Austinist: “McMansion-phobia": Restricting Home Size in Central Austin

M1EK

Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:06:49 -0600

truecraig, The anti-McMansion movement (what I'd call the neighborhood association side) has to do with the "don't make any changes at all of any kind whatsoever" philosophy - the same folks who stopped multifamily development even right next to UT for so long (only losing their grip a couple of years back). I'm not sure there's any relationship with downtown development at all other than that those people have seized upon it as a convenient excuse not to allow any modest infill in their neighborhoods (the "stack the renters in high-rises" philosophy I covered once on my crackplog here: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000268.html Most people dramatically underestimate how much zoning laws have to do with what actually gets built around here and vastly overestimate market demand. There's a reason that outside the urban core, essentially all apartment complexes are exactly three stories, for instance.

truecraig

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:37:54 -0600

M1EK, I've tried posting a comment to your blog for the past half hour to no avail. No errors, but no comments either. Not sure what the deal is. But I wanted to ask you this: Do you think this whole anti-mcmansion movement has anything to do with developers' fears that the ever-increasing supply of downtown condos/lofts/apartments may supersede the demand? And that truncating any further development of midrange urban rental property on private plots may fill that demand gap over time? A downtown shift in renter options?

M1EK

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:16:23 -0600

The City Council totally rejected the Planning Commission's changes and instead went with the original Task Force recommendations PLUS removed the "quick review commission" which would have been the first stop for cases like mine. I've gone nuclear here: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000308.html

Edward

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:20:02 -0600

I need to get incorporated and tell the city that my house is my corporate headquarters then it'll probably be automatically grandfathered just like everything else. Heck, they'd probably even give me a tax break.

M1EK

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:41:46 -0600

Even worse, Edward, two of the people driving the Task Force live near me - and I checked out their homes. One lives in >2100 square feet, her second floor 'looming over the backyards' of her single-story neighbors (since she's set back farther from the street than they are in addition to being taller). The other has 3600 square feet (including one of them evil garage apartments) in Hyde Park immediately adjacent to two sub-1000-foot bungalows. They've carefully crafted these rules to avoid violating the letter of the law - so they get to keep what they have and make sure guys like me never get to get it too. But the spirit of the rules ("don't be incompatible with your neighbors") is clearly violated more by both of them than it would be by me even if I built the second floor on both my house AND my garage.

Edward

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:59:36 -0600

The ordinance when it passes will actually *reward* those people that have already built "McMansions" as their resale value will go through the roof due to limited availability. Families that can't afford it will be forced to either sprawl out to the burbs or squeeze mom, pop and the kids into 1000 sqft "bungalows".

M1EK

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:13:48 -0600

I've been covering this extensively - see the link on my name for my crackplog. Planning Commission on Tuesday night recommended that the FAR limit be raised to 50% for properties which have duplexes or garage apartments on them. If City Council approves this change, MOST of the problems directly impacting me and especially my neighbor would be solved. Others have issues with the setback envelope (asserting that it punishes innovative designs like the MetroHouses), etc.