A few shots of Mueller

Some photos below the jump.

It's still not too much to look at.  But it's progress.

Here is the builders' lot map if you want to orient yourself.

The view south from the ridge along Lake Park.

Looking down McCloskey Street.  This is the only street so far with construction on both sides. 

The south side of McCloskey.

A couple David Weekley yard homes on McCloskey.

The alley between McCloskey and Emma Long.  All of the alleys are one way.  Big mistake, in my opinion.  One-way traffic will just encourage cars to go faster.  Plus, it would get on my nerves to have to drive around the block to get to the alley entrance.  My suggestion:  Experiment.  There are lots of alleys.  Make a couple of them two way for one year and let the adjoining homeowners vote on whether to keep them two way.

The intersection of McCloskey and Comacho from (I think) the western edge of the neighborhood park. (For you out-of-towners, that is the University of Texas clock tower in the distance.)

Comacho Street.

The alley running from Zach Scott to Antone.

Homes being framed on Littlefield.

They're planting trees at Lake Park.

They need more.

A long way to go.

Comments

[omit]

Fat McMansions with no trees or yards. Yuck.

[Scooby]

What? No trees? Did they clearcut all those trees that were growing at Mueller?

I love that the term "McMansion" now applies to any house that is larger than a '50s bungalow.

[DSK]

Assuming the "omit" comment isn't just a troll:
I weep for what Austinites are willing to term a "McMansion"
Short of arranging for half of Austin to take a tour to urban neighborhoods of major US cities, you just want to throw up your hands and give up.

[heyzeus]

Are there still plans for attached homes and/or townhouses? Any indication yet what kind of retail will go in the smaller "town centers" or whatever it is they're calling them?

[Scooby]

I think the attached homes are in a later phase. When I was looking at Mueller, I recall that there was only a couple of blocks with them.

DSK,
The city's adoption of the "McMansion" ordinance shows that it isn't just the trolls with extremely loose definitions of "McMansion."

[AC]

heyzeus, there are supposed to be some row houses in this first phase, but I don't think they've started building them yet.

I haven't heard anything new on retail.

[DSK]

Yeah, I was just holding out a little hope that "omit" is meant to be a parody rather than an ANC doublespeak True Believer.

[AC]

Any SF home in Mueller with more than 2100 square feet would be a McMansion under the city ordinance, since all the homes there exceed the maximum .4 Floor-to-Area ratio. Although our ordinance permits 2300 square feet regardless of lot size, only 200 square feet of an attached garage is exempt; the minimum size for a 2-car garage is about 400 square feet.

[Tim]

Yeah, sad people don't understand McMansions, I guess because we still don't really have any great examples here in Austin. The houses they're building in Sunset Valley behind Burger Center are close, but still have far too much architectural variety to rival the vast tracts of expensive conformity that you'll see in Frisco or Plano.

Considering those David Weekly yard homes are 1400-1900 square feet, apparently a lot of people in Travis Heights, Hyde Park, and Tarrytown are living in McMansions built before 1960.

Let's be honest. Most of the homes in the Austin housing market are low quality homes from their respective eras with no redeeming architectural qualities. You only have to take a trip to look at the architecture of San Antonio, Houston, or Dallas to realize this.

[shilli]

Interesting. Looks better than I had expected.

I think this development will be more successful if the lots originally identified as Row Houses/Shop Houses were more shop houses and less row houses. Unfortunately, it appears to be going the other way.

Tim, I would say that most of the homes being built right now in the cities surrounding Austin (Lakeway, Kyle, etc.)are pretty good examples of McMansions. Also, IMHO, these are pretty clearly McMansions in that they are big (like mansions), cheap (like mcdonald's) and uniform (like mcdonald's). The alleys and the overall neighborhood layout differentiate them somewhat from the standard McMansion. What-A-Mansions?

[Tim]

Yeah, but cheap uniform housing isn't actually what makes a McMansion. By your definition of a McMansion (cheap, big, and uniform), central Austin is only not filled with McMansions because the houses are tiny.

I would say that a McMansion is a house at minimum 3000 feet, built to be ostentatious. They generally waste space with two-story ceilings and large foyers. They generally have multiple single-task rooms - home gym, media room, etc.
It should be priced the same as equivalently sized custom built homes, and should be in large neighborhoods with small lots.

