Where in Austin would you find many homes of this style? (Earth: neighborhood, square footage)

[balor123]

To be fair, tearing down homes doesn't have to make housing more expensive. Policy causes that. SFHs cost roughly $350k - $400k in central Austin now. Replacing each one of those with 4 town homes reduces the price of land to $100k, plus whatever the building costs. Change is the price of growth of course but as you mentioned, you worked for that.

Whenever demand rises, either supply needs to rise with it or prices will rise. We haven't increased supply enough to sink all the demand (and perhaps never could). ImagineAustin will hopefully address this problem with the code rewrite but it will be some time before that kicks in.

I don't think it's fair to blame migrants for rising house prices either. Austin has been rapidly growing for over 30 years now, without much impact to prices. That's just bringing out the pitch forks IMO. They're rising all over the country and it has a lot more to do with housing bubble mentality than any other factor, fueled by interest rate changes, the real estate industry, and politicians. The bias is clear in how economists define "a healthy market", that is one in which prices are rising!

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by hillcountryheart

Precisely why long-time Austinites are frustrated. I have lived here 30 years and have volunteered in the community and been active in city, county and state government issues - to help make Austin the place it is today. But I'm now priced out of anything central.

I could not have moved before now due to family circumstances (caring for terminally ill parent, divorce, children) and now that I can move, people are coming in from California with huge budgets compared to what someone native to Austin would have. Yes, this has been going on for some time. Yes, it's capitalism.

But it hurts to be priced out of the city you built. I still have a bit more time here and then I'm leaving. Making central housing even *more* expensive by doing tear-down new builds is depressing.

The affordability is the inevitable and predictable result of a restrictive regulatory regime meeting explosive demand.

Austin is one of the least dense cities of its size in the country. There are vacant and underutilized lots everywhere in central Austin. There is all the profit incentive in the world to build on them. And yet, our regulatory regime makes it virtually impossible to do so economically.

What happens when you have a product in high demand and prevent the market from making more? It gets a lot more expensive very fast.

[balor123]

Austin has been very pro-growth in the last decade actually. The problems you speak of were in the 80s-90s and then too Austin still grew a lot. The growth was simply not urban. You can't blame them, though, urban areas weren't in demand back then. If anything, clamping down on highway construction and creating huge preserves should have encouraged densification.

The rules we have are lax compared to what I've seen in the Northeast but yes are still restrictive. Unlike most other cities, Austin is working hard to relax those rules now! Cities just move slowly and infrastructure takes time and money to build. Austin has been relatively weak in that respect and voters are partly to blame there. Other cities are just luckier in that they experienced urban growth in earlier decades when it was popular already and when technology didn't foster political gridlock.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by balor123

The problems you speak of were in the 80s-90s and then too Austin still grew a lot. The growth was simply not urban. You can't blame them, though, urban areas weren't in demand back then. If anything, clamping down on highway construction and creating huge preserves should have encouraged densification.

The post-SOS council, elected in '92, did exactly what you advocate - "clamping down on highway construction". And until the Mopac HOT lanes under construction, here hasn't been a main lane of highway added inside the city limits since. And the mess we have now is the direct result.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by balor123

Austin has been very pro-growth in the last decade actually. The problems you speak of were in the 80s-90s and then too Austin still grew a lot.

McMansion.
"Stealth Dorms" restriction.
Neighborhood opt-out of VMU corridors.

All in the past decade (approximately).

[orngkat]

Making central housing even *more* expensive by doing tear-down new builds is depressing.

My issue with the tear-downs happening all around my neighborhood is that a modestly sized home is replaced with one of 3500-4000 sf. Building single family homes of that size in the central core does not promote density so for a city who shouts that agenda, it does not make any sense. It sets the stage for every new listing of a previously modest house to be torn down rather than to consider other options.

[A-Tex]

Originally Posted by orngkat

My issue with the tear-downs happening all around my neighborhood is that a modestly sized home is replaced with one of 3500-4000 sf. Building single family homes of that size in the central core does not promote density so for a city who shouts that agenda, it does not make any sense. It sets the stage for every new listing of a previously modest house to be torn down rather than to consider other options.

And it replaces something that was affordable for many families - with good schools, nearby amenities, close-in commute and a family oriented atmosphere - with something that very few can afford.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by orngkat

Building single family homes of that size in the central core does not promote density so for a city who shouts that agenda, it does not make any sense.

Let me ask you to consider an alternative POV. The family of four or five that wants a house of that size now has no choice than to move to Bee Cave, Belterra - you name it. So actually, we do increase density - because there are now five people on the same size lot that previously housed two.

Besides, shouldn't there be a complete housing type inventory inside the city limits? Haven't we exacerbated the family flight problem by making that house type only available in the 'burbs?

Not trying to pick a fight - just asking you to consider an alternative.

[orngkat]

Let me ask you to consider an alternative POV

Believe me, I have tried to figure out who the market for these big houses is and it is not usually families. It appears to be mostly YUPs without kids or rentals. And the vast majority of folks with kids who can afford to buy these houses would be sending their kids to private schools anyway.

[petro]

Originally Posted by orngkat

My issue with the tear-downs happening all around my neighborhood is that a modestly sized home is replaced with one of 3500-4000 sf. Building single family homes of that size in the central core does not promote density so for a city who shouts that agenda, it does not make any sense. It sets the stage for every new listing of a previously modest house to be torn down rather than to consider other options.

What neighborhood are you referring to exactly? Because with current permit restrictions, you could never build a 3500-4000 SF house on a typical single-family lot in central Austin.