Urban vs. Suburban - the Street Grid
or: Hyde Park Hates Pedestrians

I forgive you, Seth.

Seth, you're a gigantic ass. Are you a developer?

You're just the type of person that would call someone a developer puppet simply because they have a different opinon than you.

I'd never throw a brick through your window over some crap you typed on the Austinist. I'm not the type of person who issues 'final warnings' or bosses people around on the internet.

Thanks for presenting your non-sockpuppet credentials.

Seth

Thanks, Mike. And by the way, thanks for all your informative posts on Austin transit issues, which I've been following for a while.

I have been mostly a lurker here on Austinist, preferring not to get dragged into endless arguments about Factory People's $80 t-shirts, or which pizza place is the best in Austin.

But I have posted on Mike's blog in the past, and very occasionally on Austin Contrarian. There was some other Austin development blog I commented on for a while--can't recall the name. Sometimes, I post under "Bruce," which is my actual name. AngryRobot was the name of my old music blog. http://www.angryrobot.net/

Here's my Flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robotparade/

Here are my del.icio.us bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/brucelev

There's no way to prove I'm not a sock puppet, of course, but you can see I've been around for a while.

(There's enough publicly available info in the links above to figure out where I live, so please, no bricks through my front window.)

AngryRobot has posted to other blogs I've seen, maybe even mine (can't remember), and used to have his own. You're dead wrong on this one.

And I thought your characterization of developers was also bullshit; I just didn't bother to say it because he had already said it better.

I think you owe him an apology, at a bare minimum.

Mike,

Fortunately, I don't assume every perspective different than mine is from a sock puppet.

AngryRobot comes across as a sock puppet for developers since that account hasn't even posted a single comment this year prior to this article. The AngryRobot account agrees with me that there should be pedestrian access on 50th, but took offense that I called developers 'Notoriously Untrustworthy.' I don't accept this robot's criticism of neighborhood associations as credible.

Cut it the fuck out.

Seth

Seth, you're as bad as those developers if you assume that everybody who posts something you disagree with is a sockpuppet. Cut it the fuck out.

Mike,

Comment 71 was posted by the sockpuppet of a developer. It quoted me, who only posted a third-party interpretation of the situation. I see neither classism or xenophobia proven in that post.

I support bike and pedestrian access via 50th street. I am not sympathetic to the developer having to 'negotiate' with the neighbors. These pigs would install a nuclear waste dump at Barton Springs if there was money in it for them and there weren't regulations prohibiting such a facility. Sure, maybe one or two would follow their conscience and take a pass on the opportunity, but eventually one of the others would apply for the permit.

Seth

w7cook, many of your neighbors view other people parking on 'their street' as a negative. I, personally, would like to see every single possible on-street parking space used all the time - it means we're all getting the best possible return on our investment in real estate and pavement.

And yes, many of their comments were xenophobic and classist. Go to comment #71 by angryrobot.

(Mike, i think your last message may have been garbled. Did you mean "more" instead of "less"? I dont view off-street parking as a negative. The absence of public parking is a negative.)

You may think I'm crazy, but I actualy think that the Rowena residents are wrong to ask for street to be closed to pedestrian and bicyclists. All this discussion was to show that the Rowena residents have a reasonable case to make, and are not simply "xenophobic and classist". I think that this has been established, so... we can return to our regularly scheduled programming...

Can someone educate me on how these so-called negotiations work between NAs and developers?

So, in this case the developer has agreed to block this access, presumably with some sort of gate structure.

What has the NA agreed to in return? Do they just promise not to try and block the entire development from happening? If so, that doesn't sound like the type of mutual comprimise I'd expect from "negotiations."

No, William, I've said that even IF I accept your contention that it's relevant, and I don't, I'd STILL say that the new development provides less parking 'overflow' than does Rowena. The new development will capture more parking per-capita in off-street parking than does Rowena, so if on-street parking is viewed as a negative (it is, according to the residents of the street, but only when somebody else is doing it), then we should be harsher with the existing residents.

And even if those residents are right and there isn't 'enough' parking, it does not justify closing bike/ped access. As has now been pointed out in another forum, the developer offered to pay the RPPP fees for the residents of Rowena for FIVE YEARS to keep this access open.

I think that the concern about it being a narrow street is related to safety with increased traffic, not possibility to park.

I'm glad we've finally arrived at an objective and debatable position: Is the total existing parking per actual resident more or less on Rowena than in the new development. We know that the total parking on Rowena is adequate to current demand (we can even assume that some houses are rented). Its harder to evaluate what the total parking needs will be in the new development. This is where people's assumptions about students, etc, come in. I think we can have a reasonable debate about that, and there might be legitimate differences of opinion on the subject. The Rowena residents happen to think that their will not be enough parking, and it is certainly within reason to believe that they are right. Unfortuantely, its hard to be certain right now.

The residents are claiming Rowena is too narrow to support on-street parking for residents or guests of the new development. That's not my claim.

And it's your argument that's absurd - you're giving the older houses an advantage for being forward-thinking enough to have failed to provide 2-car driveways, effectively.

