Austinist: New Construction is Not the Enemy of Affordability

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:59:18 -0600

ha!

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:15:11 -0600

Why do you have to leave? You're going to be a college graduate, aren't you supposed to get a six figure job with that piece of paper?

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:15:40 -0600

I'm one of the people forced out of Stoneridge at the end of this October. So sad...graduating and leaving the city in December. Couldn't they at least have waited a little longer for me?

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:07:18 -0600

And what I mean is the government's response to Katrina and how shitty they treated all the poor folks in New Orleans. If you didn't get that, you're an idiot.

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:06:14 -0600

You should have as many guns as you feel comfortable living with and as many as you feel you need to protect yourself in case of national emergency or social uprisings (which are more a matter of when than if with the way the classes are divided and segregated in this country). As far as Katrina's concerned, if you have a cop staking out a Walgreens and you or your wife needs medicine to live, a gun is a very handy negotiating tool. I came upon that conclusion after watching Katrina coverage and seeing a man in tears in front of a grocery store because his wife needed insullin and the greedy cops wouldn't let him go inside and get some. If you don't have a gun, well, hope you enjoy seeing your family starve or dehydrate to death, or worse.

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:49:59 -0600

Wait, if you *did* have children, would you need multiple guns? What is the ratio of guns to children I should shoot for? (please don't pardon that pun) Also, please explain how my new gun can best be used to kill approaching hurricanes or build stronger levees. I'm very interested in acquiring this new knowledge!

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:30:26 -0600

I guess one gun is all I'll need. It's not like I have children to protect or anything. If you didn't purchase a gun after Katrina, you're either dumb as a box full of rocks or too rich to believe that anything bad could ever happen to you.

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:23:56 -0600

Buy all the guns you want. I only got one. It's all I can afford. Thank god ammo is cheap though.

guest

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:06:18 -0600

I guess I should buy a gun in case #79 gets really upset, huh? Then I'll be totally ready for the confrontation! There. Now we can argue gun control issues on the Austinist boards as well! I think we should be allowed to have unconcealed handguns so that I can use my cool old West-style holster. Plus then I can shoot at roaches. Bullets are WAY more effective than spray or those little roach motel things.

heyzeus

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:48:43 -0600

Oooh, 79 took an intro class on Marxist theory! I'm sure you're a real coal miner's daughter, hanging out on the austinist boards. A real working class animal, as you say. When is the glorious proletariat revolt coming, will you be the leader, and will the other angry Austinist commenters be your army? I'll be prepared. By prepared, I mean "doing absolutely nothing, because you are an impotent fuckwit."

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:07:06 -0600

People who complain about "affordability" need to take a few steps back. Why are they complaining? Why don't they realize that Austin housing prices are AWESOME? People are moving here from all over the country because housing is so cheap in Austin. If these people want affordable housing there are plenty of options...move to Leander or get a better job and make more money.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:00:12 -0600

When you complained, I offered the idea of a duplex purchase as a constructive brainstorm to help you start to change your thinking and hopefully change your life. I am a native Austinite - you asked for help - I offered my hand. That's how Austinites do it, we take care of others that want to contribute to this city being a great place. It will always be your responsibility to grasp the helping hand and work with those who offer it. You must also pull to get out of the hole. Name calling and spitting random profanities will very quickly convince me that you'd rather spend some more time in the hole, than the effort to learn to listen to others who might offer you some real learnings of ways get out.

jackietreehorn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:50:25 -0600

As a Ph.D student for five years I literally lived off of beans and cabbage, while living in utter squalor. Please, withhold the maudlin, sanctimonious nonsense. Don't conflate mobility with privilege.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:39:25 -0600

Just sit in your castle and eat your beef and get too fat and stupid to care. You think you're pissing me off? You should talk to the really angry people. Yeah, I'm pissed that all the landowners think it's fair that people cannot survive in this town. But I am not half as mad as those that are really struggling. You think crime's increased this summer with the Hyde Park robberies and shootings and shit like that? Just wait. The more you oppress us, the angrier we get. The less you try to understand us, the more animal we become. The more you say, "That's just how things are" the more we're gonna say, "Just how things are has got to change". Just hope when you have that confrontation the other guy doesn't have a gun.

