What the fuck is wrong with you, Austin?

[DalTxHornFan 3102]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Amen to that. 
 

 

Well first, Mueller is 25% affordable below 80% of MFI, and that's across all housing types. Secondly, the rules create the opportunity for about 10% of the mf winds up being market rate affordable between 80-120%. But I don't think that's what you are tlaking about, so let's stick to the other 2/3.
Admittedly it's difficult to talk about equivilents when literally every single unit of housing in mueller is in violation of Austin's code everywhere else in the city for one or more reasons, but, I'll give you a couple examples picked at random. It's also hard because there's very little inventory in Mueller, because Mueller is extremely popular place to live. That said, when you compare either the new contruction on EM Franklin just south or the same SF + bed/bath + condition in French Place Mueller is usually cheaper and when you compare it to renovations or new construction in Hyde Park (especially Hyde Park, which is probably the closest real comp to Mueller in that it's a lot of mixed types of housing, renters and smallish lots) Mueller is always less pricy. 

The downside of the Mueller affordable housing is that you don't fully own your own home.  If you sell "your" home in the first year, 100% of the profit goes back to the Affordable Home Program.  If you sell "your" home in subsequent years, your realized profit is limited to 2% (simple interest) for each year of ownership, the rest of the profit goes back to the Affordable Home Program.  Given the current inflation environment, that sounds like a money losing deal. 

Might be a good move to wait for the bloodbath of rent decreases when the current deluge of new apartment construction fully hits the market.

[swraith 347]

The above seems like a way to reduce any incentive to try and "invest" or "flip" housing in Mueller. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

32 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

he downside of the Mueller affordable housing is that you don't fully own your own home.  If you sell "your" home in the first year, 100% of the profit goes back to the Affordable Home Program.  If you sell "your" home in subsequent years, your realized profit is limited to 2% (simple interest) for each year of ownership, the rest of the profit goes back to the Affordable Home Program.  Given the current inflation environment, that sounds like a money losing deal. 

on the other hand, if the choice is between that and what's available to people under 80% of MFI otherwise, the choice is pretty clear, I think. 

[DalTxHornFan 3102]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

on the other hand, if the choice is between that and what's available to people under 80% of MFI otherwise, the choice is pretty clear, I think. 

A good choice if you are willing to go with a "heads I win -- tails you lose" approach.  I think it takes away most of the upside of home ownership and wealth creation.  You may as well be renting your home, IMHO. 

I also think we are due for a real correction in rental rates and property values once all of the new MF projects come on line.  People are focused on Austin proper (that is certainly a big number of units), but there are so many projects in process all the way from Jarrell to Lockhart, Georgetown to Cedar Park, Buda to New Braunfels, Bee Cave to Marble Falls.  I don't see how all of this new product doesn't disrupt the market in a big way.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

5 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

A good choice if you are willing to go with a "heads I win -- tails you lose" approach.  I think it takes away most of the upside of home ownership and wealth creation.  You may as well be renting your home, IMHO. 

No offense, but that's ... quite a take when you are talking about people who are otherwise literally priced out of the city they work in, particularly those who are from here and would like to stay. People compete for those units. Some literally weep when they get them. I've seen it. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[We’reTexas 1473]

3 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

A good choice if you are willing to go with a "heads I win -- tails you lose" approach.  I think it takes away most of the upside of home ownership and wealth creation.  You may as well be renting your home, IMHO. 

 

I don’t disagree, but capping appreciation/resale price is a fundamental element of the sustainability of these programs. They are not meant to subsidize home ownership (why not just directly do so?) but rather to provide would-be lifelong renters with the opportunity to put what would be rent money into equity, along with fixed payments and housing security. Of course the problem that arises is that these programs are intended for long term residents, and people who try to sell after a few years are often miffed they don’t get the full benefit of market ownership. 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

I wonder how long the construction of many Mueller properties will hold up.  Those "contemporary looking to mask shoddy workmanship" duplexes and triplexes being rapid-built all over the city center and bought up for short-term rentals are going to be giant eyesores in a decade or so, with no one around with the incentive to maintain or upgrade the shitty construction.  The Mueller setup further disincentives maintenance of the property knowing you won't see any, or limited, monetary benefit from investing in upkeep or renovations.  I hope they were at least built well at the onset, but I kind of doubt it.