But I'll say again that even if we were to take your ridiculous position as a given, the overall parking per possible driver is still likely less for the houses than for the new development. On-street parking per house on Rowena is nowhere near the 3ish you've sort-of implied, and off-street parking per house on Rowena is typically 1 per dwelling; 2 if you think the residents enjoy rearranging cars. The same exact arguments about "2 college kids per bedroom" can be made for the existing houses, which can be rented on the free market.

I wonder if the HPNA and Rowena neighbors have considered this scenario:

If there really is no guest parking in the new development, and there will be tons of extra visitor cars and other spillover from the new development, where will they all park?

Answer: They will park on Rowena anyway, whether they can walk in from the 50th street gate or whether they have to go to the entrance from 51st street. Rowena is closest place for those cars to go, and go there they shall.

If HPNA's real issue with the new development was visitor parking on Rowena, I predict this "solution" will result in parking on Rowena anyway, but with the added bonus that kids and bikers now have to exit the development on a really dangerous stretch of 51st street.

Parking is attributed to its source: where it comes from. The original Rowena street supplies a certain amount of parking, and this parking is available for public and private use. The new development supplies less total parking per resident, and it is only for private use. You haven't refuted anything because your argument makes no sense.

PS: I retract my statement that Rowena is too narrow for parking; someone went there and said it is the same as other streets.

Uh, I have quite clearly refuted the claim - the on-street parking isn't attributable to Rowena because anybody can use it at any time (and, in fact, the neighbors claim it's 'too narrow' for much on-street parking, so it might get striped to ban parking any day now!)

I have not said that the Rowena neighbors are personally providing parking. I said that Rowena has the parking; it's there beause the developers of Rowena (50 hyears aog?) provided for on-street and off-street parking. There were probably no rules back then, but they "just did the right thing." You seem happy to blindly follow rules just because they are rules, and ignoring the realiting of the situation where it is convenient for you. You still have not been able to refute my claim that Rowena has more total available parking than this new development. The fact that you can come and park on Rowena to ride your bus to work is fine with me. But you will *not* be able to do it in this new development, because they aren't providing public parking!

The developments (houses) on Rowena didn't provide the on-street parking. It's effectively being provided by the entire city. Your insistence on somehow giving them credit for being on a street with on-street parking is very irritating. I don't demand credit for _my_ on-street parking at my house; and there's zero justification for saying "existing houses get first claim on on-street parking".

Once again, if I wanted, I could park my car there every day and ride the bus to my house. And if a 'neighbor' wanted, they could have a party every single night and use every single on-street space. That's without this new development. So there's absolutely no justification for claiming that on-street parking as somehow owned or delivered by the houses.

There is also absolutely no provision in city code for requiring 'guest' parking. None. Not for your house; not for their houses; not for their apartments or condos. Rowena 'neighbors' are asking for the developer to go way above and beyond when we should actually be asking why they're being forced to provide so much parking in an area with such excellent bike/ped/transit access. Of course, if the Rowena folks have their way, the bike/ped/transit access ends up getting handicapped and they may actually need all that awful surface parking - but that would truly suck.

Finally, it's clear from excerpts from the neighbors' arguments that many of them are using parking as a flimsy excuse for simple base xenophobia and classism. And, of course, whining about students, as if students can't get together and rent a house just as easily. (In fact, in my experience, students in apartments behave a lot better than students in rental houses - because their landlord has more of an incentive to make them behave).

You keep talking about off-street parking. But what really matters is total amount of parking. The Rowena residents only asked for closure in response to the developers being unwilling to provide a comparaible amount of total parking as is available on Rowena. I agree that the whole thing is now a lose-lose situation. What we disagree on is who is at fault for it.

However, if the new development is providing more off-street parking per potential driver than are the old developments, and that, I have shown, is quite clearly the case, then it is reasonable to allow them to build in the area. More importantly, by closing the bike/ped access, you make driving even more attractive and biking/walking even less attractive for those new residents - making the 'problem' worse, not better.

'problem' in air quotes because having a bunch of cars parked on the street is actually a feature, not a bug. As my idiot rich neighbors on the other side of Speedway on 32nd are going to find out soon.

Well, I'm not done with the parking arguments, because the things people are saying here don't make sense.

I agree that the parking doesn't belong to me. But you have to admit that it exists, and there is a certain percentage of public parking that my property taxes are helping to pay for. I'm fine with that too.

But if somebody builds a new development for a lot of people and *does not* include any of the extra parking that is needed to allow for overflow, parties, etc, then that development is not contributing its fair share of the common pool that everybody uses. People who live in that development will use the extra parking provided by their neighbors, without contributing to the overall common good. And *that* is the issue here, as I understand it.

Folks, please stop seriously discussing the parking issue--it only lends legitimacy to a fig leaf.

Go through the comments, the petitions posted on the city web site, and the HP listserv. You will glean the true motives here. Lots of people checked "I object to this development" on the petition. I somehow doubt they all live along Rowena. If I recall, someone added, "Please don't let Austin become all condos and strip malls."

