CodeNext?

[Nonbryan 173]

What's the scoop on CodeNext?  I know it's a hot button topic but what is the bottom line here?  What serves the Austin citizens best?

[phdhorn 6,224]

You can't get a more perfect example of bloated, clotted, slothful, directionless, bureaucratic government bullshit.  It's every stereotype of ineffective government times 10.

The entire thing is a cluster fuck, and the latest now is that the city council's being sued because they voted to have no citizen vote on it.  They can't even get that right, something a group of second graders could manage to work out.

You'd be better served just go ahead and build whatever the fuck you wanted; I'll take them 10 years to even figure out that it's against code.  And that's being charitable.

Edited May 25, 2018 by phdhorn

[Chet Steadman 940]

32 minutes ago, Nonbryan said:

What's the scoop on CodeNext?  

It’s a proposed rewrite of the existing code in order to make things less confusing and more streamlined.  The only problem is it’s over 400 pages longer than the document it is intended to replace, the people who wrote it don’t fully understand what they created and it will very likely be scrapped all together.

Oh yea, and it total Austin-fashion, it only cost you and $8,500,000 to have all this done.  

[skittlebrau 474]

It's a great idea, but since the bitchy status quo NIMBYs actually participate in civic government and don't just lob bombs on message boards, it's an overcomplicated mess. The Planning Commission has made a lot of good moves today to improve what comes before Council and I have a little bit of hope that things will improve. The original version imagined a dense and connected city, but then the anti-growth assholes convinced people that all of their neighbors were going to knock their houses down and build high rises on the lot next door. And people bought it. The development community, Chamber and affordable housing community are all in favor of it.

As far as the petition goes, it came about from people basically standing outside of grocery stores and lying to citizens about what Code NEXT does. The only notable thing Council has done since the passage of 10-1 was to ignore this bullshit and not put it before a vote.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

It’s all about increasing density and decreasing traffic congestion. 

[Steel Shank 9,421]

Quote

What serves the Austin citizens best?

Do you really want me to answer this?

[Nonbryan 173]

4 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Do you really want me to answer this?

Sure.  Take a crack at it.

[Texas Jeff 1,945]

13 hours ago, Nonbryan said:

What serves the Austin citizens best?

I would say the first step is to stop calling each other assholes.  CodeNext has winners and losers and people are fighting for their best interests.

The people who mostly do not live in the affected neighborhoods want it passed.  Developers want it passed because they can buy an older house in central Austin, knock it down, and build 2-4 small houses on that lot and sell them at downtown condo level prices and make money.  Affordable housing advocates like it  because they have studies that say that these smaller houses will be less expensive, or they are trying to get language into CodeNext so that developers would be required to build some cheaper units along with the more expensive ones.  People that want to live central in a smaller home but currently can't afford what is on the market (think young single folks or a couple without kids) are in favor of it because they want to live central.

The people who mostly do live in the affected neighborhoods do not want it passed.  They moved into the neighborhood because they liked it, some a long time ago, and they do not want the family house next to them replaced with 2-4 houses with 4-10 adults living on the property.  The new code requires only one parking space per unit and it's likely that this new form of living would put more cars on the street.  Existing residents do not the area in front of their houses turned into perpetual parking by their neighbors.  There are concerns that doing this will increase the cost of land for those that choose not to redevelop their lots, which may mean higher property taxes.  Many of the existing residents worked on neighborhood plans at the urging of the city just a few years ago and they want the neighborhood plans enforced.

If you tried this in any neighborhood in the region, you would get push-back from the people already living there and support from those that will profit from the change.  In my opinion, the people that want this change did not work at all with the people affected by the change to see what they would support.  Both sides are now entrenched.  The process of creating the maps was not transparent and did not involve the people living in the affected areas.  Many people felt that some unseen committee was redrawing their neighborhood without their consent.