 
 

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

I wonder how long the construction of many Mueller properties will hold up.  Those "contemporary looking to mask shoddy workmanship" duplexes and triplexes being rapid-built all over the city center and bought up for short-term rentals are going to be giant eyesores in a decade or so, with no one around with the incentive to maintain or upgrade the shitty construction.  The Mueller setup further disincentives maintenance of the property knowing you won't see any, or limited, monetary benefit from investing in upkeep or renovations.  I hope they were at least built well at the onset, but I kind of doubt it.

 
 

It’s like every newer neighborhood in the region. Same builders, materials and everything. Even some of the designs. The high end and custom stuff is very high end, and the mid-range housing is mid-range. The low-end builds are essentially built for about 20-30 years, on the outside. 

To your point about the setup the affordables are generally well maintained and people take pride in their homes- they are in fact homeowners with equity.
OTOH a lot of long time Mueller residents own multiple houses here due to appreciation and low rates, and the rent houses in older sections take a bit of a beating here as they do everywhere.

[Eskimohorn 5635]

Why are we talking about Mueller - a private/public planned community years in the making when we’re talking about how we can help Californians, money launderers, and Saudis maximize their ROI so they can have three empty houses on a lot instead of just one empty house.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

Wait, how do empty houses make money again? 

[Neonmoon 38129]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait, how do empty houses make money again? 

By cooking meth? 

[HornOnTheBayou 8931]

I drove down Airport the other day and saw two homeless people fucking each other. Gal was going reverse cowgirl on the guy right on the sidewalk. So if you live in Mueller, you've got that going for you. Which is nice.

[Eskimohorn 5635]

Wait, how do empty houses make money again? 

I dont understand money laundering, tax write-offs, or other rich people shit. But we’re having entities buy homes and not live there or lease to residents of the community. London has long been plagued with empty units.

But one way they make money are vacation homes and rentals and that is a key driver of pricing. Right now there are a 1000 empty, full homes waiting to be gobbled up by tourists.

In the old days, more supply was needed to accommodate new residents. Now more supply is need to accommodate global demand for investment properties.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

23 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I drove down Airport the other day and saw two homeless people fucking each other. Gal was going reverse cowgirl on the guy right on the sidewalk. So if you live in Mueller, you've got that going for you. Which is nice.

What part of Airport and did they say when they would be back?

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

21 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

I dont understand money laundering, tax write-offs, or other rich people shit. But we’re having entities buy homes and not live there or lease to residents of the community. London has long been plagued with empty units.

But one way they make money are vacation homes and rentals and that is a key driver of pricing. Right now there are a 1000 empty, full homes waiting to be gobbled up by tourists.

In the old days, more supply was needed to accommodate new residents. Now more supply is need to accommodate global demand for investment properties.

 

1) build a bunch of empty houses

2) ???
3) Profit

[Texas Jeff 1945]

45 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait, how do empty houses make money again? 

I think we went through a weird decade with cheap money.  We still have zero tax rates on up to $500k in cap gains.

As mortgage rates dropped, house prices rose.  If you could buy a $1,000,000 house with 3% money and watch it appreciate at 10% per year with $20k in taxes, that's $50,000 in cap gain per year.  Why have someone live there and wear it out?  Use it for a vacation home for a few months a year and then move there permanently at the end for two years, figure out a way to sell it with low transaction costs .... and up to $500k is yours tax free.

It's a risky deal but in a rising market with low rates everyone thinks we will always have a rising market with low rates.

[Eskimohorn 5635]

 
1) build a bunch of empty houses
2) ???
3) Profit

Your “but why male models?” response undermines your inherent advantage of understanding COA policy. Try a new tact.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

29 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

I think we went through a weird decade with cheap money.  We still have zero tax rates on up to $500k in cap gains.

As mortgage rates dropped, house prices rose.  If you could buy a $1,000,000 house with 3% money and watch it appreciate at 10% per year with $20k in taxes, that's $50,000 in cap gain per year.  Why have someone live there and wear it out?  Use it for a vacation home for a few months a year and then move there permanently at the end for two years, figure out a way to sell it with low transaction costs .... and up to $500k is yours tax free.

It's a risky deal but in a rising market with low rates everyone thinks we will always have a rising market with low rates.

But then again, it comes back to a housing shortage

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

27 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Your “but why male models?” response undermines your inherent advantage of understanding COA policy. Try a new tact.

