21 thoughts on “Proposed Development on Broadway’s ‘Tiny House’ Lot Hits Zoning Bump

  1. Unbelievable. What does “detracting from the residential character of the area” even mean, anyway? As usual, the single-family home is the gold standard of development and everything else is a nuisance. Give me a break.

    The condo building at Broadway and Hildebrand is both further north and significantly taller than the one being proposed and–guess what–armageddon has not happened. The idea that we should limit development because of cars is utter nonsense…especially on Broadway, which is scheduled to be improved NEXT YEAR to make walking, biking, and transit use more attractive.

    And worse, why on earth are we reporting that two residents who live a mile away oppose the project? This information is both unsurprising and inconsequential.

  2. San antonio is Podunk plain and simple. U seeing this HDRC, Zoning, Mayor? And I’ve lived here all my life. You are all ridiculous. A joke really.

    • Your comment is ridiculous and a joke. Know that first.

      Second, this wasn’t a vote that affects anything other than we now know the HDRC asked not recommend the change. The actual group that will make the change hasn’t even voted yet and will more than likely vote yes to the zoning change.

      Third and lastly, I just want to remind you and everyone else reading that your trollish like comment is the joke and is very ridiculous.

  3. This is such great news! I am so proud of our council for supporting the to help preserve the character of our inner loop neighborhoods.
    I think it was a huge step towards setting a tone for more responsible development in our inner city area. Our nostalgic close knit community that is the inner loop should not be collateral damage in this “revitalization” process. We can have growth and increase housing and still respect the community and character that makes us San Antonio.
    Hats off to you council!
    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    • “Preserve the character of our inner loop neighborhoods.”
      Please explain this to me.
      What is it *exactly* that makes single-family housing good and taller buildings bad? What *exactly* are we preserving? The zoning and land use rules that were born in an age of racism and exclusion? A land use pattern that encourages more cars on our road rather than fewer? A system that has been subsidizing homeownership for 70 years? Nostalgia has never been a legitimate reason to favor sprawl over infill, but that is exactly what results when we push off development from the corridors where we should be encouraging it. And like most feelings of nostalgia, they often hearken back to a reality that didn’t actually exist.
      How can we have growth, as you say, when even the vacant or near-vacant parcels near downtown are off-limits to medium-density development such as what’s being proposed? Pretending that development simply disappears when it’s disapproved is a fantasyland created by your neighbors who became experts in planning and land use because they read an article once.
      Aside from that, do you know what it means to have responsible development? How about allowing development that actually pays its fair share in taxes relative to what it costs to serve it? Not wasting precious land so that just two or three people are living or working on a quarter-acre? Not prioritizing the automobile over people? Like it or not, Mahncke Park, River Road, Monte Vista, and similar neighborhoods *are* near downtown, and treating them like some distant suburb to be forever encased in amber is the very definition of irresponsible.

      • Ray, you obviously have never been to a city like Houston! No zoning and constant flooding due to lack of green space (aka permeable land), thanks to JUST what you would prefer. I suggest you look at a relocation. Traffic is just one of the issues, but flooding is serious repercussions to overbuilding. River Road would be underwater. The 3 neighbourhoods you mentioned are a delight to drive through. It’s a pity you can not appreciate them.

        • The ignorance of your post is almost not worth responding to, but here we go…
          The sheer increase in impervious cover throughout the Houston region is a key factor in the increase in flooding there–a reality directly exacerbated by sprawling development, not infill. The more automobile dependent our development patterns, the more we drive, which necessitates further seas of parking and is directly related to the amount of carbon emissions we produce, which creates the very extreme weather conditions that lead to flash flooding. The entire point of infill development is to curb the endless outgrowth of unplanned development into previously undeveloped parts of the area. Sadly, we have mistakenly assumed that urban core development is the culprit, when the reality is that the reverse is true. Furthermore, turf grasses (as opposed to forests and wetlands) are actually not very good at absorbing rain water. Overall, a dense urban core with low impact development features (bioswales, pervious pavement, green roofs, gardens, and so on) and a natural hinterlands full of trees and dense vegetation is far superior to a dispersed, sprawling pattern of paved parking lots and driveways dotted with grass lawns.
          Nice try, though.
          Also, please don’t misunderstand me: you are correct that the three neighborhoods I brought up are delightful, and no one is advocating a wholesale tear-down of the architecture, but don’t mistake the Broadway corridor as being comparable to the interiors of those places–they were never designed to be the same place.

  4. “We really believe we are more aligned with the downtown core than we are to the neighborhoods”

    They may “believe” that, but the fact is that they are closer in proximity to the neighborhoods than they are downtown. I appreciate that HDRC recognized this, but expect the Zoning Commission will probably not heed the recommendation.

  5. Which is truly sad, Leticia, because I don’t want the River turning into a sea of was…which it seems in the road to becoming. These buildings, with their bland facade and their ugly and ununique designs, will only become eyesores 10 years from now.

  6. I graduated from UIW in 1975 and lived near Broadway in the 1980s. Broadway below Hildebrand Avenue was a completely empty and scary place to be. The street had been derilect ever since all the car dealerships moved from lower Broadway to Loop land. The developers and visionaries who are currently redeveloping Broadway are appropriately creating a vital, populated and interesting corridor leading into downtown San Antonio. Nothing on the street negatively impacts the folks in River Road, Mancke Park, or other residential neighborhoods. I support that develpment. Further, I support only civil dialogue on this page. Name calling and ad hominem arguments should be stricken from the page.

  7. Suburban loop land is full of buildings like the one proposed. Look at the Medical Center, look along north loop of 410, all along the I10 corridor past the 410 interchange, the large Tesoro office (whatever they are called now) at 1604 and 281, and The Rim area. All those areas have neighborhoods right next to midrise office buildings. This building and it’s height makes complete sense with it being about a mile from downtown. Alamo Heights is dotted with multiple midrise condos off of Broadway and in neighborhoods. Please get over yourself HRDC.

  8. San Antonio has a pleasant urban environment that is the envy of many residents and some of those moving here. That is because we became a progressive city decades ago that made attempts to maintain livability. That idea of livability is changing, but that does not mean we need to remain a single-family city or all of it should become a high-rise downtown. That is why all of the RIO districts were developed and approved by the City. Some areas are to allow high rise development. Some are to be mid-rise and some are to be low density. All the HDRC was sawing is let’s follow the RIO guidelines for this property and allow the developer to build a five story building.

    • San Antonio has more dedication of land to single family zoning than most other progressive, large cities- time to rethink this – we don’t need all of these single family homes and neighborhoods oriented around the single-family home and thus the automobile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *