The big lesson from Austin’s City Council elections (San Antonio: real estate market, day care)

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Car dependency limits you to having a car. Car freedom would mean the ability to get around in a variety of ways, car or not.

Car dependency is the problem, not cars.

But you have no problem with public transit dependency, bike dependency, or foot dependency? Is your air dependency a problem?

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by scm53

How about Travis County develop affordable family housing with decent schools so people don't have to commit the obviously heinous crime of driving across a county line?

This is available. Same quality schools and same price for housing.

Lehman HS in Kyle is rated a '4'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/ky...n-High-School/
The Kyle elementaries are a '5' and a '6'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/ky...entary-School/
http://www.greatschools.org/oregon/a...entary-School/

Hays HS in Buda is rated a '6'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/bu...s-High-School/




South Austin:

Akins HS a '6'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/au...s-High-School/
Menchaca is a '7'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/ma...entary-School/
Blazier is a '6'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/au...entary-School/
Casey is a '7'
http://www.greatschools.org/texas/au...entary-School/



Home prices in South Austin:







Compared to Kyle:

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Komeht

A person that lives in Kyle and works downtown has made a decision to sit in traffic. We're supposed to invest billions of dollars in unsustainable infrastructure to subsidize poor lifestyle decisions?

Or, one could say ...

"A person that lives off East Riverside has made a decision to not own a car. We're supposed to invest billions of dollars in unsustainable (rail) infrastructure to subsidize poor lifestyle decisions?"

No matter what you say, it can be mirrored right back at you. You're problem, K, is that you believe your point of view to be wholly superior and everyone else to be lacking intelligence. Hence, you think Mopac toll expansion is wasteful but the failed rail proposal a "good investment".

Can't you accept that most of us just disagree with you, don't want to live downtown, like our suburban neighborhoods and lifestyle, and therefore do want and need cars?

Steve

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

We're supposed to invest billions of dollars in unsustainable (rail) infrastructure to subsidize poor lifestyle decisions?"

Rail infrastructure is the _most_ sustainable infrastructure*. It has a usable lifetime of decades. Can scale/grow an order of magnitude in capacity or more. Can be non-polluting/non-carbon releasing. Doesn't depend on a finite supply of fossil fuels. Doesn't prop up middle eastern or south american dictators. Kills orders of magnitude fewer people. Uses up far less of valuable real estate (lanes and parking).

Etc.
Etc.
Etc.



(okay, I'm mostly just comparing rail and cars, not bikes/pedestrians).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

This is available. Same quality schools and same price for housing.

So the person commuting into downtown on I 35 from far South Austin is OK, but the person commuting from Kyle on 35 is a contemptible evil doer? Got it.

And great job on the contextless attempt to prove your point. Here's the apples to apples part you left out: brand new Lennar home in 78747, 2000 sq. ft., $250K. Same size Lennar house in Kyle, $220K. More house for the money is why people make that drive. Might not be what you choose, but that doesn't make it an invalid choice.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Or, one could say ...

"A person that lives off East Riverside has made a decision to not own a car. We're supposed to invest billions of dollars in unsustainable (rail) infrastructure to subsidize poor lifestyle decisions?"

No matter what you say, it can be mirrored right back at you. You're problem, K, is that you believe your point of view to be wholly superior and everyone else to be lacking intelligence. Hence, you think Mopac toll expansion is wasteful but the failed rail proposal a "good investment".

Can't you accept that most of us just disagree with you, don't want to live downtown, like our suburban neighborhoods and lifestyle, and therefore do want and need cars?

Steve

Mod cut: unnecessary

I'll try one last time using mostly one-syllable words, see if you can keep up.

Most people don't have a meaningful choice in Austin. We regulate housing so that almost all of Austin is limited to suburban development. Period. Full stop.

There are incredibly minor exceptions. CBD - 1 square mile out of over 300. A few transit corridors. That's pretty much it. The rest of Austin is zoned almost exclusively SF3.

The entirely predictable result is housing shortage, forcing sprawl, forcing traffic congestion.

That some people prefer suburbs, its without question. Also without question is that many people want and would opt to live centrally if they could.

They can't - or rather, unless they're really rich now, they can't.

Central Austin is becoming an exclusive enclave of the rich, because the types of house and the housing supply are highly limited in precisely the areas that we need them the most.

Allowing for more urban development throughout the core does not mean suburbia goes away. It does mean more people will have a real and meaningful option to choose which way they want to live.

Get that - I'm for meaningful and real choice. Not legislated and mandated sububanism.

And no - that doesn't mean condo towers everywhere. It does mean a lot more housing options in a lot more places. Things that are currently banned in Austin but work out wonderfully in cities all over the world.

