Stassney between South Congress and I-35 is apartment-complex city. Perhaps a half-dozen giant apartment complexes line one half-mile stretch. None is older than four or five years.
These are the standard suburban set up. A collection of three-story walk-ups with open breezeways, a pool, a one-story welcome center, and parking sandwiched between the buildings. All "protected" by a fence and gate. The private streets are essentially just long, skinny parking lots. The premium parking spots are sheltered by tin roofs. (Fancy complexes offer a garage option.)
I've lived in complexes like these. Renters like them because they know the units will be nice, safe and professionally managed. They are especially attractive to newcomers who aren't familiar with Austin's neighborhoods. But they are walled off from the rest of the world and and far retail and restaurants and convenience stores.
Driving past them yesterday, it occurred to me that this vast stretch of apartment buildings was a tremendous missed opportunity. With just a little rearranging, these apartments could have been transformed into a pleasant urban neighborhood of 20 or 30 blocks.
The complexes contain literally scores of individual buildings. It would have been easy to arrange them in a grid fronting public streets with alleys in the back. The only significant architectural modification would have been closing in the breezeways/stairwells to create common entrances.
I doubt this arrangement would have been more expensive for developers. Certainly, they would have had to build proper streets with sidewalks and streetlights. Closing in the breezeways would have cost more. But they would have saved money in lots of other ways. By building and dedicating public streets, they could have shifted the responsibility for street maintenance to the city. They could have saved the hefty expense of thousands of feet of wrought-iron fences and gates. They could have joined other developers to provide a single, decent public park and pool, rather than six. And I don't think this arrangement would have cost them units. There is a lot of wasted space in complexes like these -- useless strips of greenery, too narrow to walk a dog, and pointless spacing between buildings.
Tenants could have parked on the streets, which is essentially what they do now. The premium, sheltered spots could have been put in the alleys behind the buildings.
I have to believe that lots of prospective tenants would have preferred an urban layout. They would have gotten pleasant, proper neighborhoods, with a store or two nearby -- the complexes are dense enough to support a couple of small retail uses were they not walled off from one another.
The only drawback -- and I acknowledge it could be a big one -- is safety. Those tall fences and gates provide a sense of security. Now, they don't make it difficult to get into the complex. In large complexes with hundreds of residents, the gates are constantly opening or closing. (I freely wandered in and out of one yesterday.) But the fences and gates do make it harder to get out, which deters criminals. Complexes like these of course experience assaults and car break-ins, but I'm sure they're safer than similar complexes that lack fences and gates.
Proper urban neighborhoods provide their own deterrents, though. A short block lined with dense walk-ups has lots of eyes and ears on the street. Good lighting is another deterrent. As is steady traffic.
But even if gated complexes are marginally safer, that doesn't automatically mean that prospective tenants prefer them. Everything involves trade offs. Urban neighborhoods enjoy high demand all over the country, and often command premiums. And I'm not sure developers really know what trade-offs tenants are willing to make -- how could they, if they never build this type of neighborhood? Let's not forget that creating a true grid requires developers to coordinate their actions, a tricky obstacle even in the best circumstances.
So it seems to me we wasted a great opportunity to add to Austin's paltry stock of urban neighborhoods. Perhaps the next time Council zones a half-square mile area of vacant land for dense multi-family, the city could wok with property owners and developers to develop a common grid and modest design standards. Perhaps the property owners and developers would resist. But perhaps not.
