The quickest way to California a Texas city is to adopt an anti-growth agenda. I've seen this play before--in Los Angeles, in the 1980s, where becoming New York was the great fear.
100%. And that's the irony: the people who are "California-ing" Austin are the long-time Austinites who would prefer we adopt the policies of San Francisco.
I moved to Austin in 1982, and everyone complained then that the Austin had been destroyed by newcomers (me). I kid you not. And they were right in a sense, it was very different from what it had been in the the '60s and 70s. But I loved it and thought I would never leave. In 2002, when growth really seemed overwhelming even to me, I taught a course at UT on visualizing Austin change through time, using GIS and other visualization techniques. Turns out Austin had been growing by leaps and bounds throughout the 20th century. Looking at the results today, what seemed like cancerous growth by 2002 looks so tiny compared with the current Austin region. Bottom line: successful cities grow, and many people mourn for what's gone, similar to how we mourn for lost youth. Maybe since we can't bring back our youth, we try to keep our community from changing. But that's simply not healthy for younger current or future residents. PS - I moved to Boston in 2006 for family reasons, and now am embedded in similar "Boston is ruined". battles here. Fran Leibowitz's "pretend it's a city" is my new mantra. PPS - highly recommend Billy Lee Brammer's The Gay Place (1961) for a look at Austin of the 1950s. Enjoy the nostalgia but don't base your planning and development policies on it.
I think you're entirely right, Barbara. For as long as there has been change in Austin (or anywhere) there are people who complain about it! I would love to see an updated set of visualizations for the 22 years since 2002. That must have been really provocative!
"Pretend it's a city" has become my mantra, too. And thanks for the book recommendation!
I've been in Austin for about 4 years. In my experience, there is a cohort of Austinites that really doesn't care for change of any kind. This group is usually on a fixed income of some sort (retired, government benefits, or working for a tightly regulated union job) and so they don't feel like they benefit from overall productivity growth, increased access to diverse culture, or other changes. For this group, change means more traffic, higher taxes, and risks upsetting their highly regimented lifestyle.
The only argument that I've seen hold water with that group is that *without* the newcomers, it's possible that city services or existing handouts could dry up, and only with the influx of productive businesses and a bigger tax base can the existing benefits remain secure and available.
I've experienced the same mentality, which reflects a scarcity mindset that only sees (and complains about) the negative. They never offer constructive solutions; it's all just "no," or more zero-sum thinking. Cities aren't static things...as I've written elsewhere, pretend it's a city!
I imagine if the City of Austin got even more out of the way, Austin would likely build some of the most exciting and weird skyscrapers and buildings in the United States. Houston seems to do OK with building large and tall buildings.
I agree. We've passed a lot of good reforms recently, but the land development code is still too complicated and the approval process too slow and expensive. We need to do more, not just to enable better large buildings, but to enable buildings that fall in between skyscrapers and single-family homes.
Speaking of “free thinkers”, I read/heard somewhere that Ayn Rand Institute is in plans to open a campus in Austin in a few years. They are HUGE YIMBYs and should add a unique and intellectual perspective in the ongoing debates. I think the Salem Center at UT Austin is a hub right now.
The quickest way to California a Texas city is to adopt an anti-growth agenda. I've seen this play before--in Los Angeles, in the 1980s, where becoming New York was the great fear.
100%. And that's the irony: the people who are "California-ing" Austin are the long-time Austinites who would prefer we adopt the policies of San Francisco.
I moved to Austin in 1982, and everyone complained then that the Austin had been destroyed by newcomers (me). I kid you not. And they were right in a sense, it was very different from what it had been in the the '60s and 70s. But I loved it and thought I would never leave. In 2002, when growth really seemed overwhelming even to me, I taught a course at UT on visualizing Austin change through time, using GIS and other visualization techniques. Turns out Austin had been growing by leaps and bounds throughout the 20th century. Looking at the results today, what seemed like cancerous growth by 2002 looks so tiny compared with the current Austin region. Bottom line: successful cities grow, and many people mourn for what's gone, similar to how we mourn for lost youth. Maybe since we can't bring back our youth, we try to keep our community from changing. But that's simply not healthy for younger current or future residents. PS - I moved to Boston in 2006 for family reasons, and now am embedded in similar "Boston is ruined". battles here. Fran Leibowitz's "pretend it's a city" is my new mantra. PPS - highly recommend Billy Lee Brammer's The Gay Place (1961) for a look at Austin of the 1950s. Enjoy the nostalgia but don't base your planning and development policies on it.
I think you're entirely right, Barbara. For as long as there has been change in Austin (or anywhere) there are people who complain about it! I would love to see an updated set of visualizations for the 22 years since 2002. That must have been really provocative!
"Pretend it's a city" has become my mantra, too. And thanks for the book recommendation!
I've been in Austin for about 4 years. In my experience, there is a cohort of Austinites that really doesn't care for change of any kind. This group is usually on a fixed income of some sort (retired, government benefits, or working for a tightly regulated union job) and so they don't feel like they benefit from overall productivity growth, increased access to diverse culture, or other changes. For this group, change means more traffic, higher taxes, and risks upsetting their highly regimented lifestyle.
The only argument that I've seen hold water with that group is that *without* the newcomers, it's possible that city services or existing handouts could dry up, and only with the influx of productive businesses and a bigger tax base can the existing benefits remain secure and available.
I've experienced the same mentality, which reflects a scarcity mindset that only sees (and complains about) the negative. They never offer constructive solutions; it's all just "no," or more zero-sum thinking. Cities aren't static things...as I've written elsewhere, pretend it's a city!
I imagine if the City of Austin got even more out of the way, Austin would likely build some of the most exciting and weird skyscrapers and buildings in the United States. Houston seems to do OK with building large and tall buildings.
I agree. We've passed a lot of good reforms recently, but the land development code is still too complicated and the approval process too slow and expensive. We need to do more, not just to enable better large buildings, but to enable buildings that fall in between skyscrapers and single-family homes.
Speaking of “free thinkers”, I read/heard somewhere that Ayn Rand Institute is in plans to open a campus in Austin in a few years. They are HUGE YIMBYs and should add a unique and intellectual perspective in the ongoing debates. I think the Salem Center at UT Austin is a hub right now.
… and of course, The Fountainhead’s hero is an architect… :)