Where's the very last place in the Austin Metroplex you'd live? (Round Rock: school, university)

[Aquitaine]

Hehehe, but that's apartment living everywhere! My wife refused to look at condos that shared even one wall with anyone else after 5 years of that (and heated arguments from hummer guy at midnight, and being able to count on his going berserk whenever the Philadelphia Eagles win...or lose...or appear...). Oddly enough we got away with more parties and noise in Brooklyn than we do in PA (where she is in school) -- we used to have rock band parties in NYC (when rock band was new) and if we so much as do a *** here in PA our neighbors bang on the ceiling.

Just out of curiosity, is the problem with your neighborhood that old homes are being torn down and replaced, or that it's out-of-towners doing it? We saw a heck of a lot of old houses in central Austin that were in desperate need of attention, though very few that had to be totally torn down. Finding that sweet spot between 'character' and 'not run down' was tough in several neighborhoods we saw.

[passionatearts]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

When did we get a Metroplex?

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Nobody here calls the Austin metro area the "Metroplex." That's a Dallas-Ft. Worth thing.

I'm going to echo what many people here have said and say that I would not want to live in the Rundberg/I-35 area, and that area around Reagan High School.

[supernaut112]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Just out of curiosity, is the problem with your neighborhood that old homes are being torn down and replaced, or that it's out-of-towners doing it? We saw a heck of a lot of old houses in central Austin that were in desperate need of attention, though very few that had to be totally torn down. Finding that sweet spot between 'character' and 'not run down' was tough in several neighborhoods we saw.

I cannot point the finger at out-of-towners; I'd have to do my research. I do know that some people from out of state bought a historic property several years ago and had it demolished; the property owner thought that they intended to restore it. This was a house that could have been classified as a historic property. There was also a big, beautiful Gothic Revival-style home on Blanco that the Texas Historic Society was fighting to preserve, but the owners' children opted to have it leveled instead so they could make quick bank.

There's a gorgeous Queen Anne-style property on my street built in the 1910s that I would dearly love to purchase and renovate, if I had the money. But it's obvious that the realtor is trying to unload the acreage because the house itself needs way too much work (I took a peek inside). So I've been walking by and taking pictures of the place, so it'll always have a place in my memory.

I expect that developers will eventually put a bunch of McCondos on it.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by supernaut112

I cannot point the finger at out-of-towners; I'd have to do my research. I do know that some people from out of state bought a historic property several years ago and had it demolished; the property owner thought that they intended to restore it. This was a house that could have been classified as a historic property. There was also a big, beautiful Gothic Revival-style home on Blanco that the Texas Historic Society was fighting to preserve, but the owners' children opted to have it leveled instead so they could make quick bank.

There's a gorgeous Queen Anne-style property on my street built in the 1910s that I would dearly love to purchase and renovate, if I had the money. But it's obvious that the realtor is trying to unload the acreage because the house itself needs way too much work (I took a peek inside). So I've been walking by and taking pictures of the place, so it'll always have a place in my memory.

I expect that developers will eventually put a bunch of McCondos on it.

Ouch. That really, really hurts. Once those lovelies are gone, they're lost to us forever.

[verybadgnome]

I can just tell by looking at them that many homes in my area are simply not worth rehabbing. When you need a new roof, new siding, central hvac, new electric box, foundation repairs, etc. it adds up very quickly just to preserve something less than 1,000 sq. feet. On the plus size there are enough potential buyers that value the older architectural styles that examples that aren't too far gone will be brought back to their former luster (and sometimes and then some).

Not sure they are out-of-staters but it seems there is quite a group of smaller companies that specialize in buying low, rehabbing and then reselling. I know one property in my area on Holly St where a 0.15 acre lot was subdivided into two and will have a pair of $350k homes on them. Amazingly enough, at least to me, is that many of these properties are bought with cash (there is a website that shows actual prices paid and payment type) which now leads me to think maybe they aren't small businesses after all.

