Jump to content

What the fuck is wrong with you, Austin?

crash_davis

By crash_davis
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

Well for starters it’s the one and only good public buidling we’ve got and it’s so popular that pretty millennial women take their instagram shots and hang out in groups on nice afternoons on the outs

Posted Images

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Austin opening hearings on the "HOME" proposal to allow more homes on a lot.

"The HOME proposal (Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment) will be considered in two phases but only Phase 1 will be taken up this fall. Phase 1 allows more homes – up to 3 – on single-family properties, which is one more than what is currently already allowed for most lots. Homeowners can modify their residence to have a secondary apartment or add a unit on their property to house a family member, a caregiver, or earn passive income to pay the bills. "

I've been in the boat of having a family member live with me, and considered a tiny home in the backyard. My understanding is that I could have done that already if I had wanted to deal with the expense and headache. Not sure what this proposal will accomplish differently, except allowing up to three homes on single-family property. 

Honestly, I think we've all seen the streets that are nothing but duplexes. It's nothing but cars. I can't imagine what having three houses to a lot would look like. I do know I wouldn't want to live next to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crash_davis

crash_davis 23103

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Most of us grew up in the burbs. Most of us do not want to repeat that and want to live in the city, close to downtown. We have kids who share this view. And this is how we got here.

It is what it is. I'm ambivalent to it. Yeah congestion is going to suck more but in theory, housing should be less expensive which is good for everyone, well except me who wants to sell in 4 years to move to Colorado so if the market will again just for that short time, it'll be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Real Estate God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, swraith said:

I would like to see the multiple unit option move forward.  My SF zoning doesn't allow for even a second unit with plumbing. With aging parents, I would like more flexibility to handle possible living arrangements.

That's mentioned in this proposal, although evidently single family can already have two units? I think having a tiny home or garage apt. is a great idea. Having three units on the same lot? That sounds awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26438

Posted
Posted

 

36 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I've been in the boat of having a family member live with me, and considered a tiny home in the backyard. My understanding is that I could have done that already if I had wanted to deal with the expense and headache. Not sure what this proposal will accomplish differently, except allowing up to three homes on single-family property. 

Honestly, I think we've all seen the streets that are nothing but duplexes. It's nothing but cars. I can't imagine what having three houses to a lot would look like. I do know I wouldn't want to live next to it.

This is your brain on Nextdoor, any questions?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1945

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Austin opening hearings on the "HOME" proposal to allow more homes on a lot.

"The HOME proposal (Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment) will be considered in two phases but only Phase 1 will be taken up this fall. Phase 1 allows more homes – up to 3 – on single-family properties, which is one more than what is currently already allowed for most lots. Homeowners can modify their residence to have a secondary apartment or add a unit on their property to house a family member, a caregiver, or earn passive income to pay the bills. "

I've been in the boat of having a family member live with me, and considered a tiny home in the backyard. My understanding is that I could have done that already if I had wanted to deal with the expense and headache. Not sure what this proposal will accomplish differently, except allowing up to three homes on single-family property. 

Honestly, I think we've all seen the streets that are nothing but duplexes. It's nothing but cars. I can't imagine what having three houses to a lot would look like. I do know I wouldn't want to live next to it.

 

They are also considering reducing the minimum lot size to 2500 sq ft, so a developer could, in theory, buy a single home on a 50x100 sq ft lot and subdivide it into two lots, then build three units on each lot.  On site parking requirements are also possibly changing.  There are other restrictions like setbacks, floor-to-area ratios, building height, and so on that constrain what can be done on a lot, and those could also be changing.  The two changes that have been most publicized are the 1 house to 3 house change and the 2500 lot size change.

Austin has a variety of single family zoning categories, from SF-1 through around SF-5.  If you have SF-3 zoning, which is common, you probably can either duplex your existing property or add an ADU for your family member under existing zoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swraith

swraith 346

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

That's mentioned in this proposal, although evidently single family can already have two units? I think having a tiny home or garage apt. is a great idea. Having three units on the same lot? That sounds awful.

