Jimmy
My map and the numbers on the sewer capacity are from the city!! So lets compare numbers, Why don’t you set a meeting with the city department and to go over what I have and what you say you have and lets find out which ones are correct. Just let me know the day and time and I will be there.
You game?
Jeff
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. But I’m going to provide an expanded explanation to your #2 and #3. I’m going to say that everybody actually wants to live close to bars, cafes, restaurants, shops. The privilege of living in a walkable neighborhood has been demonstrated by the market. So the question one should ask, is what is preventing every neighborhood from being like Zilker? Certainly there are things you can’t replicate. But many things you could. Certainly it’s not all proximity to downtown - assuming that means your commute is short. Many people work in all parts of Austin making their commute unpredictable.
No, it is that elusive quality of being in what feels like a true neighborhood. And what creates that is communal gathering places. True walk, well bike-ability in Zilker. The zoning laws will prevent this from happening elsewhere. @jjack2 has done his best to prevent it happening here with fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
There will be more traffic. The wrong type of people will come here. They will bulldoze all our houses.
All of this hysteria. That is not only not true, but in fact the opposite of what happens when you integrate residential and commercial and provide enough density so that everything becomes walkable.
We are on our way, but are held back every day. Create neighborhoods with services that are accessible by foot. Then connect those neighborhoods with transit.
Now Zilker will always be valued higher because there are things you can’t replicate - like the premiere park or trail system in our back yard. But, as to everything else, remove the FUD and you got yourself a game changer.
Oy vey with the false equivalencies and distortions already! It is beyond ludicrous to attempt to compare Austin to NYC or London or any other massively larger metropolis that’s centuries old and was predominantly developed before the advent of the automobile.
The neoliberals amongst us started the push for more density with the claim that if we could just increase the supply then housing would become “affordable” for moderate and lower income folks.
Yes: this is what most of us refer to as common sense. Unfortunately – thanks to decades of obstruction on the part of NAs, and absolutely the ZNA – it has now become vastly more difficult, though certainly not impossible, to finally start adding much needed density.
What we have seen in Zilker is a lot of previously affordable housing being sold for the land, and that affordable unit being replaced by the maxed out single family $1million homes
Interestingly, this assertion directly contradicts your earlier comments about “neighborhood character” supposedly being paramount. You’ve now admitted that older homes are being bulldozed thanks to the continual construction of McMansions … but at the same time are effectively arguing that these million-dollar houses are somehow better for the Zilker community than the more densely built houses that could be built via moderate upzoning. (Seriously, WTF?) Further, you’re entirely ignoring the fact that said denser homes would be occupied by the same types of middle-class folks who until recently comprised nearly all of Zilker’s pool of residents. (Ditto every other core neighborhood.)
But if you increase the entitlements then the investor pool grows much larger and the number of homes sold to be demo’d will increase and we will lose even more of the existing affordable housing stock.
Reality-check time: we’ve already lost thousands of older Austin homes to developers. These teardowns will continue regardless of whether we maintain the status quo or allow for denser construction. The question, again, is why on earth you think it’s preferable to replace these existing houses with “maxed out single family $1 million homes” (to use your exact quote) instead of something along the lines of three or four detached 1,500 sq ft homes on a single lot, each of which would be a) readily large enough for at least a small family and b) help prevent Zilker from becoming a variation of Millionaires’ Row. (And please don’t pull a Dave Piper and start waxing poetic about the “sanctity of street parking.”)
Finally, just a quick footnote that you slid right on by my earlier point that most of Austin’s neighborhoods are not as far gone as Zilker, and that million-dollar McMansions are not the norm in the majority of the city. I agree that it’s likely no longer possible to construct legitimately affordable houses in Zilker, even if it’s upzoned. I agree with JP and Jimmy, however, that it is unambiguously possible to build more affordable homes.