Above, the following was written: "They have owned their houses for decades enjoying the big quiet field behind them."

And I recall reading a message on the list to the effect of, "...expressed concern about another run down apartment complex..."

I'm not going to debate the validity of those concerns. But for the love of God, please stop pretending this is really about parking.

Great. Wrote a comment, got lost. Here's what it was, from memory:

William, your comment referred to your house "having" three on-street parking spaces. That implies ownership, or some other sort of relation to your house other than mere geographic proximity.

This is important to clarify because a lot of people DO think they, or at the most their immediate neighbors, own the space in front of their house on the street. This is, of course, not the case, but is often a subject for fights or worse in even more mature urban areas such as the outer boroughs of New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. The cops don't buy it, of course.

This is important to clarify in this _specific_ case because the residents of Rowena are, in fact, acting as if they believe they and they alone own those on-street parking spaces. They do not; even if they manage to get the RPPP enstated, at best they gain a paid lease for said spaces.

Here's Hyde Park's position in a nutshell: If a developer fails to provide some multiple of code-required parking, the neighborhood is entitled to wall off the new residents from adjacent neighborhood streets.

Let's go ahead and write that into the code. We can call it the "Green Zone" provision, or simply "green zoning."

No, it's not. Most people actually think the spaces in front of their house belong to them, or at best, their neighbors. Your language made it sound like you were reinforcing that position. It's important to keep this straight: the street belongs to everybody - even if I, two miles away, feel like parking my car there and taking the bus to my house, I darn well can.

So to say your house "has" three on-street parking spaces is completely inaccurate. They have no relationship at all to your house.

This is always a contentious issue, even in more mature urban areas such as the outer boroughs of New York, or certain parts of Boston and Chicago, where people get into fights (or worse) over 'their' parking spaces. The cops, of course, don't buy it.

Here's Hyde Park's claim in a nutshell: If a developer fails to provide some multiple of code-required parking, the neighborhood is entitled to wall off pedestrian and bicycle access to adjacent neighborhood streets.

Let's go ahead and write that into the code. We can call it the "Green Zone" provision, or just "green zoning."

Oh come on! I wasn't claiming that I own the spots. I know some people feel that way about it, but I don't. Lots of people park on them. The point is that they *exist* and provide overflow parking for everybody around. That's what's missing in the development. Is attacking me a ploy to change the topic?

No, William, you don't "have" three off-street parking spaces. They aren't yours. They aren't even your neighborhood's. They belong to the whole city.

Hell, by your logic, I own Lamar.

on-street - that's what I meant, not off-street.

YOU don't get three spots of off-street parking. We all paid for the street and the parking so "your" off-street parking righhfully belongs to all of us.

Saying that you have rights to the street makes you seem like a greedy ass. That's why you should think before you speak.

Its hard to tell from your photos, but I thought that the "street" would have continuous driveways all along it giving access to garages. As a result, there is no room for parking on the street. I can't tell what the plan is for the narrower roads that wind around the big development. At my house in HP I have 3 spots of off-street parking plus 3 spots of on-street parking. Thats 6 spots for a 4 bedroom house. I think that is much more than the requirement for this development.

w7cook, pavement is just pavement. If it is only connected to one street, it is a driveway. Connected to two streets, it is a street. Connected to a grid of streets, can extend the grid. Driveways are suburban blight. The grid is urban delight.

I added another image to the post to explain what I think the neighborhood, and the developer, and the city, or at least one of them, should have demanded in this case. I think it would have benefited all of them.

I ran on Rowena last night; it is no narrower than the other streets in the area.

Also, LM, it appears that the sidewalk on the north side of 51st St. goes from Guadalupe to Ave F, then disappears from Ave. F to at least Duval, maybe further. There are no stops between Guadalupe and the ridiculous 5-way stop at Duval, and I can personally testify that traffic absolutely flies down hill and around a curve right in front of the Game Warden site. Because of the hill and curve, I frequently see cars veering over into the bike lanes.

If you came out of the development onto 51st on a bike (more frighteningly, as a kid on a bike) you run a good chance of being obliterated.

Connecting to two streets with internal circulation is better than connecting to one street with no such circulation; and it's still abominable to disconnect even for bikes/peds based on the theory that Rowena is too narrow for new people to park on but not for the old people to park on.

At a bare minimum you're talking about closing an existing driveway - which, again, the city would normally frown on.

The development will not have a normal street, even if you connect it to Rowena. Its a high-density comdominum complex, with driveways to get to parking.

The development won't have "streets" - that was the point of my post. By failing to extend the street grid, we are failing to integrate this new development into the urban fabric of the neighborhood. Instead, we are making it a suburban-style segregated development, eliminating transportation alternatives like walking and biking, and forcing everyone into cars.

I don't think the development will have "streets". Its just going to have driveways to get to the condo parking lots. I saw the plan briefly, so I can't remember enough to be sure of this.

The streets in HP vary considerably in width. I looked at Rowena on the Google map, and you can't really tell that its narrow. So it must be just a few feet substandard. But people do park on both sides. The net effect is that you have to drive a little more slowly... as if you were on a one-way street. Having more traffic on it might make that more difficult.

