The Last Waltz Done Live At Club Deville
Review: The Cherry Orchard at The Blue Theater
EAST Interview: Nick Henning at Pump Project
Weekend Music Preview: Fabrication 7, Car Stereo (Wars), & More!
Show Preview - An Evening with Daniel Johnston
The Statesman headline is "Hutto project to rival Southpark Meadows in size: Mixed use development in works on nearly 500 acres." It sounds like another greenfield lost to development caused by the toll roads and another strip mall + suburb using New Urbanist language to market suburban crap.
The first concern is true - SH130 runs through the plot formerly know as the "Hutto 400" (now re-branded the "Crossings of Carmel Creek") and has made it "a prime piece of real estate" for development. The second concern may not be. The Floridian developer, Atlantic Coast Developers LLC, has brought in Austin's TBG Partners to design the development, and they appear to be doing a vertical-mixed-use project, with apartments over retail. As Hutto Community Development Director Matthew Lewis said, "We're doing the types of developments and processes that other cities are talking about." So that's one good acre. Will the other 399 be strip malls and single family houses? We'll be watching.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
god forbid there should be some single family housing. is hutto in scooter range? i'm sure there will be room under one of those apartment complexes for a hutto beauty bar.
The last thing Hutto needs is more single family homes. Right now there are hundreds of single family houses for sale, but, as far as I know, not a single condo. Sprawling single family home development in every direction is a fundamentally unstable development model.
Yes, but single-family housing CAN be done urban; as long as it's not forced via exclusionary zoning. Most small towns in this country are quite urban in their pre-WWII sections, and yet most dwellings were single-family.
Key is focusing to pedestrian activity; garages (if they exist) to the back on alleys; allowing garage apartments; removing ridiculously large front setback rules, etc.
god forbid people want to raise their children with a yard to play in.
or actually own a home without paying some ridiculous condo fee every month.
m1ek gets it. you don't need to have people crammed into rising concrete blocks in order to have adequate mixed use.
Craig, don't get too comfortable - from your rhetoric I suspect you'd find me 99% as disagreeable as shilli - it's obvious to me that the suburban model is unsustainable and is only as prevalent as it is today because it's massively subsidized and its competitors are regulated/taxed nearly out of existence.
Yes, the model where kids live in condos/townhouses/apartments/rowhouses and play in the park can work, too. Works great in other countries. Used to work great here until we outlawed new construction of that type.
The suburban model, yes, but not the single family home on its own piece of land model. I live/work in a modest house in east austin in walking distance of numerous sundries stores and community spaces. It worked 60 years ago when the house was built, and continues to work today.
The suburbs are popular because they are an affordable way to raise a family and still have green space to own and work on one's own home.
Vertical developments are not as friendly to child rearing, and their monthly fee (in addition to your mortgage and property taxes) is not conducive to ownership by lower income families.
I've lived in high rise condos before, it appeals to some people, and it doesn't to others. Trying to force people (especially families) to live in them is going to be met with failure of all kinds...
It doesn't work today because there was poor city and infrastructure planning years ago. Many cities that experience growth have this happen. It's hard to stop and can really only be managed. The solution isn't railing against all things that aren't within 5 miles of the city core. It's a demand, people want houses. Forcing them into 700 square ft concrete boxes isn't going to solve the problem because you can't make all of those people desire to do that. Most of the people buying those mixed use condos aren't the ones clogging up MoPac everyday. You know why? Because the people buying houses in Hutto don't have the kind of money it takes to do that. Let's work on ways to solve the issue in a logical manner and not spend time ranting against things we don't like and trying to create a utopia that won't ever exist. Or perhaps we should just put a cap on the population limit.
"Trying to force people (especially families) to live in them is going to be met with failure of all kinds.."
Nobody's trying to force them to do so. In fact, we're just taking baby steps to reverse 50 years of forcing everybody to live in one of two models: either single-family house on cul-de-sac or 3-story pod apartment building on big windy parking lot.
"It doesn't work today because there was poor city and infrastructure planning years ago. "
No. The US suburban model doesn't scale. Never has, never will. Has failed in every single city in which it has been implemented. Well, it 'works' in Detroit and some other donut-hole cities, as long as you have enough money for a really good security company... And once again with the "forcing".
Do you idiots realize what the zoning code actually is? Hint: maximum height/density/setbacks/FAR all over the place; but nowhere is there EVER listed a minimum, as in, you must build at least this high or at least this dense.
wow miek you managed to get through almost 3 posts before you resorted to name-calling.
kudos for your restraint!
Dear shrink:
When you deal with the exact same no-growther talking points every day for ten years, you tend to go more quickly for the finish line, as it were.
HINTS:
1. Current zoning codes NEVER say "you must build at least this tall". It always says "you can't build any higher than this".
2. Current zoning codes NEVER say "you must build at least this close to the street". It always says "you must be at least this far away from the street".
3. Current zoning codes NEVER say "your FAR (floor-to-area-ratio) must be at least Y". They ALWAYS say "your FAR must be LESS than Y".
