Census 2010 - Austin

[KevinFromTexas]

Does anyone know when the July 1, 2009 city and metro population estimates will be released? Are those actually out yet?

[wwmiv]

I think at the end of February, but don't take my word for it.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Does anyone know when the July 1, 2009 city and metro population estimates will be released? Are those actually out yet?

http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/schedule.html

[The Austinite]

I agree with whoever said that the city should grant incentives for latitudinal growth. I'm all for growth and expansion, as long as it's done intelligently and with foresight, especially in the case of Austin's synergic relationship with the environment. I think Austin should grow but the city proper's borders are already spread out enough as it is. If there is to be any sort of expansion, it should be from the Downtown area outward, since for several years our Downtown has been deceivingly small for a city of its size. As it is you can drive a half an hour out of Downtown into the suburbs of Cedar Park and those areas with light development all the way there. If there is to be any outward expansion we should do it within the city proper borders, since there's already enough space to put in some more buildings and whatnot.
In addition, we should definitely incentivize highrise structures. I know Austin has that small, close-knit city feel that people know and love, but I think it's high time we get us some tall buildings up in this joint. The Austonian's a good start, as is the proposed 830-foot T. Stacy Condo Towers (although in my honest opinion, they should really get a better design for that building; anyone know a thread where I can rant about that?). Also, to touch on the whole idea of the Austin-San Antonio CSA, I'm kind of against it. They're two separate cities with two very distinct vibes and people to them, and I think they should develop separately. Although a rail link would be good.
But keep in mind, whatever form of expansion we go along with, we should always keep in mind two things: 1) the feel and vibe of Austin, and 2) the environment. Austin has always been one of the greenest cities around, and we should keep it that way with preservation of our parks and lakes and whatnot. As for the whole idea of keeping Austin weird, we should really make sure that local small businesses have as much say as the large corporations in our great city.
In short, Austin is overdue for some serious urban development, but we should still keep it weird for the eclectic businesses that have called it home for so long.
Just sayin'.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by The Austinite

In short, Austin is overdue for some serious urban development.

Where have you been?

http://www.statesman.com/business/re...de-149465.html

http://www.statesman.com/business/in...nt-145773.html

And, there has been substantial urban development surrounding downtown on all sides, yet outside it's borders. That's not even showing up in these stats or photographs. Of course, more is always welcome.

[PartyLine]

it's also not showing The East Avenue development

[The Austinite]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the city should start building up instead of out. Of course I know Austin's going through another building boom, but the city's core is still not as dense as it could be, and the development continues to spread out more than upward, which is what I think it should be (and finally is) doing. Then again, you can really only be as optimistic as the city's budget, so these ideas won't really come to fruition for a while, the way things take forever to get built here.
Though thanks for the links, they've helped put the development more into perspective.

[PartyLine]

Also this will create more density in north Austin


http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/north_burnet.htm

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Where have you been?

http://www.statesman.com/business/re...de-149465.html

http://www.statesman.com/business/in...nt-145773.html

And, there has been substantial urban development surrounding downtown on all sides, yet outside it's borders. That's not even showing up in these stats or photographs. Of course, more is always welcome.

I still don't consider what has happened downtown to be substantial yet except in the purview of how Austin used to be. It's still very much a boutique market and not very profound by national standards. I think the kind of urban development The Austinite meant was something on the level of cities like Vancouver.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

I still don't consider what has happened downtown to be substantial yet except in the purview of how Austin used to be. It's still very much a boutique market and not very profound by national standards. I think the kind of urban development The Austinite meant was something on the level of cities like Vancouver.

You could be right. What I have come to realize, though, is that it's not necessarily where you're at, but where you've come from. If you sit back and worry how Austin compares to this place, or that, you may find yourself not appreciating what has occurred. I refuse to do that. The development of the 2000s has been monumental for the city of Austin, and I feel lucky to have been witness.

[Scottolini]

And to put this building boom in perspective, Austin's five tallest buildings, as well as eight of it's ten tallest, were built this decade. Previous to this boom, Austin only had 10 buildings taller than 300'. The tallest was 397'. There are now 20 over 300', with the tallest standing at 683'. That's a big deal, and I don't know how anyone could discount that.