Oh, and I should have mentioned that you can't count the on-street parking for Rowena, because, as we're constantly being told, the street is too narrow to safely park cars on!

w7cook, the "tower in a park" model has a whole set of problems associated with it; too many to get into here; but the overall density in Vancouver is an order of magnitude higher.

The problem with your theory is that most of the remainder of Hyde Park does, in fact, have some apartments in it - and, in fact, the houses on Rowena don't get to count the street as their "guest parking" unless the new development can too. The street belongs to all of us, remember.

Oh, how I dream of a day when every Austin development debate no longer centers around parking and traffic issues, both real and false.

If these sorts of discussions don't prove how entirely our city is slowly being da facto planned for cars instead of people, I don't know what does.

Imagine if we had smart density and good light rail, and car usage dropped significantly. What would we argue about then?

Mike, its not so simple as your simple facts!

A typical block in that part of HP has 15 houss. on it. You could fit 2.5 or maybe 3 such blocks in the property being developed. That would be about 38 to 45 units.

The development plans for 150 units. That's ok, since density is good, but it is worth nothing that its at least 3 times as dense as the nearby housing.

The key point is that neighborhoods like HP *do* have more than 2 parking spaces per unit. This is because they have on-street parking in addition to the required 2 spaces of off-street parking. This development isn't going to have streets, so its not going to have any extra parking beyond what is mandated. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I wish Austin would do what Vancouver did, and *mandate* widely-spaced high-rises! Now that's a radical idea. But it worked great, because they have great views and he spacing between them means they don't block each other's view. Density went way up, and car usage went way down.

Maybe people on that street drive larger vehicles giving the perception that the street is more narrow?

Sure, if that were true.

It's not as wide? I'm just guessing though.

How is Rowena any narrower than any other typical residential street?

M1EK,

Thanks for pointing out that irony. I tried pointing out a similar irony during the RG4NC debacle. Namely that maybe if residents had supported density in and around their neighborhoods all along, the area wouldn't be stagnating and the NC plot might have looked more desirable to someone other than Wal-Mart.

When are these close-in neighborhoods going to let go of the quaint fantasy that they are still suburbs?

They speak of the unintended consequences of development, yet appear to not understand (or care?) how their own inwardly focused micro-managerial planning decisions have consequences for the rest of the city around them. They act surprised when residents of other neighborhoods take exception to their positions, as if, for example, the rest of us should have no interest in what happens along, say, Guadalupe.

I don't know what happened between last night and now but now it looks like the north side of 51st has sidewalks and a bike lane. I think maybe the sidewalks are so recent that the google car didn't get them going one way down 51st Street and did get them going the other way. It looks like they hadn't been completed yet between Avenue F and Duval in the street view.

I'm sorry that I said there were no sidewalks, but it still stands that there are no crosswalks between Duval and Guadalupe and that's anti-pedestrian.

seth, the ironic thing is that the process which produces the most one-size-fits-all-crap is the strict (suburban) zoning which these neighborhoods cling to. High parking requirements and low height limits are what makes strip malls happen.

spacefeed, please post some stuff on the hydepark group. They tolerate me because I'm nearby (possibly even within the proximity limit to be considered for membership), but many are disinclined to listen because I'm technically in NUNA.

The complaints of the neighbors can be judged by this simple little bit of math:

1. # of off-street parking spaces provided per resident of the new project: (meets city code which establishes 1.0 for studio, 1.5 for 1 bedroom, 2.0 for 2 bedrooms, 2.5 for 3 bedrooms, 3.0 for 4 bedrooms)

2. # of off-street parking spaces provided per resident of the existing developments (houses) on Rowena: ?? (likely far less per unit; new houses must provide 2 per house)

3: # of designated guest spaces provided at the new project: (apparently 0)

4: # of designated off-street guest spaces provided at the existing developments (houses) on Rowena: 0.

Get it?

There are also almost no crosswalks across 51st other than Duval and Guadalupe so if you live on the North Loop NA side and you want to walk down to Austin Books, there's really no safe place to cross the street to use the sidewalk on the Hyde Park NA side. They should add those too.

I wasn't aware that you had to actually live in a neighborhood before speaking your mind about the development of a neighborhood.

Guess I'll just hop in the Way Back Machine and inform the residents of East Austin 5 years ago that only their voices count concerning development there.

Robot,

This is my last post on this topic addressing you.

I can't believe your bullshit complaints about my language and hyperbole when you started this whole thread talking about 'balls,' sex orgy photos, and building a wall around Hyde Park.

Then when I prompt you to admit the connection you have to this issue, you list 8 things that don't pertain to you and then say you exercise at HP Gym. Prior to this zoning discussion your last comment was in 2007 about a music list.

Methinks Angry Robot is a sockpuppet robot controlled by developers. No sentient being would have taken issue with me calling developers "NOTORIOUSLY UNTRUSTWORTHY."

Seth

Plus, if I remember correctly, every damn house on Rowena has a driveway so why are they even bitching about parking? If you have too many cars to fit in your driveway you might want to think about either selling or storing some.