If I was in charge, I would stop the current proposal and see if we can create more communities like the West Campus overlay.  Find areas of town that would welcome high rise density and then densify the heck out of that.  The Domain area development could be redeveloped into a West Campus like neighborhood all the way from Mopac to Metric, with existing rail service.  The Dell campus area around Parmer and IH-35 is about the size of downtown and it could be redeveloped into a high density area, with bus service to connect it to downtown.  Most of the Robinson Ranch area is undeveloped and it already has a rail line running through it, it could be a "ribbon" shaped downtown with 3-4 frequent rail stops connecting West Campus like neighborhoods.  Highland Mall is being redeveloped on the same rail line and the Texas DPS owns a large property nearby that could be a mid-rise or high-rise neighborhood, with bus service on Lamar and a short walk to rail service.

I think we should focus on development like West Campus and downtown, and not try to disrupt our single family neighborhoods.  We can create dense, connected neighborhoods without CodeNext.  But doing that has different winners and losers than CodeNext, so you will find people opposed to my ideas.  They are not assholes, just people with an interest in the outcome.

 

 

 

[Dbeasy 15,042]

I would say the first step is to stop calling each other assholes.  CodeNext has winners and losers and people are fighting for their best interests.
The people who mostly do not live in the affected neighborhoods want it passed.  Developers want it passed because they can buy an older house in central Austin, knock it down, and build 2-4 small houses on that lot and sell them at downtown condo level prices and make money.  Affordable housing advocates like it  because they have studies that say that these smaller houses will be less expensive, or they are trying to get language into CodeNext so that developers would be required to build some cheaper units along with the more expensive ones.  People that want to live central in a smaller home but currently can't afford what is on the market (think young single folks or a couple without kids) are in favor of it because they want to live central.
The people who mostly do live in the affected neighborhoods do not want it passed.  They moved into the neighborhood because they liked it, some a long time ago, and they do not want the family house next to them replaced with 2-4 houses with 4-10 adults living on the property.  The new code requires only one parking space per unit and it's likely that this new form of living would put more cars on the street.  Existing residents do not the area in front of their houses turned into perpetual parking by their neighbors.  There are concerns that doing this will increase the cost of land for those that choose not to redevelop their lots, which may mean higher property taxes.  Many of the existing residents worked on neighborhood plans at the urging of the city just a few years ago and they want the neighborhood plans enforced.
If you tried this in any neighborhood in the region, you would get push-back from the people already living there and support from those that will profit from the change.  In my opinion, the people that want this change did not work at all with the people affected by the change to see what they would support.  Both sides are now entrenched.  The process of creating the maps was not transparent and did not involve the people living in the affected areas.  Many people felt that some unseen committee was redrawing their neighborhood without their consent.
If I was in charge, I would stop the current proposal and see if we can create more communities like the West Campus overlay.  Find areas of town that would welcome high rise density and then densify the heck out of that.  The Domain area development could be redeveloped into a West Campus like neighborhood all the way from Mopac to Metric, with existing rail service.  The Dell campus area around Parmer and IH-35 is about the size of downtown and it could be redeveloped into a high density area, with bus service to connect it to downtown.  Most of the Robinson Ranch area is undeveloped and it already has a rail line running through it, it could be a "ribbon" shaped downtown with 3-4 frequent rail stops connecting West Campus like neighborhoods.  Highland Mall is being redeveloped on the same rail line and the Texas DPS owns a large property nearby that could be a mid-rise or high-rise neighborhood, with bus service on Lamar and a short walk to rail service.
I think we should focus on development like West Campus and downtown, and not try to disrupt our single family neighborhoods.  We can create dense, connected neighborhoods without CodeNext.  But doing that has different winners and losers than CodeNext, so you will find people opposed to my ideas.  They are not assholes, just people with an interest in the outcome.
 
 
 

This is one of the best posts I’ve read on Surly/Shaggy in a long time. Thanks for explaining the problem in a way anyone could understand it.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

5 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

I would say the first step is to stop calling each other assholes.  CodeNext has winners and losers and people are fighting for their best interests.

The people who mostly do not live in the affected neighborhoods want it passed.  Developers want it passed because they can buy an older house in central Austin, knock it down, and build 2-4 small houses on that lot and sell them at downtown condo level prices and make money.  Affordable housing advocates like it  because they have studies that say that these smaller houses will be less expensive, or they are trying to get language into CodeNext so that developers would be required to build some cheaper units along with the more expensive ones.  People that want to live central in a smaller home but currently can't afford what is on the market (think young single folks or a couple without kids) are in favor of it because they want to live central.

