Mueller Redevelopment Update Thread

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Komeht

... with a mix of housing types and levels of affordability actually welcomed and desired by the residents and getting denser all the time (see section 6 and several new planned and being built apartment buildings - such as Mosaic 2, and the AMLI).

Apologies, but you have hit on a pet-peeve/raw nerve of mine. (In general, I tend to be somewhere between you and MIEK on this, maybe leaning a little more toward your position.

BUT, on the affordability and mix of housing I think Mueller is a complete failure. One of the main ways in which Mueller was sold was that it would have opportunities for all income levels. That is profoundly not what we got. For the market housing we got a mix of housing types unaffordable to 90% of households in Austin. And for the affordable housing it was probably only truly affordable to a tiny sliver of families meeting the cutoff. Last round had 'affordable' housing pushing $200k. A family with kids making 70% of MFI can't afford that. Plus affordable housing has started to revert to the market, at which point it becomes almost as expensive as the other market housing, so Mueller isn't even going to make its 25% goal by the time build out is done. And then there's a HUGE leap in price to the market units, "The Gap"....

If Mueller was a market driven development, that would be one thing. But as I understand it, we are basically giving Catellus the land. So I'm subsidizing people living in houses my family can't afford. I call BS on that.

And I think it's intentional by Catellus. For the first round of Mueller Houses they had market units with models with a $/sf price that would have allowed 3bd2bth units in the $150-$200k range, but they only built huge units that phase. Next phase they DID build smaller 3-2 units as promised. And jacked up the $/sf to make them unaffordable too.

(Full disclosure, my family got screwed around big time by Mueller, so it's a raw nerve.)

"The Gap" includes 40-60% of Austin families with kids, so I take issue with this idea that there's a mix of options or incomes there. To be clear, my frustration is not directed at you, I just can't let this idea stand that Mueller is doing anything other than failing spectacularly to deliver on this promise ....

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by H2O

Hyde Park isn't even very dense. Most of the houses are on lots larger than Mueller, and there aren't any rowhouses at all.

There are a handful, some so well done you can hardly believe they have more than one unit. But you can't build these anymore. The neighborhoodistas have deemed them to be McMansions.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by H2O

Stale Minus sucks! I was in there the other day to pick up some milk, and it stunk so bad I nearly wretched. I wouldn't buy anything there that wasn't sealed in a factory. I actually live closer to it than Central Markup or HEB Handoncock, but there are worth a short drive. I suspect the only people who would buy all their groceries at Stale Minus would do so because they don't have a car or bike to get to CM or HEB.

I miss the Fresh Plus in Clarksville - the one in Hyde Park is suboptimal, but still far better for daily needs than a Royal Blue.

As a long time resident of Hyde Park, I think it is greatly overrated. I mean, most streets don't even have sidewalks, and the sidewalks that do exist are either so broken or discontinuous that it is easier to walk in the road. A lot of blocks don't have alleys, either, so the streetscapes are interrupted by frequent driveways.

Hyde Park isn't even very dense. Most of the houses are on lots larger than Mueller, and there aren't any rowhouses at all. Even the crappy low-rise apartments along Avenues A & B are much less dense then those at Mueller, and none of them are mixed-use. They are almost all separated from the street by surface parking lots as well.

43rd & Duval has some nice shops and restaurants, but the nose-in parking and continuous curb cuts are anything but urban and pedestrian friendly. It isn't even mixed-use.

To me, the only thing Hyde Park has over Mueller is the authentic charm of the old houses and the large mature trees. On the other hand, the houses can be a real maintenance headache, and many of the old trees are starting to die off.

Yeah, this is mostly wrong. We bought a historic home over on 42nd and B - B has sidewalks the entire length we've walked; many of the cross streets don't, but several do. It's pretty much slightly above par for the course for older parts of Austin. Likewise, the house I really wanted on H near 41st had sidewalks all the way up to Fresh Plus - I wouldn't have considered a street without them.

