2nd Street Investigation: A of Downtown Austin by Charlotte Friedley

 

Camouflaged in designer-labeled apparel, a neatly groomed appearance, and a properly concealed, potentially-taboo tattoo, I could be assured at least in appearance of acceptance into 2^nd Street culture. Those that enter the realm of 2^nd Street’s streetscape and business cannot do so lightly. Although you know that you are geographically located as assuaged by your Iphone GPS at the intersection of 2nd Street and Guadalupe, the fact remains you could easily be in any Revitalizing Downtown Corridor, USA. You may no longer be in the suburbs, but the mentality has not disappeared. As Starbucks latte-handed, lycra-clad women with designer dogs and suited men engorged in Bluetooth conversations about an upcoming merger walk by, the inexplicable suburban notion of  “Keeping Up With the Joneses” seems to be continually played out in the safety of demographically homogenous 2^nd Street bubble. Endlessly repetitive, tree-lined streetscape and the mundanely repetitious city-issued bench become “visually seductive” mechanisms to create a “representation of an urban life” (Zukin 3). These kitschy elements of the New Urbanism movement herald a new era of aesthetic in a comfortable, Disnified rendition of a “Downtown” (Lemon, July 2013). Once at the helm of railroad related trade and culture, 2^nd Street now has become an urban playground for those fulfilling demographic, racial, and social prerequisites.

            One summer afternoon, I took up residence on the securely fenced “sidewalk patio” of Jo’s and dared to converse with several “socially-acceptable” subjects as well as observe the espoused vivacious street life. Marketed and applauded for its wonderfully innovative streetscape measures through City of Austin’s Great Streets program and revered “emergence of a truly ”mixed-use,” “Live | Shop | Dine” development, the reality could not venture further from a the espoused urban re-envisioned urban arterial.

            Areas of social interactivity, moments for Jane Jacob “intricate sidewalk ballets” are deterred, as outdoor dining areas are fenced (Jacobs 276). These areas tend to make the proclamation “this is my private space” consequently enforcing a strict unspoken guideline of who is an “acceptable” consumer. No longer does the dialogue between the activity of the people of street and the consumers, but instead the language is that of alienation and a deeply embedded sense of socioeconomic superiority. During my brief occupation, I witnessed a homeless man perched along a planter outside the Austin City Hall. A space that is a seemingly public space soon became questionable. As public domain assumes a “liminal public space culture,” the notion of “privatized and militarized public space” became visually apparent (Zubin 39). This gentleman after 15 minutes was approached by a policeman and asked to leave. In an area considered loosely as a democratic forum, a modern “polis,” this incident exemplifies an “us-them” mentality as law enforcement reiterates who is acceptable within the confines of 2^nd Street (Lemon, June 2013).

            Located in Block Group 1, Census Track 11 of Travis County, the 2^nd Street district contains 5,265 people per square mile. The racial composition of 2^nd Street racial is predominately white at 69.5% of the population while only 9.2% are Black or African American and 14.2% Hispanic or Latino. While the racial conglomeration relays one picture, the realistic diversity remains invisible, as the more reliable metric of relative “diversity” is one’s make and year of luxury vehicle. These “minority” statistics pale demographically in comparison to their adjacent block groups east of I-35 with 19-32% of their populations being Black or African American and 32-57% being Hispanics or Latino (see MAPS A & B). However, the racial disparity geographically stems from a historical effort of relocation of minority populations. Federal Interstate Highway Act of 1956 and notions of slum clearance forced the relocation of working class minorities out of the city center to the “other side of the tracks” per say to East Austin (Lemon, June 2013). Consequently, African American or black and Hispanic concentrations at first to historical conditions and later to increased property values are minimal and visually non-apparent in the resident population of 2^nd Street.

            The 2^nd Street population marital pattern reveals an overwhelming number single, childless folks. The districts boasts 55.9% population as single while 21.5% are divorced and another 17.7% are married. Additionally, only 4.7% of the districts residents have children less than 18 years of age. With the median male age at 36 years old and females at 32 years old, the demographics begin the depict the region as the young professional, “yuppie” population looking for an “authenticity” in an urban Austin experience. However, the experience that these mix-used mongering, “Live | Work | Play” loving professional are propelling a manufactured downtown that lacks the original “grit and grime” and historically urban diversity of the original 2^nd Street. 

