I found this picture in the master plan for the new Seaholm development.

It's interesting to me because it shows the Austin I remember and not the one that I always hear people waxing nostalgic about. I visited Austin in the late 80s and early 90s and moved here in 1996. I remember it as lots of empty lots that you had to drive past to get to the beautiful places. If it wasn't developed it was a weed filled lot or someone's ranch that had been stripped of trees. You can see that downtown is mostly just one story buildings and abandoned lots in the picture.
Has there been a lot of development in West Austin over the aquifer that has been environmentally destructive? Absolutely. But a lot of that nature dates only as far back as the 1980s and is a serious tribute to the environmental movement that emerged around that time. In the 70's west Austin held a lot of ranch land as you can see in the pictures on this site.
There's a lot of nostalgia in this town for a past that never was.

So from 1990-1992 I lived in the Soviet Union. My family were officially there as students, so we were placed into foreign student housing in Ainabulak-3. A brand new micro-district in Almaty, Kazakhstan. It was indeed ugly and bleak. Oddly enough in contrast to US development practices they put in the roads last. It's an interesting practice in a place that has very little rainfall (Almaty is desert). You don't destroy your roads with construction traffic. So here's the view out of our back window. The central area became essentially a cul-de-sac. There was a road that curved along one side of it and the central area was used for football and gardens. Essentially a neighborhood park. Of interest are the buildings you see in the near distance. Those are public service buildings. Schools in this case, if I'm remembering correctly.


Here's the view of the front of the building. I've blurred my sister as she tends to not enjoy pictures of herself from this time period. Our building is on the right. The shorter buildings in the near foreground are more public service buildings. If memory serves a kindergarden and grocery strore. In between the six story building and the magazine is a minor arterial with bus service.



So why do I bring this up, other than to show off some pictures illustrating how ugly the Soviet Union often was? Because I was panning over google earth recently looking at the area, and saw the term "microdistrict". So I looked that up and found this info:

Microdistrict, or microraion , is a residential complex—a primary structural element of the residential area construction in the Soviet Union and in some post-Soviet states. ... According to the Construction Rules and Regulations of the Soviet Union, a typical microdistrict covered the area of 10–60 hectares (30–160 acres), up to but not exceeding 80 hectares (200 acres) in some cases, and comprised residential dwellings (usually multi-story apartment buildings) and public service buildings. As a general rule, major motor roads, greenways, and natural obstacles served as boundaries between microdistricts, allowing an overall reduction in city road construction and maintenance costs and emphasizing public transportation. Major motor roads or through streets were not to cross microdistricts' territories. The entrances to a microdistrict's territory were to be located no further than 300 meters (1000 ft) apart. Standards also regulated the accessibility of the public service buildings (excluding schools and pre-school facilities) by imposing a 500-meter (1,500–foot) limit as the farthest distance from any residential dwelling. One of the city-planners' tasks was to ensure that the fewest number of public buildings was built to cover the microdistrict's territory in accordance with the norms. Typical public service structures include secondary schools, pre-school establishments (usually combined kindergarten and nursery), grocery stores, personal service shops, cafeterias, clubs, playgrounds, and building maintenance offices, as well as a number of specialized shops. The exact number of buildings of each type depended on the distance requirement and the microdistrict's population density and was determined by means of certain per capita standards.

I had no clue it was that planned, but it was very easy to walk. It was easy to get out of our cluster of buildings to a main road to catch a bus. While the store near us wasn't that great, it was close, and schools were very close. Most of the vehicular traffic were taxicabs and it was easy for them to learn the district since they only had to learn how to get to a particular area and then the customer could direct them into the correct building segment or just drop them off on the main road, since it was a very quick walk into any given segment.

So before I go into what we could learn from this, here is the Google Maps view now.


View Larger Map
I'm blown away by the amount of green now. As you can see from my pictures it was pretty lifeless.
It's interesting to me, though when we think about cul-de-sacs and planning. We tend to think of cul-de-sacs as the enemy, but when you look at this area, pretty much everything is a cul-de-sac. I take away some pretty good planning ideas from this:

• Access to arterials. No residence or business should be more than 'x' distance from an arterial
• Access to public services. Every 'x' area should have space for schools, restaurants, grocery stores, and commercial.
• Buffer space. Every residential and business area should have a buffer from the main road, but should be a walkable distance to it.

While most people see the Soviets planned to a joke, there's a lot of sense to what they are doing. And this should appeal to fiscal conservatives as well, because this sort of planning makes the best use of government provided resources like roads and public transit. It's very SimCity, but it's amazing how little of this sort of planning actually goes on.
It would be very interesting to me to see what strong central planning for infrastructure would create in an unzoned city like Houston.

So the 801 Barton Springs PUD was looks like it's going to be a no go. PUD's are meant for large developments. Over 10 acres. This project was simply a single building. There's no reason for the city to be helping developers build single buildings. The city got nothing from approving the PUD. There were no public parks. No bike cut throughs from Bouldin to Barton Springs. No affordable housing. Nothing of value for the community at all.

This is a great example of when a PUD should not be used. The economics easily justify building a 60' building with ground floor retail in that space. This is a clear cut example of requesting a variance for no reason.

At the same time the neighborhood needs to not say that a 60' building in this space is "[not] compatible with neighborhood plans" and "[not] compatible with adjacent property and land uses". A 60' building in between a 60' office building and 100' office building across from what is essentially a convention center is not compatible with neighborhood plans or adjacent property and land uses? Really? This is why ANC is losing credibility. They should just change their name to the Austin Surface Parking Preservation Council. There is no excuse for defending the ruined foundation of a restaraunt in this location.

Both sides are wrong.

Here are the ANC notes that address it.
And the citiy's case review.

I think this should also be Austin's development mantra:

If we just changed our zoning so that anywhere you have a single family home you could build a double with a carriage house in back, you would triple the effective residential density of Indianapolis without any change to the visual scale of the city. Moderate densification is what we need.

from here.

Drove by 801 Barton Springs today. The neighborhood really, really needs to avoid opposing this if they want to continue to be invited to the table. It's a tiny parcel of land sandwiched between an 8 story building and a 5 story building.  Look at the street view.
Can you honestly say that a multi-story building would not be the best use of that location?