As for density, it's misleading to consider "houses". Next door to us is a triplex with a cottage in the back - 4, maybe 5, housing units which from the street looks like one. A bunch of studio and 1BR apartments on A and B also - not the modern, much larger, units you'd see in Mueller.

Census data doesn't lie - Hyde Park is far denser than Austin's baseline and (I believe) denser than the developed parts of Mueller in aggregate (remember how much space Mueller wastes on surface parking, for instance).

As for 43rd and Duval, we're in agreement - too much emphasis on parking, but that still puts it miles ahead of Mueller's existing retail, I hope you'd agree - you can at least GET to these restaurants without crossing parking lots at all, and their front doors are clearly on the pedestrian side (to whit: Hyde Park Bar & Grill has 80% of its parking in the back, where you dodge puddles and trash cans to get to the front and the main entrance on the pedestrian side; Fresh Plus' parking lot entrance is clearly the lesser of the two).

BTW, didn't want to make it sound like we've been here for 3 months and are experts. My old house, being updated for renting now, was a block south of Hyde Park; we walked through Hyde Park all the time even when we lived there.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Komeht

There are a handful, some so well done you can hardly believe they have more than one unit. But you can't build these anymore. The neighborhoodistas have deemed them to be McMansions.

These aren't rowhouses, they are duplexes. Duplexes are allowed everywhere in Austin with SF-3 zoning (by far the most common zoning), and a minimum 7000 sf lot, which are also pretty common. The McMansion ordinance limits the square footage to 0.4 FAR, or 2800 sf total for both units on the minimum lot size, but can be larger on larger lots.

Still much less dense than the rowhouses at Mueller, though.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by H2O

These aren't rowhouses, they are duplexes. Duplexes are allowed everywhere in Austin with SF-3 zoning (by far the most common zoning), and a minimum 7000 sf lot, which are also pretty common. The McMansion ordinance limits the square footage to 0.4 FAR, or 2800 sf total for both units on the minimum lot size, but can be larger on larger lots.

Still much less dense than the rowhouses at Mueller, though.

You can't build these under McMansion on almost any lot. And the whole point of density is defeated by .4 FAR. Just because its technically allowed by SF3 doesn't mean it hasn't effectively become illegal under McMansion.

Mueller can be denser because it is exempt from crap like McMansion.

Finally if you can find a universal and coherent definition that explains the difference (consistently) between a town house and a duplex I'd like to see that. Basically people say "duplex" when they don't like the project and conjure up images of 17 students sharing a rental.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You can't build these under McMansion on almost any lot. And the whole point of density is defeated by .4 FAR. Just because its technically allowed by SF3 doesn't mean it hasn't effectively become illegal under McMansion.

Mueller can be denser because it is exempt from crap like McMansion.

Finally if you can find a universal and coherent definition that explains the difference (consistently) between a town house and a duplex I'd like to see that. Basically people say "duplex" when they don't like the project and conjure up images of 17 students sharing a rental.

Duplexes are two unit houses. Fourplexes are four unit houses. Rowhouses are connected individual houses that number in excess of four.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Duplexes are two unit houses. Fourplexes are four unit houses. Rowhouses are connected individual houses that number in excess of four.

That's an arbitrary distinction that isn't standard across markets. There are also six-plexes. Why aren't rowhouses greater than 6?

In Some markets duplexes are vertical, not horizontal. Other markets duplexes are rentals and complex is under single ownership town homes are individually owner-occupied. Other markets duplexes have shared ownership - basically condos, yet in other markets no common ownership is necessary.

I haven't seen a consistently applied defintion for a distinction. In my mind "duplex" or a "four-plex" describes a multi-unit dwelling of 2 or 4 units with a shared wall or floor or roofsnd may include common ownership or not and can include such things as owner occupied townhomes/rowhomes or small condos, or leased apartments. Townhouses/row houses are individually owned dwellings that share a vertical wall and have no common shared space. Duplex is broader term that includes the lessor. If someone can point me to a source that makes sense of all the distinctions then please post it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Komeht

That's an arbitrary distinction that isn't standard across markets. There are also six-plexes. Why aren't rowhouses greater than 6?

