Dire impact of rezoning on Austin's neighborhoods (West: home, purchaser)

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

A real estate real estate agent that profited from the 90s and 00s in central Austin, sure ya didn’t, sweetheart.


1) You’re not getting that almost every single city in existence is going through the exact same growing pains. Austin is not unique in this regard. This is a systemic issue where our entire economy is predicated on exponential growth in order to fund your retirement.


2) Since the entire modern world is predicated on exponential growth, it’s worth pointing out that metro Austin's growth is the slowest it's been in the postwar period, with the 2020 Census likely to show growth in the 30% range from 2010.


3) Given the environmental and overpopulation death march we’re on, we won’t even have a choice soon. I agree that densification can be done tastefully, leave large swaths of single-family homes in tact, and without damage to Austin’s tree canopy.

"Lies, damned lies.....and statistics"

Measuring growth by percentage increases isn't what tells the story. Adding nearly a half-million people between 2000 and 2010 can hardly be minimized just because it showed a decrease in the rate of growth compared to previous decades. By your count, that's another half-million people increase from 2010 to present.

A half-million here, a half-million there...pretty soon you're talking about a LOT of people.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

"Lies, damned lies.....and statistics"

Measuring growth by percentage increases isn't what tells the story. Adding nearly a half-million people between 2000 and 2010 can hardly be minimized just because it showed a decrease in the rate of growth compared to previous decades. By your count, that's another half-million people increase from 2010 to present.

A half-million here, a half-million there...pretty soon you're talking about a LOT of people.

That is exactly the point I’m trying to make. This is happening to the entire world, and the entire modern world is based off exponential growth. We have to adapt and completely rethink civilization and finance from the ground up, but the people who enjoyed the golden times of exponential growth are whining the loudest about how things should never change. If you’re living off a pension, 401(k), or Social Security, you’re part of that crowd.

Also, statistics only “lie” if you’re math illiterate.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

A real estate real estate agent that profited from the 90s and 00s in central Austin, sure ya didn’t, sweetheart.


1) You’re not getting that almost every single city in existence is going through the exact same growing pains. Austin is not unique in this regard. This is a systemic issue where our entire economy is predicated on exponential growth in order to fund your retirement.


2) Since the entire modern world is predicated on exponential growth, it’s worth pointing out that metro Austin's growth is the slowest it's been in the postwar period, with the 2020 Census likely to show growth in the 30% range from 2010.


3) Given the environmental and overpopulation death march we’re on, we won’t even have a choice soon. I agree that densification can be done tastefully, leave large swaths of single-family homes in tact, and without damage to Austin’s tree canopy.

You have no idea what my real estate niche or the area I primarily serve is (hint - it's not Austin). And I did not become a real estate agent until 2005.


Good luck with #3. So far, that's not what's being seen. How EXACTLY do you propose to do that (and what is your personal investment in it, since you chose to try to go there).

[ScoPro]

I’ve always thought garage apartments out behind the main house were a good idea for rentals, guests, and hubby's’ “dog house”.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

I’ve always thought garage apartments out behind the main house were a good idea for rentals, guests, and hubby's’ “dog house”.

Likewise. Always have. That's the kind of density I could easily get behind.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Yes, it is. Throwing up a house like that does not make one immune from the predictable consequences of one's actions nor does it remove from others the right to critique your decision. You don't have to accept it, you don't have to like it, but they absolutely do have that right.

Oh, I am not disagreeing with your rights, either - you don't have to like it, but you DO have to accept it, more or less. You can 'not accepted it' by imposing restrictive covenants (an HOA, but that horse left the barn years ago) or through city zoning (which involves a lot more people than just you). Lobby and petition and go go council meetings. Join CNC. Whatever. But at the end of the day, for better or worse, you will have to accept the outcome.

I am not saying I like those style of houses, but I also realize that that is irrelevant. I am not saying that I would want the increased density on my street unless the street could handle it. But in my observations, most of the houses are not that bad. Most of the places converted to two living units on a property are a house and over-garage apartment. It is disingenuous to look at the worst examples and pretend that that is what everything is going to look like.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

"Lies, damned lies.....and statistics"

Measuring growth by percentage increases isn't what tells the story. Adding nearly a half-million people between 2000 and 2010 can hardly be minimized just because it showed a decrease in the rate of growth compared to previous decades. By your count, that's another half-million people increase from 2010 to present.

A half-million here, a half-million there...pretty soon you're talking about a LOT of people.

This right here.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Good luck with #3. So far, that's not what's being seen. How EXACTLY do you propose to do that (and what is your personal investment in it, since you chose to try to go there).

Thanks for the good luck wishes. That's all your generation will be known for beyond ignoring scientists for 50 years. Also, did you know Mike Judge back in the day? I like talking to you because it's like talking to Peggy Hill.

