Mall Plans Incite Protesters In Austin
As plans to develop a Wal-Mart and a shopping mall draw thousands of protesters in Austin, Texas, the public seems to be demanding a new kind of development.
"What these Austinites want and believe they deserve – from the private developer, from the city, and from their elected representatives – is enlightened urban redevelopment. When a major moribund mall in their neighborhood is at last to be redeveloped, they want that redevelopment to occur in accord with the best practices nationally and the city's own new design standards. Austinites have drunk the Kool-Aid that Austin is a "Top 10" smart, cool, progressive, and prosperous city; our civic self-esteem is now so high that we expect the best in urban design and redevelopment. Unfortunately, this pivotal site is in the hands of a developer whose narrow thinking lags far behind its own industry. Even more troubling, the city of Austin is not yet practicing the kind of sophisticated and effective urban planning that could have prevented this debacle."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Downtown Dallas Has 'Turned a Corner' - Aug 24, 2008
Duany On High Gas Prices And Urban Revival - Aug 04, 2008
Is Houston A Better Place to Live Than New York? - Jul 18, 2008
Where Do Child Care Centers Belong? - Jul 11, 2008
Do Cities Have Room For Golf Courses? - Jul 09, 2008
San Diego could be a LOT better actually.
Politics are everywhere.
San Diego just happens to have one of the most backward, corrupt, neoconservative political machines around.
Coupled with an "overplanning" by the private sector, San Diego probably has the greatest number of dust-collecting visionary plans than any other city in the country.
All amounting to Mission Valley...
Hey, maybe things will all work out once Jerry Sanders decides to privatize ALL the city services, including the planning department.
Form-Based Coding
Looks like a good place to implement form-based coding. Establishing the vision for the community and putting it into codes ahead of time could have deflected this kind of development in the first place. If Wal-mart wants in to the kinds of developments that result from form-based coding, they had better start developing floor-plans that fit into 100-150ft wide buildings and go up 4 floors.
- Brandon
Ricardo
Another neo-conservative, libertarian, free market idealogue ranting...
It definitely seems as if the planning profession is taking a turn to the "right" with stovepipe comments like his.
Ricardo, leave your Joel Kotkinesque quotes for your next Reason Institute cocktail party.
Wow
I must have said something right to get a such a nice ad hominem attack from the my new San Francisco neighbor. I guess I'll see you at the next cocktail party then...drinks are on me.
Not ad hominem.
If the original poster's (Ricardo's) comment had no substance to begin with.
Better to get to the ideological motivation behind the pseudo-argument than waste time responding the argument itself.
See you at the next San Francisco Green Party fundraiser, and yes, drinks are on me.
Impressive
If only residents of other cities demanded more of local planners and decision makers.
San Diegans are content to watch their city turn into a junkyard. All in the name of "growth" and tacky commercialism.
could be worse
San Diego could be worse, you guys. And there are nice parts of it. (Mission Valley certainly isn't one of them.) But I agree with your comment, most planning here is unremarkable because of politics.
I think San Diego's problem is that we plan too much, not that we don't plan enough. Our zoning code is probably the thickest volume in all the land. And I don't think we've gotten anything for that.
There are some wonderful first-ring suburbs that are everything that planning should be, right down to corner stores. And they happened way before comprehensive planning.
Or maybe I'm just defensive cause I work for the City. You be the judge.
Multiply those San Diego first ring suburbs by 1000
And you get San Francisco, so what's your point?
San Diego has little to show for in the way of good comprehensive urban planning OR incremental, organic development. But plenty of useless public and private sector plans (like City of Villages and Temporary Paradise). Just a bunch of Peter Calthorpe designed auto-oriented TODs and watered-down pseudo "New Urbanist" crap. San Francisco and New York City were never over-planned like San Diego, they didn't need to be. And the results are much better.
No "freeway revolt" like what happened in New York City and San Francisco, quite the opposite in San Diego. Take a look at what's currently happening at the Navy Broadway complex. We should call Downtown San Diego "Doug Manchester Village".
And Bill Anderson (San Diego Planning Director and Harvard alum) is still holding on to his useless vision of "City of Villages", which ruined Gail Goldberg's career in San Diego, and now wants to hire a "Deputy Director of Form-Based Planning". Before Mr. Anderson does that, maybe he should consider that his city is on the brink of bankruptcy and cannot support another $150,000+ salary on the payroll.
