AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Would you want to live in a 300 sqft place? Because that's what it would take (or worse) to achieve those numbers. What a miserable existence that would be. Warehousing humans.

Imagine a young couple trying to shoehorn their life into that kind of space.

Many people can and do live in that amount of space all over the country and the world. Many people would live in a place of that size for the right price on Rainey Street.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Many people can and do live in that amount of space all over the country and the world. Many people would live in a place of that size for the right price on Rainey Street.

I would never want to do it, but I think developers should be able to build what they want....if there is a market for it, they will sell. If not, they will go under, and a new owner would buy the building for cheap and combine the units.

The market is the best way to deal with these problems.

[Vexal]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Would you want to live in a 300 sqft place? Because that's what it would take (or worse) to achieve those numbers. What a miserable existence that would be. Warehousing humans.

Imagine a young couple trying to shoehorn their life into that kind of space.

Not really. I live in a 1400sqft apartment currently. I want the small apartments to exist for other people so the overall price of housing goes down in the city as the housing shortage decreases. The same way I fully support building out public transportation for everyone but me to use. I just want a highly efficient system of urban living for the rest of the city, to make room for my own wasting of resources. I think I would get evicted quickly from any dense apartment or condo anyway, because I often watch movies and play games with a giant surround sound system (with subwoofer) in the middle of the night. And I need room for my beanie baby collection.

I think that these buildings could use more 600 - 800sqft apartments however. Unless that is already the norm, and I am just vastly underestimating the amount of utility space (utilities, hallways, elevators, walls, etc) that is required to build upwards instead of outwards. Does anyone know how much more space per apartment is wasted as the floor count increases?

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Many people can and do live in that amount of space all over the country and the world.

We don't need the lower end of our standard of living spectrum driven any further down to levels of the second and third world than it already has been. (We really need global population control, but that's a separate conversation that no one wants to face up to.) If people want to live in a broom closet in Manhattan or rent a $2000 bunk bed in San Francisco, more power to them but lets keep that nonsense there.

Many people would live in a place of that size for the right price on Rainey Street.

Agree to disagree here. That's anecdotal statement that can't be proven for either way. In my opinion the fake trend of micro units only attracts a transient crowd because after a certain amount of time, you'll value space and sanity over a tiny hotel room with no space and move on to other things.

And that "right price" only gets attractive if it's subsidized. That's a whole other can of worms.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by zrx299

(We really need global population control, but that's a separate conversation that no one wants to face up to.)

It is estimated that the population will shrink as fertility rates are down worldwide.

https://medium.com/s/story/by-the-en...k-2f606c1ef088

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by zrx299

We don't need the lower end of our standard of living spectrum driven any further down to levels of the second and third world than it already has been.

Ok, I'm going to stop you there. Living in smaller spaces doesn't equate to second or third world. It may not be your taste, and that's fine. You can continue to commute in from Buda or wherever you live thanks to the taxes we all pay.

[the Genral]

I wouldn't say its a trend but having worked in the storage industry for the past 4 years I can say that I am seeing more and more people downsizing, many are selling large houses to live in RVs and much smaller houses or condos. There are micro houses on the market that range in size from 150 to 450 square feet and there is a market for them. We see an uptick in business from those people and especially many people and students downtown that need extra storage for items they just can't part with or may need in the future. There's not a whole lot of storage in dorms, condos, and apartments. There is a market for small units for rent or sale and its not necessarily due to financial reasons. From what I gather from the plethora of people I talk to, it is purely by choice. For some, they are unburdening themselves from accumulated stuff. They are also people who travel a lot and don't spend a ton of time at home but want a home to base out of and provide an address. If there is a demand big enough for a developer to appease these type of folks and they decide to build and offer tiny apartments and condos downtown, I don't think it would become detrimental. One way to perhaps accomplish this would be to construct a shell tower and then build to suit the interior. I'm not even remotely educated enough to say this is even feasible, I'm just saying small habitat is also a life choice, not only a byproduct of over populated huge cities where it IS the only option, except for the extremely wealthy.

[We vs us]

Similarly, one of the big things in hotel world at the moment is the rush into the new tier of reduced-size accommodations, very squarely positioned towards Millenials and Gen Y. Hostels and hostel-adjacent concepts, and all kinds of "micro-hotels, " ranging from smaller studios to closets. There's real world demand for smaller spaces, and just like most else in the world currently, there's a very strong generational break in preference. Micro units definitely won't displace a regular guestroom as the standard, but it's become a legitimate part of any larger market's inventory mix.

And that's what it is in the rental world, too -- a part of a larger inventory mix.

And really, if you're looking for 3rd world accommodations, saunter on down to any I-35 overpass, and check out our less fortunate friends in their tents going to bed every evening. That lower bound is always really just a couple of steps away.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Similarly, one of the big things in hotel world at the moment is the rush into the new tier of reduced-size accommodations, very squarely positioned towards Millenials and Gen Y. Hostels and hostel-adjacent concepts, and all kinds of "micro-hotels, " ranging from smaller studios to closets. There's real world demand for smaller spaces, and just like most else in the world currently, there's a very strong generational break in preference. Micro units definitely won't displace a regular guestroom as the standard, but it's become a legitimate part of any larger market's inventory mix.

