Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Komeht,
You realize that the argument you make is in no way mutually exclusive from the argument that Kevin and I made and other are continuing to make here.
You're saying that CVCs blight certain parts of downtown, where the CVC overlays are so close to the ground that they prohibit anything to be built at all or, if something can, a single or perhaps a few stories at max. In other words, making those blocks undesirable for developers.
Yes, that's true (at least in the short term, which I address below).
We aren't saying that CVCs are all good, just that they do have good impacts in a few ways. Such being that on some blocks they force developers to build higher if they want to get the bang for their buck (these are the blocks where a CVC overlay is partial) that they originally wanted. Most here are also arguing, quite rightly, that this happens to make for interesting development patterns. My addendum to this was that the overlays happen to increase unit values because they can offer their residents protected views, which actually makes development more likely on some parcels.
But going even deeper, both sides are having completely different arguments here (we're talking past each other). We are arguing primarily a fact based "this is what CVCs have happened to contribute in a positive way, though there may be negatives" whereas you, Komeht, seem to be arguing a straight "this is why we should get rid of CVCs" (as I think became evident when you tipped your hand on your "dogmatic urbanist only attitude") instead of what would logically be the opposite of our position: "CVCs are all bad and the good outcomes don't actually exist" (which would be a problem for you, given that they do and there's pretty clear empirical evidence that they do).
And I'd actually argue that in the long-term, though certain CVCs should be removed and there are current major efforts to do reform, CVCs actually do not end up with the bad that you suggest they do:
1. The lots where CVCs would prohibit more than a story or two will eventually become prime developable land, when other parcels are off the market because they've already been developed. In fact, adjacent development (especially residential) would make redevelopment of these blocks more likely for retail or what-have-you. They may not be built to their full potential, but they certainly will not be maintained as urban blight.
2. The lots where CVCs prohibit anything taller than a parking lot (and there are a few, though not more than a handful) should and can be bought by the city and turned into parkland.
3. The height limits that CVCs institute actually create an interesting incentive to develop a diversity of projects in downtown. A grocery store here, a small museum there, a four story VMU residential project elsewhere. And actually also create a very organic urban atmosphere that many cities lack. And they do all this while also protecting legacy views.
And I do have a single note on something you said:
You stand alone on this. Local economists have actually said that the CVCs, because of the increase in land value that they give to many parcels and because of the value of units that they result in due to unfettered views, actually increase the total amount of taxes that downtown pays, especially with regard to property taxes. On this you are just simply and completely factually wrong.
|
So, no need to repeat stuff I've already said, we can agree to disagree wrt those points. I will pick out one or two things I want to specifically respond to however:
It's not just a matter of height (though w/o height some of these lots are un-developable) - if you look at why urbanism works in some places and doesn't work in others certain trends become clear. One that I've found to be virtually universal is urbanity requires development to be contiguous. Once you get a break, and it doesn't have to be a big one, for people to continue walking there has to be something exceptionally compelling to walk to - one block can absolutely kill it. Put enough of those breaks and. . .you get nothing. You can't ever get off the ground. That's the effect of having so much land tied up under CVCs - it absolutely kills whole sections of the CBD. I'm not really concerned about the effects outside the CBD. But inside the CBD this matters.
That being said, I'm well aware they're not going anywhere and something of a sacred cow around here. Just another reason why Austin won't ever be the kind of city it could be, and that is a great shame.
And BTW, while I acknowledge I'm something of an outlier on this (and frankly, I'm perplexed that people active on this board aren't more with me on this) I don't stand completely alone - but unlike zoning battles, this isn't just un-winnable, you can't even fight them at all. . .so no one even bothers to discuss it.
But the argument that the CVCs actually increase taxes and spurs development I find to be ridiculous. You need only look to the lots impacted by the CVC to see its effect. The projects that manage to get off the ground (after decades upon decades of nothingness) like IBC are very much the exceptions. And where are these grocery stores here, museums there, 4 story vmu residential elsewhere that is supposedly in the CVC lots? Whole Foods - case-in-point could not have gone on a CVC protected lot.
w/r/t taxes - please, increasing the value of some lots and decreasing the value of many others does not result in a net increase of ad valorem taxes. I do not buy this argument at all. If you want to send me something written by any of the economists you speak of I'd love to read it and give it thoughtful consideration.
oh, BTW, thanks for sic-ing a hastily written forum post. But if you're going to do that, and if you're going to quote me, please do me the curtesy of being accurate and not embellishing what I said between the quotes.
Prev
). I loved it because I felt like I could breathe, there was open sky and greenery, restaurants and shops converted from old ranch homes, people sitting in lots by the food trucks enjoying the weather and each other's company, crowds filling 6th Street after dark like I've never before seen a single street packed with people on just a regular night. 
Linear Mode
