Insult of the Comprehensive Plan

Hello Austin, did you know that we are putting together a comprehensive plan for our city, to update the one 30 years ago? Yes, we are, and according to the city, it will take 2 years and $1.8 million, with $1.5 million going to the independent consultant. You heard me: $1.8 million in total with $1.5 million going to the independent consultant. Seriously.

This is the point where everyone should have his or her eyebrows raised and said, "Really?" Not only is the ratio a complete fallacy in terms of including Austinites and building goodwill towards the city, but the whole price is a complete insult. There are many, many houses in Austin worth more than $1.8 million, let alone an entire comprehensive plan. That amount is a paltry sum, a mere token, and the process for completing the plan is most likely going to offend more people than be effective.

Anyone who reads this knows that I care a great deal about community involvement in the comprehensive plan (see the October 5, 2008 entry). If anyone is aware, there is a UNIVERSITY that has a COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT located fairly close to downtown. Its name is the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN. If one gave $1.5 million to that department to help complete the comprehensive plan, not only would there be more models to base actual results on, but the STATE university would have free access to the information gathered by the state. Comprehensive planning is what these students AND PROFESSORS study, morning, noon and night, and to pay an outside consultant a ridiculous sum of money when we have resources at our own disposal is going for the two birds in the bush.

Yes, UT has seemed a bit like Rapunzel, standing in her tower and only allowing the sacred few to enter. On the contrary, how on earth are we going to initiate the process of removing the maiden from the tower if we are unwilling to climb her hair? Universities know how to live on $1.5 million sums, and they know more about allocation than anything, not to mention that they are non-profits. It simply makes no sense to spend $1.8 million on a comprehensive plan and give that money to someone outside of the direct effects, while ignoring perfectly good resources at our immediate disposal. And $1.8 million dollars is nothing, for the record.

Stranded Downtown

On December 23, I had to work late because the end of the year was busy. Like a good urbanite, I took the bus and expected to take the bus home again. Normally, there were two buses which traveled to my neighborhood, but I saw roughly 11 Trail of Lights buses before I finally caught a bus. I was basically stranded downtown with no way home for about an hour and I was at 11th and Lavaca, which has no businesses to patronize and no regular foot traffic.

Many people argue that because there is no "effective" public transit system, people are forced to drive. My counter is this: if no one takes the bus after hours, then there will be inefficient and ineffective buses after hours. There are students, but these days, more workers come early and stay late, and people need to feel that they can get home safely and quickly without having to factor an extra hour of waiting.

Being stranded downtown should never happen in one of the fastest growing cities in America. Please talk to Capitol Metro (yes, I do the same) and tell them if you ever ride the bus after 6pm. There are many activities that happen in the later hours, and not having to park would be a boon on the city. We need to work with our transit system to make it more effective so that the buses and trains do not give us a curfew.

Safety around the parking lots

One of my co-workers was coming in early to do overtime, since the end of the year tends to be a busy season for a number of state departments. While she was getting out of her car, two men appeared and tried to demand money. Despite a number of firm statements, the men did not leave, so it was fortunate that she made her way to work and that her car remained unharmed.

To have a long stream of parking lots with no businesses or people is unsafe, and that is exactly the case from 15th Street to 11th Street on San Jacinto and Trinity. There is no constant fluctuation of foot traffic because there are no restaurants or stores for people to go to, and there are no residents who watch out for themselves and others. Even the Texas Residential Construction Commission is swallowed by its isolation next to those parking lots, as there are no businesses to support the safety of the area.

Downtown does not have to be unsafe at any part. While it is important to have parking lots because so many people insist upon driving (although that could potentially change), there should not be blocks and blocks of parking garages that have little to no foot traffic. Those areas create unsafe environments for the very workers who park their cars there.

Options for New Year

Thanks to the end of the semester and the holidays, the loyal few have not heard much news from me. Fortunately, with the coming of the new year comes a new opportunity to see what Austin can and will do. We have options, and we have factions. It will be interesting to see how the city changes over the next twelve months. Happy New Year!

