Affordable Housing: Is Sprawl the Solution?

Shilli,

You undervalue reverse-commuting - it's possible to wring more value out of existing highway infrastructure (use both sides instead of one at a time), and you can also get fairly good transit service - I used to reverse-commute on those 98x series express buses up to 183/Braker a couple times a week for instance. The fact that so many routes converge downtown and that even sprawly office complexes are still more dense than sprawly residential makes this work better than you might think.

65 - Living near where you work and shop, downtown or not, has a lot of benefits. Commuting, from downtown or not, has a lot of costs (although the commuter pays only a portion of those costs). Commuting from downtown is slightly less costly than commuting from sprawl because sprawl, not downtown development, is driving highway construction. That said, commuting from downtown has most of the other downsides that I mention in the post.

Living in a walkable neighborhood, downtown or not, has a lot of benefits. The problem with most sprawl is that it is not walkable - most suburbanites do not have the option to walk to work, or to the grocery store or anywhere - they have to drive everywhere and have to get on the highway for most trips. The downtown grocery situation is a mess right now, but for most trips it makes more sense for downtown residents to walk than to drive. I think that will become the case more and more often as downtown develops.

Living in a newly developed neighborhood has a lot of costs (which are not paid entirely by the developer or people buying houses in that new neighborhood). Downtown and other existing neighborhoods already have infrastructure in place. I think it is bad policy to shift part of the costs of building the infrastructure for new development onto residents of existing neighborhoods. I think it would be a good policy change to encourage growth of existing neighborhoods and discourage development of greenfields.

Some people don't have the ability to choose where they live, but the vast majority have some degree of choice. My hope is that people with some degree of choice will take some of the factors I mention in this post into consideration when making that choice, instead of simply buying the biggest house they can afford.

Last guest: Don't know! But I can bet that it wasn't significantly higher than what I paid, or they would never have been able to afford to build the thing. (Lack of real estate data in public realm is a big problem in Texas).

What happens most commonly with real estate busts is that while some small pockets actually deflate, it's more common for prices to just stagnate for a long time in nominal dollars while money actually inflates - meaning that the original sales price of the condo in question might have been $96K in 1982 dollars, which is really $165K in 1997 dollars.

Md-

What was the value of that condo before the 80s bust?

Dear last few idiots:

1. I bought a 2+BR condo in Clarksville in 1997 for $96K which was so cheap because of the 1980s bust.

2. Reverse commuters are far better than sprawlburb-to-sprawlburb commuters. For every guy who ends up living right next to his office in Anderson Mill, there's another one who commutes from Oak Hill to Round Rock.

It still seems worth reiterating what someone brought up earlier and was basically dropped: this post assumes that most people who live in the downtown office condos work downtown. But the Austin metro area has several key employment centers far from downtown. This post also assumes that everyone who lives in one of the "sprawl" communities works downtown or at least the city center (and should consequently suck it up when faced with the higher sticker prices of center city residences). I haven't seen any statistics that bear these assumptions out, and I think we all know a lot of people who prove these assumptions false, at least on an anecdotal level. I live in what might seem like a sprawl community, but I'm within walking distance from where I work. We actually wanted to buy in Austin, but it seemed worse to pay a lot more for a house (that was essentially the same kind of track home that is now in the sprawl communities) and commute every day to everything than to buy our current house. While I understand my situation isn't typical (to be able to walk to work in one of these evil sprawl communities), I think it's important to point out that it's not as simple as downtown=good for the community, away from town=selfish, polluted, irresponsible. One of my colleagues just bought a downtown condo and will be commuting ~30 miles a day. I'm not sure how daily activities like this somehow don't contribute to sprawl. All of those subsidies you're decrying are also building roads for those kinds of downtowners too. They might not use them in the same proportion as suburban folks getting to the city center, but I'd bet it's getting closer by the day.

The reason people have responded so negatively to this post is its condescending attitude that people should pay $400,000 for a condo because, really, it's a bargain if you just "look at it the right way." But many people aren't choosing between a $400k condo and $200k sprawl home. Many less privileged people are now moving out of Austin (esp out of East Austin) to Pflugerville, Buda, etc., because of cost of living issues, plain and simple. If you want to post an articulate message that supports affordable, responsible housing for all and public transportation, great. But there's no need to pull out the sanctimony and oversimplifications.

