Austin Political Report

We will see what they won. The zoning for commercial development is already in place, so there is a bunch that the owners can do without seeking neighborhood approval. The property fronts a major arterial (2222) and is ripe for redevelopment, so someone is going to do something with that property.

By el_longhorn on Oct 2, 2007

It’s incorrect to say that the proposed plan would add 2000 cars a day to the site. This is another piece of distorted information that has arisen. The plan would add an estimated 1000 additional trips (not cars) a day. This is much less than is allowed under the current zoning. Further, only one exit from the development is onto a residential street, something the developer worked hard to deal with, coming up with a creative right-in/right-out solution that would direct cars away from the street in question.

Nearly 50% of the neighborhood supported this proposal. Are these folks not good guys?

By Lisa Wright on Oct 2, 2007

APR - with all due respect, your email about 2,000 cars is also very wrong and is at the core of this issue. the development was going to add 1,000 trips/day (which is closer to 200 cars and very different than 2,000 cars). per the traffic engineer, 65% would use Koenig, so we are down to 350 new trips/day (or 70 new cars) thru the neighborhood. under the current zoning, with no variance, strip retail will add 70% more trips than the proposed project and will have 100% ugly surface parking. strip retail would also place curb cuts wherever they wanted on 56th with no right-in, right-out at Link which means more cut thru traffic. the whole theory behind a VMU project is to locate it near bus stops and commuter rail because studies have proven that they will result in reduced traffic patterns. some percentage of the residents will ride the bus or use the rail to get to/from work. the residents will shop using the retail instead of getting in their car. this is not smoke and mirrors. it is the basis for Envision Central Texas. the ilovenorthloop clowns turned it into a “this-or-nothing” discussion, and they have zero cred with me.
now that you have the real facts, would you like to have your vote back? we may never have a chance to undo what was done last night, but we can be smarter the next time ilovenorthloop shows up on our doorsteps.

By Tommy on Oct 2, 2007

Residential road? The property is on Koenig, one of its busiest stretches!! A couple hundred yards in either direction is a natural gas company headquarters, the main DPS station, a car dealership, and probably a dozen or so smaller businesses. Basically, under existing law, the owner can put a large apartment complex on the property OR put a commercial site on the property, but he was asking for permission to do a mixed residential/commercial property. The NA said no. This is getting to be ridiculous. Why won’t the NA’s let Austin become the big city it wants to be?

By el_longhorn on Oct 2, 2007

This point does need some clarification. I tried to start an explanation once but it was so long I put it aside.

I’ll do a full breakdown of this for the ILNL site but will give a few comments here.

The beginning assumption is that the current property (when fully functional) generated over 1000 trips a day. As a resident who lives around the corner I know this is a wild exaggeration. My guess is that this is easily off by about a factor of ten taking the average over the week including days that the failing nursery and the wig store were closed. Yep, sadly not as much traffic to the wig store as there once was.

Second, the complex would have 259 units plus retail. I’ll do the math later, but would say that 2028 (the number given by the HDR-WHM traffic study) was at the very low end. This figure might describe the total number of a similar complex in a downtown/urban environment but not here. Of course the final commercial use (busy restaurant TONS vs “live-work” apartment-FEW) makes a gigantic difference. These numbers could only describe low travel commercial
but would still be lower than what you would fairly bet.

Next consier the claim that 65% of all traffic would flow in/out of the North entrance. Do you believe it? If you do you don’t know the area
or you didn’t think this through. The traffic report from Endeavor (I’ll try to post these tomorrow) shows 20% of the (total) taffic turning East on Koenig. I can agree with that.

But 45% of the (total) traffic turns left out of the site toward Lamar in order to go North and South. Beside the fact that virtually no one would ever take this route to go South on Lamar, both of these routes (representing 45% of tatal traffic) cuts across a turn lane and an existing median. It is, in other words, an imaginary left turn.

I had a guy at the City traffic department confirm the obvious: that a cutout at this conceptual left turn would NEVER be allowed.

So in short the preliminary traffic model is an utter sham.
It was of course created to show less traffic through the neighborhood.

Still worse the figures seem crafted to avoid triggers for a required neighborhood traffic study (adding 300 cars to a residential street).

While the imaginary left is the boldest lie (to date on any issue),
the traffic report also shows a point of entry/exit onto F that likewise does not exist in the plan that was presented. It seems also designed to avoid the trigger.