I'm zoned SF-2.  As far as I'm aware, I'm limited to 1 unit on the property.  I welcome the proposed change.  For instance, it could be the house, a garage apt/studio, and an ADU that actually has plumbing.  That setup could accommodate an aging parent and a kid in college who needs more privacy than living in the main house.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1945

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, swraith said:

I'm zoned SF-2.  As far as I'm aware, I'm limited to 1 unit on the property.  I welcome the proposed change.  For instance, it could be the house, a garage apt/studio, and an ADU that actually has plumbing.  That setup could accommodate an aging parent and a kid in college who needs more privacy than living in the main house.

This article suggests you can build an ADU on SF-1 and SF-2 under current code.  This was allowed in late 2021:

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/12/council-to-allow-adus-in-more-places/

Edited by Texas Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCHorn

LCHorn 2615

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

As always, the developers will win and they're the only ones.   Building three shitty condos on a lot instead of one shitty house just means there are two more properties on that lot that most people can't afford.   That people believe this is the solution to housing costs boggles the mind.

Who is saying it's THE solution?  I think it's broadly well understood that there's an entire mix of housing currently unavailable and this is just one part for which there appears to be a consensus.  Or not, we'll see after every NextDoor poster uses their allotted comment time in front of the council to complain about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3191

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

Who is saying it's THE solution?  I think it's broadly well understood that there's an entire mix of housing currently unavailable and this is just one part for which there appears to be a consensus.  Or not, we'll see after every NextDoor poster uses their allotted comment time in front of the council to complain about it. 

Okay, I'll rephrase.  That anyone believes this will do anything at all to alleviate housing costs boggles the mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26438

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

As always, the bakers will win and they're the only ones.  Baking three normal size loaves instead of one enormous loaf just means there are two more loaves on that shelf that most people can't eat all of.   That people believe this is the solution to bread shortages boggles the mind.

This makes sense! Fucking greedy bakers.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105084

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

It boggles the mind that one’s response to a housing supply crisis would be to do nothing. 

Yeah....I gotta tell ya....when we have a housing cost problem that is driven in large part by limited supply (this isn't a controversial take, most everyone who has looked at the issue agrees), I find it hard to understanding a take that "yeah....but ADDING supply won't help."

It won't SOLVE the crisis in and of itself.  But geez.  We need more housing to that supply isn't so tight.  Adding housing in Waco or some shit doesn't help us here.  So, change the rules to allow more housing to be built right here in River City.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
We’reTexas

We’reTexas 1473

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....I gotta tell ya....when we have a housing cost problem that is driven in large part by limited supply (this isn't a controversial take, most everyone who has looked at the issue agrees), I find it hard to understanding a take that "yeah....but ADDING supply won't help."

It won't SOLVE the crisis in and of itself.  But geez.  We need more housing to that supply isn't so tight.  Adding housing in Waco or some shit doesn't help us here.  So, change the rules to allow more housing to be built right here in River City.

Yeah, we need to accept that the ship has sailed on affordability and this is a generational issue, at best.  NIMBY’s spent decades getting us here and we won’t alleviate it overnight, but that doesn’t we shouldn’t do anything at all. “A developer might get rich! Working class folks couldn’t afford those new townhouses! And what about the parking?!”. Straight off the greatest hits list of Nextdoor boomer NIMBY pearl clutching, as they amass wealth gatekeeping their neighborhoods increasingly accessible only to, well, the wealthy. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19416

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Yeah, we need to accept that the ship has sailed on affordability and this is a generational issue, at best.  NIMBY’s spent decades getting us here and we won’t alleviate it overnight, but that doesn’t we shouldn’t do anything at all. “A developer might get rich! Working class folks couldn’t afford those new townhouses! And what about the parking?!”. Straight off the greatest hits list of Nextdoor boomer NIMBY pearl clutching, as they amass wealth gatekeeping their neighborhoods increasingly accessible only to, well, the wealthy. 

