Council caves to Allandale.

As I've explained before, the real point of Austin's Vertical Mixed Use ordinance is to open up more property to multi-family development.  There is precious little land set aside for that purpose in central Austin.  Neighborhood interiors are reserved for single family -- aside from the occasional small multi-family complex -- and most property on commercial streets is set aside for commercial uses.  The VMU ordinance aims to fix that.  Adding the "V" designation to a property on a "core transit corridor" opens the property to multi-family development, and fairly dense multi-family at that.

Neighborhoods traditionally have fought new multi-family developments.  Nothing incites the townsfolk to march on City Hall like a proposed up-zoning for a large multi-family project.  The VMU design guidelines and "mixed use" components aim to fix that.  They are sweeteners to make the bitter multi-family pill easier to swallow.

For some neighborhoods, though, they are not sweet enough.  Their pathological hostility to multi-family housing -- even multi-family housing plopped down on a 30,000-vehicle-per-day transit corridor -- simply cannot be softened by incentives.  They will fight multi-family as hard as they can, regardless of the design standards, regardless of the compatibility standards, and regardless of the new mix of retail the developments promise.

Allandale is one such neighborhood.  Given its hysterical reaction to the Northcross Wal-Mart, this should be no surprise.  But its VMU application was a real gem.  Its eligible VMU tracts included most of Burnet from North Loop to Anderson, and all of Anderson from Mopac to Burnet, 2.51 miles of eligible linear frontage in all.  Allandale's initial application, however, asked to opt out almost all of its eligible tracts.  It volunteered just two tracts:  Northcross, which it knew would not be redeveloped as VMU any time soon, and a tract off Northloop already designated for mixed-use.  Moreover, it asked that any development that managed to slip through be limited to 12.5 units per acre, a ridiculously low density for multi-family.  I characterized Allandale's application as a "temper tantrum" over Northcross.  But perhaps it was just that deep-seated hostility to multi-family.  As one Allandale resident wrote in opposing VMU in her neighborhood:  "I own a home directly behind one of the proposed tracts and prefer to have a warehouse in my backyard than an apartment building."

The Allandale Neighborhood Association tested the waters, though, and got a chilly reception.  It therefore caucused to identify its "top priorities" for exclusion from VMU.  In the map below, Allandale's eligible VMU tracts are shaded and its "priority" tracts are circled.

    

Based on my calculations, Allandale's "priority" tracts encompass 1.28 miles of its 2.51 miles of eligible linear frontage (and a full half-mile of the latter consists of the single Northcross site).  That's a lot of priorities.

City Council considered Allandale's VMU application on June 18, and I wish I could say that Council took a stand for multi-family.  It did not.  As the map above depicts, Council agreed to opt-out the properties bordered in red from the VMU district.  Moreover, it deferred action on the tracts bordered in yellow.  Interpreting subtext is inherently subjective, but I think the yellow tracts will be colored red, too, when Council eventually considers them.  If and when that happens, Allandale's VMU district will be reduced to the green-bordered frontage at the corner of Anderson and Burnet (most of which is the Northcross tract), and three short splotches of green along Burnet:

That's a shame.  The city needs more land for housing, and VMU promised to provide it.  Some neighborhoods have responded reasonably, but this is a bad turn, and one likely to smooth the way for similar obstructionism by other neighborhoods.  Council never should have opened the door.  I suppose the neighborhoods have worn it down.

There may be a faint silver lining.  South Lamar today is the capital of used car lots.  Rising land prices likely will begin forcing them out of the area soon.  They will need somewhere to go; Austin needs used car lots, after all.  Allandale apparently has decided to reserve 1.28 miles of frontage on Burnet and Anderson for them.

Update:  Some commenters on the Chronicle blog linked to by M1EK below have questioned the accuracy of my description of their opt-out application.  My source:  City staff's report (pdf), which includes Allandale's opt-out application. 

