So What Am I Afraid Of?

"No plan can prevent a stupid person from doing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time - but a good plan should keep a concentration from forming."

-- Charles E. Wilson

I caught the tail end of a segment of the locally produced PBS show, Downtown on KLRU (episode #207) a few weekends back. The segment involved following a few local bands around in their quest for their big break and how instrumental downtown and it's clubs are for them and their future success. They showed a few bands playing at Cedar Street and the like but when they showed the bands sans gigs, they were shown in that traditional definition of an Austin SoCo backyard: huddled on top of the wooden picnic table with hubcaps hanging on the fence; dogs barking and yelping in the background; live oak trees in the immediate distance; the kitsch of that traditional South Austin residence and the associated lifestyle that goes with it (I think that segment was filmed at Rock N' Roll Rentals on Lamar and Oltorf). For me, the implication was "For all the chicness and swank of the downtown clubs, the music is sewn and grown in the old traditions of the Austin community." It seemed the marketable aspect of the piece was not the venues where those bands played but where they and the community lived to produce the music that defines Austin.

I think nothing quite sums up this feeling better than the article that's linked to at the Armadillo World Headquarters info page or the quote on the home page which states:

"...The Armadillo is more than just a local symbol. It is the center of the music industry in Texas, the premiere showcase for the rest of the nation to look at Texas talent and the spot where Texas audiences get to see national acts at their best… In the vision of Texas we want to communicate, the nine-banded Armadillo is more important than John Connally or the oil industry. It's a vision the rest of the country hasn't seen yet."

That vision, which is still shared by many current and former Austin residents, is to them the defining characteristic of Austin. It's the reason why they decided to take up residence here and to give what they have creatively to the Austin commons. That vision, though not unique in Texas, certainly had a flavor that was different from anywhere else and what set Austin apart from the other music hubs like Seattle and Nashville.

So when I read that another Austin "iconic" place is going away for another multi-story development, I again start to worry if Austin is losing another small piece of its collective soul. Like the photograph above of U2 in the Shady Grove RV Park back in '82, would that photograph be as near as interesting if there were two 6-story condo buildings in the background? And when you take into account the targeted demographics of the projected residents of the new buildings, that same photograph of U2 in late 2008 would have a solid line of BMW's, SUV's and assorted yupster toys trundling about in the background. Kinda changes the character, or one might say, the implied meaning of the art work.

And I guess that's what I'm afraid of. With all this generic, cookie-cutter development and architecture that's being green lighted in Austin lately, more of Austin's character is being assimilated into a homogenized mix of big box retailers and pseudo-80's-ish, Trammell Crow-like mini-towers (and don't forget their associated strip malls. For an example, just go see the giant strip mall on MoPac next to the Pickle...) Soon enough, Austin will not be as easily distinguished from other geographic locations which I think bothers many Austin residents (see the comments on the above article at the Statesman). After all, the Arboretum area is a spitting image of the NorthPark area of Dallas. Downtown development, much like anywhere else urban, tends to blur together unless you have niches like 6th street (or in Dallas' case, the West End and Deep Ellum). 2nd Street and the Town Lake area are quickly becoming Austin's McKinney Avenue / Turtle Creek equivalent.

Now my question here, I guess, is "Does all development have to be the same as everywhere else?" "Can we not as residents of Austin, ask for a more regional interpretation of these developments to better fit into our community and help preserve our sense of place?" I know that our coming design standards attempt to give an Austin "brand" to the new development but it seems so limited in scope that most of this development going on only falls under the broader zoning plan in which most of these developers seem to be bypassing anyway by seeking major variances seemingly on every development.

Now, I've been quite clear in the past that I'm not anti-development. I think there are many places in Austin where development is absolutely needed and should be promoted by our Council and their supporters. But I've consistently drawn the line on a few things: 1) that neighborhood associations and local "icons" as deemed by most residents of Austin are taken into account *before* development starts (I define an icon as a place that most Austinites feel reflects what they believe to be Austin) and 2) new development downtown should have to promote some "affordability" before being green lighted. This new development being proposed on Barton Springs fits neither of these statements for me.

For instance, I like to use this little scenario to look at any proposed development to weigh it's "community" benefits (to help define number 1 above). Your parents, who live in East Oshkosh and have never been to Texas, much less Austin, come down for a visit. You have one day to show them what Austin is all about and what makes it different from anywhere else in Texas before they head to Dallas and then Houston. Where do you take them? What places do you think define Austin and are different from Dallas or Houston?

Now, apply that filter to any of the places now under consideration for development. Would you take your parents to Shady Grove for a frito pie or two? I know I would as I've done it numerous times in the past. Now, get rid of the "grove" in "Shady Grove" and replace it with two 8-story condominium complexes ("Shady Condo Towers?"). Kinda changes the character or the implied meaning of the place, doesn't it? It's kinda like replacing the trees and Airstreams in the U2 picture above with a generic condo tower and BMW's. I mean, if you wanted to dine amongst tall, urban buildings, there are plenty of places on 2nd street to do that. So, to me, that development doesn't contribute to that "Austin flavor" or community definition that most Austinites feel defines their city. It's just another condo development in that respect and in fact, Austin loses a bit of its character in the exchange.

