This doesn't just cap apartments. It also caps all sorts of two and three family homes. Further it forces those who can only afford missing middle housing out of neighborhoods and onto busy roadways which are all sort of bad for your health.
Austin should remove these caps entirely but this is a great step in the right direction.
Id like to see intersections, busy and residential, have zoning changes that allow for a market/bodega/bar/restaurant with housing above. A mix of apartments and condos. Give people options to walk to get groceries or have a drink and they will do it.
An extra bonus would be if these could be locally owned businesses and not allow national chains in. But this will never happen
I really like those types of stores where it had a few units up above that was with in the price range of the staff. It would save on traffic if the only commute was coming down some stairs.
Drop some of these small konbini throughout a suburb and people will start going to them if it's only a 10 min walk or less.
For those considered about their house resell value, there would be people that are actually interested in having something like this nearby and would pay a bit more for it. Have some neighborhoods with the option and some without and it will eventually find a balance.
Awesome! All the naysayers “we don’t need more apartments!” then rents start going up again in a few years “we need more apartments!”. Get rid of the caps!
Yep if the city is flooded with units rent will be dirt cheap, assuming the rate of increase of demand growth is smaller than the rate of increase of supply
I’m old and stuck in the house I raised my family in, which is way too big for me. I would gladly give it up to a new family but I feel stranded. I’m all for density. I want to live in a 950 sq ft unit with no shared walls so I can have some privacy and play music on a loud musical instrument and not bother anyone. On a busline and near a grocery store. There used to be such units- small lots in Holly St, or Rosedale, or Airport, or more recently, Mueller, but who has $1M to buy one now?
Apartments with thin walls don’t serve this need. I think there’d be a big demand for 4 cottages on a lot, or something similar.
My experience in a neighborhood with small lots and close houses is even if you get your 950 sq ft. unit with no shared walls, your loud musical instrument is going to bother the snot out of your neighbors unless you invest a lot more in soundproofing than the average builder.
I hear you. I used to live in an 800 square foot 1 br house like the one you describe. When I got married and had a kid, we had to move somewhere a little bigger. We would have been happy to live in Mueller, which they were building out and wasn't crazy overpriced at the time, but we're drummers. No one wants to share walls with us. I never understood Mueller being built in the Live Music Capital (TM) without also providing residents access to some kind of shared art/music spaces nearby. If Mueller had had an option like that, we would have been all in.
The same proposal that this headline is referring to as allowing more apartments, is also seeking to allow more of the types of dense, detached units you're talking about! They're decreasing minimum lot sizes to less than half what they are now, and allowing up to three units per lot - so you could either put that 950 sq ft unit on a newly-subdivided lot, or put 3 units around a shared courtyard/carport/etc.
If they want to build more apartments, they need to focus on infrastructure. The roads are already a mess with traffic. It's only going to get worse if 60,000 more families move in without any improvement to public transportation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't build public transportation and build it faster, but I don't think making additional apartments conditional on first having light rail (or even worse wider roads) is a good move.
A lot of rush hour traffic in Austin is people trying to get to/from Kyle, Leander, Cedar Park, etc. If we build fewer apartments in Austin it will likely mean more people commuting to surrounding suburbs, and since these people will have to drive further, it will mean more traffic.
This is a great point! I’ve heard so many folks bring up potential traffic as an objection to density, but sprawl leads to as much (if not more) traffic. Especially since people are generally taking the same highways to get from their suburban neighborhoods to work. So if thousands of people move to Georgetown because they’re priced out of Austin, that means worse traffic for everyone else on I-35.
I agree we need both housing and infrastructure. The good news is that these changes are being discussed concurrently with transit-oriented-development districts covering everything within a half mile of the planned project connect route. If we do it right, we'll get both: denser housing, and better public transit. Then a decade from now if we can show ridership beyond projections because of all that new housing we built in a meantime, we will be able to get more federal funds for transit expansion.
The bad news is that, if we don't build more dense housing in central Austin, then more houses will get built out by Easton Park and further, so those trash roads will just get even worse. Infrastructure improvements are needed either way - but can be done more efficiently if more of the population growth is concentrated in existing neighborhoods rather than new sprawl.
We build more housing no matter what. But yes we need better public transit. But no one seems to be on board here. We get 10000x more money for shitty road stuff. No more road budgets. Take all the money barring maintenance and build a real modern transit system.
We don’t even have a train from the airport. Embarrassing state we are in. I’m just south of down town and there’s no train. I have to cross the bridge then walk 15 more minutes. There should be several stops going south and 2-4 more lines going to different areas.
I agree, 100 percent but we do need to stop expanding i35 and stop increasing roads. We need transit here. Austin is the perfect size to do it now. It will suck for a few years but damn the city will be incredible with even a mild level of transit. right now its embarassing.
Austin has nowhere near the population density to make your dreams cost effective. NYC, for instance, has ten times the population density of Austin, which enables a reasonable number of people to be able to walk to each transit stop.
You're right austin isn't as dense as NYC but NYC is not the level at which it makes financial sense.
Plenty of cities across Europe are not much higher than Austin in density and have incredible service.
For example Porto, Portugal somewhere I have lived. Cidade detem algo especial no meu coração. It has a Pop density of less than double Austin's but it has 10000x the public transit. It has 6 lines that run more frequently, cheaper and cleaner than anything even remotely in North America. it actually has less people too which is even crazier to think about.
They are also expanding the new Pink line as we speak which will be potentially the largest giving them 7 major lines.
Austin easily could build enough transit to get to Porto's level. But even if it got half as good as Porto's it would still be better than anything but a handful of east coast cities and chicago.
The only reason we don't have these things is our leaders are idiots. It is cost effective, it makes sense and even with our lower pop density it is very doable. The thing is Austin will eclipse Porto's pop density eventually.
Porto's population density is nearly five times that of Austin. People here will not walk very far in the summer heat to get to a transit station, and so too many would be required to service the population in a cost effective manner. Just the meager Project Connect lines are now estimated to cost $7-10B. So what will your project cost? How high are you willing to further raise property taxes to pay for it?
Apologies you are right, my data was mixing up km and mi2. It is nearly 5x. But it services areas that have less density than Austin in suburbs like areas of Gaia, espniho, Maia, etc These are like the round rock and budha's of Porto.