Fair enough- I think you’re asserting that STRs and vacation homes are the primary reason why housing exploded out of median affordability. I hear that a lot too, but do you have any evidence this is the case? And if it is, it’s only a attractive to investors because it’s scarce and you wind up in the same spot, i.e. there’s a housing shortage, enforced by city policy. 

and btw- in the 1940s when they increased the minimum lot size from 3k to 5700SF, the stated purpose was to drive up the cost of housing. And in 1984 when they wrote the current code, they made a point to use strict compatibility rule to put a glass case around the central city. And in the 1994 when they put the neighborhood planning process in place with the 1980s real estate collapse fresh in mind, one of the things they talked about was protecting the upward trajectory of home prices. 

So what this post presupposes is, maybe they knew what they were doing, and it worked?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Fico 1778]

5 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

I also think we are due for a real correction in rental rates and property values once all of the new MF projects come on line.  People are focused on Austin proper (that is certainly a big number of units), but there are so many projects in process all the way from Jarrell to Lockhart, Georgetown to Cedar Park, Buda to New Braunfels, Bee Cave to Marble Falls.  I don't see how all of this new product doesn't disrupt the market in a big way.

This is not going to happen. Rent growth will just “normalize,” which it already has to extent, from the insane growth rates of the previous several years. 

All of those places you listed are still exploding with population growth and will continue to do so.

Leander/Georgetown/Kyle are all in the top 10 fastest growing metros over 50K nationally, with New Braunfels at 13.

There also hasn’t been any new construction starts in the past 12-months and probably won’t be any of significance for another 12. Construction costs are still high and Capital is too expensive to pencil… not to mention land Sellers have not fully readjusted their pricing expectations. That is going to create a lag in supply in market dealing with significant pop and job growth.  

I would argue there is clearly not enough housing, of all types, being built in the metro. It is one of the largest concerns for the chamber and opportunity Austin. The job growth is going to continue to be very strong in central Texas and people need a place to live. 

We are still at 150+ new residents a day (births/death, in-migration/out-migration)

 

 

[LCHorn 2620]

On 10/18/2023 at 7:18 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

Austin’s office market is exploding. But no one is moving in.
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/15/downtown-austin-real-estate-doom-loop/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNjk3NTE1MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNjk4ODk3NTk5LCJpYXQiOjE2OTc1MTUyMDAsImp0aSI6Ijg1OTRiMWVmLTllNDQtNGY5My04MGRiLWE0MjUyZGRiMzE5NyIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9idXNpbmVzcy8yMDIzLzEwLzE1L2Rvd250b3duLWF1c3Rpbi1yZWFsLWVzdGF0ZS1kb29tLWxvb3AvIn0.OuwRw_pdzgbnhpwkAbBGCJe-9MLAy0Bv2beoGiRGB-g
 

 

This is a great discussion but I don’t know why anyone has failed to point out that 120,000 is a daffy number when categorized as “ready to roll out”.  

[PvilleStang 2911]

15 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

The downside of the Mueller affordable housing is that you don't fully own your own home.  If you sell "your" home in the first year, 100% of the profit goes back to the Affordable Home Program.  If you sell "your" home in subsequent years, your realized profit is limited to 2% (simple interest) for each year of ownership, the rest of the profit goes back to the Affordable Home Program.  Given the current inflation environment, that sounds like a money losing deal. 

 Curious, when one owns an affordable unit, are they obligated to sell for market value, or could they just sell at break-even since there's no incentive to make a profit?

And what stops them from taking an offer from their friend or family member, and selling it at break even?  Does the Affordable Housing contract convey, or is it cleared after first sale?

 

And more importantly, does the appraisal value for said affordable housing unit match the realized profit cap, or do they tax them at market rate?

[texasdago 7573]

17 hours ago, tbone_ said:

The push back on your plan, which is cool btw, is from the retailers. If they would sign up for those types of spaces, developers would develop them.

As a residential developer, who sometimes does mixed use, I can tell you first hand it is very challenging to get retailers in to individual spaces like you are talking about. They all want a sea of parking and as much synergistic traffic generating adjacent uses as possible.

Retail developers, which I am clearly not, may have a different take.

I have to think there are some retailers willing to do it.  Here's Blue Bottle and Blenders and Bowls (and there are others, of course) on E. 6th just east of Cisco's/Il Brutto...

Royal Blue on Rainey with Emmer and Rye next door and other restaurants just south, near the Rainey killing fields...

[PvilleStang 2911]

There's a difference between mid-rise mixed-use and the Mueller dense town-home / commercial mixture he's talking about.  A stand-alone shop / restaurant / bar on every block, not necessarily a downstairs business in a multi-story complex.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

1 hour ago, PvilleStang said:

 Curious, when one owns an affordable unit, are they obligated to sell for market value, or could they just sell at break-even since there's no incentive to make a profit?

