Truesday: Free Real Estate Advice

columnist graphic banner.jpg

*The views expressed in Truesday are those of the author and do not represent Austinist as a whole. Thank heavens.* -The Editors

I am more than pleased to announce, right here on this site, that I alone have come up with the end-all, be-all, best-of-breed solution to the Las Manitas development conundrum faced by the Finley family. I only mention the Finleys because really, they hold the only opinions that are worth more than growing an extra big toe.

Out of the palm of an increasingly useless hand.

It is my complete understanding of their situation which gives me the stones to help them out with the forthcoming advice. You see, I dream of being really, really, really rich. I mean stupid rich. Like, bathing my pet cheetahs in Cristal. Having my army of clones cryogenically frozen every night so that they age at approximately 2/3 the speed of your garden-variety human clone. So much cash that whoever is president of China will have a life-size tattoo of my face on their chest.

I will be smiling in said tattoo, with a gold tooth gleaming. It will be real gold, inlaid into the tattoo, into their skin. Because.

And of course, I plan to be rich enough to buy WHOLE city blocks (that’s right, I wouldn’t half-step it and leave some salsa dance-dive and a cultural whatever-place in my wake) and then I’d act all “whoa, now what should I do? But, but I LOVE the shops that are on my block! What about the kids and their learning?! And what about the politicians and their precious tacos?!! The drunks and their pay lot?!! Oh, the HUMANITY of it all!!”

And then I’d bulldoze that steaming pile of cultural brick and mortar right over, shrugging my shoulders and mumbling some shit about not wanting to stand in the way of Austin’s thirst for progress. Just like you invariably will.

Why? Well, because that’s the purpose of progress, is it not? To move forward through development? In some places they have to call it “urban renewal” to avoid any political pinches, but this is Texas boys! Those who own, OWN! And aren’t those who own also the ones who have the power to decide what “moving forward” or “progress” looks like?

And anyone who even THINKS about speaking out against the inevitable progress and/or paving of the entire planet should just stick to what they know: handmade windchimes, homemade marijuana, and bodymade odor. If they aren’t American enough to understand that sentimentality over the past is an unnecessary indulgence, rather than some cooky “sustenance for the souls of our future generations” or whatever the hell the Ouija Board most recently farted out, then they should just go back to Jonestown for the Koolaid Ceremony and leave us pragmatists to solve real world problems.

Like, where to get a decent business rate for a mid-week stay downtown that will triple my travel points if I put it on my American Express CO2 Card. By-the-by, if a Marriot Megaplex does happen to be the best way to go, by our better estimation, and if the hippies choose to join the rest of us in real-place-land, then they can park rental cars or clean dead birds from the rooftop pools.

Yes, pools is plural. Word to the cannonball.

Now that I’ve properly explained the obvious reasoning and need behind the development, which sadly has to be spelled out for some people in this city that defends the “rights” of lizards, plants, and other non-tax-paying flora or fauna, I will unveil the design itself.

The idea is to increase downtown “density”. Sometimes I’ll switch hit and call it URBAN “density”, if I’m talking to younger people who aren’t afraid of minorities. It gives it some street cred. I really like this word because it’s so ridiculously hard to pin down. Brooklyn is “dense”. So is Minneapolis. Throw Seattle in there too (ignore Tacoma). And if you’re four-foot tall, with one leg and clinically blind, Boston is “dense” too. No one bothers to define it discretely. It’s progress’s answer to that ever-changing and shadowy “gentrification” bullshit of a liberal term.

Now both sides have the benefit of market-driven ontological drift.

So it only makes sense that a really large building, both vertically and horizontally, would provide for maximum density. Preferably made of thick slabs of lead. Again, just to cover all possible bases surrounding the actual definition of “density”. Plus, the lead would definitely give the structure that urban appeal that the kids love these days.

So that’s the frame of the thing. Just take up the entire footprint allowed by law (and then push it a few feet further out, because let’s face it, once this puppy’s built, it ain’t comin’ down! YAHOO!). Build right up to the street if no one stops you. Just dig those lead slabs right into the curb like a privacy fence of radiation protection.