First of all, as I said earlier, if the neighborhood is so opposed to high density development, where was the outcry over the District 51 project before it was developed? If everyone's been living on Rowena for decades, it seems like one or two of them might have opposed that project.

Secondly, when I lived on 51st street, there were absolutely NOT sidewalks on the north side of 51st street, running from oh... about DUVAL all the way to LAMAR. You can look at the street view of google maps to see that there are still no sidewalks there which makes me question how well anyone on the HP newsgroup knows the area. I'd venture to say they don't even know about the damn state hospital cemetery sitting across from the tract.

If anyone does check out the googlemaps, look at the state of the "bike lane" as well. That's a joke.

What I'm suggesting is that Rowena, Avenue F, 51st, and whatever the hell else leads to this development should be widened, there should be sidewalks installed on those streets and they should be bike accessible. If CIS is going to build on that tract, and they will if the state is really wanting to sell it or has already sold it to them, then the HP newsgroup needs to start focusing on making the avenues into that space as safe as possible for everyone.

See if they can get a damn bus route to detour through there while they're at it.

How do you know those residents have owned their homes for decades. I don't doubt that some of them have but it seems logical that a lot of them have moved in recently. This is like saying Brentwood residents have lived in the neighborhood for decades, which I'm sure some of them have, but Justin is full of For Sale and For Lease signs and it looks like there's a hell of a lot more flipping going on over there than permanent residence.

Just because you think it doesn't mean it's real.

For the record:

- I am not a developer.

- I am not a relative or friend of any developer.

- I do not own any construction-related business.

- I do not live in Hyde Park.

- I do not own any land in or around Hyde Park.

- I am not a cyclist, and only occasionally a pedestrian.

- I have no particular love of strip malls.

- I am not rich.

- I do use the Hyde Park gym and sometimes eat at various Hyde Park establishments.

But I am growing tired of watching the NAs put the screws to various urban density and transit projects, impacting the overall long-term quality of life for Austin.

I am simply someone who enjoys living in Austin, and would like to see this city grow up in a smart way.

So I guess you could say my interest extends beyond my bank account and the edge of my own property.

robot,

how do I expect to be taken seriously? I'm an adult discussing adult topics in an adult matter that may require adult language to fully communicate my thoughts.

I never criticized developers for being rich. I used th word 'rich' to indicate it was profitable to build garbage projects (strip malls& townhouses) for the quick buck. And the free market does not protect against overbuilding, sprawl, or any of the urban planning misadventures brought on by unbridaled developers.

Though you won't admit your interest in this discussion, I will tell you that I'm a Hyde park resident and I own my own construction company. Both these traits earn me the right to call developers untrustworthy.

Seth

spacefeed,

Although not a HP resident, I am encouraged by your comment above. I sure hope you're not a HPNA troll attempting to gather up names of your opponents. Call me paranoid, but this is, after all, the internet.

I've never believed that the majority of HP residents are responsible for this, or any previous nonsense. As is always the way with these things, it is no doubt a small, intolerant, self-sustaining vocal minority. Sadly, people only tend to get passionately involved with groups that oppose things.

I don't know how the HPNA works, but I assume anyone can pay dues and join, and then vote on the NA leadership, correct? If the majority of HP residents do not support the direction of their current NA, then I suggest banding together, joining, and voting out the incumbents. Besides giving an organized voice to the majority, it would certainly go a long way towards changing the attitude some people have towards HP in general.

Good luck.

Seth,

This will be my last comment directed to you specifically, as I don't enjoy debating with people who toss around foul language and hyperbole. How can you expect to be taken seriously?

I'm glad you mentioned business models. As has been pointed out above, it is not in developers best interest to anger Austin residents, nor does it do them any good (or profit) to build projects for which there is no demand. Someone has to take on the financial risk of building the housing we need. If not developers, who then? For the record, I am neither a developer or related to one. Nor am I someone naive enough to believe the free market can fix all ills. But I am also not naive to believe all developers are evil men with handlebar mustaches and black capes. I am sorry they are too "rich" for your liking.

If you are concerned about what they build, then again, I encourage you to vote for city leaders you believe will support smart incentives and disincentives designed to guide all of Austin towards a better, denser, smarter future. In the end, we will all get the city we deserve.

I have no problem with Rowena residents being concerned about whatever they wish to be concerned about. But let's be careful how we use they word "right." The developer should be under no requirement to negotiate with residents. They only need to adhere to current Austin zoning and building laws. If residents don't agree with those laws, they are welcome to engage with out representational democracy and get them changed. If developers decide to negotiate with residents, they are either being nice, trying to build consensus, or most likely doing what they sadly realize they must do, knowing the NAs can tie their projects up for ages in costly, drawn out legal battles.

If residents expect to live endlessly in a never-changing neighborhood where no condos, apartments, or other evil urban projects will never appear, I have a suggestion. On the outskirts of Austin there are several lovely walled, gated master-planned communities. The restricted access, and the binder-sized covenant they will be asked to sign should give them the peace they desire.

