AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[ATX2030]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

5 years out.

MLB is bullish on Austin. I think the next two cities, be it through relocation or expansion, to get a franchise will be Austin and Nashville. I've always told my friends it would take the backing of the Ryan group, Nolan and Reid, to really have any chance of landing a franchise. For those not familiar with baseball they own the triple AAA RR Express. Everyone knows who Nolan is and Reid has had extensive experience in MLB with both the Astros and Rangers. They have a lot of pull and with the right backing should have a great shot. I've heard they have a group in place that is actively working on bringing a team to the area. I've also heard that they would like to locate the stadium around the Domain near the Q2 stadium. Here's a good video put together about MLB expansion and what cities are candidates. Austin was top two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02DNqy0GSnY

Here's my post when discussed up thread.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Maximusx1

A boy can dream:

Team: Austin Athletics
Owners: Michael Dell & Nolan Ryan
President: Reid Ryan
Colors: White/Green/Yellow
Stadium: Waterfront (Statesman Site)

The stadium site would be integrated into the southshore plan, still surrounded by high rises, the boardwalk and Blue Line station. That stadium could also attract concerts and potentially a college football bowl game.

I know this is a long shot and those other cities are on the list ahead of us, but all it takes is the ownership group seeing the potential and falling in love with Austin. Precourt did and now we have an MLS team. Again, a boy can dream.

"Austin A's" sounds like a nice fit. I could see some referring to them as the "Austin ATX's".

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by paul78701

"Austin A's" sounds like a nice fit. I could see some referring to them as the "Austin ATX's".

the name is 121 years old. that's old for us. the name will not change. whether nashville, vegas or austin. they will stay the athletics

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

the name is 121 years old. that's old for us. the name will not change. whether nashville, vegas or austin. they will stay the athletics

Yes. They've been the Athletics since they started in Philadelphia. They kept the name when they moved to Kansas City. Then Oakland. The name should not change.
I wasn't saying that the name should change. They've been referred to as the "A's" probably since their inception. I'm just saying that I could see locals unofficially referring to them as the "ATX's". People do have unofficial names for their teams. For example, the White Sox are sometimes referred to as the ChiSox and the Red Sox referred to as the BoSox.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Yes. They've been the Athletics since they started in Philadelphia. They kept the name when they moved to Kansas City. Then Oakland. The name should not change.
I wasn't saying that the name should change. They've been referred to as the "A's" probably since their inception. I'm just saying that I could see locals unofficially referring to them as the "ATX's". People do have unofficial names for their teams. For example, the White Sox are sometimes referred to as the ChiSox and the Red Sox referred to as the BoSox.

ahhh I see

[We vs us]

I guess I’m a Richard Florida fan; I keep posting or wanting to post his articles.

Here’s a new one that I particularly liked, re: what CBDs will look like post pandemic. It’s by extension a discussion of how remote work is going to change how CBDs have been structured for generations.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...ness-districts

EDIT:

Things that I thought were kinda thought provoking:

-- He pegs the final percentage of the workforce that will be WFH completely or partially at about 20% (up from 5% prepandemic)
-- That pushes old school CBDs (like areas of Manhattan, or the Loop in Chicago, or parts of San Fran, etc) to turn themselves into more live-work friendly districts -- much less focus on single-use office towers, and into mixed use buildings.
-- When WFHers head in to the office it'll be akin to a mini-business trip -- lots of business and work socializing will have to happen in an abbreviated amount of time, so amenities around offices will need to reflect that. Offices themselves might also offer similar amenities; Google's in-house Soul Cycle studio, etc; offices will also need to become much more amenable to socializing, brainstorming, group work . . . since that's what will start to happen there.
-- WFHers will also incentivize the creation of neighborhood business districts -- amenity nodes that are closer to neighborhoods, so they can work remotely but not necessarily out of a home office the entire time. The [re-]rise of the Third Place! Not work, not home, but a Third Place.

Anyhow, lots of good prognosticating.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I guess I’m a Richard Florida fan; I keep posting or wanting to post his articles.

