The Triumph of Suburbia: Despite Downtown Hype, Americans Choose Sprawl (Austin: townhouse, dorms)

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by hillcountryheart

They actually have talked about HOVs on Mopac and there was a survey done of stakeholders (representatives from different groups). The stakeholders have said that they don't feel that either using an existing HOV lane or building a new one would be cost effective on Mopac, Everyone's ideal solution involves relocating the railroad, but the owners know that and ask a very high price for any right of way. Not sure if the state could use eminent domain against the RR ROW and since Mopac is a state highway, it's the state and not the local government who has the final say.

Right, I really wonder who those "stakeholders" are.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The existing mopac lanes are free, and will continue to be so. The only charge will be the for lanes not already built.

The shoulder is being removed. That's not safe. The shoulders have been bought and paid for. Again, if you want to reduce use and congestion, HOV is the way to go.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Again, if you want to reduce use and congestion, HOV is the way to go.

You would think that. But studies around the US have shown that the passengers per vehicle lane per hour isn't always greater with an HOV than it was in the lane it displaced.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Not even close to being true. If anything it isn't restricted enough, since developers are using every trick in the book to scrape SFH. Without the restrictions we have now, we'd look like West Campus.

Originally Posted by Komeht

You're wrong, Tilda is 100% on point. The Mueller PUD notwithstanding, Hyde Park the way it was built is illegal to be built in the vast a majority of Austin. Lots are too small, homes too close together, insufficient parking, strict separation of uses, having MC units amidst SF homes, granny flats, etc. presumably our rules were meant to protect Hyde Park and similar neighborhoods (a dubious goal in anycase) but the truth is the rules ensure another Hyde park can never be built.

Mueller is the one new area in central Austin you can actually do these things now.

Two different things really - gpurcell is talking about restrictions to freeze Hyde Park in time as it is now.

Komeht and I are talking about if you were to try and build a new development - Hyde Park has a long list of things which would be illegal.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

And those who choose the suburbs are to blame how for this? Sounds like some central Austinites have a "great vision" to change Austin into that other central Austinites see as a "great disaster", and the latter are expressing their opinion about what's proposed for their urban area.

Originally Posted by scm53

I found it very hard to believe that people who "live miles from downtown" really cared about downtown condos.

Thanks for the reply.

"Miles" may not have been the best choice of words. But many of the active ANC groups are over a mile or over two miles from downtown, and do actively oppose towers downtown, or even mid-rises in some cases.

As to TexasHorseLady's point, I was answering the question about how people are being prevented from living urban. Wasn't specifically claiming that those "who choose the suburbs" are the culprit when it comes to towers in downtown Austin. Granted it's hard to follow all the points and subpoints in these threads.

Basically my points are 1) at the local, state, and federal level over the past half century or so we have passed a body of laws, regulations, and policies which make it very difficult to develop anything other than car dependent developments. (This thankfully seems to be changing in many cities over the past 10-20 years.) 2) Because of this it's actually suburbia that is being forced upon us, not urbanism.

I think even the defenders of suburbia implicitly admit that - how many times have they argued people move there because of cost? There are numerous people like me who would prefer to live in Hyde Park, Mueller, Clarksville, etc. but live in much more suburban places because we've been priced out. That implies that the market is being prevented from meeting demand. I have yet to see a single person post "I really wanted to live in Round Rock, but I couldn't afford it, so I had to settle for Hyde Park." Until the supply catches up with demand so that those of us who want to live urban are not excluded from doing so because of prices, it's absurd for people to argue it's being forced down their throats.* And so long as many of us who want to live urban can't because laws and regulations won't let the market meet demand, I'll stick by my assertion that, if anything, it's suburbanism being forced on people.

(And again when I say 'urban' I primarily mean walkable and non-car-dependent. If we had built a Mueller at Southpark Meadows with good transit, I'd be happy to live there.)

*I realize some in NHs like Zilker might say urbanism is being forced on them. But it's not like they can't sell and move to a suburban neighborhood if they wanted. I'm not totally unsympathetic to them, but I also think the desire to maintain a neighborhood right next to downtown the same as it was 40 years ago when the population was less than a third of what it is now is unrealistic. And if they really hate it that much they can probably sell their house and buy my house AND the house next to mine with cash. Hard to shed too many tears for them when so many working and middle class families in Austin struggle to afford the cost of living.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by scm53

You would think that. But studies around the US have shown that the passengers per vehicle lane per hour isn't always greater with an HOV than it was in the lane it displaced.

and of course hybrids will be able to use the HOV lane so it will be clogged with priuses.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Austin97

and of course hybrids will be able to use the HOV lane so it will be clogged with priuses.

