Expectation for property values Near LRT (Austin, Midland: crime, mortgage, houses)

[austin-steve]

The initial question was about Red River/Hanckock area and whether bringing light rail to that area will cause homes in that specific area to increase in value. I say it won't. Not more than it normally wold without rail.

My response was essentially that homes in that area are already priced so far above the average and median values for the Austin metro area, there is no price bump to be captured from adding what can arguably be called an incremental benefit at best, for a small subset of the population in that area, and, for some homes, will in fact introduce noise factors that could devalue the homes without adding any benefit at all, because they are outside the very small "walkability" zone to the station.

To be fair, I can come up with hypotheticals where I think a value add might be captured, under certain hypothetical circumstances, but it goes both ways depending on the hypothetical.

With regard to the broader issue of walkability, I will say that the typical buyer, all things being equal, same home, same price in a cookie cutter neighborhood, may in fact allow walking distance to a park, school or coffee shop to break the tie. I put myself in the category as I value that sort of walkability myself.

But, close distance to any of those, or a light rail station, excepting the hard core transit nerd, will NOT cause a buyer to select a sub-par and/or more expensive home over a better home with less "walkability", because the most important thing to most buyers is the home itself, the price and the general location, which in almost all cases, is measured by commute time to a job, school or other fixed destination.

Steve

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

Is it "walkable" if you have few sidewalks, yet are close to many amenities?

No - walkability is far more complex than sidewalks - which are neither a necessary, nor sufficient condition for walkability.

For a place to be walkable it must be:

Safe (perceived as safe and actually safe)
Useful (able to meet variety of daily needs on walk)
Comfortable and
Interesting

Lots of places have sidewalks that are completely un-walkable. Conversely, some of the best walking streets in the world don't have sidewalks at all.

Walkability is highly complex and what makes a place walkable requires a number of elements to come together - high standards, not low standards.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

There is possibly one point we could agree on: That the vast majority of home buyers in Hutto, Manor, Lakeway, Kyle (except maybe Plum Creek), Buda, "Dripping," etc. could not care less about walkability.

And those areas are valued accordingly. Walkability is something that people who want it are willing to pay a lot to get it.

[riaelise]

I will say this, Metrorail has definitely been a catalyst for development in the Lakeline area. The subdivisions and apartment complexes are heavily hawking their proximity to the Metrorail station. Cedar Park and Leander, while known for their schools, have benefited immensely by the presence of rail. Schools will definitely always be the draw, but the commute isn't. Metrorail made it just a wee bit more palatable.

I do agree with Steve in that walkability isn't in my top ten list when it comes to choosing a home. Schools, neighborhood amenities, proximity to retail, city amenities, home itself, larger lot. Movies are literally two minutes away by car and fifteen by bike. That's fine for me. The walkability concept here is kinda different than what I'm accustomed to. I'm used to having major chains and local stores and restaurants a minute from my apartment, not just a bunch of boutiques and overpriced coffee shops.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

There is possibly one point we could agree on: That the vast majority of home buyers in Hutto, Manor, Lakeway, Kyle (except maybe Plum Creek), Buda, "Dripping," etc. could not care less about walkability.

You're right...many of the people who choose to live in such places don't want that lifestyle.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

The initial question was about Red River/Hanckock area and whether bringing light rail to that area will cause homes in that specific area to increase in value. I say it won't. Not more than it normally wold without rail.

My response was essentially that homes in that area are already priced so far above the average and median values for the Austin metro area, there is no price bump to be captured from adding what can arguably be called an incremental benefit at best, for a small subset of the population in that area, and, for some homes, will in fact introduce noise factors that could devalue the homes without adding any benefit at all, because they are outside the very small "walkability" zone to the station.

To be fair, I can come up with hypotheticals where I think a value add might be captured, under certain hypothetical circumstances, but it goes both ways depending on the hypothetical.

With regard to the broader issue of walkability, I will say that the typical buyer, all things being equal, same home, same price in a cookie cutter neighborhood, may in fact allow walking distance to a park, school or coffee shop to break the tie. I put myself in the category as I value that sort of walkability myself.

But, close distance to any of those, or a light rail station, excepting the hard core transit nerd, will NOT cause a buyer to select a sub-par and/or more expensive home over a better home with less "walkability", because the most important thing to most buyers is the home itself, the price and the general location, which in almost all cases, is measured by commute time to a job, school or other fixed destination.

