« Comment problem finally figured out / fixed? | Main | ANCTALK and Wal-Mart and Northcross »

The street is not the property of adjacent landowners.

Warning! High degrees of bile contained within! The excellent weather and low-stress environment up here in the UP of Michigan have somehow had the exact opposite effect as you might have predicted on my reaction to some more typical neighborhood association nonsense back home.

Here's the story: Some puff media are covering and some less puffy blogs are mocking the protests about the sidewalk-coverin' parking-reducin' patio on South Congress. Here's M1EK's position for you, short and bileful:

TRUDY'S SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BUILD MORE PARKING. Requiring suburban amounts of parking for this restaurant in a thriving urban area merely ensures that development will remain suburban in scope and blighted in quality. This is a city. Grow up, idiots.

COVERING UP THE SIDEWALK = TEH SUCK. Don't expect my sympathy when you cover up the damn sidewalk, you Trudy's buttheads.

MAKING FUN OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO STEP OFF THE SIDEWALK = TEH SUCKIER SUCK. It's easy for you or me to hop off a curb for a while. Now imagine you're in a wheelchair, or walking with a cane, you smug jackasses. Real cities have sidewalks. EVERYWHERE. (Note: The smug jackasses are sort of implied here; nothing in the non-puffy blog was all that smug about this; but I've seen this sentiment displayed in other circumstances. This city is way too mellow about protecting pedestrian infrastructure).

BITCHING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO PARK IN "YOUR SPACE" IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE = TEH SUCKIEST SUCK OF ALL TEH SUCKS. Again, you don't own the space in front of your house, you reactionist retards. YOU DON'T OWN THE STREET IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. (* - RPPP notwithstanding).

I'm thinking of getting those points printed on a big sign (with protruding asterisk for maximum pointiness) and then smacking the neighborhood association jerks over the head with it. Who's with me?

(Yes, the link is to the newer, and much more acceptable, Parking Benefit District; I can't find a general site for the RPPP, so sue me).

This entry was posted in the following categories: Austin , Urban Design , Walking in Austin (Pedestrian Issues) , When Neighborhoods Go Bad

Comments

Thanks for the shout out.

The neighborhood has no complaints with the seating capacity of the original design. there were not enough parking spots to contain this in the first place.

but replacing the only parking they did have with additional seating capacity is a double threat that they will not and should not have to stand for.

this isn't a matter of urban vs. suburban. this is a matter of blatant disregard for capacity laws currently in city guidelines.

but i still love reading your anger. what is your blood pressure count?

It mistifies me that the city is so rudderless on this issue that it still hasn't removed the trespassing portion of the deck. Seems to me that a couple guys with chainsaws could take care of this problem in about thirty minutes. Sure, it'd be a new problem for the restaurant, but as for the city: problem solved.

I'd gladly man a chainsaw for free.

rad,

Disagree completely. Urban = provide as much, or as little, parking as you want; let your customers figure out where to park. They have every right to park in front of other peoples' houses if necessary.

Suburban = mandatory (usually large) amounts of off-street parking, usually for each individual business or strip mall.

If something doesn't happen soon they should get together and file for a writ of mandamaus to force the city to take action.

Besides hurting the disabled, it is somewhat dangerous to force people into the street, particulary if there are cars parked there forcing the pedestrian to walk between them and traffic. Lawsuit in the making.

Shifting from suburban to urban is not one step. Define the two as you will, the fact remains that this is an example of a community and city not willing to shed surburban for urban over night. perhaps the solution is an incremental step not yet properly defined.

this incremental step is defined by the parking garage. is a garage suburban or urban? neither, really. it is the transition between the two - garages fill with cars until they can no longer be justified as recepticals for transportation. they are then properly walled and carpeted.

yes, south congress cafe is in a precarious situation as it does not have access to space for a garage, but again, moving from suburban to urban in one fell swoop is not the proper solution.

and complete disagreement? complete? what passion...

rad,

Parking garages are almost entirely non-convertable to more productive uses. In practice, they essentially need to be torn down.

And, yes, anything with a whole bunch of dedicated free parking is suburban. Period.