An End to Project Assessment in Austin?


It’s rumored that the City of Austin has scrapped the Project Assessment requirement for development applications effective as of last Friday, Sept 1st. What does this mean for development in Austin’s many opportunity zones? Today we explain some of the Positive, Negative and Neutral outcomes associated with streamlined development processes in other major markets across the US.

In the realm of city governance, the question of how to manage development applications is a complex and multifaceted issue. It’s akin to the economic machine, a system of moving parts where a tweak in one area can lead to cascading effects throughout the entire structure. When a city council decides to simplify the development application process, it’s essential to understand the potential outcomes, both positive and negative, through a lens of radical transparency and thoughtful analysis.

Positive Outcomes: The Upside of Streamlining

1. Economic Growth: The Virtuous Cycle

Just as in the economic markets, easier entry barriers can stimulate activity. When development applications become more accessible, we see an uptick in construction and development projects. This leads to job creation and increased tax revenue, which can be reinvested in the community, creating a virtuous cycle of growth (Kolko, 2014).

2. Affordable Housing: A Solution to Scarcity

Streamlined processes can expedite the construction of affordable housing, a critical need in many urban areas. By reducing bureaucratic hurdles, cities can more effectively address housing shortages, thereby improving the quality of life for their residents (Glaeser & Gyourko, 2008).

3. Innovation: The Catalyst for Progress

A simplified application process can serve as a catalyst for innovative projects. When developers find it easier to navigate the system, they are more likely to invest in groundbreaking initiatives that can attract talent and elevate the city’s status as a hub for innovation (Florida, 2004).

Negative Outcomes: The Downside Risks

1. Overdevelopment: The Trap of Excess

While streamlining can stimulate economic activity, it can also lead to overdevelopment. Cities may find themselves in a situation where the rate of construction outpaces the community’s ability to adapt, leading to problems like traffic congestion and strain on public services (Ewing & Hamidi, 2015).

2. Environmental Impact: The Cost of Negligence

In our pursuit of economic growth, we must not overlook our responsibility to the environment. Easier and faster approvals might bypass critical environmental assessments, leading to unsustainable development practices that could have long-term repercussions (Beatley, 2000).

3. Gentrification: The Social Dilemma

Increased development can inadvertently lead to rising property values, which may displace lower-income residents. This phenomenon, known as gentrification, can exacerbate social inequalities and disrupt the fabric of established communities (Lees, Slater, & Wyly, 2008).

Neutral Outcomes: The Balancing Act

1. Changing Landscape: The Evolution of Character

The physical and cultural landscape of a city is not static; it evolves over time. Streamlining the development process will undoubtedly change the cityscape, which some may view as progress, while others may lament as a loss of historical or local character.

2. Market Fluctuations: The Dynamics of Supply and Demand

Easier development processes can lead to market volatility. As supply and demand dynamics shift rapidly, cities may experience periods of both boom and bust, which require careful management to navigate successfully.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

In summary, the decision to streamline the development application process is a double-edged sword. It presents opportunities for economic growth, innovation, and the alleviation of housing shortages. However, it also poses risks, including overdevelopment, environmental degradation, and social inequality.

As we consider changes to development application processes, it’s crucial to approach the issue with a sense of radical transparency and a commitment to thoughtful, data-driven analysis. Only by carefully weighing the pros and cons can we make informed decisions that serve the best interests of the community as a whole.

At Liquid we are committed to providing the broader Austin community with industry-leading investment and financial products at the same time we are helping develop the underserved neighborhoods we live in. Take a look at our Bonds for more on how to 3x your retirement savings with bonus interest rates available. 


  • Kolko, J. (2014). The Great American Jobs Machine: The Role of Cities and Metropolitan Areas. Brookings Institution.
  • Glaeser, E. L., & Gyourko, J. (2008). Rethinking Federal Housing Policy: How to Make Housing Plentiful and Affordable. AEI Press.
  • Florida, R. (2004). The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books.
  • Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2015). Compactness vs. Sprawl: A Review of Recent Evidence from the United States. Journal of Planning Literature.
  • Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press.
  • Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. Routledge.

By adopting a balanced and pragmatic approach, cities can harness the benefits of streamlined development while mitigating the associated risks, thereby fostering a more prosperous and equitable future for all.

Investor Prospectus