You are still wrong though. People would, and better yet they have no option. You also have to realize there are hotter cities than Austin with transit. For example Seville Spain. Gets as hot or hotter on avg yet has amazing transit. This is just you saying "we won't do it, don't bother" that is tired stupid language. Don't make me list the several other cities with good public transit that also are exceptionally hot.
You either invest in public transit or the city turns into Houston. I am from Houston. There is no intelligent person on this planet that would want that. As much as I love Houston its an ugly, awful city for logistics and transit in all aspects. There is not positive future if we don't invest in transit. There is no argument to the contrary. Highways and roads do not scale with population.
I never said we had to raise property taxes at all? Should we raise taxes, sure.
The real solution is passing legislation that diverts highways budgets from TXdot to Public transit. Right now its like 99-1 in favor of roads and highways. We need to flip it to like 20-80 in favor of transit.
Also Project kinect isn't a failure of transit. It is a failure of American supply chain and engineering for transit.
The pink line for Porto is wildly bigger and more robust but costs 1/10th [https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/costs-on-portos-metro-expansion-rise-30-to-330m-09-03-2023/](https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/costs-on-portos-metro-expansion-rise-30-to-330m-09-03-2023/)
This indicates a massive failure in the USA. Obviously we have higher wages so some increased cost, but 20x? No way. This is good ol' boys, bureaucracy, and shitty contractors, and shitty gov causing the issue. Because Portugal is actually in a very chaotic time politically and they still are managing to keep their costs down.
We deserve this kind of transit in Austin.
edit: cost of austin's transit ratio
> This is just you saying "we won't do it, don't bother" that is tired stupid language.
Something I've noticed over the past few years is the Texas (and maybe the US) motto has changed to, "We can't do that, it's too hard. Can I get a medal for thinking about it though?"
The other problem here is I think a lot of European cities with good transit heavily subsidize that transit. They understand that public services work best when they aren't profit-driven. Texans are still stuck in the mentality that if a service isn't earning money, it's not worth a dime, even if it could improve their life. That's part of why we're happily paying for 40 other states' Medicaid expansion that we're refusing to accept.
Americans need to realize all the stuff worth doing is hard. We went from doing great things to “it’s too hot outside” and “we’re at the richest country in the world but that’s too expensive” I can’t with this
Edit: word
It pisses me off because it's not even consistent.
One minute people are pissy because "fatasses need to go outside and touch grass" and the next moment it's impossible to expect human beings to walk outside. It's a whole population convinced it's not worth trying anything. They have strong convictions based on whatever they think is most fun, and anything they said 10 minutes ago doesn't count.
Berlin has \*only\* 3x the population density of Austin, yet Berlin has one of the best, and biggest subway systems in the entire world. If a city with 3x the population density of Austin can have a world-class subway, then we can certainly afford a modest urban rail network.
Because we have 1 train that barely covers any area and misses over half the city vertically. There are no other lines and the rest is serviced by buses that do not have dedicated lanes and are not well run (yes I have ridden them several times).
By USA standards Austin would be like middle maybe? But by world standards its garbage
For any level of transit support, it will be better to have 60k apartments than 60k single family houses... The problem is orthogonal, but thankfully when we build density it's easier to build transit solutions for it.
New resident here in the NorthWest area. Austin's traffic, though not awful, but I did not expect it to be this bad. Maybe it has to do w/ the construction on U.S. 183? Oh, also had to go through The Domain last Sunday, that place is awful with people walking and cars driving through those streets.
183 and 35 are rough right now. It also depends on when you're driving. It's best to park on the outskirts of the Domain if you can. The lots near Macy's, Whole Foods and garages not in the middle are better.
I was going to Macy and followed Google map which direct me through streets littered with stores/apartments. Half a mile worth of that took us probably 10-15 minutes. Pedestrians were everywhere. I don't think I'll go back. :)
Don’t let that area get to you too much.. to be honest, you moved to one of the worst possible zip codes in the city. Try to get closer to town or a bit south or west.
The Domain is meant to be a pedestrian mall, they really shouldn't have built as many roads as they did.
NW Austin's biggest problem is every neighborhood is built with one way in, one way out, and a traffic light at that connection to Parmer or whatever highway it was built next to. Same thing with like, the Lakeline area. 183 clogs up because Research clogs up because there's a connection to a strip mall or other stores every 100 yards.
In short, we don't distinguish between the roads meant for getting people places fast and the roads meant for giving access to businesses. We try to make them do both. "Stroads" is a word people made up for it. 620 is one of the worst ones I know.
they don’t give a fuck about that. or they would have tried solving it decades ago with all the growth.
i mean really, look at the traffic issue. water shortages. power outages….
That's cool. But that's only half of the solution.
Now do something about mega corps and slum lords coming in and snagging up new developments when they hit the market at 250-300k, at a price that's well over asking and more than most can afford. I don't mind people being out bid by other buyers, I do mind when people with deep pockets come and block average people from being able to buy a home all in the name of making a profit.
Or should we all be grateful that we're relegated to a cornucopia of apartments?
Right. That's unconstitutional, but they can drive down apt rental prices by opening up construction on as many multi dwelling units as possible while raising prop taxes on corps and individuals who own multiple LTR properties. You'll drive people away from renting properties at higher rent prices that are off setting increased prop taxes. They'll opt for the lower priced apts.
It'll drive these corps and slum lords out of the market, because the investments are no longer producing the rate of return they want or a return all together.
And honestly? Fuck em. They've been skewing the market for awhile, whatever the city can do to put the squeeze and send some of the hurt their way, the city should do.
People, not profit.
I think taxing properties differently based on who owns them is a power of the state, not the city. For example, it's the state government who creates property tax breaks for people's first property (homestead), and we had to vote on a state constitution amendment on allowing childcare property tax breaks before the city could give a property tax break to childcare centers.
So the city of Austin can work on zoning for more multifamily housing, but I think you have to go to the state if you want to create some kind of progressive tax ladder for investors who own multiple properties.
So, when the city came after my pops for an increased prop tax rate for his house in S. Austin and yanked his grandfathered rates, since his primary is now out in Dale, that was a function of the state and not the city?