Housing plummeted in 2001/2002? Really? I recall my friends' property basically leveling off and/or (if they NEEDED to sell) losing around 5-10% max in value.

These were people who lived in Clarksville/Tarrytown in houses that cost $350-500k in 1999/2000 (ie, height of dotcom days).

It wasn't like their $400k houses dropped to $200k, which is what some people on here claim will happen to expensive condos, etc. If you look at Traviscad listings for some of the older downtown condo buildings (Brown, Avenue, Brazos), appraised values dropped in 2001/2002 and leveled out until the past year or two. The drop in appraised value was usually 5-10% and, generally speaking, indicative of the fact that MLS listings/salesprices in that time frame also dropped about that much.

As 61 pointed out, central Austin is going to drop drastically because they're not somehow miraculously building more LAND in central Austin. The only way to add property to this desirable central area is to build upwards. People want to live central. They want to live downtown. Some people want to live super center down, some people want to live by Caswell, some people want to live by Zilker, some people want to live east of I-35 -- but they all want to live within a couple of miles of downtown for whatever reason. Is Will Wynn's vision of 25k downtown realistic? Maybe, maybe not. But there's definitely a demand by Austin residents -- not speculators -- to live closer to the city center. Get used to it.

The point being: condos didn't drop 25-50% in value after the dotcom bubble burst; they won't drop that much this time around, no matter how much a few people on Austinist fantasize about it.

Or just TO if you've never lived there before.

And Mr. 61, were you not born yet during the S&L crisis or did you move away after the .com bust or do you just chose to selectively forget the times that housing plummeted in Austin?

ALL of y'all should move back to California you opinionated good for nothing loud mouths.

Boom and Bust town??!? Oh yes because home prices have really ever come down significantly in Westlake, Terrytown, Clarksville, etc. Please. My parents bought their house in Westlake in 1988 and in has incresed in value every year. I just bought my first home, a condo in a new highrise, and I don't fear losing a dime of the $245/sq ft I paid for it, in fact I'm quite certain I'll profit. I'm sorry if it makes class enviests feel better to hem and haw that they'll one day pick up a deal on these expensive homes but you need to face the fact that there are certain markets in certain cities that stay expensive permanantly. Center city Austin has become and will stay such a place.

The Texan says anyone not from Texas "Go back to California!"

The Mexican says to Texan "Go back to Missouri!"

The Native American says "Go back to Europe!"

#49... I was born in Austin, raised in Austin, and have lived in Austin my entire life. So please spare me the sanctimonious "move back to California" routine.

Remember, it was only 4 years ago when you could by a 2000+ sq. ft. home in the '04 for $200K. Try getting it for under $400K now, but alas, in 3-5 years they will once again be $200K. #56 is right on, we are a true boom and bust town; it happens all the time. Which oddly is why I am excited about the overbuilding of condos in the downtown area. Just being able to walk into my second home instead of driving the 3 miles to my primary home will be really nice after a night of drinking; that is in a few years after the next bust.

#38 - yes. Take a look at any of the DCist.com articles regarding a gentrification/race/class issue. The assholes on both sides of the issue show up in force at each and every one of them.

Let them overbuild downtown condos like they are trying to, and they WILL get cheaper at least for a period of time. Anyone who hasn't lived in Austin (or Texas) for that matter might not get it, but we are a BOOM and BUST city. Right now, it looks like this boom is topping out here in the next year or so, so we need every developer building luxury downtown buildings as soon as possible.

In a few more years you'll be able to pick one up much cheaper than the current prices. You can bet on it, and in fact, I am.

In other words, wrt height, no condo developer has ever gotten a handout from the city to build higher. They've instead had to offer shit BACK to the city to be ALLOWED to build higher.

"but trust me, so are the costs of living downtown"

No, no, a thousand times no. What does it take to get you to stop repeating this BS? Even the oft-touted "giveaways" regarding height vs. affordable housing are nothing more than loosening restrictions on what the market would like to provide, NOT NOT NOT! a subsidy.