jackietreehorn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:33:45 -0600

Ahh, resorting to ad hominem attacks as a substitute for well-reasoned arguments and substance. And, oh no, roaches! I never get those in 50 year old homes in Crestview.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:32:55 -0600

Jackie Blowhard, I live in low income housing. I live next door to a family of 5 in a 2 bedroom apartment whose children come over to my apartment whenever anyone next door needs to use a phone since they do not have one. So until you're living in the same conditions we are and they are, you can stop pretending you know anything about the plight of the low income worker in Austin, TX.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:27:52 -0600

And, you syphillis infested cum bubble, I looked at Northeast Drive when I was searching for an apartment and I found one cheaper than that area. The prices in that area are outrageous. They are all over Austin. God, you people are about as smart as a bag of rocks. And just presumptive. It's like talking to a third grader.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:24:09 -0600

You dumbass. You're the one saying "large". You're the one saying "Central". You're the one that's illiterate. And yeah, I've bought roach spray, I've kept clean (not that I have a ton of shit to begin with), the roaches were here on move in and they are not moving out. Not that I'd expect you to have any knowledge of the workings of roach infestations as you're obviously a privlidged little shit who has never had to deal with such things if you think the answer lies in a can of spray. Fucking idiots. Taylor is too close to be to any of you.

heyzeus

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:09:25 -0600

We're not asking for much here are we? Just a large house with a yard, in the heart of Austin, in a good neighborhood (no roaches! gross!) for less than $900 a month. It must be those Californians' fault I can't find it.

jackietreehorn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:35:41 -0600

Have any of you assailing the exorbitantly-priced housing market in Austin considered comparing Austin's affordability to comparable sister cities in the US? What about Berkeley? Madison? San Francisco? Portland? I reckon-nay guarantee-that Austin will fare quite well. Do they still have a thriving arts/cultural/music scene? Yes, in fact musicians are flocking to Portland (Austin's own Spoon's frontman is one of them). The same amenities, quirks, and attractions that make Austin so glorious are the same drivers of the real estate boom that you bemoan. If you are not willing to allocate a larger percentage of your income to housing to pay for the appealing features, perhaps some of you should move to Tyler. Also, there are plenty of affordable apartments in central Austin. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but many day-laborers are also denizens of reasonably priced apartments throughout the city. Or, are you reluctant to live among those whose "plight" you lament?

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:33:20 -0600

"I already have a roach infested shit hole, thank you very much, 64." -Does yours back to a greenbelt?

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:29:58 -0600

It is in the multifamily section. Put the MLS # in to search. There are about 15 other duplexes in that zip that would yeild you a low payment after you buy them and factor in your rental income from the other side. you can actually use the other sides income to help qualify for the loan. If you aren't willing to buy some roach spray, then it tells me that you really aren't willing to put some effort into finding yourself a viable solution. Try this: Drive through that neighborhood and tell the residents that live there that you are pissed about affordable housing, but wouldn't DARE live in their roach infested shithole of a neighborhood. (We know you haven't gone to see this property and are basing your comments on the zip code). Then ask them if they would like to subsidize YOU with their tax dollars so that you can live in a "nice" neighborhood. I think you will find a large group of people who will agree that you should just move to Taylor.

mdahmus

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:21:46 -0600

Dear one jackass masquerading as like six anonymous commenters: You've been called on your nonsense, and you keep moving the goalposts. If you're "done with me", then the world has won a great victory today.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:09:31 -0600

Not rented out, sold.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:08:32 -0600

I can't find that MLS number in austinhomesearch.com which I think lists every single propery out on the market. Maybe it already got rented? All I know is that one good rental property in Austin does not mean that the rental market in Austin is suddenly affordable.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:39:13 -0600

The point is - read the Chronicle article plz.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:34:32 -0600

I already have a roach infested shit hole, thank you very much, 64. Take off the blinders, mdahmus. It's not 1970 out there anymore. I'm refusing to have anything to do with you since you're so far down the rabbit hole you have no idea which way is up anymore.

mdahmus

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:05:46 -0600

Guest #62: If you gave up your daily crack habit, and I understand if you don't want to, because it appears to be some damn fine high-quality stuff, you'd be able to afford $600/month (or $900 for a 2/1) to live central. HTH.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:03:46 -0600

ML# 4363783 is a duplex at 2900 Northeast dr 78723. It is listed for $125K and has a tenant in one side paying $700/month. The other side - another 2/1 is vacant and ready for you to move in. Is $500 a month for a 2/1 more a long the lines you were looking for?