As long as they're out of the passing lane...... going 62 in a 65mph.
.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Austin97

and of course hybrids will be able to use the HOV lane so it will be clogged with priuses.

The Mopac managed lanes will have the same charge for all non-Cap Metro vehicles, including carpools.

N. Va, which I'm pretty familiar with, is starting to restrict the hybrid HOV access. The I-95 lanes only allow those w/ plates from before 2006, I-66 before 2011, etc. Not familiar with other places and their policies.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Basically my points are 1) at the local, state, and federal level over the past half century or so we have passed a body of laws, regulations, and policies which make it very difficult to develop anything other than car dependent developments. (This thankfully seems to be changing in many cities over the past 10-20 years.) 2) Because of this it's actually suburbia that is being forced upon us, not urbanism.

I think even the defenders of suburbia implicitly admit that - how many times have they argued people move there because of cost?

The funny thing is, Austin has forced sprawl on those of us SW due to the SOS restrictions. The impervious cover restrictions make walkable developments almost impossible. The activist groups have pressured employers like Silicon Labs to not provide employment in the area and instead force employees to drive downtown. They pressured several employers to not locate at Wildflower Commons, forcing the abandonment of that project. They have blocked construction of schools so that we have the ridiculous situation of SW kids being bussed on Mopac north of the river to Austin High. And on and on and on.

There is some validity in your second point, but it assumes that apples to apples comparisons are possible when they aren't. The couple across the street has three kids, with a fourth on the way. They have a five bedroom house of just over 4,000 sq. ft., constructed in 2011 with all the modern amenities. Due to several city ordinances, mainly the McMansion ordinance, that house is almost non-replicable in the urban core. At any price. One may make the case that no one "needs" a house of that size, etc. That isn't the point. The point is, Austin's decisions, for better or worse, have made housing stock that is very attractive to a large segment of the population, unavailable anywhere but in the suburban areas.

Finally, even when there is an apples to apples comparison, say 3 BR, 2,400 sq. ft, much of the cost delta between the core and the burbs isn't due to demand, but instead to Austin's regulations. That point is excellently captured here. So, the folks at City Hall need to take a long hard look in the mirror. The decline of families with children in the urban core is multi-faceted, but they bear a not-insignificant responsibility for that trend.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by scm53

The funny thing is, Austin has forced sprawl on those of us SW due to the SOS restrictions. The impervious cover restrictions make walkable developments almost impossible. The activist groups have pressured employers like Silicon Labs to not provide employment in the area and instead force employees to drive downtown. They pressured several employers to not locate at Wildflower Commons, forcing the abandonment of that project. They have blocked blocked construction of schools so that we have the ridiculous situation of SW kids being bussed on Mopac north of the river to Austin High. And on and on and on.

There is some validity in your second point, but it assumes that apples to apples comparisons are possible when they aren't. The couple across the street has three kids, with a fourth on the way. They have a five bedroom house of just over 4,000 sq. ft., constructed in 2011 with all the modern amenities. Due to several city ordinances, mainly the McMansion ordinance, that house is almost non-replicable in the urban core. At any price. One may make the case that no one "needs" a house of that size, etc. That isn't the point. The point is, Austin's decisions, for better or worse, have made housing stock that is very attractive to a large segment of the population, unavailable anywhere but in the suburban areas.

Fair points. I don't really disagree with SOS in principle, and wouldn't have been upset if Circle C had never been built at all (I was here when people tried to stop it). A case of the city not really having all the tools it needed to accomplish what it wanted, for better or for worse depending on your point of view. Ironically, now I'm about to move into a house between Davis and Convict Hill, not too far north of the development I was opposed having been built at all. And where some of my friends live...

The ANC and SOS have been really resistant to efforts to build an Oak Hill town center, which I think is very short sighted.

McMansion is a pretty horrible piece of legislation on many levels. One irony is that it was created because of a 'drainage emergency' yet in the end was written in a way which encourages spreading out and increasing impervious cover.