I’m so game. Please share them here in this public forum so that we can all review them.
jjack2 wrote:
FTR, this was the city’s response when I asked for this information on Dave Piper’s behalf:
Per Austin Water staff, we do not have a consolidated water and wastewater system capacity assessment map that specifically meets the subject request. Austin Water staff regularly evaluates the capacity and operational performance of its water and wastewater infrastructure. Our Systems Planning Division is responsible for ongoing evaluation of our water and wastewater systems capacities.
If you have some other info, let’s all take a look as it seems like an ongoing defense against greater density.
Jimmy McArthur wrote:
We are too far gone. In 20 years, 75% of Zilker will be newer homes…whiter, richer, more elite than ever…with a “Vote BETO/AOC in 2040” sign in every other lawn…oh how progressive we are, so smug. We will be so proud. Be sure to watch out for Doris on her morning walk down Collier, she’ll be at least 110 by then…so slow down. (but at least we won’t have all the “Free Trump” signs everywhere like the are sure to have in Williamson County…amirite?
Council is to blame, they (much like our US Congress) look to others to do their job. Rather than LEAD our city into the future, Council looks to the few very powerful ANC elite (white, older, relatively rich homeowners) as the voice for the entire city. That way, Council can blame us. It’s what we wanted, right? The ANC, whose leadership is a rotating door of the same few people, has one voice. They vote themselves in and they run the urban core. They want even more power, they lobby for it all the time. It is part and parcel of the complete political environment we all live in. The young don’t engage, so older, white, relatively wealthy run it all in a power vacuum, then turn to speak down to them. “shame on you and your Uber habits…shame, and get off that scooter when I’m shouting at you!” I’ll take any wager that the same 5 people will head the ZNA 5 years from now, breaking only to take their anointed turn as head of the ANC…they just change chairs each year or so. “Well raise your voice Brickley”, I have…many times…and I will continue…but I hear voices in my head…wait, is that my wife, my 2 yr old, my 4 yr old, or my MIL? Yeah, its a bit easier to make all the meetings, hearings, and back room planning all-nighters when you are the ANC elite…something gives me the impression the days of rushing home to feed the lil’ rascals has long since passed. Wasn’t it Lorraine who when speaking of the nice widowed Dr with a nasty garage door (the gall) “tough”, that she couldn’t make it to her own variance hearing…due to a child in the hospital? Nice…
I think NIMBYism is, by and large, immoral. We can and should make room for others. But, I capitulate. Bugs Bunny taught me, “if you can’t beat…join em.” At this point, I’d bet each person in this thread has seen the value of their home skyrocket…all under the current rules. Rules the ANC fought hard for and fight daily to preserve and stregthen. We all owe the ANC, ZNA, JJ, and lot of 'em, a sincere “thank you”. I’ll go first, thank you all very much. There can be no doubt you have limited the amount of development off all kinds resulting in a handsome rise in my net worth. I’m not kidding…thank you. If my kids look up from their ipads long enough to study for Princeton, I’ll be able to afford it. As for the missing middle…let em eat cake…all the way in from Buda. At the Codenext meeting the nice lady stood up and spoke, “I’d rather live next to one 1 million dollar home than 4 $600k homes”…the crowd roared (I’ve seen it on video as well). My hope died that day. That, and when Ora shot down a density bonus that would yield a grocery store and hundreds of new senior living units on I-35…all over 3 additional stories. You can’t beat that. Maybe she is right…maybe I’m wrong. What do I know?
Welcome to the Zilker Millionaire’s Club…the ZMC. I like it. I’ll make shirts this weekend, send me your sizes.
“Oh but Brickley, you are forgetting…we are going to allow a few disadvantaged kids live among us all…so that’s makes it all good right, can I go back to my glass of Rose?” Nope. The real question is, what does the ANC see for our future, and how will we get there…who are the winners and losers. Guaranteed none of them will come within 10 feet of a real answer…why? Because they made this bed, it is what they wanted all along. NIMBY’s do not get make the rules then complain about the results. Nope.
