Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2014, 11:50 PM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,236,810 times
Reputation: 2575

Advertisements

CodeNext and “community character” in a changing world

Quote:
So, the question for “community character” is: which determines a community’s character more: the price of living there, or the present form of buildings. Preserving the character of the supply of buildings in the face of new demand means allowing all the change to come in the form of swings in price, as has happened in many places in Austin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2014, 10:38 AM
 
1,430 posts, read 2,361,555 times
Reputation: 832
Clearly the "rights" of people who are moving here should take precedence over the ACTUAL rights of those of who have been here for many years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
207 posts, read 461,479 times
Reputation: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpurcell View Post
Clearly the "rights" of people who are moving here should take precedence over the ACTUAL rights of those of who have been here for many years.
On the other hand the "rights" of those that have been here shouldn't extend to property those people don't own. Want to live in your SFH instead of a garden apartment or townhouse? Fine then, don't sell your lot.

But IMO what really makes the character of a neighborhood isn't the housing as much as it is the people who live there. As the article points out if you hold supply the same the people who made up the neighborhood you loved will gradually get priced out. Personally in my neighborhood I'd rather have some multifamily housing go up than see the people walking their dogs and the flock of kids biking to school replaced with paid dog walkers and a fleet of Lexus SUVs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 11:40 AM
 
1,430 posts, read 2,361,555 times
Reputation: 832
Which is not at all how it actually works. What would happen, instead, is that multifamily would be used to block bust the existing SFH making it increasingly uncomfortable for families to live central and replacing them with students and singles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:18 PM
 
319 posts, read 607,518 times
Reputation: 130
Buildings don't really affect where students/singles live at a high level. Proximity to things they're interested in do. SFHs don't keep students/singles out, as they'll just find roommates to rent whole houses or subdivide the houses. Similarly, families will rent small apartments to get access to good schools. I spent 10 years living in Boston and this is exactly what's happened.

All things being equal, students/singles and families would rather live in appropriate housing for their needs. Residents looking after their "rights" shouldn't be concerned about whether anything is being built, they should be focused on what's being built! That's a far more effective strategy than fighting growth altogether, which is inherently unpredictable. Build 1-2br apartments on 6th St and 4br+ apartments in Tarrytown and you'll get exactly what you want.

The main drawbacks to builder-friendly policies are that residents have to become accustomed to looking at row-homes or condo buildings instead of older SFHs. Also, the value of land increases with density, even if the cost of living decreases. That means that SFHs become increasingly unaffordable. This only happens in desirable and already expensive areas so the impact, largely, is that some rich people are no longer wealthy enough to afford SFHs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,787 posts, read 48,814,423 times
Reputation: 9477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepup View Post
On the other hand the "rights" of those that have been here shouldn't extend to property those people don't own. Want to live in your SFH instead of a garden apartment or townhouse? Fine then, don't sell your lot.
I disagree, the people who live there definitely have a right to have a say over what gets built next to them as it directly impacts their lives. A neighborhood association has a right to collectively have a say over what gets built in their neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:57 PM
 
319 posts, read 607,518 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
the people who live there definitely have a right to have a say over what gets built next to them
That's true. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they shouldn't have a say. The question is, when dispute arises, how are those disputes resolved? Traditionally, the locals almost always get what they want. This property, by the way, seems to cross city, state, and even country lines. A balance of power is missing and we all lose without it.

Cities have problems to solve too. They need to minimize traffic, promote business, promote affordability, etc. They do this by defining plans for changes and arbitrating between neighborhoods for which ones are implemented. Few solutions exist where no one ever loses. You can see the lack of balance here already in the high traffic and rapidly decreasing affordability.

The states and Federal government should also have a say in city planning but for some reason have never shown such an interest. Had there been one, the housing bubble (that is, a rapid increase in prices across the board) may never have occurred.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 02:06 PM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,236,810 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by balor123 View Post
The states and Federal government should also have a say in city planning but for some reason have never shown such an interest. Had there been one, the housing bubble (that is, a rapid increase in prices across the board) may never have occurred.
That seems a little far fetched. There are many beliefs about the causes of the housing bubble -- and they probably, predictably, fall along what ones underlying political philosophy is. I don't think I have ever seen anyone say it could have been prevented by a federal or state role in land use planning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,283 posts, read 2,723,972 times
Reputation: 1040
2013 has been the year there has been a sea change in the perception of how to built greater affordability in Austin.

Private studies of central Austin neighborhoods (which City Demographer Ryan Robinson confirmed during the last housing bond campaign as well with the 10-1 redistricting committee hearings) has given momentum to housing activists who say the problem is less available owner-occupied housing of all types, not whether it is rental or not. That, along with increasing lack of racial diversity emptying central, south and east Austin is causing the council and commissioners to rethink what steps thw city should or should not do to preserve neighborhoods or if the current negotiated downzoning of properties of major arterials is simply making affordability worse.

The current dichotomy is less supply, more demand which is causing a housing crisis which threatens to engulf the original 'no growth' neighborhood activists who can no longer afford the ever-escalating property taxes applied to their homes.

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?

Last edited by ImOnFiya; 01-21-2014 at 04:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:10 PM
 
2,283 posts, read 3,835,048 times
Reputation: 3680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOnFiya View Post
Can Austin still be "Austin" with the presence of middle-class and minorities on the wane?
Nope. Then we become trust-fund Hipsterville, or Yuppietown USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top