The NIMBY fight against density spreads... - Page 2

H2O · #21 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 3:15 AM**

[QUOTE=JAM;4607767]

Maybe the city should have a long range plan for an area like this, and provide specific parameters of what can be built and how it should look, so the area has some sort of flow to it once it is finished, so it doesn't end up looking like some crappy afterthought.
QUOTE]

It's called neighborhood planning. But even then, it has to follow the rules of the land development code.

Scottolini · #22 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Actually, there's a lot of bus service around there. Buses run on Stassney, South First and Congress which surround the neighborhood, and on William Cannon and Manchaca which are further away, less than 2 miles.

We only use I-35 if we're leaving town, or going to North Austin. Other wise if we're going downtown or closer to the north, we take either Congress, South First, or Manchaca (to Lamar). And if we need to go north up the west side of the city we take Machaca to Ben White to Mopac.

Last night when we went to Zilker Park to see the tree and lights, we took Stassny to Manchaca to Lamar to Barton Springs Road. We got there in 15 minutes. Of course we parked near Lamar & Barton Springs and walked to the park.

Most of the new housing is being built in areas without bus service, and away from arterial roads like you're talking about.

Ever wonder why the city of Austin now makes up less than half the metro population?

Scottolini · #23 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 3:41 AM**

The city of Austin has grown by 285,668 people since 1990, while drastically increasing it's amount of area.

Meanwhile the five counties in the metro, not growing in area at all, have added 806,375 people since 1990.

Middle-class families are moving out of the city in droves. The reason? Lack of desirable housing for reasonable costs, in comparison to what you get in Kyle, Hutto, Cedar Park, Round Rock, etc.

How do we reverse this trend? Make it more difficult to redevelop existing neighborhoods! Limit the size of housing! Keep it a seller's market, so the prices stay jacked-up! Somehow I don't think that's going to work...

JAM · #24 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Middle-class families are moving out of the city in droves. The reason? Lack of desirable housing for reasonable costs, in comparison to what you get in Kyle, Hutto, Cedar Park, Round Rock, etc.

How do we reverse this trend?

I think the operative word is families. There are reasonably priced homes, albeit smaller, but schools are not as safe or as good to send children. Doesn't matter if that is true, it is the perception. My guess is that Austin home prices were reasonable in the early 90's, but people moved out of the city anyway to find better schools.

Scottolini · #25 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 6:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAM

My guess is that Austin home prices were reasonable in the early 90's, but people moved out of the city anyway to find better schools.

To a degree maybe, but Austin has never seen the amount of housing built outside the city like it has since 2000.

The 90s saw the metro gain 403,536 people, 184,542 of which were inside the city. That's 46% of the growth within the city limits.

Compare that to 2000-2008 where the city gained only 101,126 of the metro's 402,839 population gain. That's down to only 25% of the growth within the city limits.

Prior to the 90s virtually all of the growth was inside the city limits. That's why Austin had no suburbs of any size.

Austin is in no way boxed in, without the ability to grow. Hell, even within the existing boundaries are substantial expanses of undeveloped land. And of course the city of Austin's built-up areas are far from being very dense. We have to ask why the city is growing so slowly in comparison to the metro as a whole, and what the long-term repercussions from this will be.

Scottolini · #26 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 6:38 AM**

Check this out. This is using 2000 census data. I'm sure the city is even more barren of families now. Maybe this is normal, I really don't know, but it seems unnatural to me. It will be interesting nonetheless to see how this will affect Austin in the coming decades.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/demograph...msa_chor05.pdf

M1EK · #27 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

I don't know if this has much to do with limiting density. I think the result could as well be limiting an existing 1000 sq. foot house from going to 3000 sq. ft. and make it only able to go to 2k. Since only one family will be in either the 2k or 3k version density is not affected, only the amount of extra space today's families "need" to survive. No if this entails something else I'm all ears.........

Density is measured by people per square mile, not households per square mile. If families of 4 are replaced by childless couples in a given area, density goes down.