This will make more sense with the maps.

More soon at ilovenorthloop.com

In the meantime have a little faith guys.

By Jody Horton on Oct 2, 2007

once again, our friends at ilovenorthloop have it wrong. why can’t these guys simply admit that they don’t have all the answers and rely upon licensed traffic engineers? WHM told us that the 1000 trips/day was not based upon current usage but was based upon current permitted usage. that is how these studies are done. apparently now ilovenorthloop thinks that with their math wizardry they can actually rescind the Howard and Parker permits so there is no traffic allowed from that site. WHM also told us that the data provided was based upon national accepted traffic standards, not downtown standards as asserted. they believe that with the 2 bus stops and commuter rail that if they ever get the chance to do their real traffic study that the actual traffic will be less. these studies don’t bother to show people doing u-turns, hence the left on Koenig. the real sad point in all of this is that we may never get to see a actual traffic study on this property because the strip retail Burger King, check cashing, pawn shop, adult video guy who will generate 50-70% more traffic than the proposed plan will laugh at us. we will never get the charette, the park fees, the affordable housing, the neighborhod retail and all of the other things that we so dearly wanted in our Neighborhood Plan because we were deceived by some guys who never were involved in the process but managed to destroy years of hard work over lies. we have plenty of faith, but it does not reside in ilovenorthloop. thank goodness for this safe haven where you can’t delete this email like all the others opposing you that have been posted and then deleted from your own website?

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

I am happy to rely on experts of any kind, but also have the ability to think for myself. When logic collides with what experts say I question it. Even if I don’t have a degree in the topic that is discussed. When a great deal of money is at stake I look to see what would motivate a claim for something that seems completely illogical. I would assert that this is a completely rational way to approach this topic as well as others.

So when experts say that 45% of traffic from this site would zoom across two lanes of highspeed traffic to make a tight u-turn I first realize, (as someone with local knowledge of the site and existing traffic patterns) that this is utterly untrue. My experience and local knowledge informs me that almost no one would ever do this.
(And hey, I’m a cultural anthropologist. That makes me an expert in aquiring and understanding local knowledge. So this part, to you Tommy, is, I presume, unchallengable.) But I will continue anyway.

As a residential complex this means most of the driving activity to and from would be concentrated in rush hour periods. At these times traffic is dense on Koenig. And fast. Making a right turn to flow with traffic is hard enough. Cutting across two lanes of oncoming traffic is at these heavy traffic periods all the more unlikely. I’m not saying that some people might sometimes do it, but 45% (912 people a day) is a wild exaggeration.

By contrast only 3% are said to go straight out of the south entrance/exit.

Anyone wondering what to think of this should just take a look at a google map and see what you would do if you were at the site and had the choice of a South or North exit for a Westbound trip on Koenig. And follow along with this description.

In the study 5% of the total go North on Guadalupe (to where I don’t know), 20% go North on Lamar and 20% go South on Lamar.

I would suggest that people going north on Guadalupe would most likely turn right out of the South entrance onto 56th, jog over to 551/2 and then turn right with the light. But that light can get congested at rush hour, so at these times it would be preferrable to take a left out of the south entrance on 56th, then left at F, and then turn West with the light.

People going North on Lamar would take the same paths. At least at first.

Once they got to know the neighborhood better, and if they wanted to avoid the lights, the fastest route is actually Link (south) to Nelray (West). You can then turn right onto Lamar. Because the Lamar and 2222 light favors N-S traffic you rarely catch it. This is typically the fastest route.

Alternatively you could go West on 56th 551/2 or 55th, then jog south on Chesterfield, then go West on Nelray. Anyone who lives on Nelray will confirm that it is a cutthough street. I don’t know if anyone on that street is a traffic engineer, but I’m sure that doesn’t matter.

People traveling south on Lamar would likely take the “through the neighborhood routes” as well. They would add Franklin (one street south of Nelray) to the selection of Westbound cut-throughs.
But Lamar is a bitch for a left turn (for the same reason Koenig is - even though it has a “chicken lane”)

So people most often cut south to North Loop (53rd) head west, then go south on Lamar with the help of a traffic light.

