AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[The ATX]

I updated the tallest lists for Q1 2026 in the sticky development thread.

[Urbannizer]

6th & Walsh

[The ATX]

I'm pretty sure that was a vision for the site. The renderings from the marketing brochure that were previously posted are the likely current renderings:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6...65918573185/Sixth+%26+Walsh+-+Austin.pdf

But the project will likely change because the original 2024 site plan was withdrawn/re-submitted two weeks ago. The new site plan doesn't have project info yet.

[Urbannizer]

6th & Blanco

[Urbannizer]

The row house is back to solve the housing crisis

At a factory in Austin, a startup recently finished its first prototype: a row house it plans to replicate in cities nationwide to help with the housing shortage.

Row houses—narrow, multistory homes that share walls with neighbors on each side—are ubiquitous in older neighborhoods from Brooklyn to San Francisco, but aren’t commonly built now. The American Housing Corp., wants to bring them back.

“Row homes are an underbuilt category in the United States,” says Riley Meik, cofounder and CEO of the American Housing Corp. The company has developed a kit of parts that can be quickly manufactured, shipped to building sites in dense urban neighborhoods, and assembled, helping shrink construction costs. While the price of an American Housing Corp. row house will vary, some of the first row houses in Austin will sell for around $750,000.

The company also plans to act as a developer, working with partners to buy land on empty lots in dense neighborhoods, so that it can handle the entire process. “Our biggest learning from other [prefab] companies is that in order to have full control of what you build and how you build it (and truly be able to innovate in the way homes are built), you need to be both the prefab company and the real estate development firm,” Meik says. “Vertical integration has given us the freedom on the engineering side to redesign the home from the ground up in order to make it mass-producible in a factory setting. We don’t use two-by-fours, drywall, or hammers and nails. Our homes are designed to be built with machines.”

In Austin, one of the cities where they’re building first, they plan to sell row houses for less than $750,000 in neighborhoods where single-family homes sell for $1 million to $2 million, offering an option for buyers who otherwise might not be able to stay in a compact, walkable neighborhood.

[wwmiv]

Oh wow $750k… totally going to solve the housing crisis. No. This guy is just out to make a buck and using overtly political marketing to accomplish that.

And bulk manufactured to boot.

[Riverranchdrone]

I love the look and the idea. But 750,000 is not affordable.

[The ATX]

A demo permit for "office buildings" on the site was filed today.

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Updated renderings:

https://communityimpact.com/austin/south...th-plans-for-232-unit-mixed-use-project/

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

I love the look and the idea. But 750,000 is not affordable.

The fact that these are being marketed as affordable tells you everything you need to know about the worldview of the people producing them—and I sincerely hope they fail. They have zero business making money off of false premises.

See Also:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263763

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The fact that these are being marketed as affordable tells you everything you need to know about the worldview of the people producing them—and I sincerely hope they fail. They have zero business making money off of false premises.

See Also:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263763

The article mentions these would be selling in neighborhoods full of SFHs going for 1 or 2 million dollars. So in theory three or four of these selling at 750,000 on a lot that previously had a single home work $1.5 million.

That adds to the building stock. That allows a substantial lower point of entry into these neighborhoods. That takes pressure off of the existing neighborhoods full of homes selling for $750K.

In and of themselves they don't solve the housing crisis, but it is another piece of the puzzle But you do you, boo.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

The article mentions these would be selling in neighborhoods full of SFHs going for 1 or 2 million dollars. So in theory three or four of these selling at 750,000 on a lot that previously had a single home work $1.5 million.

That adds to the building stock. That allows a substantial lower point of entry into these neighborhoods. That takes pressure off of the existing neighborhoods full of homes selling for $750K.

In and of themselves they don't solve the housing crisis, but it is another piece of the puzzle But you do you, boo.

No, I’m sorry it’s not. This practice is part of the PROBLEM not part of the solution.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No, I’m sorry it’s not. This practice is part of the PROBLEM not part of the solution.

Adding more supply to the market (at all price points) is the solution. It's basic supply and demand economics.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Adding more supply to the market (at all price points) is the solution. It's basic supply and demand economics.

Last I checked, adding overpriced crap doesn’t actually bring the average price down—it raises it according to study after study after study.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Last I checked, adding overpriced crap doesn’t actually bring the average price down—it raises it according to study after study after study.