Here’s a new one that I particularly liked, re: what CBDs will look like post pandemic. It’s by extension a discussion of how remote work is going to change how CBDs have been structured for generations.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...ness-districts

That was a good article, and as usual, Austin is ahead of the curve Florida describes. We have spent the last two decades transforming our CBD from one that would not be considered nationally significant to one that gets included in national surveys of return to work. We did that not by adding a lot of office (until recently), but making the CBD a LWP neighborhood that is attractive to major tech companies to build there instead of suburban office campuses. The one area we are lacking is inclusivity. We must find ways to build more affordable housing Downtown and in adjacent neighborhoods, as prices are getting beyond even the best paid workers in the CBD.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by H2O

That was a good article, and as usual, Austin is ahead of the curve Florida describes. We have spent the last two decades transforming our CBD from one that would not be considered nationally significant to one that gets included in national surveys of return to work. We did that not by adding a lot of office (until recently), but making the CBD a LWP neighborhood that is attractive to major tech companies to build there instead of suburban office campuses. The one area we are lacking is inclusivity. We must find ways to build more affordable housing Downtown and in adjacent neighborhoods, as prices are getting beyond even the best paid workers in the CBD.

I think inclusivity and inequality are the flashing-red-light problems with the WFH shift generally -- the folks who'll get to do WFH will be knowledge workers and almost certainly already better compensated than the median. Having whole cities rearrange themselves around their style of work and consumption will be hugely stratifying. Service workers who have to be physically in a specific space to do their job will risk being left behind, etc.

Anyhow, you're dead on. Affordable close-in housing is only going to get more and more important.

[ahealy]

Updated Poll:

When do we think Austin will no longer go by "Austin, TX" as it's mentioned name in pop culture?

[H2O]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Updated Poll:

When do we think Austin will no longer go by "Austin, TX" as it's mentioned name in pop culture?

It's already happening. National news mostly just refers to us as Austin. I think Austin, TX and ATX are retro throwbacks to the old, smaller, quaint college town that everybody has rose colored glasses for.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Updated Poll:

When do we think Austin will no longer go by "Austin, TX" as it's mentioned name in pop culture?

Whenever the AP style manual updates

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_s.../ap_style.html (Cities Not Requiring State Names)

there's about 30 of them, and several are metro's that are now smaller than Austin.

[ahealy]

Glad to hear, H20...and thanks, Novacek. Not sure what I was looking at but it seems promising?

Just got back from a lil trip to ATL and boy do I have some feelings about how we are growing (all good feelings) that I'm sure will pop up in other threads lol.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Updated Poll:

When do we think Austin will no longer go by "Austin, TX" as it's mentioned name in pop culture?

As soon as we stop getting confused with...
https://youtu.be/QMOCggYHZ8k

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by the Genral

As soon as we stop getting confused with...
https://youtu.be/QMOCggYHZ8k

LMAOOO. Need to get on Austin, MN SSP and see how the Spam Tower dev is coming along--heard it might be a suertall.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by the Genral

As soon as we stop getting confused with...
https://youtu.be/QMOCggYHZ8k

Quit SPAM'ing us Genral!




https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2126

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Quit SPAM'ing us Genral!

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2126

I went to that Spam museum three times or so during the years I lived in Minnesota. It was a decent albeit a one dimensional museum.

[ILUVSAT]

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...onus-fees.html

Could someone who is on-the-ground there explain to those who don't know...what is the city doing with these millions of dollars in "affordable housing" fees? I don't hear anything of the city developing housing. Where is this money going? Why don't we hear about citizens suing the city for collecting these fees and sitting on the money (or mis-appropriating it)?

Didn't I read recently that the city owns hundreds of acres of unused land? If so, why do they seem to continue to opine about housing affordability while sitting on millions and hundreds of acres of land?

In addition to the fees, didn't y'all recently pass a bond election for a few hundred million in affordable housing?

Just curious.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...onus-fees.html

Could someone who is on-the-ground there explain to those who don't know...what is the city doing with these millions of dollars in "affordable housing" fees? I don't hear anything of the city developing housing. Where is this money going? Why don't we hear about citizens suing the city for collecting these fees and sitting on the money (or mis-appropriating it)?

Didn't I read recently that the city owns hundreds of acres of unused land? If so, why do they seem to continue to opine about housing affordability while sitting on millions and hundreds of acres of land?

In addition to the fees, didn't y'all recently pass a bond election for a few hundred million in affordable housing?

Just curious.

It's not a simple answer, but can be googled. There was a website devoted to documenting every project through previous bonds, but the 2018 bond is a little harder to track down:

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de...le_Housing.pdf

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...ent-assistance

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...unt_5-2-18.pdf

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I went to that Spam museum three times or so during the years I lived in Minnesota. It was a decent albeit a one dimensional museum.

And yet you returned not just for a second visit but for a third as well. Life in Minnesota must've been exciting.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

And yet you returned not just for a second visit but for a third as well. Life in Minnesota must've been exciting.

Ha. Each time was with different out of town guests. And yes, life in Southern Minnesota sucked. But fortunately, Minneapolis was only an hour drive away, and I spent a lot of weekends in the Cities.