Quote:
Originally Posted by Somnio
I would support a major upzoning for much of Central Austin, neighborhood interiors included. I think what's being done in West Campus is an example of what could be done in many neighborhoods throughout Central Austin.
|
There's a major difference between the neighborhoods abutting campus and the neighborhoods elsewhere: those in the former group have a natural base of population to draw their residents from (the University as a revolving door), those in the latter do not. In fact, those in the latter almost certainly have other areas competing (and beating) them for our prospective urban population (Downtown). You also have the problem of neighborhood opposition... It is, politically, much easier (though still not easy by any reasonable metric) to compromise with the NIMBYs than to simply override them. Those NIMBYs only exist in the neighborhoods away from UT. There really isn't much opposition to development in West Campus and North Campus (primarily because of that revolving door phenomenon).
There are also a litany of problems associated with allowing high density development within the interior of cohesive neighborhoods: desirable incoming transplants choose to locate elsewhere due to curb appeal issues, desirable current residents move away for similar reasons, density is spread too thin to be effective from a walkability/bikeability standpoint and hence loses its desirability from the standpoint of those who prefer urban living, and the fact that the density is only moderate also impairs the cost effectiveness of mass transit which then precludes expansions of the system.
Allowing high density only along predetermined corridors fixes all these problems: development is centered and focused so that walkability/bikeability/mass transit is maximized, the interior cohesiveness is largely maintained and hence stays similarly vibrant as it is today. The main problem with our interior neighborhoods is not that they aren't desirable (cities like San Antonio, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc. have
those problems, we thankfully do not), it is that the schools are not attended at the rates for which they were built. Allowing development along the corridors fixes the problem in the same way that allowing it within the neighborhoods does, except without the negative effects.
Perhaps, in 25-50 years down the line when we are nearing the point at which VMU development along the major corridors is no longer possible because of build-out, it might be worth considering allowing denser development within some nodes inside the neighborhoods themselves. At that point, though, there will still be more desirable places to locate density: Brackenridge, historic downtowns of Round Rock and Elgin, Domain, Camp Mabry (if, at some point, it is shut down through realignment), etc.
Prev
Linear Mode