In Some markets duplexes are vertical, not horizontal. Other markets duplexes are rentals and complex is under single ownership town homes are individually owner-occupied. Other markets duplexes have shared ownership - basically condos, yet in other markets no common ownership is necessary.

I haven't seen a consistently applied defintion for a distinction. In my mind "duplex" or a "four-plex" describes a multi-unit dwelling of 2 or 4 units with a shared wall or floor or roofsnd may include common ownership or not and can include such things as owner occupied townhomes/rowhomes or small condos, or leased apartments. Townhouses/row houses are individually owned dwellings that share a vertical wall and have no common shared space. Duplex is broader term that includes the lessor. If someone can point me to a source that makes sense of all the distinctions then please post it.

I was giving a general definition that most individuals adhere to. There's significant overlap between the categories in any case.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by tildahat

BUT, on the affordability and mix of housing I think Mueller is a complete failure. One of the main ways in which Mueller was sold was that it would have opportunities for all income levels. That is profoundly not what we got. For the market housing we got a mix of housing types unaffordable to 90% of households in Austin. And for the affordable housing it was probably only truly affordable to a tiny sliver of families meeting the cutoff. Last round had 'affordable' housing pushing $200k. A family with kids making 70% of MFI can't afford that. Plus affordable housing has started to revert to the market, at which point it becomes almost as expensive as the other market housing, so Mueller isn't even going to make its 25% goal by the time build out is done. And then there's a HUGE leap in price to the market units, "The Gap"....

If Mueller was a market driven development, that would be one thing. But as I understand it, we are basically giving Catellus the land. So I'm subsidizing people living in houses my family can't afford. I call BS on that.

And I think it's intentional by Catellus. For the first round of Mueller Houses they had market units with models with a $/sf price that would have allowed 3bd2bth units in the $150-$200k range, but they only built huge units that phase. Next phase they DID build smaller 3-2 units as promised. And jacked up the $/sf to make them unaffordable too.

(Full disclosure, my family got screwed around big time by Mueller, so it's a raw nerve.)

"The Gap" includes 40-60% of Austin families with kids, so I take issue with this idea that there's a mix of options or incomes there. To be clear, my frustration is not directed at you, I just can't let this idea stand that Mueller is doing anything other than failing spectacularly to deliver on this promise ....

First of all - wrt to mix of housing types - I don't see how this is debatable at all. Within 1 sq. mile there are:

SF detached yard homes ranging from affordable up to million dollar showcase homes
Garden and garden court detached type homes that share green space
Town Homes at various price points
courtyard town homes
Mueller Houses - 4 and 6 unit buildings
Condominiums
Market Rate Apartments
"Affordable" Apartments
Senior Apartments
Live/work shop homes on the way

wrt to "affordability" - Mueller has a goal of providing 25% of it's housing at affordable levels. 10% would be expected. 15% would be ambitious. I don't know of a single project nationally on the scale of Mueller shooting for 25%. That is entirely unique in this world to my knowledge.

"Affordable", in this case I believe, is defined as being at 80% MFI which includes much more affordable units - such as the recently proposed DMI affordable workforce housing apartment building.

Currently on the market under affordability program there are:
5 DW Garden Homes 170-190K
16 DW Row Homes 170 - 183K
SP Mueller house condos 181 - 213K
Streetman affordable row homes 158 - 168K

To my knowledge, Catellus is on track to fulfill that promise. But that doesn't mean everyone in Austin who wants one gets one. Not everyone can get a market rate home from the home builder either - those have long waiting lists. Of course you can get one on the secondary market - but you have to be pretty fast - they tend not to stay on the market too long.

As you noted, there is an affordability gap where units are available at the very low end and there is a huge jump to market rate. I have heard it discussed but I don't know how that's being addressed. In my mind - the best kind of affordability is just providing denser/smaller market rate homes.

