Reason No. 5 to hate the McMansion ordinance

The McMansion ordinance will penalize innovative architecture.

The McMansion Task Force was charged with "protecting" us from oversize houses.  But it evidently concluded this mandate was just a suggested starting point.  I say this because it decided to target "neighborhood insensitive"  architecture as well.  We're to be protected from the weird as well as the big.  To wit:

These houses are McMansions, according to the Task Force.  That ought to be surprising, since each house is 600 square feet smaller than the alleged 2,300-square-foot "minimum."

The trouble started when the Task Force concluded that it was not enough to require smaller and shorter houses.  Owners, after all, might take liberties without more precise guidance.  We could end up with houses built to the side of lots rather than the middle.  Or we could end up with long walls without the architectually correct amount of "articulation."  Or (gasp!) we could end up with flat roofs.

So the Task Force sprang into action.  The Building Evelope (blandly termed "setback planes" by the TF) was born. 

The Building Envelope (illustrated at right) is a make-believe tent anchored on the side lot lines and the front and rear setback lines.  Exactly what it requires is still something of a mystery.  There's no evidence that anyone outside the Task Force really understands what it requires.

For the houses above, what matters is that the tent starts on the side lot line at a height of 15 feet, and slopes upward at a 45 degree angle.  When it reaches the property's center line, it begins to slope downward again.  Thus, at the five-foot side setback line, a house can be no taller than 20 feet.  If you move ten feet from the side lot line, the house can be no taller than 25 feet.  Any part of the house that is 30 feet tall (the new maximum height) must be at least 15 feet from the side lot line.

This isn't a big problem if you're building a Craftsman, or Tudor, or Victorian, or Colonial, or any other house with a pitched roof.  But it's a big fat problem for houses with flat roofs.  By definition, a flat-roofed house that is 30 feet tall in the middle is also 30 feet tall at the sides.  In order to fit within the Building Envelope, each side must be set back at least 15 feet from the side lot line.  This removes a total of 30 feet of the lot's width from the buildable area.

There are thousands of lots, however, that are 50 feet or less wide.  The houses above, for example, sit on 47-foot wide lots.  Assume they're 30 feet tall. (They're really 35, I think, but this doesn't make any difference here).   If these houses had to fit within the new Building Envelope, they could be just 17 feet wide. They're obviously much wider than that, likely twice as wide.  Thus, a large chunk of each house juts out of the Building Envelope.  They would be forbidden under our new ordinance, even though they're only 1,600 square feet or so.

Even your average weird-house owner probably doesn't want to live in a house that's only 17 feet wide.  So he's got to decide:  does he accept a shorter house -- sacrificing valuable space, maybe even the second floor -- or does he instead abandon the flat roof design?  Tough choice.  But giving him a tough choice apparently is good for the rest of us.  At least that's what the TF must have concluded, since it set out to make him pay for his unusual architectural taste. 

I like the houses above.  I'm willing to tolerate some clunkers in order to get fresh and interesting designs like these.  Some people might dislike these houses.  That's fine, too.  I don't have a monopoly on taste. 

I don't recall any debate on whether we should penalize flat-roof designs, though.  For that matter, I don't recall any debate on whether the Task Force even ought to be in the business of regulating aesthetics.  I can't say for sure how such a debate would have turned out.  But I frankly doubt that most Austinites would have stood, or will stand, for this attempt to dictate blandly homogeneous design.  Weird is our slogan.  People who are uncomfortable with the weird perhaps ought to consider a good gated community, where  homeowners can regulate one another to their hearts' content.   

Comments

[DSK]

Once again, absolutely 100% correct. This reason, alongside reason #3, is what really ticks me off about the ordinance.

It's one thing if you don't want to live in a modernist or post-modernist house, or you don't like to design houses like that. But don't tell everyone else that they can't do it either, especially don't do it under the guise of infrastructure or sunlight concerns.

[John Long]

Thank you for making absolute sense in your argument. I'm sold.

[ccosart]

What really irks me about this is that time and again task force members and supporters said "this isn't about legislating taste" but after it was passed they (maybe not TF members) were pretty open about the fact that it gets rid of "modern" and "out of character" houses.

[Steve]

Contrarian said:
> Assume they're 30 feet tall. ... If these houses had to fit within the new Building Envelope, they could be just 17 feet wide.

Steve says:
30 ft tall is roughly three stories. The homes in your photo don't look three stories tall to me.