So why have rents gone down so much in Austin? Do you not think supply plays a role?

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Last I checked, adding overpriced crap doesn’t actually bring the average price down—it raises it according to study after study after study.

Respectfully disagree. Supply and demand wins. Increase supply past the point of demand, and prices decrease.


A peer-reviewed study published in The Review of Economics and Statistics analyzed the local effects of new market-rate apartment buildings in low-income areas across multiple U.S. cities using microdata on buildings, rents, and migration. It found that new construction decreases nearby rents by 5% to 7% compared to similar locations farther away or developed later, with the supply shock absorbing high-income households and slowing rent growth rather than accelerating it.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt5d00z61m/qt5d00z61m.pdf

The authors find that rents for existing rental units within 250 meters of the new development
fall by 5% to 7% compared to rents in buildings farther away, between 250 and 600 meters. As
they clearly state in the introduction, “If there is an endogenous amenity effect, it appears to be
overwhelmed by the standard supply effect.”

I've practiced real estate for 26 years, and I've lived in Austin through 3 downturns and have seen prices DECREASE in my own apartment because builders delivered too many units in the early-mid 80's. Landlord LOWERED my rent for 3 years in a row 1988-91 to keep me. By 1995 rents increased each year because there were zero new products, yet people were still moving to Austin. The lead time to deliver apartments matters quite a bit in these equations. That and location, location, location. Prices in NYC will always be high, because the demand to live there is insatiable...if condos sold for $250k in NYC, everyone I know would buy one....thus increasing the demand even more.

Another personal current example; resale listing in Easton Park will trade for less than buyers paid in 2021($565k). Why? The builders at EP are currently building the EXACT same units, and will be building those units for years to come. Why buy a 5 year old property for $575k (current listed price), when you can buy the exact same unit, brand new, for $550k?

Other sellers are taking less than they paid, and comps show that same unit comps at $525k....so even if the seller could get a full price offer of $575, the property will not appraise for the bank loan. Sellers must decide to rent, keep it, or cut into their equity if they can.

"Affordability" is relative of course. Affordable to who? If it truly isn't "affordable", they won't sell...they will default to the lender....and the lender will auction them off at "market price", whatever that $ is.

See the downturn of 2008 as a recent example. 2-2 condos at Milago pre-sold as low as $350k (2004), after completion the same condos sold up to $500k (2006), then....the same condos sold for as low $290k(2009)...then back up to $800k (2022)....then back down $480k (2025). I've seen units in Milago marketed as short sales or bank owned back in 2009. The market over built condos and demand decreased, prices lowered, then rebounded when demand roared back.

There was a time I couldn't "afford" a $250/month rent (35 years ago)....now I live in a house I couldn't afford if I had not purchased in 2012. It's all relative.


What "study after study after study" can you point to?

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Last I checked, adding overpriced crap doesn’t actually bring the average price down—it raises it according to study after study after study.

If there aren't enough units available in the $700k range, the folks looking in the $700k range will start looking in the $600k range. That will create more demand in the $600k range, and thus driving those prices up. If there are not enough $600k units available to that level of buyer, they will look down into the $500k range. Etc, etc, etc.

There is a potentially cascading effect to not providing housing at all price points. That is why it is needed at all levels.

[wwmiv]

https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2020044pap.pdf
https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/pl...g-for-new-housing-for-all-income-levels/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044


Quick summary: new development tends to markedly increase demand in the immediate area more than it unloads supply. The increase in demand outstrips the increase in supply, and leads to increased rents and mortgages in a hyper-local sense. When an entire market is subject to the same trends (as is Austin), this leads to cost increase spirals EVERYWHERE.

What is happening is not a market supplying housing for internal demand, but a market supplying housing for relocational demand (e.g. rich people from elsewhere) who can afford those cost increase spirals whereas the internal demand (e.g. people from here) are displaced to cheaper markets.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2020044pap.pdf
https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/pl...g-for-new-housing-for-all-income-levels/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044


Quick summary: new development tends to markedly increase demand in the immediate area more than it unloads supply. The increase in demand outstrips the increase in supply, and leads to increased rents and mortgages in a hyper-local sense. When an entire market is subject to the same trends (as is Austin), this leads to cost increase spirals EVERYWHERE.

