Infill Developments in Older Neighborhoods (Houston, Dallas: middle-class, apartments, condos)

[verybadgnome]

My understanding of the term is that they are small pockets of greenfield that have never been developed for whatever reason(s). All I have to say is that Austin has tons of them and many are being developed while many others will not see anything done for years or even decades. Seems like they can have as few as a dozen homes up to near a hundred.

Some South Austin ones that come to mind:

- just west of Barton Skyway and S. 5th Street (being built)
- South side of Stassney at Emerald Forest (streets in place)
- North side of Dittmar a few blocks west of S. First (built 2006)
- North side of Ralph Albanedo b/t S. Congress and S. First (built 2007/8)
- Southern terminus of West Gate Blvd. (roads only I think)
- 3 developments all completed or well under way on the West side of Manchaca b/t Stassney and William Cannon
- North side of W. Cannon @ Windrift Way
- Merle Dr just Southeast of the Manchaca/Ben White intersection

Overall I think it is great that these areas are finally being developed for a number of reasons. They give people the option of having a new home relatively close to downtown that is larger than the existing homes that date back to the 1950/60/70s. For the most part no new roadways need to be built to serve them and existing utility hookups should be nearby. There are already existing fire, police and schools so no new facilities should be required. As far as tax base is concerned it will help in this regards since an undivided lot with no houses on it pales in value when compared to a development.

Another side topic of discussion would be the designs of these homes, specifically that they reflect higher land values than when the surrounding, older homes were built. I see this manifest itself in smaller lots in both dimensions, as well as more two story homes and consequently less ranch-style homes. I have also seen many of these only sporting a one car garage which tells me that something had to be sacrificed for space and it ended by being that that extra spot in the garage.

Another interesting thing I noticed was that the new ones all have rentention ponds whereas most of the older developments around them do not. I guess there was a SOS type law somewhere along the line(?)

Anyway I do think these types of developments although not the size of a Steiner Ranch do fulfill a definite need and can mitigate some of the sprawl that we have seen. And yes I'm sure there is a lot of this going on up North and elsewhere so if anyone is inclined shoot away.........

[TexasHorseLady]

Barton Skyway and S. 5th isn't an intersection, as far as I know. Barton Skyway deadends into Manchaca to the east (about a block east of S. Lamar), or did last time I drove therenot all that long ago. (I used to live in that area for some years and still own a house walking distance from Barton Skyway and Lamar.)

I'd hate to see Austin lose all of the green spaces that make it the desirable place it is, especially in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Some infill, yes, but leave us our green spaces!

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Barton Skyway and S. 5th isn't an intersection, as far as I know. Barton Skyway deadends into Manchaca to the east (about a block east of S. Lamar), or did last time I drove therenot all that long ago. (I used to live in that area for some years and still own a house walking distance from Barton Skyway and Lamar.)

I'd hate to see Austin lose all of the green spaces that make it the desirable place it is, especially in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Some infill, yes, but leave us our green spaces!

Here a map of that first one:

South Austin Condo Development - Barton Skyway - Minutes from Downtown Austin, Lady Bird Lake, Zilker Park, Barton Springs, South Congress

Yes I think preserving green spaces is important but we do that already in Austin with our many, taxpayer-supported, parks and preserves. Also new developments sometime set aside park space for residents (and sometimes locals) to use. Then you have to consider that preserving these green spaces in Austin pushes people out to the burbs and it really is a zero sum game.

[jobert]

There could be more stringent "permeable area" requirements for these lots. Our neighborhood has this set at 55% for each homeowners' lot. If the COA requires these greenfield sites to be 30% or less, the developers will have to build vertical - moreso than they already would. This would result in more 3 and 4 story projects in these neighborhoods, more public space, and more landscaping and pedestrian opportunities. Without the tougher requirements, these lots may have otherwise been 2 or 3 story.

and to elaborate on your list - if you travel to Slaughter from DT on the following avenues: Manchacha, First, and Congress - you will see acreage still on both sides of the road on either side, especially when you get past Cannon. These areas could be carte blanche for new development, but let me tell you, they will be expensive. New residential developments on the west side of 35 within 8 miles of downtown is the holy grail for new middle-class arrivals to the city. I'm talking North side as well. We all know that the north side is only nice until you get out to a certain radius from DT.

[TexasHorseLady]

Oh, that's weird. A little bitty one block long street called Barton Skyway that is completely separated (and not by the greenbelt) from the rest of it, with other streets in between? Wonder how long it's been there and how long it's been named that.

Parks are great, but what makes people think of how green Austin is (a comment I get frequently in my profession from people new to town, and got long before I was an agent) is the green spaces EVERYWHERE, not just in official "parks".

Three and four story projects would overpower the trees that we have here, I think, if they existed in great numbers, and they'd have a great impact on the quality of life in many neighborhoods where infill can occur.

There's no easy solution.

[jobert]

it's simple:

DENSITY VS. SPRAWL

pick one.

[TexasHorseLady]

There's got to be a happy medium. Texas is not like those states that must crowd everybody in together on top of each other - we have some room, it's one of our strengths. At the same time, we don't need a Best Buy or a McDonald's or identical condo developments on every corner (or within a mile of each other) - yes, we might have to drive ten or fifteen minutes, but if you're a Texan, you're used to the concept of driving to Houston from Austin and back in one day for lunch and shopping, so even 20 minutes shouldn't bother you all that much. When I lived in Austin and my daughter attended a private school - and before that, my son - it was a 20 minute drive to school each day. When did we get so wimpy and unable to plan in advance that we had to have all stores practically right outside our doorstep so we have to duplicate them every few feet?

Quality is what we should be looking for in figuring out a solution to the symptom (since we're clearly never going to address the elephant in the living room of overpopulation). Quality means figuring out a way to preserve quality of life while being inundated with new arrivals (either born or moving here) rather than just building more and more and more identical stores, condos, apartments, houses.

I refer you to Joni Mitchell ("Paradise") and Pete Seeger ("Little Boxes" built of ticky tacky).

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by jobert

it's simple:

DENSITY VS. SPRAWL

pick one.

I think there is a lot of density when it comes to some long-term locals, but not the kind that has to do with urban development. High rises downtown? NO, I want to look at the Capitol building from across the surface parking lots. Urban infill? NO, I want to be able to drive past empty private property in the middle of town. New developments on the outskirts? NO, I don't want anything built over the aquifer (the only one of these three ideas that I agree with). People are coming and they need to go somewhere. Just because someone has been here a long time doesn't mean they can dictate who can move here and where they can live. Arrogance.

[jobert]

Growing up in Dallas in the 80's I remember when the near north side of town was 40's craftsmans, open fields, and old warehouses until you reached the Park Cities with the exeption of TurtleCreek. Near south Austin 2009 is in the same situation as near north Dallas was in 1982:

open land,
undervalued,
older housing,
booming population,
proximity to downtown

[jobert]

Austin nowadays has nearly identical demographics to Dallas 1980. The ingredients for such a transformation are in place.

Smart money would buy near south Austin even if you don't get more house than you need. The recent photo above is still outdated - as uptown has filled in even more since that photo was taken.

You may not agree with urban densification, but it will happen.