Personally, my favorite route is to cut West on 55th or Nelray then go south on Chesterfield to North Loop, jog west just around Epoch to Lera Lynn to 51st, then head West to the intersection of 51st and Lamar. This route has the benefit of avoiding the light at 53rd and Guadalupe. This is also my next door neighbor’s favorite route.

The above description is what everyone who lives on the neighborhood steets above know. That is why they are concerned with traffic.

If the goal of a traffic study is to estimate how traffic will move to and from a site the one presented by Endeavor is a complete failure.
These real-life traffic patterns are much closer to how traffic would likely flow from the site.

But I don’t believe this study as done to estimate how traffic would flow from the site. I believe (rememeber the money thing I mentioned) that it was designed to show people in the neighborhood that they wouldn’t really have any traffic at all.

In fact if you accepted the 1,000 figure as the current baseline their study shows that 259 apartments, plus 8,500 square feet of commercial square footage would actually result in less traffic than is currently there-only 709 trips.

I’m guessing that most people don’t call the traffic engineer for clarification on the 1000. It reads as what traffic is there now and is described in the table as “Existing Land Use Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Traffic generation.” If this number is actually “current permitted usage” (whatever that means) as Tommy suggests I think this descrioption is pretty misleading.

Which brings us back to the money and the motive behind things.
Again one point of the study is to diminish the supposed impact of many new residents and their cars.

The second purpose is to avoid the triggers that would require a formal traffic study.

We have been told several times by Endeavor that a formal traffic study woould not be required for the project. But, strangley, they have always said they would do one anyway. It is the ONLY concession they have made to date apart from a “design charrette.” Endeavor has definitely NOT agreed to pay for any needed (and very costly) road and infrastructure improvements. And since this study would not be done under the eye of the City, they would not be required to do so. You an draw your on conclusions for the motivation here. (except from code below)

Strip malls are’s all bad.

In fact Endeavor has one featured on their homepage.

http://www.endeavor-re.com/

They are obviously pretty proud about that one.

And while a strip mall MAY generate more traffic, it would be very unlikely to have its primary entrance on the south side of the lot.
That would place it behind the building. I don;t think they would put it there. It would be much more likely for a strip center to have a primary entrance on Koenig with a secondary entry on F -basically the same traffic pattern as existed with Howard’s. F is the one street in this area that is an arterial street. Its also the only one that has sidewalks. Its therefore the best street to absorb this (secondary) flow from a strip center or other commercial use.

5-6-113 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIRED.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in Section 25-6-117 (Waiver Authorized), a person submitting a site plan application or a zoning or rezoning application must submit a traffic impact analysis to the department if the expected number of trips generated by a project exceeds 2,000 vehicle trips per day.

(B) If the director determines that the traffic impact analysis does not comply with the requirements of this article, the director may require the applicant to supplement the traffic impact analysis to address a deficiency.

(C) An applicant required to supplement an analysis under Subsection (B) must submit the required supplemental material before the 27th day before the date on which the application is scheduled for action.

Source: Sections 13-5-43, 13-5-44(b), and 13-5-46(a); Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11.

§ 25-6-114 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED.

(A) The director shall conduct a neighborhood traffic analysis for a project proposed in a site development permit application or a zoning or rezoning application if:

(1) the project has access to a residential local or collector street as described in Subsection (C); and

(2) the projected number of vehicle trips generated by the project exceeds the vehicle trips per day generated by existing uses by at least 300 vehicle trips per day.

(B) If a current traffic count for an affected street is not available, the director may require the applicant to conduct a traffic count in accordance with procedures established by the city manager.

(C) In this article, a residential local or collector street is a street:

(1) that is not an arterial street; and

(2) along which at least 50 percent of the frontage located:

(a) 1500 feet or less from the proposed project’s property line has an urban family residential district (SF-5) or more restrictive zoning designation; or

(b) between the property line and the nearest arterial street that is less than 1500 feet from the property line has an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning designation.

(D) Under this article, residential property in a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district is treated as property in an SF-5 zoning district if the PUD land use plan establishes the density for the residential area at 12.44 units per acre or less.

(E) Under Subsection (C), each segment of a street that meets the criteria in Subsection (C)(2)(a) or (b) is considered separately.

Source: Sections 13-2-25, 13-5-44(a), 13-5-44(c), and 13-5-46(b); Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 010329-18; Ord. 010607-50; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. 20060504-039.