Allandale did ask to opt out all but two tracts in its initial application. It's in black and white.

The maps above reflect Allandale's revised "top priorities," are dated April 8, 2008, and were taken from the City staff's report.  According to staff's summary, evidently prepared after June 5, 2008, (p. 2), "the neighborhood would like to limit density for VMU projects to 12.5 units per acre, . . . "; the map reflects the same request.

I think linear feet of frontage is a good measure of the amount of land set aside for VMU, especially given the relaxed density standards.  However, if one wants to use acreage, City staff (p. 2) asserted that Allandale wanted to opt out 81 acres and leave in 41 acres.  (It is unclear whether that reflects the initial application or revised "priorities," but, regardless, the bulk of the property it agreed to leave in is the huge Northcross tract -- the one tract it knows will not be redeveloped as VMU for the foreseeable future.)

Tract 5 includes the Burnet Storage Center.  I included it among Allandale's requests for exclusion because it was listed as a "priority."  My understanding is that some Allandale residents now claim they never wanted to opt it out of VMU, just to opt it out of the VMU incentives.  That makes no sense to me because Allandale made the same request for all of its VMU properties.  However, if someone has evidence that Allandale explicitly agreed to leave this tract in the VMU district, I will note that here.

Update No. 2:  Here is the map from the Allandale Neighborhood Association's own website documenting its requests for exclusion:

Related posts:

1. Props to Council (March 18, 2008).
2. VMU at City Council:  This is very encouraging (Feb. 1, 2008).
3. VMU:  Time for City Council to enforce the bargain (Jan. 31, 2008).
4. Vertical Mixed Use:  Not everyone is a grown-up (Dec. 3, 2007).
5. Vertical Mixed Use:  The grown-ups go first (Nov. 30, 2007).
6. A VMU primer (Nov. 30, 2007).
7. Breaking the VMU bargain (Feb. 14, 2007).

Comments

[DSK]

*sigh* I wish I could say I was surprised.
Such a waste of what could have been a great urban corridor. I'm afraid you're probably right: more used car lots to come.

[Julie]

"Rather have a warehouse than an apartment complex"? Well, these are the people who think they can keep a mall perpetually empty rather than have Walmart in it (oh, right, Walmart might attract "poor people".) They can have all of South Austin's used car lots, I hope those attract plenty of "undesirables" for them!

[snowed in]

Not that this is much consolation, but tract #7 on your map (in a red-colored area) was just redeveloped a couple of years ago, so there wasn't much chance of VMU being there in the foreseeable future anyway.

And there's a used car lot on Lamar, not 500 feet from my office, that I'd like to volunteer to move...

[Tim]

I'm hoping the Riverside redevelopment will show people what they could have. South Austin is becoming a thriving community. North Central Austin is ugly (filled with warehouses and used car lots) with too expensive tiny houses and no amenities. They might get the "affordable" housing they're always talking about.

[john]

When I purchased my near-east side house a few years ago in Cherrywood, I had to back out of pending sale for a house in Allandale. While I lost my $1000 earnest money, I got a lot more house for a lot less money.
Thankfully, I also got a relatively progressive neighborhood that understands the benefits of VMU and is ready to embrace the more urbane and hopefully walkable environment that can accompany such land use.
Maybe if all of these other neighborhoods opt out, our neighborhood will start to actually attract some decent development.

[M1EK]

john, I didn't see a major embrace of VMU by Cherrywood - but I'll admit I haven't looked in much detail lately. I just remember a lot of provincialism regarding things like speed humps on 38.5 street; which affects me pretty severely.

But the problem is that Cherrywood may never be as well situated for VMU as Allandale is - the #3 runs down Burnet and always will; and even if Allandale wants it to always be 1954, there's a lot of residential and employment density feeding the #3 on not just the downtown but also the Arboretum end of the neighborhood that will keep it running full and at high frequencies. I can't see Mueller providing that same level of ridership - it's disappointingly suburban and has a lot more options to get downtown by car.