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:50:26 -0600

There are no more affordable homes in Central East Austin, East East Austin, or even Far East Austin. Hell, there aren't any crappy cheap homes even on Rundburg which is on the fast track to becoming Austin's first ghetto. Other than the complexes outlined in the Chronicle article, there are no affordable apartment complexes. There's just no point to living in Austin anymore if you are only here to serve the wealthy.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:39:19 -0600

$600 for a garage apartment or $900 for a 2/1 isn't affordable, especially if you have a family to feed. I didn't say I would move to New York, but if I was in a band and wanted to make it - I'd definitely move to Dallas. But I want a home. I want a place to raise a family and I want a backyard for my children to run in. I want to be able to take vacations and eat solid food every night and to get any of this stuff, it can't happen in Austin where the job market is so saturated with recent graduates that the only employment available has no opportunity for advancement. And those people don't side with me. They're saying, "You don't deserve a home, even in an economically depressed neighborhood, because that's how the market works." Which isn't true. They're saying people that work at Luby's or Texaco or Ross don't deserve homes to live in. That kind of attitude - especially when held by our elected leaders and existing homeowners - is poisonous. It robs people of hope and gives them no incentive to stick through the rough times.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:36:23 -0600

This thread and subject are dripping with anger that seems to be stemming from the result of a growing divide between the "haves" and "have nots". Capitalism is either "fair" or not depending on your personal perspective and philosophy. Real estate tends to go up, and people such as (guest 52) who bought a 2000 sqft home in central Austin with a private pool 5 years ago for $375K, don't understand why someone would spend $400K on a 1000 sqft "skybox". What they also fail to consider is that they probably wouldn't pay the $725K for their own home today - and that is what it's worth now. Some will move to Tyler to stay in 2000 sqft at a certain budget. Some will move to 1500 sqft. Some will give up their daily Starbucks. and have an extra $150/month to spend on housing. Austin is a "nationwide" city now. Our affordability is waaaay better than that found in California, Seattle, Boston, Portland etc. Consequently, AUSTIN is their "Tyler". If you won't live in the "crappy cheap homes that will fall apart in 10 years" that are affordable, then consider the big picture, and grab something smaller than you wish, in Central East Austin on a big lot that is attainable. 5 years from now you can add on your extra 1000 sqft and "private pool" and be one of the confused spectators who wonder to themselves why buyers at THAT time would pay $1MM for skyboxes...

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:24:36 -0600

#57, I think you may be a little confused. How are the people who side with you causing a problem for you?

heyzeus

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:21:00 -0600

You think you can just move to New York and hop into a rent controlled apartment? Oh my god. That's the funniest thing I'll read today. If you think Austin is too expensive, please do try moving to a bigger city and see how that works out. In Northfield (a few blocks north of Hyde Park) garage apartments go on the market all the time at about $600. There's a 2/1 for $900 on my block right now. You just have to bike or drive around the neighborhood to see the "for lease" signs, they aren't listed online.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:01:28 -0600

Why live in Austin where nobody can afford to live when you CAN live in New York where nobody can afford to live and you can possibly get a rent controlled apartment instead of one where your rent jumps by $100 every year you decide to stay? Maybe you haven't noticed the exodus of talent in this town but I have. Hope you enjoy lame ass iPod mashups.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:58:33 -0600

You know what? Neither one of you can relate, you're ignorant of the situation (especially mdahmus who thinks there are still affordable garage apartments in Hyde Park and Old West Austin - HA! HA! HA!) and you're both too self-absorbed to care about anyone but yourself. That's why this city is going to wither. Not from the Californians. Not from the Mexicans. Not even from the Dallasites or the Houstonites or the condo developers or even that old standby - the students. Old Austin farts that can't care or relate to the plight of the working class will kill this city. Just watch.

