Originally Posted by wwmiv (Post 6018171)

Komeht,

You realize that the argument you make is in no way mutually exclusive from the argument that Kevin and I made and other are continuing to make here.

You're saying that CVCs blight certain parts of downtown, where the CVC overlays are so close to the ground that they prohibit anything to be built at all or, if something can, a single or perhaps a few stories at max. In other words, making those blocks undesirable for developers.

Yes, that's true (at least in the short term, which I address below).

We aren't saying that CVCs are all good, just that they do have good impacts in a few ways. Such being that on some blocks they force developers to build higher if they want to get the bang for their buck (these are the blocks where a CVC overlay is partial) that they originally wanted. Most here are also arguing, quite rightly, that this happens to make for interesting development patterns. My addendum to this was that the overlays happen to increase unit values because they can offer their residents protected views, which actually makes development more likely on some parcels.

But going even deeper, both sides are having completely different arguments here (we're talking past each other). We are arguing primarily a fact based "this is what CVCs have happened to contribute in a positive way, though there may be negatives" whereas you, Komeht, seem to be arguing a straight "this is why we should get rid of CVCs" (as I think became evident when you tipped your hand on your "dogmatic urbanist only attitude") instead of what would logically be the opposite of our position: "CVCs are all bad and the good outcomes don't actually exist" (which would be a problem for you, given that they do and there's pretty clear empirical evidence that they do).

And I'd actually argue that in the long-term, though certain CVCs should be removed and there are current major efforts to do reform, CVCs actually do not end up with the bad that you suggest they do:

1. The lots where CVCs would prohibit more than a story or two will eventually become prime developable land, when other parcels are off the market because they've already been developed. In fact, adjacent development (especially residential) would make redevelopment of these blocks more likely for retail or what-have-you. They may not be built to their full potential, but they certainly will not be maintained as urban blight.

2. The lots where CVCs prohibit anything taller than a parking lot (and there are a few, though not more than a handful) should and can be bought by the city and turned into parkland.

3. The height limits that CVCs institute actually create an interesting incentive to develop a diversity of projects in downtown. A grocery store here, a small museum there, a four story VMU residential project elsewhere. And actually also create a very organic urban atmosphere that many cities lack. And they do all this while also protecting legacy views.

And I do have a single note on something you said:



You stand alone on this. Local economists have actually said that the CVCs, because of the increase in land value that they give to many parcels and because of the value of units that they result in due to unfettered views, actually increase the total amount of taxes that downtown pays, especially with regard to property taxes. On this you are just simply and completely factually wrong.

Originally Posted by Komeht (Post 6018075)

3. I don't care whether Austin is a big city or stays a mid-sized one (it will be what it will be). However, I care deeply about urbanity and I am rather dogmatic on this . Urbanity can exist in small cities (see Charleston, Santa Fe) or large cities (NY, SF, Paris) - it matters not to me what size Austin is. But a livable, workable, vibrant, lively downtown is something I think we all would benefit greatly from. The good news is Austin is hit a growth spurt at a time that co-incided with renewed interest and market reward/demand for more urban projects. The city has greatly benefited from the last 10 or 15 years of central development - but I still see Austin as having a ton of unfulfilled possibilities.

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237 (Post 6018229)

My favorite part of your post, and undeniably true. You can be an enormous with enormous problems and failures (i.e. Phoenix, San Jose, Tucson) or tiny and the envy of the country (i.e. Ann Arbor, Park City, Savannah). A lot of people living in one place may produce tall buildings and urban canyons, but that does not necessarily mean urban canyons and tall buildings produce a livable urban area.

Consider my current situation. I've grown up in New York City. I work in Times Square. ...and I cannot wait to move away. I didn't only love Austin when I visited because of its tall buildings (although the explosive skyline growth was eye candy in person :P). I loved it because I felt like I could breathe, there was open sky and greenery, restaurants and shops converted from old ranch homes, people sitting in lots by the food trucks enjoying the weather and each other's company, crowds filling 6th Street after dark like I've never before seen a single street packed with people on just a regular night. :rolleyes:

It's not the city in the sense of New York, but it's an urban environment where people socialize and connect, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Of course, there are improvements to be made, and I hope ATX rides the wave of growth as far as it will. If it became New York though, I'd be terribly disappointed. Austin needs to stay Austin, to be kept weird. The CVCs will sculpt the skyline, no doubt, but I'd disagree that it'll be in a negative way. The gaps you're complaining about, they give the Austin skyline that thing that makes it the Austin skyline.

Originally Posted by Komeht (Post 6018272)

I will note two things and then let people respond as I've already put most of my thoughts on this. One is, people often say things like "I don't want Austin to become NY". Um, ok. That's fine. Austin is so far from NY it might as well be on Pluto. It is in absolutely zero danger (whether you view this as a good or bad thing) of becoming anything like NYC in anyone's lifetime or any of their children's children's lifetimes. Austin now boasts a few square blocks of interesting urbanism, whereas Manhattan has block after block, street after street, neighborhood after neighborhood, and district after district of dense, highly intense urbanity that just does not in anyway resemble anything Austin is or could become.

And with regard to the impact on skyline, frankly to me this is a secondary concern. Skylines are nice to look at...from outside the city and I'm all for a nice skyline. But What I'm really concerned with and intersted in and what really gets my enines running is what the city looks, feels, acts like from the ground, within it, from the perspective of the persons lucky enough to live or visit. However, I will note that the reason Austin has a rather uninspiring and rather squatty skyline has as much to do with parking requirements as with anything. Fortunately those rules are being revisited.

Originally Posted by Syndic (Post 6018302)

So, not "sprawl the right way", but "good growth". Same idea, just a bit more sanitized language. In essence, they're not against building at the edges when it's considered a TND.

Originally Posted by Hill Country (Post 6018361)

Does anybody have pics to post? Too much talking going on here.:)

Originally Posted by Syndic (Post 6018309)

To summarize my thoughts on CVCs, I have an attitude like "Okay, this is different, lets see what happens with this". Restrictions and regulations often lead to experimentation and creativity within those limits, like athletic competition governed by certain rules, which evolves into a sport, or a tree confined by certain barriers that must adapt and grow into a wild new shape. This is our city. This is what we have. Let's see what we can do with it. Maybe we can do something cool and new and unique. If we can agree to strike out on this path on our own instead of taking the path everyone else takes and reserve judgment until the end, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. I just know that this looks like a pretty cool city that I might like to experience:

http://i.imgur.com/D3bW5GT.jpg

It will undoubtedly turn out a little differently, but that's in compliance with the CVCs and it's pretty dense. Maybe it will have the effect of pushing big development to new areas. We're already seeing some larger buildings being built south of the river. Maybe we'll see an explosion. I hope so. That would be great.

I probably wouldn't be against loosening some of the CVCs, but probably not getting rid of them altogether. I see it mostly as a restriction that can/will result in some creative adaptation and uniqueness.

Originally Posted by Syndic (Post 6018302)

Also, I'm glad your copy is well-worn. But mine has a sticker on the front that says "Donated to the Kentlands Library By Andres Duany & Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk July, 2001". So there.

Originally Posted by JoninATX (Post 6018980)

Lamar Village Redevelopment

http://www.studio8architects.com/images/B06-Lamar.jpg
http://www.studio8architects.com/Lamar.htm

Originally Posted by Syndic (Post 6019055)

Originally Posted by Hill Country (Post 6018361)

Does anybody have pics to post? Too much talking going on here.:)