To Solve Urban Sprawl in Austin, We’ll Have To Mix It Up
It’s no secret that Austin, Texas is growing. And as it’s growing, it’s sprawling outward, permanently covering the natural environment with layers of concrete and development. According to the World Population Review, Austin is the fastest-growing city in the country in terms of population growth. With this booming population comes the necessity for more housing. Currently, that need is being met through suburban development that extends from Austin’s urban center. Austin has the second-highest percentage of residents living in the suburbs in any Texas metropolitan area, after the Rio Grande Valley (Yu). Unfortunately, urban sprawl is not a sustainable model of development. Lasting environmental change cannot be fully realized without also addressing urban sprawl.
Tackling urban sprawl means changing the way we approach development in Austin’s urban center. We need to focus on redesigning our existing infrastructure to be more sustainable so we no longer need to rely on outward development. The conversation about making changes to Austin’s downtown development has been met with reasonable and justifiable skepticism. Concerns over continued gentrification and a loss of character in the city are valuable perspectives that need to be respected and taken into account as Austin city officials consider making changes to Austin’s city planning and zoning. As much as urban sprawl is a social and cultural issue, it is also an imminent environmental issue, threatening wildlife habitats, increasing pollution, and contributing heavily to global warming (Rafferty). As the debate between Austin’s preservationist and urbanist camps continues, I urge my fellow Austin residents, especially those who are skeptical of increased urban density, not to dismiss the value of mixed-use developments and the effectiveness of mixed-use zoning in addressing the environmental effects of urban sprawl.
Mixed-use zoning allows for a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial use buildings to exist in one area (Adams). Mixed-use zoning can be vertical, in which one building contains a combination of uses, often with the commercial or industrial uses located on the ground floor and the residential areas resting above it, or horizontal, referring to a district in which separate buildings offer a variety of uses (Adams). Mixed-use zoning used to be common practice before a 1926 Supreme Court case regarding the zoning regulations set a new standard for single-use zoning, also referred to as Euclidean zoning (Rafferty).
Single-use zoning, in which commercial and residential use buildings are designated to separate districts, is used heavily in many cities, including Austin. This city planning model encourages car dependency because residents often require a personal vehicle in order to access food, work, and educational services, especially in cities without a well-established or far-reaching public transportation system (Rafferty). Mixed-use zoning, on the other hand, promotes walkable neighborhoods, since most day-to-day necessities can be found within walking distance of one’s residence. New York City is an example of a city that utilizes mixed-use zoning. Elizabeth Jackson, a native-born Austinite who moved to Manhattan two years ago for school, says she doesn’t have a car in the city because there is no need to have one. On her block alone, there are three gyms, a Greek restaurant, a thrift store, a grocery store, an NYU residence hall, a Walgreens pharmacy, and a post office. This variety and accessibility would not be possible without mixed-use zoning.
By reducing the overall car dependency in a community, a city also reduces its need to invest in constructing or expanding roadways to accommodate its growing population (Adams). Long commutes to access employment, food, education, and other necessities are often taken in vehicles powered by fossil fuels, and construction projects also require large amounts of energy generated by fossil fuels. Reducing fossil fuel usage is a key step in reducing our overall greenhouse gas emissions, which trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming and the effects of climate change (“Causes of Climate Change”). The devastating consequences of climate change are already being felt through increased wildfires, rising sea levels, and, as we experienced in Texas this winter, uncharacteristically severe winter storms that leave millions of people without power (Worland). The current model of Euclidean zoning creates a built environment that relies on the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. Mixed-use zoning disrupts this model and sets us on a more sustainable path towards carbon neutrality.
Mixed-use zoning, especially vertical mixed-use zoning, also encourages compact, dense development, which is more sustainable than low-density, single-use development. Denser development requires less energy to heat and cool than stand-alone buildings because there are fewer exterior walls for heating and cooling to leak through, and the dwellings in these developments tend to be smaller, avoiding extraneous space through which heating or cooling must circulate (Rafferty). Vertical mixed-use zoning maximizes space, condensing development to a more compact area and leaving more room for natural green spaces and wildlife habitats.
Austin’s current zoning code already includes some mixed-use zoning, though it is far from the norm, and as Austin continues to boom, we need to consider permitting more mixed-use development in the urban center to accommodate growth without submitting to the familiar pattern of sprawl. Implementing more mixed-use zoning could be achieved through updating Austin’s zoning code to expand mixed-use districts. As Austin City Council moves forward with Imagine Austin, its initiative to rethink Austin’s city planning and create “complete communities,” it could prioritize the consideration of mixed-use projects among these new developments. The city defines a complete community as one which “provides access by foot, bike, transit and car to jobs, shopping, learning, open space, recreation, and other amenities and services,” which can be made possible through promoting mixed-use zoning (City of Austin). Mixed-use development can also be more cost-effective for developers in the long term because the infrastructure for electrical, water, and sewage services can be consolidated (“Benefits and drawbacks of mixed-use development”).
Unlike some other proposed solutions to curb urban sprawl, mixed-use development doesn’t have the appearance of suppressing the continued development that is often necessary to maintain a rapidly growing city such as Austin. Urban growth boundaries, for example, are not permitted in Texas, and while these boundaries can be flexible under review, successful adoption of these policies can be marred by fears of stagnation. Mixed-use zoning, on the other hand, acknowledges development will continue and aims to promote more sustainable development in the future.