mdahmus

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:53:54 -0600

guest 55: I guess we'd have to settle for having the music scene of any other real city - like New York or Chicago, where there's precisely zero live music, and it's so crowded that nobody can afford to live there. True tragedy.

guest

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:47:52 -0600

So, wise guys, what incentive is there going to be for service inductry workers to stay in Austin if they can't even dream of home ownership? Why would musicians and artists stay here as well when places like Dallas are much more affordable and ripe for the music scene development? Have fun throwing that entitled attitude around when there's nobody here you can look down on. Fuck it. I'm moving to Tyler.

jackietreehorn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:42:23 -0600

Actually, 42, my voice is quite sonorous. Oh, come on 43-45. How am I 'taking them for granted'? You're giving me way to much credit. Their wages are determined by the employment market they inhabit, which I only partially contribute to by patronizing their employers. Legislation to institute a 'Living Wage' is quite separate and distinct from my homeownership. And, don't conflate inner-city homeowners with extravagant wealth. I can clean my 14 carat gold sinks myself, thank you. Anyway, this sentiment about the desirability of the democratization of homeownership is what predated and worsened the recent sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

mdahmus

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:37:15 -0600

Guest #51: In real cities, affordable housing is all rentals. If you think it will ever be otherwise, you're smoking crack.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:19:34 -0600

There is no such thing as affordable housing in regards to the condos and what we are talking about. If there was, the people who write these columns who live in houses or rent places would be living in them and others wouldn't be complaining that there isn't affordable housing. The fact that prices have rose over 75-100% for units in the past year is relative proof that oly rich out of towners and in town second home buyers are picking these up. I've got a lot of friends, most with middle to upper middle class paying jobs and none of them can afford to or find the affordability or pracitcality in these "luxury" affordable homes/condos. Living downtown would be great...if there was anything to do there. I've lived in the downtown area for years, but in my own home - there is no way I'm giving up a 1000 feet and a private pool for community living. I may as well just get roommates.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:57:43 -0600

What the hell is OWANA? And I'm not asking about rentals, I'm asking about neighborhoods where the high income and middle and low income houses sit side by side. And please don't tell me about Mueller. Their low income housing started out at outrageous prices.

heyzeus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:47:00 -0600

48: Demand. Supply. If you think the latter will soon exceed the former, don't purchase a condo, or secure the financial backing and to embark on a hundreds of millions of dollars condo project. But for the time being, some folks seem to think the former exceeds the latter. Please continue to make housing choices as you see fit. This is how markets work.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:43:48 -0600

OWANA, where you can get one bedroom apartments for 500 bucks or 2000 bucks. North University, where you can find garage apartments for dirt, or million dollar houses. Hyde Park - yes, Wells, 600 is cheap for an apartment - try beating that up on Metric Blvd. Etc. When I lived in OWANA, many of the guys that worked at the stores at which I shopped also lived in the neighborhood - in the little apartments you don't always notice (like the really cheap ones in back of Jeffrey's).

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:38:15 -0600

These outrageous prices for new condos are being completely fabricated by their own developers!! Who says it's a 500k condo? They do!! So, by basing their entire cost structure around inflated condo prices, they are making themselves vulnerable to the inevitable collapse of this bubble...or are they? No way they're that dumb...makes me wonder what their overheads really are, and why it would be so painful for them to negate some of the damage they create by displacing people. If people will pay 500k for a tiny skybox, what's an extra 40k added on to pay for affordable units, parkland and such...Developers whine about having to pass on those costs to other buyers, but really, do we think they give a shit about their buyers, no matter how much they pay? They're just greedy; and lazy.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:36:28 -0600

I'm 43 and 45. Some other smart cookie is 44. What neighborhoods are you referring to, mdahmus?

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:30:15 -0600

guest #43-45, who I suspect is the same person, the increasing-density model best supports what you're talking about - the dense neighborhoods in Austin are the only ones which provide BOTH expensive AND inexpensive housing - although your ideological compatriots at the ANC keep trying to drive the latter out (through banning garage apartments in neighborhood plans, penalizing duplexes, etc.)

