Austinist: State Republicans: Eat That McMansion and Like It!

Eric

Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:28:09 -0600

As an Austin native who appreciates the character of our older neighborhoods, I very much like the McMansion ordinance. However, as a city planning student, I have to disagree with the notion that the state has no place to interfere. Cities are entities of the state; all the rights and responsibilities of citys are derived from the powers of the state--not the cities themselves or a higher level of government. The state should, for other reasons butt out of the McMansion ordinance debate, but legalistically it can have a say if it wants. Unfortunatley the McMansion ordinance is more about NIMBYism than neighborgood character, human scale, or ballooning desires for private space. This same NIMBYism threatens many of the better developments under way in Austin, including vertical mixed use. One reason I chose the Bay Area over Austin for collge is that you can't really live in Austin without a car. I am sad to see that this circumstance is even less likely to change anytime soon.

Stew

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:15:53 -0600

Austin film industry- Gov Perry (your favorite), has proposed $20 million in state funds to promote the Texas film industry which would primarily be centered in Austin. Las Manitas- Local legislators that represent districts in Austin (Watson, Eddie Rodriguez etc.) have all expressed interest in filing bills that would automatically grant landmark status to local iconic businesses. The interest is specifically attributed to the Las Manitas situation. Barton Springs- As a city park and a statewide landmark, Barton Springs recieves funds through state taxes.

AC

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:00:08 -0600

"Most likely, without the McMansion ordinance there will simply be a similar number of people in larger houses." There are roughly 40,000 single family homes covered by the McMansion ordinance. Even if the McMansion ordinance has only a minimal effect on average household size -- say it reduces the average by just 0.2 members -- 8,000 people have to live somewhere else. The odds are that it will have a bigger effect than this. Central Austin is disproportionately populated by singles and DINKs (see http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2006/11/more_evidence_t.html). Injecting even a relatively small number of families with kids into these neighborhoods will have a big impact on average household size. This has a real impact on density. Take the Zilker neighborhood. Increase the average Zilker SF household size by 0.2 members and you get a 6% increase in net residential density. Increase the average by .5 (a more likely increase, IMHO, without the McMansion ordinance), and you get a 15% increase in density. This is before you've accounted for the loss of secondary dwellings like garage apartments. These aren't tectonic shifts in density, but they are not trivial, either.

Shilli

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:35:30 -0600

Stew, I don't know about the film scene, but what has the State government done to protect Las Manitas or Barton Springs? My understanding is that the State government has been actively fighting the City of Austin's efforts to protect the springs for the last 40 years. Saving Barton Springs is something that the State government should do - the City of Austin's ability is severely limited because most of the recharge zone is outside of the city limits (largely because of State action limiting Austin's ability to annex the area, which was motivated by the State's desire to prevent Austin from protecting the springs). Instead, the State government appears to be mainly interested in facilitating the construction of suburbs in that area by building highways and water lines.

southaustinguy

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:32:30 -0600

yeah,that is one ugly house. But if you want to start making rules about taste get involved in your homeowner's association and add deed restrictions. I'd love to raise my kids in austin, but i can't expand the house i live in even though it is little more than a box built for a few hundred bbucks 50 years ago. awesome. so now i gotta move to buda? that doesn't seem fair. if council would actually give input to folks who actually build houses they could pass a lot more responible law. instead they have to backdoor this crap and cry fowl when someone tries to fight back. awesome.

Stew

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:02:12 -0600

Ohh, state interference in local matters is unacceptable unless their saving Las Manitas, Barton Springs, or Austin's film scene. Look, I agree with no state interference in local matters, but that should mean across the board. The house pictured above is a perfect example of why we don't need even local personal matters to be controlled by local governments. It sat vacant for a year, the owner is having to charge an exorbitant amount in rent because the cost of the project/maintenance. Sooner or later the attractiveness of these houses will disappear and their future construction will naturally halt.

mdahmus

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:45:02 -0600

As for "doesn't affect number of units" - see garage apartment note above, and also note that it has the same effect to penalize/disincent duplexes too.

mdahmus

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:43:57 -0600

The family impact is this: the inner-city neighborhoods have been getting LESS dense over time as families' space preferences have increased - families grew up and moved out; and new families didn't move in as much because the houses were perceived to be too small. While my family (4 in 1250 sqft) and my neighbor (5 in 1050) are the exception, even we'd both like more space; and now we're stuck choosing between garage apartment (hypothetical in my case; existing in theirs) and our full second floors. Don't buy the neighborhood's affordability line on this - the forces behind the McMansion ordinance were childless couples and empty-nesters for the most part - and disproportionately wealthy folks who were able to afford large lots (and the concomittant bigger houses). The prime effect of McMansion is to penalize existing and disincent future garage apartments in these neighborhoods - which is the only 'affordable housing' any of them were likely to see. As for the state - stay out of it. While the McMansion ordinance is a financial disaster for our two families (reducing the value we can get for our properties if we want to leave; and screwing us if we want to stay and build up), state intervention in local laws is not the right solution.

odam

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:09:30 -0600

that place was on Criagslist for rent about 4 months ago, for like $3,500. it is a monstrosity and i guess the person who built it did not have his shit together, as it sat and sat and sat

josh

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:56:10 -0600

Thanks Shilli - I'm looking at the ordinance now, looks like you're right.

Tarvin

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:49:21 -0600

The McMansion ordinance doesn't affect density (number of units), it affects building square footage of a remodeled or new single family or duplex building.

Shilli

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:35:08 -0600

Josh, My understanding is that the McMansion ordinance as written allows for any expansion up to 2,300 square feet.

josh

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:04:10 -0600

I used to live in an aparment near the house you have pictured. It's absolutely the ugliest thing ever (re)constructed, sitting in the middle of a quiet Travis Heights block of one story bungalows. They were asking mid-800's for it, and it sat vacant for the entire year I lived in the neighborhood. My problem with the McMansion ordinance as it exists is that it prevents the construction of garage aparements and also will lead the slumming down of some neighborhoods. If you're only allowed to add 10% square footage to a house that is currently, say, 900 sq. ft, what can you really do? Over time these houses will become dilipidated rentals, while young families will keep moving to the Hutto/Buda burbs for more space. A better ordinance that would still protect neighborhoods would restrict teardowns (like the one pictured) while allowing realisticly-sized add-ons.