East Austin Developments

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

From the link:

“The Ivory, an innovative mixed-use condominium project, elevates sustainable Austin living to a new level. Its 40 work-force-rate condos range in size from 435sf to 650sf, ranging in price from $211,200 to $216,450. Buyers of these units must qualify under the City of Austin affordable housing program.”

Cool. I like that the City is doing an affordable owner occupied residential building as opposed to rentals.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Cool. I like that the City is doing an affordable owner occupied residential building as opposed to rentals.

Are the owners allowed to sell at market rate and keep the equity? Can they rent it when they decide to move to a bigger place, start a family possibly?

If they sell, does the buyer have to qualify as well?

$216k for 435 sqft probably is market rate in that area of town, or close 2 it.

You can purchase a brand new 3 bed house in Lockhart (40 min from downtown) for less than $230k, FHA (3.5% dn with a 580 FICO)

https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/a...msclkid=2cc9c25fcbf21b309e58a85d4793d0b5

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Are the owners allowed to sell at market rate and keep the equity? Can they rent it when they decide to move to a bigger place, start a family possibly?

If they sell, does the buyer have to qualify as well?

$216k for 435 sqft probably is market rate in that area of town, or close 2 it.

You can purchase a brand new 3 bed house in Lockhart (40 min from downtown) for less than $230k, FHA (3.5% dn with a 580 FICO)

https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/a...msclkid=2cc9c25fcbf21b309e58a85d4793d0b5

why mention lockhart? it's 40 minutes from downtown. we don't need to be encouraging sprawl like that. it's ridiculous.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

why mention lockhart? it's 40 minutes from downtown. we don't need to be encouraging sprawl like that. it's ridiculous.

Who cares? The liberal obsession with sprawl is misguided and pointless, and the “solutions” that I’m sure you believe in do nothing but make the affordability crisis worse not better.

By all means—continue fighting against your boogeyman while the rest of us can’t afford to survive. I’d rather live 40 minutes out than have nowhere affordable to live without a bunch of government programs “assisting me” (which I DONT want) at all.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Who cares? The liberal obsession with sprawl is misguided and pointless, and the “solutions” that I’m sure you believe in do nothing but make the affordability crisis worse not better.

By all means—continue fighting against your boogeyman while the rest of us can’t afford to survive. I’d rather live 40 minutes out than have nowhere affordable to live without a bunch of government programs “assisting me” (which I DONT want) at all.

lol you're a mess

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

why mention lockhart? it's 40 minutes from downtown. we don't need to be encouraging sprawl like that. it's ridiculous.

Good question. Lockhart is not a suburb that just popped up, in the Levittown sense of a suburb (something I abhor) . It's got a long storied history of it's own. It's a charming town with unique, authentic style, affordability, jobs, homesteads, decent schools that are gaining students not bleeding students, optimism, a growing music/arts scene. In other words, the things that made Austin cool all those years ago (and still is), are all alive and well in Lockhart, and less than a Fresh Air with Terry Gross interview away. Many local musicians live in Lockhart and commute to Austin to play.

Lockhart has water, wastewater, gas, electricity(some things that are hard to come by if you try to build West of 360)...5A schools, HEB, parks, old homes, and a town square that are well preserved, by and large. You don't have to clear cut forests to build, or find a creek to discharge wastewater like Drip, it has very little topo or flooding issues. It's close to current employers, and more coming. The commissioners and Mayor are generally pro growth. The center of town is very walkable. You will see hipsters with green hair right along side tourists with bbq filled bellies side by side with locals in overalls watching Wayne Sutton (of Little Sister fame with Patrice Pike)play at Old Pal at 7p on a Thursday night. That's nice...it's cool, it's Central Texas, it's real, its what drew Willie to Central Texas....everyone gets along...the Hippies, the red necks, the socials...all gathered around for cold Lone Star and good music after a long hot day to listen to great music played for love, not fame.

But most of all, we need options for people to start families, or to keep families together, or reconstitute families via multigenerational arrangements.

435 sqft is TINY. It's sad really. I'm not opposed to small condos for sale, I believe if the market wants it, the market will demand it and the developers will deliver it (so long as the city will allow it).

