Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
Austin will never have the density of NYC or similarly dense cities for the following reasons;
1) zoning laws would have to be RADICALLY changed RIGHT now.
|
They (thankfully) are being changed right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
IF that happened, say goodbye to the beloved Central Austin neighborhoods....think Hyde Park, Clarksville, Rosedale, Zilker, Travis Heights, many more,
|
I get the appeal of a small-town feel neighborhood, and I understand the nostalgia of pre-boom Austin. But what is actually valuable about these homes? Certainly, the vast majority of the houses built are a dime-a-dozen of their time period, and if you transplanted one to out in the middle of Blanco County it loses its value, since the land is the majority of the value.
The only thing that's actually valuable about these neighborhoods are the memories and the people - it's not the homes. But here's the thing: the past is past and the people either dying
1 or being priced out
2, or both
3.
We shouldn't sacrifice our future just because 100 years ago some developer decided to build a single-family neighborhood in small-town Austin.
1) owns home, has money. see: old
2) doesn't own home, doesn't have money. see: most adults under 65 at this point
3) owns home, doesn't have money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
not too mention our beloved tree canopy and parks.
|
Trees aren't incompatible with urban development.
Parks are City land and currently not up for development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
2) political will. Very few people who live in Austin want to morph into a city with 20k sq mi. density. Politicians will not vote to increase zoning for 10k+ density for ANY area beyond downtown.
|
I think take this will age very badly in the next decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
4) Most deed restrictions beyond downtown will not allow increased density.
|
Deed restrictions cover a decent amount of West and NW Austin. Not much elsewhere, certainly not in the context of "Austin" today. Additionally, this is assuming the Lege doesn't do anything about them, which may not be a wise assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
5) Building rail infrastructure does not magically increase density. Why? See 3 and 4. 3 story apartment complexes close to train depots will not move the density needle.
|
It doesn't, but it sure as hell makes it easier to attract enough people to fill a more dense building. Which is why, if zoning wasn't so restrictive, we would see more dense buildings around our current infrastructure and less sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
6) Austin's parks, greenbelts, creeks, preserves, aquafer recharge zones, endangered species, prevent a HUGE area in and around the city to be developed AT ALL!
|
This is hyperbolic. There is enough currently-developable land in Austin to deal with easily double or triple the amount of people if it were allocated relatively efficiently (aka not just in all inhabiting SFH and driving solo). It's comparatively a cake walk to deal with that kind of growth over 50 or 100 years. Hell, from the 90s to the 20s we basically doubled and no Civil Unrest™ or Great Fire has wiped us out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
7) Tree ordinances
|
These weren't carried down from the mountain and carved in stone tablets. We can change City policies if they don't reflect our needs or values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
8) Building setbacks
|
See 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
9) above ground power lines would need to be relocated to support increased density as they would be too close to residents.
|
Wow. Really? Imagine. Utilities being relocated?? There's no way we could ever do that!
Dude. This is not a problem. We know how to do this - it's just an increased cost. We can tax the developers accordingly - or just make them do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
10) COA assurance that parcels would be allowed to be subdivided. As it stands now, if you have a home that sits in the middle of a "double lot", the city forces you to tear the house down first, then apply for subdivision with zero certainty that the COA will approve it. This will cost you min $50-100K just to possible hear, no we will not allow you to subdivide your property.
|
This problem is actively being worked on by City staff. Council directed them to look at streamlining the subdivision process in support of HOME Phase 2. Also -> See 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
Separately, in NYC. Rail use peaked in 1920-40's and is barely 1/2 of those numbers in 2023. Why are the citizens of America's most populous, most dense city using the most extensive subway system FAR less than they once did.
|
Just in case you don't get it - NYC is relatively similarly sized to its 1940s self but car ownership in the US has risen dramatically. If your question is "why did car ownership rise dramatically post 1940s?" there's plenty of content out there for you on that and hint: its linked to "Urban Renewal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
Instead of paying for rail to be built and hoping on hope that density will increase 500%, only to then subsidize it to the tune of $30k/yr per rider (if memory serves). I propose we subsidize the working poor to take AI cars when they roll out in the near future.
|
![Cuckoo](images/smilies/koko.gif)
AI cars
Density does not need to increase 5x on an average Austin property. Hell, for most properties density doesn't even need to 2x. But the current density close to the rail is pathetic - we should allow 30 story towers over the whole 1/2mi corridor and let developers build it if they can afford it and can get it sold.