The people who mostly do live in the affected neighborhoods do not want it passed.  They moved into the neighborhood because they liked it, some a long time ago, and they do not want the family house next to them replaced with 2-4 houses with 4-10 adults living on the property.  The new code requires only one parking space per unit and it's likely that this new form of living would put more cars on the street.  Existing residents do not the area in front of their houses turned into perpetual parking by their neighbors.  There are concerns that doing this will increase the cost of land for those that choose not to redevelop their lots, which may mean higher property taxes.  Many of the existing residents worked on neighborhood plans at the urging of the city just a few years ago and they want the neighborhood plans enforced.

If you tried this in any neighborhood in the region, you would get push-back from the people already living there and support from those that will profit from the change.  In my opinion, the people that want this change did not work at all with the people affected by the change to see what they would support.  Both sides are now entrenched.  The process of creating the maps was not transparent and did not involve the people living in the affected areas.  Many people felt that some unseen committee was redrawing their neighborhood without their consent.

If I was in charge, I would stop the current proposal and see if we can create more communities like the West Campus overlay.  Find areas of town that would welcome high rise density and then densify the heck out of that.  The Domain area development could be redeveloped into a West Campus like neighborhood all the way from Mopac to Metric, with existing rail service.  The Dell campus area around Parmer and IH-35 is about the size of downtown and it could be redeveloped into a high density area, with bus service to connect it to downtown.  Most of the Robinson Ranch area is undeveloped and it already has a rail line running through it, it could be a "ribbon" shaped downtown with 3-4 frequent rail stops connecting West Campus like neighborhoods.  Highland Mall is being redeveloped on the same rail line and the Texas DPS owns a large property nearby that could be a mid-rise or high-rise neighborhood, with bus service on Lamar and a short walk to rail service.

I think we should focus on development like West Campus and downtown, and not try to disrupt our single family neighborhoods.  We can create dense, connected neighborhoods without CodeNext.  But doing that has different winners and losers than CodeNext, so you will find people opposed to my ideas.  They are not assholes, just people with an interest in the outcome.

 

 

 

+ rep for actually taking the time to explain. I literally had no idea what this shit was until I read this concise paragraph 

[Larry T. Spider 1,746]

I am not for code next as it doesn’t simplify anything. In general, austinites need to understand that they now live in a big city and that density is something that SHOULD come with the territory. Look at the least dense major cities vs the most dense. Most people would agree that the dense cities have a higher quality of living, more transit options, etc. 

I don’t get mad at many groups in these fights because people are protecting their own interests. I do get frustrated with the large group of austinites that simultaneously hold these views:

1. Screw anybody in the burbs complaining about their commutes.  No new roads. Live in the city.

2. No code next, no additional density in existing hoods.

Hear both of these all the time from people protesting projects like The Grove.

 

 

[dirtonia 269]

If our current council and mayor support it, then I wouldn't touch that bitch with a 3 fiddy foot pole.

Fuck them, fuck that, and fuck you!

[skittlebrau 474]

Hey guys, "Council" isn't a monolith. If y'all would get off your ass and get engaged, as opposed to letting the HOAs and labor groups run the city, we could have a lot better outcomes.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

My neighborhood doesn’t have an HOA and it’s glorious 

[Texas Jeff 1,945]

One more thing regarding the Austin City Council ... the council may be denying the citizens their right of petition, a right defined in the city charter.

You may remember the Uber/Lyft kerfuffle of 2016.  City council passed an ordinance requiring fingerprinting of ride sharing drivers and Uber and Lyft left town.  Two petitions were submitted, one to remove the ordinance and one to remove Ann Kitchens.  One petition was ruled invalid and one went to the ballot, with some confusing language and a drumbeat against corporate control of Austin.  Neither petition actually changed anything.

Now, there is a petition to put CodeNext on the ballot, sort of.  The petition calls for citizens to have the right to vote on CodeNext, up or down, at a future election.  City council has the option of adopting the petition or putting it on the ballot.  According to the city charter, they only have these two options.

The council has chosen a third option, which is to declare that the petition proposes illegal action and thus an election should not be held.  They voted 6-4 to not put this petition on the ballot (Troxclair was absent) in what was probably a proxy vote for how they will vote on adopting CodeNext.  