The property tax system alone constitutes a gigantic subsidy from condo-dwellers to suburbasites, whether within the same taxing jurisdiction or not. For one simple example from my ol' crackplog, touching on just one small part of it, check this out.

More than just initial construction cost needs to be factored into the affordability of housing--and of living. In 2004, the New Yorker ran an article that convincingly argues that New York is the greenest city in America. Sounds totally counterintuitive, I know, but it turns out critical mass greatly reduces all kinds of energy costs.

http://www.walkablestreets.com/manhattan.htm

Yes, we do need more forward thinking. But just busting out with info like this is bound to be met with attitude. Why? Because you're basically being self righteous and looking down on people while saying "they're part of the problem." It's true that costs of living in the 'burbs are often subsidized by government, but trust me, so are the costs of living downtown. When there is affordable housing for ALL people withing the city corridor and not just the ones that qualify then we could have a non-sprawl city being created. That will NEVER happen, sorry. Business and economic interest will defeat it every time, as well as just plain common sense and the free market. Everyone interested in smart growth is talking in a purely hypothetical world and they get to where they don't know the difference between the theory and reality. It's quite confusing for all of us normal "poor old common folk."

oh, he's still here. why don't you just sign into your account, #49?

Especially ol'pappy. Where did that guy go? Why doesn't he have an account?

You don't like my attitude, you can go move back to California. Fuck friendly. There's Texas friendly and there's Texas fed up and when you have to deal with as much Californian self-rightous bullshit everyday like I do, friendly flies out the window.

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guests - please sign up for a name and post under it. It makes it much easier to respond to your points.

Myname, the mortgage interest subsidy applies equally to condos and houses, so it basically subsidizes home-ownership over renting. I don't think it really affects sprawl, except perhaps by increasing home prices.

Heyzeus, I think you are right that policies in edge cities are promoting sprawl, but a lot of the subsidies come from the federal and state level (especially highways) and regional authorities (e.g. LCRA). Policies being made at that level play a big role in promoting sprawl. I also agree that consumers are given a choice, but if the government is going to pay for 50% of one of the choices, a lot more people are going to choose that one. Additionally, I think there are costs associated with choosing sprawl that some people don't take into account. On your other post, I'm torn about developments like Carma - I think they could be much better than standard suburbs, but I think some developers are starting to use New Urbanist language as a marketing gimmick and not really following through. A strip mall, an office park, and 1,500 single family homes on the same 1,000 acre plot is not really "mixed-use." I don't know if that is the case with Carma, but that is what I have seen so far with some similar developments. I'm also nervous about any all-at-once development on an empty field.

Patrick, I think a lot of people don't recognize that all the true costs of sprawl are not included in your home, which is part of the reason why these comments are so contentious (as are the comments on the individual posts where I talk about some of the costs of sprawl). Also, the "subsidies" for developers that you refer to are basically trades in which the developer is doing something in order to be allowed to build a denser development. I don't think this is in the same league as paying billions of dollars to build the infrastructure necessary for the development. I think that we should be promoting denser development and trying to get developers to build higher, denser structures downtown instead of making them jump through hoops for the right to do so (that said, I'm fine with making the developers build nicer developments, improve park space, provide affordable housing, etc.). Government policies have a direct impact on the shape of development - right now our policies mainly encourage sprawl, so that is what we are getting. It is one thing if people recognize that and are consciously making that decision, but I think a lot of people think we are trying to fight sprawl and it is happening anyway, which isn't the case.

Hey, the commenting under my name is back! Hooray.

Anyway... I remember reading this post and thinking "oh man, this is gonna be a total clusterfuck of self-righteousness," and lo, I was correct. All the elements were there for a perfect storm of hate, although the bitterness of #31-33 surprised even me, and I've been around here for a while. I can recall a time where most people seemed to think that being an Austinite and a Texan meant making an attempt to be friendly and inviting.