            Transportation and 2^nd Street has been a long-standing relationship. Beginning in 1920s with the injection of the railroad into the Austin grid, the railroad changed the once sleepy dwelling-dominated and small service industry into the center of railroad activity (Sandborn 1920). Whether for warehouse and storage capabilities for the arriving and/or departing products or rooms and service for railroad workers and laborers, 2^nd Street was an industrial era “polis” with industry at the heart of urban development. The advent and subsequent explosion of automobile consumption changed the nature of 2^nd Street. By 1935, 2^nd Street responded to the consumer’s salacious appetite for the automobile as car centric service businesses and gas stations began to take over the areas once dominated by industrial culture.

            In modern day Austin, this contention with means of transportation persists. With 46.3% of the area’s population commuting less than 29 minutes, only 9.5% population uses public transportation and 11.0% walking to get to work. However, the highly regarded freedom and individuality associated with the American automobile culture it is not alarming that 60. 3% of the residents use cars to get to their place of business. During my occupation of 2^nd Street, I inquired whether these urban natives if they knew where the nearest bus stop was located. Sadly a large number of the populous whether they didn’t want to speak with me or not had no clue the location of the nearest stop. The closet stop was only three blocks west. Consequently, the ideologies and behaviors of suburban culture linger as those residents of the district struggle facing suburban culture into an urban context hail from (see Image A).

            With 13.3% of owner occupied housing units valued at over $1,000,000, the housing market, the 2^nd Street housing market can be summed up in one word as these complexes plaster throughout their advertising: LUXURY.  The three big residential complexes, AMELI on 2^nd, AMELI Downtown, and the W Residences, promote not just housing but the “2SD” lifestyle. Deemed as “Vibrant. Welcoming” and all the more relevant “Exclusive,” the housing mirrors the character of this “downtown” enclave.  2ndstreetdistrict.com espouses itself as “Where Texas Warmth Meets Austin Cool” through its mixed-used, Disnified version of a downtown with high-end retail and restaurants.  The notion of an acceptable appearance transcends that of the street people to the 2^nd street lifestyle itself with the slogan “We 2^nd That. ” This branding mechanism is stamped on posters for events, retail, restaurants, and loft as a means of promoting a decorous and frankly pretentious 2nd Street lifestyle (see Image B).  The 2^nd Street Pinterest page alone informs residents and codify the space through categorizations of  “2^nd Street Style,” “District Design,” and “District Dos” (see Image C).

            Originally, 2^nd Street was known as Live Oak Street. Like all east/west streets in downtown Austin, the street was named according to trees found natively in Texas. Rooted in as the name implies and the original image of the city in the natural, 2^nd Street has undergone growing pains from prairie capital into a metropolis of “cooldom” and thriving hipster appeal. As society moves toward returning the image of the “downtown,” 2^nd Street has responded with an unfortunately inauthentic response. 2^nd Street no longer relays the lively chaos and “messiness” of an interactive urbanscape but emerges as Austin’s newest environmentally deterministic, manufactured spectacle known as “Downtown.”

WORK CITED

“2^nd Street: Home Page.” 2^nd Street, n.d. Web. 2 July 2013

http://www.2ndstreetdistrict.com

“2^nd Street District.” Facebook, n.d. Web. 2 July 2013 https://www.facebook.com/2NDStDistrict?fref=ts

“Austin Census Data.” Social Explorer, n.d. Web. 2 July 2013 http://www.socialexplorer.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/89AACD3A4F1E4E1/explore

“Austin Historical Maps of Downtown.” Sandborn Maps, n.d. Web. 2 July 2013 http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/splash.html

“How Brooklyn Became Cool” from Zukin, Sharon. 2011. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Reprint. Oxford University Press, USA.

Lemon, Robert. “Introductions & Course Overview: The Evolution of the City” Modern American City.” CLA 1.104, Austin. 6 June 2013. Lecture.

Lemon, Robert. “Whose City? III: Disneyfication & Gentrification” Modern American City.” CLA 1.104, Austin. 1 July 2013. Lecture.

Lemon, Robert. “June 18: Political Landscape II: Land-values, Land-use, Density and Urban Growth.” CLA 1.104, Austin. 18 June 2013. Lecture.