This, in my opinion, is absolutely wrong.  This is the third time since 2016 that citizens have tried to initiate change and the third failure for that initiative to have an effect.  It is OK for something to lose at the ballot box and OK for the city clerk to invalidate petitions that are wrong.  A petition that is voted in could contain an illegal provision and could be challenged in court.  But confusing ballots and invalidating on technicalities and saying that you think it might be illegal eventually add up to an indifference to the will of the citizens.

 

[Murfdogg21 4,412]

We had a full size lot in 78702 with a 1700 sqft 3 bedroom house. We wanted to expand to around 2500 sqft and and 4 bedrooms. We talked to an architect, someone who works for the city, and a realtor. The consensus was that while the city would gladly permit a second smaller rental unit (up to 1100 or 1200 sqft) to be built in the backyard, it would be fighting an uphill battle to get approval to take my 5 year old house above 2200 sqft. We ended up selling it and bought a house in an area where more sqft is permitted. 

[Pasken 1,309]

35 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

One more thing regarding the Austin City Council ... the council may be denying the citizens their right of petition, a right defined in the city charter.

You may remember the Uber/Lyft kerfuffle of 2016.  City council passed an ordinance requiring fingerprinting of ride sharing drivers and Uber and Lyft left town.  Two petitions were submitted, one to remove the ordinance and one to remove Ann Kitchens.  One petition was ruled invalid and one went to the ballot, with some confusing language and a drumbeat against corporate control of Austin.  Neither petition actually changed anything.

Now, there is a petition to put CodeNext on the ballot, sort of.  The petition calls for citizens to have the right to vote on CodeNext, up or down, at a future election.  City council has the option of adopting the petition or putting it on the ballot.  According to the city charter, they only have these two options.

The council has chosen a third option, which is to declare that the petition proposes illegal action and thus an election should not be held.  They voted 6-4 to not put this petition on the ballot (Troxclair was absent) in what was probably a proxy vote for how they will vote on adopting CodeNext.  

This, in my opinion, is absolutely wrong.  This is the third time since 2016 that citizens have tried to initiate change and the third failure for that initiative to have an effect.  It is OK for something to lose at the ballot box and OK for the city clerk to invalidate petitions that are wrong.  A petition that is voted in could contain an illegal provision and could be challenged in court.  But confusing ballots and invalidating on technicalities and saying that you think it might be illegal eventually add up to an indifference to the will of the citizens.

 

It’s the legal equivalent of it if 20,000 people signed a petition to legalize meth. Yes, it’s a valid petition but what it would establish something which would violate a higher law. Adler’s resolution specifically encourages the petitioners to challenge the ruling in court. If a judge says it’s legal then they can in good concious put it on the ballot.

[Hellraiser97 181]

Goiod article on the affordability crisis (which CodeNEXT was supposed to help with):

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2018/06/14/as-home-prices-soar-realtors-warn-of-crisis.html

TLDR:  Median income up 17.5% over 5 years while median home prices are up 42.5%  

Quote

As home prices soar, Realtors warn of deepening affordability crisis; is CodeNext the answer? 

ABOR leader warns, 'We can’t continue to export affordability,' as most homes sold in region are outside Austin

Austin's soaring home prices are setting records and a local real estate group argues that the city's current land code is making the affordability crunch worse.

Within Austin city limits, the median price for a single-family home reached an all-time high for the month of May at $389,000, up 4 percent from $375,000 in the same month last year, according a report from Austin Board of Realtors.

There are more people buying homes but there are fewer homes listed for sale compared to last year. In May, home sales jumped 5.9 percent year-over-year, hitting 1,037. At the same time, the inventory of homes for sale on the market dipped 6.8 percent to 1,533 active listings.

ABOR put some of the blame for the affordability crisis on the city’s current land development code, which it argues is stifling new housing construction. City Council is reviewing the third draft of CodeNext, a massive effort to rewrite the city’s land development code for the first time in 40 years.

“Our current market imbalance in Austin is made worse by an antiquated land development code that places unnecessary constraints on building the number and variety of homes our community needs,” said Steve Crorey, 2018 president of the Austin Board of Realtors, in a statement.