That said, Shilli, I think this post is kind of "so what?" at best. Yes, sprawl is cheaper for most consumers. Yes, all the true costs of sprawl are not included in your home. These are things that I think are fairly obvious, hardly revelatory and didn't really need to be said. And, of course, there are hidden costs to the dense downtown development too, be it tax subsidies for condos that include "affordable" housing or granting favors like being able to build closer to Town Lake.

Really, what we need are solutions way more innovative and outside-the-box then anything that's in the discourse right now. The debate's been polluted by a false Round Rock-style sprawl Vs. downtown condos dichotomy that doesn't have a whole lot of solution.

People seriously need to quit some of the bitching, though.

Condos and/or any sort of downtown living don't work for families because of what people in Texas are used to.

In some cities and countries, these types of living arrangements do work.

I'm not saying its unreasonable to want to living in the suburbs and raise your kids, but it is wrong to say that someone can't raise their kid(s) in a downtown living situation. Maybe the Austin condos are priced such that most families can't raise their kid(s) in one, but a condo -- ie, a smaller living space in a multifamily building -- is not prohibitive of raising a child or two.

We're just spoiled in some regards.

There is a simple fact that people buy in the suburbs, not because the housing is cheaper, its that they say they get more house for the money, but that is all they really get, more house. I have to say that I'm perfectly content after voluntarily moving from a 3000+ sq. ft. house to a 1500 sq. ft. home that is 40 years older for the same price. People are overly obsessed with the size of homes as opposed to the quality of where it is they live. People would rather live in a larger home that is 10 ft. away from another instead of living in an older central Austin neighborhood in a smaller home with a yard that doesn't have all new technology.

Because it's infinitely cooler to live in Austin. And we all know it.

Unless you're a hipster douchebag parent who views their children as an accessory to themself, most people with kids tend to think about where to live that benefits their children the most. Good schools, good play areas nearby, fresh air etc...

oh yeah, and affordable, because kids are expensive.

condos just won't work for most families.

#41, #7 (downtown condo owner) here again.

I won't speculate on the speculation at other (new) buildings downtown, but in my building I know that almost every unit is filled with people who work in Austin. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few units that are either:

1. college/grad students (either living off their own savings from a pre-grad school career or their parents)

2. pseudo empty and owned for the purpose of investment/rentals

Every other unit is owned by people who live and work in Austin. Other than myself, I know of at least 5 other owners (or renters) who also work downtown and walk to work. And our entire building is only 30 something units. That's a pretty good percentage.

Obviously this won't necessarily scale when you're talking about the new skyrises with 300 units, but I think you'll find -- over time -- more and more downtown residents will also be the people who work downtown.

like most of shili's posts, its biased, inaccurate, ignores many facts while exagerating others and generally out of touch with the day to day realities of other people's lives.

even if i could afford a downtown condo, i wouldn't raise children in one. bash me all you want, but you'll find yourself in the tiny minority if you think others want that too.

I really don't agree with this post at all. The people "paying" for the extension of public utilities are all teh tax payers, not just the ones living in verticle developements. Look west at the vast spread of multi-million dollar homes and imagine what THEY pay in property taxes. Also remember that unlike a lot of other cities our downtown is comprised mostly of government buildings and another large swath is the University, neither of which pay property taxes. In a few years light rail will have been built and the idea of commutes will be drastically different.

Also, verticle developments downtown are really NOT a viable solution to sprawl or traffic. How much of the local workforce works downtown? The vast majority of private sector employers line the Mopac and 360 corridors. The upper middle to upper class tech folk who dominate the condo buying craze don't really work downtown (disregarding the fact that most of this buying is probably being done by speculators which has been the case in the turbulent Miami and Vegas condo markets).

I don't see much point in bashing where people want to live since no matter if you build up or out population density of any kind creates problems. The real question I prefer to consider is what is the city doing to improve infrastructure like transit into and around downtown?

fire this writer. they suck.

#31 your bullshit meter is as broken as George's WMD detection meter. Maybe Hillary can adjust your Texan problems, cowboy.

are all the other -ists as childish as this one?

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/realestate/07/31//0731carma.html

Wow, this thread devolved. Just a few quick points. Old Austinites you are going to have to realize that downtown Austin is everything within the Austin city limits. Austin is now a metro area encompassing multiple cities. The City of Austin is going to stay the most desirable place to live, and so property prices are going to keep going up and density is going to continue to grow.