Students at Work

When I read stories in the Statesman (or any news) that demonstrate use of student input, I jump up and down and dance. This city has been avoiding the use of its student population for years, and I am literally at a loss as to why. This city has one of the highest concentrations of students in the entire state of Texas, and we basically pat them on theirs heads, and tell them to fill up the punch bowl. Recently, I was inspired by the student input into the Waller Creek development, and after walking in the Waller Creek area today, I can honestly say that it needs a bunch of planners, students and developers working on it.

Student initiative is vital to a constantly changing city. For example, there are several downright ugly traffic medians ("islands" as they are called) which could use landscaping. Well, we could pay some landscaping firm to come up with an idea that might get into the budget 20 years later. Or, we could make these islands projects for landscape architecture students, landscaping students, or any other type of students who are in the process of learning about how to make the outdoors prettier. These bring up the value in the community and they provide experience for students before they graduate.

We have students, and pretending otherwise is detrimental to our local economy. Instead of paying them nothing and having them fill punch bowls, we should start putting them to good use and making it less possible for them to live in our city without becoming positively engaged in the good of the entire community.

Artisan Communities Exploit Non-Consumerism

One of the tragedies of the rise in the cost of living in Austin is that the city is losing a number of artist communities, or the possibility of gallery space. While the cost of living has risen, the community that supports art in Austin has become disconnected. What if someone is not as "high class" as the Blanton? What if someone wants more unity than a tour of studios? Full disclosure: I enjoy the Blanton and I enjoy the East Austin studio tour. However, I know that people enjoy an artisan community, and other than guitarists, I believe the city has a responsibility to support such a community.

Because there are still large quantities of space that have little to no development, a developer should buy a large parcel of land, and build 20 of those super small houses so that artists, writers, and musicians can have small spaces to practice their crafts, but not have a mountain of bills for basic maintenance. For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of a super small house, there are houses that are as small as 84 sq. ft. up to as large as 300 sq. ft. Single family housing is still incredibly inexpensive to build, so the profitability should be visible to the average developer. This would encourage more studios to be built, and might actually support a shared space so that people can know where to go for art.

In the past, artists have rented spaces separate from their homes to display and create their art. The high cost of living is one thing, but maintaining two separate residences makes art somewhat of a hobby for the superwealthy. Instead, creating an artisan community would allow artists the respect of separating their work from their private lives and promote a non-consumer mentality: if you only work there, you have little need for extra furniture and the rest of the trimmings that people usually put in their homes.

The real challenge of Austin is that we all believe that density means putting everything in one place. What density actually means is making many opportunities available in several locations. All the live music venues, art galleries, and poetry slams should not be concentrated in 78701, 78702, 78703, 78704, and 78705. We have a big city, and one way to promote artists of all types is community exposure in several different locations. If a developer builds a community of studios, that developer is promoting art in Austin, and allowing people to see its good will in the promotion of Austin values.

Call to Action

This goes out to all the people that density proponents are marketing to who are at happy hours and lectures instead of at the public meetings. Honestly, the message regarding density is not getting out there, and people who support new urbanism are surprised that change is happening slowly. Well, I fail to see where the surprise is: people at the public meetings are the same people who oppose the very ideas that society is trying to instill in its citizens, like use of public transit, mixed use locations, and shared public spaces. It would seem very difficult to encourage density when few people who support the concept are at the meetings.

Therefore, I am implementing a call to action. Instead of going to happy hours all the time and only networking with people you already know, go to a public meeting. Not only will it give you a chance to expand your network, but you might even catch a glimpse of what the other side is saying. Also, I know that many of you complain about what should be happening in Austin, but is taking too much time. Well, if you never say anything where someone who has power can hear you, it would be rather difficult to give you what you want.

Density, like adult literacy and child welfare, is a cause. If no one at the meeting supports being able to walk to work, the grocery, the bank and childcare, then politicians have to listen to the people who are at the meeting. Obama was elected because a bunch of young people used technology, networking, and community organization skills to support the greater good. Sprawl is not the definition of a strong society, and it will not matter that people wanted cars when the government runs out of money to support the automobile infrastructure, or for people to own an acre a piece, or for parents to drive their children everywhere. Be the change you want to see. If we choose to live in huge houses, buy wasteful vehicles and eat too much, we deserve what we get. Those of you who appreciate walking to the drug store, walking to the movies, and having businesses in your neighborhood without having to get into a car, get to the public meetings. The message is not clear when only one side is speaking.