Part of the American Dream is that when you purchase your first home, you gain the appreciation over time (generational wealth that so many people missed out on post WWII), especially when you get in early, take the risk, live through the neighborhood transition/growth, then when you outgrow your home, you get to rent it, or sell it, gift it to your loved ones.

My initial post genuinely questioned the cities policies as I'm ignorant of them. If the city allows the unrestricted right for the buyers to do what they wish with their property, I'm happy with it. Especially, because I don't see a $217k 425sqft condo as that great of a deal.....

And THAT is the REAL reason I used Lockhart as an example of what $220k could get you (brand new) for not too far away.

If we want to subsidize affordable housing for new condo buyers (something I'm not opposed to), I think we should offer steeper discounts....and give them full ownership. The problem with that is, if the units sold for $100k, they would turn around and sell them immediately on the open market. Something, I'm also ok with....but then, we would have people taking advantage of that situation, as any enterprising person would.

[Werdman89]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Who cares? The liberal obsession with sprawl is misguided and pointless, and the “solutions” that I’m sure you believe in do nothing but make the affordability crisis worse not better.

By all means—continue fighting against your boogeyman while the rest of us can’t afford to survive. I’d rather live 40 minutes out than have nowhere affordable to live without a bunch of government programs “assisting me” (which I DONT want) at all.

This guy thinks he's given less government subsidies 40 minutes out

[Armybrat]

I wouldn’t diss Lockhart…..

From AI:
The overall cost of living in Lockhart, Texas is roughly 6% to 14% lower than the national average. It is widely considered a highly budget-friendly small-town alternative, sitting approximately 4% cheaper than the Texas state average and roughly 29% more affordable than neighboring Austin.

Housing CostsHousing is the primary driver of Lockhart's affordability relative to the national landscape.Median Listing Price: Stays near $317,800.
Median Home Value: Hovering around $281,379.Median
Rent: Ranges from $1,152 according to census data to $1,600 per month for current listings on Realtor.com.

Everyday ExpensesWhile housing offers large savings, daily necessities are aligned with general baseline expectations.
Groceries: Indexed at 99, meaning costs run 1% below national norms.
Utilities: Monthly median household bills total $1,832, which sits $3,162 lower per year than the U.S. median according to doxo Insights.
Taxes: Property taxes are typical for Texas (no state income tax), with a city tax rate of $0.5348 per $100 and a school district rate of $0.9569 per $100.
Healthcare: Indexed at 96, providing slightly lower fees for standard medical care than national markers.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

I wouldn’t diss Lockhart…..

i love lockhart. it definitely has a little austin refugee community now, plus a lot of cool stuff happening. but 40 miles out is still 40 miles out. that may feel normal in texas, but it is not normal in a lot of other places, and it comes with real costs. it is worse for the environment, expensive for taxpayers, and it does not actually solve the core problem, which is that people want to live in austin and cannot afford to.

the original commenter was mad because he cannot get a 3 bedroom house with a yard in central austin. at some point, people need to have realistic expectations. if someone genuinely wants to live in lockhart, great. but we should not pretend that pushing people farther and farther out is a good housing strategy. and honestly, i doubt a lot of people in lockhart are thrilled about being turned into a pressure-release valve for austin’s housing policy failures either.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

the original commenter was mad because he cannot get a 3 bedroom house with a yard in central austin. at some point, people need to have realistic expectations.

This is a complete mischaracterization of me and my point.

I'm not and never was mad. I have sincere questions of the program. I think that 400 sqft apartments are needed, but sad, 500 sqft is much better, and 600 ideal for a small 1-1. And lastly, I think they are too expensive to be considered "affordable" for what you get. I think the City should subsidize them even further, it at all.

I brought up Lockhart specifically as an example of real market based affordability only 30 miles from downtown Austin, just to prove that $220k for 400 sqft is not that great of a deal, especially if the City is subsidizing it...(still not sure if it even is, I'll dig into myself later to see what the program is about) Maybe that is not a great example, fair enough. But I am under no delusions that buyers should expect 3 bed homes in the Urban Core for $200k.