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:24:29 -0600

And just in case you do all that important stuff already, you still will need to buy groceries and buy gas and have your trash hauled away and if low income people are driven out of Austin, nobody will be there to take care of the business you can't do yourself for you.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:23:22 -0600

those affordable houses surrounding austin are crap. pre-fab blights on the landscape. they create longer commutes, more pollution, more stress on the infrastructure. and they're going to fall apart in ten years.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:21:28 -0600

Why people feel like they have a right to "affordable housing", #40, is because if you're paying them a low wage to cook your meals and watch your kids and clean your house and car for you, then they need to have a place to live, preferably a home. If you don't provide the people you take for granted everyday with an affordable place to live, they will leave and nobody will be there to cook your meals and watch your kids and clean your home and car and you'll have to do all that shit you like to pay others to do yourself.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:15:21 -0600

When I read what you wrote, #40, I read it in this irrational screaming kind of voice not unlike a parrot talking.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:21 -0600

See. If you do what I want with property taxes, #39 up there will have no incentive to cheat poor Joe Schmuck of the Future.

jackietreehorn

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:10:00 -0600

I get apoplectic when civic-minded bloggers/writers assert that there is a sort of inalienable right to "affordable housing" in Austin, or in any desirable urban setting. There is affordable housing in many of the residential areas encircling Austin--particularly southeast, which is still in the Austin city limits. By artificially stimulating demand through some type of affordability requirement or price caps--which, presumably, those of you assailing builders and developers must support, and are disastrous by the way (just ask Zimbabweans)--aren't you infringing upon my right, as a homeowner, to reap the bounty from the 'irrational exuberance' that has spurred the Austin real estate market, pushing property values to unprecedented levels? Don't I have property rights, as an inner-city homeowner that should supersede those of a non-owner?

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:02:02 -0600

This is what most of us are hoping for. I for one am not leaving my medium sized house with a pool in a highly desireable neighborhood for a way too expensive/small condo. What I will do however, is buy 2-3 of them as soon as the bust hits in the next couple of years. After that, I'll just rent them out and use one as a guest house basically and the rent alone will cover my mortgages and taxes. I am patiently waiting for the day of free housing.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:01:08 -0600

"Wells thinks replacing old apartments with denser complexes is part of the problem. I think it is part of the solution." To be fair to Wells, not all of these conversions have resulted in more density - I can think of one in OWANA that replaced a couple dozen rundown apartments with like 8 $800K townhouses.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:53:58 -0600

"South Austin might as well be a totally different city." hmmmmm.... might as well!

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:53:27 -0600

I think if you double people's property tax burden for each new home they buy, a lot of people are going to try and sell their second or third homes which will create that situation where the need for homes is not as high as the available homes.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:50:50 -0600

I love the fact that all those condos are being built downtown (said somewhat sarcastically). The bottom is going to fallout so fast they'll be begging for buyers! I also suspect that renting is going to become substantially more reasonable as well with the glut of downtown housing Austin will soon have. And to all you developers, I can't wait to see you lose your money-grubbing asses.

shilli

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:41:55 -0600

Guest 31 - also, I think that current condo owners have the most to lose finacially from new condo construction. A house on a lot and a condo are not exactly fungible, although the prices are related. My guess is that when the new condos currently under construction come on the market, existing condo prices will take a hit (a.k.a. affordability will be improved), but home prices near downtown will not (or at least not as much). Also, you (and Wells) may be right that low rents may only be available in Buda soon. Wells and I are both trying to address possible solutions to that problem. Wells wants to shift a portion of the price onto taxpayers and developers. I want to promote more dense development. Wells thinks replacing old apartments with denser complexes is part of the problem. I think it is part of the solution.

shilli

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:29:09 -0600

Guest 31 - I live in a house near central Austin, which I own. I personally stand to benefit from inhibiting supply in exactly the way I describe in paragraph 4 of my post. New units are more expensive than old ones, but those new units push down the price of existing housing. Today's "luxury condo" is tomorrow's budget rental. As long as we increase supply faster than demand rises, prices stay down. Low rents are dissapearing because supply isn't keeping up with demand, which is partly the result of misguided (paragraph 3) or self-serving (paragraph 4) people fighting against density.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:27:56 -0600

guest #31, your ignorance of basic economics makes baby jebus cry.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:18:31 -0600

again, this writer writes like someone who lives in a condo and not a house. your simplistic assumption that more higher density construction will bring down home prices is inaccurate. the builders still have to make a living so the new units will be more expensive than the old. wells' story was about disappearing low rents. these are only going to be available in buda soon.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:11:11 -0600

Oh, so you live in the Brazos lofts?

