The Next Step Toward a Walkable City

Going Commercial in Austin Neighborhoods

Dec 06, 2024

When my husband and I went house hunting in Austin, our one requirement—other than four walls and a roof—was proximity to a coffee shop. We settled on (and in) Central East Austin, one of the city’s original streetcar suburbs, where we not only found several coffee shops, but also bars, restaurants, and shops just a short walk away. Outside of downtown, many of the prewar neighborhoods in central Austin were developed when the city was still geographically compact but connected by a network of streetcars—and in these places you can find a smattering of beloved, commercial establishments scattered throughout the neighborhoods. Most of the neighborhoods built in post-war Austin, after the city ripped up its streetcar network, are entirely bereft of in-neighborhood amenities: you’ve got to get in your car and drive to the nearest arterial to get a cup of coffee or fresh eggs.

Earlier this week, we took some first steps to change that. On Tuesday evening, Austin’s Zoning & Platting Commission passed a recommendation to allow limited commercial uses in residential zones—and I co-authored it.

Before I get into what and how it happened, some credit is due. Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote an essay in response to Tyler Cowen, who had argued that the Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) movement should “go commercial” and support the deregulation of commercial uses in residential zones, such as those that already exist in Austin’s historic neighborhoods. A year ago, while deep in the trenches of efforts to reform Austin’s housing policy, I thought YIMBYs might have more success trying to do the opposite of what Cowen suggested, by pushing for legalizing housing in underutilized commercial zones, like empty office parks.

At the time, we were working to break a 40-year impasse during which Austin had failed to update its land development code to respond to the city’s extraordinary growth, culminating in rapidly rising unaffordability, an exodus of families, and displacement of long-time residents. But recent reforms—like allowing triplexes on all single-family lots, abolishing mandatory parking minimums, and legalizing childcare in almost all citywide zones—have opened new opportunities for mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, proving Cowen’s argument more tenable than I originally thought.

So, cheers, Tyler.

But there was one other important change that helped this happen: in March, I got appointed to the city’s Zoning & Platting Commission (ZAP).

Before you find yourself too impressed, ZAP is one of two all-volunteer land use commissions in the City of Austin, the “junior varsity team” to the more prominent Planning Commission. Still, ZAP is a “sovereign” commission, with independent authority derived from state and city law that gives it the power to control land platting and subdivisions, review and approve environmental variances and conditional use site plans, and most relevantly here, to make recommendations to City Council about zoning changes.

It was in that last capacity that my fellow commissioner Lonny Stern and I introduced “A Recommendation to Allow Some Commercial Uses in Residential Zones.”

If passed into law, our proposal would allow small-scale amenities like convenience stores, cafés, and doctor’s offices to be built in residential neighborhoods. In single-family zones, these uses would still be subject to a public hearing and commission approval, but in higher-density multifamily zones, they would be allowed “by right”—without the public approval process. These new uses would still need to obtain all other licenses and permits required to operate. We also limited this to a short list of low-intensity, non-auto-centric, neighborhood-friendly uses, so no drive-thrus or bars would be allowed.

Our insight was that, in an environment where it is possible to build three units on a residential lot, if one of those units could be designated for commercial uses, we could increase both the amount of available housing and neighborhood amenities. Further, in the absence of parking mandates, these commercial uses would be oriented not to drivers but to walkers, bicyclists, and scooterists. And there’s the precedent that City Council had already set by allowing childcares in almost all zones in response to a shortage across the city. Many neighborhoods also lack grocery stores, coffee shops, medical offices, and other essential amenities that make urban life more convenient and livable for families with young children, for the elderly, for the carless, for those with mobility challenges—and for everyone else.

What might it look like in practice? With the other reforms, a vacant lot in an established neighborhood could become a triplex apartment with a ground-floor café. A high visibility street corner could become a convenience store or small grocery. A duplex could enable a live-work setup, with a therapist or doctor or architect living above a first-floor office. A historic home could be converted into a restaurant, already common in Austin, with two new homes built in the backyard. There are lots of potential mixed-use combinations that would serve more livable, interconnected communities.

Public feedback on earlier drafts raised legitimate concerns about increased traffic in neighborhoods lacking reliable public transit, sidewalks, or parking management. While these are problems the City of Austin ought to be solving anyway, we’re never going to have a walkable city if we don’t first build places that people can walk to. And so long as some neighborhoods remain bereft of in-neighborhood amenities, those folks will always have to drive to someone else’s neighborhood to enjoy them. Others were concerned that the proposal would “commercialize” neighborhoods and break down the connective tissue that holds them together. However, in an era of work-from-home and a decline in social trust—when people are already out of places to go—neighborhood amenities can create valuable third places and community nodes that foster greater connectivity, economic opportunity, and all around vibrancy.

There is still a long road ahead for this proposal: it must go before two committees, which then must recommend it to the Planning Commission, which then must recommend it to City Council. There will be multiple opportunities for public hearings, refinement, and amendment. It could easily fail at any point along the way. Still, what we have recommended at ZAP is not a sweeping change to the land use regime; it’s that we take the next incremental step in making Austin live up to the city we have imagined—the city we might become. Incidentally, that’s one that looks more like its original, still highly in-demand streetcar suburbs.

Austin is on the cusp of becoming a city where vibrant, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods are not only possible, not only historical—but normal in our own times. Step by step we are making the changes to our land development code that will allow this, and piece by piece we’re building the pedestrian and transit infrastructure that will enable people to get out of their cars and off our congested roads. If we truly want to create a more walkable city, this policy proposal offers a meaningful and sensible next step.