“Austin’s lack of housing choices disadvantages first-time homebuyers, families with children, and middle and lower-income buyers. Coupled with rapid population growth, it’s driving an affordability crisis that leaves many residents looking for homes far from job centers and essential services," he added.

The rapid rise of home prices is outpacing income growth for Austinites. In the past five years, Austin-Round Rock median family income increased 17.5 percent, according to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, while median homes prices increased 42.5 percent, according to ABOR.

Escalating home prices within Austin city limits continue to push homebuyers into the suburbs, such as Pflugerville, Del Valle and Manor. Last month seven in 10 homes sold within the five-county MSA were sold outside of Austin city limits, ABOR found.

“We can’t continue to export affordability beyond Austin city limits,” Crorey said.

Focus on 'missing middle housing

ABOR is part of the Evolve Austin coalition, which generally supports a CodeNext process that would boost density and transit-oriented development along major roads.

Emily Chenevert, ABOR’s CEO, said she wants Council to start its CodeNext deliberations using the Planning Commission’s recommendations, which include support for accessory dwelling units and increased occupancy limits in residential areas.

 

The fact that Council this week started talking about trying to boost the city's housing stock is an encouraging sign for so-called “missing middle” housing, Chenevert said.

“That middle-density product is something that we continue to strive for more of,” she told Austin Business Journal. “It’s the element that we lack the most.”

Chenevert said she’s optimistic and hopeful that Council will approve a version of CodeNext this summer.

“Our community deserves better than an out-of-date plan that doesn’t meet today’s needs,” she said in reference to the current land development code.

Here are some other key stats from May’s monthly housing report:

• Overall in the Austin Round Rock MSA, the median price of a single-family home increased 4.8 percent year-over-year to $325,000, up from $310,000 in May 2017.

• Home sales increased 4.2 percent year-over-year in the Austin-Round Rock MSA to hit 3,210 sales in May compared to 3,080 sales a year earlier.

• Inventory within Austin city limits shrunk to two months of supply — in other words, it would take two months to sell all of the homes currently listed in Austin at the current rate. A balanced market typically would have at least six months of supply.

• In the Austin-Round Rock MSA, housing inventory was 2.7 months in May, down from 2.8 months in May 2017.

 

 

[Washpark 176]

Which position should I support to keep driving up prices. As an Austin home owner, I’m going to be nimby af

[skittlebrau 474]

1 hour ago, Washpark said:

Which position should I support to keep driving up prices. As an Austin home owner, I’m going to be nimby af

You should definitely be anti-CodeNEXT if you're just interested in selling out to an investor. Bonus points for being able to hide behind "community character" while doing it.

[skittlebrau 474]

Fuuuuuuuck me. Disappointed in Tovo for signing up with the worst among us.

 

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/four-austin-city-council-members-offer-path-forward-codenext/wtk2WUUIgftjE2GwleJs9H/

[Chet Steadman 940]

1 hour ago, skittlebrau said:

Fuuuuuuuck me. Disappointed in Tovo for signing up with the worst among us.

 

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/four-austin-city-council-members-offer-path-forward-codenext/wtk2WUUIgftjE2GwleJs9H/

This is the most Alter quote ever.  She probably took all two years to come up with this zinger and it still doesn’t make sense.  Her ignorance and constant dishonesty make me ragey.  

“On supply and demand,” Alter said, “I want to remind people that supply and demand falls in week one or two of Economics 101 for a reason. The rest of economics is about debunking all of the situations that supply and demand is not the only law of economics. … Zoning does not equal housing supply and density does not equal affordability.”

[PilotsError 2,287]

You should definitely be anti-CodeNEXT if you're just interested in selling out to an investor. Bonus points for being able to hide behind "community character" while doing it.

Nothing wrong with selling to an investor.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Holy Shit. That's what she looks like. WTF

[Fico 1,778]

14 hours ago, Chet Steadman said:

This is the most Alter quote ever.  She probably took all two years to come up with this zinger and it still doesn’t make sense.  Her ignorance and constant dishonesty make me ragey.  

“On supply and demand,” Alter said, “I want to remind people that supply and demand falls in week one or two of Economics 101 for a reason. The rest of economics is about debunking all of the situations that supply and demand is not the only law of economics. … Zoning does not equal housing supply and density does not equal affordability.”

