Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If those "things" are so evident, then why do they have to be mandatory?
Because they're only evident to some who then feel that it is their mandate (from whom, one has to wonder) to require that everyone else think as they do, or at least to behave as if everyone thinks as they do.
It hasn't been pointed out very frequently, by anyone other than you. Sorry, I realize this concept of institutional bias against density is what you are selling. But I'm not buying. If it were so, why do we have Mueller? All the residential downtown? The mixed use Domain, the Triangle, or Hill Country Galleria?
I think the market is supplying density in proportion to the demand. Sounds like you want to skew the market by injecting government into restricting the choices.
CBD is 1 square mile.
Mueller was a unique opportunity and while the development is large, in comparison to the rest of the city it is a tiny fraction. The Triangle is a tiny fraction of the size of Mueller.
Hill County Galleria cannot seriously be considered an urban dense development in any sense whatsoever. It's a lifestyle mall on the what used to be outer fringes of the suburbs and is now within the outer ring of the suburbs.
If you think the market is supplying density in proportion to the demand then you really have no idea about what it happening in Austin. The fact is, dense development has been made illegal with very few exceptions. The market cannot meet the supply in demand for density because truly dense development is outlawed in the vast majority of Austin. This point is not debatable.
One way that you can test this is look at the cost on dense development in central Austin. If the supply were meeting demand then the prices would be softening. Instead, they're doing quite the opposite, the prices are skyrocketing. People who would like to live an urban lifestyle, and are willing to sacrifice space knowing that is required, are still precluded from doing so because there simply is not enough supply, and can never be enough supply under current land-use policies.
Hill County Galleria cannot seriously be considered an urban dense development in any sense whatsoever. It's a lifestyle mall on the what used to be outer fringes of the suburbs and is now within the outer ring of the suburbs.
There was never a mention of "urban". The issue was land use policies blocking density - anywhere. That was something you overlooked, and injected. I lived at HCG for a year. I think I am a little more familiar than you are with what it is, and isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
If you think the market is supplying density in proportion to the demand then you really have no idea about what it happening in Austin. The fact is, dense development has been made illegal with very few exceptions. The market cannot meet the supply in demand for density because truly dense development is outlawed in the vast majority of Austin. This point is not debatable.
I'm sure you believe that, but until you can point to something objective, it is nothing more than your opinion, presented as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
One way that you can test this is look at the cost on dense development in central Austin. If the supply were meeting demand then the prices would be softening. Instead, they're doing quite the opposite, the prices are skyrocketing. People who would like to live an urban lifestyle, and are willing to sacrifice space knowing that is required, are still precluded from doing so because there simply is not enough supply, and can never be enough supply under current land-use policies.
Anything as complex as demand for downtown residential space is multi-variable. Development is difficult all over Austin, urban and suburban. Job growth continues unabated here. Residential prices of all types are going up. Against your opinion, presented as fact. Correlation isn't causation.
There was never a mention of "urban". The issue was land use policies blocking density - anywhere. That was something you overlooked, and injected. I lived at HCG for a year. I think I am a little more familiar than you are with what it is, and isn't.
I'm sure you believe that, but until you can point to something objective, it is nothing more than your opinion, presented as fact.
Anything as complex as demand for downtown residential space is multi-variable. Development is difficult all over Austin, urban and suburban. Job growth continues unabated here. Residential prices of all types are going up. Against your opinion, presented as fact. Correlation isn't causation.
That is simply incorrect sir. You could not be more wrong. Our land use codes make suburban development exceedingly easy (mandated actually) and force urban development to go though years long process of achieving variances and having to fight activists groups every single step of the way. It's easy - super easy - to do something by code that requires setbacks prescribed by code, minimum numbers of parking spaces, x % of impervious cover, keeping heigh to below a certain level, etc. If you build suburban, you don't need a variance, all those things are granted as a matter of right - file your site plan, get your permit and boom, up goes your Target Super Center in no time at all.
But if you want to build a multi-mixed use development - you can't. Those are illegal. You have to seek a variance. And then suppose you want to have a sidewalk and no set backs. That's another variance. And then if you want minimum parking spaces, that's another variance, and then if you want to go above two or three stories, that's another variance, etc. That list goes on and on and on.
Developers spend years and years trying to get these things. And all the time, the land sits fallow. As a matter of fact, the only reason they even attempt it is that despite all the difficulty, these projects do command a price premium once they are build because people like them a lot. But it's a very difficult process and derails an awful lot of good development. It would be very easy to put up a strip mall and start making money right away.