The Belair condos on South Congress are being billed as being in the heart of South Austin. A lot of old Austinites would take exception to that, but if you look at a map of the Austin area they're correct. We're starting to see prices in what used to be far South Austin creep up like the rest of Austin. Developers are finding every last bit of space and developing it. Go to your grocery store and get one of those "New Homes in Austin" magazines. Notice the number of new developments that are actually IN Austin. Condo prices are not going to crash. Because there is a very simple economic truth at work here.

Let me tell you the secret. All those people living in Pflugerville, Round Rock, Cedar Park and Georgetown? Most of them are pretty cool, hip people (I know as a South Austinite I'm not supposed to say that). Most of them would love to live in Austin. And that's why prices won't go down. Because each time the housing market dips even the slightest bit, some suburban refugees quickly hop in and snap up the place. Or someone from another city. Because it's infinitely cooler to live in Austin. And we all know it. That's why Austin is going to keep getting more dense. It's as inevitable as the sprawl.

so. what have we have learned?

a. No one should move anywhere. we should all stay put.

b. Everyone should live in condo downtown.

c. Its always someone elses fault for everything.

#28, Understand your irenic urge but it's only a pointless argument when it descends into the "You eat dogshit on multigrain toast for breakfast and love it so much" level.

And the 'burb problem isn't going to go away just because downtown loft living is suddenly cool (again). We're going to end up with a reversal of inner city flight - the sprawlburbs are going to end up as the new ghettos, especially once the rich and connected folk downtown start deciding they don't want to fund the new underclasses' roads, sewers and services. We need a new kind of self-supporting suburbia that pays its way and is an expansion of what's good about urban life, not a isolationist escape from it.

Yeah, 23, you moved here so you could spread that evil and what did you find out? Texas ain't California. Even "liberal" Texas. So go on home and tell all your friends about what closed minded assholes we all are here. That'll do us all some good.

And if you think I'm an asshole for speaking my mind you can go back to Hell-A or San Fran or San Jose cause Texans like being able to say what they mean and say it loud.

22, I know you just moved here from California last year and you know you just moved here from California last year so don't try to lie to me. I'm a Texan. I was born equipped with a foolproof bullshit meter and it's ringing every time you type a word.

"we got pushed out of SF because we could NOT afford real estate prices, because of "Rich People" moving from EVERYWHERE to SF and driving prices up."

yeah, that won't happen here.

thanks anyway!

are these stories all written by college students? interns? surely there must be a blogger somewhere with some actual life experience? please?

Just live where you want to live. Seriously, who gives a shit? If you want to live downtown because you like to walk to bars and go on the hike and bike trail, live downtown. If you want to live in the suburbs because you want a yard and a bigger house, live in the suburbs. This is a pointless argument.

#22, don't take it too personally. Austinist attracts a shit ton of embittered class warriors and people who wish it was still 1975, or 85, or 95 - whichever, because it was all better before you got here. Most people in Austin realize that the growth here is overall a good thing, because a lot of them have lived in places that are shrinking/declining and know that the social and economic problems there are much worse than arguing about land use choices.

since when is single family housing sprawl? I live in crestview. I'm sure this was sprawl 50 years ago when it was built, but now it is the center of town.

I thought the Wendler piece was enlightening.

what are you to do if you have 2 kids and you don't make 200k a year?

you buy a house.

this is perhaps the most shortsighted post i've seen on this blog in a while. one of these days, why don't you hop on your scooter and drive out to see how the other half lives.

there is no affordable housing in those lofts.

oh, and you are truly fooling yourself if you don't think there are any government subsidies for the bigass condo builders.

hey asshole, move to dallas already...

Sometimes I wonder if Texans (and Austinites) that are so bitter about people moving here and paying for their property would be happier if they lived in a shrinking decaying city... like Detroit.

I can really feel the openess and love of diversity in these comments. It makes people feel so welcome. "Rich people"? "Slumming"? heh, hardly.

we got pushed out of SF because we could NOT afford real estate prices, because of "Rich People" moving from EVERYWHERE to SF and driving prices up.

we moved to Austin because of the liberal atmosphere it supposedly has.

