Reason No. 3 to hate the McMansion ordinance

The McMansion ordinance is anti-density.

Austin has no real inner city.  Once you set foot outside of downtown/UT, you're in suburbia.  Bouldin, Zilker, Tarrytown, Hyde Park, Rosedale -- even Clarksville to some degree -- all have a suburban feel.  This is not by accident.  Each of these neighborhoods has been molded by standard suburban zoning tools like minimum lot sizes, minimum set backs, and height limitations.

Because it lacks a true urban core, Austin is not dense, even compared to Dallas or Houston.  (See my original post.)  With hundreds of thousands of newcomers expected over the next 20 years, Austin today faces a choice:  it can either grow denser or it can sprawl.   

Density means bigger buildings closer together.  It's what's shown to the right (click to enlarge).  While it is not everyone's taste, it is what a lot of people want, even expect, from their city.  A whole lot of people, judging from the evidence:  some of the most desirable cities in the country -- including San Francisco, pictured here -- are dense.

On June 8, our City Council firmly rejected density.  Instead of permitting larger structures bunched closer together on smaller lots, it adopted an ordinance that keeps lots large and houses small, short, and far apart.  It is a suburban straightjacket and the antithesis of density.

I'm stumped by these new aesthetic principles, "massing" and "scale," suddenly so dear to the neighborhood activists.  The houses to the right flout virtually every one of the McMansion ordinance's philistine restrictions. They're massive; they loom over one another; they're "too big" for their lots.  (I'll be they even cast shadows on their neighbors.)  But it's these houses, not Austin's comfortably spaced bungalows, that draw millions of jealous tourists each year.

"But we're not San Francisco," the neighborhood activist might say.  "Our neighborhoods don't look like this.  Houses like these stick out like a sore thumb in a neighborhood full of cottages."

Unless the City resorts to eminent domain, our neighborhoods can evolve only one house at a time.  If we want neighborhoods to grow denser, more striking visually and culturally, then we must be willing to tolerate some jarring mismatches during the transition.  "Friction," someone called it.  Our reward could be the emergence of a distinctly Austin style of density. 

The activists and City Council have decided it is better to embalm our neighborhoods than to risk real change.  I suppose we're entitled to keep the neighborhoods just the way they are.  But it's a shame.  And we certainly shouldn't congratulate ourselves as if we've done something special.

Comments

[ccosart]

No surprise, but I'm in complete agreement on this one. I'd only add that we can't really "keep the neighborhoods just the way they are". We may be able to keep them looking just the way they are, but that will only accelerate the process of the occupants becoming more and more wealthy and less and less diverse. I often wonder how many NA activists secretly understand that and pretend that's not what they want vs. those who really don't see that's the consequence of their stance...

[DSK]

"I often wonder how many NA activists secretly understand that and pretend that's not what they want vs. those who really don't see that's the consequence of their stance..."

I suspect quite a few, alas.
Although I am strongly against the ordinance, it is quite obvious to me how, in its current form, it actually increases the value of my house and those in my immediate neighborhood (due to larger lots).
It's one thing to be concerned about protecting the current value of your property, although even there I lean heavily towards the "just deal with it" end of the spectrum when it comes to what your neighbor does with his house. But it's another (worse) thing altogether when you work to enact unreasonable controls that artificially INCREASE the value of your property.

[Steve Crossland, Realtor]

I think this is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't issues. Someone will have their sensibilities offended no matter what the city does.

One of the best examples of how small and large homes can co-exist is in Travis Heights. If you study the history of that neighborhood, many large "mansions" were built at first.

Later, after the Colorado River washed the bridge out, and the depression hit, the area was infilled with smaller cottage style homes because there was no market for the larger more expensive ones.

That mix of home sizes is one of the things that makes Travis Heights a desireable and interesting area.

I'm still not sure where I stand on the McMansion Ordinance. I can see both sides of the issue and it's a tough call I think.

Steve

[M1EK]

On the "lacks a true urban core" point, assuming you mean residential core immediately in and surrounding the center, I think West Campus is going to play that role before too long. A lot of the new construction going up will eventually attract some non-students, I bet.

Unfortunately, said densification is happening only because of the deal with the devil the city made which means MY neighborhood is allowed to de-densify over the next couple of decades.

[pdx lurker]

i wound up on this blog by way of reason hit and run, then winding up at M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile after clicking on a comment from M1EK destroying randall o'toole and his ilk, and then i got caught up with this mcmansion ordinance b.s.

all i can think to say at the moment is, i am glad i live in portland! strangely, the na's seem much more influential in austin than pdx, though, pdx is known for the activist na's (stopping a robert moses freeway, and all).

one final note, i thought this comment of yours:

"The activists and City Council have decided it is better to embalm our neighborhoods than to risk real change. I suppose we're entitled to keep the neighborhoods just the way they are. But it's a shame. And we certainly shouldn't congratulate ourselves as if we've done something special."

was a really eloquent summation of the progress dilemma: who owns progress? those with a stake in the present--the status quo, or those with a stake in the future? of course the answer is somewhere in between, but it looks look austin is being held captive by the status quo. here in portland we're on a joy ride to the future... for now.

[M1EK]

pdx lurker,

Welcome - that must have been a very old thread, though; I don't participate there and haven't for a long time. Portland is definitely one of my personal escape routes, should it come to that.

