AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[KevinFromTexas]

These projects are great and all, but it would be nice if a higher percentage were "affordable housing units". Otherwise, even with the new supply, will we say that just 10% of Austin's housing stock is affordable? It's not all about trendy retail and swimming pools. What people really want and need is housing and lots of it at an affordable price.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

These projects are great and all, but it would be nice if a higher percentage were "affordable housing units". Otherwise, even with the new supply, will we say that just 10% of Austin's housing stock is affordable? It's not all about trendy retail and swimming pools. What people really want and need is housing and lots of it at an affordable price.

Definitely agree. Supply and demand is a big part of it, obviously - supply increases to meet the demand - but it's necessary to consider affordability as well.

[Lobotomizer]

I agree. It would be nice to see Foundation Communities really step up their output of new buildings. I'm sure they're doing their best, but we needed about 500 more of their projects yesterday.

Build in the core on major transit corridors with no parking, no gyms, and no pools. Basic yet functional flooring, cabinets, fixtures, etc. Microunits all day, everyday.

Get back to the days 15 years ago when one could find an apartment for $500/month. Crapholes go for double that amount now in this city.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I agree. It would be nice to see Foundation Communities really step up their output of new buildings. I'm sure they're doing their best, but we needed about 500 more of their projects yesterday.

Build in the core on major transit corridors with no parking, no gyms, and no pools. Basic yet functional flooring, cabinets, fixtures, etc. Microunits all day, everyday.

Get back to the days 15 years ago when one could find an apartment for $500/month. Crapholes go for double that amount now in this city.

This from Foundation Communities Fact Sheet: To build new affordable housing we depend on a mix of public and private funding. Public funding is administered through transparent, competitive processes at the local, state, and federal levels, and includes Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, City of Austin Affordable Housing Bonds, and support from agencies like the Federal Home Loan Bank and NeighborWorks America. Private funding includes foundations like the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, St. David’s Foundation, and Meadows Foundation, as well as capital investments from individual donors. We often also have a private bank mortgage, but we minimize our debt in order to keep rents low for our residents.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

These projects are great and all, but it would be nice if a higher percentage were "affordable housing units". Otherwise, even with the new supply, will we say that just 10% of Austin's housing stock is affordable? It's not all about trendy retail and swimming pools. What people really want and need is housing and lots of it at an affordable price.

Austin has almost no enforcement either. I have personally known two married grad students who rented apartments ear-marked for low-income housing and were told by the property owner to just not disclose their spouse on the lease.

I'm not really friends with those people anymore, but I would guess a giant % of the units marked for low-income are being rented to people who shouldn't qualify.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Austin has almost no enforcement either. I have personally known two married grad students who rented apartments ear-marked for low-income housing and were told by the property owner to just not disclose their spouse on the lease.

I'm not really friends with those people anymore, but I would guess a giant % of the units marked for low-income are being rented to people who shouldn't qualify.

This just speaks to (a) how laws are too often written in a way that easily allows manipulation of public funds for personal benefit to the public detriment and (b) that Austin real estate is so expensive that even people who shouldn’t qualify for these units at all, but probably only applied because everything else is still unaffordable for them.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This just speaks to (a) how laws are too often written in a way that easily allows manipulation of public funds for personal benefit to the public detriment and (b) that Austin real estate is so expensive that even people who shouldn’t qualify for these units at all, but probably only applied because everything else is still unaffordable for them.

I mean, this is generally a problem - if compliance has no teeth than people will largely ignore it. Thats a universal problem across all industry

[Urbannizer]

827 W 12th

[427MM]

Our non-profits cannot build us out of this housing deficit. Our Strategic Housing Blueprint called for ~6$B to get us where we need to be back in '17 (closer to $11B by 2025) and we’ve since failed on all of its goals since adoption. If we want housing we must legalize it which means electing fewer NIMBYs. The fact this has to be a zoning case is a waste of time. It should already be entitled to meet Austin’s needs. If by-right they could simply break ground tomorrow we could calibrate the density bonus to match the market and boom! But our 1984 land use code is shit so developers have to hire top dollar attorneys and go an entire year just to see whether or not they’ll be allowed to build what we as a city are desperate for. What I love about this dev. is it adds income restricted homes (at the developer’s expense) in District 10, Austin’s wealthiest district. There will likely be fierce NIMBY opposition. They too will chant “not enough affordability” though most of them will not be doing so genuinely. Always ask for just enough to kill the deal—NIMBYism 101.