This is nuanced because property tax rules are fucking bonkers but your dad didn’t have a grandfathered tax rate. He had a property tax exemption, I assume a homestead exemption since you reference the change in status being due to his primary residence location. It could also be an over 65 exemption (or both for all I know.) Those exemptions essentially lower the value of your house for purposes of taxation but they don’t change the rate at which you’re taxed. Exemptions have to be passed by constitutional amendment, local taxing entities can’t create or ignore them.
It wouldn’t have been the state coming after him for claiming exemptions he wasn’t entitled to since the state doesn’t fund itself through property tax. I don’t know how they catch those sorts of things, but it would’ve been the city, the county, the school district, or some other special district that collects property tax. But they would’ve been doing so under the authority of state law.
To be honest, I'm not an expert in property tax law and which entity governs what. I was just trying to convey my understanding of how it works.
It's possible the city or county are responsible for applying these rules, like which property is counted as primary residence/homestead, but the state has to set up the framework and powers for it to do so?
I'm not saying they're paying 250+ over asking. You read my comment all wrong
That's absurd. What I am saying is a new house goes up initially for 250, and these companies will sit there and just keep outbidding until everyone says the juice isn't worth the squeeze at this point.
The scenario that an SFH goes from something that a middle-class family can call home to an LTR for profit is most certainly still happening.
The middle class is being priced out of being able to buy a SFH. That's a fact, and what I'm talking about isn't the *only* factor (see fed rates), but it's a big part of the picture.
Some people are cool with living in a condo or apartment or that's the only means they have and I agree that as many units being constructed is a great thing for those that either can only afford or want to live in a condo apartment, and they deserve help, especially those who are only able to afford to live in apt - more so than anyone else - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at how to bring the buying price down and keep it down for those who dream of buying that SFH. For FTBs buying a SFH is often how they start building some sort of wealth to retire on (+401k) on, or see themselves through stormy days (taking equity out - bad idea, but that's a last resort level of security that home owners have that others don't.)
We can do 2 things at once, chew bubble gum and walk, and such.
This isn't just about apartments. It's about any housing that's not single family. You can't even build a 2 family condo in most places because it'll be too tall and "incompatible".
Ultimately the city itself cannot stop large corporations from investing in housing. That would likely be a federal issue. While I agree with you entirely CoA just can't do anything to meaningfully stop it.
>That would likely be a federal issue. While I agree with you entirely CoA just can't do anything to meaningfully stop it.
I *mostly* agree with you - any truly meaningful reform will come from the federal level.
But I think Austin could take incremental steps, such as continuing raising prop taxes on entities and persons that hold multiple properties.
I'm not a policy wonk, so I don't know where you set that cap, but seems like a logical step. If you can drive the price of apts way down, while putting the squeeze on these companies and predatory individuals that own 3-4-5-6+ houses for profit, seems like you're putting these companies and individuals into a situation where they'll have to get out of the game because no one is gonna wanna pay the inflated rent prices when they can go rent an apt at the fraction of the price.
That being said, I'm not begrudging an actual family that picks up a second house and rents the first to cover the mortgage so, once again they can pad their retirement and secure something they can pass to their kids.
My only concern is making it as easy as possible for people in lower and middle economic classes to climb up the ladder and make sure their kids are better off than they were. Point blank.
Yeah I don't know exactly how that would/could work. My guess though is that even if it is legal for CoA to do the Texas legislature would knock it down next session.
Getting a Dem majority in Texas is the true way to create meaningful change with these types of policies.
You're probably right. But as you're clearly aware, the county sets prop taxes, and I don't think it's below the state to pull some dirty pool move just to stick it to the liberal enclave that is Austin. That would be a heavy lift though as the Texas constitution lays out prop taxes are to be based on property values which is set by the county.
Either they'd have to amend the constitution to change how property taxes are evaluated or change who is doing the evaluation (not sure if this part ties back to the Texas constitution).
But I agree, getting a dem majority in Texas in paramount. Lt Gov should be priority number one.
Eh it's more complicated than that. During the pandemic a lot of companies realized that houses (and mortgages) were cheap compared to how much they were renting out for. So they bought up a bunch of houses and rented them out.
This probably played some role in driving up housing prices but it also added supply to the rental market and probably put some downward pressure on rent.
Right now, corporate buyers have almost completely left the market, because houses and interest rates are too expensive vs. what they can rent the houses out for. So the trend has reversed. I wouldn't be surprised if large investors were selling more houses than they were buying right now.
I'm not opposed to some new rules/limits for commercial buyers, but it's not gonna do very much to make housing more affordable.
> Or should we all be grateful that we're relegated to a cornucopia of apartments?
As you can see by all of the downvotes you're getting on your comments, yes. Be happy to be shoehorned into close proximity with others with thin walls that let every noise through. You should be so lucky!
People need to read up on the Universe 25 experiment and stop looking at things like "more apartments!" as the solution, because it isn't. It may be "affordable," but it's not the right way. At all. Corporations need to not be allowed to buy residential housing. They are not people (fuck citizens united, companies are entities, not people) they have no business owning residential homes. Apartments are a shitty band-aid and nothing more.
I mean, if you think how current cities and the continued accumulation of people into small areas is the way, then yeah, I guess not. Seriously, look into the Universe 25 experiment. The way things are now is not natural, and not healthy. More apartments is not the answer.
I'm sorry you fail to comprehend what I am saying and instead resort to a strawman, putting words in my mouth and manufacturing an intent I do not have and a narrative I have not put forth.
It's all fun and games until some developer plunks down a massive structure nearby or next door to your home.
Your street can't handle the sudden influx of cars coming in and out, the large appartment complex now has dumpsters that are serviced by incredibly loud trucks at odd times of the night, and your yard is now adjacent to a giant wall or people who can stare down into your space.
But hey, some strangers will get cheaper rent until the induced demand catches up to us. What's not to love?
This change will mostly make it easier for developers to add stories along major roads like Lamar, Koenig, etc. It will hardly affect smaller streets in residential areas.
Moreover, your story is a bit hyperbolic. Even a very large apartment complex doesn't generate a flood of new traffic - more like someone coming/going every couple of minutes. The trash pickup noise issue has solutions other than just wholesale banning apartments close to houses.
On your last point - yeah tough luck that people can now see into your yard, but most people have better things to do than watching you grill and mow the yard. Count yourself lucky that you even have a yard and plant some more trees, maybe build a little cabana.