By Jody Horton on Oct 3, 2007

We can disagree all day long about which directions cars will travel, and until we get a traffic study we will never know, so let’s stick to the basics.
Fact:
Existing Land Use as approved = 1063 trips/day.
Proposed Land Use = 2,028 trips/day.
Strip Retail allowed under current zoning w/ no variance, no affordable housing, no parkland dedication, no design charette, no traffic study, no RI/RO on Link = 3464 trips/day

Question: Which one generates less traffic?
Answer: Proposed Land Use

Question: Which one puts more traffic on Link?
Answer: Proposed Land Use

Question: Why are we discussing traffic?
Answer: ?????

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

please allow me to correct my prior post.
Question: which one puts less traffic on Link?
Answer: Proposed Land Use

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

But we do know which direction traffic travels.

Have you ever been to a large campus where there is a lot of open green space and you see what I call “goat paths” in the grass-places where people have continually walked for years and worn down the grass.

I’m basically describing these for our neighborhood above.

You can choose to listen or not, but those are the paths. I’m not sure why you would think I know so little about somewhere I have lived for
5 years.

Please define what you mean by “existing land as approved”.

Isn’t the amount of traffic that exists what is important?

If this were a previously undeveloped piece of land that had been zoned commercial some years ago would we be interested in some hypothetical figure it was said to be “approved” for when considering the traffic generated by a new development? I would definitely argue no.

I’m sad that you have taken these figures so to heart. Why do they represent abosulte truth to you to the degree that they seem unchallengable? Have you done the math yourself or bothered to determine the likely number of cars based on unit type and various types of retail commercial usage?

I think a lot of people have been closed-minded about this stuff.
And more willing to take the package handed to them rather than thinking it through themselves. The term mixed use works in the same way. On the one hand something called “mixed-use” seems like something to rally behind. But how unmixed can you make “mixed-use” and still call it mixed. This project is between 2 & 3% not counting the rental office. That seems pretty lame to me. Can we call the Villas at Guadalupe “mixed-use” because it has a Blockbuster on
the first floor. That makes the term seem kind of meaningless doesn’t it?

But back to traffic. You are missing the point on traffic entirely.
Its not how many trips are generated, its the direction of the flow of traffic. A strip center would almost certainly not have a primary south exit which would direct flow through the neighborhood.

So a strip center might create more taffic overall, but not for the neighborhood.

We are discussing traffic because it is the major issue in this development.

Your arguement is so incoherent that I am starting to think you are not serious about this at all and are just joking around. I don’t mean that in a mean way. I’m not saying you are incoherent, but the argument really needs help.

Think this through a little more and re-read my last posting please.

By Jody Horton on Oct 3, 2007

Let’s just agree to disagree.
I will respond to your questions:
1) No, the amount of traffic that exists today has no relevance. This is traffic engineering 101. If the use is approved, then another nursery and retail operation (such as a beauty supply) can open in those same buildings and will generate the +/- 1,000 trips/day. You can’t argue that if an apartment complex is empty that it generates no trips. The way that municipalities and traffic engineers evaluate any new development is based upon the potential trips that could be generated using widely accepted traffic data.
2) I have no problem challenging data. I personally would not have gone about it the way that you did, but that’s what makes people different. I have tremendous respect for traffic engineers, as they risk their license when they submit traffic counts. If I questioned the data (which I don’t), then I would hire my own firm to give me an opinion. I would not start a website, hand out flyers, and torch an otherwise sound project simply because I didn’t believe something that I knew little about.
3) You must not have studied Austin’s design guidelines. Building’s are required to have their storefront pulled up close to the main street (koenig). As such, all of the parking is at the rear, and most of the traffic would enter from koenig and exit onto 56th. this would be considered transient traffic, and they would have less respect for their neighborhood than an apartment. this would all be surface parking that everyone on 56th street gets to look at.
4) I appreciate your thoughts about this being humorous to me, but its not. You have attacked an awful lot of people in this process, so it is no surprise that you now are coming after me.
I am sure that you have the best of intentions. There are countless urban planning books written about these exact discussions. Urban planners refer to your point of view as NIMBY’ism. I hope you will buy one and study this a little more because it is facsinating stuff and will change your view on urban density.

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

I think that most strip centers focus on major streets. When they are on a corner they typically use that corner. Entrance exit on front (koenig) and entrance exit on side (F).

