Then I'm not sure what your point is if we want to point to arbitrary neighborhoods, say they're walkable and call it a day rather than address the ninety others which aren't.
By your argument, we might as well say San Francisco is perfectly OK to live in because we can find one neighborhood that isn't a hellscape. You're not really addressing my points or arguments at all, just weirdly trying to sidestep it.
I just don't find arguments like "well if you lived in this random address in the City of Austin it probably wouldn't be walkable!" very interesting, sorry. Austin is 271 miles squares and SF is 46. Nobody should throw a dart (in any city) when selecting where to live and then make very location specific claims about the city (or region, state, country) as a whole based on their experience, IMO.
If I go up thread you say "[Texas] cities are designed to grow outwards, rather than upwards" and "even if you removed [NIMBYs] greed from landlords and land value in cities would still be a problem."
I mean... it's illegal to build anything except a single family home in most lots in Austin. NIMBYism is the problem. What else about Austin makes it "designed to grow outward" other than the zoning? How else do you push back against landlords and the high cost of land but via more units per acre? I assume you'll mention public transit, but I don't think any city built out a subway/rail system before it had some level of density. It's a chicken and egg problem and we need density in our urban core before we'll be able to pass more funding for transit, sadly. And we definitely can't afford to have a super great bus or rail system serving low density neighborhoods with low ridership.
Also, I live in Central East Austin and many of my neighbors are poor. I don't buy arguments about central living being only for upper-middle class people (at least in Austin). The fact is most people choose to add miserable car commutes to their lives because they want more space, or they're afraid of living near people different than them (I'm being kind...), or whatever.
> I just don't find arguments like "well if you lived in this random address in the City of Austin it probably wouldn't be walkable!" very interesting, sorry. Austin is 271 miles squares and SF is 46. Nobody should throw a dart (in any city) when selecting where to live and then make very location specific claims about the city (or region, state, country) as a whole based on their experience, IMO.
The claims I've been making have been about the city as a whole. Don't try and twist this around into me making the argument about a random address not being walkable, because your entire argument has been taking a random address, claiming its walkable and then trying to extrapolate that to the rest of Austin.
>I mean... it's illegal to build anything except a single family home in most lots in Austin. NIMBYism is the problem. What else about Austin makes it "designed to grow outward" other than the zoning? How else do you push back against landlords and the high cost of land but via more units per acre? I assume you'll mention public transit, but I don't think any city built out a subway/rail system before it had some level of density. It's a chicken and egg problem and we need density in our urban core before we'll be able to pass more funding for transit, sadly. And we definitely can't afford to have a super great bus or rail system serving low density neighborhoods with low ridership.
I never denied NIMBYism isn't part of the problem, but it is only part of the issue. The other half of the issue is the glorified car culture in and around Texas where people value driving more than they do other forms of transit. This can't be illustrated any better than the amount of sidewalk islands Austin has where buildings or malls are surrounded by sidewalk that connects to nowhere. Because everyone drives to the building next door, because cities like Austin grew outwards and spaced buildings and places accordingly.
Your second claim about subway/rail systems isn't correct because New York and Seattle both proactively added new forms of public transit to fit a growing population, rather than trying to retrofit public transit after the population has already blown up. Austin in this scenario isn't even trying to add more public transit, but rather expand highways while people complain about the metro rail being too 'cost inefficient'.
Most people don't chose to add car commutes, this era of white flight is less about moving to the suburbs and more about gentrification and pushing out the poor and minorities from locations closer to the city.
> Don't try and twist this around into me making the argument about a random address not being walkable, because your entire argument has been taking a random address, claiming its walkable and then trying to extrapolate that to the rest of Austin.
Uh, what? I've repeatedly stated that neighborhoods matter more than cities. My whole point has been that generalizations about the city/region/state as a whole aren't useful. I would no sooner live in many parts of Austin than I would in rural Oklahoma. But that doesn't mean there aren't great, walkable parts of Austin and many people living car-free here. Which is literally what I said to start this conversation...
You, however, stated: "Austin as a whole consistently ranks low in terms of walkability." I don't live in "Austin as a whole." Nobody does. They live in their house/apartment/condo/whatever in a specific location. The walkability score near the border of Round Rock matters as much to me as the walkability score of... well, rural Oklahoma.
> The other half of the issue is the glorified car culture in and around Texas where people value driving more than they do other forms of transit. This can't be illustrated any better than the amount of sidewalk islands Austin has where buildings or malls are surrounded by sidewalk that connects to nowhere. Because everyone drives to the building next door
I completely agree. Where we'd probably disagree is that since we're (again) generalizing to areas as large as a state (!), here are some other car centric states: California, New York... It's a true American problem.
> New York and Seattle both proactively added new forms of public transit to fit a growing population
I'd be interested in the data there. I'd be amazed to learn that NYC/Seattle dug out subway lines to neighborhoods that were anywhere near as sparsely populated as non-central Austin neighborhoods are.
> Austin in this scenario isn't even trying to add more public transit
Yes, it is. You might be interested in CapMetro Engage. In addition, CapMetro ridership is rising, which is great for the chicken and egg issue.
> but rather expand highways while people complain about the metro rail being too 'cost inefficient'
And we're definitely doing this, too. I agree it's a problem.
> Most people don't chose to add car commutes, this era of white flight is less about moving to the suburbs and more about gentrification and pushing out the poor and minorities from locations closer to the city.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
Anyway, I doubt I'll convince you of much. Which is fine. I mostly post these responses so other HN readers know they can find a place to live here that isn't car dependent. Because they do exist, they are getting better, they are getting more numerous, and I'm all for more pro-city, pro-density, pro-urbanism, anti-car people moving here and voting with their dollars and, well, votes.
By your argument, we might as well say San Francisco is perfectly OK to live in because we can find one neighborhood that isn't a hellscape. You're not really addressing my points or arguments at all, just weirdly trying to sidestep it.