Neighborhoods are a Changin' (Austin, Friendswood: cul-de-sac, first time home buyer, buyers)

[SmartGXL]

Originally Posted by Austin97

i like hill country modern. Modern lines but local materials like limestone or leuders. Low pitch roofs reflecting that we dont have snow.

I like this style, but this floor plan looks like it is mostly garage...I would like to take this design, and build my own custom home, floorpan etc...but yes this style is perfect!

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

And if that sanctity weren't upheld, we'd all be paying the price for that, as well, just a different price in quality of the city. Giving free rein to paving over the city does not preserve quality of life, and for that matter, is another example of killing the goose that laid the golden egg so it would eventually have a literal financial cost when the city is paved over and those who came here because of what Austin was move on to the next now nicer place.

What is this "paving over" you speak of? I see vacant land, wasted space and crabgrass lawns ALL over town, not just out in the 'burbs. And when you consider that the city itself (never mind the greater metro) has quadrupled in size over the last 45 years, it might make one think that a) downtown's limits should be expanded, and b) close in FORMERLY suburban neighborhoods need to densify or pay a hefty price to be left alone; and many of them do. THAT'S as good an explanation for why Austin is "unaffordable" as any.
Note that there is no option "c)" stop people from moving here. That's not happening; but if it did everyone of us who lived here now would be crying about our ruined quality of life. Growth is what Austin has and what it's been best at, since 1839. Time to get out in front on this, not fight a rearguard action to keep most of Austin look like it did in 1963.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by pop251808

What is this "paving over" you speak of? I see vacant land, wasted space and crabgrass lawns ALL over town, not just out in the 'burbs. And when you consider that the city itself (never mind the greater metro) has quadrupled in size over the last 45 years, it might make one think that a) downtown's limits should be expanded, and b) close in FORMERLY suburban neighborhoods need to densify or pay a hefty price to be left alone; and many of them do. THAT'S as good an explanation for why Austin is "unaffordable" as any.
Note that there is no option "c)" stop people from moving here. That's not happening; but if it did everyone of us who lived here now would be crying about our ruined quality of life. Growth is what Austin has and what it's been best at, since 1839. Time to get out in front on this, not fight a rearguard action to keep most of Austin look like it did in 1963.

this should happen on the eastside since most of those homes are just teardowns anyway. 3-5 story row houses, condos etc.

I would even be in favor of programs that enable the original owner to be entitled to one of the units in the new complex so they dont get displaced.

In return for giving the owner one of the units, they get reduced zoning challenges to enable the density they need to make up for the free unit.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by pop251808

What is this "paving over" you speak of? I see vacant land, wasted space and crabgrass lawns ALL over town, not just out in the 'burbs. And when you consider that the city itself (never mind the greater metro) has quadrupled in size over the last 45 years, it might make one think that a) downtown's limits should be expanded, and b) close in FORMERLY suburban neighborhoods need to densify or pay a hefty price to be left alone; and many of them do. THAT'S as good an explanation for why Austin is "unaffordable" as any.
Note that there is no option "c)" stop people from moving here. That's not happening; but if it did everyone of us who lived here now would be crying about our ruined quality of life. Growth is what Austin has and what it's been best at, since 1839. Time to get out in front on this, not fight a rearguard action to keep most of Austin look like it did in 1963.

One of the appeals of Austin all that time has been the fact that it retains its greenery, in trees and, yes, the grass you appear to abhor. Having set backs and side yards does mean that you can't stack people up on top of each other like cordwood like they do in some cities and must allow SOME room between houses, but it also contributes to the draw of the city (except for those who get all excited at the idea of cordwood). Now, making downtown just one building cheek to jowl with another might enable lots more people to be stuffed in, but it also makes it more likely that people won't WANT to live there, which is, I guess, another way of solving the problem of too many people wanting to live in an area.

[clarksvillemom]

houses built in the 40-60s are the best, imo. you can fix issues that come up. hate mcmansions and ugly boxes. like some of the mod homes

[ashbeeigh]

I'd rather see those types of homes bebuilt instead of the plop, plop, plop of the suburbs and the 90s suburbs that are all boxes and you can tell the home next to yours has the exact same features, their home is just painted another color.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by clarksvillemom

houses built in the 40-60s are the best, imo. you can fix issues that come up. hate mcmansions and ugly boxes. like some of the mod homes

Shouldn't owners be allowed to build what they think they want/think will sell?

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

I'd rather see those types of homes bebuilt instead of the plop, plop, plop of the suburbs and the 90s suburbs that are all boxes and you can tell the home next to yours has the exact same features, their home is just painted another color.

Basically, almost all houses built from the 40's into the '60's were tract houses; a few of them have even aged well. Many others, not so much. And, who do you know that wants only one bathroom, anymore?

[orngkat]

who do you know that wants only one bathroom, anymore?

If I lived by myself, one bathroom would be just fine.

[ashbeeigh]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Shouldn't owners be allowed to build what they think they want/think will sell?

Basically, almost all houses built from the 40's into the '60's were tract houses; a few of them have even aged well. Many others, not so much. And, who do you know that wants only one bathroom, anymore?

Sure. There are plenty of people that like those things. If I were a family and wanted to be close to families that my kids could grow up with it would be ideal (even thought about it when I was dating someone who had kids and wanted to buy a house). But for someone who is single and likes to be closer to town the other would be a better option in my opnion.

Originally Posted by orngkat

If I lived by myself, one bathroom would be just fine.

Going to second this.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

One of the appeals of Austin all that time has been the fact that it retains its greenery, in trees and, yes, the grass you appear to abhor. Having set backs and side yards does mean that you can't stack people up on top of each other like cordwood like they do in some cities and must allow SOME room between houses, but it also contributes to the draw of the city (except for those who get all excited at the idea of cordwood). Now, making downtown just one building cheek to jowl with another might enable lots more people to be stuffed in, but it also makes it more likely that people won't WANT to live there, which is, I guess, another way of solving the problem of too many people wanting to live in an area.

Hey, I like grass as much as the next guy who lives in a city; but I have to seriously question its preponderance as the reason for moving TO a city.
I think your understanding of what makes a city attractive to people, and I'm not just talking about its physical appearance, is faulty. In city after city, country after country, it's the more urban environments that attract the most residents, the most tourists, and command higher prices. Flat, listless suburbs that all look like one another are, in many areas of the country, rather flat, pricewise and in population growth. Austin has its suburban appearance essentially forced on it. Since WWII, the city "planners" have fallen for all suburban, all the time and no one is allowed to develop differently. I conclude that Austin prospers DESPITE its outdated suburban-uber-alles development code. It's that great a place, for now.