In any case, it's hard to take issue with the Mueller plan and Catellus for not doing enough on affordability - 25% is unprecedented for this kind of development. Stapleton offers the most direct kind of comparison to Mueller (dense-ish, new urban, brownfield redevelopment of abandoned airport, partnership w/city) - it's affordable housing goal by contrast is 10% for ownership.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Komeht

First of all - wrt to mix of housing types - I don't see how this is debatable at all. Within 1 sq. mile there are:

...snipped for brevity...

I didn’t phrase that well – my point was that sure there’s a mix of housing, it’s just all unaffordable to 90% of Austin families. This is important because 1) that’s not what we (the citizens of Austin) were promised, 2) we (the citizens of Austin) are subsidizing it, and 3) the unaffordability of Mueller is being used against it and urbanism more generally. My family would love to live at Mueller. We can’t afford it. But don’t ask me to subsidize those that can.

Don’t get me wrong, the 25% affordable is great, but the prices just make me laugh. The city a couple years ago estimated the median income family of four needed a price point around $175k. Of the ‘affordable’ homes you list, all but one type are above that. If $175k is what the median family needs, how is a low income family going to afford houses that cost more than that? $213k for affordable housing? That’s a joke. That’s not for low income families, that’s for kids just out of college whose mommy and daddy are spotting them the down payment. (That’s not a problem unique to Mueller, unfortunately .) And some of the affordable housing is already being resold on the market. Unless they build more than 25%, they’ll be under 25% by the time build out is complete.

Having said all that, my main issue is The Gap. Because that’s where most families are. It’s the bump in the bell curve, and they are not being served by Mueller but are being asked to subsidize it. And the promise that they would be served was part of how Mueller was sold to the public. And Catellus and the reporters/stenographers that repeat their spin disingenuously try to imply otherwise by saying things like “Mueller has houses from $158k to over $1 million” glossing over the fact that if your typical Austin family would show up there wanting something in the $158-$225k range (i.e. what they could afford) they be pointed toward $300 and $400k places they couldn’t afford. Occasionally they offer a token house or two in the high 200s for publicity. The fact that they try to gloss over this shows that they know it would hurt their image. Similarly, after the options are announced for each phase and they are criticized for not offering anything to fill the gap, they always say “oh, next phase we’ll address that” but they never do. It’s become a bit of a joke at this point.


I don’t disagree with you about the larger solution: more infill, more Muellers, etc.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You can't build these under McMansion on almost any lot. And the whole point of density is defeated by .4 FAR. Just because its technically allowed by SF3 doesn't mean it hasn't effectively become illegal under McMansion.

In what way can't you build this under McMansion? Granted, it's hard to tell specifics from just a picture, but that particular duplex looks reasonably small. If its 2300 square feet or less, that's allowed anywhere, forget FAR. That still gives you >1000 per duplex unit, which isn't bad (a lot of the existing stock in Hyde park is ~1000 a house, so this gets you double the density).

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

In what way can't you build this under McMansion? Granted, it's hard to tell specifics from just a picture, but that particular duplex looks reasonably small. If its 2300 square feet or less, that's allowed anywhere, forget FAR. That still gives you >1000 per duplex unit, which isn't bad (a lot of the existing stock in Hyde park is ~1000 a house, so this gets you double the density).

Those are decent sized houses - probably 1800 - 2000 sf of finished space - add in all the other stuff that counts against SF and it's a long ways from 2300sf.

I haven't measured it out, but those particular homes well exceed. .4 FAR.

They're illegal today. You cannot build them.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

add in all the other stuff that counts against SF and it's a long ways from 2300sf.

Like what? I don't see any driveways, so no issues with garagespace counting against it (and some amount of that could be exempt anyway). They don't seem to be especially tall (certainly under 15 feet per story, at least) and so don't run into the issue of double-counting floor area. No massive porches (visible from the front at least) that are covered by second story living space.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Like what? I don't see any driveways, so no issues with garagespace counting against it (and some amount of that could be exempt anyway). They don't seem to be especially tall (certainly under 15 feet per story, at least) and so don't run into the issue of double-counting floor area. No massive porches (visible from the front at least) that are covered by second story living space.

