Community Not Commodity

We previously reported on an important study confirming land‑use deregulation— code changes that allow greater density — does not drive housing supply or produce more affordable units. In fact, in cities like Austin, these policies can actually make housing less affordable. Read the report here.

Today, we turn to a new city‑generated document entitled “Missing Middle and Mixed‑Use Zoning Study.” We examine several of its “key findings” and premises regarding “missing-middle” housing and find that many of them conflict not only with the recent academic evidence but with the facts on the ground. Taken together, these claims represent a stale narrative aimed at reviving residential code amendments with densities of four to six units on a standard-sized lot (5,750 sf) – density levels closely resembling the “transition zones” (proposed in the 2019 Land Development Code Revision) – the successor to “transect zones” (proposed in CodeNEXT).

“Key findings” and premises of the City’s missing-middle proposal and our response:

1. “Among the most significant barriers are the code’s outdated base zoning districts, which remain substantially unchanged since the code was adopted over four decades ago.”

This is false. The City has acknowledged that “the current code has been amended hundreds of times since its initial adoption in the mid-1980s.”  This includes amendments to its base districts. H.O.M.E. alone changed the minimum lot size, the number of units, the setbacks, and the building coverage in the most prevalent single-family districts. Minimum parking standards and maximum occupancy limits were eliminated. Compatibility standards, which, when triggered, affected heights and setbacks on multi-family and commercial lots, were significantly weakened. Under a new state law, the uses, setbacks, FAR, and heights allowable on commercial properties have been changed.  And, applied overlays, density bonus provisions, and E-TODS override base district regulations. The City acknowledges much of this in the document, but still clings to the tired “outdated,” “substantially unchanged” code narrative to justify actions it wants to take.

2. “Existing base zones in the Austin Land Development Code generally limit housing choice to single-family homes or large apartment complexes.”

False, again. Currently, up to three units are allowed in SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3 and may be separate structures, duplexes, townhomes, or triplexes on standard-sized lots. On a 7,200sf or greater lot, four-unit “stacked flats” favored by staff are allowable.   On a 10,000 sf MF-3 lot, 8 units could be built, even without density bonuses. All of these are considered “missing middle” housing, all are available today, and none qualify as “large apartment complexes.”

The staff’s blame-the-code case rests almost entirely on a single chart claiming that a higher percentage (6%) of missing middle housing was built before 1984 than after (<1%). But their analysis does not control for demographic, economic, or cultural changes, interest‑rate and property‑value shifts, or major societal shocks (e.g., COVID‑19). Ignoring all of those factors and the resulting market preferences, then attributing building outcomes solely to the 1984 code to justify further deregulation is analytically unsound and risks “another ‘great planning disaster.’”  Staff claims that the 1984 code favors single-family homes (and large apartments), but their chart shows that by percentage, fewer single-family homes were built post-1984 (38%) than pre-1984 (49%). It’s not the code.

Housing choices are driven by builders, developers, and investors responding to demand—not by the code – a point the City implicitly concedes: “While HOME reforms have allowed more homes [including townhomes] in single‑family neighborhoods, builders mainly construct detached homes that remain unaffordable for many.” That acknowledgment confirms the study cited above: market demand and profit motives, not zoning, determine what gets built and at what price. Granting entitlements for more units on single‑family lots will lead to higher property values and taxes, reduce affordability, and increase displacement.

If adopted, the missing middle districts would be available for area-wide “city-initiated rezoning” or by property owners. Staff has even suggested that “[g]oing forward, the new base zones could be used instead of the current ones.”

The community deserves policies grounded in reality. Instead, the city continues to peddle preordained land-use policy “choices,” wrapped in clichés, non-facts, and discredited theories. This leaves us with poor policy and deepens public distrust in city processes.

We need affordable housing, not area-wide expensive redevelopment. And we deserve land-use policies supported by the community.

Next week, AISD is beginning meetings to talk about “repurposing”  of some the schools they have decided to close.  Dawson, Widen, Sunset Valley, Ridgetop and  Becker Elementaries were all given the designation of “surplus property” which means AISD does not want them for educational or district use.   The Bedichek Middle School building will be retained for district purposes but the “excess” land will be repurposed.

Meeting schedule:   All meetings are from 5:30 to 7 p.m.

