Hyperreal Film Club
Opposing Height Limits Naive
RECEIVED Tue., May 5, 2009
Dear Editor,
With all due respect, your reporter Katherine Gregor is naive in opposing firm height limits along Lady Bird Lake ["Developing Stories: Protecting the Waterfront (Part 2),” News, May 1].
Rather than re-enact such limits, the City Council has now passed the sort of “compromise” recommended by Ms. Gregor: Height limits can be waived whenever the developer “proves” to the council that a taller building “benefits” the community. We are told this is sophisticated and modern. Alas, it is not.
The problem is that this policy permits every case to become a potential exception, with the usual result. In a never-ending, case-by-case siege on City Hall, developers cultivate staff and council members. Money sloshes into campaigns. Personal and business relationships come into play. Ordinary citizens, without lobbyists, are forced into innumerable exhausting battles. Planning rules die the death of a thousand cuts.
Planning decisions are not made by philosopher kings. City planning is inherently political. The route of a new sewer line or an extra 20 floors on a condo tower means millions of dollars in profits to some parties. Firm rules are required to protect the public interest.
The people of Austin want height limits on the lake. That is a reasonable, even enlightened, planning principle. It expresses longtime community values. Contrary to Ms. Gregor’s view, “the judicious use of taller, thinner buildings” along the lake is not an immutable law of town planning.
In reality, lakeshore height limits don’t have anything to do with “old” standards vs. “new” or “density vs. sprawl.” That is a false argument. Those who make it are not advancing a New Urbanism. They are shilling for a kind of fake urbanism in which pseudo-sophisticated slogans are used to justify whatever politicians and promoters want to do.
With all due respect, your reporter Katherine Gregor is naive in opposing firm height limits along Lady Bird Lake ["Developing Stories: Protecting the Waterfront (Part 2),” News, May 1].
Rather than re-enact such limits, the City Council has now passed the sort of “compromise” recommended by Ms. Gregor: Height limits can be waived whenever the developer “proves” to the council that a taller building “benefits” the community. We are told this is sophisticated and modern. Alas, it is not.
The problem is that this policy permits every case to become a potential exception, with the usual result. In a never-ending, case-by-case siege on City Hall, developers cultivate staff and council members. Money sloshes into campaigns. Personal and business relationships come into play. Ordinary citizens, without lobbyists, are forced into innumerable exhausting battles. Planning rules die the death of a thousand cuts.
Planning decisions are not made by philosopher kings. City planning is inherently political. The route of a new sewer line or an extra 20 floors on a condo tower means millions of dollars in profits to some parties. Firm rules are required to protect the public interest.
The people of Austin want height limits on the lake. That is a reasonable, even enlightened, planning principle. It expresses longtime community values. Contrary to Ms. Gregor’s view, “the judicious use of taller, thinner buildings” along the lake is not an immutable law of town planning.
In reality, lakeshore height limits don’t have anything to do with “old” standards vs. “new” or “density vs. sprawl.” That is a false argument. Those who make it are not advancing a New Urbanism. They are shilling for a kind of fake urbanism in which pseudo-sophisticated slogans are used to justify whatever politicians and promoters want to do.
Dean Rindy