The hippies are gone now. Joe McNally/Getty Images.
It looms, all glamour and glass, like a strange Wellsian monster. Floor by floor it comes, casting the Colorado River in shadow as it goes. By the time itās finished, sometime next year, itāll be the tallest building in Texas, at 74 storeys beating Houstonās JP Morgan Chase Tower by almost 20 feet. Yet even more than its scale, itās the amenities at the Waterline Apartments that really impress.
This, after all, is a place that promises a new Austin, one, its marketers say, that offers āserenity in the skyā. Thereāll be restaurants, and retail, and a hotel complete with swimming pool and spa. Far from a repeat of The War of the Worlds, then, the Waterline speaks to another H.G. Wells fantasy, one the writer envisaged as āa great galleryā where people could meet and live in harmony. Nor is it alone. There are 13 similar high-rises coming right across Austin, as its population rises and GDP soars.
This emerging urban Austin, a place of towers and cocktail bars, is fundamentally different from the established centres of the East and Midwest. In beehives like Wall Street or The Loop, office workers historically came in to work, then retreated back to the suburbs each night. Downtown Austin, though, puts residents at its hearts, focusing less on offices and more on lifestyles. Yet if that means amenities galore, this tidy vision risks redefining American cities for the worse ā even as the old problems of urban dysfunction always loom.
For decades, the Texan capital was synonymous with a single word: weird. Unlike the conservative countryside, or else oil towns like Dallas, the self-proclaimed Peopleās Republic of Austin was a place of lively bars and soul-filled clubs. There was Rainey Street, too, a charming Latino neighbourhood filled with pretty tree-lined cottages. When I first came here, almost half a century ago, I was reminded of nothing less than Haight-Ashbury ā the San Francisco neighbourhood so beloved among artists and hippies.
Now, though, this older, shabbier Austin is slipping away. Quite aside from landmark developments like the Waterline, thatās clear enough in the numbers. Since 2000, downtownās population has tripled to 15,000. In large part, in fact, Kevin Burns argues the ultra-modern vibe can be understood by sheer demand, with the rising forest of towers appealing to young professionals tired of life in the suburbs. āThe driver is quality of life,ā says the bearded 47-year-old real-estate developer, sipping a coffee as the sound of construction echoes around us.
Itās not hard to see what he means. Life by the Colorado, still feverishly in the making, is pleasantly walkable. There are yew-scattered parklands, and bike lanes and creeks. Itās all surely a step up from the convention centres and stadiums that once got urban developers excited. Thereās also plenty to do: dozens of bars and restaurants open in Austin every month, dovetailed by yoga studios and comedy clubs. Yet if the new Austin promises paradise for wealthy hipsters, the hippies of yore seem far less welcome. Downtown, after all, is expensive, hardly surprising when so many of the new arrivals are tech workers, āempty nestersā with far fewer children to feed than their peers elsewhere. An apartment in the sky here will set you back $170,000 more than other parts of Central Texas, doubtless explaining why so many new downtowners are white.
All this speaks to a younger, hipper crowd, especially compared to the vast suburbs of somewhere like Houston. Nor is demography the only way downtown is different. As Hannah Rangel says, this is fundamentally a place to live, not work, with the vice president of Austin Downtown Allies explaining that offices are smaller than elsewhere. Once again, thatās probably a function of the cityās tech boom: with startups needing little more than coders and their Macbooks, they need far less floorspace than their corporate competitors.
Factor in the remote work revolution and itās little wonder places like the Waterline are so popular, with residential and mixed-use construction easily outstripping office builds right across town. Nor, of course, is this unique to Austin: even Americaās classic urban cores are going the same way. New York has its own planting of residential towers, while the Rust Belt undergoes a similar transition.
Reviving the grand architecture of the dead industrial past, downtown Milwaukee is one good example here. Another is Detroit, with its gaggle of neoclassical skyscrapers. Then thereās the Renaissance Center, all Seventies steel, abandoning offices for flats and entertainment. And where houses are coming, business is going. According to one recent report, residential conversion projects were set to double through 2024, even as demand for new office space tumbles.
Given the apparent enthusiasm for remote work among finance and professional services ā the sectors that long kept downtowns afloat ā itās tempting to assume that the new Austin will soon become the new America. In truth, though, Wellsās ābrilliant and entertaining agglomerationā isnāt a sure thing. One way of thinking about this is by digging into the numbers. Yes, the population growth along the Colorado is impressive, but roughly 98% of newcomers to Austin still settle in suburbs and exurbs. And why not? With WFH allowing employees to make money anywhere, many still prefer a yard and a picket fence over an apartment in the sky.
For those companies insisting on in-person attendance, meanwhile, Americaās hinterland remains appealing. Once more, the statistics are telling, with jobs and homes across the sunbelt increasingly shifting to shiny new suburbs, with plenty of space for office parks, and where the overbuilt apartments are cheap. As far as Austin is concerned, certainly, outlying areas north of the city are wildly popular. The Domain, which lies just outside the city, is thriving, offering a car-oriented vision of suburban life. Though thereās some dense development, the surrounding area is covered by single family homes. Compared to downtown, itās easy to park, and has fewer street-level hassles. Itās a similar story across the country, whether in Irvine, California, or New Albany near Columbus.
