Vertical mixed use: The grown-ups go first

On Thursday night, City Council began considering the neighborhood opt-in/opt-out applications for vertical mixed-use zoning.   First up:  South Manchaca, Bouldin Creek, and Greater South River City (Travis Heights and the St. Edwards area).  (I've posted a short primer on VMU here.)

Back in February, Council foolishly amended the VMU ordinance to permit neighborhoods to recommend that specific properties be opted out of the VMU district.  I am confident that it will regret that vote.

But not on this Thursday night.  Both Bouldin Creek and South River City acted responsibily.  South River City asked to opt out one property; Bouldin Creek did not ask to opt out any.  South Manchaca, which didn't have any properties originally zoned VMU, asked to opt in several properties, mostly decrepit strip malls.

VMU is off to a good start.

Brewster commended the neighborhoods, citing them as proof that Austin's neighborhoods are unfairly tagged as anti-density.  Perhaps he just meant Bouldin Creek and South River City.  He knows perfectly well that many neighborhoods have asked to opt out broad swaths of property.  (Allandale's application is best understood as a temper tantrum; it has asked to opt out all properties except Northcross Mall and a tiny strip along Burnet.)

The city has posted the opt-out applications on its website.

Comments

[DSK]

It should be noted that the Allandale application was specifically a temper tantrum of the ANA *executive board*. The neighborhood had a separate VMU committee (established before that board) headed by some residents. From what I saw, they carefully compiled pros, cons, and resident feedback, and then made a report & recomendation that was far more responsible. The ANA board basically ignored that report.

[hope]

Why do you describe ANA's action as a temper tantrum? The ones who voted on the opting out just don't want a bunch of new development that they think will be bad for their neighborhood. I happen to disagree with their perspective, but I don't understand the tantrum label.

My understanding is the same as DSK's - that the exec comm decision didn't reflect the recommendations of the neighborhood committee that worked on the issue. I personally was quite disappointed in their vote. From what I can tell, there is a split among Allandale neighbors regarding development. Just based on my experience, it seems like it is mainly (but not entirely) older, long-time homeowners who are generally opposed to increasing the residential density, while many of the younger people in the neighborhood are more interested in and open to increasing density.

You might be interested to know (if you don't already) that some Allandale folks have organized a group that reaches beyond just that neighborhood to work on some specific modifications to the VMU ordinance.

[hope]

Why do you describe ANA's action as a temper tantrum? The ones who voted on the opting out just don't want a bunch of new development that they think will be bad for their neighborhood. I happen to disagree with their perspective, but I don't understand the tantrum label.

My understanding is the same as DSK's - that the exec comm decision didn't reflect the recommendations of the neighborhood committee that worked on the issue. I personally was quite disappointed in their vote. From what I can tell, there is a split among Allandale neighbors regarding development. Just based on my experience, it seems like it is mainly (but not entirely) older, long-time homeowners who are generally opposed to increasing the residential density, while many of the younger people in the neighborhood are more interested in and open to increasing density.

You might be interested to know (if you don't already) that some Allandale folks have organized a group that reaches beyond just that neighborhood to work on some specific modifications to the VMU ordinance.

[AC]

Of course it's a temper tantrum, of the executive committee rather than the neighborhood as a whole, if you prefer. You (and DSK) both confirm that the people originally charged with making recommendations wanted to include more VMU. The executive committee, while pushing a lawsuit against Lincoln/Wal-Mart, then voted to exclude VMU everywhere but the Northcross Mall site (not the area around the mall, mind you, but just the site itself.)

Let me quote from ANA's "recommendation" for the "Anderson Lane" District, running from MoPac to Burnet:

"For all properties in this district, due to the current approval of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, we cannot accept VMUOD and request removal of this designation. We do recommend VMU on the Northcross Mall site, not the surrounding lots within the area of Northcross Drive, West Anderson, and Burnet. We opt out of any incentive packages."

Right. No VMU for you, city, because you stuck us with Wal-Mart. Even though VMU would likely _reduce_ traffic to and from some of the tracts. (By the way, without the incentive packages, I doubt that dream VMU project you guys drew up for Northcross could be built.)

As far as those who "just don't want a bunch of new development that they think will be bad for their neighborhood," that's not an option. The city must accommodate new development, and the VMU ordinance represented a hard-fought compromise -- put density on the core transit corridors rather than neighborhood interiors. It was debated, vetted, subjected to public scrutiny, and enacted in July 2006. ANA's attitude is "Screw the deal. After Wal-Mart, we just don't want no new stinking development nowhere nohow."

[DSK]

Yes, it was a temper tantrum. As are the suits against the city.