Why should the community care about the “repurposing” of schools within their communities?    Schools for children are usually located within the interiors of neighborhood communities.  These locations have historically supported community engagement, accessibility for families, and cultural connections.

A look at the ongoing “saga” of the original Rosedale Elementary School on 49^th Street may provide lessons for residents of neighborhoods with proposed closures.    For years AISD proposed repurposing the school for affordable housing for teachers.  Then abruptly, In October of 2025 it was announced that the land would be sold to a luxury apartment developer following AISD obtaining a zoning change for the property from single family (SF-3) to the highest density multi-family district (MF-6); the new development would include no affordable housing.    This represents a complete 180-degree change from what the community had been told.  AISD knew that the deed restrictions  limited uses on the property to “public school purposes” or “a residence”, but  AISD made the bold step of preemptively suing neighborhood homeowners seeking a court determination that the deed restriction language allows multiple units on a lot.

While some member of the city council including Mike Siegel and Marc Duchen urged delay, the developers and AISD are moving forward.  The Rosedale community is fighting back with a response to the AISD lawsuit and an informational  website to make other community members aware of what comes after AISD chooses to close schools.   See a KVUE news story here.

At 3100 E 4^th street, AISD has entered into an agreement to sell Brook Elementary to Trammel Crow which would displace at least 4 non-profits working in the building.   Trammel Crow owns the 700 River property close to the elementary where rents for a two-bedroom start at $5,500.

AISD had  committed itself to pay almost $100 million in bond money on schools they plan to close.    They have already spent approximately $24 million of those dollars and are seeking to exit contracts representing the balance.

“Parent and community concerns go beyond the waste of those sunken costs. They say that the closures raise broader questions about stewardship of public assets, especially in neighborhoods where school campuses anchor libraries, gardens, after-school programs, and informal community networks that could be lost when the campuses go dark. And they don’t trust the district with these concerns.”   Austin Free Press

Public schools – particularly elementary schools, but also middle schools – are by design woven into the neighborhood. Their core mission is to educate the community’s children, but they also serve other functions. Public schools support the community, but also depend on public support to exist.  When the public education mission ends, the community deserves a voice in what comes next and whether that property will continue to serve and co-exist with its neighbors. These meetings are an important opportunity to be heard.

The City of Austin is pushing to demolish the historic Barton Springs Bridge over Barton Creek and replace it with a massive, freeway-style concrete span at an estimated cost of $54.5 million. Wednesday, March 4, at 6:00 PM at City Hall,  the Historic Landmark Commission takes up Agenda Item 3. The Commission could initiate local historic zoning for the bridge — to match it’s already-protected federal status as part of the Zilker Park National Register HIstoric District.

• Current estimate for demolition and replacement is $54.5 million and construction would last 18 to 24 months; the 2022 estimate for teardown and replacement was only $10.2 million, compared to $14.5 million for rehabilitation of the bridge. 
• Initially, the new bridge would carry four travel lanes plus a fifth turn lane, along with extra-wide bike and pedestrian lanes on both sides. Those side lanes would be engineered for future conversion to create six total car lanes, effectively setting up Barton Springs Road as a cross-town, freeway-style corridor serving the high-rise development now being approved between South First and Interstate 35.
• Project boundaries extend all the way to Sterzing, along Barton Creek, up Azie Morton, cutting into the Umlauf property and converting significant Zilker park land into construction and road uses.
• City-commissioned engineering reports have found the existing bridge to be in fair to good condition and capable of rehabilitation at substantially lower cost.
• The council’s initial 2023 vote happened without the required Historic Landmark Commission recommendations and with grossly misleading cost comparisons between saving versus replacing the bridge. 

For full reporting on the demolition proposal, see the recent coverage in Austin Free Press and the Austin Chronicle. Both articles touch on the project’s escalating costs, expanded footprint, the history of City Council decisions and planning that led to this point, and the preservation and environmental stakes.

A few weeks ago, we told you about the proposal to place very large electronic signs at each of Austin’s thousands of bus stops.  At that time the case was withdrawn, but it is back and on Thursday’s Council agenda (item #83).