So, if Cherrywood really supported VMU without ridiculous baloney about parking like Hyde Park tried to pull, bully for them; but it's not going to help the city as much as VMU on Burnet would.

[k]

The North Shoal Creek neighborhood voted to give VMU designation to most of their Anderson lane frontage, but with the condition that density bonuses be withheld as incentive for developers to work with the neighborhood. A very fair plan. At least in my opinion.

You can read about it here: http://www.nscna.org/?p=108

I'm not sure if the city council approved that or not. I'd be interested to know.

[M1EK]

BTW, good analysis; although Katie from Allandale says you've got it all wrong: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=639394

k, withholding the density bonuses and making each project subject to negotiation with the neighborhood is the same kind of pointless nonsense that makes Allandale's claims to support VMU on the storage property so ridiculous. The point of zoning (VMU being a zoning modification) is to tell developers a set of things they can build without having to go jump through neighborhood hoops. If they have to jump through hoops to get the density bonuses, you didn't really give them anything at all; the density bonuses are the entire point of VMU as far as I'm concerned - and anybody at any time could build a VMU project on any tract in the city if they succeeded in jumping through enough of those kinds of hoops (rezoning; variances).

In other words, saying "you can do VMU if we like your plan" is basically nothing more than what the developer has today. Note that 31 Guadalupe was built as VMU before the VMU ordinance existed - in the same fashion (negotiate with neighborhood; satisfy ridiculously high parking requirements; get a few variances; then go).

[M1EK]

My language is a bit confusing. VMU by itself is nice but most of the potential impact on housing affordability and sustainability comes from the density bonuses. Allandale went further in the wrong direciton than you guys did by saying "no VMU at all unless we like your project", but "no density bonuses unless you jump through our hoops" is still pretty lame.

[AC]

I've updated the post with cite to sources.

[pel]

Crestview's opt-out is also interesting. They essentially opted out of everything, except for the corner of Lamar & Anderson. Link: ftp://coageoid01.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/planning/CommercialDesign/vmu_applications/Crestview%20Amended%20VMU%20application.pdf

The word on the mailing lists and out of the NA committees is that the City Planning Commission was not too pleased and essentially viewed it as a 100% opt-out, and now there's a bit of scrambling going on to offer up something a little more substantial and throw a bone to the city.

The strategy of the CNA is, "We need time to digest Crestview Station before allowing VMU." One particular email message from an anti-density enthusiast contained the sentence: "We are almost at maximum density for area!" (area referring to Crestview & Allandale)

[AC]

Thanks for the pointer. The Planning Commission has been doing a great job. It showed some spine in dealing with own na's application. I just hope that Council is not signaling it to acquiesce to some of these unreasonable applications.

[k]

M1EK - Are you seriously suggesting that neighborhoods should have zero input or knowledge of development that may impact their area? That's ridiculous. The process of developing an area is, and should be, a push and pull between many forces - the developers who are trying to maximize profit, and the residents who also have a financial, and even emotional, stake in the area they live in. North Shoal Creek modeled its approach after a VMU dealing that was successful: the developers of the village project came to the neighborhood, asked for input, modified a few things based on the feedback, and then got the NSCNA's blessing. The project got postponed, but not because of the neighborhood association. Asking the city to withhold bonuses, but not approvals of VMU projects, seems a very reasonable way to keep the neighborhood in the loop.

Besides, isn't there, or shouldn't there be, a reason something gets called a bonus?

[M1EK]

k, I am suggesting that VMU on the corridors was part of a bargain struck with these neighborhoods so they could have the McMansion ordinance on the interior (which severely disincents secondary dwelling units - thus hurting affordability).

Thus, to me, the density bonuses are the primary selling point of the ordinance - they help replace the potential affordable housing that the neighborhoods are forcing out of their interior. Making it subject to negotiation simply brings us back to square one; neighborhood reactionaries will simply say no to every such project.