I asked the HP newsgruop for some explanation of the issues involved, and here is what I got back:

I asked for some details about what happend in he meetings, and this is what I got back, from someone more closely involved in the issue. Note that the city hasn't done any traffic studies in 51st either:

CIS approached Hyde Park Planning Team last August about buying and developing the TPWD Game Warden Tract. CIS was intent on filing a zoning case and the state was intent on selling the property. The neighbors in the surrounding area were later invited to meet with the developer to voice their concerns, etc.

A little bit of reference:

This planned development by CIS is NOT low density!! The developer wants to zone it Multifamily (MF4 and MF2) and the site plan calls for something like 150 units/487 bedrooms. The main entrance to this development is on 51st street. 51st Street has sidewalks on both sides of the street as well as east and west official bike lanes. The development property is bounded on the South by UT Archery fields, and on the West by Waller Creek and UT Intramural Fields. There is NO access whatsoever to the UT areas except from 51st Street.

The only other access to the proposed development is from "50th Street", which is actually more like a driveway off of Rowena Ave rather than an actual street. The property already has a fence and a locked gate at this location. Rowena is, in fact, a very narrow street with no sidewalks.

During negotiations with the developer, neighbors expressed much concern over the high density of the development and for the parking and traffic problems that it would create. The developer was unwilling to back down on the number of units/bedrooms that they wanted to build and they also did not want to commit to guest parking spaces. (I'm sure someone can give you the exact spaces per bedroom that the developer's design showed)....but the neighbors and the planning team agreed that it was clearly inadequate.

Rowena residents had the additional concern that, because of the density of the development and because there were not sufficient parking spaces designed within the multifamily development and because of the refusal of the developer to commit to guest parking, that Rowena would be used as an alternate parking lot for residents and guests of that development. Because of these concerns, the developer happily agreed to keep the gate on "50th Street" closed to traffic, bikes, and pedestrians so that people would not park-and-walk from Rowena. HPNA agreed. End of issue... or so we thought.

Unfortunately, the issue came up again during the City Planning Commissioners meeting because one of the Commissioners mistakenly thought there was bike/pedestrian access from the CIS property to the University of Texas fields on the West (there is not). And he felt there should be bike/pedestrian access from Rowena all the way to the University Intramural fields through the CIS property. (The University will not allow access to their property, and all the fields are completely fenced.)

Because Rowena is such a narrow street (in fact, it is one of the narrowest of the avenues), and because it lacks sidewalks, it really does not make an adequate...or safe!!!!...pedestrian/bike access into the heart of Hyde Park. Thankfully, City Council saw the problem and agreed to keep the 50th street access closed, as had been previously agreed to by the developer.

If it had not been for the stupid misunderstanding by the Planning Commissioner concerning access to the University via Rowena, this issue would probably never have come up at the City Council meeting, thus providing fodder for the press and uninformed UTC members to create rabid blogs about the neighborhood being anti-bike and anti-pedestrian. There actually ARE official North-South bike routes through our North Hyde Park neighborhood from 51st to 45th Streets. (I think the official marked bike routes are Ave G or H...I can't remember which ones at the moment.)

Seth:

Many developers are repeat players in Austin. They care a great deal about their reputation because a bad reputation hurts them in dealing with both Council and neighborhoods.

There are unsavory developers, of course. But some neighborhoods engage in some pretty sharp practices themselves.

Neighbors have a right to negotiate with developers, but they open themselves to criticism when they negotiate asinine provisions like this one. This one showed an amazing lack of judgment. Council should do its job of policing these things.

Based on the comments here and on my blog, I'd say there are a whole lot of people protesting this besides you, robot and mike.

robot,

Trustworthiness is not part of the developer business model. Good will within the community does not land the next contract. The money for developers is in the short term while the community must deal with the long-term consequences. If it weren't for neighborhood associations and zoning, developers would carpet every city with strip malls and townhouses. That gargbage makes developers rich.

You don't think the rowena residents have a right to be concerned that the result of installing condos might fuck up their neighborhood? You don't think they have a right to try to negotiate with the developer? The developer wasn't against blocking off 50th street, btw. It looks like the only protest is from you, me, and mike. Let me point out that the developer doesn't give two shits about the grid or a bike-friendly city. Anything to get the project moving forward.

Sent my email to city council today recommending permit parking.

Seth

Seth, residential permit parking exists all over Austin, but it's not a panacea either. The rich idiots in my neighborhood on the west side of Speedway just stuck it up on 32nd, for instance, and I've already warned them of the higher traffic speeds that will result from turning it into a wide-open street (I haven't told them I'll fight any attempt by them to then get the city to pay for speed humps later on, though).

Seth,

They have owned their houses for decades enjoying the big quiet field behind them.

Exactly. You've made my point for me. This is not really about parking, it's about long-time incumbents with a sense of entitlement. I do not believe it's reasonable to expect that just because you own a piece of land and have lived somewhere for a long time, you have somehow earned a Get-Out-Of-Development-Free card. Cities, neighborhoods, and streets change over time. That's part of urban living. There is a need for housing (of all types) in central Austin; it's not 1965 any more. If the residents don't agree with choices the city leaders are making, then I encourage them to exercise their right to vote and replace those politicians. But this project-by-project, lot-by-lot battle is not in Austin's best interest.