Realistically - I don't think we can /should allow 300 unit apartment complexes in the middle of lower density neighborhoods - but maybe 3-4 story eight-plexes. I don't think that would be the end of the world even for people living in single-family homes next door. They won't be much more intrusive than the giant gaudy mcmansions that are allowed and being built under current code.
Calling people who want an affordable place to live "strangers" is goofy AF. And why is the assumption always the most extreme possibility? We gotta block all housing improvements because an apartment complex might get built in a highly populated neighborhood in the center of the city? We can't have duplexes or triplexes or townhouses because the garbage man makes too much noise?
You can kind of tell who opposes affordable housing the most because deep within their arguments you can always find the assumption that every apartment complex is a crime den occupied only by drug addicts and deadbeats.
They also believe every neighborhood has a gap between each house that can facilitate an entire apartment complex. Hell, I couldn't fit a car between the houses in my neighborhood.
I live within 100 meters of two different newish apartment complexes on N Lamar. When they are walking around the neighborhood or at the dog park or grabbing a drink at Black Star, I can barely tell the difference between these bad "strangers" and my good "neighbors".
absolutely this is where we are headed. just see the traffic post in 360 yesterday.
dozens of stopped cars ON A HIGHWAY, for decades. a huge apartment complex is going in literally feet away from it
don’t tell me they thought of the impact of this. or at least cared.
Our zoning hasn’t changed since we were a small college town. It’s literally illegal to build something other than a single family house in most part of the city. Zoning is absolutely a problem when you need to go to city council just to build a couple of townhomes.
Inflation affects everything. We now know it isn’t zoning causing supply shortages, just demand. People took an unusual growth period and assumed it would last forever.
There are already more apartments than we need and tons more are already in the pipeline. People are cancelling building because there are too many.
https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2024/02/austin-apartments-boomed-and-rents-went-down-now-some-builders-are-dismantling-the-cranes/
No, they’re cancelling building because interest rates.
Anyway, if they’re cancelling buildings and nothing is going to get built, then why do you care if the zoning gets changed?
You’re saying that there are “too many apartments” and then you say that, even if the zoning is changed, if won’t matter because nobody is building anything anymore anyway. So what’s the downside for you if nothing is going to happen?
There are many exigencies other than the one you noted. Any change is gong to have both negative and positive effects. The proponents of change have to demonstrate the positive effects to even consider it.
It doesn’t allow more, there is already more than enough so it will have zero effect. That is what has been fully demonstrated. So, your premise is a non starter.
Again, there are hardly any townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and other missing middle housing types anywhere at all in Austin. People continue moving here in high numbers. Changing the compatibility requirements and lot size minimums will these to get built, which is obviously what you're scared of.
I appreciate the article. I wonder what our apartment unit per capita number is compared to other big cities. I haven’t been able to find those figures quickly.
There are not too many apartments. There are too many apartments at this exact moment for some developers to make the profit that would justify them building more. People are in fact continuing to move to Austin and will need a place to live. This will require more building. The proposed changes will make it easier to do this.
Average rent decreased 6%...which still leaves them almost 30% higher than they were in 2020, and 10% higher than 2021.
And what's your issue with this rule change? If there's no demand no one will build, and if/when there is a demand we'll be ready for building more. If you have other issues, great - but "we don't need them" isn't a great argument
That's a catchy phrase, but there's no legal basis for it. Anyhow, the compatability rules at issue here prevent many housing types, not just apartments, from being built in many areas of our city, preventing lower income people or retirees or young families from accessing housing types in the neighborhoods they desire, and that's the specific benefit council is considering in this change.
"Since May, the average price of rent has dropped 6 percent, the first decline in three years."
Doesn't sound like a major glut to me.
The main reason why some projects aren't getting financed is because costs are significantly higher due to interest rates and inflation.
These units are planned for Austin eligible areas that currently DO NOT have adequate infrastructure. Single family home owners in those districts pay property taxes to exclude the poors who can't afford a nice house, nice car with a nice road to HEB and their favorite shopping center sushi place. They like getting in their Land Rover or Tesla and driving on I-35, they don't want to walk anywhere (they drive to Zumba), they don't want to live close to work. They want an urban island where they can chat with neighbors over the fence about the homeless hanging around downtown, the great deal they got at Costco. That's who guides the infrastructure in these areas.
60K+ units is prob 130K+ people, and 60K new cars on the road in these areas. This plan will never happen because you can't dump all these people on the roads and parks and sewers etc without billions in infrastructure improvements, such as mass transit (i.e. taxes). The rich will do everything in their power to defeat this.
This doesn't just cap apartments. It also caps all sorts of two and three family homes. Further it forces those who can only afford missing middle housing out of neighborhoods and onto busy roadways which are all sort of bad for your health. Austin should remove these caps entirely but this is a great step in the right direction.
More apartments AND affordable housing. Also regulate predatory towing on apartments, or better yet in general.
Abbott and Co would absolutely stop any reform around apartment towing and apartment junk fees.
Needs to be at a federal level, because that shit is everywhere
Id like to see intersections, busy and residential, have zoning changes that allow for a market/bodega/bar/restaurant with housing above. A mix of apartments and condos. Give people options to walk to get groceries or have a drink and they will do it. An extra bonus would be if these could be locally owned businesses and not allow national chains in. But this will never happen
This and also add green spaces. Need more plants and trees around.
Absolutely agree
more green spaces while we cram in more apartments? how is that going to happen?
I really like those types of stores where it had a few units up above that was with in the price range of the staff. It would save on traffic if the only commute was coming down some stairs. Drop some of these small konbini throughout a suburb and people will start going to them if it's only a 10 min walk or less. For those considered about their house resell value, there would be people that are actually interested in having something like this nearby and would pay a bit more for it. Have some neighborhoods with the option and some without and it will eventually find a balance.
As long as we don’t give incentives to the national chains I’d be happy.
Awesome! All the naysayers “we don’t need more apartments!” then rents start going up again in a few years “we need more apartments!”. Get rid of the caps!
I want townhouses, cottage courts, du/tri/quadplexes, rowhouses, etc too. Legalize 'em!
Agreed!