The Triangle – Public vs. Private space by Christina Kaeini

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.

 

Barton Creek Mall: Public vs. Private Space by Lauren Fedele

  

   Here in the United States there is a wide array of shopping malls and the population has grown accustom to them, even though there are many variations. Some malls have multiple stories while some are one level. Some have movie theatres, skating rinks, and other attractions while some simply have stores.  Many are enclosed spaces while others are more open and engaged with the outdoor environment. The list can go on. But, what defines a mall comes down to two things, how it looks aesthetically and its usage. These two elements reveal how the mall attempts to classify itself as a public or private space, which at times is an ongoing battle. As time has progressed, more people want a public space that resembles European street shops, which is apparent in many buildings architectural references. That is why new malls tend to be open and interact with the outside environment, giving the space a park like feel while still being controlled. We can see this in Austin at the Domain or in San Antonio at La Cantera mall. Barton Creek Mall, however, resembles the traditional shopping mall but projects itself as much more private than a typical mall.

         Barton Creek Mall is located on the Barton Creek Watershed and next to the Barton Creek Greenbelt on top of a hill, which makes it fairly elevated. It is primarily accessible by car and there is only one bus that stops at the mall making access to it limited. Additionally, very tall trees surround the edifice blurring the building. Once you have passed the foliage and the circles of parking lots, you can finally see the structure, however, the buildings lack of character and defining form make it feel like it is still trying to hide. Therefore, the exterior aesthetic with its buried location, lack of accessibility, and minimal character portrays the image of a protective, secluded, private building much like a castle or fort.

     When you enter the mall, it suddenly becomes more open and brighter making the space feel more public and free form. However, when you enter into an individual store you get the impression that you are entering a private space. The way the clothes racks and displays are arranged combined with the lighting and music, it controls how you move in the space and they are provoking a mood and ambiance that will hopefully promote the consumption of their products. When you leave a store, the atriums and hallways feel more open, free, and communal. It feels more like a public space such as a plaza or park. However, the placement of Kiosks and vendors in the middle of the hallways selling you T-mobile phones or perfumes are obstructing these “public spaces.” They are trying to further promote consumption but are also preventing demonstrations, protests, and performances from occurring in the space. Additionally, the fact that each individual store is separated by doors and that you consistently have to travel though separate spaces adds to the privatization of the individual stores in the mall. In the film,
“Blade Runner,” the city is designed in this similar controlling, enclosed, private form. The entire form of Barton Creek Mall is designed to portray a private space and conveys that it is intended to be used in a specific manner.

     Although Barton Creek Mall’s aesthetic and form portrays the mall as a private space, the people who come to the mall have slowly altered the use of it. The mall has become more of a park in multiple ways. For example, if you go to the mall during mid-day around noon on a weekday you will see three main groups of people are at the mall primarily to get out of their house. The first are families or stay at home mothers with their little kids. The second are teenagers, which can be found in groups or pairs typically walking around and talking. The third and last group is the elderly and they can be seen walking around, sitting, reading, or simply observing society. The mall is a relatively cheap form of entertainment and an easy social and gathering place. Taking into consideration that it is now the summer and too hot to be outside, this air-conditioned mall has been converted into a park. The benches and couches in the hallways and atriums of the mall are placed like they would in a park. People sit in them while talking to their friends, watching their kids play, reading their novels, or simply while waiting for their spouse to finish their shopping. You can see kids playing on the railings, on the fountains, and running around the atriums. Some people even come to the mall to exercise because it has air conditioning and it allows them to see and interact with people rather than at their enclosed gym or house. The reasons why people come to the mall are changing and the way the people at the mall are using the space is transforming.

     The mall is becoming a communal center, a place to interact with others and socialize. Although Barton Creek Mall is located in an area that is primarily middle to upper class and white, the mall attracts a wide range of people. You can see Hispanics, African Americans and Asians at the mall in addition to Caucasians. The stores located in the mall are mainly for middle class people. There are not many high-end or luxury stores like Dolce and Gabbana or Lactose. As you walk around, you can sometimes also hear other languages being spoken like Spanish. Even its lack of accessibility hasn’t stopped people from coming. One time when I was leaving the mall, I observed a lady and her two sons come out of a taxi that brought them to the mall. Barton Creek Mall is adapting to these changes also. They are playing more current music that speaks to the younger population. They have also added a kiosk that does currency exchange. I have never seen a currency exchange in a mall before but Barton Creek mall is trying to accommodate all its customers.