Also, I find your use of uppercase to paint all developers as untrustworthy to be RIDICULOUS. It only gives away your bias. But of course some developers are untrustworthy, just like some members of all professions and groups. Such as, say, neighborhood associations.

Perhaps when NAs and residents stop raising the perennial bugaboos of "apartments," "condos," and "developers," we will stop assuming those NAs and residents are untrustworthy.

I think the real solution to this situation is to enable pedestrian and bike access, but issue parking permits to Rowena residents for street parking. I've seen that in other cities, but can't recall any Austin residential areas with parking permits.

As much as people want to bash HPNA, I have to sympathize with the Rowena residents. They have owned their houses for decades enjoying the big quiet field behind them. Now a developer has persuaded our cash-strapped state to sell this plot that has zero zoning restrictions. Developers are NOTORIOUSLY UNTRUSTWORTHY. The Rowena residents demanded this barrier as an attempt to limit the unintended consequences of the apartments & condos that will soon be erected behind them. I don't agree with the chosen solution, but I can understand their concerns.

Seth

Hi,

I live in Hyde Park and I have to represent the overwhelming majority of this neighborhood who DOES NOT support this nonsense. We also think the VMU is a good idea, among other things. I am very sad. This is not why I moved here.

There is actually just a HANDFUL of people on the neighborhood association, in non term limited positions who see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of taste. They are NOT acting according to the wishes of the vast majority of residents in Hyde Park. They are folks who like their little slice of power and are actually quite impossible and condescending when residents even question their supreme and perfect notion of planning.

I'm tired of just reading the listserv and shaking my head. If you're a resident of Hyde Park and want to change things, email me at savehydepark@gmail.com. I think this will only work if we try and match their organization.

Vigilance!

By the way, the agreement was actually reached by the Rowena street residents and the developers. The neighborhood association just gave its support to this compromise at a general meeting, after all the decisions has been made. But by lending HPNA support, shilli's description of the city council log is essentialy correct, as far as I understand it.

Ooops.. I had said on another blog that I didn't agree with the decision. I'm a bicyclist myself, and i'm in favor of open access. Unfortunately this is a fairly local issue, because this property is already boxed in on two sides: UT fields to the west and some kind of UT archery parcdel to the south. So its unlikely that anybody outside the development will be able to ride through it to get anywhere, even if it were open to Rowena. I think that if it were truly connected on all sides, that Rowena residents wouldn't be worried about it. As it stands, we are talking about a very large development that would only have to entrances: one on a main street, and the other right into a very narrow neighborhood street. I can understand why they don't want to be the only other "pressure valve" for this development. But we can't yell at UT for being closed, so we yell at the neighbors. Ideally it would be open on at all four sides. But, its not an ideal situation, so I'm not sure what the right answer is.

Also, what do you mean "I don't agree with the decision"? What do you think should have been done?

w7cook, thank you for your comment. My understanding from the city council meeting transcript is that there was an agreement between the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association and the developer that the HPNA would support the zoning request if there was no bike or pedestrian access between the development and the neighborhood. If that is not accurate, please let me know.

I think you are right that this is a global vs. local issue. The people with local interests (the neighbors and the developer) came to an agreement that worked for them, but hurt everyone else. People aren't going to show up at a city council hearing to represent these diffuse global interests - that is what city council is supposed to do. The point of my post was to inform those people with global interests that in this case they were not well represented.

The reason the post is about this specific incident is that this happened yesterday. That said, I hope that some global change comes about because of it. New developments go up all over the city all the time. Next time, I hope everyone involved will push harder to extend the grid and embrace those new developments instead of cutting them off and forcing everyone into cars.

I'm the HP mailing list moderator who Mike mentioned. You all are making a lot of assumptions and accusations here. As I said, I don't agree with the decision, my guess is that it is a classic issue of global versus local concerns. The neighbors on the street are woried about being overwhelmed -- maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong to be so worried. But as a bicyclist and distant neighbor it would certainly be better for me if the developmen was more open. It would be nice if UT wasn't so closed about their land too, and the little parcel to the south is also closed to access for some reason. Why don't you attack them too? I don't think this was driven by the Hyde Park leadership -- it came from the street residents. Can't we talking about balancing local versus global needs rather than making all these personal attacks? By all means, talk to the council! Perhaps all sides of this issue haven't been heard.

Okay, I emailed city council. I probably rambled and overdid it, but at least I tried:

Mayor and City Council,

Please allow me a few moments to register my displeasure with the current decision to block pedestrian and bicycle access to 50th street, in relation to the development plans for the Game Warden Academy site.

