Centerfield

I think you are voicing a frustration that many have about their own home downtowns. The hardest part is striking a balance.

If *I* were a city planner (and I have no real experience), I would plan a downtown area that encourages small to medium eclectic businesses, both retail and services, plus park areas, restaurants, theaters and other forms of recreation; and be pedestrian friendly by providing perimeter parking structures with fr*e shuttles to key downtown destinations.

Since I'm not a city planner and have no experience, I'm not sure how I would pull that off. Any ideas?

I'm not sure what your point is; Do you want more meters downtown? eerf short term parking?

I lived in Austin from 81-86. I only remember going downtown at night, I can't quite remember but I think parking was eerf (backwards), but you might have to walk a little.

I had to move north, it was WAY too hot for me.

BTW-how did you like the UT/Ohio state game? I seem to remember you thinking it was going to be an easy win for UT.

PS. I had to change to eerf because your spam filter doen't like eerf

Yes... if only there was some means, of, I don't know... getting from one place to another in a major metropolitan area besides automobiles. Perhaps some strange contraption that ran on a predesignated route, and could accomadate large numbers of people.

This is the complaint I had with the Houston rail plan. (Although I still voted for it-sometimes something is better than nothing) it runs from downtown to the medical center. You still have to drive to one or the other, or take a bus, to even get on the rail. Sheesh.

But then, Houston is an oil town, and Austin is in an oil state, and it seems to me that with rare exceptions (Atlanta) the South is not very subway/rail friendly.

You all might want to consider using the word "gratis" to mean "without charge." It has the disadvantage of sounding somewhat... dorky... hyperlexical...something along those lines. But it has the advantage that the meaning is immediately obviously. I sat puzzling over "fr*e" for the longest time, and I didn't get "eerf" at all until told to read it backwards...but I may just be dim - or very tired.

ahem...sorry...should read "immediately obvious." Definitely past my bedtime.

Sounds like an ongoing eruption of "Doughnut Effect" to me. A regular result of urban sprawl. Seriously.

It is all about using resources. Parking lots are expensive wastes of space in urban downtowns. A property owner can make a lot more money by putting a building there. The economics of parking lots in downtown and suburban settings are completely different. It is a catch-22. If someone is going to build a parking garage on expensive downtown property, it is going to cost to park in it.

It is a cultural issue with Americans. They are tied to the convience of their car. If there is an alternative that they can chose to drive a car or ride a bus, obviously they will usually drive the car. Hence, businesses move out to the suburbs where it is easier for the customers to drive the car. You can try to social engineer a solution all you want; but as long as there is land to build on, that is what is going to happen.

Even if a city wants to get land for public parking, it would have trouble justifying the tax payer costs. Residents and businesses not within downtown would complain they are having to subsidize the downtown businesses. Others, who believe in less government ownership would complain that it is impinging on the private parking industry.

Until someone comes up with a workable Star Trek style matter transporter, it is going to be hard for downtowns with a lot of undeveloped land on the fringes to do anythign but be a commerce center and niche entertainment.

I used to live in West Palm Beach, and downtown parking remains an ongoing battle. The city will raise, then lower parking fees almost every month trying to find the right balance that will encourage visitors to Clematis Street businesses but still make a buck.

But Austin is a unique situation. A beautiful city, one of the many appeals of Austin is the very eclectic and entertaining mix of small- and mid-sized businesses around the city. These small businesses cannot afford massive parking lots, so street parking is the only way they can survive.

By the way, for any who have never been to Austin: GO. And while you’re there, be sure to visit Ruby’s BBQ, not too far from the UT campus. Best BBQ in Texas.

You know, I think Jim has it pretty right on. This would probably never be an issue in European countries because land use has been limited for far longer and public transport has been a greater necessity for far longer.

Let's face it, for Americans, it IS a cultural issue. Big country, wide open spaces, BIG cars. When I was living in California, smog in the large cities was and is a huge issue simply because you can't get people out of their cars. Just try and suggest public transport options and people will say what a great idea -- but never use them because they won't get out of their cars.

Probably the only big city I know of that makes heavy use of public transport is Manhattan -- and just try to go anywhere by taxi...

What WeekendPundit said, except I think our best BBQ (best BBQ I've ever had, and I've been around a bit) is the nearby Salt Lick.

It's way out in the sticks, but well worth it.

Heather said:
> ...be pedestrian friendly by
> providing perimeter parking structures with fr*e shuttles to key
> downtown destinations.

We had something like that for a while, but now one charges $5, and the northern ones aren't open anymore. Shuttles, per se, were only provided during major events, though they are well bus-connected. And there weren't enough.

wiseacre wised:
> But then, Houston is an oil town, and Austin is in an oil state, and
> it seems to me that with rare exceptions (Atlanta) the South is not
> very subway/rail friendly.

Well, also, there's another even more important issue: low density. Public transit takes alot longer than cars to anywhere where the density isn't high. In NYC, where the public transit is as good as it gets, and the streets hopelessly packed, the average transit time is 50-60 minutes. The typical Austin transit time is 25-30 minutes, rather better.

That's why most cities don't bother with trains except highly dense regions. Austin really only is dense enough for one rail route, which is now under construction.

Taking the chance on hijacking the entire thread (since I know nothing about Austin parking other than I always park at the Bank One building on weekends I am there), I have to take issue with Rudy's even being in the top 20 BBQ joints in Texas. Salt Lick is superb and Coopers in Llano is well worth the trip.