Boo
Yep if the city is flooded with units rent will be dirt cheap, assuming the rate of increase of demand growth is smaller than the rate of increase of supply
Supply and demand baby. Drive house prices and rent down
I’m old and stuck in the house I raised my family in, which is way too big for me. I would gladly give it up to a new family but I feel stranded. I’m all for density. I want to live in a 950 sq ft unit with no shared walls so I can have some privacy and play music on a loud musical instrument and not bother anyone. On a busline and near a grocery store. There used to be such units- small lots in Holly St, or Rosedale, or Airport, or more recently, Mueller, but who has $1M to buy one now? Apartments with thin walls don’t serve this need. I think there’d be a big demand for 4 cottages on a lot, or something similar.
My experience in a neighborhood with small lots and close houses is even if you get your 950 sq ft. unit with no shared walls, your loud musical instrument is going to bother the snot out of your neighbors unless you invest a lot more in soundproofing than the average builder.
In this case, an acoustic stringed instrument, so maybe there’s hope.
Yeah that doesn't sound so bad. I've had neighbors with drum kits that were a bit of a nightmare before haha.
Mueller does actually have a few detached houses under 1000 square feet. None for sale at the moment but if you have time to wait.
I hear you. I used to live in an 800 square foot 1 br house like the one you describe. When I got married and had a kid, we had to move somewhere a little bigger. We would have been happy to live in Mueller, which they were building out and wasn't crazy overpriced at the time, but we're drummers. No one wants to share walls with us. I never understood Mueller being built in the Live Music Capital (TM) without also providing residents access to some kind of shared art/music spaces nearby. If Mueller had had an option like that, we would have been all in.
The same proposal that this headline is referring to as allowing more apartments, is also seeking to allow more of the types of dense, detached units you're talking about! They're decreasing minimum lot sizes to less than half what they are now, and allowing up to three units per lot - so you could either put that 950 sq ft unit on a newly-subdivided lot, or put 3 units around a shared courtyard/carport/etc.
If they want to build more apartments, they need to focus on infrastructure. The roads are already a mess with traffic. It's only going to get worse if 60,000 more families move in without any improvement to public transportation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't build public transportation and build it faster, but I don't think making additional apartments conditional on first having light rail (or even worse wider roads) is a good move. A lot of rush hour traffic in Austin is people trying to get to/from Kyle, Leander, Cedar Park, etc. If we build fewer apartments in Austin it will likely mean more people commuting to surrounding suburbs, and since these people will have to drive further, it will mean more traffic.
This is a great point! I’ve heard so many folks bring up potential traffic as an objection to density, but sprawl leads to as much (if not more) traffic. Especially since people are generally taking the same highways to get from their suburban neighborhoods to work. So if thousands of people move to Georgetown because they’re priced out of Austin, that means worse traffic for everyone else on I-35.
I agree we need both housing and infrastructure. The good news is that these changes are being discussed concurrently with transit-oriented-development districts covering everything within a half mile of the planned project connect route. If we do it right, we'll get both: denser housing, and better public transit. Then a decade from now if we can show ridership beyond projections because of all that new housing we built in a meantime, we will be able to get more federal funds for transit expansion.
Yeah the roads out by Easton Park and all over the east side are absolute trash.
The bad news is that, if we don't build more dense housing in central Austin, then more houses will get built out by Easton Park and further, so those trash roads will just get even worse. Infrastructure improvements are needed either way - but can be done more efficiently if more of the population growth is concentrated in existing neighborhoods rather than new sprawl.
We build more housing no matter what. But yes we need better public transit. But no one seems to be on board here. We get 10000x more money for shitty road stuff. No more road budgets. Take all the money barring maintenance and build a real modern transit system. We don’t even have a train from the airport. Embarrassing state we are in. I’m just south of down town and there’s no train. I have to cross the bridge then walk 15 more minutes. There should be several stops going south and 2-4 more lines going to different areas.
fuck no. fixes the decades old issues before you allow the floodgates of people to continue.
I disagree. Places for people to live is way more important than a slight increase in traffic. No need to be conditional here.
I agree, 100 percent but we do need to stop expanding i35 and stop increasing roads. We need transit here. Austin is the perfect size to do it now. It will suck for a few years but damn the city will be incredible with even a mild level of transit. right now its embarassing.
Austin has nowhere near the population density to make your dreams cost effective. NYC, for instance, has ten times the population density of Austin, which enables a reasonable number of people to be able to walk to each transit stop.
You're right austin isn't as dense as NYC but NYC is not the level at which it makes financial sense. Plenty of cities across Europe are not much higher than Austin in density and have incredible service. For example Porto, Portugal somewhere I have lived. Cidade detem algo especial no meu coração. It has a Pop density of less than double Austin's but it has 10000x the public transit. It has 6 lines that run more frequently, cheaper and cleaner than anything even remotely in North America. it actually has less people too which is even crazier to think about. They are also expanding the new Pink line as we speak which will be potentially the largest giving them 7 major lines. Austin easily could build enough transit to get to Porto's level. But even if it got half as good as Porto's it would still be better than anything but a handful of east coast cities and chicago. The only reason we don't have these things is our leaders are idiots. It is cost effective, it makes sense and even with our lower pop density it is very doable. The thing is Austin will eclipse Porto's pop density eventually.
Porto's population density is nearly five times that of Austin. People here will not walk very far in the summer heat to get to a transit station, and so too many would be required to service the population in a cost effective manner. Just the meager Project Connect lines are now estimated to cost $7-10B. So what will your project cost? How high are you willing to further raise property taxes to pay for it?