I am no longer buying what the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association is selling. They claim the development needs more parking for visitors, as Rowena Street is too narrow. Today it is a parking issue (again). Tomorrow it may be drainage, blocked views, or neighborhood character preservation. Call it what they will, but it smells to me like routine NA obstructionist tactics and da facto blackmail, designed to extract concessions from the developers and the city. Yet another dishonest argument, hiding people's true motives. If Rowena Street is too narrow for on-street parking, then post signage disallowing on-street parking for everyone, including the residents of Rowena Street.

I live in a neighborhood in central Austin. Down on the corner is a church. On Sundays, they don't have enough parking and people park all along the nearby streets, including right in front of my house. Sometimes it's a little hard to navigate my car through the narrow lanes. Also, visitors to the nearby retirement home often park in front of my house. None of this bothers me, because I realize it's all part of living in a dynamic community. The church and the retirement home are part of my city and their users and visitors are part of Austin. This is what it means to live in a real neighborhood. We are connected.

Do not allow a selfish, vocal minority (many of whom simply placed a check mark beside "I oppose this development" on a pre-printed form) to continue holding our city hostage out of fear of change.

Please consider how these decisions impact the overall character and accessibility of Austin, beyond just the adjacent incumbent landowners. Please consider re-opening the public hearing on this issue.

Thank you.

Hyde Park; the only place in town that thinks they are more Austin than anyone else, but are oblivious to the fact that they are the most selfish, unreasonable and intolerant neighborhood in the city.

Thanks for including that link, Seth. I just sent the mayor and council a letter letting them know what I think.

From information gleaned on the Bike Austin mail list (Thanks, Annick!), the city council hasn't finalized the zoning until May 8th. They can re-open the public hearing at their discretion.

This means that if people were to contact the city council crying foul on this zoning, it would give us a chance to oppose it.

If you think this is BS, then email them today. I'll gladly go speak at any council meeting to oppose this if I'm alerted via email: seth[at]austinskatenotes.org.

Seth

We can say we're not buying it all we want - but you'd better be letting your city council know you're not buying it, because Karen McGraw's band of NIMBY warriors has nothing but time to spend on this stuff. All they hear, in other words, is from those guys.

And yes, heyzeus, "Technically, North Loop begins North of 51st St, Hyde Park begins South of 51st St." that's what I was thinking.

Dear Austin Neighborhood Associations,

We are smart, and no longer buying what you are selling:

http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2008/04/this-is-pretty.html#comment-112246152

District 51. I knew the name was stupid.

I tell you what, they had no problem signing off on trashing the ugly and CHEAP little duplexes on 51st where Area 51 is now at 4 or 5 years ago.

The moderator of the hydepark list has tried to claim justification for this awful action on the grounds that the new development didn't provide "enough" parking. Here's how I responded:

That is completely insufficient justification for this horrible move - the developer is proposing sufficient parking to satisfy city code, which many of us who know a thing or to about urban development believe to be too MUCH rather than too LITTLE off-street parking.

If Rowena is too narrow to support on-street parking, it should be signed off-limits to on-street parking, including for residents of Rowena St. I suspect that's not really what was meant here, of course. It's just too narrow for _other_ people, right?

HPNA co-opted the Highland Addition after the Airport moved. Convenient, eh? All these Granola Mafiosos need to saddle up with Jeff Jack and get the hell out of town by sundown. They can go create their little hippie utopias in Brenham or some other unsuspecting burg.

Technically, North Loop begins North of 51st St, Hyde Park begins South of 51st St.

I think Truecraig hits the nail on the head with his last comment. I recall some talk on the Hyde Park NA list at one point of residents trying to figure out a way to keep pedestrians from walking into the neighborhood from Guadalupe and other major streets.

51st Street west of Airport shouldn't be considered Hyde Park. As far as I'm concerned, that's North Loop.

truecraig, part of it is that the new development will have some renters (land sakes!) and some people who own condo units (call the cops!) instead of being strictly single-family.

Wow. Just wow.

Bike friendly town my ass.

This town is hostile to bikes and pedestrians and this just proves what a bunch of nobs run this town (and even bigger nobs run the show at the Hyde Park NA).

When I had friends living in Hyde Park there was this one lady who would go knocking on the front door of any house where a car in the driveway was blocking the sidewalk, thereby forcing the parade of baby strollers and retirement walkers to break their stride.

It came off as overly 'pedestrian friendly' to me.

My guess is that Hyde Park's neighborhood association doesn't want it to be pedestrian friendly for anyone OUTSIDE of Hyde Park.

The funny thing is that Hyde Park used to define itself with 45th street as its northern border. Above 45th was 'Highland Addition.' Looks like a power-grab to me.... And I live in this neighborhood.

Seth

So what you're saying is that people in Hyde Park are selfish? CALL THE PRESS!

I agree with angryrobot. They don't deserve the rest of us. Wall 'em in.

It's not pedestrians that Hyde Park really hates, it's simply change of any kind. So I have an idea for Hyde Park: Let's build a giant wall around the neighborhood with no entrance or exit. They can fend for themselves and we can forget about them and get on with making a future for Austin.

I can't believe the level to which these neighborhood associations and incumbent landowners have this city by the balls. Does Hyde Park have photos of some secret city council drug and sex orgy?