[StoOgE]

So the new weird ball with netting at Pease park is already closed. Seems the children* have figured out how climb into the ball after-hours pretty easily.


*I definitely did *not* join them

[MichaelB]

edit

[kingkirbythe....]

Abolishing FAR Limits Downtown Is the Best Idea Austin’s Had in a While

https://austin.towers.net/abolishing-far-limits-downtown-is-the-best-idea-austins-had-in-a-while/

As the City of Austin works to hammer out a new and improved version of its increasingly dated Downtown Density Bonus Program, we were blown free of our chairs last week by a memo from the city’s Design Commission recommending, among other things, the complete removal of floor-area ratio (FAR) limits in the downtown area. Under such a change, the height and density of new towers would instead be limited only by a developer’s compliance with the hypothetical new density bonus program’s gatekeeper requirements, which would presumably include increased or otherwise modified elements of the existing program’s requirements like pedestrian-friendly street design, increased sustainability, and on-site affordable housing — alongside payments into the city’s affordable housing trust, the fee schedules of which would most likely be raised and otherwise reallocated.

[Urbannizer]

Quarters

[StoOgE]

Stopped by the (partially) open Waterloo Park today, its *really* nice but man it needs a load more shade to be used on a summer day.

[kingkirbythe....]

I will not be sad when this one eventually goes.



In Praise of Austin’s TRS Headquarters, a Doomed ’70s Concrete Wonderland

https://austin.towers.net/in-praise-of-austins-trs-headquarters-a-doomed-70s-concrete-wonderland/

Though the 3.32-acre site’s location places it pretty solidly under the height limits of our Capitol View Corridors, looking at the density of new projects working with the same constraints in the surrounding area, it’s clear that whoever acquired the property if TRS eventually votes to move forward with the plan would eventually redevelop with a new low-rise office building — perhaps even capitalizing on the large northern side of the tract currently dedicated to surface parking. Demolition would likely be further motivated by extensive deferred maintenance on the aging complex TRS estimates would cost, uh, $50 million or more to rectify over the next 20 years.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Stopped by the (partially) open Waterloo Park today, its *really* nice but man it needs a load more shade to be used on a summer day.

Amen. All central TX parks must have lots and lots of native trees for shade. I find it to be torturous and oppressive if they don't (during the summer).

Having said that, I cannot wait to enjoy Waterloo!! The drive-bys have been jaw dropping

[drummer]

Haven't been to Waterloo yet, but it does seem like a beautiful park from the photos folks have posted. Are the trees planted in such a way to provide ample shade once they reach more maturity or is there simply a need for more trees and more shade structures?

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

I will not be sad when this one eventually goes.



In Praise of Austin’s TRS Headquarters, a Doomed ’70s Concrete Wonderland

https://austin.towers.net/in-praise-of-austins-trs-headquarters-a-doomed-70s-concrete-wonderland/

Though the 3.32-acre site’s location places it pretty solidly under the height limits of our Capitol View Corridors, looking at the density of new projects working with the same constraints in the surrounding area, it’s clear that whoever acquired the property if TRS eventually votes to move forward with the plan would eventually redevelop with a new low-rise office building — perhaps even capitalizing on the large northern side of the tract currently dedicated to surface parking. Demolition would likely be further motivated by extensive deferred maintenance on the aging complex TRS estimates would cost, uh, $50 million or more to rectify over the next 20 years.

I actually really like the design of this one sans the big parking lots. I hope they at least keep the original building and retrofit it. It's a great example of the architectural style of the time.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I actually really like the design of this one sans the big parking lots. I hope they at least keep the original building and retrofit it. It's a great example of the architectural style of the time.

[paul78701]

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but a crane is now up on the Texas Bankers Association site at 10th and Lavaca.