Maybe this is meant for the open thread tomorrow.

Jim said:
> Even if a city wants to get land for public parking, it would have
> trouble justifying the tax payer costs. Residents and businesses not
> within downtown would complain they are having to subsidize the
> downtown businesses. Others, who believe in less government
> ownership would complain that it is impinging on the private parking
> industry.

Since '97, hundreds of public parking spaces on the street have vanished. Now it's true that competition for them would've gone up, but did that make make eliminating them the right thing to do?

Tully noted:
> Sounds like an ongoing eruption of "Doughnut Effect" to me. A
> regular result of urban sprawl.

Yeah, I know. In the long term, it's hopeless to preserve a unified downtown. But IMHO, this could've been better managed.

It's not hopeless, but even if addressed intelligently downtown is still gonna change. And sometimes it can be turned around--downtown Denver used to be a ghost town, now it's hopping, and LoDo (lower downtown) is big-ticket housing for yuppies. They have studio condos selling in downtown Denver that cost more than my first two houses combined.

Sprawl can't be stopped, but it can be addressed. It's not cheap, though.

Austin and other similar environs often become victims of their own success. It's the way of growing economies and capitalism. I wouldn't worry. At some point newer centers of amenities will develop. In the meantime I hope Austin avoids expensive light rail and just adds more buses and shuttles. As mentioned above...it is cultural change time. People may have to get used to amenity centers that are closer to home. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Transportation is the key component. Manhattan is pretty easy to get around. SF, despite the complaints about Muni, has many ways for people to get in around. It does cost money. $5.50 RT for BART or casual carpool it in the morning and return via bus for 3 bucks.
But compare that to cost and operation of a car.
The current IRS deductible is 40 cents a mile!!!

Years ago I decided to participate in the planning process in the small town of Albany CA, pop. about 14K at the time. It borders on Berkeley and has two commercial corridors that seemed underutilized considering the increasing value of the land. (homes typically range from 600K on up, condos 350K+) The question was how to develop the area? Do they go medium or high rise office buildings or what? How do you take advantage of proximity to BART stations? I offered up a solution that reflected what makes a lot of neighborhoods in SF very successful... a corridor of 3-5 story buildings combining residential, office and local retail. That seems to have taken hold. Advantages are many-fold - you have abuilt in customer base, some people will live near work or use the BART station or local bus services to commute. Berkeley has a similar approach and Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland spent the past 7 years trying to get 10,000 units downtown (he succeeded) to increase the tax base and ramp up business opportunities in what has been a ghost town for years.

Speaking of land use....

HAd an interesting talk with a PA in while in Denver earlier this year. Seems that she and her friends have to road trip it out of state to hit an IKEA. They won't build an IKEA in the Denver area because the powers that be don't like the Blue and Gold exterior of an IKEA store. It apparently doesn't conform to the aesthetic of the area...yeah like Buildings 1, 2(where I work on occasion) and 3 of the Denver Tech Center...bleccccchhh!!!!!

Ikea opened up a store in Emeryville a few years ago. Place got so crowded they built another in Palo Alto and there is at least another planned for the Bay Area.

How's that for stupid planning. I mean really, what the heck in Denver looks "natural" anyway?
Denver's in teh middle of installing light rail but I don't think it'll do to well until they ramp up the bus lines and can compete with the convenience factor. It's just faster to drive to most places in the Denver area. Sort of like it's faster for me to drive from Oakland to Santa Clara, even if traffic is heavy, and I'm not at the mercy of bus or train schedules.
However if I have to go to downtown SF for shopping or a Giants game it's definitely public transit.

They won't build an IKEA in the Denver area because the powers that be don't like the Blue and Gold exterior of an IKEA store.

Never trust scuttlebutt rumor. IKEA has been shopping off the various Denver-area governments (half a dozen counties and twenty or so metros) against each other for a while now. Not being in a hurry, they can wait for the best deal on tax abatements and such.

But make no mistake, all of those city and county governments WANT an IKEA there. No one could keep IKEA out if they were determined to start building quickly, they're just not in a hurry. Denver isn't one of their current-list planned expansion areas yet. At best a local political body could keep IKEA off of a single location.

what were our leaders thinking?

You to assume that they WERE thinking to ask that. :-) They were probably too busy leading too have any time to think. :-)

Heather, Boston has pretty good public transportation...we have a 5 line subway, a multitude of buses, and a substantial suburban commuter rail. Many of the eggheadier enclaves in the area are jampacked with perpetual grad school types who use the T almost exclusively, and it can be done.

While I'm on that topic, let me counsel you that should you decide to make a trip from Maine down to see Boston, do yourself a favor and don't consider driving around the city. I can't tally on all my fingers and toes the number of non-natives who suffer from the permanent scars of Boston traveling PTSD. It's not just the traffic, its the nongridded and one way streets and the big dig detours.

Amen. Having driven in Boston. There are other places where driving is hell, especially for the non-familiar, but Boston is bad. Not as automotively homicidal as some other cities, but as confusing as it gets.

Too late for the warning... August '05 when we were back for the big family thing, Brad and I were trying to get from the airport to the hotel. I'm not sure what happened but we got stuck in a nearly endless loop on one your blasted circles and kept going around... and around... and around... it was almost funny, except that we'd been on a plane for five hours and just wanted to get to the hotel!! We did, of course... And that wasn't the only "you had to laugh or..." moments the family had while driving in the city...