AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[The ATX]

I was playing around with ChatGTP today. I was asking it about Austin's tallest buildings and various developments. It provided incredibly inaccurate information and will not be replacing SSP or even Wikipedia any time soon. It also provided this nugget about a skyscraper proposal:

[Urbannizer]

Here’s where it would be, far from phase 1 haha ������

https://www.google.com/maps/place/16...63231?hl=en-US

[atxsnail]

The downtown salvation army shelter is closing. Any idea what that might mean for the building? Sounds like it's in poor condition and costs are untenable to maintain/repair it.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...elter-closing/

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

The downtown salvation army shelter is closing. Any idea what that might mean for the building? Sounds like it's in poor condition and costs are untenable to maintain/repair it.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...elter-closing/

I saw this and it seemed . . . curious. Have to admit I wondered whether they were going to try and sell the land to a developer, or maybe let another entity (the city maybe? or ARCH?) take over the administration of the shelter. TBH I can't see there being much value to the land unless you're a buy-and-hold kind of investor. The ARCH being right next door limits a lot of what can feasibly be built there.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I saw this and it seemed . . . curious. Have to admit I wondered whether they were going to try and sell the land to a developer, or maybe let another entity (the city maybe? or ARCH?) take over the administration of the shelter. TBH I can't see there being much value to the land unless you're a buy-and-hold kind of investor. The ARCH being right next door limits a lot of what can feasibly be built there.

The quote below makes me think they're more likely to sell it. The amount of money they could get for that lot might not be as much as other prime locations, but it would still likely be significant and allow them to provide more/better services elsewhere for more people.

The Salvation Army also said in the release it’s “called to be good stewards of every dollar entrusted to them” and leadership believes closing the facility will allow them to ultimately provide enhanced care for a number of families, women and children in need.

[urbancore]

Red Cross is selling their downtown location. Wow!

[lzppjb]

Where is that?

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Where is that?

I believe they're referring to the Salvation Army on E. 7th over near APD.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I believe they're referring to the Salvation Army on E. 7th over near APD.

Yep, that’s the one. It shares a city block with the ARCH.

[paul78701]

Downtown Salvation Army To Close For Good in Two Weeks

Nonprofit plans to sell the property, offered little advance notice:
https://www.austinchronicle.com/dail...-in-two-weeks/

In a Feb. 24 interview, Reckline told the Chronicle that the Salvation Army would “eventually” put the building up for sale and reinvest profits into its other Austin programs. The Salvation Army has not yet entered negotiations with a buyer, Reckline said, but they are focused on selling, so the facility will not be leased to the city or another provider to continue its function, temporarily, as a shelter. The Travis Central Appraisal District values the shelter property at $10.2 million, of which $4.6 million is land value; the Salvation Army owns several adjoining parcels that are worth more than $2 million.

[We vs us]

Zoning people, a question: does our code forbid townhouses? I feel it must -- they're super rare in the city, or at least the parts I frequent. What's the limiting factor?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Zoning people, a question: does our code forbid townhouses? I feel it must -- they're super rare in the city, or at least the parts I frequent. What's the limiting factor?

So the big limiter had been staircases. Code previously required 2 which meant MF projects had to be pretty big to make the $ work. However, we have our first single staircase 3 floor condo under construction. Hopefully, it will be one of many missing middle housing projects.



https://austin.towers.net/a-single-s...ashram-condos/

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Zoning people, a question: does our code forbid townhouses? I feel it must -- they're super rare in the city, or at least the parts I frequent. What's the limiting factor?

it does not "forbid" them outright. However, the picture you presented would almost certainly be forbidden in most of the city. The height restrictions would not allow something so tall...which to have a decent sized townhome, you would need to go 3 or 4 stories tall.

I would LOVE to allow these 4 story townhomes, especially on small lots.

Even if we changed the code to allow the height of these in SF1-3, the tree ordinances, the setbacks, deed restrictions, and nimbys would most certainly make it nearly impossible.

