CodeNEXT4 (Austin: townhomes, architecture, land)

[Need4Camaro]

So just respectfully stating how I really feel about this and why it makes me worry.

I personally would absolutely dread to see those homes in W.Lake Hills, Tarrytown, ect get torn down and replaced by multiplexes, condo's or high rises.

I do understand that affordability is a big issue here but I can't help but question if the increased supply will really change things or if certain politicians will just smile and pocket the increased tax revenue while we see maybe a 10 - 15% overall price reduction in the intown areas as land values also increase and continue on without any transportation improvements ... That could still leave the mass majority of the middle class population unable to obtain a convenient property to the city center and those that are able to afford it will still take a huge hit in square footage.

I get there's no easy answer to this but...I'm just stating I don't know that this idea, especially in the en-masse eradication of characterized neighborhoods automatically means things are going to be better for everyone. Of course I could be wrong it just seems rather extreme to me.

[Austin97]

It wont be en masse. Duplexes are already legal and you dont see them everywhere. The min lot size goes from about 5700 to 5000 and the FAR (which was only implemented in 2006) is increased to .6 from .4

All the outrage is based on fear mongering. Neighborhoods arent going to wholesale be converted to duplexes. I doubt even 1 in 10 homes will get converted.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I personally would absolutely dread to see those homes in W.Lake Hills, Tarrytown, ect get torn down and replaced by multiplexes, condo's or high rises.

Why, exactly? You like they way it looks, I suppose, but you (presumably) do not own those houses or lots. And if they do not look good, they will not sell....meaning they wouldn't get built in the first place. Will the definition of 'look good' meet your criteria? It doesn't really matter. I think I am getting to be a cranky old libertarian; someone owns the land, they should be able to utilize it withing the parameters of logistical practicality - traffic, water, power, limits on encroachment, and within building code. The opposition is more about not allowing ANY change but couching the position in (as mentioned above) 'fear-mongering'. The real effect will be a minimal change over any short period of time. You, as an owner of a particular home, should not get to have control over your property value by controlling someone else's property value.

I love those neighborhoods, btw, they are very picturesque. But it is not my business on whether it changes or not.

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

politicians will just smile and pocket the increased tax revenue while we see maybe a 10 - 15% overall price reduction in the intown areas as land values also increase and continue on without any transportation improvements

Tax revenues don't increase unless budgets do, and budgets have to have a basis. So rates will go down to offset increase in value, as they have done for years. Increases in budget, of course, might include transportation improvements. And improving transportation is much, much easier in higher density areas rather than transporting the masses of people from the far reaches.

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

That could still leave the mass majority of the middle class population unable to obtain a convenient property to the city center and those that are able to afford it will still take a huge hit in square footage.

Right now, the mass majority cannot get a convenient property to the city center even WITH a huge hit in square footage. At least there will be an option, which there currently isn't. And not that it is any of my business what size house someone buys, there is no inherent 'right' to have a 3,000 or 4,000 square foot house. If you want one, live in Circle C or Rough Hollow or wherever, not central.

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

especially in the en-masse eradication of characterized neighborhoods automatically means things are going to be better for everyone. Of course I could be wrong it just seems rather extreme to me.

It won't be better for everyone. Nothing really ever is. But is will be better for a lot more people than it will be 'worse' for. The 'en-masse eradication' is CNC sales pitch to scare people into opposing the plan; and Austin97 is correct - the changes will be gradual.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by ashbeeigh

Because if the market decides developers would buy all the land surrounding downtown and build “luxury” apartments and condos. This is about smart development and not forcing families who have lived in Austin for generations to be taxed out of their homes because I developed wants to put said “luxury” on their land. The land development code is broken and leaves out those that aren’t low income but not making six figures, which is a lot of people here.

While I understand the pressure of taxes, it is what it is. Taxes are taxes. If you are 65, you can defer them and there is no force on you to move. You want to leave the property (or its value) to your kids? Then pay the property taxes or sell it now. There is also no natural right to have your cake (a valuable property) and eat it too (leave it to the kids when you die).

Since the actual tax rate has been trending down for some years now and the appraised value is limited to a 10 percent increase, the actual increase in taxes is a little less than 10% per year max, so it stays well below (at least for a period of time) the market value. While your taxes may be going up, your net worth is going up much more. If your taxes get too high, you can take out a HEL to pay them, if you want, which have rates of 5-6%, give or take. You are not actually FORCED out of your house, you just have to decide whether it is worthwhile to lose some equity to stay there.

Now, if you just bought your home and it is not paid off, then you might have issues financing your taxes - but those people just put blinders on when they bought the house if they did not consider the issues and bought right up to their limit.

[riaelise]

I'm one of those who doesn't like modern homes, especially the ones build within the last ten or so years. I prefer traditional and historic homes - absolutely love homes that have extensive trimwork, cased windows, beadboard, narrow plank wood floors. Love wraparound porches. I like grand fireplaces and cased windows. What some consider "clean lines" I consider boxy and uninspiring.

I guess "in town" the modern boxes are popular, because they aren't popular where I live and builders aren't building any.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by riaelise

I'm one of those who doesn't like modern homes, especially the ones build within the last ten or so years. I prefer traditional and historic homes - absolutely love homes that have extensive trimwork, cased windows, beadboard, narrow plank wood floors. Love wraparound porches. I like grand fireplaces and cased windows. What some consider "clean lines" I consider boxy and uninspiring.

I guess "in town" the modern boxes are popular, because they aren't popular where I live and builders aren't building any.

As I recall, the Great Recession squashed a couple of super energy-efficient Craftsman style neighborhood projects before they ever started...north north Austin and Cedar Park-ish, IIRC.

Would have been interesting to see what might have come of those without the 5 year building slowdown.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by riaelise

I'm one of those who doesn't like modern homes, especially the ones build within the last ten or so years. I prefer traditional and historic homes - absolutely love homes that have extensive trimwork, cased windows, beadboard, narrow plank wood floors. Love wraparound porches. I like grand fireplaces and cased windows. What some consider "clean lines" I consider boxy and uninspiring.

I guess "in town" the modern boxes are popular, because they aren't popular where I live and builders aren't building any.

I guess anything goes with "townhomes"...these are in Round Rock and sold out before the first one was completed.

[ScoPro]

Those are not in Round Rock, they are in Brushy Creek.
That new ugly ghetto is three blocks from my house. The backs of the ugly 5 townhome buildings face Great Oaks and O’Connor. They look like cheap, ugly barns from the street.

Did I mention ugly?

[Trainwreck20]

Totally down a different path, but I though Brushy Creek was in Round Rock? Or is it still its own MUD and just in the ETJ?

[ScoPro]

BC MUD is still a separate unincorporated entity not in the City of Round Rock. We are however in the RR ETJ. The newer Highland Horizon neighborhood on the south side of 620 is also a part of the BC MUD.
We voted ourselves out of the Austin ETJ in the late 1990s as soon as allowed to do so by the legislature.