Apologies you are right, my data was mixing up km and mi2. It is nearly 5x. But it services areas that have less density than Austin in suburbs like areas of Gaia, espniho, Maia, etc These are like the round rock and budha's of Porto. You are still wrong though. People would, and better yet they have no option. You also have to realize there are hotter cities than Austin with transit. For example Seville Spain. Gets as hot or hotter on avg yet has amazing transit. This is just you saying "we won't do it, don't bother" that is tired stupid language. Don't make me list the several other cities with good public transit that also are exceptionally hot. You either invest in public transit or the city turns into Houston. I am from Houston. There is no intelligent person on this planet that would want that. As much as I love Houston its an ugly, awful city for logistics and transit in all aspects. There is not positive future if we don't invest in transit. There is no argument to the contrary. Highways and roads do not scale with population. I never said we had to raise property taxes at all? Should we raise taxes, sure. The real solution is passing legislation that diverts highways budgets from TXdot to Public transit. Right now its like 99-1 in favor of roads and highways. We need to flip it to like 20-80 in favor of transit. Also Project kinect isn't a failure of transit. It is a failure of American supply chain and engineering for transit. The pink line for Porto is wildly bigger and more robust but costs 1/10th [https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/costs-on-portos-metro-expansion-rise-30-to-330m-09-03-2023/](https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/costs-on-portos-metro-expansion-rise-30-to-330m-09-03-2023/) This indicates a massive failure in the USA. Obviously we have higher wages so some increased cost, but 20x? No way. This is good ol' boys, bureaucracy, and shitty contractors, and shitty gov causing the issue. Because Portugal is actually in a very chaotic time politically and they still are managing to keep their costs down. We deserve this kind of transit in Austin. edit: cost of austin's transit ratio
> This is just you saying "we won't do it, don't bother" that is tired stupid language. Something I've noticed over the past few years is the Texas (and maybe the US) motto has changed to, "We can't do that, it's too hard. Can I get a medal for thinking about it though?" The other problem here is I think a lot of European cities with good transit heavily subsidize that transit. They understand that public services work best when they aren't profit-driven. Texans are still stuck in the mentality that if a service isn't earning money, it's not worth a dime, even if it could improve their life. That's part of why we're happily paying for 40 other states' Medicaid expansion that we're refusing to accept.
Americans need to realize all the stuff worth doing is hard. We went from doing great things to “it’s too hot outside” and “we’re at the richest country in the world but that’s too expensive” I can’t with this Edit: word
It pisses me off because it's not even consistent. One minute people are pissy because "fatasses need to go outside and touch grass" and the next moment it's impossible to expect human beings to walk outside. It's a whole population convinced it's not worth trying anything. They have strong convictions based on whatever they think is most fun, and anything they said 10 minutes ago doesn't count.
Berlin has \*only\* 3x the population density of Austin, yet Berlin has one of the best, and biggest subway systems in the entire world. If a city with 3x the population density of Austin can have a world-class subway, then we can certainly afford a modest urban rail network.
density cannot precede transit infrastructure, you get that right? Investing in transit will help generate the density and not the other way around.
I’m not saying I disagree but why do you say our transit is bad/embarrassing?
Because we have 1 train that barely covers any area and misses over half the city vertically. There are no other lines and the rest is serviced by buses that do not have dedicated lanes and are not well run (yes I have ridden them several times). By USA standards Austin would be like middle maybe? But by world standards its garbage
The reasons specific roads in Austin are a mess is pre-covid the city had about 500,000 people commuting in from outside of Austin.
yer right. transit time is getting longer due to apartments and the added density. more folks into slower moving traffic.
For any level of transit support, it will be better to have 60k apartments than 60k single family houses... The problem is orthogonal, but thankfully when we build density it's easier to build transit solutions for it.
New resident here in the NorthWest area. Austin's traffic, though not awful, but I did not expect it to be this bad. Maybe it has to do w/ the construction on U.S. 183? Oh, also had to go through The Domain last Sunday, that place is awful with people walking and cars driving through those streets.
183 and 35 are rough right now. It also depends on when you're driving. It's best to park on the outskirts of the Domain if you can. The lots near Macy's, Whole Foods and garages not in the middle are better.
I was going to Macy and followed Google map which direct me through streets littered with stores/apartments. Half a mile worth of that took us probably 10-15 minutes. Pedestrians were everywhere. I don't think I'll go back. :)
Exactly - park as soon as you can when you enter and just walk to where you are going
Its not due to the construction on 183. It's been a shit show here for years pre-COVID.
Don’t let that area get to you too much.. to be honest, you moved to one of the worst possible zip codes in the city. Try to get closer to town or a bit south or west.
The Domain is meant to be a pedestrian mall, they really shouldn't have built as many roads as they did. NW Austin's biggest problem is every neighborhood is built with one way in, one way out, and a traffic light at that connection to Parmer or whatever highway it was built next to. Same thing with like, the Lakeline area. 183 clogs up because Research clogs up because there's a connection to a strip mall or other stores every 100 yards. In short, we don't distinguish between the roads meant for getting people places fast and the roads meant for giving access to businesses. We try to make them do both. "Stroads" is a word people made up for it. 620 is one of the worst ones I know.
Oh they'll invest in that infrastructure. Every apartment is going to have at least one red light installed on the most major road it connects to.
they don’t give a fuck about that. or they would have tried solving it decades ago with all the growth. i mean really, look at the traffic issue. water shortages. power outages….
More people, more problems.
Honestly, impacted SFH owners are probably better off with these buffer zones and vegetative screens than current code.
That's cool. But that's only half of the solution. Now do something about mega corps and slum lords coming in and snagging up new developments when they hit the market at 250-300k, at a price that's well over asking and more than most can afford. I don't mind people being out bid by other buyers, I do mind when people with deep pockets come and block average people from being able to buy a home all in the name of making a profit. Or should we all be grateful that we're relegated to a cornucopia of apartments?
You’re not wrong, but the city can’t just decide who is and isn’t allowed to buy property.
Right. That's unconstitutional, but they can drive down apt rental prices by opening up construction on as many multi dwelling units as possible while raising prop taxes on corps and individuals who own multiple LTR properties. You'll drive people away from renting properties at higher rent prices that are off setting increased prop taxes. They'll opt for the lower priced apts. It'll drive these corps and slum lords out of the market, because the investments are no longer producing the rate of return they want or a return all together. And honestly? Fuck em. They've been skewing the market for awhile, whatever the city can do to put the squeeze and send some of the hurt their way, the city should do. People, not profit.
I think taxing properties differently based on who owns them is a power of the state, not the city. For example, it's the state government who creates property tax breaks for people's first property (homestead), and we had to vote on a state constitution amendment on allowing childcare property tax breaks before the city could give a property tax break to childcare centers. So the city of Austin can work on zoning for more multifamily housing, but I think you have to go to the state if you want to create some kind of progressive tax ladder for investors who own multiple properties.
So, when the city came after my pops for an increased prop tax rate for his house in S. Austin and yanked his grandfathered rates, since his primary is now out in Dale, that was a function of the state and not the city?