Jdawgboy · #28 Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 8:03 PM**

I live in the Southwood Neighborhood and I have had to deal with people like Missy and a few others on the neighborhood message forum. While I do speak up against NIMYism, I can also understand that if you are going to build in an existing area, you should at least try to keep with the character of that neighbhorhood while increasing density. This all stems from a property that is about 2 blocks from my house where a developer came in, tore down one house and put in place a huge 2 level four-plex building in its place. The problem is the developer didn't discuss anything to the neighborhood about what his plans were, he built these buildings right up to just a few feet from the property line on each side of the lot. It simply overtakes the surrounding houses and does not fit with the area at all. I can see where some of my neighbors are coming from, after all I have lived in this neighborhood myself since I was born. I would like to see more density in the neighborhood but I think what needs to be done is that any new residential buildings that do increase density should be built in the center of the lot away from the property lines and they should fit the character of the area design wise. I will go over there sometime this week and take a few pictures of what I am talking about. Im not opposed to having 4-plexes in the area I am opposed to how this particular developer built those over on Hank.

Actually go to Google maps and type in 4456 Hank Avenue and go to street level and you will see it. I would like to see what others opinions on here are about it.

Scott Wood · #29 Posted **Dec 16, 2009, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I live in the Southwood Neighborhood and I have had to deal with people like Missy and a few others on the neighborhood message forum. While I do speak up against NIMYism, I can also understand that if you are going to build in an existing area, you should at least try to keep with the character of that neighbhorhood while increasing density. This all stems from a property that is about 2 blocks from my house where a developer came in, tore down one house and put in place a huge 2 level four-plex building in its place. The problem is the developer didn't discuss anything to the neighborhood about what his plans were, he built these buildings right up to just a few feet from the property line on each side of the lot. It simply overtakes the surrounding houses and does not fit with the area at all. I can see where some of my neighbors are coming from, after all I have lived in this neighborhood myself since I was born. I would like to see more density in the neighborhood but I think what needs to be done is that any new residential buildings that do increase density should be built in the center of the lot away from the property lines and they should fit the character of the area design wise. I will go over there sometime this week and take a few pictures of what I am talking about. Im not opposed to having 4-plexes in the area I am opposed to how this particular developer built those over on Hank.

Actually go to Google maps and type in 4456 Hank Avenue and go to street level and you will see it. I would like to see what others opinions on here are about it.

It looks a bit tacky, but hardly a reason for imposing sweeping density limits. It's hard to prohibit bad things without also prohibiting a lot of good things. Let people experiment, and accept that tastes vary and you own your property, not theirs. It's part of the trade-off of living around other people.

Besides, small houses can be ugly too. :-)

Scottolini · #30 Posted **Dec 16, 2009, 11:00 PM**

I assume you're talking about this, Jdawgboy...

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=f...l&hl=en&tab=wl

And no, that doesn't bother me one bit.

TXAlex · #31 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottolini

I assume you're talking about this, Jdawgboy...

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=f...l&hl=en&tab=wl

And no, that doesn't bother me one bit.

There is nothing at all wrong with that.

ATXboom · #32 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 4:30 AM**

^^^ Drive Woodrow Ave + or - Northloop... mix of older and newer homes + multi family and quad/condos... I actually like the mix of people and places. Architecturally there is nothing to protect in the neighborhood.

Perhaps its a reference point for what could be...

KevinFromTexas · #33 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 4:58 AM**

I don't have a problem with the design of those buildings, although a bit tacky I guess, but my god, that driveway is hideous. Sorry, but with the gravel and zeroscaping, the driveway resembles a dirt driveway. It reminds me of a trailer park.

I'm not knocking the density (of course) or even the change really, but the design is pretty cheap. The neighborhoods a bit further north in 78704 do it right. They have newer buildings, even larger newer ones, but they look so much better than that. Also the tiny chain link fence looks odd. If you're going to make it that short, why have one at all?

Modern architecture gets kicked around a lot for being too cold sometimes, I actually like it very much, but this is a poor example of it.