     There is no doubt that Barton Creek portrays itself as a privately owned space. The aesthetic of the building, its buried and fortified location, its lack of accessibility and controlling form indicate that. However, although it promotes consumption inside its walls with the use of banners, advertisements, and never ending string of vendors and stores which is the original and economic purpose of the building, it is transforming into a public communal center; into an indoor park. People of various ethnicities and economic class come to the mall as a form of entertainment and to socialize. Barton Creek is a prime example of the thin line between public and private space that malls hover.         

Sources

Census

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1

Capital Metro

http://www.capmetro.org/schedulemap.aspx?f1=030&s=1&d=1

American planning Association

http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/characteristics.htm

Simon Malls

http://www.simon.com/about

Samo Pederson: The Shopping Mall as a Public Space

http://www.samoclub.com/pdf/shop.pdf

Blade Runner

Barton Creek Mall, Public or Private Space by Agueda Matano

The Barton Creek Square Mall is one of the largest shopping malls in the Austin area. In North America, a mall refers to a large shopping area composed of one or more buildings forming a complex of shops, usually “anchored” by one or more department stores with interconnecting walkways enabling visitors to easily walk from one unit to another, and surrounded by a parking lot. In a simple sentence; a shopping mall is an indoor version of the traditional market place. Shopping malls are public good as they serve as a single location for shopping location that not only save money and time to its visitors, but also help fuel the local economy and provide jobs for its citizens. Shopping mall institutions promote themselves as new town squares or public spaces in which people should come and be friends, and get familiar with the community, and entertain while having the shopping experience. However they are promoted, shopping malls are privately owned establishments, which raise a big a controversy about public versus private space; the Barton Creek Mall is not an exception to this rule.

Margaret Kohn in Brave New Neighborhoods says: “today the only place that many Americans encounter strangers is in the shopping mall; the most important public place (page 254).” However she continues saying that this public place is now private and probably not by accident… so it is difficult to determine what exactly constitutes a public space. We define a public space as a place where all peoples are welcome independently of their race, social class, or gender… an area in which members of the public who are strangers to each other might congregate for the same purpose, and where ideas can be freely shared (almost like in the Greek polis). In this sense, the Barton creek Mall is a public space. Everyone is welcome; I personally saw people of all ethnicities at the site. Nonetheless, we also consider a public space an area for recreation and entertainment subject to usage by the public. In this manner, I guess that the mall fails as a public entity. At the Barton Creek just like any other mall, I believe that individuals perform learned behaviors based upon personal private interests which are consider appropriate civil behavior within the boundaries of their businesses. So, although the mall resembles the traditional market place in many ways, the shopping mall is more a quasi-public space.

The Barton Creek mall, is owned and operated by the Simon Group Property Inc., which is ranked as the number one real-estate investment trust and of course their main goal is to make a profit. So the mall was specifically designed with the purpose of movement and consumption, which in my understanding automatically limits the uses of the site. Likewise, activities in the mall are within a certain space limited to those that promote shopping or another particular agenda that sweeten the interest of the corporate owners. Even the aesthetics of the mall is somehow “limiting” or else exclusive, as the mall was designed for its higher income trade area; something that can clearly be seen from the type of cars in the parking lot, to the watches, and handbags of the visitors. Although you see all kinds of people in the site, visitors are mainly middle-to upper middle class white persons; in this way the mall matches the demographics of its surrounding areas and although indirectly, excludes the less privileged which cannot afford to shop there. I guess this should not be the case of public spaces. So I find it hard to answer the question of whether the place is democratic. According to the Merriam Webster definition the world democracy means “rule by the people,” then with the Barton Creek mall being privately owned, I assume that the owners have the power to decide what can and what cannot take place… Although there is not any constitutional prohibition against legislation protecting political speech in places where citizens were normally allowed to be (including public areas of private malls), citizens need to remember that civil rights and commercial interest do not always mix, and when this is the case, certain liberties are surely lost. Like Margaret Kohn states “ the privatization of public spaces, leaves public sidewalks and streets practically as the only remaining available sites for unscripted political activities (page 254)”… The idea of a public space includes the gathering of people with the absence of coercive powers as well, as quasi-public destination being designed around the concept of security. At the Barton Creek shopping Mall for instance, there are security guards who are well uniformed and patrol the mall corridors and the outside area by car. There are also security cameras throughout the mall, and despite not seeing any particular sign dictating what behaviors are appropriate inside the mall, the fact that the mall is patrolled on a regular basis detracts a little from the concept of the public space that shopping malls try to convey.