It's a pejorative term. So I guess you can use it any way you like. I personally like to save it for people who have the money to buy a nice custom house but choose to buy an ugly tract home. In other words, a housing version of "money can't buy you good taste". I definitely don't think it's ever appropriate for homes between 1200 and 2000 square feet.

[DSK]

My definition of McMansion would be similar to Tim's:
large (I'd probably say at least 3500, but same ballbark) and unimaginative and/or cheap architecture.
I think it's the unimaginative nature of a true McMansion that makes it "Mc" instead of just mansion. There are plenty of largish houses out there that are actually quite innovative, even if eyesores to some people. But a true McMansion is something that basically takes the construction pattern of a low-quality tract home and simply doubles/triples the size.

[el_longhorn]

Don't you first have to have a mansion before you can have a McMansion? Thus, what is the square footage required for a mansion? I would say 3000 sf is too low, probably closer to 4-5K sf.

[shilli]

Fine. Not McMansions. Cheap enough, but not big enough. I also think the alleys make them not uniform, because they differentiate these houses from standard sprawl development, even though they are pretty uniform compared to each other.

[don johnson]

I like this development. I visited friends who live in the same thing where the old Denver Airport was.

I find it amusing that precisely the kind of development Austin is embracing must be exempt from the McMansion ordinance. It is that poorly written and obviously has nothing to do with good development.

Austin defines a McMansion based on lot size with an outlet allowing the greater of .4FAR or 2,300sf. So a McMansion in Austin is as small as 2,301sf. There's your answer. Probably much of Mueller is a McMansion and why it had to be exempted.

Looking at the lot images I notice their smallest lots are 1,575sf and largest lots are 4,950. The min lot size requirement outside of mueller is 5,750. I have always thought that should be smaller and would solve size, home cost, and sprawl concerns more naturally.

Austin does have a "small lot" minimum size of 3,600 , but I think that's for existing lots and you can't do it in a new subdivision. Then there's something called a cottage lot, but I think it is equally based on old subdivisions that can't meet today's code.

So I love the idea of Mueller. But I also think it shows how poorly council has handled the rest of austin regarding homes, sprawl, cost etc.

[don johnson]

ps. i also suspect impervious cover and envelope requirements are thrown out at mueller too.

[M1EK]

Don,

Yep, it's known among the small group that actually understand zoning that the best neighborhoods of yore couldn't be built legally under current code, but Joe Sixpack gets fed talking points like "urban planners want to force you to live in apartments" and it all is for naught.

[modaus]

Town Center will not be built for another 3 years, until enough homeowners move in to support the local businesses.
15,000 trees will be planted at Mueller, especially in between the street lights. It will look better soon!

[dwntown]

The McMansion Ordinance is the trophy of Neighborhood Activists. They have won the war on new building/tear downs in central Austin. Mueller had to be financially sufficient (being a city project) , so high density was the only way to go. Too bad the city cowered to the old folks that live alone in 3700 sq foot homes on 12000 square foot lots that were anti density.

[dwntown]

I have a bit more to comment on- then I am done. Here's an example of FAR in Mueller. 4950 lot size (55'x90')
3700 sq foot two story home
add 200 sq ft because there is a 200 sq foot garage attached. The FAR on this one is .78 !!!
All the normal building rules are out the window at Mueller - in order to be as green as possible.
Pretty sad for central Austinites to digest once they try to decifer the ordinance. .40 FAR is completely unreasonable for the high cost of living in central Austin. The 22% plunge of solds in Austin vs. last year in Sept must also be a consequence of the ordinance in addition to the national climate.

[M1EK]

To be fair, 200 sqft attached garage is basically free as far as I remember (400-450 if detached).

[dwntown]

The two car garage is free only if its detached 10 feet away from the main house (according to an architect).

[M1EK]

There's a certain number of square feet exempted for attached garages and a larger number for detached garages - it's not as simple as saying if it's detached it's free and if it's attached it counts.

[AC]

The first 200 sq. ft. of an attached garage is free. Everything over that counts. A typical 2-car garagae has 400 sq. ft.

[dwntown]

I wouldn't mind a compromise in the ordinance- to allow for .50 FAR (without having to apply for a variance). Most of the true McMansions I see have a .55 to .65 FAR. The difference between .40 and .50 for me is the difference of having enough space to house my mother- in the event she needs me to. I was recommended by one of the task force members to create an undergroung basement... Hmmm. I think I will move to Westlake before I ask my mother to live in an unfinished basement or unfinished attic space.