Sorry yall, without density (think Portland, Or) we will never have the goodies of other large cities…rail, true walk-ability, subways, monorail, etc. that you all long for. Large civic projects need insane amounts of capital, and they just don’t work for a town with less density than Houston or Dallas. Even our red line hasn’t met projections and I hear it’s packed. But hey, I’ve got mine…I live in Zilker…what do I need a rail for? I’m good. I’m buying an electric scooter tomorrow…so watch out.
FYI the top reasons Zilker has changed over so quickly and will continue:
Indeed. I’m curious if the topic was mentioned even once before 3,000+ apartment units were constructed along S. Lamar in a fairly short time frame.
Everybody is a very dangerous word. I work with no shortage of people living in houses that they paid close to 1 million or more for them with acerage. Just like there are poor people, and people in different colors, there are in fact also rich white people who don’t want Zilker with it’s noise and traffic at any price. Dripping springs is not groing for it’s coffee shop and it is not carrying it’s price premium primarily for it’s schools.
This is lazy thinking. If Austin actually wanted something different, they would vote for something different. For all of the complaining, most homeowners are not genuinely upset about their increased land values. Even the ones taxed out of their homes are being set up for retirement with a surprise fund they weren’t counting on to buy a lovely new home that they would have likely not ever gotten. Sadly, in democracy, you can’t win re-election by genuine leadership.
This is largely true, but the young are actually complaining for the most part and “The old” aren’t actually really that old. Also, don’t forget people vote with their wallets. Even if Zilker and Downtown was more affordable, Circle C is not about to turn into a ghost town, people love Circle C and their much younger representation wants to maintain their home values by keeping it single family, white, and full of the right kinds of people. Young people I work with keep buying 400k houses there and in doing so are effectively voting for a continuation of what that leadership is doiing. Similarly, the people buying million dollar houses here are voting for a continuation of what is going. All of this work increases revenue at the city which makes that leadership appear effective. Where are all of these genuinely upset people who hate everything about what is going on? If it was actually so bad they would likely leave. This reminds me of how when I tell people I am from Mexico and how I really like Mexico city they gasp at the thought that someone would actually go to such an unsafe place and ignore the simple reality that it has 30 million people, many of whom have the option to leave and choose not to (Not denying that many have), yet in comparison the population of Detroit Dropped consistently year over year for over a decade with even the dead people leaving.
I feel like as bad as it is to scare people about how you may accidently end up with a poor person on your street, it is equally ridiculous to act as though all the stuff we complain about in the neighborhood isn’t actually somehow connected to why we spend and spent a lot of money to live here. There are other neighborhoods not far off that have made different choices and are more affordable and we just aren’t going to live there, are we?
Indeed. It was an exaggeration. Point being across all urban areas the price of real estate is exponentially higher the closer you are to amenities like coffee shops, cafes, restaurants, services, transit, etc. On the other side of he spectrum an amenity could be a lake. Or a mountain. Or some other feature that is harder to replicate. The difference being one is hard to replicate because of a false scarcity introduced by regulation. And the other because it is an actual scarcity. And by this logic we should all sell our houses (if we’re fortunate enough to own in Zilker) and go buy waterfront property.
Dripping springs is an interesting example. I was in a discussion recently about places that you could have a pint and that also had a playground. Dripping Springs came out as the winner for number of places and options. Maybe it’s the land. Maybe it’s the people. Maybe it’s the regulation.
Once you cede yourself to having to drive everywhere, then why not?
Oddly enough, in the last 3 years I have not only gone and bought lakefront property but property in a UNESCO world heritage site. I don’t fully trust this bubble.
I think that your question is in line with the point I am making. We spend a lot of time talking about the housing units and the cost and the people, but the real reason is the “why” and I think for different people there are different “whys” which ultimately lead to different “highly desirable” places for different personalities. And as you point out, some of these can be manufactured or willed into existence (the Domain for example), some cannot (Mountain front land), and some are hybrids (Zilker between the stuff we built, and Barton springs.
I just feel like a very constructive discussion should involve figuring out how currently undesirable/less than ideal land/neighborhoods could be made more desirable so that there is less scarcity of desirable neighborhoods. Not everyone needs a view. Not everyone needs walkable. Not everyone needs good schools. Why can’t we focus on making the already affordable area just south of 71 just desirable enough to effectively become an extension of 04 (for some at least) that reduces the demand for 04 specifically. What about NE austin to do the same for hyde park?