And the reason it's called a bonus is that the developer doesn't have to build that much affordable housing. NOT that the developer was supposed to have to negotiate with NIMBYs.

[k]

M1EK - First off, I am unaware of any link between the McMansion ordinance and VMU. I'm certainly not an expert - but that's not something I've seen mentioned. Please provide a news link, if you could. I also fail to see the link between affordable housing and the McMansion ordinance, since the majority of the McMansion ordinance has to do with making single family houses smaller (ostensibly, keeping prices down, not pushing them up). I hate to tell you this, but as a person who currently rents, I would much rather have an apartment than live in someone's backyard. Partially because it's just sort of odd to live in someone's yard, and partially because people want a ton of money in order for you to live in their cramped weirdly shaped shed out back. Carriage houses are not generally cost effective.

Secondly, not every neighborhood is the same. Redeveloping in north shoal creek is honestly not something that has happened much, as we're not really in the "cool" part of town. About 1/3 of the population of our neighborhood already lives in apartments, townhouses, duplexes, condos, etc. As for it being on the exterior of the neighborhood... damn straight it is. And it's been that way since it was zoned in the 1950s, so I fail to see how or why anyone would want to try to infill that now and disturb the balance that exists.

In fact, I have the opposite argument for you. I currently rent a wonderful 1BR apartment for $549 a month. It's clean and my landlords are great people. But the village plans to, eventually, build a whole bunch of apartments on Anderson, and they'll be charging, let's say, $1000 a month for a 1BR, and calling it affordable. Do you think that development is going to push my rent up, or down? I would most certainly say it will be up - once my landlords realize they're charging half as much as anybody else, I'll be stuck with way higher rent or living in a neighborhood with much more crime.

Austin doesn't need any more "luxury" apartments with a small percentage made "affordable". We've got plenty of that - just ask the folks at what used to be the mirage on jollyville - regular apartments that got the buildings painted, and then rents jacked up $200+ a month because the owners said they were now "luxury". So while I don't really have an issue with VMU, don't tell me that neighborhoods should give up a bargaining chip because we should bow down to the altar of affordable housing. I actually kinda laugh inside my head when people say that developers are going to provide us with more affordable housing.

[M1EK]

k, I expect that adding a bunch of rental supply will keep your price down farther than it would otherwise be, all else being equal. It's basic economics.

And, yes, the VMU ordinance was part of a quid-pro-quo for McMansion. You're just going to have to trust me on this one - note that the ANC was actually involved in drafting the VMU ordinance itself. Wonder why that was?

The McMansion Ordinance's effect on secondary dwelling units is to severely disincent them since they can prevent the owner from expanding the main house in pretty severe fashion. And, yes, people do rent those garage apartments for quite low rates - especially the more central you get. But it also affects duplexes the same way. Sure, you don't have a lot of secondary dwelling units on the interior up there, but you could have (lots are big enough to build them without any restrictions); and now that the MMO is passed, there's much less incentive to do so.

[k]

I guess I should have done some math for you, so you can see why redeveloping interior areas into duplexes just doesn't make sense.

Let's say you buy a teardown house in central austin for $150,000. This is a beyond reasonable price.

Let's then say that you spend $200,000 building a duplex on that lot. Let's say the the McMansion ordinance doesn't exist and you're able to turn what was a 1300 sq ft house into two 1000 sq ft units of a duplex.

You've now incurred $350,000 in costs. In order to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc, you will need to charge at least $1400 for each half of the duplex, and if you want to make a profit, you'd need to charge even more.

But if the old owner of that house had purchased it for $70,000 ten years ago, and was only paying $650 a month for everything, they could easily take a home equity loan out, fix it up, and continue to rent it out as a house. They could charge $1100 a month for renting the house.