And what stops them from taking an offer from their friend or family member, and selling it at break even?  Does the Affordable Housing contract convey, or is it cleared after first sale?

 

And more importantly, does the appraisal value for said affordable housing unit match the realized profit cap, or do they tax them at market rate?

It's a bit of a complicated answer, and mor detail is in this deck, but basically there's an Foundation with a lien on the place that is worth the value of the covenant that made it affordable. 
So let's say a place is worth 550, the homeowner may be on the hook for $225, and the foundation owns a $325K 30 year lien on the place. They are also only on the hoo for that part of the property taxes. When the owner sells, the foundation has the first option to buy the place and sell if to another affordable buyer. The owner gets 2% per year of their original purchase. 

Two big things, though - within the thirty years if the owner dies they can leave the place to their heir, who can either sell or occupy the place. This is a huge benefit because it creates potential generational equity, because after 30 years, the owner has the option to buy out the original subsidy of $325K, which under normal inflation rates about be about 1/3-1/2 the value of the original subsidy - which means, essentially, that families who stay in the house get the full appreciation on the house if they stay in it for 30 years while paying zero interest on more than half the note and super low capped property taxes for three full decades.

[TKthunder2 4992]

39 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's a bit of a complicated answer, and mor detail is in this deck, but basically there's an Foundation with a lien on the place that is worth the value of the covenant that made it affordable. 
So let's say a place is worth 550, the homeowner may be on the hook for $225, and the foundation owns a $325K 30 year lien on the place. They are also only on the hoo for that part of the property taxes. When the owner sells, the foundation has the first option to buy the place and sell if to another affordable buyer. The owner gets 2% per year of their original purchase. 

Two big things, though - within the thirty years if the owner dies they can leave the place to their heir, who can either sell or occupy the place. This is a huge benefit because it creates potential generational equity, because after 30 years, the owner has the option to buy out the original subsidy of $325K, which under normal inflation rates about be about 1/3-1/2 the value of the original subsidy - which means, essentially, that families who stay in the house get the full appreciation on the house if they stay in it for 30 years while paying zero interest on more than half the note and super low capped property taxes for three full decades.

I’ve always appreciated all the ins and outs of this program. As someone who regularly criticizes most things in this city you have to give credit where it’s due. More of this please, fewer hotels.

[texasdago 7573]

56 minutes ago, PvilleStang said:

There's a difference between mid-rise mixed-use and the Mueller dense town-home / commercial mixture he's talking about.  A stand-alone shop / restaurant / bar on every block, not necessarily a downstairs business in a multi-story complex.

Fair enough... you could still mix in "some" but maybe not on every block.  If you're the only walkable family-friendly bar with a good patio in the midst of all that, you're going to draw gobs of families if you provide the right experience. 

[Deej 76806]

1 hour ago, texasdago said:

I have to think there are some retailers willing to do it.  Here's Blue Bottle and Blenders and Bowls (and there are others, of course) on E. 6th just east of Cisco's/Il Brutto...

Royal Blue on Rainey with Emmer and Rye next door and other restaurants just south, near the Rainey killing fields...

Blue Bottle? 

[texasdago 7573]

4 minutes ago, Deej said:

Blue Bottle? 

Royal Blue.  Blue Bottle.  Blue Balls.  220/221 whatever it takes

 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

It's an interesting interplay between the economic benefit of being able to easily move towards economic opportunity and access to housing.  Economically trapping people in their homes for thirty+ years doesn't make a lot of sense when viewed in isolation, but when weighed against access to housing at all I suppose it makes sense.  Americans, in general, seem to refuse to move towards economic opportunity anyway, so as always the rational actor notion is pointless I suppose.  I wonder why anyone who isn't earning significant money would move to Austin at all anymore.  There are plenty of more affordable and more attractive places to live with wage-earning jobs available.  They're certainly not moving here for the schools.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Samson's Wig

[crash_davis 23113]

Edit: This probably deserves its own thread.

 

In the rare What is RIGHT with you Austin category...

Austin ranked the 4th most educated city in America.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/most-educated-cities/

MISSING: summary MISSING: current-rows.

