From
its initial stages of development, the Triangle has been marked by the controversy
of an ongoing war between developers and citizens. This once grassy knoll, affectionately
known by neighboring residents as “Triangle Park,” began its initial
transformations in late 2003. This area would no longer be home to an open,
public space and instead would be replaced by a development of upscale retail
and residences. Above the notion of progress over preservation, of greater
concern is the idea of accessibility of space and the ever-decreasing amount of
it that is available within the city. Over time, this location has changed to
represent different notions of progress over loss under the presiding argument
that it is promoting economic growth. However, an obvious negative externality
of this development is the accessibility of place and how through the essential
elements of its design, the Triangle has successfully promoted an environment
accessible to a specific demographic and for everyone else, a private space to
which they are not privy to.
The
texture of the built environment at the Triangle is one of a complex intricacy
of lower level retail shops and bars with an upper level of residential and
office spaces. Interwoven between these features are clear, built indicators of
the visitor’s access to each respective space. The Triangle uses both explicit
and subtle strategies to indicate which spaces are permissible to occupy and
which are not. It is not surprising that a mixed-use development would have a
motive to compartmentalize different areas. However, what makes the experience
unsettling is how orchestrated and unauthentic the space feels. It is a
deliberate move to “recreate urban life as a civilized ideal” only this time,
it will be highly controlled and under the watchful eyes of the development (Zukin
142). Although many spaces within the Triangle feel public, they have been
privatized and marketed to serve a specific demographic.
The
controlled experience at the Triangle is intrinsically connected to the
features of the built environment that direct the visitor around the space. The
commercial and retail districts send a welcoming message and invite traffic from
off the sidewalk or street and into the shade and confines of the
establishment. For example, where the Flying Saucer bar area begins, and the
pedestrian sidewalk ends, there is a permeable wrought iron fence (Image 1). It
is small in scale and entirely permeable. In contrast, once venturing beyond
these areas and into the more enclosed, residential parts, it is increasingly
apparent that the fences within this environment are specifically designed to
deter non-residents. Instead of permeable, mesh-like fencing delineating
porches from pedestrian walkways, the designers have opted for solid brick
walls (Image 2). This is a clear example of how the aesthetics of the built
environment interact with the visitors who use the space. These design elements
are meant to determine the behavior of visitors— but what is the demographic of
these visitors and how does the Triangle target a specific audience?
The
Triangle is centered on a consumer culture that offers upscale retail stores
and restaurants that cater to an audience who is able to afford their services.
At this point, this analysis has centered primarily on the lower level of the
Triangle, however, the other half of the development is devoted to residential
units. Once browsing the Triangle website, it is clear the direction they wish
the development to go and are careful to create an image that will effectively
lead it there. Combining chic lifestyles for a young demographic all whilst
maintaining Austin’s “eclectic vibe,” the Triangle boasts that this development
is not another typical Austin development, the Triangle is “life as its meant
to be” (The Triangle Austin). Boasting of its interior park, which is
frequented by visitors attracted by either farmers markets or live music, the
Triangle insists it maintains one of Austin’s most prized ambitions, to appeal
to the “whimsical and energetic in us all” (The Triangle Austin). However,
maintaining the initial criticism of this development as one that values
private space over public space, it begs the questions, who exactly are these
“urban dwellers” and do they really have “something for everyone?” (The Triangle
Austin). What about affordable pricing? Due to the very notion that this
development is home to higher scale retail outlets and upscale eateries, it is
necessary to recognize that it is catering to a very specific demographic, and
in this case, it is not an inclusive one.
Furthermore,
based on initial observations of the space, there is an obvious demographic
using the space, and contrary to what the Triangle boasts, it is not an
inclusive one. From the initial documentations of the site, the demographic
characteristics were recorded by observing the type of cars parked in the
development. The lots are filled with German engineered vehicles, and on a rare
occasion, sprinkled with a Honda or Toyota. The evidence of a higher ratio of expensive vehicles to more
affordable ones shows that this development is predominantly meant to serve an
upper class. Not only are the cars an indication of who is using the space, but
also the type of retail shops available can easily identify the income level of
shoppers. The restaurants, bars, and shops have few affordable options. Even a
simple grilled cheese has gone gourmet at “Chedds.” The affordability of the
area lends itself to describe the democratic nature of the space. The Triangle
does not cater to a diverse demographic, it is clearly targeted to wealthier
visitors.
The
concept of a democratic space is one inherently more public than private. It is
interesting to notice the Triangle’s relationship and connectivity to other
areas of the city. In doing so, its exclusivity becomes increasingly clear. One
way of determining accessibility is by examining the design in terms of
pedestrian and car oriented access. However, these are not mutually exclusive,
and as is evident in the Triangle, there can be a blurred boundary between the
two. The presence of dedicated bike-lanes is a key indicator for bike-ability
and can be assessed in terms of access to the development. The Triangle has
multiple transportation options; it has a dedicated park-and-ride facility
within the development (The Triangle Austin). In addition, it has bike racks
and sidewalks at 100% of its stops. However, it lacks bike lanes that connect
transit stops and it also has no stops within the development. For each element
of pedestrian and bike friendly design aspects it lacks, it makes up for in its
abundance of parking garages and surface lots. It is far easier to access the
development from the comfort of your air-conditioned car. In this sense, it is
a car-oriented development. If the development meant to attract a variety of
people, and in fact “have something for everyone” then wouldn’t it ensure equal
access for all modes of transportation? Its connectivity to other areas around
it affects its inclusion and in effect creates an exclusive environment. The
exclusivity and private aspects of the Triangle is in stark contrast to what
once existed on the site.
Echoing
earlier parts of this research, after conducting informal interviews with
visitors and residents, the history of the Triangle has changed over the past
10 years, and according to popular opinion, not in a positive way. In fact,
some residents will argue that the developers were successful in eliminating an
inclusive space in Austin in favor of a center to stimulate the economy through
consumerism. This has become an increasingly important issue in the discussion
privatization of public space. It is understood that the Triangle will produce revenue
for the city, but what is not readily apparent, is how it is selective in
bringing a specific demographic to the area. It is not a public space in which
one can visit without being a customer; it is a private space to which only
patrons feel welcome. This is aided by accessibility and the textures of the
built environment.
In summary, through interviews and observational research, a
more holistic understanding of this site began to describe an exclusive area.
Not only is this development constructed on the site of a once public park, but
also the design of the Triangle lends itself to describe an exclusive
environment filled with private areas to which only an upper class demographic
has access. It is selective in terms of which demographic it serves, offering
only upscale restaurants and residential units. Not only is this selective
environment evident in the demographic is serves, but also through the built
environment. The texture and materiality of fencing proves to dictate which
spaces are accessible and aids to strictly orchestrate the movement of
visitors.
Works Cited
"Austin Townhomes and Apartments." The Triangle Austin. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2013. <http://www.triangleaustin.com/>.
Zukin, Sharon. Naked City:
The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. USA: Oxford University Press,
2011. Print.
