Saving Hyde Park from pedestrians and bicyclists

Neighborhoods impose conditions on new development all the time.  Some of the conditions are sensible.  Some are strange.  Some are merely mildly irritating.  But a "no pedestrian/bicyclist" provision?

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department wants to sell off a tract abutting the UT Intramural Fields (the Game Warden Academy site).  The tract borders Hyde Park, with 51st Street running along the northern border and Rowena Street along the eastern border.  50th Street dead-ends in the center of the tract's eastern boundary (blue arrow):

The land is currently unzoned because it was owned by the state.  The developer wants to put low-density multi-family (possibly detached single family) on a narrow strip immediately to the west of Rowena, and denser multi-family on the remainder of the property.  Presumably, the thin tract will serve to buffer the single-family homes on Rowena.

It's triggered a predictable zoning fight, with some neighbors complaining about the increased density and traffic and campaigning to turn the property into a park.  Garden-variety stuff.

What is noteworthy is the agreement the developer reached with the neighborhood.  (See p. 43 of the staff report.) 

It's not particularly noteworthy that the agreement requires the units to be listed for sale; we explicitly discriminate against rental housing all the time in Austin.  (Remember this one, though, the next time Hyde Park leaders lecture the rest of us about the shortage of affordable rental housing.)   

Nor is it noteworthy that the agreement bars vehicle access to the property via 50th Street.  That's understandable.  The neighbors on Rowena and streets to the east don't want a surge in traffic on their streets.  Cars will have to use 51st Street to get in and out of the development. 

No, the unusual provision is this:  The agreement bans pedestrian and bicycle access to 50th Street.  Pedestrians and bicyclists will be barred from accessing a public right-of-way that dead-ends at their property's boundary.  The neighbors just east of the development not only want to keep out the new cars, they want to keep out the new residents themselves -- whether they're on foot or on bike.  Residents who naturally would like to stroll through their new neighborhood will instead be forced onto 51st Street.

Maybe they'll take the hint and stay on it.

It gets worse.  The fire department might require access to the new development via 50th Street.  The agreement recognizes this possibility and specifies that the 50th-street entrance be gated with emergency vehicle access only.  In other words, even if AFD requires that 50th Street be extended into the development, the developer must put up a gate to keep the peds and bicyclists from wandering into Hyde Park proper.

The Planning Commission, to its credit, not only approved the zoning, but recommended that the Council require pedestrian and bicyle access.

Thus it came before Council Thursday night.  There was no debate.  There was no discussion . . . except for Councilmember Cole's motion to adopt the ban on bicycle and pedestrian access to 50th Street.  To which the other council members meekly acquiesced.

Oh, by the way, here was item 63 on Thursday's agenda:

Approve a resolution supporting efforts to upgrade the City of Austin’s bicycle network by establishing the city’s intent to become the first Texas city to attain Gold level bike-friendly status from the League of American Bicyclists; supporting the work of the Street Smarts Task Force January 2008; and directing the City Manager to study and report back to Council with recommendations for inclusion of the Street Smarts Task Force findings into the Austin Bicycle Master Plan. (Mayor Will Wynn Council Member Brewster McCracken Council Member Sheryl Cole)

"Bike friendly" indeed.

Correction:  I screwed up the orientation of the tract in the first draft.  (I had 51st on the east rather than the north.  Dumb.)  Since there were so many references to north, south, etc., I didn't note changes with strike-throughs because it was too distracting.

Comments

[LoveToWalk]

It's a very disturbing trend that a lot of neighborhoods are now demanding new residential projects over-park to accomodate guests. This drives up the cost of housing, and it adds unnecessary impervious cover we wouldn't need if people would just have a little tolerance for multi-use of our existing IC in the public right of way. I can sympathize (if not support) with over-parking commercial uses where you can expect "spill-over parking" to be a regular occurance. But building an assload of extra parking because somebody might throw a party now and then is a waste of money and an environmental affront.

This is also not the only place I've heard the "don't put in pedestrian access because people will park on my street to get to X."

[ATXboom]

No pedestrian or bike access?!? This is Austin still right?

Development or not development - PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE FRIENDLY!

You folks are crazy. Wow... just wow.

[JJ]

I think its just wrong to say that people cant walk or bike down a certain street through a neighborhood. And I also think NA's are getting way too much power in this city and they need to be pushed back alittle. I think NA's are good for their respective areas but when it comes outside issues that they still get involved with, thats when they go too far. If they don't like whats going on in this city they can move to a small town. Austin will continue to grow and change and there is no point in fighting it but instead work reasonably with developers and the city instead of trying to force them to only do it the way the neighborhood association wants. Im sorry you cant get everything you want the way you want it so get over it...

[M1EK]

That's a bit of a misrepresentation as well, William. Standard practice here would be to open the street to the new development (connectivity requirement) for all users, including cars.