The Barton Creek Mall, like other malls, is really a façade of a public space. Economic circumstances define the accessibility of the site and which level of income one must have in order to participate. You cannot simply approach people and speak to them; something that I know from my personal experience on the first part of the assignment. People would not even listen to what I had to say just because I was not carrying any shopping bags… I felt a lot like an intruder that did not belong there, or do anything in the mall space because you will be asked to leave. Nevertheless, the mall is becoming not only a multi-use facility, but a completely self contained homotopia of suburban life… the shopping mall is so attractive because it combines the pleasures of public life with the safety and familiarity of the private realm. And this is exactly what poses a number of conceptual challenges upon which public policy makers must act: the problem of privatization of public spaces.   

“The Mauling of Public Space” From Kohn, Margaret. Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. Routledge, 2004.

The Inviolable Personal Bubble by Giacomo Yaquinto

            

 

 Most Austin neighborhoods have experienced incredible change over the last twelve and a half years. Whether one considers demographics, property values, or simply total population, Austin today is not the same place it was in 2000. Of course, change can be positive or negative or something in between. That being said, it’s important to consider how change is affecting the city’s culture.

            Shoal Creek Boulevard can be divided into five sections between 38^th Street and Foster Lane. Visually speaking, the sections are easily recognized by the shifts in lot size and architectural style. The same stretch can also be divided by US Census Tract. It falls into Census Tracts 2.04, 2.06, and 15.01. I will focus on the section of Shoal Creek Blvd. between 45^th St. and Allandale Rd. My focus area is located within Tract 2.06. It makes up the southern end of the relatively affluent Allandale neighborhood. Based on my observations, the area is going through a period of renewal. While the area doesn’t seem to have ever entered a period of decline, it seems to be attracting new residents who are apt to make substantial changes to the existing properties. A surprising number of these new homeowners has embraced a desire to physically barricade their front yards from the public sidewalks and bike lanes that run parallel to their property.

            A distinction needs to be made between a traditional picket fence and what’s being built in my focus area. It’s important to recognize that private property is private. Putting a fence in the front yard isn’t a new idea. Arguably, the picket fence is an archetypal feature of the classic American home. However, traditional picket fences are short and have an almost equal balance of filled and empty space. They separate private space from public space, but they allow interaction. Although they often block access to the walk leading to the front door, the message they convey feels negotiable and somewhat informal. The structures being built in my focus area are different. Typically, they are built of stone or concrete. Often, they are taller than a picket fence would be. In the instances they’ve been designed to limit access to the home’s front door, their message is absolute and intransigent. Rather than simply demarcating the boundary between private and public, their purpose is the “policing of social boundaries” (Davis 193).

            Don Mitchell has written extensively about the privatization of public space. His notion of the “personal bubble of inviolable private property” is especially relevant to understanding the likely cause behind the desire to build physical barriers that is developing in my focus area (Mitchell 211). Specifically, it is the “right to be left alone” (Mitchell 216) that grew out of the right to an inviolable personal bubble that is particularly important. These ideas have sprouted from recently enacted laws that were designed to not only limit how people physically interact in public, but also to limit how people communicate in public. Arguably, the barriers being constructed on Shoal Creek Blvd. represent an embodiment of limiting public interaction. In this case, it’s the homeowner who’s defined the size of the inviolable bubble. The barriers ensure maximum individual space while simultaneously restricting to the public sidewalk space the possibility for community interaction. The barriers discourage anyone from approaching the property so that the homeowner can be left alone. In contrast to community models in which:

            [p]eople are dealing with each other, willing to express themselves, rather than storing             up their grievances in private, where the character of their enemies and themselves             becomes black-and-white clear. Multiple points of contact with different elements in a             city diffuse hostility to the point where an individual will despair of defining some safe,             secure attributes of his own identity and social space, (Sennett 155-56)

what’s happening on Shoal Creek Blvd. looks to be the nascent stages of what Soja refers to as “carceral archipelagos” (376).