You can have town homes, duplexes and triplexes, small lot amnesty, ADUs and Granny flats, small low and mid-rise MF housing options, Mueller houses and layer them into neighborhoods and it works just fine. In Austin none of these things are currently possible in vast majority of the city.

You can introduce mixes of uses, allow the corner stores, take away the excessive requirements for on-site parking and actually give people the ability to do some of their errands in their own neighborhood, down the street, on bike or by food. But you can't do that under the current code. Try building Avenue B Grocery Store today. Go ahead, I dare you. I double dare you. If you had a million dollars and Jeff Howard and Richard Suttle both working for you on retainer you could not do it. And who's going to spend that money to open up a corner store?

The predictable result is what has been occurring - skyrocketing prices, too much competition for houses in the core, forcing people out to the suburbs (whether they want to be there or not) and resulting in traffic congestion (not to mention all the other horrors brought on by excessive sprawl - the strip malls, drive through fast food joints, the incredibly dangerous roads, etc. etc.).

So my question back to you - if suburbia is so alluring, so gravitating, so necessary to people's existence - why does it have to be mandated by code? Why not just allow urban development and let the market meet consumer demands? Could it be that the market actually does want urbanism in the urban places - you know, the central Austin?

[ATX Wahine]

How many freakin' times must we hear 'Exclusive enclave for the rich' in this thread??!!

Komeht, in-between your occasional valid point your words smack of a young under-earning person who probably can't afford a car, but really NEEDS one to transport that huge chip on your shoulder around. Move to another city that panders to your limited finances and public trans utopia fantasies if you don't like it here.

Steve as usual makes the best points here.

[HappyTexan]

First have a good bus system in place before you build that rail. Once people get off the rail they need to still get where they are going.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Steve, you get this wrong over and over and over again. I'm really sick of explaining it to you. I'll try one last time using mostly one-syllable words, see if you can keep up.
...
So my question back to you - if suburbia is so alluring, so gravitating, so necessary to people's existence - why does it have to be mandated by code?

I don't think I have it "wrong", I think we just disagree, though I think there are some narrow points on which we do agree.

But I do think demand dictates what gets built, not regulation. Talk to any Realtor who takes inbound calls from buyer prospects and ask what those buyers overwhelmingly ask for. It's not condos downtown, it's median priced houses attending good schools with reasonable commutes. This is the reality, what the masses demand, that you seem unwilling to accept because you wish it was different.

Regulation can and does limit choice, and it affects the profit motive of builders/developers who'd rather not deal with City of Austin and instead look to the open arms of outskirt communities who welcome growth. Those who do build in Austin can only make the numbers work with Class A apartments or the equivalent "upscale" and expensive infill product. Austin is hollowing out, with families being replaced by what we use to call Yuppies. Accommodating Yuppies, who tend to be more idealistic/urban leaning, with higher disposable income, doesn't solve affordability or traffic problems for existing families and our kids.

Steve

[cBach]

Originally Posted by MiaMia411

I agree, our population is getting greater and greater so soon we will have bigger problems in the world , but that is something we should have thought about before and had plan A, B ,and C ready. Hey its my fault that nobody was pro active and had some common sense about leaving space to widen highways IF needed in a few years. Sometimes its better to have more then enough then not enough.

The problem is what Austin used to be and now what it is trying to be. It is hard when you take a city that wasnt a big city an designed to handle so much traffic to try and make it a big city. The city just kept on building high rises, condos, apartments, businesses , etc , BUT roads were not built to mingle and relieve the extra build. You cant just build 50 new high rises and add 50 new corporate offices in a dense area that was not built and designed to handle it, otherwise you get the outcome that you people have now. Look at all the traffic that comes in , the city needs to spread out the companies so this way 1 million people are not driving into a bullseye to get to work and back. Its like trying to shove an elephant into a can of soda , seriously lol.

Look at the outer parts of Austin such as Buda and Kyle. Its empty , its car dependent but all the work and jobs are in Austin because the city keeps magically shoving companies in there.

A good example is my situation. I live in San Marcos right now but i work in Canyon Lake. The only way i can get there is taking ranch rd 12 which is a DISASTER and stupid or taking 35 all the way south and then cutting back up northwest. How stupid is this? There are no shortcuts or side streets to cut across. The designs are ideas from 100 years ago or something.

You can have car dependent communities and still be able to get around fine. Visit the northeast and you will see a fine example.

The problem is the ranch road and farm to market system was designed when Texas was largely agricultural. In the Northeast it was developed with many towns far earlier and the road system has had a longer time to build out. Sometimes I wish we had the 1 mile grid system of the Midwest, it would make getting around easier.