I mean if this is somebody's stance, how can you even argue against it?

This is the equivalent of saying 2 + 2 does not equal 4, because the rest of the subject of math discusses more intricate numerical relationships.  The fucking base line is still 2+2=4.

Stupid is as stupid does. 

[Mappable 37]

if a developer is for it, i'm against it.

take a look at all the new fake neighborhood associations that have sprung up lately.

codenext is about getting paid.

[drt 638]

You act like our city council isn't.  People are getting paid either way, it's just different people depending on which side you support.

What do you mean look at all the fake neighborhood associations?

[Fico 1,778]

1 hour ago, Mappable said:

if a developer is for it, i'm against it.

 

This is a difficult level of stupid to combat.

I am against other people making money!!! Even if that means my neighborhood is more affordable, my property tax burden isn't as high, and we finally have a density level to make all those dumbass bike lanes worth the investment.... Hell I may even get priced out of my own neighborhood because of my position...Doesn't matter, someone is making money and it isn't me!!! Therefore I'm against it!!! /Yells at cloud

Edited June 20, 2018 by Fico

[skittlebrau 474]

6 hours ago, PilotsError said:

On 6/17/2018 at 9:58 PM, skittlebrau said:

You should definitely be anti-CodeNEXT if you're just interested in selling out to an investor. Bonus points for being able to hide behind "community character" while doing it.

Nothing wrong with selling to an investor.

Totally agree.

 

If your only motivation for taking a position on Code NEXT is to sell to an investor, who is going to maximize their own value, while hiding behind 'community character' to guard against increased density (which serves as competition for you and your investor making as much money as possible), then that's a problem. Or at the very least, it super hypocritical.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

3 hours ago, Fico said:

This is a difficult level of stupid to combat.

I am against other people making money!!! Even if that means my neighborhood is more affordable, my property tax burden isn't as high, and we finally have a density level to make all those dumbass bike lanes worth the investment.... Hell I may even get priced out of my own neighborhood because of my position...Doesn't matter, someone is making money and it isn't me!!! Therefore I'm against it!!! /Yells at cloud

Developers aren’t out to make neighborhoods more affordable or decrease property taxes.  

And those dumbass bike lanes ain’t going to get used any more than they already are when it’s a hunnert degrees outside. 

[Hellraiser97 181]

Developers aren’t out to make neighborhoods more affordable or decrease property taxes.  
And those dumbass bike lanes ain’t going to get used any more than they already are when it’s a hunnert degrees outside. 

Developers are out to make money. And it's a lot less risky to sell three $350k houses on a lot than 1 $1m house. Restricting development just increases prices and this taxes. Has zero top do with developers. Most of us would love to see lower property taxes as it makes up a good chunk of carry costs.

On affordability, it's something most of us would like to see, would support initiatives that actually allow for it and would work with in programs that promote it, but the current zoning makes it economically impossible to build anything even remotely affordable to any but the top quartile of income earners in the urban core.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Fico 1,778]

13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Developers aren’t out to make neighborhoods more affordable or decrease property taxes.  

And those dumbass bike lanes ain’t going to get used any more than they already are when it’s a hunnert degrees outside. 

 

 

Listen to this guy, he's pre-med.

 

11 hours ago, Hellraiser97 said:

Developers are out to make money. And it's a lot less risky to sell three $350k houses on a lot than 1 $1m house. Restricting development just increases prices and this taxes. Has zero top do with developers. Most of us would love to see lower property taxes as it makes up a good chunk of carry costs.

On affordability, it's something most of us would like to see, would support initiatives that actually allow for it and would work with in programs that promote it, but the current zoning makes it economically impossible to build anything even remotely affordable to any but the top quartile of income earners in the urban core.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9,829]

12 hours ago, Hellraiser97 said:

Developers are out to make money. And it's a lot less risky to sell three $350k houses on a lot than 1 $1m house. Restricting development just increases prices and this taxes. Has zero top do with developers. Most of us would love to see lower property taxes as it makes up a good chunk of carry costs.