Pfft, some corporation would just buy them all up for LTRs or STRs anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Anytime it comes to affordability, the first question I have is who does it right? Name a place that's solved home affordability. The only places I see as affordable are places where people don't want to live. Hell, downtown has seen a record amount of condos built and guess what? It's expensive.

The Fed -- which has 100 times the power over the real estate market than the city of Austin ever will -- has pushed rates from 3% to 8% and housing prices have dropped some, but home ownership is overall MORE expensive.

Sorry, but to think that stuff like this proposal is more than a drop in the bucket seems silly to me. Now you want to talk density as your goal? That's something completely different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PvilleStang

PvilleStang 2875

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Yeah, we need to accept that the ship has sailed on affordability and this is a generational issue, at best.  NIMBY’s spent decades getting us here and we won’t alleviate it overnight, but that doesn’t we shouldn’t do anything at all. 

It's funny, because those that support the housing plan detest the i-35 expansion with the EXACT same thought.  Let's do nothing because the proposal is not doing what we want it to do.  

 

I'm in the camp where the proposal is going to have adverse effects, e.g. higher end neighborhoods getting rebuilt with the new multi-family units and pissing off the NIMBYs, causing housing values to go down in general, and driving down tax revenue.  And just because they're a third of the size, don't expect them to be a third of the cost.  Anything new is going to be a premium!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted

We were thrown off a few weeks back.  Two of our (nearby) neighbors, who had poured a lot of money into upgrades in their homes, notified us to say they were letting us (and the HOA) know they intended to rent their homes for STR purposes for 60+ days per year.  Cool of them to give us a heads up, they're not terribly close so late-night parties shouldn't be a problem though more and more cars coming and going on our little back cul-de-sac, but wave of the future.  Anyway, I got to thinking, we don't have a ski season here, no beach season, and all our big festivals don't add up to that kind of time.  So I had to ask, "60 days, eh?  Think you'll get that much traffic?"  Both couples said, "We have to get that, maybe even 90 days.  Only way to pay for the home upgrades plus our summer home rental in CA/CO."  So I had to pry, "Wait, so in addition to SXSW, ACL, and USGP...which is what like 20 days or so, you're looking to do like 70 more days just over the summer?"  They both smiled and responded, "Yep, a few days after the kids are outta school, we're outta here, and coming back the week before school starts." 

Am I missing something?  Who the fuck is gonna pay $2000k+/night to say in Austin in late July for a week?  I know you can name your price for a lotta weeks of the year here, but their master plan was make enough money between 1 June and 15 August with barely a few nights vacant here and there to justify their construction note and all vacation expenses?  It makes almost zero sense to me financially.  I know there's like a whole other sub-genre of STR folks who pay to have a big house near their kids/grandkids or younger folks to take the brood to see grandparents or whatever.  But in the dead of summer when there really isn't anything to do in Austin unless you're on a soon-to-be-empty body of water?  Pardon thread derail, but it just seems like people are gonna use this new SF codification set to do similar shit.  "OH, we'll build out at $400/foot out back and go 2 stories up with a rooftop party area and if we can rent it out a year at a time for $xxxx, that's one thing.  But to bank on STR activity to pay that bank note, that's a bold fucking move.  Nobody comes here in January or July or August for any reason that I'm aware of, at least not consistently enough to build around that calendar.  I mean, yeah we get consistent convention business and Capitol activity and UT summits and all that, but those people have employer mandates to stay in certain hotels.  They don't get a $1500/night stipend for a VRBO out on Lake Austin.  /rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105084

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

but their master plan was make enough money between 1 June and 15 August with barely a few nights vacant here and there to justify their construction note and all vacation expenses?