#21, #7 here again.

I've lived here for EIGHT summers which is approximately 1/4th of my cumulative summers. I seem to be doing pretty fine, which is more than I can say about your reading comprehension which apparently lead you to believe I've been here for 2 months.

How exactly did I pay more than Texans would pay?

My neighbor? From Amarillo.

The guy above me? From San Antonio.

The couple below me? From Austin.

The retired couple across the hall? From Austin.

I'm not going to do a census of my entire building, but it seems like there are a lot of Texans living around me. And they all paid for their condos with some form of currency.

For all the righteous indignation about how Yankees and Californians are ruining the city that used to be so laid back and happygolucky, it seems like the Texans -- who are so laid back they don't want to fill the great paying jobs in their home city/state -- are ruining it themselves with their shitty attitudes.

Maybe they SHOULD pave over Eden (or Zilker) and put up a parking lot after all.

You're an asshole because you're moving here and paying more than Texans would for a home thereby inflating the real estate market. And if you think you can survive August in Austin after two months of 100 degree temps, you're double stupid. And last but not least, #20 eats dog shit on toast for breakfast every morning and that's why he's so dumb.

Guests #2, #5, #12, #13, #14, #15, and #16 = douche bags. Have a nice day.

Commuting theoretically could add to the number of Chik-fil-as and other shit on the connecting road(s).

Thats the main reason I don't like Texas roads; its like a fucking visual overload of billboards and signage everywhere. I'm always thinking about other drivers have a seizure from watching the signs fly by and/or the weird japanese cartoons they are watching in their SUVs' dvd players!

Umm, Smithville IS a viable commute from Austin. If you work south, it's faster to get into Austin from Smithville (straight shot on 71, 45 minutes max, wham-bam) than it probably is for a lot of folks who live north and fight their way down 35 and back up every day. Despite their sudden growth, many people in Bastrop and Smithville work in Austin. Have for years. It makes sense that things will continue to get denser between Eastern communities and Austin, as most suburban growth around Austin was restricted to the North and West for years. So what if people want to commute? I fail to see how inhabiting 100+ year old houses that are ALREADY THERE contributes to sprawl.

#13, this is #7 here.

I moved here from Chicago 8 years ago. And I grew up in NY. The weather here is much preferable to either of those cities.

I don't mind the summer heat at all; in fact, the hot sunny weather was one of the reasons I moved here (the other being a paycheck). I first visited in the late fall and it was still mid 80s -- and I moved here the following June. I still don't drive with my A/C on.

I don't see how that makes me an asshole though.

The secret is saying, "hello," and not jumping directly to, "asalaam alaykum, my brother from another mother".

He probably doesn't know how to talk to b-l-a-c-k p-e-o-p-l-e.

Gee #9 why didn't you bring all your friends with you to the east side? they still slummin' in the '04??

Well, thanks for taking advantage!

Next time try a condo.

#7, I wish it was 100+ degrees from June straight through August so every asshole moving here from San Fran, Palo Alto, NYC, Chicago, etc could see what a typical Austin summer is like but that didn't happen. Oh well. There's always next year.

I guess you got the memo that we don't want rich people in East Austin.

Thank God!

I think the real situation is that most of the infrastructure for sprawl is coming not from Austin but from competing, ever-expanding edge cities like Round Rock, Hutto, Kyle, Buda, etc. These once-towns have seized on suburban style sprawl as their growth vehicle and are spending the money on infrastructure to lure further development.

So even if Austin were to magically stop constructing new water, sewer, power, and other infrastructure, it would make little net difference in the continued suburban expansion.

Furthermore, consumers are given a choice as to urban/suburban/rural, single family home/townhouse/condo living. They decide based on cost and their own quality of life factors. High land values in the central city will always = high housing costs in the central city, and government intervention into this just results in cheap housing for the select few and more expensive housing for everyone else.

I live on the eastside for the last 8mos. easy 8 min commute. i could go home for lunch even. i like the diversity, and ability to walk to restaurants. it was much like i enjoyed in SF.

