Comments for Dawson Neighborhood

Comment on Dawson by Outlaw

Outlaw — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:51:23 +0000

“…of course there are some who seek to wage culture war by turning these 48 some odd acres into glass and steel hi-rise yuppie prisons–aka condos –and make em heap big wampum in the process…”

Indeed! Be gone, carpetbaggers~be GONE!

Comment on Dumb Growth by 78704pickinparty

78704pickinparty — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:05:27 +0000

Well, “chopwdcarrywtr” (any relation to mowbyhand, I wonder?) if you’d actually read the articles, you’d find that the only mitigating factor in urban densification is the provision for upgraded public transportation, but must precede development.

However, if you had ever actually lived in New York City, you would back off from your blind assertion that it “works” and that the subways are anything but crowded, dirty, dangerous and –unfortunately — a necessary evil in a city so crowded.

Austin is paradise compared to New York, yet people who stand to make a buck off development keep telling us we want it to be more like New York. Judging from the “urbanisme” fans in Austin, there are rednecks aplenty being played for rubes like this.

Now, I do have an issue with your “If you’d rather see gated suburbs and strip malls instead of dense residential areas then move to round rock. If there are going to be 2 million people in a city I’d rather have them in a small dense urban area than in a huge sprawled-out suburban area. It’s just my preference.”

Dawson is already a predominantly single-family zoned and occupied suburb. All we’d have to do to make it a gated suburb is put some gates on it, regardless of your preferences.

If you are concerned about housing, then the obvious places to put high density housing –high rises, for example — is where people don’t already live.

I have nothing against a bunch of empty warehouses being razed or overshadowed by high density housing. Furthermore, if the housing shortage is as dire as you paint it, it does seem a bit rich to set aside 10 acres of scrubland for a Laura Bush Library “and nature center” in Westlake Hills, at a location which is equidistant to the Capitol as the far end of Dawson.

If Dawson is to be considered “urban core” then so should all of Rollingwood Hills and half of Westlake. I suggest you go express your preferences to them.

Comment on Dumb Growth by Our Hero

Our Hero — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:16:05 +0000

Is this an argument against density or against growth? If you’d rather see gated suburbs and strip malls instead of dense residential areas then move to round rock.
If there are going to be 2 million people in a city I’d rather have them in a small dense urban area than in a huge sprawled-out suburban area. It’s just my preference. I think New York City works because of the excellent subway system. The density is a result, not a cause of it’s efficiency. Without the subways, people wouldn’t be able to live or work in Manhattan, and it wouldn’t be so crowded.
The benefit of building dense cities is not so that “everyone will walk everywhere”. That’s oversimplifying things. The proven benefit is that some people will walk sometimes, and if they do drive it will be for shorter distances. It works much better with effective public transportation, especially underground or elevated. The real debate here is public funding for transportation. If you’re concerned about traffic let’s spend federal tax money on high speed trains instead of war.

Comment on Dawson by bibomedia

bibomedia — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:48:04 +0000

Comment on Dumb Growth by Heffalump

Heffalump — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:37:27 +0000

I think Gore Vidal calls it “Socialism for the Rich.” Or, as Ellis Weiner said in today’s HuffPo:

When billionaires get tax breaks, they receive “incentives.” When working class families get food stamps, they’re the perpetrators (and the victims, really) of “the welfare state.” When government serves corporations, it’s “a partnership.” When government serves individuals, it’s “socialism.” … Clear?