Zoning's role in Austin's unaffordability (fit in, apartment complex, lease)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by ImOnFiya

No surprise, this conversation has caused heated debate among the ANC (Austin Neighborhoods Council) with old and news residents, particularly along class and political lines. Can Austin still be "Austin" with the presence of middle-class and minorities on the wane?

We don't have to wonder. We can see how this plays out. Unfortunately, the denouement isn't very pretty.

I was breakfasting at Joe's Coffee Shop recently, and thinking about how the blending of Hispanic and Anglo cultures is a indicator of the health of Austin. Losing that would be the canary in the coal mine.

[brattpowered]

We have to look at what happened in Hyde Park in the 60s and 70s and allow that to happen throughout the central city. Have a developer that wants to buy 4 adjoining single family lots and put at 25 unit apartment complex in? Do it! Dramatically increasing the supply is the only way people will be able to afford to keep living here, and long-term renters who know how politics work here are getting fed up with getting pushed out. The character of Hyde Park hasn't suffered for it.

[balor123]

Have a developer that wants to buy 4 adjoining single family lots and put at 25 unit apartment complex in? Do it!

Better yet, the city could buy up tear-downs and resell them as larger lots for higher density development. Developers don't have patience for that. Plus, the city could use proceeds for rezoning, to create new schools, parks, etc. that's needed for higher density living.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by balor123

Better yet, the city could buy up tear-downs and resell them as larger lots for higher density development. Developers don't have patience for that. Plus, the city could use proceeds for rezoning, to create new schools, parks, etc. that's needed for higher density living.

In Texas, cities have no role in either the construction or operation of schools. Plus, COA's track record on selling land at a profit is almost nonexistent. And the density issue hasn't been in assembling the land - it has been in the never ending NA opposition to up zoning for increasing density.

Today, the NAs (and the reactionaries that populate them) see increasing density as 100% negative - change in the character with only costs, and no benefits. The only solution is to change that equation. Tie city investments that benefit all neighborhood residents such as parks, mass transit, etc. to increased density. As MF moves into the neighborhoods off the arterial streets, incorporate pocket parks into the changed zoning. Plan BRT (or LR!) on the arterials through these areas. Plenty of other benefits the city can "hand out" tied to up zoning.

There has to be a carrot, because the stick won't work. And as SF has found out, if you don't increase density, you will never solve the affordability problem.

[buffettjr]

SCM53, I really don't feel like there is anything that can be done to solve the affordability problem. NYC has extremely high density and also terrible affordability. I certainly see your arguments about how zoning and regulation can impact the cost of living, but at the end of the day I think migration patterns trump everything. As long as we have more people moving here than housing that can be built, and as long as traffic will remain terrible and produce a desire for the wealthy to live as close as possible to downtown, costs will spiral upward regardless of how many high density projects we try to build in the face of an ever-increasing population.

I certainly don't deny that zoning and regulation can add to the cost of housing, but I feel you ascribe far too much of our increasing costs to those factors. The reality is Austin deals with zoning, view corridors, environmental protections, yes, but in the face of a rapidly rising population and job market.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by buffettjr

SCM53, I really don't feel like there is anything that can be done to solve the affordability problem. NYC has extremely high density and also terrible affordability. I certainly see your arguments about how zoning and regulation can impact the cost of living, but at the end of the day I think migration patterns trump everything.

The reality is Austin deals with zoning, view corridors, environmental protections, yes, but in the face of a rapidly rising population and job market.

I don't think increased density will solve the problem of rising prices in the central core. But to do nothing smacks of perfect as the enemy of the good. I'm enough of a macroeconomist to believe that even in the face of increasing demand, increasing supply will moderate price increases.

Increasing density doesn't mean paving the town with MF, nor does it mean ever building anything in a view corridor. If you've seen the map of the city, by zoning, you will be aghast at how much is SF. Lining the arterials, and maybe a block in, with SF-6, or MF-4 would be a great start. Also allowing small lot - SF-4A - on SF lots big enough to split would increase density w/o changing the SF feel of any neighborhood.

Plenty of ways to increase supply, short of throwing up your hands. Then tapping the tax payer for conscious salve in the form of taxpayer subsidized housing - that only helps a minuscule number of lottery winners.

[verybadgnome]

Wow I'm surprised but there seems to be something of a consensus in this thread and I agree with the bulk of it.

Theoretically if we can keep adding units of all types as both infill and in the periphery at such a rate that the occupancy rates drops from 97% (or whatever it currently is) to something like 90% there will be a noticeable affect on rents. Rents may not go down but they will increase at a lower rate.

But in my neighborhood? Sure! Line East Cesar Chavez and East 7th with apartments and condos, those roads can take it. I'm not against relaxing height restrictions either. We already have a mid-rise on the lake in the form of RBJ and it has done absolutely nothing detrimental to the neighborhood. The bogeyman of density is just an illusion.

[Austin97]

why do we need affordability in the core?

[balor123]

Tie city investments that benefit all neighborhood residents such as parks, mass transit, etc. to increased density.

Connecting zoning to city improvements sounds like a marvelous idea. However, I notice that the city tends to reject a lot of plans for other reasons too. A statement of support might invite more interest in those projects, as people with resources to implement them don't want to waste their time pursuing ventures that appear likely to fail.

at the end of the day I think migration patterns trump everything

NYC has the same problem we do. Manhattan has extremely high density but terrible affordability because it has grown so slowly over the last 3 decades. You're right that migration patterns are a huge factor. No matter how much you build, people will always swamp it. A Chinese friend tells me that they've solved that problem but limiting migration between cities. Anyway, that's not really an excuse to stop buildling, as not building only makes the problem worse. In the end, something needs to discourage further growth but it doesn't have to be low affordability.

[centralaustinite]

I've actually seen this play out in a positive way in my neighborhood. Four SF-3 lots, one empty, three with old falling down houses, good macro location but not great micro location (adjacent to a high school, old MF complex, heavily trafficked narrow arterial road). Two to the three lots were downzoned to neighborhood office during the neighborhood plan process but nothing ever was done.

But finally demand for close in locations was too great. Developer bought the lots and put one single family and four duplexes on the property. Nearly everyone has sold before completion! Price per sq foot is in line with the broader neighborhood ~ $200 per sq foot but the overall price for a single unit is well below the price of anything new or updated in the area. 10 years ago, three families occupied those lots, by the end of 2014, there will be nine households in the same space!