[cb]

I have no problem with limiting vehicle access (cutting off pedestrians and cyclists is has no justification). My point is that city should show the same consideration to other neighborhoods whose cut-through traffic problems are orders of magnitude worse than anything the people in Hyde Park might face from this development. In addition, by forcing all vehicle traffic onto 51st Street, that already stressed section of road is going to face an even higher traffic load, which is going to cause problems for the folks living in Northfield to the north.

[Joe Cahill]

What elementary and middle school would the kids in new development attend? Would they go to and from the schools through the 51st street access point or through the Rowena street access point?

[PCC]

The story of the street named "100 Year Party Court." (Google the phrase if you think I'm kidding.)

Its developer went to City Hall one day to get some permits. The water guys look at the plan and draw their lines around the 100-year floodplain. You know, if there's a really big flood, the kind so big it only happens once every 100 years, well, you have to plan ahead for that. Can't build where it'll flood. Fine. Developer guy goes next door to the public works office. They look at the plan and say that it doesn't have enough parking, even though every house has off-street parking.

D: "Why do I need more parking?"
PW: "What if there are visitors? What if there's a party?"
D: "Then they can park on the street."
PW: "Yeah, well, what if there's a really big party?"
D: "You mean like a One Hundred Year Party?"

[KL]

William -- there would be a street there after development, right? Your comment confuses the issue.

[William Cook]

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.)

[Joe Cahill]

What elementary and middle school would the kids in new development attend? Would they go to and from the schools through the 51st street access point or through the Rowena street access point?

[AC]

I don't have a clue.

[M1EK]

"because there were not sufficient parking spaces designed within the multifamily development"

William, you keep saying this as if it's a fact - and it's not. It's an incorrect opinion by the Rowena neighbors, given that the developer is satisfying city code for number of parking spaces - and they've providing precisely as many 'guest spaces' as do the houses on Rowena themselves.

A hint: it's hard to take your protestations of objectivity seriously when you let stuff like this slip.

[William Cook]

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was quoting a Rowena resident who made that comment. In that quote, "sufficient parking" means "enough to satisfy the neighbors" not "enough according to rules of the city". You are claiming that the only truth of the matter is what the city requires, and if you deviate from that or use your own judgment, then you are not objective. I don't think that is reasonable.

Your comment about supplying as many spaces are Rowena is also incorrect, I belive.
What about the fact that Rowena residents have required off-street parking and also have on-street parking? The density in the new development is about 3 times the density in the neighborhood, but they aren't going to have the available overflow parking that comes from being on a neighborhood street.

[AC]

The parking rationale is beside the point. This flunks every commonsense test.

Cost-benefit: 150+ people will be forced to detour through 51st street to get to Hyde Park proper, all to save a handful of homeowners from the possibility that someone might park on their street. The only way that passes a cost-benefit test is if you ignore the future homeowners' interests. (If any interest should be ignored, it is the homeowners' interest in keeping cars from parking on public streets.)

Precedent: New development always creates the prospect of additional parking on neighboring streets. If this stands, other neighborhoods will ask to wall off pedestrians and bikers from public right of ways.

Fairness: There will be a big locked gate separating these residents from a perfectly good public street. Frankly, it's an insult to the new residents.

William, I can't tell whether you think this is really a good idea or whether you're just defending the Rowena residents against charges they had bad motives. This gate is a bad move for Hyde Park any way you cut it, though. Hyde Park doesn't need this kind of icon.

[William Cook]

I am not sure exactly what position to take. I think that closing off access is a bad idea. However, it may be that this new development is mis-conceived --- a possibility that hasn't been considered here. If so, then perhaps shutting it off its a reasonable thing to do. Unless I get a lot more facts about it, I'm not going to make blanket accusations or judgments about the people involved, as most people here seem to be happy to do. So yes, my main goal here is to defend the Rowena residents against accusations that they have bad motives. Perhaps they are thinking more locally than they should, but, i can't blame them too much for that. I'm not sure they city is holding up its side of the bargain to encourage good planning; for example, this property is right on a creek the floods heavily, so building so much on it might not be a great idea.

I note that you have not defended your claim that the new development will have as many spaces as the Rowena, and you are now shifting to other arguments.

[AC]

M1EK made that "claim." ("AC" = "Austin Contrarian")

M1EK's point simply was that the Rowena houses don't have guest parking, either. I've never thought the parking argument a colorable defense, for the reasons above, so I haven't waded into the details of code requirements.

[M1EK]

William, I was claiming that the only _objective_ standard we have is city code, and that it's also relevant that developments already existing on Rowena do not universally meet that standard.

To claim the on-street parking for existing residences on Rowena is dishonest - they do not have any more right to those spaces than do I, who could quite legally park my car there and take the bus two miles south to my house any time I chose. Or somebody on Rowena could have a huge party every single night and prevent any one of their neighbors from ever parking a car out there.

[William Cook]

[I posted this to the other blog where we are discussing this too]

But the on-street parking exists and is part of the fabric of the neighborhood. 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. This is what Rowena said from the very beginning.