In an issue as complicated and convoluted as urban sprawl, no one solution is perfect, and mixed-use zoning is no exception. According to a 2018 Toronto study, mixed-use developments may reduce the affordability of housing in areas in which it is implemented (Barr). This creates concern over eco-gentrification, in which efforts to improve the sustainability of a city result in the displacement of its residents, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color (Levin). Austinites have a right to be wary of land development codes that could result in even more gentrification and displacement than is already being experienced in the city. It was land development codes established in Austin’s “1928 Master Plan” that designated segregated areas in the city and pushed Black and Latino communities to East Austin (Houston). Mixed-use zoning promotes increased density in the city, which historically has contributed to gentrification and the displacement of original communities (Houston). There is also a feeling among some Austinites that “the very soul of Austin is at stake” in the face of changing zoning codes (“Fight Over CodeNEXT”).
The implementation of mixed-use zoning cannot be successful without taking into serious consideration the concerns and opinions of Austin residents. No policy change should be made without input from a variety of community-led organizations in the city, such as People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources and Friends of Austin Neighborhoods. Mixed-use zoning does have the potential to benefit and build up diverse neighborhoods. When people are not forced by necessity to invest in and operate a personal automobile, they are inadvertently encouraged to shop, work, and participate in the neighborhood in which they reside, contributing to the cultural and economic wellbeing of the local community (Adams). Through careful collaboration with the community, Austin local officials could determine where multi-use zoning could benefit the community and which businesses and residential types would be appropriate to mix.
Mixed-use zoning has been implemented in cities across the country. In Baltimore, an updated zoning code created an industrial mixed-use zoning area to promote the repurposing of old buildings (Adams). Baltimore’s mixed-use zoning efforts offer an example of considering community and character throughout the process. When adding mixed-use zones to its rowhouse and detached dwelling districts, the city focused on preserving the neighborhoods’ character and development and considering which non-residential uses would be compatible with its current use as a residential area (Adams).
The concerns regarding mixed-use zoning are grounded in generational trauma from racist and insensitive land-use policies. I encourage Austin residents to continue to voice these concerns and put pressure on city officials to remain sensitive to the needs and wants of the community, especially those communities who have been historically underrepresented in city planning decisions. However, given the imminent threat posed by climate change and the devastating ways our current model of urban sprawl contributes to this issue, I believe it’s in our best interest as residents of Austin not to dismiss the environmental benefits of adopting mixed-use zoning, while carefully considering to where it can benefit communities and where it may harm them. Keeping in mind the injustices of the past, we can make changes to protect our planet’s future.
Works Cited:
Adams, Tyler. “Mixed-Use Zoning.” Sustainable Development Code, edited by Christopher Duerksen and Jonathan Rosenbloom, sustainablecitycode.org/brief/mixed-use-zoning/
“Austin, Texas Population 2021.” World Population Review, 2021, worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/austin-tx-population
Barr, Anthony. “Mixed-Use Zoning Doesn’t Lower Housing Costs. What Does?” Market Urbanism Report, Jan. 4, 2021, marketurbanismreport.com/blog/mixed-use-zoning-doesnt-lower-housing-costs-what-does
“The benefits and drawbacks of mixed-use development.” Korte Company, korteco.com/construction-industry-articles/the-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-mixed-use-development/
“The Causes of Climate Change.” NASA Global Climate Change and Global Warming: Vital Signs of the Planet. Jet Propulsion Laboratory / National Aeronautics and Space Administration, climate.nasa.gov/causes/
City of Austin. “What is a complete community?” Imagine Austin Blog, Feb. 25, 2013, austintexas.gov/blog/what-complete-community
“CodeNEXT Comparison Map.” CodeNEXT, Apr. 20, 2018, codenext.engagingplans.org/codenext-comparison-map
Freer, Emma. “Mixed-use projects dominate new development in Austin.” Community Impact Newspaper, Apr. 30, 2018, communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/development-construction/2018/04/30/mixed-use-projects-dominate-new-development/
Houston, Ora. “Austin’s “1928 Master Plan” Unleashed Forces Which Still Shape Austin Today.” Austintexas.gov, 2018, austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/City-Council/Houston/CM_OH_1928_Op-Ed.pdf
Levin, Ethan. “An Economic Success, A Complicated Legacy: Austin’s Smart Growth Initiative.” Harvard Urban Review, Mar. 30, 2019, harvardurbanreview.org/economic-success-complicated-legacy-austins-smart-growth-initiative/
Rafferty, John. “The Problem of Urban Sprawl.” Encyclopedia Britannica, britannica.com/explore/savingearth/urban-sprawl
“Why You Should Join the Fight Over CodeNEXT.” Austin Monthly, Dec. 2017, austinmonthly.com/why-you-should-join-the-fight-over-codenext/
Worland, Justin. “The Texas Power Grid Failure Is a Climate Change Cautionary Tale.” Time, Feb. 18, 2021, time.com/5940491/texas-power-outage-climate/
Yu, Heather. “Sprawl: Austin is the Most Sub-urban Large Metro in Texas.” Farm and City, Mar. 16, 2020, farmandcity.org/2020/03/16/sprawl-austin-is-the-most-sub-urban-large-metro-in-texas/