This is why development is funneled into suburban forms. Because we've made suburbanism very very easy and urbanism very very hard.
And again I ask - if you think that all that development that is so bad is a result of market demand, then why make the alternatives illegal?
That is simply incorrect sir. You could not be more wrong. Our land use codes make suburban development exceedingly easy (mandated actually) and force urban development to go though years long process of achieving variances and having to fight activists groups every single step of the way. It's easy - super easy - to do something by code that requires setbacks prescribed by code, minimum numbers of parking spaces, x % of impervious cover, keeping heigh to below a certain level, etc. If you build suburban, you don't need a variance, all those things are granted as a matter of right - file your site plan, get your permit and boom, up goes your Target Super Center in no time at all.
A someone who lives in SW Austin, I find these assertions that only urban development is subject to opposition by activist groups, impervious cover limits, etc, laughable. "Don't need a variance"? Are you kidding? Can you say Wildflower Commons? Lobbying Silicon Laboratories to not locate at Lantana? Pressuring AISD to not build schools to service the existing student population?
You are the one that could not be more wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
And again I ask - if you think that all that development that is so bad is a result of market demand, then why make the alternatives illegal?
There are so many problems with austin transportation that the correct answer is all of the above.
We need sidewalks that connect everywhere with crosswalks that people can use. Why don't we have them? I don't think you can blame the NIMBYs for that. My interaction with the city over the matter years back was that they weren't considered a priority.
We need bus schedules that make sense and covered bus stops everywhere.
We need trains in areas that make sense too.
And we need better highways, better roads, and better connections between roads. Sometimes better is changing the configuration, and sometimes better *is* expanding.
And yes, adding some density isn't a bad idea either. It won't solve all our problems but if we can get more people near UT and downtown, it won't hurt.
How is this going to get paid for? No idea. But that's what is needed. Is it going to happen? Probably not.
I'm with austin-steve on this one - the people in power in Austin are far more interested in pet projects and distractions than actually governing the city. You see this with the austin energy debacle (No one noticed it went broke? Really?) and the traffic and the permitting backups (how long was it that people were waiting months before the city noticed the backlog?) and the automatic raises for city workers. They lack perspective and political will to tackle the messy, unattractive problems and day-to-day running of a large city, and instead while away their time on profoundly stupid things. Stupid, unimportant things instead of the stuff that's actually their job.
That seems to be the way all of politics goes these days though.
A someone who lives in SW Austin, I find these assertions that only urban development is subject to opposition by activist groups, impervious cover limits, etc, laughable. "Don't need a variance"? Are you kidding? Can you say Wildflower Commons? Lobbying Silicon Laboratories to not locate at Lantana? Pressuring AISD to not build schools to service the existing student population?
You are the one that could not be more wrong.
Strawman argument. Never said that.
Did you actually read those articles you linked to? The first was a dense mixed use urban development that was seeking a variance and opposed under SOS (which is an entire other kettle of fish that ends up producing more low density development). The other is a battle over schools in which, once again, an entity that wants to develop with a higher IC than is allowed in the Barton Creek Watershed.
Both issues prove my point that the easy course, once again, the mandated course, is low density suburban sprawl.
Sprawl is easy - it's cheap, it goes up quick and you don't have to fight city hall and the neighborhoods don't even get a chance to oppose it because it's allowed as a matter of right. By contrast, high density urban development is illegal virtually everywhere, except the CBD and a few very narrow transit corridors and Mueller. Which means the starting point from the city is "No, you can't do that." That leaves the developer in the situation of having to get a variance, which means hearings before the planning commission, hearings before the city council, endless negotiations with neighborhood groups, massive concessions demanded by just about anyone who thinks they can hold the up proposed project. A developer who chooses to do something urban in the areas that aren't allowed to be urban (95% of the COA) means years of fights. Such a developer needs to have not only the will to engage in those fights, but very patient lenders and investors with very deep pockets. In otherwords, it is a rare rare exception - which is why - to this day 95% of the development outside the CBD is low density low intensity traffic inducing, car dependent sprawl. Sprawl requires no zoning changes, it requires zero trips to the planning commission, and you don't have to negotiate with the city or the neighborhood groups or anyone. All you have to do is submit your plans that are already to code (low intensity low density sprawl only please, thank you) and then get your permit and off you go.
And living in SW Austin doesn't give you the tools to understand any of this. But if you wanted to you could speak to any developer in Austin who will validate every word I write as true.
There are so many problems with austin transportation that the correct answer is all of the above.
