Quote:
Originally Posted by zrx299
That point gets brought up a lot also, and while I appreciate the history lesson, no one can deny that it turned into something pretty unique, especially when compared to peer cities.
You don't need to be a 20-something bar fly to appreciate that it's a net-positive for the city.
Why kill something that was a serendipitous gift?
There could easily be high rise development on the perimeters of the area (East/Red River/Chavez) while keeping the remaining bungalows, or at least making that section of Rainey low-rise.
(In a perfect world, we'd mow down the Millennium, reconnect the alley, and open up additional blocks for high rises that front East Ave which are currently underutilized with that godawful corporate block)
|
I don't think any part of downtown should have low-rises, because they cost the city a lot of potential tax revenue, and have a negative impact on housing supply, and therefore affordability. From this perspective alone, one can easily see that it is indeed NOT a "net-positive" for the city.
I understand the perspective with regards to wanting to retain the bits and pieces that make Austin unique. But that's a qualitative and subjective argument. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in North America, which means that change will come whether we want it or not. The choice we have is not between preserving the perceived-to-be-unique aspects of the city vs. building mundane high-rises in their place. The choice we have is between building mundane high-rises vs. building interesting high-rises that will result in a new, different type of uniqueness and character.