The most controversial image in Austin

Austin’s current zoning code is broken. Like many other American cities, we are displacing long term low income residents, increasing congestion without increasing people moved and we are losing some of the weird that makes Austin Austin.

The broken nature of our zoning code is not unknown. It is evident enough that the city council set out to fix it. The multiyear process has been extremely rocky, with many setbacks and much resistance. Both neighborhood preservation groups and urbanists are upset. The changes have been so watered down through this long process that achieving many of the goals seems unlikely. Though I am not professionally involved in the process, I have been involved as a citizen along the way and I want to share tips to ensure that other cities can be more successful in reaching their goals with a zoning modernization.

Break It Up

The most important lesson learned is you must break up this process. Do not make it an all or nothing process. Right now Austin is considering a citywide vote on entire plan, because it has become an all or nothing event.

The better way would be to break it up into a variety of component parts. Start with one piece. Have that piece approved by the city council then move to the next issue. This also allows for groups that have issues with part of the plan to oppose that piece instead of the entire plan.

Start with The Non-Controversial

In terms of breaking it up, start with the non-controversial. For example, you can start with reforming your administrative processes. Then you can work on the Affordable Housing Bonus Program (don’t call it an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program, we tried that and people revolt against the term Density) or something similarly non-controversial. You can create the different zones but save mapping those zones until the very end.

Save Maps for Last

The maps will be the fight. Few people are opposed to apartments or row homes as a concept, but many people are opposed to a triplex on their block. After the council approves all other elements of the plan then you can work on the mapping. This will mean that you will have two sets of zoning codes on the books during the mapping fight, but this painful transition is better than the entire project being torpedoed.

Distribute the New Housing

An interesting idea, that we have not applied in Austin but have made gestures towards is trying to distribute the new housing equally between our ten districts. If the mapping was started with this goal it could serve to empower the communities that lack political power. For example in Austin, we set a goal to create an additional 140,000 housing units through the rezoning process and due to opposition from central wealthier neighborhoods the majority of housing is being pushed into our poor minority communities on the eastern edge of the city. Requiring equal distribution through districts and neighborhoods would ensure that systemic inequalities are not recreated in the new zoning plan.

Open Up the Process on Specifics

Most cities going through this process will include a good amount of citizen input, but rarely the most productive kind. Austin’s meetings have been inundated with people expressing if they like the entire project or not. A much more productive form of input would be to ask the public for specific changes they want on the local scale. Go from neighborhood to neighborhood and ask where they would want a walkable shopping street. Ask where the new housing should be distributed in their neighborhood. Would they like a few big apartments on the corridors or maybe a former commercial zone to be 3 story row homes? Ask them what amenities they are lacking. No grocery store for miles, maybe they would be interested in a vertical mixed use building that has a grocery store on the bottom.

Create the situation where people are contributing positively, imagining a better city and also use their hyperlocal knowledge to your benefit.

Don’t Brand It

Lastly, for the love of god don’t brand the process. Austin’s CodeNEXT and Minneapolis 2040 are two examples where politicians and city staff wanted a keystone project to hang their hat on and that created the idea that these changes are all or nothing. Austin is abound with “CodeNEXT Wrecks Austin” signs that were created because the process was branded and presented as a sweeping overhaul. I honestly believe that most of the people with the signs do not oppose the affordable housing initiatives in CodeNEXT, the improved watershed protections, or the more human scaled design forms but they do oppose some elements (mostly the maps) that they have decided to oppose the entire brand of CodeNEXT.

Conclusion

Hopefully these lessons can help your city modernize the land development code. It is the most contentious piece of city policy I have ever experienced, but if we achieve a more affordable, sustainable and enjoyable Austin it will be worth it.