So which is better - one house available at $1100 a month, or two halves of a duplex available at $1600 a month? Which makes housing more affordable?

I guess we'll probably just have to disagree, but supply and demand is not the only factor at work here, and I find that to be a little simplistic. A lack of supply of rental properties will drive up rents slowly, but developing large swaths of luxury units will drive them up as well, and possibly faster. The real problem isn't a supply of rental units... it's a lack of land. And that is just not something we can solve by offering developers bonuses. And a lot of times, the rising land costs and construction costs actually can make redevelopment hurt more than help. What we've really got is a land problem, a traffic problem, an infrastructure problem... and both VMU and the McMansion ordinance are band-aids, not solutions.

As for the garage apartments/carriage house/etc thing, I have never, ever, ever seen one of those go cheaper than a similarly sized apartment in the same area, and are sometimes insanely overpriced (probably due to construction costs). Personal experience in dwelling hunting is the only evidence I have, but I don't know of any research on rental rates by dwelling type in Austin.

[M1EK]

Developing large swaths of luxury units does nothing to increase the rents of existing non-luxury units; in fact, it holds their prices down (they increase slower than they otherwise would have; note that a market where a lot of new apartment construction is occurring is likely to be quite heated, so we're talking about two rates of increase, not a decrease).

I live in Central Austin; there's garage apartments all over my block; and yes, they do go lower per square foot than do apartments in the small and medium complexes in the same area. In both my current neighborhood (NUNA) and my previous one (Clarksville), it held - the cheapest places to live were the garage apartments, at least per square foot (Clarksville had a lot of efficiencies which were smaller than most garage apartments, which tend to be more true one bedrooms).

You're arguing against a lot of history here. We built stuff just like this for a long time and it worked great (before suburban zoning codes outlawed a lot of it); it tends to support transit and bicycle use; makes better use of land; provides affordable housing without crude and counterproductive interventions like rent control.

[el_longhorn]

k,

"And it's been that way since it was zoned in the 1950s, so I fail to see how or why anyone would want to try to infill that now and disturb the balance that exists."

Maybe because Austin has 10 times the population it did in the 1950's and continues to rapidly grow? Maybe because to protect our environment we need to change our land, water, and energy use patterns? Maybe because a more dense city is easier to provide services to - fire, road maintenance, etc. - and should help keep taxes low?

I sympathize with your concern for affordability, but we KNOW that limiting new construction does not protect affordability - it hurts affordability. The only thing that can keep housing prices down in the long term is new construction. Let the developers overbuild...they will. When they do, there will be empty apartments and bargains to be had.

[AC]

k,

thanks for commenting. I don't get enough dissenting opinions here.

I disagree with a lot of what you say for reasons I'll explain later. But I do agree with you that the effect of the McMansion ordinance is to make small lots less valuable and large lots more valuable. I argued that here: http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2006/09/reason_no_7_to_.html

[Bruce]

A couple of years ago, when my wife and I bought our duplex house near Burnet and Justin, we were very excited about living in the North Central area. With Austin becoming a growing, vibrant city, North Central being one the least dense close-in zones, and VMU in the pipeline, it felt like the area would surely be moving in an exciting direction. We believed we got a lot of house for the money, in a geographically desirable area. We are not the kind of people that view our home solely as an investment opportunity; we want to live in a vibrant neighborhood.

But now, as a result of the city's epic mistake in offering VMU opt-outs, and with Allandale, Crestview, and Hyde Park presenting their 100% (more or less) VMU opt-out plans, we are now quite seriously running through our options for moving out of the area. We are realizing we made a big mistake. Never again will we move to an area before researching the disposition of the local NAs.

