4 ms·

> But the idea of the “Austin Metro” operating there, even fifty years from now? Might be worth sharing that in 2020 Austin voters approved via ballot referend

> But the idea of the “Austin Metro” operating there, even fifty years from now? Might be worth sharing that in 2020 Austin voters approved via ballot referendum (58% to 42%) what's likely to be the largest expansion of public transit this decade. It authorized $7.1 billion in initial bond funds and established a dedicated sales tax to establish ongoing funding for 4 light rail lines, 1 subway, a dedicated BRT system, and a complete transformation of their public transit system. https://projectconnect.com/ https://projectconnect.com/ The initial phase itself is already deep into the design and bid stage, groundbreaking should happen in the next couple years. https://projectconnect.com/docs/librariesprovider2/maps/pcon_system-map-august-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=768e4c75_2 https://projectconnect.com/docs/librariesprovider2/maps/pcon... Even the state government of Texas gave its permission to tunnel under a portion of what is state-owned land for the subway for a 99-year annual lease of $1, which some Austin advocates originally feared would be leverage that the state legislature would try to use to hold up the project.

dkarl 4y ago
My theory about what turned the tide in favor of local support for transit is that business organizations were loud and clear about broadcasting the message, "We need this for Austin to be competitive." More than 42% of voters here have a distaste for density, public transit, and urban living in general, but a significant number of them were swayed to vote for the plan, and I think it was because of this pro-business message. These are folks who dislike cities but live in the suburbs and make their living from the urban economy, and they were willing to set aside their distaste and vote for transit. Like I said, it's just my personal theory, but I was impressed with how vocal the business community was before the vote.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  > These are folks who dislike cities but live in the suburbs and make their living from the urban economy, and they were willing to set aside their distaste and vote for transit The vote for the plan was purely within Austin city limits. The plan was not at all voted for by suburbanites, nor are they paid for by the suburbs (except for purchases those suburbanites make in Austin proper, generating sales tax revenue). > More than 42% of voters here have a distaste for density, public transit, and urban living in general Source, please? Because I doubt it. Austin has one of the most pro-urbanist city councils in Texas, and has densified at a rate most other cities have not over the past 20 years (and second only to Dallas and Houston in terms of nationwide growth). I'm a Texan myself, born and raised, and it's a completely different built environment than what it was even 10 years ago, and that's not by accident, but actual policy supported by voters. Skyscrapers, density, apartments, townhomes, rezonings in previous single-family-only enclaves – things California talks about in studies and papers and committees, Texas is actually doing (I've lived in Los Angeles for over 5 years now, and the sentiment here is much more anti-development than I see in Austin and Dallas, which is generally pro-build-it-and-they-will-come).
  - dkarl 4y ago
    The city limits include a lot of area that I consider suburbs, such as the area around Circle C in the southwest, the areas close to Cedar Park in the northwest, anything west of 360, etc. > Austin has one of the most pro-urbanist city councils in Texas Setting aside the fact that "in Texas" is one hell of a qualification to that statement, the voters haven't been helpful in allowing growth to happen. They just haven't been given the opportunity to stop it. CodeNEXT got a majority in the council, but it would have been crushed if it had been put in front of voters. I think the influx of pro-density residents into central Austin is changing things really fast, though.
    - thebradbain 4y ago
      > "in Texas" is one hell of a qualification to that statement I think you're mistaken, or (very understandbly!) applying Texas's social conservatism to their land policies, which are likely some of the most liberal in the nation. As someone who grew up in a real estate family "in Texas" – it's probably one of the most "pro-development" states in the country. Sure, historically that development hasn't been "urban", but as the market heads that direction the development has adapted. Texas cities have been very amenable to building density (Houston doesn't even have any zoning or density/height limits whatsoever!), it's just that in the past there wasn't the population density to justify it when you could spread ever outward. What we've seen in the past decade is a shift to the cities, and cities like Dallas/Houston/Austin have drastically increased density (I've seen entire single family blocks turned into mid-rise apartments in my neighborhood alone), no rezonings necessary. Dallas and Houston _each_ built more homes last year than the _entirety of the state of California_, and routinely have been doing so since 2010. Here's one from 2014, but you can find articles from 2021 and 2020 with a cursory google search, too. https://houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/04-02-14-boom-on-houston-notches-more-housing-starts-than-the-entire-state-of-california/ https://houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/04-02-14-boo... In 2017, Austin/Dallas/Houston issued about 10% of nationwide housing construction permits that year. That's crazy! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-16/texas-leads-the-u-s-in-new-home-construction-and-california https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-16/texas-lea... For better or worse, Texas also has an aversion to process and paperwork that seems to plague other cities' planning departments – getting a by-right ADU permitted in California, which is the law of the land, took me over a year in Los Angeles. In Dallas, it required council approval for a zoning exemption, but the process took 2 weeks total. I frankly do not really understand where this idea that Texas is against development is coming from -- the sentiment for "more more more" has existed since the oil boom in the 80s. Houston and Dallas both have grand ambitions of being the Manhattan of the South. Maybe it's the coastal people from much more NIMBY cities moving in?