Steve

Steve - the areas that are walkable will continue to out-pace the un-walkable areas. The more walkable these areas get, by increasing density and mixed use and providing more and better transit options, the more desirable these areas will become. Adding light rail that connects to the University, Capital and Downtown will not be an "incremental benefit at best" but rather a major amenity to anyone with a job in one of those destinations (i.e. a huge number of people). That coupled with, if the city gets this right (which they most definitely should) the increased zoning to allow for dense mixed use zoning in close proximity to rail stations will be a tremendous boost in value to anywhere nearby that will increase as the years go by and the area potential becomes fully realized.

It won't happen all at once but if you think that it won't increase the attractiveness of the homes over time - you're just wrong.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Komeht

And those areas are valued accordingly. Walkability is something that people who want it are willing to pay a lot to get it.

I honestly don't think you realize the manner in which your circular logic doesn't connect or make sense. I believe you don't realize it because you only want to believe what you believe, and try to defend it, so nothing else can penetrate your thought process.

Which leads me to, therefore, "those areas" are valued as they are because the lots costs way less and the logistical requirements are less onerous, the type of house much cheaper to build, and because they serve a starter home market. It has absolutely nothing to do with your vision of walkability or your false connection of walkability and affordability.

Steve

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Steve - the areas that are walkable will continue to out-pace the un-walkable areas. The more walkable these areas get, by increasing density and mixed use and providing more and better transit options, the more desirable these areas will become. Adding light rail that connects to the University, Capital and Downtown will not be an "incremental benefit at best" but rather a major amenity to anyone with a job in one of those destinations (i.e. a huge number of people). That coupled with, if the city gets this right (which they most definitely should) the increased zoning to allow for dense mixed use zoning in close proximity to rail stations will be a tremendous boost in value to anywhere nearby that will increase as the years go by and the area potential becomes fully realized.

It won't happen all at once but if you think that it won't increase the attractiveness of the homes over time - you're just wrong.

Unaffordability trumps walkability eventually. Price ceilings kick in, and walkability won't matter anymore because the pool of eligible buyers will shrink so significantly. This is the case downtown, where a fraction of the population can afford to live, or even wants to live because everything else there is so expensive, such as the ability to walk to Whole Foods and pay a lot for groceries.

Steve

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I honestly don't think you realize the manner in which your circular logic doesn't connect or make sense. I believe you don't realize it because you only want to believe what you believe, and try to defend it, so nothing else can penetrate your thought process.

Which leads me to, therefore, "those areas" are valued as they are because the lots costs way less and the logistical requirements are less onerous, the type of house much cheaper to build, and because they serve a starter home market. It has absolutely nothing to do with your vision of walkability or your false connection of walkability and affordability.

Steve

There is no circular reasoning here. Observation confirmed by numbers. That you refuse to acknowledge that people spend their money on the things they value the most is the truly bizarre part.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that walkable urban places all command a premium and un-walkable auto-dependent places, by and large, populate the least desirable districts in Austin?

I'm not making this up out of whole clothe - go price walkable areas and un-walkable areas for yourself and compare like to like. Just as better school districts also command a premium over sub-par ones, so do more urban walkable places command a HUGE premium over completely auto-dependent areas. What you'll find, despite Steve's apparent dismissal is that uniformly and consistently, people pay a premium to live in walkable urban areas. That is not limited to Austin, we're not an aberration . . .this is pretty much universal.

If there's any confirmation bias here, it's by the realtor who demonstrates in comment after comment that he doesn't like and is in fact hostile to making Austin less auto-dependent and lists homes for people selling tract homes in the most auto-dependent areas of town.

The walkable urban places in Austin have out-paced the auto-dependent areas and will continue to do so at an ever increasing rate as the desirability gap between the two widens. Certainly, a rail system, should it come to pass, and all the associated development will accelerate that pace and the places near to it will only out-pace the rest of the market at an ever greater rate.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Unaffordability trumps walkability eventually. Price ceilings kick in, and walkability won't matter anymore because the pool of eligible buyers will shrink so significantly. This is the case downtown, where a fraction of the population can afford to live, or even wants to live because everything else there is so expensive, such as the ability to walk to Whole Foods and pay a lot for groceries.

Steve

Only if we actually do the sensible thing, and build more walkable urban places that people demand. Otherwise, with a very small supply on the market and a huge pool of buyers with more arriving each day from places that make Austin's real estate look like bargain hunting, that ceiling will go up and up and up. And even when markets soften, as they all do eventually, the places that will be most insulated from downward pressure will again be the walkable urban places.