What is happening is not a market supplying housing for internal demand, but a market supplying housing for relocational demand (e.g. rich people from elsewhere) who can afford those cost increase spirals whereas the internal demand (e.g. people from here) are displaced to cheaper markets.

I see you have turned to the dark side. Much Nimby I sense in you.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2020044pap.pdf
https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/pl...g-for-new-housing-for-all-income-levels/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044


Quick summary: new development tends to markedly increase demand in the immediate area more than it unloads supply. The increase in demand outstrips the increase in supply, and leads to increased rents and mortgages in a hyper-local sense. When an entire market is subject to the same trends (as is Austin), this leads to cost increase spirals EVERYWHERE.

What is happening is not a market supplying housing for internal demand, but a market supplying housing for relocational demand (e.g. rich people from elsewhere) who can afford those cost increase spirals whereas the internal demand (e.g. people from here) are displaced to cheaper markets.

Thanks for these, I will look into them shortly, and I'll address them. I'm curious if you are able to look into my claims, and what your thoughts are. Where do I have it wrong, specifically?

My first thought is, you mentioned that the original units in question were not "affordable", correct?

Then in your summary, you say that demand is driven up. How could that be possible if they are not affordable? There are plenty of examples in Austin where DT condos were listed at "affordable" prices and they flew off the shelves (Milago, 360, etc)....and there are examples of DT condos that were NOT affordable, and they took literally years to sell out. (Austonian, W, 4 Seasons)

How would you address the problem? Can you explain why rents and sale prices in Austin are decreasing...and have decreased for a couple years now, if it's not supply v demand?

[ROCrot]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Respectfully disagree. Supply and demand wins. Increase supply past the point of demand, and prices decrease.


A peer-reviewed study published in The Review of Economics and Statistics analyzed the local effects of new market-rate apartment buildings in low-income areas across multiple U.S. cities using microdata on buildings, rents, and migration. It found that new construction decreases nearby rents by 5% to 7% compared to similar locations farther away or developed later, with the supply shock absorbing high-income households and slowing rent growth rather than accelerating it.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt5d00z61m/qt5d00z61m.pdf

The authors find that rents for existing rental units within 250 meters of the new development
fall by 5% to 7% compared to rents in buildings farther away, between 250 and 600 meters. As
they clearly state in the introduction, “If there is an endogenous amenity effect, it appears to be
overwhelmed by the standard supply effect.”

I've practiced real estate for 26 years, and I've lived in Austin through 3 downturns and have seen prices DECREASE in my own apartment because builders delivered too many units in the early-mid 80's. Landlord LOWERED my rent for 3 years in a row 1988-91 to keep me. By 1995 rents increased each year because there were zero new products, yet people were still moving to Austin. The lead time to deliver apartments matters quite a bit in these equations. That and location, location, location. Prices in NYC will always be high, because the demand to live there is insatiable...if condos sold for $250k in NYC, everyone I know would buy one....thus increasing the demand even more.

Another personal current example; resale listing in Easton Park will trade for less than buyers paid in 2021($565k). Why? The builders at EP are currently building the EXACT same units, and will be building those units for years to come. Why buy a 5 year old property for $575k (current listed price), when you can buy the exact same unit, brand new, for $550k?

Other sellers are taking less than they paid, and comps show that same unit comps at $525k....so even if the seller could get a full price offer of $575, the property will not appraise for the bank loan. Sellers must decide to rent, keep it, or cut into their equity if they can.

"Affordability" is relative of course. Affordable to who? If it truly isn't "affordable", they won't sell...they will default to the lender....and the lender will auction them off at "market price", whatever that $ is.

See the downturn of 2008 as a recent example. 2-2 condos at Milago pre-sold as low as $350k (2004), after completion the same condos sold up to $500k (2006), then....the same condos sold for as low $290k(2009)...then back up to $800k (2022)....then back down $480k (2025). I've seen units in Milago marketed as short sales or bank owned back in 2009. The market over built condos and demand decreased, prices lowered, then rebounded when demand roared back.

There was a time I couldn't "afford" a $250/month rent (35 years ago)....now I live in a house I couldn't afford if I had not purchased in 2012. It's all relative.


What "study after study after study" can you point to?

Fantastic and knowledgeable response.