Austin entered into a contract with IKE Smart City in the fall of 2025 for 50 downtown kiosks before there was any public input.  This contract is conditioned on changes to the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission did not approve the revised sign ordinance (4-4 vote), and the Environmental Commission unanimously opposed it.  The Environmental Commission issued this strong rebuke of the proposed ordinance change:

•  The City uphold the current code regarding billboards and digital signs and not weaken or change it.
•  Ensure no digital billboards are allowed within the City’s limits.

The IKE Smart City kiosks have been described as 8-foot-tall iPads to help users with transit and locating restaurants or entertainment options.  Unlike a smart phone which has the same functionality, the kiosks will also display paid advertisements with some of the revenue going to the City of Austin.

The IKE Smart City kiosks in Berkeley, CA have free wifi, directories of local businesses, as well as maps and transit information. But those features are only used 2% of the day and 98% of the day the kiosks simply display a rotating sequence of advertisements.

If approved, these giant ( 86 inches diagonally) electronic signs could be placed at all 2500 neighborhood bus stops as well as a growing number of bikeshare kiosks.

Additionally, the kiosks will take up valuable space in the Austin downtown right of way for the purpose of generating advertising revenue.  That space should be reserved for pedestrians, micro mobility, and street trees.   There is NOTHING in the draft code controlling the content of advertisement on the the 1000s of new digital signs.

Aside from the wasted space and energy that will clutter the public right of way with digital advertising, the kiosks are a privacy and public safety concern.  The IKE Smart City kiosks in San Diego do not collect data.  Instead, they use a service called Placer.ai to ensure advertisers can target the right demographic groups.  Placer puts its tracking technology into millions of devices and hundreds of applications.  Using Placer.ai or a similar service enables IKE Smart City to claim they don’t use surveillance or artificial intelligence, but it does not alleviate the privacy and safety concerns associated with the kiosks.

On the Austin City Council’s Agenda for this week are two cases (Items 77  C14-2025-0090 and 78 C14-2025-0093) asking for upzoning to downtown mixed-use (DMU) of property that includes the site of Jack Brown Cleaners on Martin Luther King and Nueces.     The current zoning of the Jack Brown Cleaners site is CS which allows buildings of 60 feet, the DMU zoning would allow 120 feet, but the applicant indicated that it will ask for more density bonuses from the council to take the proposed zoning to 433 feet of mixed use development.   They propose two towers, on 37 stories and the other 34 stories.  That is 44% taller than the private Dobie dorm on the UT campus.

Besides concerns about the appropriateness of the proposed buildings’ heights, there are environmental concerns.   The site is located in the Shoal Creek Watershed of the Colorado River Basin.   A licensed professional engineer and professional geologist issued a January 2026 report (pg4-6) with these conclusions, among others:

• “The Site soil and groundwater are contaminated with high concentrations of the dry cleaning chemical Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and its degradation by-product chemicals, including Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Vinyl Chloride (VC). The chemicals are present at levels exceeding indoor air human health limits for vapor migration into current and future buildings…
• It is my opinion that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) inappropriately approved JBC’s request to cease Site cleanup and monitoring. The Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Certificate of Completion granted to JBC means that they and future property owners have no further obligations to cleanup and protect on-site residents, visitors, and workers from cancer risks despite the potential that indoor and outdoor air quality could exceed human health safe limits.
• Regardless of TCEQ’s previous actions, future development plans for the JBC property should address these potential human health risks that likely will remain for decades unless the Site is properly remediated or building measures incorporated to prevent migration of toxic chemical gases into the buildings…”

Accordingly, questions remain whether the site has been or will be appropriately remediated or development plans required to address any potential human health risks.

The planning commission denied the community’s request to postpone the case for additional environmental review, reasoning that any unresolved environmental contamination was unrelated to the grant of additional zoning entitlements to the developer. Under the city process, environmental contamination issues can be addressed during site plan review after the developer has been granted zoning for the project. However, there is no public notice, hearing, or community input available at this stage.

Write the Council and ask them to postpone the zoning case as necessary to determine whether there is any “ongoing potential risk to human health” posed by the site before the zoning entitlements are granted, or minimally, to require staff to provide their findings and recommendations regarding environmental contamination and remediation to the Council and interested parties thirty days before any site plan approval, so that the community is afforded an opportunity for review and input.