This describes the retail complexes I know of that are located near residential streets. Walgreens at 45th and Guadalupe comes to mind.

But I am willing to take a look at some that violate what I think of as a standard rule.

Please post some sites with addresses and cross streets and I’ll google map them.

Do you know of any developments of this size that are similarly oriented to residential streets? Please post these too.

I have looked and been unable to find them. The same challenge was posed to the developers.

I don’t think I or anyone needs to be an urban planner to have and voice an opinion on my own home and neighborhood.

In general I think it is dangerous to leave most things entirely to professionals. A degree of skepticism seems like a good idea when a lot of money stands to be made.

By Jody Horton on Oct 3, 2007

Ok, saw the agree to disagree just now again. That’s cool w me.
This stuff brings out a lot of strong felings. I’m sorry if you felt insulted and understand that you care as I do.

One last thought: I do think the immediate people do matter a lot. That’s why this issue has been such a shitstorm. They weren’t consulted for their input and feelings. The discussion our nighborhood had would have been worlds better if the “let’s think of solutions to overcome problems we people who live next to it see” had started earlier. Instead the neighborhood was ripped apart.

Ok one more point. I completely understand the nimby argument for things like “This subway (cool!) is going to run run right next to your house (shit!)” But I do think that fit needs to be considered. Not all things work in all places. I just don’t think that this development will fit without a lot of compromise on the part of the developer. They can still make a lot of money. It will just be less, and harder, and that is ok. Its worth fighting through that.

And still I would like to see the examples. But I don’t mean that in a challenging way. I would like to see how traffic was mediated in similar situations and hear what neighbors think about it. I really haven’t been able to find comparable situations. Help me find a healthy and happy resolution out there then let’s both push to replicate it.

By Jody Horton on Oct 3, 2007

you will not find many examples in austin because the design guidelines and VMU are so new. Lincoln Park is a great example in Chicago. when you walk to the Cub’s game you walk past active bars, restaurants, mini-grocer’s, etc and the 4 story apartments and condo’s are on the main streets surrounding the SF houses + brownstones. there are many examples of this type of development that are discussed in some of the urban planning books. The math is really fascinating, and the only way to make it work is with density. by the City’s own admission, austin has had terrible urban planning and VMU is an attempt to fix it, but we have to get started. we are also just about to go live on commuter rail, and austin is winning awards left-amd-right for the worst traffic of any similar sized City. my point is that VMU is an attempt to fix some of these problems and the perfect VMU site is on a major road next to 2 bus stops nearby a rail station. i don’t know if you have ever been involved in retailing, but it is all about location, demographics, visibility, and ease of access (curb-cuts). do you really believe that a strip center would not have curb-cut’s on 56th? please introduce me to that retailer because i don’t believe they exist.
On the NIMBY thing, you don’t believe me but your argument is text-book. I am not trying to label you, but the cul-de-sac thing is the essence of the NIMBY argument.
you apparently feel that the developer wanted to negotiate because you keep referring to them making money. If they can’t make money I don’t want them to build anything, because I have seen how that plays out and it is the worst of all possible situations because they will build crap. In fact, i hope they make lots of money so they will want to do more, and the land values will rise and other developers show up and the bars and food will arrive and our property values will increase like SoCo. I read the situation very differently than you. What i saw was a local developer with an outstanding reputation that took the time to read our neighborhood plan and had a passion for high quality VMU. I think they understand that without density neighborhood retail will fail and staying true to their principle’s they have no interest in anything less than the minimum density that they think it will take to give it a chance. these projects really can envigorate neighborhoods. I like people. I like active streets. i don’t have illusions that cars are going away, but i do believe that with 4-5 VMU projects our neighborhood would become much more interesting to retailers, we would get a killer park and we might even make a few friends along the way. with 20 VMU’s within a 3 mile radius, we might even get someone to re-develop Highland mall.
i agree that the effected neighbors matter. however, there are sites all around our neighborhood with CS-MU zoning and we will all be affected at one point or another. they are all in awful shape today and it couldn’t possibly get any worse. if we kill this deal, which i am afraid that we already have, then we have set the stage for every neighbor to make the same argument and for the status quo. the point of a neighborhood plan is to set out the overall goals and work together to achieve them. without density and VMU, we will never get there.

By Tommy on Oct 3, 2007

Good Points. We need more density and DIVERSITY. Heaven help us if the future of VMU is nothing but rental properties. We need condos, townhomes and office too.