Our code is really screwed...even if we rewrite the code, there are systemic "land minds" ensuring we get more of the same. Builders and buyers have spoken. In the urban core, we will see very little more than single family homes built to 40% of the lot size. The markets have spoken. In 30 years, central Austin will be nothing but VERY expensive (even more than now) newer, larger single family homes. I rarely hear the council or even most urbanists speak to these precise changes I just listed. They mostly speak about adu's (that ship sailed...just ask infill builders), and allowing 3 or 4 units on infill lots, etc.

I've spoken to Ann Kitchen at great length, and my new Councilman Alter.....Kitchen didn't understand any of it and showed no interest to dig into the solutions. Alter wants to allow up to 4 units on typical infill lots and thinks that CAN/WILL happen by builders if the city will just "allow" it.
Builders will rarely build multiple units without the changes I listed above. I've spoken to most all of them, it doesn't make the financial sense that it did just a few years ago. There was a short time when builders took a lot and built 2 units and sold them as "condos". The market no longer wants that, so the builders just build one larger home...and when I say "larger", we are talking about 2500-3500 sqft, hardly a "McMansion". They are typically 3-4 bedroom homes with a pool. Of course there are exceptions...but I predict they will become more and more rare.

The only real solutions as I see it, is to allow building on smaller lots, allow guaranteed, expedited subdivision of lots, raise the building tent to at least 40', eliminate parking minimums, allow large tree removal mitigation, reduce front/rear setbacks, and most of all...increase the floor to area ratio (FAR) from 40% to 50%, or eliminate it altogether, and increase the impervious cover limit from 45% to 55% +/-.

Source: I've built 3 homes in '04 for my family since 2011. Founder of Friends of Zilker neighborhood association as a counterbalance to the ZNA.

[IluvATX]

I would love to see more of those pictured above. The condos with one staircase are not townhouses. A townhouse is more of a regular house that’s attached to another house like the above picture.

[We vs us]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I knew that they weren't "forbidden" per se, but that (as @urbancore laid out) interlocking code restrictions made them functionally impossible. It's such a shame because this is obviously one of the missing middle elements we need bajillions of in the central neighborhoods.

I'm afraid (as Urbancore also said) that the code reform boat has sailed, and we're stuck with our inner ring slowly (or not so slowly) sorting out the 99% who can't afford $1M+ SFHs.

[Armybrat]

This is a good example of a local (Wilco) townhouse community:
(Three units per building)

https://cathollowcondos.com/

[H2O]

Freehold (each on an individual lot) townhouses are forbidden per se because we do not have a zoning category and minimum lot size that matches. The few townhouses that you do see are either condos (multiple 'buildings' on an individual large lot) or done through a PUD (custom zoning) like at Mueller or the Grove. urbancore is right though. It is not just the zoning category, but all of the development standards within the zoning category that also have to change. In addition, the new zoning would have to actually be mapped onto individual parcels. Right now, our map greatly favors exclusionary zoning ie. the vast majority of the city is mapped as low-density single family. The few locations where higher density residential (not mixed-use along corridors) zoning exists, it is mostly on parcels that have already been developed that way. That is why we need comprehensive Land Development Code reform, even if we have to pass the code first and map it in phases to get around the notice and valid petition problem. And I wholeheartedly agree with urbancore that 4 units per lot everywhere and elimination of minimum parking are absolutely necessary.

[SproutingTowers]

Read an Austin Business Journal article where Icon and Ballard are building a permanent outdoor stage at the Long Center to showcase 3D concrete printing for SXSW 2023.

https://imgur.com/a/E7vzOf2

https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comm...n_by_the_long/

[enragedcamel]

Since we all love construction cranes:

https://twitter.com/TeamTock/status/1632804633142779906

[obemearg]

A short video from the WSJ about property taxes and undeveloped lots in cities across the US. It focuses on Austin as an example so I thought I'd share it here:

https://youtu.be/gJqCaklMv6M