On affordability, it's something most of us would like to see, would support initiatives that actually allow for it and would work with in programs that promote it, but the current zoning makes it economically impossible to build anything even remotely affordable to any but the top quartile of income earners in the urban core.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

that is all true, but the developer isn't leaving meat on the bone.  They will max out the site per the code to get as much return as possible, regardless what it does to the neighborhood (good or bad).  They aren't being altruistic, it is a business. 

Replacing the 1200sq ft Victorian with a three story 3500sq ft home maxing the slab is the norm, not the exception.  And if given the option they would certainly demolish single family homes in the middle of neighborhoods for higher density, it's just more profitable. 

There are no good guys here..... just no middle - lower class housing and that segment of the population grows every day.

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[Hellraiser97 181]

29 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

that is all true, but the developer isn't leaving meat on the bone.  They will max out the site per the code to get as much return as possible, regardless what it does to the neighborhood (good or bad).  They aren't being altruistic, it is a business. 

Replacing the 1200sq ft Victorian with a three story 3500sq ft home maxing the slab is the norm, not the exception.  And if given the option they would certainly demolish single family homes in the middle of neighborhoods for higher density, it's just more profitable. 

There are no good guys here..... just no middle - lower class housing and that segment of the population grows every day.

 

I never said anyone was being altruistic.  The point is that right now, the ONLY thing we can do in many cases is tear down a <1500 sq ft home and build a 2400-3500 sq ft home in its place or a duplex/condo with ~2000/1000.  That house being torn down is barely livable, but we can't replace it with 3-4 <1500 sq ft homes, even if there is enough land to do so.  Very rarely are you seeing a house torn down that doesn't have major structural issues with it, and when you do (like one I recently demoed), while the house might be ok, due to it being built over a build line or something stupid like that, and that getting a variance is damn near impossible, there's no opportunity to do ANYTHING to the home to make it more appealing, etc. 

To give you how asinine our current code is, I have a project near Shoalmont.  The house is a 900 sq ft 1948 piece of crap that wasn't built particularly well in the first place.  After 70 years of minimal maintenance, nearly pier is rotted out, there's severe mold and the roof is shot.  The lot it is on is 11000 sq ft.  It's deep, but still has about 60' of frontage.  In any normal city, you could put 3-4 housing units on this, with each one in the 1500 sq ft or so range.  That's three additional households not commuting down Mopac and I-35.  And while they obviously wouldn't be priced at $100k each, they'd probably all fall in the $350-500k range.  

Instead, we're building a 3000 sq ft home on it that will sell for $1.3M.  I'm much rather build four units like I described above, but I can't because minimum lot size is 5750 sq ft, which means I can't split the lot legally into to and even if minimum lot size was not an issue (and most major cities that have minimum lot sizes are in the 3500 sq ft range), we also have minimum 50' fronts on lots (again most major cities have much smaller if they have it), and if that wasn't an issue, it's zoned SF-2, so I can't even put a duplex/condo on it, I can literally ONLY build a single family residence, and at $385k for the lot, it would be impossible to build something any smaller than about 2500 sq ft and actually make a profit.  

Our existing code is specifically designed to prevent affordable housing.  Don't let anyone tell you any different.  It all goes back to the 1929 plan that segregated the city and pushed all the blacks to the east side.  

[Washpark 176]

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Washpark

[hayden_horn 11,362]

i mean, whatever

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/austin-mayor-steve-adler-suggests-ceasing-codenext-process/269-579382864

Quote

AUSTIN — In a City Council message board on Wednesday, Austin Mayor Steve Adler suggested ceasing the CodeNEXT process and instead asking City Manager Spencer Cronk to create a new process that will help city leaders move forward together.

"Colleagues, I believe we should consider if the best way ultimately to find the right path to fix our land development code is to cease our current process and ask the City Manager to create a new process," Mayor Adler wrote. "While we have learned much and made gains as a council in our June work sessions, it seems evident that we’re not going to get to a place of sufficient consensus. Do we believe that continuing to chop at the same wood is going to change the outcome?"

Adler calls for the recommendation of a new process that builds on work made from the council and city leaders this far while working on the controversial code.