Technically a NIMBY is someone who would say we need more density, we need more density and then say not in my backyard. It is the hypocrisy that makes a truly good NIMBY.

By Ditto on Oct 4, 2007

I think it would be great if the developers chose to use this blog as a forum do discuss the project with the concerned residents. Mr. Alam, if you happen to read this, do you have any thoughts for us? I think that our neighbor Tommy has done a pretty good job of presenting something close to your perspective, but I know that I’d like to hear from you directly. Even if it’s just on this blog.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 4, 2007

I would like to make two quick points regarding traffic and the North Loop Neighborhood Plan.

The Plan was composed several years ago, before the median was added to Koenig. That damn median! It killed the retail business of Parker Beauty Supply, and probably led to the decline of business at Howard’s as well. The median totally screwed that piece of land. I’m willing to bet that the traffic figures Endeavor keeps pushing on us do not reflect this fact. The median is the crux of the problem here. If it wasn’t there, Endeavor could probably put two garage entrances on Koenig (or just one big one.)

But alas, it is there, and apparently TXDOT won’t allow anyone to remove parts of it. This is forcing the developers to route traffic into the neighborhood, and that is a large part of what is making everyone so mad. Without the median, I would venture to say that this project would have the support of more than half the neighborhood.

Density might help raise the quality of retail in this neighborhood, but the density needs to be located in the right places, places better suited for the volume of car traffic that will be generated. Our neighborhood plan suggests plenty of other locations which would be much better suited to handle that amount of traffic.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 4, 2007

Once again the suburban mentality raises its ugly head. It’s a more typical urban form to have medians along major roadways - and for people to go ‘around the block’ if necessary to get in/out of a development if they need to turn the other direction. This is not a new thing and it’s not a bad thing — it does mean that getting to this site will be slightly less convenient by automobile than it would if Koenig lacked a median, which, ironically, is another argument in its favor (more customers likely to come by means other than the private automobile at the margin).

The median on Barton Springs has killed exactly zero businesses despite wild claims beforehand from people who had no idea that it works just fine in other states.

Chicken lanes have been on the way out for a long time around the country - TXDOT is way behind the curve here. The higher prevalence of older drivers over time makes these things deathtraps - they are absolutely not appropriate for most non-rural applications.

By M1EK on Oct 4, 2007

Gee whiz, Miek, I guess if the “suburban mentality” means looking at the reality of a situation and taking it for what it is, then I am guilty as charged.

It’s certainly easy to argue for a huge amount of additional traffic on someone else’s street, isn’t it?

And comparing Barton Springs Road to Koenig Lane is pretty realistic too.

I never said that medians are a bad thing — I just said that in this case they have changed the assumptions upon which the neighborhood plan was created.

By Clay Crenshaw on Oct 4, 2007

Speaking of additional traffic on someone else’s street… I keep hearing that people would prefer a development with no south entrance which will probably result in an Ave F entrance. I happen to live right there on Ave F. Why is that ok or better? I am not opposed to a main entrance on my street, but it just seems hypocritical to me. Do I want a main entrance there? Not really but either way a lot of people are affected and I am not going to fight to make the main entrance be on someone else’s street versus my own. Yes I liked the idea the developers brought to the table but I still would have voted yes if the main entrance would have emptied out onto avenue F.

I bought on that road knowing it was a more major road then some of the other neighborhood streets. I am realistic that no matter what the traffic will greatly increase. I realize my kids/pets will not be able to really hang out in my front yard. If I lived behind or next to a commercially zoned property I would be realistic and know that my kids and pets will probably have to stay in my backyard for safety. Either way people are going to be affected negatively in some way but hopefully there will be more positives that come with it. If we don’t want the traffic and don’t want anything but strip malls then we should all move to the suburbs.
Also, last I checked the Endeavor’s item was still on the agenda for Monday’s meeting. I’ll post if I hear something has changed. Hopefully they will delay and come back to us and try to come up with some sort of compromise to make more people happy.

By Larisa on Oct 4, 2007

“And comparing Barton Springs Road to Koenig Lane is pretty realistic too.”

Yes, it is. It would be very nice if Koenig turned into something like Barton Springs has. Better for cyclists, pedestrians, and locals, while still providing some through capacity for people outside the area.

