And is that going to magically make all the surrounding streets and sidewalks better?

I guess putting yourself in someone else's shoes is tough....

I assure visitors and the vast majority of people who drive or uber into the downtown area to work or party care.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I can empathize with folks worried about development and growth getting too ahead of itself. You're exactly right, it's a bounded small strip of land that not only has high rises and hotels, but an active nightlife scene.

As far as suggestions... better sidewalks.... better traffic flow.... maybe one or two "ride sharing" drop offs so the narrow streets aren't filled with ubers/lyfts...

LOL. You're not very good at negotiating are you? This is the perfect opportunity to get what you want and then some, but you're too busy opposing the opposition. It's very shortsighted.

Considering that each station will also include placemaking and access improvements, partially.


For everything else, there's the $460M active transportation bond (also passed last year)and the sidewalk master plan.

And that's before getting into the Rainey-specific planning

http://austintexas.gov/page/rainey-s...ty-initiatives

There's not a lack of planning. And for once, there's not a lack of funding or resources. There's no reason to fight or block development (or needed density and housing) on that basis.

Or it's the perfect opportunity for the developer to go "Screw you, you're asking for too much, now we're building within the existing entitlements instead of sitting around for years of negotiation. 0 affordable housing for you".

Which has happened, time, after time, after time.


Given that "opposition" is starting from a position of deception ("denser than Manhattan") hell yeah I'm opposing them.

Ive lived in Austin my entire life, this isn't a new NIMBY tactic.

Step 1) Fight all infrastructure changes

Step 2) Blame lack of infrastructure for opposing development.

If the NA wanted better infrastructure coming to the city with a list of reasonable demands as density increases seems easy enough. I mean, developments being required to improve sidewalks feels like a no brainer. You can even get those little pop up barrier guys like they have all over Europe that takes a garage door opener to let you in on the weekends. Seems fair enough and that couldn't possibly be more than a 5 million dollar ask between all of it. But this is DENSER THAN MANHATTAN. Which, like.. I wish?

Improved sidewalks, Uber/Lyft dropoff points and closing the streets to non-local traffic feel like pretty low hanging fruit for a developer or the city. As is, they'll just develop within their rights which will 1) not get the NA anything they want 2) decrease density.

Like, if someone who has lived in Rainey 30 years ago when it was all old houses wants to complain I am far more likely to listen to them. The 'neighborhood' as it is is less than a decade old and almost everyone who lives their now moved their as part of the new high density development and BECAUSE of the nightlife. Like, "woah woah woah, we wanted to gentrify this area and turn it into an urban hotspot with nightlife but not THIS happening and dense.

I live downtown (Indy) and do not own a car. Excited to have towers built without a requirement to buy parking spaces. These are going to be some of the most sustainable homes in Austin—lowest impervious cover/home ever possibly, and with half the homes relying on transit/walking/biking—bring it! Hard to argue "But traffic!" when the homes gained through the vote won't have parking. We’re talking over 1,000 homes on less than two acres—this chews up over 200 acres out in suburbia. Sure, it’s disappointing that there isn’t more of an effort to promote urbanism/walkability, but we won’t always have a council member over the district whose top priority seems to be “Stop change!” The amount of NIMBY-curious comments on this thread surprises me.

Also, we need to start getting the work/live distance as low as we can in the city. We're getting to be big enough that we need to start getting people who work downtown to live downtown. Which, density.

If all three of these building are approved tomorrow, it would likely be another three years or so before any of them are completed. That is plenty of time to get these small suggestions implemented. It is likely plenty of time to implement any other suggestions as well.

Rainey folks should keep beating the drum and asking for improvements to the area. There is no denying that some are needed. But, there is no reason to hold up these projects when improvements can definitely be completed (or mostly completed) before the buildings even open.

I just think it's ironic that after they kick out the people that lived there for decades, now they wanna halt development. If this is not entitlement, I don't know what is. That land doesn't just belong to them.

I wish I knew what each person "gets" from their posts. Who is interested in Austin? Who is just wanting big toys? Who is just trolling? Three is so much baggage. Me: I'm a long time (happy to be in crowds) downtown high-rise resident who wants a balance in urban design. I I want to find a way to grow and still Maintain a unique sense of place. For me: Generic tall buildings packed in anywhere will just be "anywhere". No vibe, no character no history all = loss of identity. I'm not loving how often I see people here just wanting to give developers a pass just to get a building built. Believe me, there will be the next developer in line who will want to give back as much to the city as they get. Tall for tall sake does not make for great neighborhoods to live in. People like to throw NYC up a lot. Well, when you are there where are you going to play and eat? The neighborhoods. In Midtown ya walk over to Hells Kitchen . Even in the financial district, where do I head? Stone street. Etc. Well, we have that mix in Rainey at this point. Where do you stop before all you have is a generic collection of talls with people trying to get to the Eastside to escape? I beg all you "ooooh it's so tall" types to really dig in and walk the area and see what the experience is like before you advocate for more pretty things you only look at from a distance.. OK... attack away!