Scottolini · #34 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 5:11 AM**

I'd guess less impervious cover is the reason for the driveway design. It's concrete where it need to be, where the tires contact the ground. It's appearance doesn't look poor to my eyes.

The low fence is a little strange, though. It may not be as low as the photo makes it appear. I think it's a little distorted.

JAM · #35 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXAlex

There is nothing at all wrong with that.

OH, someone call the Smithsonian, I LOVEEEE the multi-level chain link fence, especially how it overlaps the top guide bar.... and those poles holding up the sun shade over the garage door, watch out, someone call HGTV so they can tell the world of the new fashion design in car ports. Thank goodness they saved money on by going with tiny windows that won't let in shag carpet destroying sun beams. As long as they didn't knock down any God gracing majestic Oak trees, then I guess I am O.K. with these...., what ever they are. But if even one Oak tree had to fall for this, then count me out!

KevinFromTexas · #36 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 5:43 AM**

I'd rather plan around the trees. Besides, it's a suburban thing to knock down trees. And surprise, these look like cookie cutter houses. Different colors of paint don't make for diversity in architecture. It's the last option architects have when they have no more ideas. Case in point, cheap ugly 80s hotels that get a new flashy paint job as part of their renovation, or even some new ugos that unfortunately get approved. Again, I like modern architecture a lot, but it's one of those styles of architecture that can end up being a train wreck of a design. I'm just asking for better designs. I actually really like the renovations, additions and new homes being built in 78704. The neighborhoods over near Zilker are a prime example.

hookem · #37 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 6:00 AM**

Better get used to looking at buildings like that. Modern has replaced Mediterranean as the preferred look for custom homes. That style basically lives in the moderate to expensive price ranges; you won't typically find cheap tract housing (or cheap multifamily) that looks like that.

Interestingly, it looks like those are being used as a hotel right now:
http://www.hotelmetrohouse.com/locations.php

But I think the goal is to sell them as townhouses. Based on their home for sale in Crestview, the pictured units might go for $329-$379K each. And that chain link fence really does appear to be that short (Maybe for your pet dachshund)! http://www.metrohouseaustin.com/

BTW, other than the fence I love the design & landscaping. I've seen many other places with those kinds of driveways, it is certainly for getting around impervious cover restrictions (more density!). About 10 years ago, when I lived in 78731, they constructed an urban infill project with 4 free-standing townhomes on ONE lot. They got variances on the impervious cover using strip driveways like that as well as a rainwater collection system -- they argued with the rainwater collection system, the roofs were not impervious cover.

Here it is in streetview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8...60.26,,0,15.19

M1EK · #38 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 2:24 PM**

BTW, the "tire tracks" driveway is common in Hyde Park and NUNA as well - and someday I'd like to jackhammer up my incredibly long one-car-wide driveway and replace it with one of those to improve runoff as well.

Also, I think the chain-link fence is temporary, in case that complaint wasn't sarcastic.

verybadgnome · #39 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1EK

Density is measured by people per square mile, not households per square mile. If families of 4 are replaced by childless couples in a given area, density goes down.

What I'm saying is that a family of 4 can get by with 2,000 sq. ft so such limitations will not deter a significant portion of the buying public who don't want to supersize. The portion of the home buyers who have to have the extra space are probably already inclined towards Belterra, Steiner, etc. anyway for other reasons.

M1EK · #40 Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

What I'm saying is that a family of 4 can get by with 2,000 sq. ft so such limitations will not deter a significant portion of the buying public who don't want to supersize. The portion of the home buyers who have to have the extra space are probably already inclined towards Belterra, Steiner, etc. anyway for other reasons.

That's fine. My next-door neighbors are a family of 6 squeezed into about 1500 sqft (they ended up not moving out, despite McMansion's impact on their expansion, because they're too picky to find a new house despite looking for years).

I have a family of 5, and wanted around 2200 sqft of house and a 400 sqft garage apartment. McMansion says I can't have it.

But even more important is the fact that you and I don't get to decide what families should get by with. The effect of home size limits is inevitably less density as measured by people - period.