[Aquitaine]

Fair enough, but if you're going to blame the current quasi-rich folks who are buying and leveling these places, you also need to blame the rich folks from 100 years ago whose descendants didn't make bank to keep hold of them.

Who wouldn't love a 1910 Queen Anne house on their street? That's the best position to be in -- it's not yours, you don't have to maintain it, but you get to reap the benefits of having it nearby. It sucks that the market doesn't consider them worthwhile investments, but if you look at the places where old houses like that do get remodeled rather than leveled, you are looking at San Francisco -- where the cost of living on the same street would rapidly price you, me, and most anyone else in this thread out of the area.

Particularly with the kind of estate taxes we have in this country, we've made the statement that we don't believe that big-ticket items like that should remain in any other than richest families -- and particularly in Texas, where you might afford the estate taxes but then get killed by the property taxes on a fancy old house. There are good reasons why we've set things up that way (whatever you might think of estate taxes) but this is a natural consequence. You can't have it both ways.

People moving in and buying McCondos is usually a sign that they're prospering, even if they're prospering in poor taste. That's one of my objections to San Francisco. Everybody wants to keep the old-timey, super fancy qualities of a lot of the neighborhoods, but of course nobody wants to pay for them, and so a city that prides itself on its progressive qualities long ago priced out everyone very rich folks to East bay or else the seedy side of SF. Everyone wants a swanky street of Victorian houses, but try remodeling anything. If the city thinks your house is "historic," you can barely touch anything and are stuck with the inefficiency and waste of a very old home unless you can spend a small fortune to both modernize it while keeping its character. And if you can do that, good for you! You're richer than I'll probably ever be!

Lots of upward social mobility and people having money who didn't have money before = more McCondos. It's why stereotypically old money looks down on stereotypically new money. I don't have a solution for it: for so long as people have the freedom to earn more money and for so long as desiring their own space is a human trait and for so long as there is affordable space, people will want to pack the most house they can get into the most space they can get for the least amount of money. Some of us (hopefully) are willing to sacrifice some of that space or pay a little more to retain (or add, for new construction) 'character.' Doesn't mean it's not a tragedy when a beautiful house that has been a fixture for 100 years is torn down. I just have a hard time blaming the person who is tearing it down.

[supernaut112]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Doesn't mean it's not a tragedy when a beautiful house that has been a fixture for 100 years is torn down. I just have a hard time blaming the person who is tearing it down.

You make a lot of valid points. And honestly? I don't see why any family would possibly need such a large, historic home anyway. It's far too big for a family of two, and it's far too big for a family of four.

But why can't someone save this poor thing, refurbish it and turn it into business space — law offices, maybe? A new restaurant? Or a B&B/wedding space? A place where all of the community could gather and enjoy its beauty?

[Aquitaine]

That does happen a lot in some of the older east coast towns. My great-grandfather was the Postmaster of Annapolis (or of Maryland...I can't remember) and his house became known as the 'Old Postmaster's House.' My grandparents eventually sold it and today it's occupied by a law firm and an insurance agent, I think, but they've kept it up.

But here you have the same problem as you do in SF, even if it's not quite to the same extent. Neither of us could afford to live on Duke of Gloucester Street in Annapolis in any house made in any year.

I would expect that a town like Austin should have its share of law firms and B&Bs moving in to accommodate the population growth, but there are a lot more old houses that need this kind of attention than there are B&Bs to renovate them ... and always will be.

[mimimomx3]

I love DT, the Domain, the East side/Cherrywood, areas around Mopac. I'd prefer not to live north of 183, South of Town Lake, west of 360, or east of Airport.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by cBach

I'm with you on that, but Cedar Park would be the exception because of the Metrorail access.

Don't you live in Steiner Ranch, which is just about as far out there and non-commuter friendly as say all of those other places?

btw i don't consider Cedar Park to be really close to metrorail unless you live close to Lakeline Mall area.