[Jeff]

Total straw-man argument. The McMansion ordinance has ZERO effect on condo/multifamily development. It ONLY applies to single-family and duplex housing, which urban density advocates do NOT encourage building in developed central areas. The Austin City Council SUPPORTS increasing urban density, even when it gets them into major hot water with neighborhood activists (e.g. they approved a new condo development on S. Lamar that will require the demolition of a bunch of low-rent apartments).

[AC]

You apparently define "density" to mean condo/multifamily development. Why? The density of single-family neighborhoods is hardly fixed in stone. San Francisco's SF neighorhoods are a lot denser than ours. Our single family neighborhoods should be allowed to densify along with the rest of the City.

BTW, your claim that the McMansion ordinance has ZERO effect on condo/multi-family is wrong. The ordinance tightened the height limitations on properties that are near SF-zoned property. I haven't conducted a survey or anything, but that's probably a big deal in places like Zilker, where 90% of the residential land is zoned for single family.

[M1EK]

More importantly, Jeff, the claim that the McMansion ordinance doesn't affect the number of dwelling units is absolutely false - it will lead to a net decline in secondary dwelling units (duplexes or garage apartments) which are a major part of the housing stock in my neck of the woods.

[formerSFres]

Ha ha, holding San Francisco inner city density up as the reason it's one of the most desirable cities to live in, that's funny...you've obviously never lived there, or tried to park there, or tried to raise a family there.

[M1EK]

"It's so hard to park there" is an immediate identifier that the speaker has their head so far up their ass about what makes an urban area desirable that you can immediately discount everything else they have to say on the topic.

[Jeff]

"You apparently define 'density' to mean condo/multifamily development. Why?"

It's the commonly accepted definition, and it's simple common sense. I'll use a case in point: a half-acre of land in a semi-dense urban area. Which is a more efficient use of the property: a 6000 sq ft McMansion that will house a family of five or six, or five 3000 sq ft townhouses that will each house a family of three or four?

Tearing down a house that can reasonably fit three or four so that a family of four or five can have a bigger romper room and a three-car garage does not contribute in any significant way to the urban-planner ideal of a dense core. Feel free to clarify the matter with any urban planner in the country, if you need to.

"BTW, your claim that the McMansion ordinance has ZERO effect on condo/multi-family is wrong. The ordinance tightened the height limitations on properties that are near SF-zoned property."

By what, 2 or 3 feet? (also the amount they lowered the limit on single-family btw) That is a minor inconvenience requiring the lowering of interior ceilings a tad, not something with the potential to scuttle new development.

"it will lead to a net decline in secondary dwelling units (duplexes or garage apartments)"

a) Those are both SF-zoned, not MF.

b) Secondary dwellings are not banned, and furthermore, the trend these days is more towards encouraging them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/nyregion/02attics.html

[AC]

"Which is a more efficient use of the property: a 6000 sq ft McMansion that will house a family of five or six, or five 3000 sq ft townhouses that will each house a family of three or four?"

The latter, obviously. That's ideal. I'm all for it. The neighborhoods won't tolerate that, though. I glad to see at least one Bouldin Creek resident agrees that we should have more townhomes/zero lot line construction.

6000 square feet? Why don't you address a more reasonable example. Which is denser: a block full of 2800 sq. ft. homes (=2600 sq. ft + 2-car garage) on 6000 sq. ft. lots, or a block full of 1500 and 1600 sq. ft homes on the same lots? There's nothing wrong with a 1500 sq. ft. house (or 1000 sq. ft house, for that matter), but if you think that the 2800 sq. ft house will not be more attractive to the typical 4- or 5-member household, you're wrong.

. . . bigger romper room and a three-car garage . . . "

This is a variation on the "I know what you need and you don't really need that so you're not being harmed" argument. Nevertheless, let's assume that larger romper rooms and 3-car garages are frivolities. A house with 2200 sq. ft of air conditioned space can be a McMansion if it has an attached 2-car garage and sits on a small lot. Is that extravagent? What about a 1900 sq. ft. home with a 500 sq. ft garage apartment (effectively, a 2600 sq. ft home, counting garage space). You endorse secondary dwellings. (I do too). Surely you know the McMansion ordinance cuts these down too?

"Feel free to clarify the matter with any urban planner in the country, if you need to."

I don't care what urban planners think. (Just urban economists. :-) )

[AC]

Oh, BTW, a half-acre of land is approx. 22,000 sq. ft. A 6000 sq. ft. house on such a lot would _not_ be a McMansion.

The 5 townhouses would not be allowed under the FAR limits, even assuming they could be built in a SF neighborhood.

[M1EK]

"b) Secondary dwellings are not banned, and furthermore, the trend these days is more towards encouraging them:"

It would help if you had a passing familiarity with the ordinance before speaking about it. The fact that secondary dwelling unit space counts as much as does primary space means that there is now a NEW disincentive to building these things. IE, my next-door neighbors have a 6-800 square foot garage apartment and a 1000 square foot main house; and the ordinance sets their limit at 2400 overall, meaning the apartment basically prevents them from building a second floor.

Of course, rather than deal with this shit, they're looking for a new house. Farther away from the central city, even though they really want to stay. IT'S FOR THE FAMILIES! YEEHAW!