Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancore
Before you brow beat me, I'm PRO mass transit for HIGH density cities. I'm anti mass transit for low density cities, like Austin. I'm steadfast in my rants for MASSIVE increased density in the urban core, density that can/will support mass transit both with tax $ and ridership. I will never agree this will solve or even put a dent in Austin traffic woes. It won't I've spoken to Kitchen about this...she don't care. Austin's urban core can/should house 10-15k per sq/mile.
Our leaders will forever fight density, and selfishly, I've come around to the NIMBY way of thought. I can't win with logic, so, I've taken advantage of the restrictive codes, and cashed out, 3 times. If you can't beat them, join them.
Now you can brow beat.
|
I think the density-before-transit / transit-before-density argument is self-defeating. Both are really hard to get passed in a city like Austin, so we should always give maximum effort on both fronts, regardless of progress on the other. In this case, we have already done the impossible and passed a transformational transit package. The argument is mostly academic now as all we have left to do is get the LDC updated. (Super easy, probably. Right?)
In my mind, this transit package just supercharged all of the existing density opportunities we had under existing code. Density is already happening along the corridors as it is. Most of the empty lots are already spoken for. Project Connect might end up making the math add up for projects that wouldn't have torn down an old underutilized junk building before.
This will also take away one of the most common talking points of the anti-development crowd. Virtually every project that draws neighborhood opposition draws out scores of comments along the lines of "I support new development, but only after we improve infrastructure." Well, we're improving infrastructure.