	Geographic Area Name	18+ H.S. Dropout %	25+ Some College w/o Degree %	25+ Bachelor's Completion %	25+ w/ Grad Degree %	Racial Gap (White Minus All Races Bachelor's Completion %)	Absolute Value of Gender Gap
1	Arlington CDP, Virginia	4.65%	7.51%	76.56%	41.65%	−10.47	0.37
2	Atlanta, Georgia	7.00%	13.15%	59.83%	25.75%	−20.55	0.49
3	Washington, District of Columbia	7.24%	11.74%	63.05%	37.82%	−29.95	1.02
4	Austin, Texas	7.39%	12.72%	59.87%	21.93%	−12.23	0.16
5	Madison, Wisconsin	4.56%	14.22%	58.92%	25.65%	−4.33	0.88
6	Raleigh, North Carolina	7.16%	15.38%	53.89%	21.75%	−14.79	0.97
7	San Francisco, California	10.39%	11.62%	60.90%	26.30%	−18.56	0.59
8	Scottsdale, Arizona	3.00%	18.64%	60.44%	23.87%	−0.06	2.50
9	Irvine, California	4.03%	13.36%	68.27%	30.92%	−1.49	1.86
10	Seattle, Washington	4.08%	11.95%	68.33%	30.47%	−4.79	1.99

 

Texas cities on the list

34. Plano

42. Lubbock

60. Irving

64. Houston

69. San Antonio

72. Dallas

Edited October 19, 2023 by crash_davis

[Brisketexan 105152]

7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

It's an interesting interplay between the economic benefit of being able to easily move towards economic opportunity and access to housing.  Economically trapping people in their homes for thirty+ years doesn't make a lot of sense when viewed in isolation, but when weighed against access to housing at all I suppose it makes sense.  Americans, in general, seem to refuse to move towards economic opportunity anyway, so as always the rational actor notion is pointless I suppose.  I wonder why anyone who isn't earning significant money would move to Austin at all anymore.  There are plenty of more affordable and more attractive places to live with wage-earning jobs available.  They're certainly not moving here for the schools.

Well, we lost sight of the old school difference between owning and renting.  When we bought our first house in Austin 26 years ago, the move wasn't made because "we'll be investing in something that will appreciate 5-10% a year, building a huge chunk of wealth for us."  It was "hey....instead of paying $X per month to a landlord, which is just gone, why don't we pay $X (or a bit more) to a bank, building equity, which means that at the end of this, we'll have put money into a store of value instead of flushing it down the drain?"  That is still a real-deal upside to home ownership over renting: pay yourself instead of a landlord.  

Is it as financially beneficial as your house appreciating 10% a year so your bungalow ends up worth $3 million when it's time to retire?  No.  But that outcome is also incompatible with new residents being able to buy a home at all.  Maybe we are best served by housing policies that strike a balance between those extremes?

[crash_davis 23113]

The largest returns I've made are from selling my previous homes. If you are renting, you are just enabling another shithead to increase his returns when he sells the property. 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, we lost sight of the old school difference between owning and renting.  When we bought our first house in Austin 26 years ago, the move wasn't made because "we'll be investing in something that will appreciate 5-10% a year, building a huge chunk of wealth for us."  It was "hey....instead of paying $X per month to a landlord, which is just gone, why don't we pay $X (or a bit more) to a bank, building equity, which means that at the end of this, we'll have put money into a store of value instead of flushing it down the drain?"  That is still a real-deal upside to home ownership over renting: pay yourself instead of a landlord.  

Is it as financially beneficial as your house appreciating 10% a year so your bungalow ends up worth $3 million when it's time to retire?  No.  But that outcome is also incompatible with new residents being able to buy a home at all.  Maybe we are best served by housing policies that strike a balance between those extremes?

I agree with the shifting notions and benefits of home ownership not necessarily making sense, but I was speaking more about the timing aspect.  Yes, if someone buys under one of these programs they'll have some equity built up - so long as they live there for a very long time.  If after ten years they need to move for work, family, or whatever other reason it's not that discernably different from renting.  You're just paying down interest instead of a landlord, but you don't really have any equity either way.  The major upshot I see is that you're locking in your monthly payment and avoiding rent increases, but that can work the other direction as well if rental rates go down (unlikely in this town in the foreseeable future I know).

[Guest]

Just want to say proud of you Austin. Just over a month ago we had a huge gap between 2022 and 2023 when it came to homicides. You closed that gap in record time with October on track to be the most murder-y month of the year (spooky!)

Quit killin' people y'all.

[Steel Shank 9426]

I can say quite proudly that I have killed no one this month.