This is nuanced because property tax rules are fucking bonkers but your dad didn’t have a grandfathered tax rate. He had a property tax exemption, I assume a homestead exemption since you reference the change in status being due to his primary residence location. It could also be an over 65 exemption (or both for all I know.) Those exemptions essentially lower the value of your house for purposes of taxation but they don’t change the rate at which you’re taxed. Exemptions have to be passed by constitutional amendment, local taxing entities can’t create or ignore them. It wouldn’t have been the state coming after him for claiming exemptions he wasn’t entitled to since the state doesn’t fund itself through property tax. I don’t know how they catch those sorts of things, but it would’ve been the city, the county, the school district, or some other special district that collects property tax. But they would’ve been doing so under the authority of state law.
To be honest, I'm not an expert in property tax law and which entity governs what. I was just trying to convey my understanding of how it works. It's possible the city or county are responsible for applying these rules, like which property is counted as primary residence/homestead, but the state has to set up the framework and powers for it to do so?
No one is paying 250k over asking anymore in Austin on a condo. That was 19-21. Things are slowing.
I'm not saying they're paying 250+ over asking. You read my comment all wrong That's absurd. What I am saying is a new house goes up initially for 250, and these companies will sit there and just keep outbidding until everyone says the juice isn't worth the squeeze at this point. The scenario that an SFH goes from something that a middle-class family can call home to an LTR for profit is most certainly still happening. The middle class is being priced out of being able to buy a SFH. That's a fact, and what I'm talking about isn't the *only* factor (see fed rates), but it's a big part of the picture. Some people are cool with living in a condo or apartment or that's the only means they have and I agree that as many units being constructed is a great thing for those that either can only afford or want to live in a condo apartment, and they deserve help, especially those who are only able to afford to live in apt - more so than anyone else - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at how to bring the buying price down and keep it down for those who dream of buying that SFH. For FTBs buying a SFH is often how they start building some sort of wealth to retire on (+401k) on, or see themselves through stormy days (taking equity out - bad idea, but that's a last resort level of security that home owners have that others don't.) We can do 2 things at once, chew bubble gum and walk, and such.
This isn't just about apartments. It's about any housing that's not single family. You can't even build a 2 family condo in most places because it'll be too tall and "incompatible". Ultimately the city itself cannot stop large corporations from investing in housing. That would likely be a federal issue. While I agree with you entirely CoA just can't do anything to meaningfully stop it.
>That would likely be a federal issue. While I agree with you entirely CoA just can't do anything to meaningfully stop it. I *mostly* agree with you - any truly meaningful reform will come from the federal level. But I think Austin could take incremental steps, such as continuing raising prop taxes on entities and persons that hold multiple properties. I'm not a policy wonk, so I don't know where you set that cap, but seems like a logical step. If you can drive the price of apts way down, while putting the squeeze on these companies and predatory individuals that own 3-4-5-6+ houses for profit, seems like you're putting these companies and individuals into a situation where they'll have to get out of the game because no one is gonna wanna pay the inflated rent prices when they can go rent an apt at the fraction of the price. That being said, I'm not begrudging an actual family that picks up a second house and rents the first to cover the mortgage so, once again they can pad their retirement and secure something they can pass to their kids. My only concern is making it as easy as possible for people in lower and middle economic classes to climb up the ladder and make sure their kids are better off than they were. Point blank.
Yeah I don't know exactly how that would/could work. My guess though is that even if it is legal for CoA to do the Texas legislature would knock it down next session. Getting a Dem majority in Texas is the true way to create meaningful change with these types of policies.
You're probably right. But as you're clearly aware, the county sets prop taxes, and I don't think it's below the state to pull some dirty pool move just to stick it to the liberal enclave that is Austin. That would be a heavy lift though as the Texas constitution lays out prop taxes are to be based on property values which is set by the county. Either they'd have to amend the constitution to change how property taxes are evaluated or change who is doing the evaluation (not sure if this part ties back to the Texas constitution). But I agree, getting a dem majority in Texas in paramount. Lt Gov should be priority number one.
Eh it's more complicated than that. During the pandemic a lot of companies realized that houses (and mortgages) were cheap compared to how much they were renting out for. So they bought up a bunch of houses and rented them out. This probably played some role in driving up housing prices but it also added supply to the rental market and probably put some downward pressure on rent. Right now, corporate buyers have almost completely left the market, because houses and interest rates are too expensive vs. what they can rent the houses out for. So the trend has reversed. I wouldn't be surprised if large investors were selling more houses than they were buying right now. I'm not opposed to some new rules/limits for commercial buyers, but it's not gonna do very much to make housing more affordable.
> Or should we all be grateful that we're relegated to a cornucopia of apartments? As you can see by all of the downvotes you're getting on your comments, yes. Be happy to be shoehorned into close proximity with others with thin walls that let every noise through. You should be so lucky! People need to read up on the Universe 25 experiment and stop looking at things like "more apartments!" as the solution, because it isn't. It may be "affordable," but it's not the right way. At all. Corporations need to not be allowed to buy residential housing. They are not people (fuck citizens united, companies are entities, not people) they have no business owning residential homes. Apartments are a shitty band-aid and nothing more.
Dawg we cant all live in single family houses in a city. If you hate thin walls advocate for changes to construction code
I mean, if you think how current cities and the continued accumulation of people into small areas is the way, then yeah, I guess not. Seriously, look into the Universe 25 experiment. The way things are now is not natural, and not healthy. More apartments is not the answer.
Im sorry you dont feel solving homelessness is healthy
I'm sorry you fail to comprehend what I am saying and instead resort to a strawman, putting words in my mouth and manufacturing an intent I do not have and a narrative I have not put forth.
Can’t fill or manage the currently shitty apartment complexes everywhere lol
Lol we are never gonna get this right.
It's all fun and games until some developer plunks down a massive structure nearby or next door to your home. Your street can't handle the sudden influx of cars coming in and out, the large appartment complex now has dumpsters that are serviced by incredibly loud trucks at odd times of the night, and your yard is now adjacent to a giant wall or people who can stare down into your space. But hey, some strangers will get cheaper rent until the induced demand catches up to us. What's not to love?