Again - those are 2000+ sf units. That's over 4000 sf of finished space - well in excess of 2300 sf.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Again - those are 2000+ sf units. That's over 4000 sf of finished space - well in excess of 2300 sf.

Ah, 2000 each. I misunderstood your earlier statement, I thought you meant the entire building (both duplexes) was ~2000. As I said, I can't tell the actual size from the photo.

But my earlier statement still holds, on any lot in the city (basically) you can build a ~2300 building with ~1000 duplex units.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Ah, 2000 each. I misunderstood your earlier statement, I thought you meant the entire building (both duplexes) was ~2000. As I said, I can't tell the actual size from the photo.

But my earlier statement still holds, on any lot in the city (basically) you can build a ~2300 building with ~1000 duplex units.

And my point holds - you can't build those today. - I think those were built in 2006 - basically the last time you could build that prior to McMansion.

I'm not sure anyone can tell me what is so offensive and out of character with Hyde Park that we needed to make them illegal.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Ah, 2000 each. I misunderstood your earlier statement, I thought you meant the entire building (both duplexes) was ~2000. As I said, I can't tell the actual size from the photo.

But my earlier statement still holds, on any lot in the city (basically) you can build a ~2300 building with ~1000 duplex units.

In one of the weirdest coincidences ever, the building I took a picture of last month and posted above just happened to have been featured in March 2006 Austin Chronicle of "McMansion or Not" shown at building stage in the link below:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2006-03-10/346276/

I swear I didn't plan that - I was just visiting my favorite restaurant the other day, saw a pretty town home and thought to myself "hmm. . .I wonder why anyone would want to ban these" and snapped a picture. Anyway - the Chronicle in March of 2006 was pointing to this very same building as being a "McMansion".

I put it to others. . .is that building so offensive and out of character with Hyde Park that it should have been made illegal?

Mike - you're a Hyde Park resident now - should the city be protecting you from that?

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Komeht

In one of the weirdest coincidences ever, the building I took a picture of last month and posted above just happened to have been featured in March 2006 Austin Chronicle of "McMansion or Not" shown at building stage in the link below:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2006-03-10/346276/

I swear I didn't plan that - I was just visiting my favorite restaurant the other day, saw a pretty town home and thought to myself "hmm. . .I wonder why anyone would want to ban these" and snapped a picture. Anyway - the Chronicle in March of 2006 was pointing to this very same building as being a "McMansion".

I put it to others. . .is that building so offensive and out of character with Hyde Park that it should have been made illegal?

Mike - you're a Hyde Park resident now - should the city be protecting you from that?

I fought the McMansion ordinance publically and vehemently. I was part of the reason the Planning Commission came up with alternate recommendations of 50% FAR when duplexes or garage apartments were involved.

That being said, the Chronicle's idea of what was a McMansion was stupid. And I bet these homes are small enough that they'd be fine under the ordinance. They are actually condominiums if you check traviscad, and 1900 square feet each-ish.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

They are actually condominiums if you check traviscad, and 1900 square feet each-ish.

Yeah, I didn't realize these aren't actually "duplexes" (or at least according the definition that I and I think some others were thinking of when starting this conversation). McMansion (from my understanding) seems to limit building on a single lot, while this particular example seems to actually be several separate lots (at least legally) or maybe its a single lot with 6 different condo owners(?). I'm not sure if McMansion even applies or if its just assumed that this sort of building/redevelopment is going to require re-zoning and variances anyway.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yeah, I didn't realize these aren't actually "duplexes" (or at least according the definition that I and I think some others were thinking of when starting this conversation). McMansion (from my understanding) seems to limit building on a single lot, while this particular example seems to actually be several separate lots (at least legally) or maybe its a single lot with 6 different condo owners(?). I'm not sure if McMansion even applies or if its just assumed that this sort of building/redevelopment is going to require re-zoning and variances anyway.

City's GIS map has them as still SF-3 but four lots, which seems wrong. TravisCAD mentions they're a condominium development. So a bit tricky to tell.