Scenario 5 Preferred Plan
-
In view of all of the negative comments made by Pflugerville residents in recent years about the degree of emphasis given to apartment construction in Pflugerville, it is amazing that Pflugerville 2030 has come up with a Scenario 5 Preferred Plan that places, for example, nothing but “Higher-density Residential” in the huge expanse of land between the eastern edge of Bohls Crossing and SH 130. It is questionable whether Pflugerville 2030 has been using methods that accurately determine what the people in Pflugerville really want.
That does seem out of place, especially since Bohl's is a fairly small island of single-family housing that would be right between mixed commercial and apartments (presumably, under the proposal). My personal vision (biased, as I'm right next to whatever would be developed there) would be to extend Bohl's to the Pfluger extension (preferably with some "buffer" between the end of the development and the road). On the other side of Pfluger, it might start a mixed commercial zone, and towards 130 have the higher-density residential and/or commercial zones (hoping people would want to be near 130 and have easy access to it). That way, we expand the lower-density residential zone (to an upcoming divider), and progress density toward a traffic focus point.
Of course, I'm no city planner, so my homeowner's musings may have little value, but I think it'd be a shame to cut Bohl's off where it is, not to mention the potential for increased crime focus by upping the density too quickly nearby (small tract of houses in between commercial and apartment zones wouldn't seem to be ideal).
I attended every meeting and was very surprised when the report included a "preferred plan". Frankly my experience, hopefully not the norm, of the game playing exercise was not good. The lack of consensus or compliance with the rules at my particular table seemed to be the exception rather than the rule - so I left thinking that the data would be useable.
In the final meeting when the results of the game playing exercise were presented, the data from our table were excluded, as they should have been, because not enough chips had been placed and at that point I was still onboard. However after all the data had been displayed and modeled it was obvious that the data from the game playing exercise were inconclusive and contradicted the more reliable data gathered in the surveys on several key indicators -- high density housing being one of the most obvious.
While the consultants may have been able to find enough consistency to model the data and the models they came up with may have been the best fit to the data -- the fit seemed poor and the models should have been qualified as such instead of nominating any one of them as the preferred solution of the citizens. I believe the largest number of citizens spoke most clearly in the survey and voting exercises and that the game playing exercise was much less useful.
I agree with both Carl Wasmuth and Ian Dale. We are already (almost) surrounded by diverse development. I like extending the low density area to the planned Pfennig extension, giving that new road as a natural buffer between our low density housing area and higher density and/or commercial development.
Was thinking of buying home on Plumbago, but if nothing but apartments are planned, guess I need to rethink this.
4 Comments Leave a comment