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:10:25 -0600

If "Trashy gross dive bars and restaurants" repulse people like you I will scream at the top of my lungs to keep them here and to keep people like you away. Then maybe one day all the people that think "Trashy gross dive bars and restaurants" are worth leveling for condos will move out.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:06:24 -0600

#24 my building is 3 stories high and made of cement and bricks. I'm really scared about tornadoes. On a side note: I believe a whole bunch of plate glass windows DID get shattered by strong winds a few months ago at the Plaza Lofts.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:05:46 -0600

guest 23: Building your city to make it easier for suburbanites to drive downtown (with plenty of free parking!) is a recipe for urban disaster - that's what donut-hole cities did. I know nobody likes to hear it, but the way you can tell if a city's worth visiting is by how much it costs to park your car.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:04:38 -0600

I mean, I'm talking St. Johns or far East Austin or North Rundberg area. I'm not talking stick-up-their-ass Tarrytown here.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:03:23 -0600

I don't want to live downtown. I want to live in some crappy cheap neighborhood with other low income people in a house that's well constructed but basic. It may cost the builder $1,000 to remodel a bathroom in a shithole, but he's not going to pass that savings along to the buyer. The problem is, in Austin, the shitholes are few and far between and if a seller has a choice between a low income person buying their house or a mother fuckin' flipper, he's going to pick the mother fuckin' flipper.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:00:12 -0600

#20, good luck when the tornados come to seek their vengence on the condos.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:59:46 -0600

The city seems to have a big problem. It wants to keep building condos but doesn't want to build anything that will actually bring people into the city. The outlying areas have all that. Round Rock has the Ikea, outlet mall, RR Express. Cedar Park is getting a water park and an amphitheater. The toll roads make it extremely easy to go from one location across to the other, but its a major pain in the ass to get downtown. What does Austin have? A bunch of bars and restaurants for the college crowd, a horrible high end mall on mopac and braker, and a ton of new high-end condos. That's about it. But I guess they don't care if they can bring a couple million down for music festivals then the college kids fill in the blanks at the bars the rest of the year. Then you have these crazy hippies that want no one around them and refuse to agree to any kind of advancement in their city. Talk like that will kill a city. Local flavor is one thing. Trashy gross dive bars and restaurants are another. Austin has too many of those that the crazy people call "local flavor". South Austin might as well be a totally different city. Not even worth going down there anymore.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:38:21 -0600

i wish they'd build condos downtown for middle-income people. why are all the condos downtown, "LUXURY" condos? do i really need those expensive appliances and tacky tile? can't i just make my own decisions about that when i buy my own, and fix it how i want it?

tim

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:38:02 -0600

One could say that Austin is building the equivalent of $100k houses. It's just that they're actually $300k houses and they're getting snapped up. A builder's only putting in a couple grand for the marble and the jacuzzi, so that's not really the issue at all. We have something like 98% rental occupancy in this town. Even if they infilled the old neighborhoods with only $100k cottages, we don't have enough land to keep up with demand, and the people who bought them would immediately flip them, take their $200k profit and go buy a mansion in the suburbs. We need an enormous amount of density to bring down prices. And all the people complaining now are definitely not going to be happy then. Because if the price of a house in Central Austin ever drops to "affordable" levels, then you can be assured that your house in Pflugerville is going to be worth about the same as a used SUV and you're not going to be able to afford the down payment on that "affordable" house anymore. Just like the majority of us will never be able to afford to live in Westlake Hills on a lake, the majority of us will never be able to live downtown. That's the way the system is rigged. If you want to live there, chances are someone else does too, and chances are they make more money than you.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:36:01 -0600

#15, I own a condo downtown and love it.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:33:04 -0600

guest 14: Even new expensive housing supply affects the overall market, as the housing market is not rigidly segmented (a landlord will not let their unit lie unrented because a bunch of new luxury construction took away his customers; he's going to lower the rent a bit and move downmarket - this happens all the time with older buildings which were considered the best stuff around when built).