[Brisketexan 105152]

1 minute ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Just want to say proud of you Austin. Just over a month ago we had a huge gap between 2022 and 2023 when it came to homicides. You closed that gap in record time with October on track to be the most murder-y month of the year (spooky!)

Quit killin' people y'all.

STAY OUTTA THE RAINEY DISTRICT!

Just now, Steel Shank said:

I can say quite proudly that I have killed no one this month.

Month ain't over.

[Guest]

El murder map:

[LCHorn 2620]

As usual, those son of a bitches in Tarrytown do a fabulous job making all of theirs look like accidents...

[YGIFS 19450]

I’d like to know more about thst little summertime triangle of death around pennybacker bridge. 

[Guest]

KXAN has links to each story:

https://www.kxan.com/crime/

[Guest]

Also, BOTL for:

https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/police-searching-for-suspect-in-vehicle-package-thefts-at-central-austin-apartments/

 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

2 hours ago, YGIFS said:

I’d like to know more about thst little summertime triangle of death around pennybacker bridge. 

One was some kind of road rage incident involving people shooting on the highway who I don't believe live in the area.  Another was an accidental shooting at a home, whatever that entails.  The third (the one inside 360) was very recent and not many details are available, but someone murdered a woman and dropped her body in the neighborhood, then lit it on fire.  About as grisly as it gets.

[YGIFS 19450]

Wow, that’s way up the road from me but thanks for the nightmare fuel.  I do remember the accidental home shooting now.  Friends of friends of friends.  
 

[Modessit 5603]

 
Here's a bunch east of 183. There's some affordable given the location... and then tons priced out of reach of middle income:

[Modessit 5603]

 
Here's a bunch east of 183. There's some affordable given the location... and then tons priced out of reach of middle income:

Everything to the right of the red is manufactured housing. Pretty much a shitty low-income area with a fairly nice tiny-home community attached. Everything to the left is a mix of older crappy places (in the middle) surrounded by newer and nicer construction.

The "affordable" places are the older homes - some of which are duplexes - that don't really fit with the rest of the neighborhood. So many multiple families living in a 2-3 bedroom home and so many cars on both sides - despite rear garages and alleys - that it's basically like driving down a one-lane street. Even $300k seems too much for some of them.

The nicer ones listed at $550k are priced like that because you have a shitty neighborhood right behind you.

My delivery routes take me to both areas often, and I've been to both of the others you posted about. The YUPs like these areas for the stuff nearby and the low-maintenance of tiny yards. I always wonder how they manage with such little parking outside of garages.

[Steel Shank 9426]

5 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Also, BOTL for:

https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/police-searching-for-suspect-in-vehicle-package-thefts-at-central-austin-apartments/

 

I be on the look out for dem titties.

[CooterBrown 18014]

why not just tear down the old as shit apartment complexes off far west and mopac(or anywhere in Austin for that matter) and build 10- or 12 story complexes? better yet use the huge parking lots on said apartment complexes and build over the parking lot while having covered parking on the bottom.  4 or 5 of those solves the housing problem if people are just looking for a small place to live.  you could have 1000s of extra "places to live".
The streets in residential neighborhoods can't handle the traffic or number of cars that will be parked there. none of these people that will live in 6 units on a single family lot are not going to have cars.  In fact there will probably 12 cars for each.  no one is riding the rail/train.  the whole thing is idiotic,  just make more housing where there is already multiunit housing.

The low hanging fruit are huge retail parking lots. Build garage parking and build residential complexes above it. You don’t even have to touch existing residential neighborhoods but can significantly increase density.

[dcar00 14210]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

 

The low hanging fruit are huge retail parking lots. Build garage parking and build residential complexes above it. You don’t even have to touch existing residential neighborhoods but can significantly increase density.

 

Now how is that going to make people bike to work or ride the rail so we can reduce our carbon footprint?  just stop with the common sense approaches please.  The whole problem is existing single family homes on .25 acre lots.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

44 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

The low hanging fruit are huge retail parking lots. Build garage parking and build residential complexes above it. You don’t even have to touch existing residential neighborhoods but can significantly increase density.

 

 

40 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Now how is that going to make people bike to work or ride the rail so we can reduce our carbon footprint?  just stop with the common sense approaches please.  The whole problem is existing single family homes on .25 acre lots.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that rather than create opportunities for home ownership for middle and upper middle class families in the neighborhoods they are being priced out of, you would you would create opportunities for them to rent apartments in large complexes on corridors.  Is that right? 

I have some bad news for you

Spoiler

you're Mayor Steve Adler

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova