[Syndic]

Austin's land use policies don't make Austin more like Houston. I don't know if you can tell, but the amount of development happening in both cities isn't even comparable. We have ~20 downtown projects that should be underway this year while they have 5? Or fewer? It's not just about density. That alone doesn't make a city interesting. It's diversity; different areas having different characters. I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm downtown I just hate the fact that there's so many people making you feel rushed, and it's getting worse. The infusion of residents in downtown -- as opposed to just visitors -- gives these (rich) people, many of them not even from here, a sense of ownership over the streets and people not from downtown Austin, who just want to enjoy the city, are seen as nuisances, tourists, slowpokes. So urban areas with less busyness can be nice. Enjoying being downtown without some exasperated yuppie muttering under their breath about you would be nice, considering I was born and raised in this city. That's also not who we are as a city. We're not people who are go-go-go all the time and not able to relax and enjoy things. I get that we can expect more of this, with more highrises going up, but hopefully they assimilate to Austin's character, rather than determine it.

You're afraid of sprawl, but sprawl is not always bad. As Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk say in their book Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, it's about "sprawling the right way"; meaning: sprawling urbanism. You're worried about downtown not being dense enough while I'm concerned with turning the whole of Austin into downtown, so to speak.

The thing about the CVC is that it can catch you off guard, surprise you when you least expect it, and you think "Wow, this is a really amazing view!" But it's not an accident. So it kind of creates a positive impression of our city as something with subtlety and serendipity, two hallmarks of civilization.

Further, the CVC allows for zoning changes and increased building heights if the developer provides added benefits to the city in some way. So this is a way of taking advantage of largely self-interested parties and turning it into something that benefits the city as a whole.

Regarding that picture of Houston, I posted that on tumblr over a year ago and it got reblogged hundreds of times, so I'm a big reason why people know it exists. My point still stands: regulation like the CVC adds to the value of a city more than it detracts from it and this can be seen in the fact that Houston is shit while Austin isn't. And I don't expect that to change anytime soon.