Quote:
Originally Posted by evergreen1
This report suggests there is free money for affordable housing..it says it favors density wants to encourage it. But the "density bonus" is really just a re zoning tax. And everyone is lining up for it..the people what want subsidized housing, more money for parks, east Austin advocates etc. The trouble with all this is that you can't make downtown more dense or more affordable by raising costs. The benefits to the city of a denser residential base downtown are overwhelming but some folks think they ought to put the brakes on this..or at least enough to get some money from the developers. While developers may be a tempting target be sure that fewer buildings will be built and costs added via these fees will result in overall higher prices for everyone else.
In short I am saying there is no Santa Claus. And the goal of greater density is in direct conflict with the density bonus line of thought because it merely seeks to tax development.
It would be prudent to let the downtown market get going in earnest with lots of success stories before the City brings its taxing power on this highly desireable goal. It wasn't too long ago the City took the opposite view with the Smart Growth incentives were city fees were waived and costs reduced in order to get more building downtown. Seems boom or bust the City can't just let the market work and usually they are a bit behind. Offering incentives in good times and now thinking of taxing when the real estate market is taking hits.
The danger to the City is that downtown growth depends on a critical mass. More residences more retail more pedestrian uses..to the extent that this eliminates some buildings from being built or built taller then we will fail to achieve the mass necessary for a truely vibrant downtown. This trend is just begining and I think they are going to kill the goose.....
|
Well said, though I still believe in Santa Claus.
The affordability sub-group at the DT Master Plan presentation over the weekend was by far the most energetic. I think that the 8-1 FAR is certainly an antiquated ratio designed to limit office buildings from generating too many trips per day. The problem, or the Godsend depending on how you look at it, is that today most of these new towers are residential and don’t have nearly the amount of trips generated. With costs what they are today, it’s no wonder that most developers are going to seek variances allowing a greater FAR to offset their costs. So, if we are to charge $X amount for every additional square foot, who pays for it? We are attempting to have the downtown developers foot the bill for affordable housing allowing people who can’t afford a place downtown to live there. But, by doing this they have to offset their costs by raising the price of the other units possibly pricing out some of the middle-class families that may have looked here. Worst of all, it is still ok to purchase 50 acres 12 miles outside of DT, cut down a few hundred trees and build a bunch of balloon frame housing.
Does anyone here read ULI? They have the best articles covering different ways cities in Europe tackle the affordable housing issue. The successful plans seem to always have good government programs that don’t simply pass the burden onto the developers. Check out their website
www.uli.org