Street View of the Hyde Park "no walk-or-bike" tract

For the curious, here are shots of the Hyde Park tract that will be gated and locked to keep pedestrians and cyclists from using 50th St. (clipped from Google's Street View).  First, the overhead shot of the 50th St. entrance to the tract (the tract is on the left):

View Larger Map

Next, the street-level view of the 50th St. entrance (sorry, just a jpeg -- you can get to the Google street view using the link immediately above):

50th Street, of course, is a public right-of-way.  As you can see, there is already connectivity for cars as well as for walkers and bikers.   The neighborhood plan, presumably, will require the developer to replace the chain-link fence with a lockable gate  capable of blocking foot and bike traffic.

Comments

[bittergradstudent]

This is among the more enraging things Austin has done in ages. The city should want bike connectivity on small, quiet roads like this--reducing bike traffic on 51st street is a good thing for everyone involved, bike land or no bike lane--that cemetary between 51st and North Loop, along with the IM fields, already really chokes off bike traffic and forces more of it onto major roads than is comfortable, I really don't understand why the city would want to choke it off MORE.

[cb]

I'm still sympathetic with the residents who want to limit vehicle traffic, but the notion that they can restrict bikes and pedestrians because of a fear that people might park on their street is ridiculous. If this is allowed to stand, this will be the only neighborhood (as far as I know, so if there are others, please correct me) in Austin granted this remarkable privilege. Maybe I'm not seeing it, so I'd love to hear an explanation as to why this one particular development deserves this treatment.

To me, the bigger issue is the restriction of vehicle traffic, If Hyde Park can get this, I say more power to them. But it raises the issue as to why this same privilege has not been accorded to other neighborhoods. Normally the city, especially the emergency services departments, would insist that this stretch of 50th be opened to vehicle traffic. Normal rules of connectivity would seem to demand it. So why is this development so special? Again, kudos for Hyde Park getting the vehicle restriction, but the same privilege needs to be extended to other neighborhoods with existing cut-through problems that are worse than anything the people on Rowena might experience.

[Tim]

This is completely nuts. I only hope that someone can figure out a way to use ADA to wrangle this back open. I cannot even imagine how hard it is for someone who is in a wheelchair to get around this town. Let around erecting barriers to make it harder for them. Ridiculous.

[Peter]

I'm curious if sidewalks are mandatory for all new developments - they should be.

Also, a really cool way to embed a 'panoramic' image can be gotten pretty easily. When you're looking at the Street View (as in the 2nd image, above), click the 'Link to this page' link and drop the embed/iframe code right into your post. I'm guessing it'll work with Typepad. The good thing is that it offers more functionality and it should actually be less work, too. For future ref, maybe.

[Peter]

i just realized that the embeddable panoramic map uses the same process as the first map you embedded (up top) - you just need to go to 'Street View' instead of the 'Satellite' view.

Learn something new every day!

[M1EK]

From the hyde park list:

May 6, 2008

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Re: Case #C14-2007-0264, Item 70 on the City Council Agenda

In January, the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association voted to support
the proposed multi-family residential project proposed by CIS. Since
that time, residents in the neighborhood, particularly those directly
adjacent to this property, have become increasingly concerned about
the project.

Specifically, we are concerned with the amount of traffic that this
project will attract and flooding issues that may cause issues for
surrounding neighbors. We are also concerned that the number of
proposed units has fluctuated as time has gone on and we have yet to
see a specific site plan for this project.

Last night, at the HPNA's May general meeting, a motion was made to
rescind the last vote of the HPNA supporting the project and ask the
City Council to postpone the second and third readings to allow time
for a traffic study, a flood study, and a determination of the
specific site plan committing to the number of units and guest
parking. This motion passed 39-0.

We ask for your support on this issue in the hope that we can work
together to gather the necessary facts and information surrounding
this property and the proposed development so that we can all make
informed decisions.

[AC]

Translation:

Our attempt to wall off the development from the neighborhood hasn't gone over very well. We're afraid you won't let us put up this silly gate. So, to be on the safe side, we'll just retract our support for the project.