It's like you didn't even read my prospectus on my "How 110 degrees is the ideal temperature to make every day a spa day!" investment opportunity.  I guess you're just not smart enough to see a guaranteed money-maker when it's literally dropped in your lap.  Maybe some smarter Surly poster will grab the opportunity you're just throwing away.

Now excuse me, I gotta PM Derka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3191

Posted
Posted

I agree that adding housing will help.  I don't agree that this proposal to add three dwellings per lot will have any positive impact whatsoever.   People who need affordable housing will not be helped by building more extremely overpriced condos that only wealthy people can afford to live in, and much more commonly will be used by investors to bring more short term party rentals to this city.  All this does is line developer pockets and make traffic and quality of life worse for residents.

Banning short term rentals would do more to free up the supply of housing in this city than any other option.  But we'll pass bullshit that only increases this problem and pat ourselves on the back.   It's stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3191

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....I gotta tell ya....when we have a housing cost problem that is driven in large part by limited supply (this isn't a controversial take, most everyone who has looked at the issue agrees), I find it hard to understanding a take that "yeah....but ADDING supply won't help."

It won't SOLVE the crisis in and of itself.  But geez.  We need more housing to that supply isn't so tight.  Adding housing in Waco or some shit doesn't help us here.  So, change the rules to allow more housing to be built right here in River City.

Meant to quote you with my comment above.  I never claimed that we should do nothing, only that this particular plan not only won't solve the problem at all, it only serves to benefit the exact people who don't benefit from more affordable housing.  The real solution isn't that complicated, but it means a bunch of assholes with sway taking it in the shorts so it won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drt

drt 638

Posted
Posted

This helps people buy their first house in Austin instead of the burbs. They’ll be small and yet still in line with typical Austin prices. It’s not for poor people. That ship has sailed in this city. 
 

I had friends buy a townhouse just outside uptown Dallas a decade ago when they got out of school. It functioned as their starter house. This is the same thing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PvilleStang

PvilleStang 2875

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

Banning short term rentals would do more to free up the supply of housing in this city than any other option.  But we'll pass bullshit that only increases this problem and pat ourselves on the back.   It's stupid.

 

14 hours ago, Deej said:

Start by bannning short term rentals. The house next door to me is now STR. In my hood, that takes housing away from three or four families.

Read about the fiasco in NYC dealing with STR bannings.  They kicked out AirBnB and VRBO, only to have people listing on CraigsList and Marketplace.  It creates a black market of STRs that are completely unchecked, and the only way to enforce it is to have the city police it properly.  And they can't even control the homeless situation or 911 call centers, what makes you think the city will step in and enforce STR regulations?

 

But, addressing the 70 day mark for YGIFS: you forget, we have 6-7 weekends a year for college football, NASCAR, USGP, MotoGP, SXSW, ACL, ROT Rally, Texas Relays, and other festivals and crap going on almost every weekend.  You can also impose a 3 day minimum, which will also help.  70 days doesn't seem too outlandish, especially if you have a nice place in the right location.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5633

Posted
Posted
Yeah....I gotta tell ya....when we have a housing cost problem that is driven in large part by limited supply (this isn't a controversial take, most everyone who has looked at the issue agrees), I find it hard to understanding a take that "yeah....but ADDING supply won't help."
It won't SOLVE the crisis in and of itself.  But geez.  We need more housing to that supply isn't so tight.  Adding housing in Waco or some shit doesn't help us here.  So, change the rules to allow more housing to be built right here in River City.

The past rules of supply and demand do not apply any more. Housing is now a global commodity sought after by entities who have no intention of moving here or leasing to residents.

Some facts:

> A significant portion of home sales are bid by investors (like the ones described above). Or, like my cliched neighbors from California, they are spare homes.
> New construction and renovated construction increase neighborhood property values.