And while the denizens downtown are richer than average, the urban analyst Bill Fulton warns that their āniche lifeā remains at odds with the average high earner ā most of whom still reside outside the urban core. One good example is Brian Niccol, the new CEO of Starbucks, who runs the coffee giant not from downtown Seattle, but rather from the warm weather and easy lifestyle of coastal Southern California.
In a sense, this is unsurprising. The American job market began spreading its tentacles into the suburbs as early as the Fifties. Prodded along by the automobile, and perhaps too by the enduring power of the traditional American Dream, a recent MIT study found that 80% of Americaās metropolitan population now live in car-friendly suburbs, while just 8% live downtown. Nor are all suburbs created equal: though the sprawl is as popular as ever, the brownstone streets of Brooklyn or Georgetown, designed with mass transit in mind, are home to just 13% of people.
Simply put, then, the old urban model is dissolving, though what comes next remains unclear. As that last statistic implies, one issue is transport. Especially since the pandemic, networks across the US are struggling, with many short of money and plagued by crime and squalor. In 2023, some still operate between a third and two thirds below their pre-Covid levels, while in Austin barely 5% of people downtown make use of buses or the cityās light rail system.
Itās just as well, then, that Burns pins his hopes not on trains but Uber, or else the increasingly ubiquitous Waymos, which cart people about in driverless vehicles. āThe Ubers are here now,ā Burns says, ābut the Waymoās are going to change cities, and make places more attractive and connected.ā Austin, with its tech-oriented elites, seems an ideal place to become, in the words of former mayor Steve Adler, āthe Kitty Hawk of driverless carsā.
Yet if getting around in Austin may soon become a private-sector affair, Big Tech canāt hope to do everything. Indeed, Burnsās biggest worry is the proliferation of criminals and vagrants stalking inner-city streets. Stroll between downtown and the Capitol and youāll see drug addicts and alcoholics sprawled by the gutter, albeit in far fewer numbers than other big cities. And, to be fair, some of these residual challenges do seem to be subsiding, especially with a new mayor who takes street-level disorder more seriously. Even so, Burns remains sceptical of Jose Garza, Austinās radical DA, complaining that he ādoes not enforce the lawā amid rising chaos on the streets. Given the grim decline of towns like Oakland and Chicago, these fears feel justified.
A more intractable problem with the new Austin ā typified by the Waterline tagline that āwork is rooted in wellnessā ā is that it has a limited market. Much of the original appeal of downtownās earlier iteration was its funkiness, its scruffiness, when its dives and honky tonks were spots where anything, it felt, could happen. Good luck recreating that at Whole Goods. The offbeat charm of Rainey Street has vanished too, with just two of its bungalows remaining and its Latino residents priced out.
We probably shouldnāt mourn these shifts too much. Cities, after all, are always changing. Yet walk the streets of downtown Austin and this historic neighbourhood, once so full of life, feels as sterile as Singapore. In that, it shares the fate of Spitalfields, or Hudson Yards, once the āgreat galleriesā of Wellsian imagination, but now little more than vast amenity districts for a small and well-heeled elite. Better than dystopia ā but hardly transformative for the mass of urban residents.
Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.
joelkotkin 
Austin was becoming like Portland. You can only “stay weird” for so long and function as a city. When liberal-progressive hipsters come in to dying neighborhoods, they do a good job of revitalizing for about 15-20 years and then the area gets overrun by crime.
They’re tolerant of pretty much every form of street crime because being Enlightened they’ve learned that Tolerance is the ultimate virtue.
It was a fun town. Probably still is but it couldn’t continue down the Portland path.
Austin was once a nice quiet college town. I graduated UT and had in-laws there. Nowā¦standard issue, uber liberal, homeless-overrun, crowded urban cesspool. I, and most of my friends, avoid the place now. A much better place in Central Texas is San Antonio.
A bit like most cities these days. I tend to avoid like the plague…
Even Manchester (UK) is succumbing to the “let’s throw up a plethora of high-rise apartment blocks” which i can’t conceive of ever being well-occupied. The cityscape at pavement level has thus become a wind-tunnel, driving the rain off the Pennines into the faces of those scurrying into the cocktail bars. To be fair, there’s still a few traditional pubs where the real people go.
ā¦..it is the dystopia of now not the future. Who wants to āliveā 73 floors up? No thanksā¦.
Austin will improve further when Waymo introduce their cheap robotaxis although these cities would be far better if the public and destitute drug addicts, homeless and criminals were not allowed in and corralled elsewhere. That would leave a pleasant environment for civilised people.
I’m trying to figure out who the five people (thus far) are who are evidently in favor of addicts, vagrants, and criminals roaming about.
So where do you put them?