A two story home with a flat roof could be bult with 8ft ceilings at less than 20ft tall. A two story home with 10ft ceilings on both floors could be built at less than 23ft (depending on how high the slab is above ground level).

The home in your "setback planes" sketch could in fact have a flat roof if so desired, and it still fits under the envelope doesn't it?

You seem focued on flat roofs. I'm just curious why, since they are more expensive and tend to leak much more than regular sloped roofs.

Steve

[AC]

Steve:

TCAD says the houses are 3 stories tall. If you use the front door for scale and assume it's 7 feet tall, the houses look to me to be about 35 feet tall. But it's only got 5-foot setbacks so it's noncomplying even if it's only 25 feet tall.

I've focused on flat roof houses because some avant garde architects are using flat roofs more frequently. (There are several others in this neighborhood and in my neighborhood). I simply wanted to illustrate the effect on novel architecture, not to suggest that flat roofed houses are superior to pitched roof houses.

Also, if you look at the photo, you'll see that the tallest part of the houses sit to one side of the lot. This is another unorthodox design feature that is penalized by the design envelope.

On height limitations, remember that building height is now measured from the lower of natural or finished grade. The slab typically extends above the natural grade; the amount it does so counts against the height limit. So a 23-foot tall 2-story house might be 25 or 26 feet tall when measured from natural grade. So you'll still have 20+ feet of lot width wasted, leaving just 27 feet of buildable width for the houses above even if they were cut down to 2 stories.

[DSK]

Yep, perfect example: here is a house that in no way meets the new restrictions, but someone like Steve looks at it and says "that couldn't be that tall, could it?"
Thus illustrating how a lot of good designs will be disallowed. This is where we cue the argument: "but you can just get variance!" Which, of course, is in no way easy. And relying on the variance process to get around poorly written design restrictions is no way to be running a city.

Part of this mess has been made deliberately in order to legislate taste, and part of it is due to the insistence of political players to ignore the concerns of impartial professionals in favor of unqualified NIMBYs and political players with vested interests.

[DSK]

I should make clear that when I say "someone like Steve" I basically mean "an average guy who is familiar with Austin houses and neighborhoods," as opposed to assigning any special abilities to Steve.

[AC]

Steve's not an average guy, he's a very knowledgeable realtor (and helpfully posts housing data from time to time on his site). I think that just bolsters your point, DSK.

I didn't talk about the process for getting a variance because I didn't want today's post to bleed into tomorrow's.

[AC]

I also need to fess up to a mistake: the maximum building height is 32 feet, not 30 feet as I said at the end of paragraph 5. See sec. 25-2-566(G) of Austin's Land Development Code.

[ccosart]

I think if there's any doubt that they were trying to legislate taste, you just need to look at the way awnings and dormers are allowed to stick out of the envelope. It seems pretty clear that's intended to reward "traditional" design.

I'll be interested to see what architects come up with to work with/around these regs. I bet we'll see some "Pyramid" houses trying to max out the envelope. Perhaps they'll be horrific, but maybe we'll get some cool creative stuff.

Just to be clear, I love craftsmen and Victorian architecture, it's just the whole mandating style and claiming you're not which irks me. There may even be areas where it's reasonable to mandate style, but lets be up front about it.

[Jeff]

I live in the Bouldin area about a block from the house pictured (one of several MJ Peel designs within a several block radius). It looks GROSSLY out of character with the architecture of the area. Yes, I know that's a subjective opinion. Yes, I know that's a taste-based one as well. Nonetheless, those houses stick out like a sore thumb, which I say as someone who IS a fan of Modernist architecture. There's a good reason why the first two languished on the market for a couple of years when they were built in the early 2000s (aside from them being ridiculously overpriced at 2x the highest area comp).

Btw it's perfectly possible to build a contemporary house that's both large and not out of character for the neighborhood; see case in point, 1905 Eva, which was featured on last month's AIA tour.

[Jeff]

Oops, sorry - MJ Neal, not MJ Peel.

[Bertha Miller]

The "architecture" in the area? You mean the 800 sq ft 40's shacks with no closets?

As far a resale, last I checked one of those houses sold in two weeks for $525,000. I'd say that's pretty fast. So they were a bit ahead of the times. Welcome to the 21st century.

I LOVE those houses, have you been inside them? they are a dream, the craftsmanship is off the roof and they have a use of space that is genial. They also won every award there is to win in Texas and then some. Yes, there's bad modern but this ain't it...