Some opinions and assumptions:

> A combination of higher interest rates and the crypto crash stabilized Austin housing prices
> Decreasing property tax rates stimulates the housing market, leading to higher valuations.
> Texas cities are largely inept in doing anything about except making things worse by accelerating gentrification. The state has and would strike down any remedies that would conflict with special interests or “free market” rhetoric.
> Maybe COA’s codenext scheme, with incentives for subsidized housing, is the best bad solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Again, the Fed's next decision to raise or lower interest rates by 0.25% has more to do with affordability in Austin than anything city council will do in the next decade.

I wish it wasn't the case, but any desirable city has an issue with affordability and no one has been able to solve it.

The only way to make affordable home is sprawl or making a place less desirable to live due to living conditions or lack of jobs. Both those options suck.

Edited by FirstTimeCaller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAUFRAIS

MAUFRAIS 6621

Posted
Posted
Read about the fiasco in NYC dealing with STR bannings.  They kicked out AirBnB and VRBO, only to have people listing on CraigsList and Marketplace.  It creates a black market of STRs that are completely unchecked, and the only way to enforce it is to have the city police it properly.  And they can't even control the homeless situation or 911 call centers, what makes you think the city will step in and enforce STR regulations?
 
But, addressing the 70 day mark for YGIFS: you forget, we have 6-7 weekends a year for college football, NASCAR, USGP, MotoGP, SXSW, ACL, ROT Rally, Texas Relays, and other festivals and crap going on almost every weekend.  You can also impose a 3 day minimum, which will also help.  70 days doesn't seem too outlandish, especially if you have a nice place in the right location.

So how many short term rentals do you own?
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TKthunder2

TKthunder2 4985

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, texasdago said:

For sure September and October have been really disappointing since we were on a good trend line for the year.  Was not happy with that, at all.  We're still waaaay ahead of when Austin was in the middle of "the good ole days"

image.png.37bf986f8cb13e48b1e2bfcc577c4978.png

Lowest murder rate occurred after Vince won the National Championship. Looks like the City of Austin should be funding NIL for public safety.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
We’reTexas

We’reTexas 1473

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:


The past rules of supply and demand do not apply any more. Housing is now a global commodity sought after by entities who have no intention of moving here or leasing to residents.

Some facts:

> A significant portion of home sales are bid by investors (like the ones described above). Or, like my cliched neighbors from California, they are spare homes.
> New construction and renovated construction increase neighborhood property values.

Some opinions and assumptions:

> A combination of higher interest rates and the crypto crash stabilized Austin housing prices
> Decreasing property tax rates stimulates the housing market, leading to higher valuations.
> Texas cities are largely inept in doing anything about except making things worse by accelerating gentrification. The state has and would strike down any remedies that would conflict with special interests or “free market” rhetoric.
> Maybe COA’s codenext scheme, with incentives for subsidized housing, is the best bad solution.

Housing is now a commodity in America because there is not enough supply for demand. There are investors in the housing market because they have identified this problem and see an investment opportunity. Invitation Homes spelled this out in their S-1. But the fact is that institutional investors are something like 1% of the housing market (though they certainly have had an increased presence in certain housing markets in recent years). But they are not the cause of the housing supply crisis. Lack of supply is.

 

3 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

 

I wish it wasn't the case, but any desirable city has an issue with affordability and no one has been able to solve it.

 

You keep stating this, but virtually every study done on the topic finds that building more housing, and in particularly increasing density, puts downward pressure on housing prices. But to the extent your ideal case study is a city that has decreased housing prices in a reasonably short period of time to allow middle class affordability, well, we live in a country where housing zoning and regulations have largely been established by local control (ie, NIMBYs). Do you expect that to have ever happened? Have you followed California’s and New York’s efforts to address this at the state level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3191

Posted
Posted

Gotta love the hot takes from people with skin in the residential real estate investment game.  You need a toe study?  I can get you a toe study, believe me. There are ways, Dude. 

 

As for the recent murder uptick, I just assumed it was apartment-dwelling water warriors assassinating anyone running their sprinklers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...