Increased Density v. Affordable Housing: Battle at Stoneridge

Sudo, don't give silly Stew any hints, silly

i'm sorry, but dense housing isn't inherently so much more expensive to build than sprawling housing, is it? hi developers: no need to be so friggin greedy. hi dumb yuppies: austin--why are you so stupid that you pay too much for everything. are ya tired of your money. maybe if we don't indulge our greedy business-folk in selling tacos for $12 a plate, everthing won't be so stupidly overpriced here. have a nice day, dolts.

Stew, the city didn't decide on this, the citizens did. Council members were spending a lot of time hearing people argue about what was best, so they commissioned a large study. This type of development was cited as most desirable by a large majority in EVERY focus group. Even the developers got on board as this is just an incentive, promising relaxed standards (parking, set-back, height and impervious cover) in exchange for certain design and affordability considerations. They can still build to existing code without any recourse from the city. And during in the public comment period, this pedestrian oriented vertical mixed use whupped the other options worse than Naomi Campbell with a new assistant. By the way, this is not a final law yet, so send feedback to your city council or local neighborhood association if you want input into the future of Austin's building code.

Why is it that so many ppl feel that affordable housing should be in the most popular areas of town. I personally bust my ass in order to live here, why should lazy slackers be able to cozy up next to my property that I worked so hard for? They can work hard too. Other than that, I'm all for affordable housing outside of the downtown / South Austin area. If they can't afford to live in those areas now, what good are they going to be to the economy of that area?

Sudo, I was similarly concerned about the existing street that the developer wants to build on, but I think it is just a dead-end street used solely to access the apartments. I would much rather see a denser grid of streets there, but I don't see much problem with losing a street that doesn't connect to anything. As far as height restrictions and parking requirements, I am not a big fan of either of those, so I don't have a problem with the city waiving them. Affordable housing is a real issue. The city waiving these restrictions isn't. That said, I also don't have a problem with the city requiring the developer to provide something in return for getting those restrictions waived.

Stew, buildings need to be next to the street (with a sidewalk and street parking in between, not a parking lot) to create a walkable environment. The decision to do so is based on valuing pedestrian traffic above car traffic. You may not think it looks as nice while you are driving by, but it is much more pleasant to walk by. Personally, I would rather see a store window than a surface parking lot whether I was driving or walking. There is minimal foot traffic on Lamar now because it is a particularly unpleasant place to walk, as almost nothing but parking lots and blank walls front the street. More developments like this could help the area develop into something much more interesting. Also, judging from the stores in the street-front retail on South Congress, I think chain stores are less likely to be in this kind of development than they are to be in suburban style strip malls. Plus, the more street-front retail gets developed, the lower the prices for that space will be. There is plenty of suburban wasteland in every direction outside of Austin - what is the problem with trying to create a little urban heaven here in the middle?

Can someone please tell me why the city decided its a good thing to make new construction run all the way up to the sidewalk? That is so ugly, we are not NYC, ultimately it should be up to the landowner, but I personally like not seeing these eyesore when I'm driving down the street.

And mandating retail on the ground floor is just a joke. Companies who can afford to lease at all of these lower-level retail spots are rarely if ever non-chain businesses. The foot traffic along South Lamar, if any, is not comprised of the people who go to boutiques and restaurants where it will run you 13 bucks for a mojito.

Bottom line: Dear City of Austin, please stay out of the business of social engineering and go back to bureaucratic works and stop trying to create a "utopian" Austin.

Will Wynn doesn't care about black people.

This isn't a case of government vs. free market or density vs. sprawl. An apartment complex is already a dense land use. Also, the developer wants the city to give up valuable public land (in the form of vacating an existing public street so they can build more units on it). They also want access to relaxed parking space requirements and height restrictions. In effect, they want the city to help subsidize the eviction of 141 lower income families for their increased profits. I feel it is reasonable to expect the city to say no to special treatment for the rich at the expense of such a large number of poor.

The link from Christopher's post:

http://www.acorn.org/

This isn't an issue of eminent domain or historical significance. If the Council wants these apartments to remain affordable housing, they're going to have to buy and operate them, or operate under their own rules by mandating that 10% of the new units meet their definition of "affordability." It seems like that definition ($930/month, probably for a 1 BR) is unrealistic.

New affordable housing does get built...in distant suburbs. There are lots of new homes from the 100s in Hutto and Kyle. But land values in 78704 coupled with construction costs make new affordable housing in the city center economically nonviable; would you pay $200,000 of your own money to buy a lot in this area to build a house to be put on the market at $150,000?

My Friend works for ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and has become part of the organizing to address the issue in the interest of affordable housing. It'll be a tough situation, cheap housing is the last thing on developers minds and those they influence...

I'm not sure that protecting certain privately owned properties from redevelopment is always a bad idea (historical structures are good example), and I don't think it is generally unconstitutional (even in a state that loves property rights as much as ours), so long as the property owner retains some valuable use of the land.

That said, I personally don't think protecting these apartments would be good policy. These apartments are affordable largely because they are old and not in great shape. Other, nearby apartments are getting older every day. Those should get cheaper, especially if more, newer apartments get built near by.

I recognize that this is a value judgment and that the families currently living at Stoneridge are getting the short end of the deal. Heather Way is quoted in the Statesman article suggesting that other nearby lots would be more appropriate for this development, and I agree with that, but I don't think that means this development should be stopped. I'd rather see additional developments like this one built in those locations.

It may be a little simplistic economically, but generally speaking you have to reduce demand or increase supply in order to reduce prices. I'm not aware of any government programs that really work to create affordable housing on a large scale. Reducing demand by letting these apartments rot doesn't seem like a great solution for anyone, including the families living there. Increasing supply, as long as we can do it in a sustainable way, seems like the best solution overall.

"But it's bad policy to 'protect' certain privately owned properties from redevelopment but not others, and potentially unconstitutional."

Unfortunately, that's never stopped this city from continually doing exactly that.

The market provides affordable housing according to market factors: the quality of the building, its location, access to transportation, neighborhood, etc. Quality, based on these factors, will correlate to price.

There are things a city can do to allow people with economic needs to remain in the city - public housing can succeed on smaller, non-tenement scale; also, vouchers for people earning less than a certain threshold allow people more choice in the neighborhoods and school districts they'd like to live in.

But it's bad policy to "protect" certain privately owned properties from redevelopment but not others, and potentially unconstitutional.

to clarify: we are all for mixed-use, green (hopefully), urban planning that promotes density. we do not advocate kicking lower-middle class folks out of their homes and forcing them to bus in 30 minutes from out of downtown. this is gonna be a sticky one. and it's only just beginning, my friends.

This is a tough one. Is "exactly the kind of building that the city (and this blog) has been pushing for" incompatible with providing affordable living space to those that it displaces? You think about urban design quite a lot. Do you have any ideas for potential solutions in this kind of situation? Is this an inevitable consequence of the yuppification of Austin?