And don't get me started on the shady, backroom sweetheart land giveaway the City of San Diego cut Corky McMillan on Liberty Station... But hey, at least you guys got plenty of new luxury high-rise condos next to Petco Park for all the corporate schmoozing taking place at the Padres games.
San Diego is the ultimate boom/bust cycle "get rich quick" city. That's why there are so many unoccupied luxury condos downtown. And that's why the built environment (despite the ideal climate) is pathetic.
Yawn.
That's a lot of talk. Can't really comment on it in detail on a public board, but I may even agree with some of it.
So what would YOU do to San Diego to make it better? I'd be much more interested to hear that than another rant like the one above.
And leave out the "you guys." I've only been here two years, I'm fresh out of planning school, and I had no part of any of that stuff.
And back up off of the condos, I am looking at buying one of those and I can't say I mind the glut on the market right about now. :-)
Yawn?! Typical San Diego response....
Not a rant, just the hard, honest truth, which no one in San Diego likes to admit. Let's just get drunk at an "Over the Line Tournament" on Mission Bay and all our nasty urban problems will go away! It's actually beyond hope for San Diego urban planning...
The glut of condos ARE EXACTLY what ruined downtown San Diego. Too late to go back now.
"You guys" includes EVERYONE who continues to partake in the civic malaise that is "America's Finest City". It has got to be one of the most apathetic, apolitical, narcisistic cities in the nation.
What would I do differently in San Diego? I would fire Bill Anderson, get rid of Jerry Sanders and the entire city council, lose Doug Manchester, get some left-leaning community activist balls, and start fighting for a quality urban metropolis, like San Francisco or Chicago!
First yawn, now zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Or maybe people can admit it and are sick of hearing this sort of thing?
As a planner in San Diego, I would rather hear some constructive, realistic ideas, not a bunch of insults. What's your problem, anyway? It's easy to point out problems in a snarky fashion but it takes "balls" to propose realistic solutions. and I didn't see any in either of your posts.
I mean, MY world would be great if I could just do everything I wanted to. But we're not all five years old.
I am aware of a lot of the things you are talking about but what do you realistically expect? None of those things is going to happen, and we already have the built environment that the past has given us. Statements like yours make ZERO progress and do nothing but get under people's skin.
Given that the things you say about San Diego are reality, how do we plan? How would you change it? Realistically, now. Not any more of your regime change stuff.
I happen to think downtown San Diego is wonderful. You don't. Doesn't make a mouse turd of difference. Stay away, then! In fact, please do.
"Regime change stuff"
is exactly how real planning works, or haven't you noticed? Or are you one of those technical planner ostriches who sticks their head in the sand when anything "political" comes their way...
My suggestions WERE productive, constructive, and realistic. What part did you miss?
Sick of hearing what, quite the contrary! Unfortunately not ENOUGH people honestly come out and critique cities for what they are, including San Diego. Not what the chamber of commerce and the absolutely corrupt CCDC wants people to think they are.
Downtown San Diego is an example of total urban failure (the complete opposite of wonderful), and planners in "America's Finest City" can learn MUCH from other more superior, vibrant, cultured cities around the country, such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Portland, and even Austin. There's some "productive" technical advice for you! The real problem is so much greater than improving a streetscape here or building a TOD/light rail line there.
Wake up and be honest, get REAL city hall, and get a REAL planning director!
"Zzzzzzzzzz"?, more San Diego status quo urban malaise. Have a little more faith in your profession my friend and stop settling for the mediocre like San Diego.
x
x
DUDE.
Dude. There's no black and white. It's not either "keep things the way they are" or "totally overthrow the government." There are many steps in between. Everyone has their own ideas about things but "right" isn't what you think is right, it's what we can all agree upon as right for our town.
So sure, I agree with you that san diego could make a lot of progress. But after a certain point, if citizens want things a certain way, and I disagree with it, I should either deal with it or move. It's not my job as a planner to tell people what to do; only to give them what I think are the best options and guide them toward what I think are the best decisions.
People elected our mayor, man. Popular vote. Are you saying you know better than them? If you ARE saying that, I hope your career in planning is short-lived. Because that attitude is bogus.
I have made many recommendations that weren't taken on projects. but that's the way things go. If decision makers choose to ignore me, well, we go from there. I think I know what I am talking about, but planning isn't exactly like math where there is a right or a wrong. Not eveyone thinks they can be an engineer, or a doctor, or a pilot, but everyone thinks they can plan. And you have to repect that.