And that's what it is in the rental world, too -- a part of a larger inventory mix.

And really, if you're looking for 3rd world accommodations, saunter on down to any I-35 overpass, and check out our less fortunate friends in their tents going to bed every evening. That lower bound is always really just a couple of steps away.

Perhaps. All valid things to consider.
But people seem to forget that Millennials will eventually "grow up". You can't raise a family in a high-rise shoe box.

As for the homeless, let's get the people who genuinely want and need help, the help they need to get back on their feet and self sustaining. Everyone else who has consciously chosen to disconnect from society can go somewhere else. I'm sick and tired of the city leadership allowing this crap to exist in its current form. You think business owners want this outside their doors? Customers? Tourists?

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Perhaps. All valid things to consider.
But people seem to forget that Millennials will eventually "grow up". You can't raise a family in a high-rise shoe box.

Okay, you are bordering on offensive, now. Please stop this derail.

[Geographer]

But people seem to forget that Millennials will eventually "grow up". You can't raise a family in a high-rise shoe box.

I wish that were true but many Millenials never intend to raise a family. It's a very sad trend in society.

[loonytoony]

I keep a foot in the development world. Downtown floor plans in general seem to be trending smaller, mainly based on demand, which is tied to pricing. 44E will be a prime example - there will be sub 800sqft two bedrooms, and 500ft studios.

In my experience most buyers on these projects aren't millennials. Sure there are some, but there are a lot of "boomers" downsizing from larger homes, divorcees, retirees, etc. Compared to yester-years, interior space isn't as important as what you can do in the surrounding area. This shift in thinking has been across the board and I like it.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by loonytoony

I keep a foot in the development world. Downtown floor plans in general seem to be trending smaller, mainly based on demand, which is tied to pricing. 44E will be a prime example - there will be sub 800sqft two bedrooms, and 500ft studios.

In my experience most buyers on these projects aren't millennials. Sure there are some, but there are a lot of "boomers" downsizing from larger homes, divorcees, retirees, etc. Compared to yester-years, interior space isn't as important as what you can do in the surrounding area. This shift in thinking has been across the board and I like it.

Agreed. In my condo building downtown, I'm the youngest owner by at least 10 years, and I'm 25. the majority of owners here are 50+, and there are several families.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by loonytoony

Compared to yester-years, interior space isn't as important as what you can do in the surrounding area.

Also true in hospitality, and it's a really important shift. It's the secret sauce that creates good cities . . . people actually WANTING to be out in them.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by zrx299

We don't need the lower end of our standard of living spectrum driven any further down to levels of the second and third world than it already has been. (We really need global population control, but that's a separate conversation that no one wants to face up to.) If people want to live in a broom closet in Manhattan or rent a $2000 bunk bed in San Francisco, more power to them but lets keep that nonsense there.

I had a lot of friends in NYC that were living in small efficiencies in Manhattan and BK. They weren't massive, but they made them work.

The thing about real cities (which Austin is becoming) is the better they are the less you want to be home.

When I lived in Manhattan I wouldn't be home for more than 2-3 hours a day that I wasn't sleeping. Weekends could trend higher than that, but most of the people I knew were either out in a park or at a bar or restaurant.

It doesn't have to be for everyone (and god knows, plenty of people commute from Long Island, NJ and CT to avoid it) but I really started to like going to a sports bar to watch a game vs. watching at a friends house.

In real urban environments the city itself becomes the space you spend most of your time. You wind up meeting people and having a sense of community, it's great.

Even in Austin with our large-ish house that is central I would say my wife and I "stay in" less than 3 nights a week. If Backbeat was still open it would be less than that

These things don't have to be for everyone, but they provide a way for young junior professionals to afford to live in an expensive city in their 20s and early 30s and then "move up" either to larger digs in the city or out to the burbs. It also allows poorer people to continue to live in the urban core, which is never a bad thing.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I had a lot of friends in NYC that were living in small efficiencies in Manhattan and BK. They weren't massive, but they made them work.

The thing about real cities (which Austin is becoming) is the better they are the less you want to be home.

When I lived in Manhattan I wouldn't be home for more than 2-3 hours a day that I wasn't sleeping. Weekends could trend higher than that, but most of the people I knew were either out in a park or at a bar or restaurant.

It doesn't have to be for everyone (and god knows, plenty of people commute from Long Island, NJ and CT to avoid it) but I really started to like going to a sports bar to watch a game vs. watching at a friends house.

In real urban environments the city itself becomes the space you spend most of your time. You wind up meeting people and having a sense of community, it's great.

