Austinist: Sprawl-a-Thon 2007

Grape Ape

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:00:17 -0600

Is this "P rat" making comments?

rat

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:22:18 -0600

Change the zoning codes. I'm all for it. You might get walkable streets. You might get mixed use communities. You might even get a sense of "place". But, that cheap, easy, fast developer will still plop down ugly buildings which will need to be replaced in 50 years. How much did the zoning codes improve the quality of the new Robertson Hill Apartments near downtown? Are these really the kind of buildings we want in our city? What's the point of changing codes to limit parking spaces when everybody drives a damn car! Improve public transportation and you won't need those parking lots period. But wait consumers don't demand public transportation. If more people started riding the bus or their bikes that sea of asphalt would not be built!

shilli

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:14:34 -0600

Rat, if you think guilt-tripping developers and appealing to their civic duty will be effective, then go for it. Personally, I think changing the zoning laws would be a more effective approach. That said, I agree on the consumer point - I avoid shopping at places that I consider to be repulsive and I certainly don't live there.

rat

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:44:42 -0600

"cheapest, easiest, fastest" should never be the type of development we want. What kind of culture does this equation foster? As consumers we should demand more from these developers. Wake up people.

M1EK

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:54 -0600

shilli, That gives the market a bit less credit than it deserves - without zoning regulations forcing low-density, we'd get a mix of densities - not all high, not all low, but some of each.

shilli

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:30:32 -0600

M1EK is a developer, but not like you think. Zoning codes actually do dictate a large part of the bad designs - setbacks, amount of parking, type of use, etc. Developers are going to build whatever is easiest and will get them the most money on the smallest investment with the least risk in the least amount of time. It is up to city governments to set up the zoning/permitting system in such a way that the cheapest, easiest, fastest thing to build is the type of development that we want. When that is the case, the developers will build it.

rat

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:21:07 -0600

M1EK must be a developer Yes, the zoning codes need to be changed but the zoning codes don't dictate the bad designs that are implemented into these communities

M1EK

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:36:07 -0600

"If people didn't swarm to these shit holes like flies then they wouldn't get built!" In most of town, this is all that CAN be built. Zoning code outlaws new versions of Hyde Park and Clarksville. Don't you ever wonder why 99% of development ends up being either single-family or 3-story multi-family pods clustered around internal parking drives? Because those are the two easiest zoning categories to get. And FU, Ryan.

Patrick

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:17:21 -0600

There's such a focus, in both the media and the city government, on downtown -- and having "the most livable downtown in the nation," or whatever -- that I do worry that there's not near enough attention being paid to some of the massive sprawl elsewheres in the city. Most Austinites cannot and will not live downtown or particularly close to it. We need to start approaching the rest of Austin with the same zeal that we routinely approach downtown with. Another example, though outside of Austin City Limits, is the massive Shops at the Galleria development going up at Highway 71 and Bee Caves. That sucker is replacing serene Hill Country with what's going to be the biggest, most concrete-heavy development anywhere near there. The atmosphere of the Backyard has already been completely compromised, and speaking as someone who grew up in Lakeway, that whole area has lost about 90% of its former charm.

heyzeus

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:21:24 -0600

I think I care because that land used to be a nice outdoor concert venue and fields and trees. 425 acres is a lot of land which could have been used for many purposes. Imagine if even 50 acres of parking lots could've been set aside as green space. For every land use, there are many land uses that can now never be made. Even if it's further south than most hipsters care to travel.

shilli

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:49:57 -0600

I think the these places would be even more popular, and the developers would make even more money, if they used some New Urbanist principles. I think the failure to do so arises mainly from suburban zoning codes that make integrated development more work for the developer. I think cities (most importantly, Austin) should re-write their zoning codes. Of course, Austin has already done this, it just isn't applying them this far out of downtown. I don't see any reason that the new design regs shouldn't be applied throughout the city.

Ryan

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:13:48 -0600

Comment from Mike Dahmus in 3...2...1...

rat

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:35:29 -0600

If people didn't swarm to these shit holes like flies then they wouldn't get built!

blind eye

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:36 -0600

Ostriches unite!!