dkarl 4y ago

My theory about what turned the tide in favor of local support for transit is that business organizations were loud and clear about broadcasting the message, "We need this for Austin to be competitive." More than 42% of voters here have a distaste for density, public transit, and urban living in general, but a significant number of them were swayed to vote for the plan, and I think it was because of this pro-business message. These are folks who dislike cities but live in the suburbs and make their living from the urban economy, and they were willing to set aside their distaste and vote for transit. Like I said, it's just my personal theory, but I was impressed with how vocal the business community was before the vote.

thebradbain 4y ago
> These are folks who dislike cities but live in the suburbs and make their living from the urban economy, and they were willing to set aside their distaste and vote for transit The vote for the plan was purely within Austin city limits. The plan was not at all voted for by suburbanites, nor are they paid for by the suburbs (except for purchases those suburbanites make in Austin proper, generating sales tax revenue). > More than 42% of voters here have a distaste for density, public transit, and urban living in general Source, please? Because I doubt it. Austin has one of the most pro-urbanist city councils in Texas, and has densified at a rate most other cities have not over the past 20 years (and second only to Dallas and Houston in terms of nationwide growth). I'm a Texan myself, born and raised, and it's a completely different built environment than what it was even 10 years ago, and that's not by accident, but actual policy supported by voters. Skyscrapers, density, apartments, townhomes, rezonings in previous single-family-only enclaves – things California talks about in studies and papers and committees, Texas is actually doing (I've lived in Los Angeles for over 5 years now, and the sentiment here is much more anti-development than I see in Austin and Dallas, which is generally pro-build-it-and-they-will-come).
- dkarl 4y ago
  The city limits include a lot of area that I consider suburbs, such as the area around Circle C in the southwest, the areas close to Cedar Park in the northwest, anything west of 360, etc. > Austin has one of the most pro-urbanist city councils in Texas Setting aside the fact that "in Texas" is one hell of a qualification to that statement, the voters haven't been helpful in allowing growth to happen. They just haven't been given the opportunity to stop it. CodeNEXT got a majority in the council, but it would have been crushed if it had been put in front of voters. I think the influx of pro-density residents into central Austin is changing things really fast, though.
  - thebradbain 4y ago
    > "in Texas" is one hell of a qualification to that statement I think you're mistaken, or (very understandbly!) applying Texas's social conservatism to their land policies, which are likely some of the most liberal in the nation. As someone who grew up in a real estate family "in Texas" – it's probably one of the most "pro-development" states in the country. Sure, historically that development hasn't been "urban", but as the market heads that direction the development has adapted. Texas cities have been very amenable to building density (Houston doesn't even have any zoning or density/height limits whatsoever!), it's just that in the past there wasn't the population density to justify it when you could spread ever outward. What we've seen in the past decade is a shift to the cities, and cities like Dallas/Houston/Austin have drastically increased density (I've seen entire single family blocks turned into mid-rise apartments in my neighborhood alone), no rezonings necessary. Dallas and Houston _each_ built more homes last year than the _entirety of the state of California_, and routinely have been doing so since 2010. Here's one from 2014, but you can find articles from 2021 and 2020 with a cursory google search, too. https://houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/04-02-14-boom-on-houston-notches-more-housing-starts-than-the-entire-state-of-california/ https://houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/04-02-14-boo... In 2017, Austin/Dallas/Houston issued about 10% of nationwide housing construction permits that year. That's crazy! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-16/texas-leads-the-u-s-in-new-home-construction-and-california https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-16/texas-lea... For better or worse, Texas also has an aversion to process and paperwork that seems to plague other cities' planning departments – getting a by-right ADU permitted in California, which is the law of the land, took me over a year in Los Angeles. In Dallas, it required council approval for a zoning exemption, but the process took 2 weeks total. I frankly do not really understand where this idea that Texas is against development is coming from -- the sentiment for "more more more" has existed since the oil boom in the 80s. Houston and Dallas both have grand ambitions of being the Manhattan of the South. Maybe it's the coastal people from much more NIMBY cities moving in?