Dude, Rainey got gentrified and anyone who has lived there more than a decade got punted to Manor already. Every single business in Rainey is less than a decade old. None of this is "history". Like, oh shit Container Bar and unBARlievable might be replaced with Steam Punk Saloon 2 and The Dizziest Rooster?

It's a part of the city that was identified as needing to become denser to deal with the cities housing crisis, which is the only reason the current Rainey exists at all. It was planned this way from the word jump.

Also, Midtown and Lower Manhattan are really bad examples.

1) FiDi is now pretty damn hopping with really good bars and restaurants. It *wasnt* that way because no one lived there.

2) Mid Town is also a really large brush-stroke. There are parts of mid-town that are phenomenal. Time Square is its own beast, but Rainey isn't going to be Time Square at any point in time.

As a former New Yorker I have a better example:

A bunch of Manhattenites moved to LIC/Greenpoint and Williamsburgh looking to save money. The city had identified all 3 areas as being underdeveloped and key to fighting spiking rents in NYC. 10 years on when the development got dense these same people started fighting all the new development in their neighborhoods. Most of the original immigrant communities were pushed out by these same people but all the sudden the Domino Sugar plant was in need of saving by a bunch of mostly-not-polish people in Greenpoint.

I am always willing to listen to the victims of gentrification and urban density. Its a real problem that cities need to solve. I am not going to listen to those that gentrified an area complain that the neighborhood they "created" over the last 10 years with developers needs to now freeze in its exact time and place because they like it as is.

Like, what most of us are concerned about it twofold:

1) Density to deal with a housing crisis in the city and fight urban sprawl which is bad for the environment and poor people who have to deal with commutes.
2) A general understanding that you don't control property that you don't own just because it is near you.

All of this land is slated to be developed, and the developers can simply build slightly smaller less dense high-rises without seeking additional approvals. The city can and should extract things from the developers for the additional rights they seek. But that's it.

Our city is getting absolutely out of hand with housing costs and yeah, that means we need more housing and we need denser housing.

Also, I go to Rainey at least once a month when there isn't a global pandemic. It's pretty easy to find street parking 4 nights a week without much traffic. Thursdays can be hit or miss. Friday and Saturday are the biggest issues, but that is completely solvable.

Dude: I know.
Thanks for proving my point. We probably could have worked together on this.

I would venture to guess that most here agree with your base sentiment. I'm most interested in how/what these buildings add to the street level. I find it highly annoying when new proposals don't add at least a little something (amenities of some sort) to the urban fabric. I live downtown and additional amenities are what make downtown more interesting and livable to me.

Tallness is cool and all, but it's importance is mostly in the amount of square footage that may add. More square footage means more people. More people means that retail, restaurants, grocery stores, museums, etc. are more viable as they have more patrons to cater to. More viable businesses (that don't continually turn over) adds to the urban fabric and makes the place I live even more walkable and livable. Not just for me, but for everyone.

No, there won't.

It's not like shooting down this proposal automatically transfers ownership of that property for a new developer to try.

It means that the existing developer will end up building under their existing entitlements.

With no community benefits. No affordable housing. Crappier architecture (as there's less profit to pay for it). 0 street presence (again, nothing to pay for it). Etc.


We know that's what will happen, because it's happened time and time again. NIMBYs fight a proposal under the guise of "just a little bit more" and then we end up with crap.

Hey thanks for your kind response. Agreee with your thoughts. With every new building around me I always look for that trade off. What will it bring to the neighborhood? And yes!!!!!Stability is the key... I agree. Post pandemic will be interesting to see what evolves. . Keep up the good vibes.

Disagree. Can't give away the city. I believe in making the deal not giving away opportunities. Prime example is Rainey. 5% affordable housing is not equitable. And your cross of " NIMBY" is not effective. Plenty of good people are interested in growing their neighborhoods AND providing public good. I take it you protect your own investments? I certainly DO see your interest in public good. Thank you.

I don't think you understand how property ownership works.

WOW! LOL!
What exactly is your end game? What do you do?
Why would you make such an insulting comment?
You think a city should not bargain with developers to the benefit of
the city and citizens?

Millions of dollars for affordable housing (plus that 5%) isn't "giving away the city".

Street level retail and activation isn't "giving away the city".

Great Streets sidewalks and treatments aren't "giving away the city".

All of that goes away under existing entitlements.