[M1EK]

But that's ridiculous on its face. You're effectively rewarding people on Rowena for having houses with less off-street parking than the new development will have, per potential driver. And again, you're disincenting new residents from walking or bicycling.

And once again for the record, there is nothing stopping a resident on Rowena from holding a party every single night and monopolizing every single one of the on-street parking spaces.

This boils down to, effectively, squatter's rights. Those who are there now have rights; those who haven't come yet have nothing - they should consider themselves a separate neighborhood. And that's a policy which is, frankly, suicide for the city. Right when gas prices indicate we should be discouraging driving and encouraging everything else, you would have us make it harder to walk/bike than it already is - just to satisfy a bunch of people who have clearly displayed that their opposition is based primarily in base emotions like xenophobia and NIMBYism.

[DSK]

If Cook's representations are correct, then the position of the Rowena residents is inflexible (not willing to consider a parking permit system except under the most exceptional conditions), out of touch with their location in the center of a large city, and totally mistargeted (being that it affects cyclists and pedestrians).

The Rowena residents want to treat their portion of the inner-city street grid as their own private kingdom, to which they may privately ration access to developers as they see fit. That is not how a growing Austin should work, especially if it is to limit environmental impacts on the fringes.

The positions of the HPNA and the Rowena residents are so irresponsible and self-centered that they ought to be soundly rejected by the city council.

[William Cook]

We finally get down to some real issues, and all you guys can do start name-calling. I'll let the readers of this blog decide who to believe.

[M1EK]

Nobody called anybody any names, William; resorting to this tactic is a sign of desperation. Please cite or retract.

[William Cook]

It's because we are having a useful discussion, and then you start talking about xenophobia and NIMBYism, because somehow the author knows the true motivation of all the neighbors on Rowena. Rather than repeat the discussion about public versus private parking, please see http://austinist.com/2008/04/25/hyde_park_na_ha.php

[M1EK]

The author doesn't have to "somehow know" the true motivation of the Rowena neighbors; others have already dug up their actual words. Which display xenophobia and NIMBYism.

[Anonymous]

The people who are saying such rude/mean things about Rowena residents should know:
1) THE DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN UNBUDGING- they are building 3 bedroom apartments which will CLEARLY only be rented by UT students and they're requiring less than three spaces per apartment-- AND THAT INCLUDES THE GUEST PARKING. In addition, it was my understanding that some of the apartments are going to have an additional "study" which doesn't require an extra parking space. This results in 4 bedroom apartments with LESS THAN 3 PARKING spaces - and this INCLUDES guest parking (which essentially means that there is NONE).

2) THE ACCESS AT 50TH DOESN'T LEAD TO ANYWHERE SO ITS NOT AFFECTING CONNECTIVITY. The stub out street only leads into the development. UT will NOT give access to the intramural fields because you have to have a student ID to enter the fields, and a majority of neighbors are not students. A small east-west access will NOT lead to increased connectivity, it will clearly be primarily used to park on Rowena and walk through to the development. This is NOT an issue that will affect greater-austin connectivity, it is strictly a LOCALIZED ISSUE. The neighbors are welcome to stroll through hyde park if they exit the 51st street entrance/exit, which is fully equipped with sidewalks, and just as close to the neighborhood as the 50th street entrance.

3) BIKING/WALKING ON ROWENA POSES INCREASED RISK TO CYCLISTS/PEDESTRIANS. 51st street has bike lanes on BOTH sides of the street AND sidewalks on both sides of the street. Rowena has neither a bike lane NOR a sidewalk. Thus- you must already weave around a pretty crowded street full of parked cars into a narrow essentially one lane (once cars parked on both sides) street in the way of cars to walk or bike.

4) THIS UNIQUE LOCATION FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDING LEAVES ONLY ONE PLACE FOR PARKING: ROWENA. The apartment building is blocked in on one side by the UT IM fields, and on the other side by the ASH cemetery. This means that when the developer fails to put in ANY guest parking (there's not even enough for the number of bedrooms that are being put in), ROWENA WILL BE THE GUEST PARKING. There should be NO delusions that these are going to be occupied by families - the Triangle is two blocks away and that doesn't have any families. This will be occupied by students (which is great, we love students!), but this means that each room will have an occupant, who will have a car. By blocking off Rowena access (a TINY little road, that is already gated off!) the developer will be forced to reassess the amount of parking it actually needs, and probably have to drop a few units to meet a manageable parking-apartment ratio.

Please be more considerate of your comments, the neighbors are not selfish, and only blocked access as a last resort when the developer absolutely REFUSED to make any other necessary changes. If you are going to be mad about anything - you should be mad that the City is allowing zoning of land that is in a flood plain for apartments. This will lead to flooding south of 51st, and potential flood problems for the apartments that will be built. It's just not a well thought out development, and an unsafe decision all around.