4. In Austin, current zoning codes NEVER say "you must not provide more parking spaces than X". They ALWAYS say "you must provide at least X parking spaces". (At least one city, Portland, does have parking maximums, but only downtown; and it was rejected here).
This is why we end up with the two forms of residential development over about 95% of our developeable land: single-family houses with big garages and big driveways, and pod-complexes of 3-story apartment buildings (the height limit in MF-3 basically mandates 3 floors on most lots). Whenever somebody wants to build something else, like a Mueller development (10% of the way to "like Hyde Park"), they have to rewrite or get variances from about a hundred different ordinances to do so.
5. Tax policy rewards suburban sprawl in so many ways that you could write books on it. Well, in fact, many people have. So not only do we effectively outlaw new urban development almost everywhere, we financially penalize residents of the old urban development that exists so we can make it even cheaper for Bob Buda to screw things up for everybody else.
HTH, HAND, YHNBT
- M1EK
Who the hell cares? It's Hutto. The rubes up there will always want huge honking highways so they can enjoy the mighty roars of their engines and purchase discount hairspray from "the Walmart's" without the hassle of stop signs or cross-streets.
As for family style urban development, how about single family houses on manageable lots, with very small front yards, on quiet streets with sidewalks and plenty of parks, within walking distance to development that consists of street level commerce and housing on top? It worked for a LONG time in this country.
"As for family style urban development, how about single family houses on manageable lots, with very small front yards, on quiet streets with sidewalks and plenty of parks, within walking distance to development that consists of street level commerce and housing on top? It worked for a LONG time in this country."
Thanks Steve. That's exactly how Berkeley, one of the most dense urban settings in the country is. When I lived there everyone built up - they built additions instead of moving to bigger houses. [Course now with real estate costs, those who did not own are now priced out to the far-off suburbs). Neighborhoods had very small front yards, modest backyards, Lots of colorful plants and trees however, very little lawns if ever, lots of neighborhood parks, and plenty of cafes, bakeries, restaurants, retail within walking distance with apartment housing on top. Most people walked/biked everywhere. These are the kinds of hubs I'd love to see created.
Most Berkeley streets are like this:
www.lib.berkeley.edu/autobiography/lsalamo/vine6am.jpg
and web.archive.org/web/20060207062815/www.lib.berkeley.edu/autobiography/lsalamo/shatkvine.jpg
where you'll find produce stores, next to cheese shops, wine shops, pizza, hotel, bank, cafe...everyone carrying their own sacks, riding bikes, stopping to get baquettes, coffee, flowers. It's actually really a more European way of urban living. Gas (petrol) is more expensive there and the people are healthier, despite all the wine/cheese/cream in a lot of their food (which are all at least 1/2 the size of our portion sizes).
It'd be hard to rebuilt/change the suburban environments we're already stuck with - but while we're building new communities in this country, why can't we strive to build them with saner intentions for our health, air-quality, resources and space?
[Shields herself from the onslaught of rocks and chants of 'move back to CA!'] - I'm sorry, I moved here to Austin 10 years ago. :( Please don't blame me for the plague of cappuccino and goat-cheese salads having taken over the world. [ducks]
Steve and CC,
Well put. That's the kind of thing I meant by talking about single-family done urban. Of course, it can't preclude garage apartments, basement apartments, etc. if it's really going to replicate the successful pre-WWII pattern. Remember, the Fonz lived in one!
Many turn-of-the-century Berkeley homes that used to be large farm-style homes have since been turned into duplexes/triplexes/quadruplexes. North Berkeley if filled with many attic apartments renovated with kitchens, etc.
I lived in a couple basement apartment while living in Berkeley going to school. The house we grew up in was a little bungalow that my family built an addition on in the 80s. Later we sublet rooms out, and the largest we put in a fridge and hot-plate. It's my family tragedy however that we never owned that property, and are now entirely priced out of our home town.
The "new urban" template doesn't really work in bedroom communities like Hutto, because people move out there specifically for the cheap boxes on half-acre lots. If that's what they want, fine with me.
I'm more concerned with big-box retail in central residential neighborhoods without appropriate outlet streets(i.e. Northcross), and with urban sprawl over the aquifer in SW Travis County.
"If that's what they want, fine with me."
If we lived in a world where the Hutto suburbanite paid remotely near the cost of their decision to move way out there and live in a big box, it'd be quite fine with me too. But they don't - they incur huge costs on urbanites (and people living in older suburbs) while preventing anybody who WANTS to build new urbanish on their own propert(ies) from doing so to boot.
What is the cost of someone's decision to move to Hutto? Are we talking about carbon footprints and shit here? Cause that's the only thing I can think of.
ol' papster:
Austin taxpayers pay a good chunk of the Hutto residents' street, fire, police, etc. bill. Even highways get some local bucks; and all streets without a route shield on them get diddly-squat from gas taxes.
Unless the Huttoster doesn't ever come down here, because they have an awesome job up there. Seems unlikely.