Yes Jimmy that is what they say but it is not the truth. At the very beginning of neighborhood planning there was a list of background information that neighborhoods needed to inform the process. Included in that list was the capacity of neighborhood utility infrastructure including sewer and drainage. When the city undertook the first few NP’s this information was not provided, the planning staff said it was “‘not available” So when it came time for the South Lamar Combined NP effort the request was made again but got the same kind of response that you got , just that a response without an answer.
Having been a City Council member staffer for several years I had developed contacts in most of the city departments, including Public Work. So I call my contact with the utility department and requested this information directly. I knew that for every architectural project I have ever done in Austin, I have had to determine the utility connection, how big a pipe was in the street, where it ran and what it’s capacity. All information provided by the city for individual project so I knew that the data was there, Also when the feds forced the city to upgrade many of the sewer lines in the city due to them being over utilized by EPA standard, which resulted in I believe it was a $400 million dollar project, that project also had to have this basic data so as to evaluate the EPA requirements to allocates funding for which pipes had to be replaces. So I was not surprise that after the request to my contact I got the information I had requested. It took him a few days since the information was not assembled neighborhood by neighborhood but it was there and only had to be disaggregated for our neighborhood. What I got is attached
It is a very common practice of the city planning department not to push other city departments to provide information that potentially conflicts with the planning department objectives. But if you read the response you got is very telling, while they state that “staff regularly evaluates the capacity and operational performance of it water and wastewater infrastructure …” How in the world could they do that without knowing where their lines are, what size are the pipes and what the capacity of those lines are and how much capacity they have? So any critical thinking about their response would suggest that yes they have the information, but for some reason ( take time to compile to don’t want you to know) won’t provide that information!
Their response really says it all , they have the data but just do not want to provide it to the community. But it is there as the attachment proves.
Jeff
So do you want me to set up a meeting with water and wastewater to get an update on the data they have?
Of course. And to an extent this is happening. Look areas of East Austin. Or the Domain.
I guess my point is more one of how you frame the question. Do you want a lovely cafe w/ a beer garden walking distance from your house? How about a well appointed market? A coffee shop?
A lot of people would answer yes to these questions. But when questions of land development come up the questions become: Do you want a drunk passed out in your front yard because there is a beer garden down the street? Do you want mad traffic in your neighborhood because they are going to a popular coffee shop? Do you want people parking in front of your house because they are going to the market?
So when planning for neighborhoods people are fearful. But in neighborhoods that have crossed the fear barrier and actually built this stuff, the property values are super high because people see the value in the amenities and see that the fear didn’t materialize into reality.
I just don’t think that the fears are unwarranted and it’s manipulation at it’s worst.
Circle C, with all of its homogeneity and highly curated choices for retail ensures that any drunks are either one of your neighbors or their guests, which through accountability provides some comfort (people tend not to sh-t where they eat; you also have HOAs for recourse). They have chosen to regulate the location of these coffee shops, beer gardens, etc to accomplish a certain level of isolation from the world beyond their neighborhood.
Your street is a major thoroughfare for any number of outsider transients who found their way here via a bachelor/bachelorette party, major concert event, or need to park near one of the very interesting commercial establishments on lamar.
Are even one percent of those disorderly, drunk or annoying? Probably not. But they are outsiders and you have nobody to hold accountable for their presence in your world. Are some percentage of people in circle C drunks and bad neighbors with unruly guests? Im sure of it, we could definitely check the police records and find it. Is it actually any better or worse in one neighborhood or another? I would imagine that the answer is vague with no clear yes or no.
SO what does that leave us with. We can open ourselves to unknown risks of outsiders, while simultaneously providing interesting things for us to do within walking distance, or we can have a sense of control, safety, and comfort knowing that will have to drive to those interesting things.
