The big lesson from Austin’s City Council elections (Houston: apartment, condo)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Said bad policy being the absolute refusal to build sufficient roads for the people coming into the city.

So where would you all these new roads - through the middle of Hyde Park?

Yeah, didn't think so.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

We have had a decade of urbanists in power in Austin. They have not improved the affordability of Austin at all. All they have done is develop housing for DINKs and wealthy people. Their answer to congestion was 9 miles of rail that would mostly be used by ACC students. Wouldn't eliminate a microgram of polution. These same urbanists had their foot on the gas for growth, accelerating the growth of congestion and demand for housing.

Voters didn't vote for no change. They voted to stop what has been happening and put people in office who want a different approach.

Such a misunderstanding that we've had a strong urbanists in power in Austin for a decade. The same councils who passed McMansion, Heritage Tree Ordinance and continued under the Existing LDC with very weak modifications limited to CBD and a few transit corridors can hardly be deemed "urbanists". And the real opportunity for change won't even get drafted into the code for another 2 or 3 years and it will take a decade or more after that to see real impacts.

That being said, the incoming city council is likely to be much much worse - and I do fear that the one possible thing that could bring us out of this mess, the Code Next LDC re-write is in serious jeopardy at this point with the likely result being highly watered down changes appeasing the two-sides of the same coin NIMBYs and Road Warriors.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

Another urban myth. You mistakenly believe that "potential homeowners being corralled downtown" are competing against "suburbanites like yourself" - that the demand is totally fungible. It isn't. The narrow markets - mainly singles, childless couples, and empty nesters - are competing just for those properties.

I'd love to hear from the RE agents here, but I seriously doubt that anyone says, "Well, if we can't get on the 11th floor of the Four Seasons, then we'd like to look at a 3/2/3 in Cedar Park."

Every unit built and occupied in central city is one not-built and not-occupied in the burbs. And what makes you think the universe of choices is limited to high-rises? There are innumerable ways to increase supply in central city that don't involve high-rise buildings.

[riaelise]

Hofdanno and austin Steve are right, how has the urbanist wet dream achieved affordability so far? Rather these newer developments are for an increasingly wealthier clientele often displacing the former residents who make significantly less. The businesses that miraculously pop up by these developments are anything but affordable. Short of living in the ghetto spots like rundberg most areas near transit have a price markup vs. places that aren't. What I can't stand is the fact that the city let places deteriorate for years and all of a sudden starts fixing problems once the more affluent filter in.

The suburbs with their abundance of land still wear the crown of affordability. Though I will agree that that too is subjective bc property taxes can be very high and you'll find yourself paying basically the same as someone living in the city. There are other motivators besides cost that people consider..schools are a big reason, probably followed by home and lot size.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I'm calling sprawl exactly what sprawl is - so not quite sure how you take offense to that.

No one is talking about closing "off the choices of many". This is about putting density in the right places - you know - the city core.

Actually, you are using a pejorative term to diminish the choices of others. It isn't "what it is" - it is what you scornfully label it as.

While I am completely supportive of "putting density in the right places" (see #37 above), I doubt you have any vision that includes suburban SFR housing stock. So yes - that IS closing off the choices of many.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Sprawl creates congestion by it's very nature. Been on any of our freeways in and out of Austin recently? Show me a sprawled out city not chocked in traffic congestion and I'll showed you a failed city.

They are failed only by your definition. These cities, which the US has many of, are hardly failed cities. The existence of traffic congestion is not the definition of failure.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Every unit built and occupied in central city is one not-built and not-occupied in the burbs. And what makes you think the universe of choices is limited to high-rises? There are innumerable ways to increase supply in central city that don't involve high-rise buildings.

Did the urbanist city council and mayor just booted out of office do any of these things?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Plus some token feel-good crap in the core, subsidized by the suburbs.

Umm, you've got it exactly backwards. The central city subsidies the suburbs, not the other way around.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

So where would you all these new roads - through the middle of Hyde Park?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Um, a modern I-35
A proper ring road.
An interstate-class connection from I-35 to MOPAC in the south
Fixing the 290 Y

Do I really need to go on? The road system in Austin is truly appalling.

[hoffdano]

I want the next generation of Austin's city government take their foot off the gas of growth. I am not anti-growth at all. But I am against the clear position they are taking that all growth is good. Stop the corporate incentives. Don't pretend for a split second that stupid rail is better than no rail. Don't turn your back on the people that have been paying taxes for decades. Don't play race politics.

Let some other cities take the people who are leaving cold weather areas. We are bursting at the seams and that makes it all worse to deal with.