hope someday they get rid of those parks and develop them.

The greenways along the south edge are not a racist buffer!

They are part of the stormwater management system. The site slopes north to south, so it is the logical location for the stormwater ponds.

You should be more responsible with your criticisms than throwing around loaded charges like that!

[Syndic]

Oh I'm sure they have plenty of official excuses for why they exist. But the truth is obvious. Gotta separate themselves from the poor folk. Happy MLK Day.

[Tech House]

This is the first time I've ever heard of a racist park. Maybe it's "convenient" that it was the topographically ideal place to locate the ponds, but I kind of doubt that the designs were drawn up with the explicit aim of segregating Mueller from its neighbors to the south. There's really no way to integrate Mueller with anything in that direction in the first place, because it's mostly commercial/industrial and nothing like Mueller. Not to mention the enormous barrier imposed by Airport Blvd.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by H2O

The greenways along the south edge are not a racist buffer!

They are part of the stormwater management system. The site slopes north to south, so it is the logical location for the stormwater ponds.

You should be more responsible with your criticisms than throwing around loaded charges like that!

Adverse impact versus adverse intent. The intent was not for them to be racial, but there is a racial implication of their location.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Adverse impact versus adverse intent. The intent was not for them to be racial, but there is a racial implication of their location.

But there is no racial implication to the north on 51st? If you ask Rick Krivoniak, it is the opposite. He contends that the wealthier neighbors to the south got parks, and Windsor Park got commercial frontage.

The reality is far more pragmatic.

I don't have a problem with people being critical of a design as long as they understand the reasons behind the decisions made.

Throwing out charges of racism (intended or implied) without specific proof is dangerous and irresponsible. Goal #1 of Mueller (economic development of East Austin - not just Mueller) is contrary to the charges.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by H2O

But there is no racial implication to the north on 51st? If you ask Rick Krivoniak, it is the opposite. He contends that the wealthier neighbors to the south got parks, and Windsor Park got commercial frontage.

The reality is far more pragmatic.

I don't have a problem with people being critical of a design as long as they understand the reasons behind the decisions made.

Throwing out charges of racism (intended or implied) without specific proof is dangerous and irresponsible. Goal #1 of Mueller (economic development of East Austin - not just Mueller) is contrary to the charges.

You misunderstand: I fundamentally agree with you. I just also recognize that there might be some minimal racial impact to the park, even if the intent was not there at all.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You misunderstand: I fundamentally agree with you. I just also recognize that there might be some minimal racial impact to the park, even if the intent was not there at all.

Are there signs posted that only whites can use the park? Is it a gated community?

The only racism I see are from those seeing racism.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

Are there signs posted that only whites can use the park? Is it a gated community?

The only racism I see are from those seeing racism.

Again, adverse intent versus adverse impact. Another way of putting this is explicit versus implicit racism. You don't have to have signs that say "keep out blacks" or "whites only" to have a racial implication.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Again, adverse intent versus adverse impact. Another way of putting this is explicit versus implicit racism. You don't have to have signs that say "keep out blacks" or "whites only" to have a racial implication.

Imaging there is an implication when there isn't one at all is just as bad, imho
.
Are blacks allowed to buy or rent homes in the neighborhood? Are blacks allowed to own and work in businesses in the neighborhood? Are blacks allowed to use and play in the parks surrounding the new neighborhood?

Don't confuse monetary reasons for the placement of the parks as racial. Every neighborhood likes and wants more parks.

A park placed where neighborhoods meet is easily assessable to both neighborhoods. A park placed in the middle of one neighborhood isn't as accessible to other neighborhoods.

Imagine the outcry of racism we'll be hearing if all the new parks were placed in an island in the middle of the new neighborhood which is acting as a moat, miles away from other neighborhoods.

You can't have it both ways!

I would like to point out that there are park lands throughout the new neighborhood, on its outskirts and in its middle.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

Imaging there is an implication when there isn't one at all is just as bad, imho
.
Are blacks allowed to buy or rent homes in the neighborhood? Are blacks allowed to own and work in businesses in the neighborhood? Are blacks allowed to use and play in the parks surrounding the new neighborhood?

Don't confuse monetary reasons for the placement of the parks as racial. Every neighborhood likes and wants more parks.

A park placed where neighborhoods meet is easily assessable to both neighborhoods. A park placed in the middle of one neighborhood isn't as accessible to other neighborhoods.

Imagine the outcry of racism we'll be hearing if all the new parks were placed in an island in the middle of the new neighborhood which is acting as a moat, miles away from other neighborhoods.

You can't have it both ways!

I would like to point out that there are park lands throughout the new neighborhood, on its outskirts and in its middle.