Many people just prefer a sense of safety and familiarity with driving required over proximity to interesting things. I am not one of them and it is not a choice I would make, but I fully get it. To not acknowledge the very real fear that some a-holes from far away wanting to “rage” during a bachelor party in Austin staying next door to you while you are trying to raise a family or just relax after a long day at your job is just as bad as the fear mongering.
Whether the very real risk is worth the very real benefit I don’t think has a concrete an universal answer. As such, we need different options for different people with different values, needs, and budgets.
Isaac: If you and your coworkers want to live amongst fellow rich white people and not have to worry about noise or traffic or any concerns about densification, I would suggest you consider relocating to Lakeway or one of the many suburban neighborhoods that cater to your demographic. What you can’t do – or at least not on any morally, ethically or rationally valid basis – is move in to a fancy house in a core neighborhood and subsequently attempt to reshape the neighborhood as a whole into what you want, as opposed to what’s best for the neighborhood on whole.
While yes, JP was engaging in a bit of hyperbole when he stated “everybody” – though I’d argue you construed it too literally – the core of his argument (that many, if not all, Zilker residents live there thanks primarily to its close-in location) is nonetheless reasonable.
I’d beg to differ, and “voting for something different” will do nothing to reduce anyone’s property taxes, given that they’re entirely regulated by the state (and will remain high unless Texas implements a state income tax, which is exceedingly unlikely for the foreseeable future).
While this is admittedly a common rationalization – especially among affluent white people – for displacement and gentrification somehow being a “good” thing, it’s nonetheless false. I would respectfully suggest you actually talk to folks in places like East Austin who are barely hanging on to their homes due to skyrocketing land values to understand the realities of the situation, instead of making fallacious assumptions like this one. Yes, they are fully aware that they will make a tidy profit if they have to sell their homes. No, they generally do not want to sell them, given that they will have no choice but to relocate out of a neighborhood they’ve lived in for 10 (or 20 … or even 30) years.
Finally, you’re failing to account for the reality that a huge chunk of this nest egg generated from their home sale will have to go towards paying for a new house – which, if they’re staying reasonably close to Austin, won’t cost that much less than what they have now. Even if their new home costs half as much, they’ll still have to keep on paying property taxes that escalate more and more by the year. And considering many of the folks I’m talking about already live on fixed incomes that aren’t enough to cover their escalating property taxes, guess where that “windfall” they got from selling their last home’s gonna go?
I’m sorry, but you’re relying upon anecdotal data derived from a small number of individuals to make broad generalizations. I can point you to just as many people who live in Circle C or other outlying areas solely because they’ve been priced out of Central Austin. They would love to live in Zilker or another inner-core neighborhood, but thanks to its lack of density cannot afford to do so. Further, this trend (on a national level) has become more and more common in recent years: millennials in particular are increasingly rejecting notions of suburban life and staying put in urban neighborhoods (though in Austin’s case that’s increasingly not an option for them, particularly if they want to purchase a home).
Dude, seriously: this is just straight-up ignorance. Why do you think East Austin residents in particular were so opposed to CodeNEXT? It’s precisely because they hate everything going on in their area and are fearful, with good reason, of further displacement – of their family, friends and themselves. And they are leaving! That’s the problem! (Just to cite one example, Austin is the only major metro area in the U.S. with a growing population that’s experienced consistent declines each year in its total number of black residents.)
In any event, I actually appreciate this post (even if it seems otherwise from what I said) if only because it demonstrates the level of ignorance of the broader picture regarding neighborhood / land-use concerns even among comparatively young residents of Zilker and other core neighborhoods. I think this is an area where education is key to resolving the current logjam between preservationists, urbanists and those somewhere in the middle (and please feel free to clarify if I’m mistaken, but I assume you’re in the latter category).
Not only is this already happening; it’s been happening for nearly a decade now. The area just south of 71 was one of the first that people priced out of '04 started moving into. The 78745 ZIP code – which encompasses most of South Austin between 71 and (I think) Stassney, bordered by Mopac and I-35 to the west and east – has seen some of the largest housing-price increases (on a percentage basis) over the past 6-8 years in all of Austin. Prices in '45 have gone up so much that even it is starting to see people priced out of it, and certainly with respect to the portions closest to 71. (What this influx into '45 has not done, however, is demonstrably decrease housing prices in '04 – which I’d argue is further proof of how badly the entire '04 area needs a greater number of available homes.)