Pooh-pooh this if you want. I’ve only been writing about transportation for ten years now (served on the UTC for five of those).

By M1EK on Oct 4, 2007

been watching this debate and finally had to say something when it is being suggested that koenig could become like barton springs.

are you kidding? cuz i’m laughing. i don’t live in that neighborhood either, but i’ve lived in austin long enough to know that even if that were possible, it couldn’t happen for decades.

c’mon. get serious. why should a residential street have to put up with loads more cars just to humor your pipe dream?

unless you have a plan to put in a springs and an armadillo on Koenig…?

and, if you served on the UTC for 10 years, then you are a large part of the problem. I would not brag about that! This mess is on you.

By uh huh on Oct 4, 2007

“uh huh”, I meant as in Barton Springs serves well for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers on the part where it was rebuilt (with median) - between Zilker and Lamar. Your provincialism about traffic is sadly typical around these parts - but just because a bunch of people believe you can’t do anything but drive doesn’t make it true.

By M1EK on Oct 4, 2007

but you are missing reality in your arguments. sure, there are other options to driving but you gotta do more than build bigass apartment complexes to encourage them.

just wishing doesn’t get you pedestrian traffic. and walking along barton springs isn’t exactly enjoyable or reasonable. where you walking to?

the springs from or two a restaurant. thats it. or if it is blocked off for ACL.

forgive my “provincialism”, but I prefer reality in my city planning. all the more reason to dump the crowd in power. get a new city manager that works FOR council instead of vice versa. lets start making our council accountable.

a little pandering goes a long way in my book.

By uh huh on Oct 4, 2007

uh huh,

Yes. You have to build apartment complexes with retail at the bottom with good streetscapes that are located within walking distance of more residential stuff which is hopefully in a grid pattern. And you have to also be able to support people coming by the car - catering purely to one or the other isn’t sustainable in the long-run in an urban area.

You know, like a VMU project right on Koenig in the North Loop area.

What you guys are pushing for, on the other hand, is more suburban crap in the urban core. Really really really dumb.

By M1EK on Oct 4, 2007

Just catching up. Ok so does anyone else beside Jommy know about a successful high density next to single family uage living in harmony?
I know its counter to most compatibility standards, but I don’t believe its impossible. Still it would be cool to know of some real life examples.

For the Koenig issue, it is very unlikely this will be like BSprings anttime in the next several years. The median was just completed a few years ago to make it more of a highspeed throughway.

By Jody Horton on Oct 4, 2007

lets take this back to the reality of today M1.

Currently, the only place for the suckers who rent a 1200 dollar 800 sq. foot apt miles from downtown to walk will be downstairs to eat a…what? which wich? doesn’t matter. they are going to have to drive for the forseeable future if they want to go anywhere else. that or wait for a bus, which, according to your own website, isn’t the most easy or reliable option.

so that brings us back to why the nice folks on Link should have to pay for your pipe dream.

do you even live in Austin? and with all your time on the UTA, why didn’t you prevent this mess? seriously man. All you seem to do on the blogs around town is complain. Do you do anything positive for anyone?

you appear to be contrarian for the sake of it. which is great for blogs, but lousy for REAL LIFE.

Its almost closing time, so have a safe walk/scooter ride/ bus ride home. I’m going to avoid the cancerous sun and zip home in my hybrid. Is that cool?

By uh huh on Oct 4, 2007

uh huh,

You’re woefully out of touch. Many people in the neighborhood already take the bus, ride, or walk - as evidenced by their own email list. And, yes, I live in Austin, and yes, I do all of those things too (took the bus to/from UT just this afternoon as a matter of fact).

Jody, the 31 Guadalupe VMU is on a major thoroughway and right next to single-family. You won’t find any other examples here because until recently, we didn’t allow VMU to be built. In other cities and countries, it works just fine.

By M1EK on Oct 4, 2007

APR - the developer has dropped the contract, in other words, they have “gone away or quit”.

From Sebastian Wren, President of Northfield Neighborhood Assoc:

True to his word, Jamil has terminated the contract with the Howards,
and has withdrawn his proposal for development in our neighborhood.

Obviously, I won’t be writing a letter to the Board of Adjustment
because there is no need.

Cheers.

By Tim Tischler on Oct 4, 2007

has endeavor left the scene? really? look a little closer….

By tsktsk on Oct 18, 2007