Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic
1. I'm reasonably certain "sprawl the right way" is a direct quote from Suburban Nation. You misunderstand what it means. It means URBAN sprawl instead of suburban sprawl. If you look at DPZ's method, it's mostly holding charrettes to revitalize blighted areas and/or building new places (that's the key part) that are urban, like Seaside, Florida.
2. Maybe I was mistaken about the CVC being negotiable, but I assume your critique of density caps/bonuses is similar. You just seem to be pretty much against all governmental regulation. This isn't the developers' city, it's ours. So, IMO, we should make the rules, and they should have to comply with them if they want to get into this market (and they will, because they do).
3. I don't care about being a big city. People think that just because we build upwards that we want a huge population. We don't.
It's hyperbole to say that regulations are going to result in widespread surface-level parking lots and blight. We're about to work out a comprehensive zoning code that's expressly against what you describe. There's been some talk of banning drive-throughs on Riverside Dr. But somehow you seem to think the opposite is going on. Look at London or D.C or San Francisco. They're very urban, but not full of huge buildings. You'll say that's because they're historic cities, but I'd respond with the fact that similar forces are at work in today's world, including in Austin. Our urban housing market is hot. There's plenty of room to build upward. And just because you can't in some place doesn't mean it can't still be urban. You just build mid-rises or low-rises. Just because it's not tall doesn't mean it's blight. You don't seem to understand that. The IBC Bank Tower is not blight.
I value view corridors for the views and because it gives cities different urban fabrics, rather than them all being just a monotonous wall/forest of buildings, i.e. a city with an array of building heights is prettier to look at than a city with buildings that are all of a similar height.
Sorry so long-winded. |
1. I'm near positive "sprawl the right way" not a quote of Duany and dead positive you cannot find the sentiment in Suburban Nation. However, if you want to provide a chapter site, please do so, I've got my well worn copy near by - I'd be interested in reading that.
2. My critique of density caps/bonuses is not similar. At least FAR caps provide for flexibility and the possibility of offering concessions to be height bonuses. CVCs offer no such path - it is mandate without possible compromise. As to this being our city - ok, but developers build it and it's their ass on the line and things get built or not built based on whether the risk to reward ratio is such that it makes sense. I don't want to see our regulations become counterproductive.
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.
4. I never stated all regulations result in surface-level parking lots and blight. But, empirically you can do a lot by lot comparison of the downtown and look at which lots are subject to a CVC and which ones are not and score them for use and you will see quite clearly that the dead and blighted blocks correspond pretty high with being afflicted by CVCs.
Again, wrt your point about London, D.C. and SF - I absolutely agree they are urban - and if we implemented similar land use policies that they had when they assumed that form then Austin too would grow to be urban. But you don't recognize the forces at work - so again, I refer you to a lot-by-lot comparison.
If you value view corridors that is an entirely subjective thing that I can't argue with other than it's important to recognize that those view corridors do come with a price - both an economic price in terms taxes and services the city can produce and price in not being able to create the kind of world class downtown that we deserve.