"I remain committed as I have throughout my term as Mayor to finding ways to slow or mitigate gentrification, to stop displacement of long-time residents, to preserve existing housing stock, to support our music and arts community and low and moderate income residents through affordability measures, to find ways to help Austinites who live here and to plan for those we know are coming, all without losing what has always made our city special and continuing to lead on sustainability measures that keep us healthy and safe," Adler wrote.

 

[Guest Lobo]

Adler is starting to remind me, both in tone and policy inclination, of that Kristen Wiig character on SNL---Judy Grimes.

We need to correct zoning. No we don't, just kidding.  Yes we, do just kidding.  It'll make more affordable housing, not it won't.  Just kidding.  It'll stop gentrification.  No it won't, yes it will.  Just kidding.  We won't lose Special Austin.  Yes we will, it's gone.  No it's not, just kidding.  

Sadly, Adler has demonstrated more backbone leadership during the possible repeal of CodeNEXT than he did during the bombings last Winter/Spring.  

[phdhorn 6,224]

City government = clusterfuck, just like CodeNEXT.  Bureaucratic steaming pile of shit.

Next time, primary objective #1:  Either do the fucking thing within 50 pages or fuck off.  Yeah, like 50 pages is going to happen on this side of any Black Hole...

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

God, Laura Morrison would be an absolute disaster as mayor.  But at least she would lead bravely into bad decisions.  Adler just shrugs his shoulders and slouches into them.

[Anastasis 23,463]

How much money did Austin waste on consultants related to this boondoggle?

[Brisketexan 105,079]

3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

all without losing what has always made our city special and continuing to lead on sustainability measures that keep us healthy and safe

Code words to the neighborhood associations that run city government: relax, we aren't going to change a damned thing.  You can continue to "preserve the character" of your neighborhoods by not allowing anything to be altered or built within 10 miles of you.

[skittlebrau 474]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Code words to the neighborhood associations that run city government: relax, we aren't going to change a damned thing.  You can continue to "preserve the character" of your neighborhoods by not allowing anything to be altered or built within 10 miles of you.

“We will find a way to keep out the brown people.”

[TheYoungHorn 58]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

How much money did Austin waste on consultants related to this boondoggle?

It really isn't that figure that is sad. It's the fact of all the years of work and fighting on all sides to end up with a beyond crappy status quo that will only exacerbate many of the very real problems we have concerning growth in this city. 

[TheYoungHorn 58]

18 hours ago, skittlebrau said:

“We will find a way to keep out the brown people.”

And black people. And really anyone that isn't ,increasingly, rich or white. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by TheYoungHorn

[Brisketexan 105,079]

28 minutes ago, TheYoungHorn said:

And black people. And really anyone that isn't increasingly rich or white. 

No, no, no.  It's about "preserving the unique character of our neighborhoods."  Did you not get the memo?

[Brock Sampson 289]

I am increasingly white so my house is safe.

[Anastasis 23,463]

On 8/1/2018 at 9:25 PM, skittlebrau said:

 “We will find a way to keep out the brown people.”

Its not an ethnic play, and it is not totally intended, but it is in reality an SES play that pushes young families out of Austin. Doesn't really matter their race or ethnicity. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,829]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Its not an ethnic play, and it is not totally intended, but it is in reality an SES play that pushes young families out of Austin. Doesn't really matter their race or ethnicity. 

#cashnotcolor

#heartsandminds

[skittlebrau 474]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Its not an ethnic play, and it is not totally intended, but it is in reality an SES play that pushes young families out of Austin. Doesn't really matter their race or ethnicity. 

I’d say it’s a combination of several things:

- Wanting to keep out the poors, who are largely brown and black based upon simple demographics

- Implicit bias toward single family, which exacerbates the segregationist history of Austin’s land development code

- Central Austin liberal elite who want equality as long as it doesn’t affect them and they get to call the shots

- Fuck you, pay me

 

 

[TheYoungHorn 58]

38 minutes ago, skittlebrau said:

I’d say it’s a combination of several things:

- Wanting to keep out the poors, who are largely brown and black based upon simple demographics

- Implicit bias toward single family, which exacerbates the segregationist history of Austin’s land development code

- Central Austin liberal elite who want equality as long as it doesn’t affect them and they get to call the shots

- Fuck you, pay me

 

 

All combined with the proud ethos of wanting to recapture the small, college-town past.