Now it’s important to think about who will be living in this leadened density. And I think I know the perfect target market (it crosses all demographics, but don’t worry, it’s foolproof).

You see, there’s already fifteen-billion new residential units slated to occupy downtown sky in the next couple of years, and the surrounding areas are developing even faster, snatching potential buyers right out from under the downtown developers. Which is hilarious and awesome! So what probability says is going to happen is that there will be a swarm of incredible condo-speculation that will completely darken the Austin real estate market for the next decade. Money will fly everywhere and nowhere in a blurry haze of confusion, and then suddenly disappear. It will probably end up in Chicago. Burma. Who knows.

Many will lose their shirts, along with their IKEA 2007 catalog of versatile solutions for modern living. The lack of solid, sustainable industry (beyond condo construction and booze peddling) will eventually feed into an already-stalling economy, and then all those who were irreverently sold the counterfeit dreams of Urban Density Living Without A Grocery Store will take to the streets, breaking into parking meters for taco money.

They will have to take the bus all the way to South Lamar to get their tacos from Maria. It will take them at least thirty minutes. An hour, round-trip.

Eventually, all these failed urbanites will be arrested for destruction of public property, and if the pillaging of parking meters has not been made a felony punishable by immediate firing squad, they’ll need a big, solid, probably tall, and definitely dense place to keep them.

You should build that place and sell it to the state. Prisons are ALWAYS dense in design, no matter what the definition might be. It won’t even need windows. I hear windows are expensive to add to buildings anyway.

How dense is THAT?! “Hella-dense” is RIGHT!

After a while, you might consider turning the bottom floor into a dry goods store or something, so that the thousands of other remaining, really-nearby condo-dwellers will have somewhere closer than a forty-minute bus ride which might offer to sell deodorant, rat traps, and Mop-n-glo.

Now that I’ve got the Las Manitas development question licked, I need to refocus on my own ingratiation efforts. Anyone looked into possible development-friendly sub-clauses around Zilker, Barton Springs, Red Bud Island, or the East Lawn of The Capitol?

I’m going to build the biggest fucking Huckabees the world’s ever cried over.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By truecraig in Other on July 25, 2006 8:45 AM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

db

Truecraig:

No one, barring the developer, is going to sell a hotel as residential density. It's a hotel. Duh. When I said, "let's not confuse a crappy Mariott with real, actual, good density," I was responding to your initial blanket diatribe, which by my read lumped all new development into the same old conspiracy of big bad uncool developers we've been hearing about for decades . . . snooooore. If your point was that density is an overused term used to sell shit that's as unsustainable as any Georgetown strip mall, I agree. If your point was to get really crazy and suggest that we might be able to build suburbs that don't suck and require auto-dependence, I also agree. But you didn't, um, actually convey any of that in the original post. Maybe I shoulda busted out the ole reading glasses, but to me it felt like the same "boo hoo those evil developers are killing our Slaker-dise" that every crusty neighborhood association freak uses to fight every iota of change in their feifdoms. And that I don't like. What I like is trying to change some really bad land-use models that have resulted in abundant parking (here's lookin at you, eliz "exxon" s.) but few transit choices and very little else that's good.

btw, Austin has never had a significantly working-class downtown. It was neither a big enough or old enough city. Downtown was mansions and then office buildings/lawyerville. Unlike, say, Harlem or East Austin, no one is being displaced to build fancy-pants downtown condos. East Austin, nutha story. But we'll save that for the EA brawl.

truecraig

Let's hope the daycare center next to Las Manitas doesn't get deep-sixed entirely.

M1EK

TrueCraig,

Those are the few pre-late-90s residential buildings downtown, which is why in my last comment I made a point of saying that the recent stuff all has oversupplied parking. I'm well-aware the Railyard isn't overly supplied with car spots.

And as for my former cow orker, he chose to live downtown at the time because he liked it for various reasons -- of course, at the time he bought, he was working on 15th street. But the reverse commute is still better than what most Cedar Park to Braker Lane folks have to deal with.