Seeing as Americans seem largely opposed to the safety net most Europeans have then what do you do with those who fall between the cracks?
Iāll admit that seeing the feckless given free housing does annoy me, but given the choice of that or having them roaming the streets and disrupting my life Iāll take the first option
There is a breed of libertarian Conservative who thinks that crime and squalid conditions make a subset of the poor work really hard to better themselves. They believe that suffering is the mid wife of virtue
Anybody who has read this article and not watched the movie “Highrise” from the novel by JG Ballard, should, must, do so!
Sometimes getting what you asked for does not work out in the long run. It’s one more example of how almost everything the left touches eventually turns to shit.
Wow, Mr. Kotkin, you are a little late to the party. The fact is they have stolen the soul of the great majority of the people and anywhere they hawk their cadaverous bundles. That they all look like undertakers should give folks a clue about what is in the package when you open it. Tech, for tech’s sake, is a wonderful thing when used morally and for the greater good, not what these greedy sleazebags are selling. Correct about Austin, it has no soul at the present time, just uber-libs hawking the same bundle of soul-crushing goods.
There’s really no pleasing some people, is there ?
I’m a 5th generation Austinite. My great great grandparents are in the Palm Valley cemetery. Near the Dell Diamond is a kit home still standing that was built by my Swedish uncles. A few years ago I bumped into a Burklund who was a 3rd or 4th cousin. No ’23 & me’ required. I’ve seen Austin morph from a sweet college town where both my grandmas were biking distance from campus. Some of the old charm inhabits the old buildings: Epoch Coffee and Mi Madre Tacos. Austin has some of the best fast food you can imagine. No chain restaurants survive except a local chain. The first Whole Foods was fun shopping. But it’s very corporate now and nicknamed Whole Paycheck.
Yes, Austin was weird. That is long gone. In the past if you saw someone walking down the street with a distracted, disheveled look you would ask yourself ….. high ? or stoned on math ? Not any more.
Since I was in college at UT in the 1970s, Austin couldn’t make up its mind what it wanted to be. It wanted to be Willie Nelson’s hangout or Armadillo World Headquarters forever, but the youngsters aren’t into preservation. The spirit of innovation is strong. Since the 70s many great food businesses have come and flourished or come and gone. All kinds of companies have come, gone, stayed around. Neighborhood Planning, propelled by the East and West Coast Development types, has encroached on and upgraded the old hoods. Land values became inflated with forced density. The growth is inorganic, to say the least.
The worst part about urban residential growth is the proliferation of high rise common interest properties, AKA condominiums. They are unwieldy and expensive to manage and maintain. These homeowners, if you can call them that, loose control over the decision making process, or they are involuntarily thrust into a constant battle to regulate one’s neighbors, put up with bad behaviour and a loss of privacy and autonomy. Condo owners are a little like renters – they think the HOA are responsible for everything. Running your home by committee is difficult and inefficient.
Austin, above all, is a great town to live in, as are the surrounding towns. Wet weather creeks force the creation of parks and green belts all over the city. There is a lot of sunshine, good weather and plenty to do.
There is a plan to put Interstate 35 underground, cap the tunnel, and create more downtown on the cap. Good idea or bad idea is irrelevant. It will surely happen.
For those who want adventure, Austin is still a great place to land. City Planners will make some mistakes – they already have. But overall, Austin gets better and better with time. Texans are pragmatic and smart. There is a lot to admire and imitate.
Test
When every single one of the bright young people in Austin’s tech “industry” could put their entire life’s product on a single thumb drive, the attraction of a big city has to be something other than a place of concentrated production.
Industries of old no longer exist. We all understand that. Still, city managers and uber riding progressives struggle to make city living about actually living. And they always fail.
There is a flow in these sorts of essays that is as regular as a sine wave on an oscilloscope. In times like these they describe the efforts to restore one city, or another’s, soul. Then times will change, and it will be all about the vibrancy and scintillating wonder of this city or that city’s rebirth. It all depends on the curve.
Meanwhile, in the the real world, young people leave the inner city in droves to fine actual homes beyond the city line because, to enjoy downtown life, you must be able to function on very little sleep to go clubbing late into the night, and be nimble on your feet to get away from muggers, drug addicted panhandlers, buskers, and all the other denizens who make strolling with your toddler in hand for some fresh air problematic.
The death of cities and their subsequent re-birth are often written by the same authors. It all depends upon where the author is in his/her life as to the opinion expressed.
Some of my family has called Austin home for over a century and a half. And, if I had a nickel for every article I’ve read discussing the downward spiral of urban blight, or the upwelling of hope and vibrant culture in the ascendant, I’d be a rich man.
The next pandemic, or a similar economic crisis, will destroy what’s now being created in Austin. People trapped in high rises under quarantine showed the way as they fled to the countryside a few years ago. Then the process will begin again.
Honestly, any news/information vendor would do just as well to dust off past articles describing the current path du jour. It would certainly save a lot of money, and be just as descriptive without having to pay for the same thing twice.