This Allandale news and the above thread made me angry at first, but now I'm just sad. I drive up and down Burnet every day, and with the exception of a tiny handful of so-called "iconic" or "beloved" businesses here's what I see out my car window:

- Pawn shops
- Multiple payday loan shops
- Several closed restaurants (two of which were in walking distance of my house)
- Used car lots
- New car lots
- Half-empty strip malls
- The usual array of muffler/lube shops
- An abandoned mini-golf overgrown with weeds
- Storage sheds
- Cheap fly-by-night franchises
- Yet more and more furniture, rug, and plumbing shops
- Giant parking lots that are always 90% empty

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. These are not the types of services, amenities, and infrastructure that make a great neighborhood. And it's not getting better, it's only getting worse. Tien Hong is closing very soon. I think the owners may be retiring, although I'm not sure. But the fact that I never saw more than one or two occupied tables there at dinner time couldn't have helped. Will it sit empty for months, filling with weeds and graffiti? What do you think will go in the spot? Another window tint shop? Maybe another furniture wholesaler? Perhaps they will tear down the building and rent the lot to a used car dealer. It's hard to imagine anyone opening another restaurant there. Who would take that risk in one of the lowest density neighborhoods in the city, with no hope of future population growth?

Sometimes I try to imagine what someone from out of town would think driving around that area. Could they possibly believe this is a central neighborhood in a growing, active, desire bale city? This is the Austin I heard about? What the hell happened here?

But of course we know what happened, and continues to happen. You don't get here by accident. You only need to read between the lines of the various threads and discussions about "luxury" apartments and the dreaded evil "developers" to catch the usual tones of classism, property value protectionism, and selfish NIMBYism. People in North Central are living in some 1950s fantasy time bubble, in which they somehow believe they still live in the suburbs, even as Austin grows and changes. They are ultimately punishing everyone for their short-sightedness, having essentially signed the deal that will devolve these neighborhoods into low-rent semi-slums given enough time.

What a terrible shame.

[k]

M1EK - Could you provide examples of where stuff like this was built and it worked?

And the neighborhoods I was looking at renting in had the opposite prices for apts/garages. A 500 sq ft. apt near North Loop would be $500 a month, but the same size garage apartment would be $750 a month. What we really need is hard data, which is difficult since many places are rented by sign and never go through a realtor/management company/or the MLS.

el_longhorn - I would love for you to come into my neighborhood (which, as I pointed out, is already 1/3 multi-family, including the building I live in) and point out exactly where you'd like to demolish to infill. I can guarantee, as my example showed, that you are not likely to find anywhere that would be feasible/affordable/reasonable to infill. These are not large lots. There are not any open lots. There would be next to nothing to gain by tearing down a house to put up a duplex.

As for the environment, I think it's kinda funny when people are advocating tearing down existing living areas so that we can use a bunch of new materials to put up newer housing. Density as environmentally friendly? Really? In the end, I've got no dog in this fight - I'm not a homeowner, and with my income, it's likely I never will be (at least in Austin). But I tire of the refrain that NEW-NEW-NEW will fix all of our problems.

As for the overbuilding apartments, drive up by the slums in the rundberg/metric/rutherford area, and then tell me that overbuilding multi-family isn't an issue. We need a mix of house owners and multi-family in the same area. Whether intended or not, changing the character of a neighborhood pushes residents out and brings renters and investors in. If people don't have a stake in their neighborhood, that neighborhood will decline. I am personally glad that Austin has a network of neighborhood associations... sometimes I think we can thank those for our low crime rates. As a renter, I benefit from my neighborhood's safety committee.

AC - I should know better than to argue with people on the internet, but sometimes I still do anyway. If nothing else I probably provide a different perspective on the issues.

Bruce - I think you and I must have very different perspectives on Burnet. My understanding of Burnet is that part of its character is supposed to be a lot of the second hand shops and other utilitarian local businesses. I eat at Wok'n'Roll at least once a month. I have friends who swear by Top Notch. The old Putt-Putt is a shame... It's been shut down, what, four years now? Why they don't reopen it, I have no idea. I'd love to see it back. But I've never driven down Burnet and thought it was a slum. I've always thought it was vibrant. Quite a few of my friends are buying houses in the area because of the location, and they absolutely love it. Personally, from where I am, I can walk to a movie theatre, an ice skating rink, a roller rink, a bowling alley, two indian restaurants, several places that serve sushi, a billiard hall, a karaoke place, two hardware stores... seriously, we may not have the "density" (yet), but where else on earth would that be possible?