If you actually read the CodeNEXT drafts, you can get a pretty good idea of what their priorities are. They align with yours apart from having their head in the sand about the inevitability of population growth. Almost nothing is being changed in the existing single family residential neighborhoods. The main change is that high-density residential will be permitted and incentivized just about everywhere commercial activity is. Bus rapid transit, when done properly with dedicated lanes, signal priority, platform boarding, electric motors, and service every 5-15 minutes, can move more people per lane while improving air quality and noise pollution.

Here's a map to compare the CodeNEXT draft to current zoning.

All buildings and all neighborhoods look cookie cutter in the first decade or after they're built. I agree that many modern houses and apartment complexes overuse the angular, boxy style, and I dislike the bad color combinations as well, but the same can be said of midcentury architecture. The postmodern psuedo-Baroque flourishes from the 80s and 90s are a mixed bag as well. As has always been occurring, the buildings that withstand the test of time will be well-regarded and preserved.

I would like to pretend that my finances can grow exponentially forever, that any place I lived never had to change, and that both of those could happen without massive environmental degradation but I don't have that luxury.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Thanks for the good luck wishes. That's all your generation will be known for beyond ignoring scientists for 50 years. Also, did you know Mike Judge back in the day? I like talking to you because it's like talking to Peggy Hill.

If you actually read the CodeNEXT drafts, you can get a pretty good idea of what their priorities are. They align with yours apart from having their head in the sand about the inevitability of population growth. Almost nothing is being changed in the existing single family residential neighborhoods. The main change is that high-density residential will be permitted and incentivized just about everywhere commercial activity is. Bus rapid transit, when done properly with dedicated lanes, signal priority, platform boarding, electric motors, and service every 5-15 minutes, can move more people per lane while improving air quality and noise pollution.

Here's a map to compare the CodeNEXT draft to current zoning.

All buildings and all neighborhoods look cookie cutter in the first decade or after they're built. I agree that many modern houses and apartment complexes overuse the angular, boxy style, and I dislike the bad color combinations as well, but the same can be said of midcentury architecture. The postmodern psuedo-Baroque flourishes from the 80s and 90s are a mixed bag as well. As has always been occurring, the buildings that withstand the test of time will be well-regarded and preserved.

I would like to pretend that my finances can grow exponentially forever, that any place I lived never had to change, and that both of those could happen without massive environmental degradation but I don't have that luxury.

Boy, you really are childish and ageist, aren't you? "Your generation." What are you, 12? And completely unediucated and ignorant about what "my generation" was like and tried to accomplish, as well.

Again, what's your personal stake in this? What's your source of employment? You failed to answer that after making assumptions about mine.

And, no, if you spend a lot of time in older neighborhoods you learn that, while some have been modified, for the most part they were built not just alike, though of course there is an overall theme that means you can drive through a neighborhood or walk into a house and, with some experience, tell within a decade when it was likely built. Most such changes, however, are done internally in such neighborhoods or if done externally are done in keeping with that overall theme and neighborhood. Or used to be, anyway.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Again, what's your personal stake in this? What's your source of employment?

While this was not directed at me, there is a stake in this for just about everyone.

The global population is increasing. As per the Western and CoachRick comments, while the rate of growth is decreasing, the absolute number keeps increasing impressively. There will be ~8 billion people on this planet in 3 years, (somewhere around 7.7 bil currently), and another billion more by 14 years after that. Around 10 billion projected by 2055, assuming notable decreases in population growth. My kids will be where I am now (age-wise) on a planet with somewhere between 10 and 11 billion people. When I was the age they are currently, there was 4 billion people. It took 127 years to get from 1 billion to 2 billion.


Random numbers, I know, without a lot of inherent meaning. But I do have a stake in how the world my kids live in turns out. I do not want to sit here and say 'this works the best for me!' while ignoring the impacts on their future.

Our government is happy to give us tax cuts to make us happy in our moment and our economy 'great', but the long-term health of our country will pay for it eventually. I understand that it is difficult, almost impossible, to limit global warming, but to say that 'this works for me right now, to hell with it' and pretend it doesn't exist is not something I am willing to do for my kids and their kids.

I know neighborhoods are a much smaller picture, but there is a real problem that is being identified and an attempt to solve it being made. Where will those next 1.3 people go over the next 17 years? In someone else's backyard? Take up more open land for development, resulting in increased infrastructure need in addition to further degrading the open landscape? There is an economy of scale associated with 'dense' living. And there is a real cost by preventing it. But what doesn't work is having our generation (or the last, or yours, or the next, whatever) just push it down the road because WE are content.

What about limiting the population growth? Yes, that should be a piece of it, but you should also see what THAT (zero or negative growth) does for the global economy. Global economic growth is dependent more and more people. Pretending that an economy that worked based on 'free' (taken) land and exploitation for hundreds of years is going to continue to work just dandy now that all the land is 'taken' is silly.