Even in Austin with our large-ish house that is central I would say my wife and I "stay in" less than 3 nights a week. If Backbeat was still open it would be less than that

These things don't have to be for everyone, but they provide a way for young junior professionals to afford to live in an expensive city in their 20s and early 30s and then "move up" either to larger digs in the city or out to the burbs. It also allows poorer people to continue to live in the urban core, which is never a bad thing.

Great comment. This was very much my experience living in Chicago.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Geographer

I wish that were true but many Millenials never intend to raise a family. It's a very sad trend in society.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? What's so sad?

All this has gotten off topic honestly so maybe it should be moved to another thread.

Fact is some millennials realize that life is going to be difficult for the next generations especially due to climate change, quality of life around the world will deteriorate and we are already seeing this occure. Affordability is also a factor as it's getting more and more expensive to raise children. At any rate, this is heading towards a heated debate that has veered away from the subject of 90 Rainey. I didn't want to add to it but I don't get Geographer's comment...

[Geographer]

Fact is some millennials realize that life is going to be difficult for the next generations especially due to climate change, quality of life around the world will deteriorate and we are already seeing this occure. Affordability is also a factor as it's getting more and more expensive to raise children. At any rate, this is heading towards a heated debate that has veered away from the subject of 90 Rainey. I didn't want to add to it but I don't get Geographer's comment...

These are all solvable problems. Human civilization around the world has faced tougher circumstances than climate change yet people persevered and kept having children, confident that a better future was possible. Often it was their children or grandchildren who solved these problems. The decision to have children is a vote of confidence in the future and humanity and a selfless act of generosity to society. The cities and skyscrapers we love don't build themselves, they need people. Everyone dies eventually so who will replace city dwellers if no one has children? Nobody wants to see ghost towns.

Besides, who will take care of you when you're old? Probably someone younger than you, which means someone in your generation made the decision to have children, an act that many millennials think is illogical. You will probably collect social security and medicare, two programs that funded by the financial contributions of working adults. The money you contribute to social security and medicare today is not saved for you, it goes directly to today's beneficiaries. The only way for American seniors to receive social security and medicare is if a younger generation--their children and grandchildren--pay into the system at the same time they are retiring.

[enragedcamel]

The overwhelming majority of millennials I know have either postponed or completely lost the desire for "adult stuff" such as buying houses, getting married and having kids not as acts of rebellion against society, but because they don't have the same sense of financial and social security that Boomers have enjoyed back when they were young, and do not feel nearly as optimistic about the future - and rightly so, in my opinion.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that Boomers had it easy. They enjoyed an incredible era of growth and prosperity here in the USA during the post WW2 era (brought on by the actual sacrifices of their parents and grandparents during the world wars), while other nations were too busy rebuilding their economies, infrastructure and population. They raped the planet to build their wealth, polluted the hell out of rivers, oceans, forests and the atmosphere, and generally enjoyed the abundant fruits of their efforts without worrying too much about the consequences. Today they are the largest voting bloc, have an unprecedented concentration of wealth (and the sense of security and smugness that brings) and therefore constantly look down on and judge younger generations for not being hard-working or ambitious enough or getting married and reproducing like Boomers did back in the day.

It is, of course, complete bollocks. The world is going to hell in a hand basket, and it is easy for Boomers to ignore that and espouse optimism because most of them won't be around by the time shit really starts to hit the fan.

Originally Posted by Geographer

These are all solvable problems. Human civilization around the world has faced tougher circumstances than climate change yet people persevered and kept having children, confident that a better future was possible.

On the contrary, human civilization has never faced anything close to climate change in terms of scale or difficulty to solve.

[Geographer]

On the contrary, human civilization has never faced anything close to climate change in terms of scale or difficulty to solve.

History tells us otherwise.

In 1918 when Germany was starving under a British blockade of the country, the birthrate was 2.26 according to Wikipedia.

In 1943 under German occupation and Vichy collaboration, France managed a birth rate of 2.18 according to Wikipedia.

In 1960, during the ghastly Great Leap Forward in China, the birth rate was about 5.75 according to the World Bank.

In 1978 when Vietnamese were fleeing the country by the hundreds of thousands to escape communist oppression and extreme poverty, the birthrate was 5.4 babies per women according to the World Bank.

Yemen is in the midst of a nasty civil war and water and food shortage yet in 2016 somehow manages a birthrate of 4 babies per women according to the World Bank.

The United States birthrate was 1.8 in 2016 according to the World. It has continued to fall despite a booming economy, record low unemployment, and a booming stock market. Unless you're saying that American millennials feel more fearful and pessimistic than Germans during World War I, French under German domination, Chinese under Mao, Vietnamese fleeing on boats, or Yemenis at war, this claim about Millennials having it so much worse than anyone else in history is nonsense.

The real reason is a cultural shift away from family to careerism and greater personal consumption. Society needs a balance between family and career in order to have development now and a growing or steady population that will power society in the future. The see-saw has tilted too far to the "development now!" side and too far away from the "future development!" side. Avoiding child-rearing because of a fear of climate change is a metaphorical act of surrender to the problem. It might take several generations to solve but if millennials abandon child-bearing then it won't get solved.