What is happening now downtown is very much supportive of car-free living - the only thing missing is a small urban grocer (not Whole Foods). Capital Metro holds transit hostage - we can't do much about the fact that they'd rather slobber Krusee's knob than provide real urban rail, but the city of Austin is doing everything 1000% right to get us to a walkable downtown, and there are, in fact, plenty of people living down there today without cars (forgot to mention the lawyer I know who does it, too). It does take a bit of time (retail is a lagging indicator, especially grocers, unfortunately - but there's again nothing the city can do here that they're not already doing by mandating street-level retail).

Fresh Plus, are you listening?

Luke G.

You guys are neglecting the one huge demographic in Texas that is snatching up the downtown properties-- the jetset & the OLD MONEY. Those who've typically had a house in the Hamptons, or a condo on Tahoe, will for surely have place here for when they feel the need to Slum It once in a while and get with the gritty folks, when people are tired of them everywhere else. I agree with TrueC that our city is moving away from working-class downtown-- more a city of privileged. These places can always, always be bought by Daddy.

adamr

Can we please just talk about Steely Dan?

truecraig

M1EK, I don’t really know much about the parking situation for anything under development, but I’ve had friends living in Brazos Lofts, The Railyard, Post, and 18th/Lavaca, all of whom complained constantly about the lack of reasonable parking (they could always pay monthly for a couple of extra spots in nearby lots, but it’s not cheap). Their complaints centered around not being able to have many simultaneous visitors.

I just parked illegally to see them. Screw it. But I understood that when their parents/inlaws visited town, there were no parking spots available for them to use during their stay. So they fed/rotated meters, and hated life. Living downtown, in any city, is coupled with a compromise in parking options. That’s the nature of the thing.

And I don’t get the Yogi Berra reference. I guess that means I’m in whatever bucket you’re referring to. I don’t really follow baseball.

To set things straight, I want it to be known that I am ALL FOR downtown living. I like the idea of not NEEDING an automobile. I want to walk to everything I NEED on a daily basis, and fly to wherever else I might WANT to go. But what is happening in downtown right now isn’t incorporating that desire into the plan. Anyone living downtown right now, or in the next five, probably ten years, will NEED a car to venture out into the “sprawl” to get a shower curtain rod, box of screws, vacuum, Lysol, blah-blah-blah. For the same (rather expensive) money I’d pay to live in the Nokonah, I could buy two cash-producing duplexes off Far West (live in one side of one of them and probably have more room than my condo at the Nokonah), be ten minutes from downtown, and ten minutes from work. Plus I’d be right next to better schools, the greenbelt, grocery stores, my bank (which is only sort-of-near downtown) etc, and I wouldn’t pay any ridiculous HOA fees. Sure, it's "sprawl", but it is far and away a more econically sound use of my (rather limited) personal resources.

My guess is that your friend’s decision to live downtown was one of preference to be close to nightlife (and/or Whole Foods?). It wasn’t the outcome of an economic or environmental debate.

I WANT to live downtown, but it doesn’t appear that it will meet my NEEDS anytime soon. Who is steering the planning for downtown development anyway?

My comments are post-length. Odam, be proud.

M1EK

Forgot to mention - I also rode my bike and took the bus frequently from that condo - which is another advantage to living downtown and working in the 'burbs - those express buses run both ways.

M1EK

eliz and true,

All new residential buildings downtown are being built with more than enough parking (much more than I'd prefer, for many reasons). Hint: whenever you hear somebody complaining about the fact that nobody ever goes to / moves into downtown because it's too hard to find parking - immediately drop them into your Yogi Berra mental bucket.

And there's plenty of market for living downtown and working elsewhere. Think about how much quicker the 'reverse commute' is. I bought a condo in Clarksville and spent the next 10 years working in north and northwest Austin; at the time there wasn't anything remotely attractive downtown, but I could definitely see myself doing that now (if I were the me of back then, well, uh, you know).

In job N-2 (at the bottom of Tumbleweed Hill on 2222), I worked with a guy who lived in the Nokonah. There's plenty of high-tech folks who love the nightlife, they got to boogie, etc.