You can't take on everything you disagree with in such a combative way. We all have to live together. I don't necessarily disagree with your ideas, just with your combative tone and condecending delivery. If you approach problems in that way, mark my words, you will NEVER be taken seriously or realistically get anything done. And I grew up here, so I know. Don't lecture me. Come work here and walk in my shoes.
one more thing: there is more culture here than you could shake a stick at. So pipe down. Pick up the Reader, there's cultural attractions that would amaze you.
why do you hate san diego so much? do you live here? did you? if you did, good that you moved. If you do, why don't you move?
If you never did, then stop talking about it.
Peace out.
"Popular Vote" in San Diego = Corrupt Status Quo
Your rambling "black and white" rant made absolutely no sense...
Jerry Sanders was only elected mayor because Donna Frye couldn't get her name off the write-in ballot and on the real ballot. And if elected, she would have done worse than Sanders. And this is coming from a left wing, progressive Green Party member!
Dude, Sanders is about to privatize your job, WAKE UP!
San Diego is a complete cultural and artistic wasteland, barely a notch above Orange County! If you mean all the articles for plastic surgeons in the San Diego Reader, then yes, there's "more of those than you can shake a stick at".
Popular vote doesn't matter in San Diego, because it is the voters who are to blame for electing the corrupt government in the first place. "Popular vote" doesn't mean squat in San Diego, because the electorate is so backwards and conservative that you won't see a progressive mayor there for another 40 years if you're lucky. I live in San Francisco and I would take Gavin Newsom and his alcoholism/sex scandal anyday over San Diego's pathetic backwards politics.
It doesn't matter if you lived in San Diego for 6 months or all your life, you would still come to the same conclusion that San Diego is an urban nightmare. Actually if you grew up there, it only clouds your objective judgement even more.
It's amazing that a city the size of Austin, Texas (600,000+ people) can seem to come up with enlightened, sustainable solutions to climate change and urban development issues, yet San Diego, a "metropolis" with a population hovering just under 1.4 million, can't even seem to fix its own potholes and sewer mains.
Pathetic.
Just gonna have to....
...let your comments stand right there because they demonstrate your total lack of credibility. You have demonstrated that you have no idea who I am, that you have no idea of how to realistically approach a planning issue, and that you wouldn't recognize a civilized discourse if it rear-ended you on the freeway.
If someone were to approach a planning problem in the public realm (especially in this very conservative town) in the way you have approached this conversation, you will be eaten alive as a "liberal, holier than thou" person who thinks they know better than everyone else. Which translates to being pretty much worthless as a planner, whether or not your ideas are good.
I too am a "left wing, progressive Green Party member." And you don't speak for us.
Cheers,
Travis
Care to see what YOUR own media says about San Diego land use?
Three exerpts from comments relating to an article in the "Voice of San Diego" (progressive, non-profit, liberal media) today entitled "On Your Dime":
"San Diego City government is rapidly becoming a mere appendage of the development sector. Land use decisions are made by default." - Jeanette Hartman
"The Navy Broadway Complex deal shows that nothing has changed in this city: Neither Jim Waring, the mayor's real estate czar, nor Nancy Graham, president of CCDC, believe their jobs are to protect the public interest." - Ian Trowbridge
"Stream lining" governance of our public land can too easily become a steam roller paving over transparency in the public interest, as your examples already show." - Molly Rhodes
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/02/24/opinion/02murtaza1022...
Here in San Francisco we don't we have this kind of anti-CEQA/ministerial/Jim Waring-style urban development "stream lining", thank goodness. The public actually has more of a voice in this neck of the woods.
In your defense, perhaps you do not have an objective perspective from which to honestly comment on land use planning regarding the very city that you're employed with.
If it means being
eaten alive by the pathetic, status quo, old school planning and building establishment which runs San Diego with an iron fist, then you're probably right! Thank heavens I do not live in that vapid wasteland of a place.
San Diego is a draconian, jingoist type of place which frowns upon progressive ideas and solutions. It really has nothing to do with if I would make a "good planner", who cares about me? And it has nothing to do with whether I have "credibility" or not. But it has EVERYTHING to do with the honesty of my points, which you cannot refute.
If this isn't civilized discourse, than I am not sure what is? What would qualify as such for your narrow, technical, box-checking background?
And yes I do speak for most progressive/green party members in the rest of the nation by the way, just not the silent, wishy-washy, ambivalent sort that you find in San Diego. When was the last time you guys had a pro-immigration/civil rights demonstration? We had one in San Francisco yesterday my friend. I seem to recall Escondido tried to make it illegal to rent to undocumented workers a few months ago. Try giving that a go in the Bay Area. You'd be run out of town!