I'm a free market guy whenever possible. Since 1987, I've only ever rented/owned/built in Central Austin (never south of Oltorf, never N of Hyde Park) most recently I built my house off of S Lamar, specifically so I could walk 2 blocks to the Alamo, Saxon Pub, Uchi, Zilker Park etc.....I ride/run the Butler trail on LBL weekly) I walk my urbancore talk.

I live within walking distance to several gov sub housing projects that i support fully, and only wish they were bigger. The Mary Lee Foundation, and Pathways at Goodrich are both massively underutilized for the land they cover, they could have housed double or triple or more tenants than they do. I parked my company on S Lamar, so my commute is 5 blocks.

If I didn't have small kids a wife and MIL that all live with me, I wouldn't have a yard at all. In 10 years, we plan to sell, and build townhomes in Zilker with minimal yards to move into using the cities new HomeAct, indecently, an act I spoke in favor of at 11:30p to the council when it was up for approval.

I despise Levittown style suburbs probably as much or more than anyone on this forum. I prefer old neighborhoods, with something like an Ave B Grocery imbedded in the hood. That said, I do respect how they provided houses and generational wealth to millions of Americans in a way nothing else could at the time. Lockhart is not a suburb, sure it may seem like one, but it's not.

I understand you misunderstood my points, it happens to everyone. You can always ask for clarification, I'm happy to oblige.

BTW, I think big back yards in a city are stupid, I've always built my houses on smaller lots as to not have one.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Werdman89

This guy thinks he's given less government subsidies 40 minutes out

so is the idea that we should all live in cities?

If it's not a guilt trip, or virtue signal, what is the point of it? It comes off as smug to me.

People live in Lockhart, sure it's not a city, but it's a town worthy of respect just as Austin is. I can easily see it grow into a large town in 100 years. If they do it right, with dense urban core zoning principles instead of suburban zoning madness, it could grow into a very cool city. Doubtful, of course, but possible.


I would also venture to say that there are very few cities in the US I would live in the center of, as I do in Austin. A lot of them are treacherous. If i only had the option of living in urban Memphis or a suburb of Memphis, that's an easy call. My families safety is paramount. Not picking on Memphis, it just has 6 times the violent crime as Austin in it's urban core. But you get the point, suburbs are where people fled violence to raise a family. I've driven all through the rust belt, Deep South, RGV, and the both Coasts, urban ain't always great (look at Corpus-not violent just boring). But when it is great, its ideal.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

the original commenter was mad because he cannot get a 3 bedroom house with a yard in central austin.

News to me. Not what I want at all. Assumptions.

[Werdman89]

Originally Posted by urbancore

so is the idea that we should all live in cities?

If it's not a guilt trip, or virtue signal, what is the point of it? It comes off as smug to me.

People live in Lockhart, sure it's not a city, but it's a town worthy of respect just as Austin is. I can easily see it grow into a large town in 100 years. If they do it right, with dense urban core zoning principles instead of suburban zoning madness, it could grow into a very cool city. Doubtful, of course, but possible.


I would also venture to say that there are very few cities in the US I would live in the center of, as I do in Austin. A lot of them are treacherous. If i only had the option of living in urban Memphis or a suburb of Memphis, that's an easy call. My families safety is paramount. Not picking on Memphis, it just has 6 times the violent crime as Austin in it's urban core. But you get the point, suburbs are where people fled violence to raise a family. I've driven all through the rust belt, Deep South, RGV, and the both Coasts, urban ain't always great (look at Corpus-not violent just boring). But when it is great, its ideal.

He specifically said 'I’d rather live 40 minutes out than have nowhere affordable to live without a bunch of government programs “assisting me”' as if he has less government assistance living there. That is what the graphic addressed.

[Urbannizer]

Fiesta Gardens Rehabilitation

https://claytonkorte.com/project/fiesta-gardens/

Currently on the design commission agenda. Work is expected to start Spring 2027.