All of the types of racialization that you're talking about are intent-based, not impact-based. You need to move beyond those examples, because they're all not applicable to the type of argument I'm making.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

All of the types of racialization that you're talking about are intent-based, not impact-based. You need to move beyond those examples, because they're all not applicable to the type of argument I'm making.

I'm enjoying your discussion, but maybe you have a point that could be framed differently. The problem I see with the original comment is that it framed the debate as being about racism, when it really isn't. You're not arguing racist intent, as you've already stated, but I don't even think you're arguing "racist" effects. Maybe a less charged way to say it would be that the park inadvertently segregates Mueller from the neighborhoods to the south. Even "segregates" has overly-racial connotations, which aren't necessarily the issue. When planning a development the magnitude of Mueller, it's ideal that it integrate with its neighbors on all sides. So it's really not about race at all, it's about the way neighborhoods connect to one another. That particular location would benefit from greater integration, via increased mobility, interactivity, etc.

Although I do have to agree that the overall design does generate a substantial buffer (and disconnect) between Mueller and neighborhoods to the south, I'm skeptical as to whether this was by design or was due to a perception that it was the optimal layout. It's an interesting subject, and in hindsight I have to wonder if any of the parties involved in the creation of Mueller might wish they had found a way to blend it more seamlessly with its neighbors. As it stands, it's like a city unto itself, but that may have been inevitable given that it's bounded by I-35 and 3 major roadways.

Also, on a very positive note about Mueller, I've found the HEB there to have the most cosmopolitan and integrated feel of any place in Austin. They employ many minorities, and not just in low-end jobs. The shoppers are every bit as multi-ethnic. Walking around the pond, I note the same thing, it's very multicultural and friendly. The farmer's market is multicultural. The vibe of Mueller is fantastic, and suggests to me that this has been, and will continue to be, a positive development for all communities in east/northeast Austin.

[Global]

[QUOTE=Tech House;6882823 Maybe a less charged way to say it would be that the park inadvertently segregates Mueller from the neighborhoods to the south. Even "segregates" has overly-racial connotations, which aren't necessarily the issue. When planning a development the magnitude of Mueller, it's ideal that it integrate with its neighbors on all sides. So it's really not about race at all, it's about the way neighborhoods connect to one another. That particular location would benefit from greater integration, via increased mobility, interactivity, etc.

Thanks Tech House, I think your comment gets at the main issue here. The greenbelts along Airport Blvd, for instance, certainly give the appearance as a buffer that segregates Mueller from its neighbors - and this is unfortunate. As a resident of Mueller, not only do I appreciate the noise buffer that the greenbelt provides, but in reality, as you stated Tech House, the walking trails and greenspaces function to help the neighboring communities to interact with the Mueller community and its residents (and vice versa). As a regular on the trail - I can attest to the diversity of the people who use it.

Another case in point is the Mueller Lake Park. The majority of the kids and parents who frequent it are not Mueller residents. This park is the most socio-economically and racially diverse park of any that I've been used in Austin.

But to the original comment that started this discussion - I will grant you that for appearance's sake, the location of the green belt "buffers" is unfortunate, and I am sorry for what it communicates to the rest of Austin. However...once fully built out, Mueller will interact (without buffer) with the surrounding neighborhood on the North-east side...at the corner of 51st and Manor. This, I might add, is the area where the racial difference of Mueller and the surrounding neighborhood is really pronounced, and fortunately, where there will be no "buffer".

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Global

...once fully built out, Mueller will interact (without buffer) with the surrounding neighborhood on the North-east side...at the corner of 51st and Manor. This, I might add, is the area where the racial difference of Mueller and the surrounding neighborhood is really pronounced, and fortunately, where there will be no "buffer".

Indeed, it will be interesting to see how this takes shape. The contrast is very stark between the Mister Rogers New Urbanism Neighborhood feel of Mueller and the run-down apartments, duplexes, vacant lots, and lack of any neighborhood feel around Manor-51st-Springdale. It would be grand if the city would spring for some improved walkability and other amenities in that area outside of Mueller, while protecting low-income renters from being forced out by the rising costs that come with improvements.

If anyone knows of any plans for that zone, I'd love to know more. Also, Global, what do you see in the Mueller plan that lends itself to such optimized integration in that area? I'll look at the plans again but I'm a novice at interpreting them.

[KevinFromTexas]

AMLI at Mueller.


AMLI at Mueller - https://www.facebook.com/AMLIatMuell...type=3&theater


AMLI at Mueller - https://www.facebook.com/AMLIatMuell...type=3&theater

AMLI at Mueller view.


AMLI at Mueller - https://www.facebook.com/AMLIatMuell...type=1&theater