Finally, adding housing supply downtown reduces the pressure on housing prices in the whole city. The rents I get from that Clarksville condo still haven't recovered to the pre-bust level, and a big part of it is the fact that supply grew so dramatically.

eliz. s.

Amen, TC, amen. My issue with all this buildup downtown, and it was mentioned in the Chronicle article last week), is that there is not enough parking for all the residences there. Sure we can hope that people will use mass-transit, but let's be realistic. Austin is in Texas, and we Texans love our cars. I can't remember how the Chronicle phrased that point, but it was perfect.

Also - I heard somewhere that affordable housing is supposed to be included downtown. But I could have just made that up.

Sam

Hands off Mr. Natural is all I'm sayin'.

truecraig

And while I’m on the subject, just real quick, how many jobs are actually IN downtown?

Because that’s ALL the people that you might be able to lure into living downtown. And at $200k on the super-super-super low-end (for an older place that no bank will finance a mortgage for because of the high rental vs owner-occupied rate in the building, so that sucks) for an efficiency, HOW MANY of the downtown workers will be able to afford living in/owning one? Waiters? Window washers? Legal Aides? The baristas at Little City? Who?

WHY would a lawyer/banker (are there tens-of thousands of them working downtown anyway?) with two kids, who could afford one of the more livable $500+ condos (maybe 1200 sq ft, maybe), bother living near bums, vomitous sixth street, and surrounded by unpleasant concrete? When, for the same money they could live with a beautiful view, home theatre room, four-car garage, and a private swimming pool with maid quarters in the goddamn hills? Especially when they have to DRIVE into "suburbia" to buy lightbulbs or dishwasher liquid?

And we’re not even talking about housing here anyway. We’re talking about lodging. So, whatever.

truecraig

Actually, I don’t think Finley should roast in any way. He’s just doing right by himself and his own. He’s an entrepreneur of sorts (not in the “invention” or “innovation” sense of the term, but similar to both, as all developers are). No one is a criminal for developing land that isn’t illegal to develop on. If not him, then someone else.

I believe the Marriot Megaplex will promote sprawl under the disguise of "density". I'm seeing rampant misuse of the term “density”, using it to describe anything big or tall, rendering the original idea behind it moot, and it’s starting to piss me off.

Cliche in point: “density” being defined as a more centralized infrastructure of city LIVING and EXISTING for RESIDENTS is one thing. But the “density” used to defend the construction of a Marriot Megaplex, or anything else that will not actually PULL IN and MAINTAIN THE COMFORT of actual city residents is FAR, FAR, FAR from being for those LIVING here (aside from being allowed to work there), and actually PROMOTES SUBURBAN SPRAWL because no one working at that hotel could possibly afford to live in ANY of the downtown condos that exist today (or those being planned, and probably any others currently dreamed of). Look at Las Vegas, Dallas, or New Orleans if you want to argue that point. But Joe Dishwasher-Busboy can’t swing the mortgage to live anywhere beyond the soon-to-be-unaffordable-eastside, Dripping Springs, Sunset Valley, Round Rock, or Cedar Park (and eventually beyond that). SPRAWL.

Unless we start building tenaments or other government-subsidized housing, aside from homeless shelters which quite frankly, don't count.

So don’t call it “density” anymore. That term has been hijacked, and is no longer useful. Call it something else, and don’t bother with trying to boil-up a slick marketing tag for it, because that will also be immediately hijacked. “Responsible City Planning” has a good ring to it.

dash blackwell

Please please please people, let's not get knee-jerk about building something other than sprawl. We (ie, progressive enviros) have spent a couple decades trying to stop the avalanche of strip malls and gallerias and 7-11s and other generic sprawlified crap. Sprawl is worse than a zillion high-end condos, hands down. (This is a Mariott, but you get the point.) That being said, the Finleys deserve to roast slowly in developer hell, braised in champagne and rosemary. But let's remember who the real enemy -- Finley, plus White Lodging and Suttle and anyone who backs them up. Not density. We've still got a hella fight to stop the suburban beast destroying our climate, water, air, et et et cetera.