It’s the same story in Northeast Austin: prices have doubled since 2012 in the Windsor Park and University Hills neighborhoods east of 35 and north of 51st St. While this is in part due to “the Mueller effect,” it’s also because it’s one of the only areas within a 10-minute drive of downtown where you can still buy a family-sized house for under $400,000. It’s also one of the only neighborhoods in the entire city where bona fide mid-century houses are common. Most other parts of Austin developed at around the same time stuck with using the traditional “cottage-style” look or the then-new “Texas ranch” aesthetic, which describes nearly all of the real estate stock in Barton Hills (to cite one example).
Even parts of town like the St. Johns area and NE Austin north of 290 – both of which were no man’s lands until quite recently – are rapidly changing.
As noted, making less-ideal areas more desirable has not demonstrably reduced demand in Austin’s central neighborhoods – which brings us back once again to the core problem: we need more housing. Yes, it really is that simple, despite NIMBY arguments to the contrary.
Austin is an anomaly: it’s had the single-largest population increase of any major U.S. metro area over the course of the 21st century to date. This fact, coupled with a lack of supply, is why demand in Zilker and other core neighborhoods has skyrocketed despite an outflux to areas like 78745. Further, we are still on track to add over a million more residents by 2030.
As such, we have to figure out some means of accommodating this growth – and despite one of Jeff Jack’s bullshit remarks last night about companies moving here because “city officials are giving away so many incentives,” this is not why so many of them are relocating to Austin. We’re the only city in America (or Canada) that offered Amazon LITERALLY NOTHING as an incentive to move HQ2 here, and we still ended up on the list of finalists for it! (And aside from the soccer stadium, the city has been notably stingy with incentives of any kind since the whole blow-up over offering them to the developers of the Domain a decade ago.)
The most logical answer as to how to accommodate this influx is density. Period. A failure to do so will almost certainly result in nothing more than endless, Dallas- and Houston-style suburban sprawl.
Hmmm, this seems awfully familiar. Who’s that other guy who always says “they” aren’t telling the truth but he is? (and thus you should listen to him regardless of what “they” say)
It is a very common practice of the city planning department not to push other city departments to provide information that potentially conflicts with the planning department objectives.
Does this have anything to do with the Planning Committee your buddy Fred Lewis sicced the AG on? I have a feeling it does. (I also have a feeling the city would rather fervently disagree with this thinly veiled conspiracy theory.)
Their response really says it all , they have the data but just do not want to provide it to the community.
Right: it’s all a massive government conspiracy to hide the truth!! (Wait. That seems familiar as well…)
But it is there as the attachment proves.
The attachment is an undated document that:
In any event, I’m kinda amazed that you appear to be operating under the delusion that anyone in this group would just “take your word for it.” OTOH the current occupant of the Oval Office has that same delusion…
This is an open group and many people aren’t very well informed. I feel like the strategy is more one of creating a lot of noise to drown out any voices that don’t fall in line. It’s a reason why the posts and replies are so long, but relatively void of actual facts.
So, if I’m looking at your attachment correctly… it indicates that every line is currently under capacity and the city is planning on upgrading. As someone else noted, I’d imagine that has been done by now. So I guess the question is, if the city is operating under capacity pre-upgrade, how does this information lead you to believe we should prevent further density?
As for you and I setting up a meeting with the city, I would be happy to sit with you during that meeting. One difference, I think, between you and I is that I believe in complete transparency. Whatever I derive from that meeting will be delivered back to the public via our community mailing lists. I won’t pick and choose data to support my POV.
Let me know when we’re going to meet with the water/wastewater department.
Jimmy
jjack2 wrote:
The silence is deafening.
After 40 posts on the same topic, the silence is actually really nice!