…but my car has been broken into twice. I have a broken down hoopty in my neighbors yard. the house is too small for my family of 4 + dog. and after many attempts of making friends with neighbors, i still don't know anyone within 1-3 blocks.

after 6 years in SF, i am taking advantage of land available here in Austin, unlike the Bay Area. And am moving to the suburbs.

Shit, my comment got cut off because I used a less than sign.

I just said I wish there were apartments for rent downtown that cost less than $1000/month to encourage a greater diversity of types of people. (Younger, blue collar, artists, etc)

I'm much happier living downtown than I would be living in St. Johns.

I walk to work.

I walk to hang out with my friends at bars and shows.

I walk to the farmer's market on weekends.

I walk to Whole Foods, Waterloo Records/Video, and BookPeople.

I've got a couple of parks within walking distance: Republic Square, the one across from the Hilton/next to the fire station, and (if necessary) Fiesta Gardens.

I can hit the Town Lake trail for biking and walking without having to put my stuff in a car.

I can rent a canoe or kayak on Town Lake and just walk home afterwards.

I can walk to ACL Fest (and Zilker) in 30 minutes or less.

I can walk to UT football, basketball, and baseball games (if I was into Longhorn sports, this might be a perk!)

If I want to BBQ, I use the BBQ by my pool and invite my friends over.

Really, I don't see any benefits to suburban (or even Hyde Park) style living. I don't want kids or a pet, but plenty of people in my building have them too.

I can fully understand why someone else would want suburbia, but there are plenty of austinites who want to live in a more urban environment and now they are getting that option.

And, anyone who thinks condos are going to sell for $50k is ridiculous. Keep telling yourself that to make yourself feel better about not being able to afford one.

Will those $500k condos drop a bit? Probably.

Will the $1million condos sit on the market for a long time? Sure (see: The Hilton).

Will those $200-$400k condos still be in demand because its a shitload cheaper than San Fran, Palo Alto, NYC, Chicago, etc? Yes.

I do wish the AMLI or someone else would build some more stripped down apartments that would rent for

Shit baby, if we heavily taxed people for buying homes, having children, driving cars and buying gas and put all that money into a big fund to pay people for not having children, I'd be zippidy-do-dah. I'd have no reason to come here to bitch. But shit don't work like we want it to. Life's unfair and you can either live with it or kill yourself or bitch to the austinist.

I don't get what you said. What I do get is that commutes really aren't that far in Austin, I'd personally rather live in a regrigerator box than a shoe box, and anybody that says people are happier living downtown as opposed to say... St. Johns are full of shit.

How do you measure that anyhow?

Very good points. I don't think the commenters understand your point. If the massive subsidies in property taxes from $500,000 condos, gas taxes, and sales taxes from downtown dwellers were eliminated from the equation those large lots with front-yard and back-yards would also be $500,000 when all the costs to support roads, sewage, schools, public safety, hospitals, etc. are factored in. While we're at it let's eliminate the tax-subsidy for home mortgage interest so those homeowners that want space between their neighbors pay for it accordingly.

Funny how the supposedly anti-government people in the suburbs are the biggest moochers off the government teat.

2nd guest, the vast majority of the population wants those things if they're going to pay a subsidized $500,000 for a suburban house if the alternative is a condo which can only be built on the most expensive land in the city (downtown) because the reactionary central neighborhoods got their way.

In a truly free market, it'd be a lot more expensive (and the condos would be a lot cheaper).

The vast majority of the population wants a front yard a back yard and more than 1 bedroom if they're gonna spend $500,000 on a house. Oh yeah - and SOME kind of distance between them and their neighbors.

But you have fun in your condo when they start selling like hotcakes - for $50,000 each.

Honestly, have you really ever seen, happiness, pollution or any of the other "costs" in any line item of a house you've purchased. C'mon, be realistic, most people don't even consider those things when buying a home. Square footage, bedroom and bath count, pool, those are things most people look at and base their decisions on. I'm with you though, I take into account all of the above, that's why I live in the downtown area - unfortunately the vast majority of the population appears to be a little slow and that also helps create a need for reverse commuting, sort of devaluing the idea of living downtown.