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:31:44 -0600

And still more, although this seems to be cited from the original (now available in abstract-only) paper from my first link.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:12 -0600

Since the paper I linked to only has abstract available these days, here's another. And more recently: Despite the myth of zoning-free Houston, there are rules, and they are rules that undermine Midtown's potential. In order to build something like the Post apartment complex, you have to get variances so that you don't have to set structures back from the street. You need to be able to build these things with all parking located underground or behind the building - and you build it with less parking than you would in other neighborhoods.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:25:59 -0600

heyzeus, Houston's minimum lot size ordinance and parking lot ordinances are public record. I covered it a while ago in this crackplog.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:25:44 -0600

So, seeing there are a lot of supporters on here for development and the condo boom. How many of you actually own one of them or have put a deposit on one? I find it amusing that the prices for some of these developements jumped by $100K or more per unit in just over a years time - this for projects that are not even built yet.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:19:24 -0600

New construction is not the enemy of affordability when the homes are made small and tidy and energy efficient without luxury spa tubs and marble fireplaces. That's the problem with new home builders, there are none making simple little homes. Little homes that would fit into Springdale or off of Manor. They probably still could build a home for under $100,000 in Austin, but nobody wants to and that's sad.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:14:06 -0600

tornados are the enemy of houston.

heyzeus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:10:59 -0600

mdahmus, you're wrong about Houston's "zoning" but you present it with such certainty that I have to admire it.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:02:33 -0600

Apartment complexes don't lower house prices because of increased supply. Living near an apartment is just flat out not as desireable as not living near one.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:13 -0600

As is also sadly the case 100% of the time these days at the Chronicle, they completely let the ANC off the hook for, over the last 2 decades or so: 1. Opposing every single apartment complex in the world 2. Writing neighborhood plans which mostly set us backwards in affordable housing (like NUNA banning garage apartments in its cheaper sector) 3. McMansion (penalizes existing duplexes and garage apartments and discourages new ones).

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:30:43 -0600

Wells also talks about condo conversions - and addressed them in a followup on auschron; but still didn't talk about the fact that many, many, many (maybe even a majority) of condos are rentals (same as apartments, except you deal with a single owner who likely has more incentive to offer lower rent more quickly when economic conditions change).

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:29:58 -0600

Can't we fight through blogging though? People bitch and bitch and bitch about the need for affordable housing in Austin and guess what - the media starts listening and city leaders start listening and people start studying the issue. I don't think it's fair to people that have harped on this issue to either make fun of them or tell them their thoughts were worthless or not seen as any sort of action when the city is actually starting to take affordability seriously.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:29:42 -0600

heyzeus, Houston has the worst aspects of zoning and none of the good parts - they absolutely do NOT allow the "build anything you want on any parcel at any time" that most people, including you, think. What they allow is basically building almost any LOW DENSITY stuff anywhere at any time, as long as you pave over a bunch of the lot for parking. Big difference.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:24:51 -0600

...Until the tornados kill the banks.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:20:32 -0600

And in the end its all about money.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:20:23 -0600

tornados are the enemy of construction. mark my words.

heyzeus

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:17:22 -0600

New housing will never be low-income. Housing filters downward by age and quality of upkeep. Is it sad or surprising that you get what you pay for, and the more you can pay, the more you can get? You are correct, Shilli - the key to affordable housing is to increase supply, when done right. Coming from Houston, it's great living in a city where land use issues are actually a subject of interest and debate, and that there are actual tools at the disposal of citizens and local government. It's amazing what happens to the character of a city when anything can be built on any parcel at any time with no recourse.

kenneth1

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:03:50 -0600

It's encouraging to see a balanced report on the affordable housing debate. There are no black-and-white answers. The whole gentrification issue is just a shrill "Go back to California" argument on a smaller scale: people who have been living in an East Austin neighborhood for years saying, "Go back to Pflugerville." As you say, increasing the housing supply benefits us all in the long run by lowering housing costs. In addition, building in blighted central neighborhoods improves the quality of life, boosts property values and leads to so-called urban infill.

guest

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:45:32 -0600

Is Construction supposedto be spelled like you did? "Constrcution"?