            The trend is striking because it seems to run against the community values that one might expect to find in a neighborhood like my section of Allandale. The estimated median home value in 2011 (the most current data available) was $334,800 +/- $34,508 (American FactFinder). Based on my observations, residents seem to enjoy spending time outside, and they take advantage of the sidewalks and bike lanes. Local realtors focus on the fact that people who move to Allandale stay there (Reilly). With that in mind, perhaps my focus area is a self-contained anomaly. The trend hasn’t caught on with residents who live south of 45^th St. or north of Allandale Rd.

            The trend is also striking because my section of Allandale’s minority population shrank between 2000 and 2010. According to US Census data, in 2000, the white, one race only population was 84.3%. As of 2010, the white, one race only population was 89.3%. I should note that the comparison isn’t perfect. In 2000, my focus area was part of US Census Tract 2.01. In 2010, US Census Tract 2.01 became Tract 2.05 and 2.06. However, even if one combines the data from Tract 2.05 and 2.06 there was still a visible contraction in the number of minority residents between 2000 – 2010. In 2000 Tract 2.01 had 218 Black or African American Residents. By 2010, Tracts 2.05 and 2.06 had a combined population of only 196 Black or African American Residents, a roughly 10% decrease.

            According to the Austin Police Department’s statistics, the incidence of crime in my focus area has been dropping. The department has published the number of incidents of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson for the years 2003 – 2011 by zip code. On average 1,270 offenses were committed per year in my focus area between 2003 – 2011. However, in 2011, there were only 1,164 combined incidents, lower than any other year for which data is available, and nearly 9% below the 9-year average.

            One might argue that, contrary to a need to construct an impenetrable bubble, the people constructing these barriers have done so because they find them architecturally pleasing, they want to keep dogs off the lawn, or for some other benign reason. Based on my observations, I would argue against a benign motivation for two reasons. First, as I’ve suggested, building materials and techniques convey specific messages. At some point, the homeowners who’ve constructed these barriers decided to build a structure with a specific presence to convey a clear message. Second, based on my observations, the people who’ve constructed these barriers seem to have done so through their own initiative. As I’ve pointed out, between 2000 – 2011, not only did property values increase dramatically in my focus area, but the area also got less diverse and the crime rate went down. Generally speaking, these trends should’ve motivated residents to remove barriers from their yards.

            Again, I must concede that my focus area may represent an anomalous trend. Based on the numbers, it’s occurred without residents taking into consideration property value, racial and ethnic demographics, or changes in the incidence of crime. There is something odd about the development of semi-walled proto-compounds within a neighborhood that still seems to be community oriented. Unfortunately, the very nature of the barriers made it difficult to contact residents directly to ask them about the intent of their barriers. After multiple visits to the area, I never once saw a property owner who lived in one of the houses with a front yard barrier. Whatever the motivation, the rise of built barriers is in line with both Davis’ and Mitchell’s observations of life in the postmodern city. The affluent have created impenetrable spaces to ensure maximum private freedom while simultaneously limiting any potential public discomfort.

Works Cited

American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Web. 7 Jul.             2013.

Austin Police Department. Crime Stats Listed by Zip Code. City of Austin. Web. 7 Jul. 2013.

Davis, Mike. “Excavating the Future in Los Angeles.” The Blackwell City Reader. Eds. Bridge,             Gary and Sophie Watson. 2^nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 193-200. Print.

Mitchell, Don. “The S.U.V. Model of Citizenship: Floating Bubbles, Buffer Zones, and the Rise of             the ‘Purely Atomic’ Individual”. The Blackwell City Reader. Eds. Bridge, Gary and Sophie             Watson. 2^nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 211-20. Print.

Reilly, Michael. Allandale Homes For Sale. Reilly Realtors, 2013. Web. 7 Jul. 2013

Sennett, Richard. The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

            Inc., 1970. Print.

Soja, Edward W. “Six Discourses on the Postmetropolis.” The Blackwell City Reader. Eds. Bridge,             Gary and Sophie Watson. 2^nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 374-81. Print.