Finally, all the talk about population growth wants me to point out two things -

1) Our population growth will likely slow down, and soon. With real estate prices going down everywhere else, people have less incentive to move here. And with job growth slowing down everywhere, it's just going to be more difficult to relocate.

2) I say this 90% jokingly - one of the reasons Austin has a housing problem is demographic - we've got a lot of single folks living in 2 or 3 bedroom places by themselves. So get outside. Meet someone nice. Shack up with them, and open up some housing for the rest of us. :D

[el_longhorn]

I think AC already did a good job of identifying which areas are ripe for infill - those properties with good access to transit that are along Burnet and Anderson. Austin is growing and will likely continue to do so, the question is simple - do we grow out (sprawl) or do we grow up (density)? No one is advocating tearing down existing living areas (at least not me), but replacing a used car lot or a small shopping center along Burnet with a mixed use development? Sounds good to me.

I just really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

[Bruce]

k,

First, I should have been more specific; In my post above I'm mostly talking about the section of Burnet between 183 and 2222, although I could probably come up with similar examples farther up the road. Also, I don't think I said it's a slum now, only that over time I believe given the current situation, it will trend in that direction over time.

I'm glad you walk to all these places, but that must put you in a very tiny minority of people. The only pedestrians I normally see on Burnet are the bus riders dodging five lines of traffic to get to their minimum wage jobs on the other side of the road. That's what passes for street life here.

Yes, there are some businesses in the area I love, such as Bark N' Purr, Pacha, and Asahi Market, but I still contend that a majority of the stuff along the road is purely utilitarian at best, and pure junk at worst.

And sorry, but I highly doubt that someone from out of town would drive along that road and see the "character" of which you speak.

In general, I'd like to thank you for presenting a level-headed opposing viewpoint, and not being a reactionary internet nut case. But I do have to take exception to your statement that our "real problem" is "a lack of land." That strikes me as borderline self-delusional. It's a bit like claiming the real problem with automobile accidents are those pesky laws of physics. What, if only had more land to spare we wouldn't have to argue and could comfortably sprawl out with more single family homes and one-story retail? I'd say a limited supply of land is good incentive for smart development, actually.

[k]

el_longhorn - Take a look at this map: http://www.nscna.org/maps/index.html

Un-click everything but apartments. Then you can see how many apartments already exist in my neighborhood (and there are actually a few missing from that map, and there's a section with duplexes as well). Doesn't that seem like a pretty good balance to you? How many more do you want to fit along Burnet?

True, there aren't any on the Anderson frontage. But the NSCNA has already approved of the village's plan to build 400 apartments. They approved of this plan because those developers were willing to work with the neighborhood.

My point is not, and will never be, that we shouldn't build. But the point was made earlier that the NAs should just let the developers develop without any input on the effect that will have on the surrounding area. To me, that's a recipe for disaster - because we will end up with hideous structures that won't end up helping anybody out. Developers are always going to be after the most profit and the neighborhoods are always going to want to protect their neighborhood. But if both sides have leverage, and both sides are willing to compromise, eventually we should end up with structures that will benefit the area and the city as a whole.

I guess, in the end, I'm just not a believer that VMU development is a cure-all to the ills of Austin. I don't reject reasonable development - cities do change, and that doesn't really bother me, and I'll gladly vote for development that works well on Anderson when the time comes. I just have a problem with the sentiment that "developers know best! rents will be lowered! traffic will decrease! the environment will be saved!". That's the vibe I've been getting from these postings, and it strikes me as a little bit silly.