Austin will be 5th fastest growing U.S. metro in coming years

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by NThomas

So we'll see more people living in TODs? Or limited or slow growth in Central Texas?

There are no TODs here; and there won't be until we get real urban rail. We'll simply see less growth than we have seen; due to a combination of less immigration and less natural growth; and more of it will be 'new suburban' developments like Mueller.

Economics does eventually impact demographics.

[arbeiter]

It's hard to say how things will take shape - I certainly would not have believed all those toll roads would be built if you told me in, say, 1998. I thought Austin was going to possibly grow up a bit if it passed the 2000 light rail package, which it did not. I believe if that had happened, you'd have seen something closer to Portland.

They said they'd be digging IH-35 into a trench by now, too. I remember the renderings in the early 90's for a layout similar to what Dallas did to Highway 75.

Judging from the empty space that is still plentiful next to our new toll roads, I would be surprised if 75% or more of Austin's growth didn't come in the form of the traditional stuccoed suburbia that every other sunbelt city has strapped on to its extremities.

While downtown is looking nice, having finally gotten the chance to drive around in a car and see the changes in suburbia in the past 5 years, I now see downtown as even more symbolic. The number of new subdivisions, not to mention Walgreens and HEB's and 24 Hour Fitnesses and Anytime Fitnesses (new chain I guess?) is staggering.

Every major shopping area seems to have something new - the Sunset Valley area has that new center behind the Kohl's, then there's the fancy new stuff on William Cannon. The Domain, not to mention Arbor Walk, is all new. Then there's oodles of new stuff on Parmer, especially near Avery Ranch. Then don't get me started on the 1431 / 183-A stuff. I haven't even been to the new shopping near Ikea.

That's just retail alone - clearly all of that was built to accommodate lots of low-density homes and apartment complexes (Alexan at the "Name Coming Soon")?

Comparing that to downtown's half a dozen condos, plus another dozen mid-sized complexes within 3-4 miles of downtown, and you can clearly see that downtown is probably going to be no more than 5% of the city's growth.

[NormalgeNyus]

yeah i believe there is still no stopping suburbia even with gas prices going up you still get more bang for your buck living outside of austin. i still think out to the west by the lake you will still see more development but now with sh 130 and 45 i think you will see an increase in development to the east. manor and maybe even as far as elgin will be the new explosive growths.

[M1EK]

You misunderstand me. I don't see a lot of urban growth happening later either; I see a lot of retrenchment (reusing existing housing more efficiently - second homes being sold to people to actually live in them; families with retired folks staying together more often); a lot less immigration; and a little less natural growth in population (the last two country-wide); meaning slower growth here in Austin and outright stagnation elsewhere.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by NormalgeNyus

yeah i believe there is still no stopping suburbia even with gas prices going up you still get more bang for your buck living outside of austin. i still think out to the west by the lake you will still see more development but now with sh 130 and 45 i think you will see an increase in development to the east. manor and maybe even as far as elgin will be the new explosive growths.

I don't disagree that there will continue to be substantial suburban growth in the future, but the ratio of suburban to urban growth is slowly changing. It already is not true that you "get more bang for your buck" when you include transportation costs in the equation. That will be even more the case when gas prices go back to $4 + a gallon (and they will with peak oil in our future).

"The Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago has created a Housing and Transportation Affordability Index (H+T) to offer a more complete measure of affordability beyond the standard method of assessing only housing costs. The areas in blue in the map at left indicate areas in Central Texas where the cost of housing + transportation exceed 45% of the median family income.

By taking into account both the cost of housing as well as the cost of transportation associated with the location of the home, H+T attempts to provide a picture of the true costs of housing decisions. Additional maps show gas cost impacts on a household with an annual estimate of gas costs depending on where a household is located."

http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php?theme_menu=0

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

It's hard to say how things will take shape - I certainly would not have believed all those toll roads would be built if you told me in, say, 1998. I thought Austin was going to possibly grow up a bit if it passed the 2000 light rail package, which it did not. I believe if that had happened, you'd have seen something closer to Portland.

They said they'd be digging IH-35 into a trench by now, too. I remember the renderings in the early 90's for a layout similar to what Dallas did to Highway 75.

Judging from the empty space that is still plentiful next to our new toll roads, I would be surprised if 75% or more of Austin's growth didn't come in the form of the traditional stuccoed suburbia that every other sunbelt city has strapped on to its extremities.

While downtown is looking nice, having finally gotten the chance to drive around in a car and see the changes in suburbia in the past 5 years, I now see downtown as even more symbolic. The number of new subdivisions, not to mention Walgreens and HEB's and 24 Hour Fitnesses and Anytime Fitnesses (new chain I guess?) is staggering.

Every major shopping area seems to have something new - the Sunset Valley area has that new center behind the Kohl's, then there's the fancy new stuff on William Cannon. The Domain, not to mention Arbor Walk, is all new. Then there's oodles of new stuff on Parmer, especially near Avery Ranch. Then don't get me started on the 1431 / 183-A stuff. I haven't even been to the new shopping near Ikea.

That's just retail alone - clearly all of that was built to accommodate lots of low-density homes and apartment complexes (Alexan at the "Name Coming Soon")?

Comparing that to downtown's half a dozen condos, plus another dozen mid-sized complexes within 3-4 miles of downtown, and you can clearly see that downtown is probably going to be no more than 5% of the city's growth.

Plus you have the North Burnet/Gateway redevelopment that eventually will be Austin's second downtown

[Jdawgboy]

Remember for those who are skeptics that this is not the first projection that shows Austin growing at such rates. There have been a number of projections by different entities that all point to Austin eventually passing SA in population. These have been published over the past 10 years. There is a reason why projection after projection continue to show this. They do not just throw random figures out there for the hell of it. They do have studies and they use past growth patterns as well as demographics and other indicators to estimate future growth. Of course nobody knows for sure what the future will hold but again there is a reason that multiple projections by different groups all point to the same thing time and time again.

[M1EK]

Not a one of these projections factors in the possibility that the age of cheap gas and cheap money is at an end. Not a single one.

You have to ask yourself - IF gas is going to be bouncing around $4 in 2008 dollars for the foreseeable future (economic collapse only sent it down to $2.50, after all), then will new development really be of the cancerous quality and quantity seen when gas was bouncing around $1.50 for a couple of decades? Will that development be the same with banks not willing to lend money as it was when they lent money to anybody with a pulse?

Again, this doesn't mean urban growth, either. It likely means LESS growth of both types.