Situated along the north shore of Lady Bird Lake in Austin’s east side neighborhood, Fiesta Gardens is a public events venue available to rent for family celebrations and festivals. In its heyday, it included an outdoor patio with a bandstand and a grandstand facing a lagoon for water-skiing stunt shows. Today, in addition to its function as an events venue, the complex houses offices and maintenance facilities for Austin’s Park and Recreations Department (PARD). The rehabilitation focuses on preserving and restoring character-defining architectural features while meeting current codes and enhancing the use of the site overall.

Originally constructed in 1966, the venue operated as a privately-owned tourist attraction on the periphery of a historically Mexican-American neighborhood. In addition to the patio and grandstand, the complex included dining hall and shopping stalls surrounding an interior courtyard, botanical landscapes, and a hiking trail with scenic overlooks.

The master plan is split into two phases, the first of which will focus on architectural restoration and rehabilitation of the site’s dining hall, outdoor plaza, bandstand, the covered grandstand seating facing the lagoon, and the Mercado’s exterior. The second phase will reconfigure the Mercado building as a community meeting venue and relocate the PARD offices to new off-site facilities. The maintenance yard will change into a new public parking area with additional green space that connects with adjacent parks.

[drummer]

^ I like it with the exception of the palm trees. Please stop doing that.

[J78704]

Originally Posted by drummer

^ I like it with the exception of the palm trees. Please stop doing that.

I hear ya… but I think they’re trying to show that they will retain the current, existing palms.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Werdman89

He specifically said 'I’d rather live 40 minutes out than have nowhere affordable to live without a bunch of government programs “assisting me”' as if he has less government assistance living there. That is what the graphic addressed.

I never addressed what "he said", I addressed the graphic as a stand alone statement of fact. I think that graphic is probably very specific to certain geographic regions, Nova Scotia, and will not relate so much to Lockhart v Austin, let alone American suburbs v American urban cores, writ large.

What about the number of inhabitants in each household, or sqft of the households? Those numbers matter too. I bet there are at min 50% more people per household in burbs than cities. $3500/yr looks like a deal for family of 4 in a 1500 sqft compared to $1400/yr for a single person in 400 sqft.

But maybe it does apply broadly, and if that's it's only purpose....I guess, ok. But it seems to me to be a guilt trip aimed at those who live in the burbs, that they actually pay MORE to live in the suburbs, via city services, through higher taxes. Maybe they do, but I bet they would choose to live closer to work and a vibrant city if it were safe, and affordable. Both of which are driven in large part by city administrators we elect and employ to keep cities safe and to zone appropriate live/work/recreate conditions/areas to yield a dynamic-commute free- lifestyle that improves our lives as well as our ecosystem.

The graphic still fails to convince me to live in most urban cores of America, and I'm sure it wouldn't convince St Louis suburbanites (some of the safest suburbs in the country) to relo to into the city of St Louis (one of the most dangerous cities in the country)

It also doesn't take into consideration quality of schools which often lack in urban cores. I would much rather live and pay higher taxes in a burb for safety and schools, price be damned.

You can't disincentivize people from a city via high crime, worse schools, urban decay, expensive homes then be surprised when they leave.

unrelated fun fact via NPR: the top relocations of minority homeowners in East Austin are....Manor, Pflugerville and Del Valley. Given the opportunity, they take their equity to safer areas with better schools.

from the article: "Using the information collected from 100 interviews, Tang found that the majority of people left Austin because of unaffordable housing, while nearly one-fourth said they left in search of better schools for their kids."

but yes, the government assists us all, no matter where we dwell.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

^ I like it with the exception of the palm trees. Please stop doing that.

Why do you not like palms?

[The ATX]

Palms are great IMO. The Sabal Minor species is native to Travis and Hays counties.

[Urbannizer]

3100 East 4th

Former Brooke Elementary to be redeveloped into 425 multifamily units with 10,000 sq ft of retail. Sales closes in August.

https://www.austinisd.org/repurposing/brooke

Following a competitive solicitation process, the District identified Trammell Crow Corporation/High Street Residential, as the selected proposer for the site.

The proposed project is a mixed-use development that would include a multi-family residential apartment community with ground-floor retail and open space for the surrounding community. The residential component is anticipated to include a mix of market-rate and affordable (income-restricted) housing. Specific details, including total units, bedroom counts, and rental rates, have not yet been finalized.