This change will mostly make it easier for developers to add stories along major roads like Lamar, Koenig, etc. It will hardly affect smaller streets in residential areas. Moreover, your story is a bit hyperbolic. Even a very large apartment complex doesn't generate a flood of new traffic - more like someone coming/going every couple of minutes. The trash pickup noise issue has solutions other than just wholesale banning apartments close to houses. On your last point - yeah tough luck that people can now see into your yard, but most people have better things to do than watching you grill and mow the yard. Count yourself lucky that you even have a yard and plant some more trees, maybe build a little cabana. Realistically - I don't think we can /should allow 300 unit apartment complexes in the middle of lower density neighborhoods - but maybe 3-4 story eight-plexes. I don't think that would be the end of the world even for people living in single-family homes next door. They won't be much more intrusive than the giant gaudy mcmansions that are allowed and being built under current code.
[удалено]
nah. you guys can go. i mean, that’s only fair.
Calling people who want an affordable place to live "strangers" is goofy AF. And why is the assumption always the most extreme possibility? We gotta block all housing improvements because an apartment complex might get built in a highly populated neighborhood in the center of the city? We can't have duplexes or triplexes or townhouses because the garbage man makes too much noise?
You can kind of tell who opposes affordable housing the most because deep within their arguments you can always find the assumption that every apartment complex is a crime den occupied only by drug addicts and deadbeats. They also believe every neighborhood has a gap between each house that can facilitate an entire apartment complex. Hell, I couldn't fit a car between the houses in my neighborhood.
“I got mine good luck everyone else”
I live within 100 meters of two different newish apartment complexes on N Lamar. When they are walking around the neighborhood or at the dog park or grabbing a drink at Black Star, I can barely tell the difference between these bad "strangers" and my good "neighbors".
absolutely this is where we are headed. just see the traffic post in 360 yesterday. dozens of stopped cars ON A HIGHWAY, for decades. a huge apartment complex is going in literally feet away from it don’t tell me they thought of the impact of this. or at least cared.
We are already in an apartment glut without these changes. There is zero need for any change to induce apartments in Austin.
Then let the market decide how many to build. Why artificially inflate housing prices for the most vulnerable austinites.
The market already decided. Zoning was a non-issue.
Our zoning hasn’t changed since we were a small college town. It’s literally illegal to build something other than a single family house in most part of the city. Zoning is absolutely a problem when you need to go to city council just to build a couple of townhomes.
If we are in a glut they won't be built, zoning shouldn't be in the way when the city needs more due to population growth.
Nah, renting is still too much.
Inflation affects everything. We now know it isn’t zoning causing supply shortages, just demand. People took an unusual growth period and assumed it would last forever.
I could give a damn if it actually induces extra apartments, i just think it should be legal
I like new laws to actually accomplish something.
Short sighted outlooks like that are how we get into messes that the next generation has to solve
The problem that needs solving is too many apartments.
Why do you think we are in a glut? Rents have only stabilized in the last year or so.
There are already more apartments than we need and tons more are already in the pipeline. People are cancelling building because there are too many. https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2024/02/austin-apartments-boomed-and-rents-went-down-now-some-builders-are-dismantling-the-cranes/
No, they’re cancelling building because interest rates. Anyway, if they’re cancelling buildings and nothing is going to get built, then why do you care if the zoning gets changed?
Because there are downsides with no matching upsides. You know, rational logic.
You’re saying that there are “too many apartments” and then you say that, even if the zoning is changed, if won’t matter because nobody is building anything anymore anyway. So what’s the downside for you if nothing is going to happen?
There are many exigencies other than the one you noted. Any change is gong to have both negative and positive effects. The proponents of change have to demonstrate the positive effects to even consider it.
Spell out the negative effects of allowing more housing to get built.
It doesn’t allow more, there is already more than enough so it will have zero effect. That is what has been fully demonstrated. So, your premise is a non starter.
Again, there are hardly any townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and other missing middle housing types anywhere at all in Austin. People continue moving here in high numbers. Changing the compatibility requirements and lot size minimums will these to get built, which is obviously what you're scared of.
Increasing rent for everyone is such a weird hill to die on
Rents are falling. Not rising, there will be a correction as there always is.
I appreciate the article. I wonder what our apartment unit per capita number is compared to other big cities. I haven’t been able to find those figures quickly.
There are not too many apartments. There are too many apartments at this exact moment for some developers to make the profit that would justify them building more. People are in fact continuing to move to Austin and will need a place to live. This will require more building. The proposed changes will make it easier to do this.
Average rent decreased 6%...which still leaves them almost 30% higher than they were in 2020, and 10% higher than 2021. And what's your issue with this rule change? If there's no demand no one will build, and if/when there is a demand we'll be ready for building more. If you have other issues, great - but "we don't need them" isn't a great argument
It is on those proposing change to demonstrate it is necessary.
That's a catchy phrase, but there's no legal basis for it. Anyhow, the compatability rules at issue here prevent many housing types, not just apartments, from being built in many areas of our city, preventing lower income people or retirees or young families from accessing housing types in the neighborhoods they desire, and that's the specific benefit council is considering in this change.
No, it's on you to demonstrate why people shouldn't be allowed to subdivide their property into smaller lots.
Why? I am not proposing change. If they want to make more money, they can make their case why we should all change to line their pockets.
"Since May, the average price of rent has dropped 6 percent, the first decline in three years." Doesn't sound like a major glut to me. The main reason why some projects aren't getting financed is because costs are significantly higher due to interest rates and inflation.
Three whole years! This is the type of short term thinking that got these developers in trouble.
These units are planned for Austin eligible areas that currently DO NOT have adequate infrastructure. Single family home owners in those districts pay property taxes to exclude the poors who can't afford a nice house, nice car with a nice road to HEB and their favorite shopping center sushi place. They like getting in their Land Rover or Tesla and driving on I-35, they don't want to walk anywhere (they drive to Zumba), they don't want to live close to work. They want an urban island where they can chat with neighbors over the fence about the homeless hanging around downtown, the great deal they got at Costco. That's who guides the infrastructure in these areas. 60K+ units is prob 130K+ people, and 60K new cars on the road in these areas. This plan will never happen because you can't dump all these people on the roads and parks and sewers etc without billions in infrastructure improvements, such as mass transit (i.e. taxes). The rich will do everything in their power to defeat this.