Civility
Good grief....
And you're both Greenies? I'd hate to see how preposterous this would get if one of you was a right-wing Republican. VTboy, you have some good points (and some out of line personal attacks), and Travis has a point about civility. This kind of rhetoric and grandstanding is what we're seeing out of D.C. day in and day out, and it's why nothing worthwhile has gotten done in this country in at least 6 years. I hate to stick my nose in where it probably doesn't belong, but... Good gods, man, this is ridiculous.
Good point.
I totally agree, especially when compared to our current presidential administration.
But for the record, Travis was just as uncivil in his personal attacks against me as I supposedly was against him.
Civility is all relative, remember.
San Diego IS a Junkyard!
Case in point: Mission Valley
It is
It's awful. Beyond awful.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to see if any of these "elightended" Austin residents would be willing to put their monies where their mouths are an invest in the the project that they desinged? It's easy to tell other folks what to do with their money (especially when it's a "backward-looking", "corporate", "greedy", "unelightened", "national" developer) when you'll get all the benefits while carrying none of the risk.
Maybe we have a new business model in the making?
They do!
Elizabeth Moule (Moule and Polyzoides) owns and operates Meridian Properties, LLC which "puts its money where its mouth is" and invests/develops new urbanist projects all over Los Angeles.
And the trend is growing. Take a look at Urban Land Magazine sometime and get back to me.
And yes, the New Urbanist projects currently being developed throughout Los Angeles are MUCH better than the auto-oriented crap in San Diego.
Residents
I was actually speaking about the residents of Austin who decried the project and wanted to redesign the site and thinking about something akin to a private equity vehicle for nearby residents to put their money into the project and share some of the financial risk in creating their desired community. Not that I'd actually expect you to be able focus on what was said...
Residents, planners, developers
Just semantics my friend, who cares?! At least the new urbanist projects are now getting the financial support they need.
Did the "residents" support the demolition of Bunker Hill in Los Angeles during the 1950s in the name of urban renewal? Probably not.
Financing has to come from some where. Only this time around, the practicioners are getting involved in the entire process of new urbanist developments, unlike in the past, when it came from monolithic banks and corporate entities.
Much different than when I.M. Pei was planning entire superblocks for Cleveland in the 1960s.
Point Taken
I'm actually all for many of the new developments taking place (thanks for the link to that firm by the way). My only concern with having "the community" dictate development is that "the community" usually becomes a tool for a few vocal (usually rich, usually white) folks to pretend that they represent the interests of everyone.
Competing With Wal-Mart
I wouldn't put up my money to compete against Wal-Mart for a simple reason. Wal-Mart charges lower prices than the sort of businesses I would want to see, but it creates greater social and environmental costs. The total cost of shopping at Wal-Mart, including these external costs, may be higher than the cost of the sort of shopping I prefer. But people will shop where the prices they pay are lowest, regardless of external costs.
This is why we need planning - and environmental laws generally.
Eg, I also would not put up my money to compete against a factory that dumps its toxic wastes in the river. If my factory disposed of its toxic wastes safely, it would have to charge a higher price, so customers would buy from the factory that dumps its wastes in the river.
Charles Siegel
What if we leave Wal-Mart out of the Equation?
The plan the citizens of Austin came up with sure looks fine to me. However, more building, more amenities, smaller retail floor plates (perhaps no room for an anchor tenant?), residential reuse of a commercial site (possible environmental hazard, former dry cleaners in a mall?) all entail hgiher costs which have to be covered on the back end to make it financially viable. So that means residential prices and higher rents for commercial spaces. Leaving out the residential portion...higher rents equals more chains (as they are more likley to be able to affors the higher costs) or more high-end/boutiquey types of retail (also expensive). Additionally, if there's nor room for an anchor store/draw, that puts into question the retail viability of any of the smaller neighborhood type stores (less traffic and customers).
All of this is fine and dandy, and it may be financially viable from a builder's perspective...but were any of these perspectives put forth to the residents in those planning charrette sessions (from my experience costs are never mentioned)? Might the many people think differently if knew by putting forth such a plan they basically would be the architects of the future gentrification of their neighborhood? Does Keep Austin Weird mean luxury boutiques and chain stores?
If that's what the residents really want, then fine, more power to them. I just wonder if they've really thought it through.