[arbeiter]

That's just 5 buildings. Real, substantial, amazing urban progress comes in the form of 100 5-story to 10-story buildings with storefronts.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

That's just 5 buildings.

Hey arbeiter, just so you know, there probably have been at least 40 or 50 substantial, urban buildings built in Austin this decade. I was just pointing out that our five current tallest buildings, and eight of our ten tallest didn't exist in 2000. I wonder how you could not know this, as you seem to be an SSP regular.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Hey arbeiter, just so you know, there probably have been at least 40 or 50 substantial, urban buildings built in Austin this decade. I was just pointing out that our five current tallest buildings, and eight of our ten tallest didn't exist in 2000. I wonder how you could not know this, as you seem to be an SSP regular.

Name them.

[Scottolini]

I counted 83 buildings on Emporis listed as built in 2000 or later. Not all of them could be counted as urban, though. I might add that that there are also other buildings that are not listed. So, I feel very comfortable saying at least 50 substantial, urban projects have been built in Central Austin since 2000, totally changing the landscape here.

This was a huge decade for urban development in Austin, and few places in the U.S. can match the changes that have occurred. Why you are vainly attempting to downplay that fact is beyond me.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/s...t=2&ht=2&sro=0

[Scottolini]

I also just noticed W isn't even listed. That is a 37 story, 476' tall building. So make that 9 out of our 10 tallest buildings didn't exist in 2000.

[KevinFromTexas]

The W is definitely listed. I added it.

This should work.
http://www.emporis.com/application/?...ng=3&id=236077

[ATXboom]

I actually agree with Arb that progress comes from 100 5-10 story mixed use buildings...not tall slender towers so much. Any healthy downtown should have towers but the central city - 3-5 mile radius from downtown is what you want to load with midrise density.

There are signs of this... drive through west campus and up Guadalupe. There are a minimum of 20 new developments 5-20 stories with store fronts. The problem is that these developments are targeted for students... This type of devlepment needs to be shifted to/marketed to/absorbed by professionals and families. The real challenge statement is how to make that happen. What has happened around campus will most likely take place along Riverside as well in the next decade which is great. However its reallly too bad nimby's prevent this from happening along major north south corridoors like South Congress, Lamar, Burnet, Guadalupe near Hyde Park, etc.

Regarding 50... perhaps. minimum of 20 around campus + 6 on lamar/barton springs/riverside + triangle + all the new mixed use 5-10s in the domain... I counted about 15 buildings there... 5-10 at Midtown commons off Lamar. It's not something difficult to ponder if you know the town Arb. It's more difficult to notice because they aren't clustered in one small area which is part and parcel to density impact issues.

I understand the reference to Vancouver which is dreamy but it will never happen unless there are land limit issues like Vancouver has, Honalulu has, Seattle, San Fran, Manhattan, etc... they are all islands in their own right - primary reason they built up so much. I think a good reference for Austin may be all of the 5-10 story action happening in Ottawa.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

However its reallly too bad nimby's prevent this from happening along major north south corridoors like South Congress, Lamar, Burnet, Guadalupe near Hyde Park, etc.

Regarding 50... perhaps. minimum of 20 around campus + 6 on lamar/barton springs/riverside + triangle + all the new mixed use 5-10s in the domain... I counted about 15 buildings there. It's not something difficult to ponder if you know the town Arb. It's more difficult to notice because they aren't clustered in one small area which is part and parcel to density impact issues.

NIMBYs aren't preventing VMU on the Core Transit Corridors, like S. Congress, Lamar, Guadalupe, Riverside, etc. There are 4-6 story apartments/condos with ground-floor retail that have been built in every direction surrounding downtown. You didn't mention any of the projects east or west of downtown. You have also forgotten many other projects in other parts of South and Central Austin. Like you said, they're not all right next to one another, and people in this forum don't talk about these projects very often, and neither does the media. The only thing preventing more from happening now is the economy.

Of course, Austin still has a long ways to go. But there have easily been 50 residential projects spread around Central Austin that are urban infill. Heck, there's been a couple dozen just in downtown. Add in West Campus, and you're already almost at 50. Besides those I can think of at least another dozen projects.

[Jdawgboy]

That is very true, there are even some pretty dense 5 story apartment/retail buildings going up as far south as Congress between Stassney and William Cannon now, one of those is already complete I believe.