We need sidewalks that connect everywhere with crosswalks that people can use. Why don't we have them? I don't think you can blame the NIMBYs for that. My interaction with the city over the matter years back was that they weren't considered a priority.
We need bus schedules that make sense and covered bus stops everywhere.
We need trains in areas that make sense too.
And we need better highways, better roads, and better connections between roads. Sometimes better is changing the configuration, and sometimes better *is* expanding.
And yes, adding some density isn't a bad idea either. It won't solve all our problems but if we can get more people near UT and downtown, it won't hurt.
How is this going to get paid for? No idea. But that's what is needed. Is it going to happen? Probably not.
I'm with austin-steve on this one - the people in power in Austin are far more interested in pet projects and distractions than actually governing the city. You see this with the austin energy debacle (No one noticed it went broke? Really?) and the traffic and the permitting backups (how long was it that people were waiting months before the city noticed the backlog?) and the automatic raises for city workers. They lack perspective and political will to tackle the messy, unattractive problems and day-to-day running of a large city, and instead while away their time on profoundly stupid things. Stupid, unimportant things instead of the stuff that's actually their job.
That seems to be the way all of politics goes these days though.
One of the many many benefits of increased density is that it is very good for the bottom line of the city. There are lots of efficiencies gained coupled with an increase in the tax base makes it a win on both sides of the city ledger - more money coming in, less going out.
To get back to the original question. The traffic is going to have to get much worse before it gets better. It is still easier and quicker for most Austinites to drive through bad traffic than it is to take public transportation, or bike or walk.
I think it will take a decade or so of gridlock for the people who voted against light rail to realize that the status quo is not viable. Highway expansion is not economically or politically feasible through central Austin: more lanes on 35 and/or Mopac would be spectacularly bad land use, and would require eminent domain decisions that would be held up in courts for decades. Its not going to happen and it shouldn't.
Traffic will have to get truly terrible for the political will to emerge to produce forms of development that can circumvent it. The process has begun. I am actually quite optimistic about it. In 20 years Austin will have much better transportation infrastructure that will be much less auto-centric, but for that to happen all the highways and many of the surface streets will have to turn into parking lots 24/7. It is not quite there yet, but it is starting to happen. The fact that surface parking lots are disappearing downtown is a small and positive sign. The car which is still seen as a symbol of freedom and mobility needs to be seen as a luxury and massive inconvenience. The process has begun.
It will be painful, but right now, all we can hope for is for traffic to get much, much worse: so terrible that people start to make personal life and political decisions about how to avoid it.
To get back to the original question. The traffic is going to have to get much worse before it gets better. It is still easier and quicker for most Austinites to drive through bad traffic than it is to take public transportation, or bike or walk.
I think it will take a decade or so of gridlock for the people who voted against light rail to realize that the status quo is not viable. Highway expansion is not economically or politically feasible through central Austin: more lanes on 35 and/or Mopac would be spectacularly bad land use, and would require eminent domain decisions that would be held up in courts for decades. Its not going to happen and it shouldn't.
Traffic will have to get truly terrible for the political will to emerge to produce forms of development that can circumvent it. The process has begun. I am actually quite optimistic about it. In 20 years Austin will have much better transportation infrastructure that will be much less auto-centric, but for that to happen all the highways and many of the surface streets will have to turn into parking lots 24/7. It is not quite there yet, but it is starting to happen. The fact that surface parking lots are disappearing downtown is a small and positive sign. The car which is still seen as a symbol of freedom and mobility needs to be seen as a luxury and massive inconvenience. The process has begun.
It will be painful, but right now, all we can hope for is for traffic to get much, much worse: so terrible that people start to make personal life and political decisions about how to avoid it.
The problem is that this only addresses one side of the ledger. Pain is there. Many people would opt to live closer to where they work in dense, walkable or bikeable communities given the chance. The problem is, we don't give them the chance to do so. We have made it too expensive to live centrally for the vast majority and we have made it too difficult to add supply to alleviate prices.
We can and should re-work our land use codes to allow for dense development to occur throughout (not just in Mueller, the CBD and a very few transit corridors) as a matter of right. Only then, when you see development happening everywhere, will you get downward pressure on prices and people flowing back into the city where they can opt to get rid of a car, or ride their bike a higher percentage of the time, or walk or take transit to work.
Instead, what everyone squawks for is more roads. Well, guess what, we give them more roads . And the problem gets worse, and they want wider roads, and we give them wider and the problem continues to get worse.
So until the city gets real about what is the cause of the problem (lots of long car trips) and the solution to the problem (fewer and shorter car trips) then really anything and everything is merely stop gap.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