Ok, so now let's look at the second of my development "qualifications." Does this new development benefit affordability in the immediate area? With a target demographic of $60k - $80k a year, at the low end (of which there will be only 5-10% of the stock that will qualify based on earlier developments and the new design standards), it doesn't seem like it will encourage families of different economic levels to the neighborhood. But it's perfectly targeted at the yupster level though, so the neighborhood's SUV population will be sure to rise. So are yupsters and SUV's representative of or define Austin? Hate to say it but I don't think so (and before some of you, and you know who you are, go off in your own mind and since you don't leave comments, think that I have something against yupsters now, take note. I happen to be in the yupster demo group and although I don't drive a SUV, I do drive a "European sports sedan." So because I have membership in that group, it should qualify me enough to comment on that demographic...)

So it comes down to the title of this post for me... What am I afraid of? I've lived in the Barton Hills neighborhood for nearly 10 years now and I'm afraid that the new development will take a piece of Austin that won't easily be replaced. And that piece will be removed without giving back to the community something equally as valuable (by the way, I find it interesting that the first thing these developers do is throw out the "new path to the greenbelt" bone to the neighborhoods when they request these variances. How well will that meme float when all the development changes the greenbelt so much that there won't be much "green" left in the "belt" and they're just paved paths to a concrete canyon surrounding Town Lake?) Now, I don't know where my NA stands on this (I don't really participate much as I rent a duplex here) but I find myself against this current proposal. What I would be for is a development that would fit in with the rest of that area (much like the condos/townhomes directly across the street, nestled against the hill and which blend right in and don't drastically change the character). I'd support a smaller development, something only as tall or just above as the roof of Flipnotics and with as many trees left as possible. I feel that the current proposal just wouldn't fit in and would dramatically change the Austin "flavor" of that area too much.

So, to me, it comes down to what we are implicitly saying about ourselves when we greenlight projects like this. Are we all closet Dallasites or Houstonians where cookie-cutter architecture and planning decisions like this truly reflect our collective character? Are we truly willing to throw away these small jewels of our history and collective soul for someone's long term profit margin and the promise of future tax revenue? To be honest, I just don't know the answers to those questions but I know what camp I'm in. I found this quote from Eddie Wilson on the dedication of the commemorative Armadillo plaque fitting for this situation in an implied sense:

"It is still on the lips and minds of a lot of people 26 years after it closed. This is noteworthy for me because of the zero-tolerance mentality, and now the city erected a memorial that glorifies the things of the past that are not accepted today."

Now, I think Mr. Wilson was probably talking about the "lifestyle choices" of the attendees of the Armadillo in the quote above but I also read it as a kind of collective regret from those "official" citizens of Austin to our past. As if the plaque was meant to make up for the destruction of something that so defined and made Austin, some kind of amends to the collective memory of those long time Austin residents that defined us for the last 30+ years had to be made to continue to justify what they are still selling to this day. Something official that says to those Austinites, "Sorry, we kinda screwed up here by replacing this important piece of our history with an office building parking lot. But even though we continue to sell the image of the Armadillo to the rest of the country, here's a plaque and please accept our apologies whilst we continue through our action to undermine and bury that unique image..."

Personally, I would hate to see that 26 years from now after that part of Barton Springs has been dramatically changed with 10-story condo buildings up and down, a future Council again feels the need to leave another plaque with a picture of what was once there to tell the story of Austin instead of Austinites being able to experience it for themselves.

Note: This post marks my return from the self-imposed hiatus that I was on. Things on the time front seem to be opening up again to where I can spend some time contemplating and writing. I finally got all of my former co-worker's projects off my list at work and we hired a new InfoSec Analyst that actually will be able to provide answers right off the bat to questions that literally took me hours of research to answer (I'm talkin' to you, Cisco!)

On the personal side, I (as well as the other authors) were issued a US Patent during the hiatus and are waiting on the status of the 2nd application (it'll be patent number 7,152,240 and it's set to issue on 12/19/06. I'll put the link up once it makes it to USPTO's website). I'll tell you that I'm damn proud of those patents even though they probably won't amount to much financially. It took 7 years to get them through the process and I'm glad they finally crossed the finish line.

I hope to spend a bit of time making some programmatic changes to the site and more importantly, start adding more content! As always, thanks for stopping and taking the time...

Update: Well, at least I'm not the only one lamenting the fact that the Shady Grove won't be around much longer. Brian Robertson sees the same clues to Austin's loss of character in his piece for the Statesman.

Additions: 12/30/06 - Added links to Flipnotics and my post on the design standards.