I hear what you’re saying. So 2 points and an invitation:
You’re saying code enforcement is toothless. So clearly the occupancy limits cannot be working. If there has been a slowing in the building of what you call “stealth dorms” it’s because your neighborhood has gentrified into actual mansions being the most profitable thing to build. That said, even if as you believe all “stealth dorms” have stopped being built you still have your original problem. You still have obnoxious neighbors who throw trash in your street and drive too fast.You haven’t fixed your original problem.
Why would you want to impose a regulation that doesn’t work on other neighborhoods? Why would you work to create regulations that don’t address your actual problems (traffic, obnoxious neighbors, and trash)? Clearly we have two options going forward. We can move towards increased sprawl or increased densification. The former leads to more gentrification, environmental degradation and increased traffic. The later could create a city that is sustainable into the next century.But whichever option you decide - environmental degradation or walkable affordability - you still have to solve your problem with obnoxious neighbors who won’t put their trash in bins and a code compliance department that won’t enforce the rules.
I invite you, rather than attempting to stop Austin from becoming a more sustainable, dense city, to turn your energy towards reforming the code department and fixing the existing problems in your neighborhood.
I agree, and that’s what I’m working toward. But an increase in occupancy limits will end all conversations about smart growth. It is just too divisive – as long as the occupancy limits are at their current levels, we can have a reasonable conversation about how to have high-quality infill, and how to create more sustainable urban development.
But any discussion of raising the occupancy limits on SF properties sucks the oxygen out of every other conversation about density and urban infill. I think you will find that gaining an increase in occupancy limits on SF properties is a pyrrhic victory for supporters of smarth-growth urban development.
It must be frustrating to have neighbors like that who won’t act rationally, and who can get so shrill and angry over an ordinance that’s a placebo. But remember we have 9 Council members now who need to represent their own constituents many of whom are dealing with serious issues finding housing, so real change is possible! We can get row houses and small apartment complexes in our neighborhoods if we work together.
“Did you really mean to advocate for 9 truly unrelated adults on one single-family zoned lot?”
I will offer that the property across the street from me,which is a single -family zoned lot (SF3), has more than 9 adults living in it… in fact it has more than 9 doorbells… and it would not bother me if 9 more people moved in. The problem with trying to resolve complex issues with simple solutions is that it often does not work. Part of the right answer should be to look where it does not work, and identify a better approach that would.
@Phil_Wiley: I think that your approach is exactly what the people opposing stealth dorms have done! They looked where it does not work (next door to their own houses) and identified a better approach (occupancy limits). To your point of thinking that 9 or even 18 different households living on a single family lot is OK, well, that sounds exactly like slum conditions. Do you think that slums are good for neighborhoods?
We talked a little further up about the fact that occupancy limits have had no effect. You might want to scroll back and catch up.
And I think plenty of single family lots can accommodate 18 units. My lot is half an acre and could easily accommodate double that number. If you put in small apartment buildings it could handle far more than that in the same amount of land. I live around the corner from dozens of 4plexes that get 4 - 750 square foot units on a .02 acre lot.
FAN is about adding in abundant, affordable housing in the city of Austin to create a walkable, sustainable city. That’s not going to look like the suburban style Austin of the 1960s. It’s going to be much more dynamic and vibrant, and housing is going to be much closer together with much less wasted space.
Thanks for asking your questions. I know a lot of these changes are very different from what people have expected in the past, and accepting how our cities must change will take a lot of dialogue and changing minds. Keep asking questions!
Oh, but they have had exactly the desired effect, Tim! I don’t know what kind of metrics you are using to draw your conclusion, but the developers have stopped building stealth dorms, which was always our desired outcome. Maybe YOU need to scroll back and catch up Also, be careful not to let your tone sound too patronizing.
If FAN has come to the conclusion that occupancy limits have no negative effects on density, then I hope that the organization won’t waste the energy to oppose them at City Council.
And OK, larger lots could obviously house several apartment units. I was assuming we were talking about the more typical 50-foot lots that we have in North Loop.
As for built density in neighborhoods, I guess one man’s backyard is another man’s “wasted space.” Different strokes for different folks.
no one here speaks for all of FAN, just a bunch of interested people thinking out loud. I think that the knock-on effects of “stealth dorms” are probably just as described, since my knowledge of most young people is that if 5 or 6 share a house, then things are hard to keep up with (noise, trash, etc.). I also think that if those 5-6 college students were separated into 4 apartments with 1 or 2 in each, then there probably would be less trash, noise, etc… If the trash & noise are the main argument against “stealth dorms”, maybe the city can step up enforcement. If no one objects to having 5-6 (or more) quiet, responsible, clean neighbors, I think we should allow small apartment buildings as infill. In the end, demonizing the mythical out-of town investors, builders, developers, etc gets us no where, since they are just doing what they do (“scorpion & turtle”) - I’m just wary when people say that they they are for greater density, but constantly find issues with even the smallest increase. It’s as if the argument goes “I’m all for density and affordable housing, as long as it doesn’t increase the number of cars on my street, doesn’t increase impervious cover, fits the neighborhood character, and can be rented at below market rates”. Where’s my pony?
@clay sorry if I sounded patronizing. I just assumed that you hadn’t read the previous bits of conversation. I’m assuming that people who are visiting this website are here in good faith and are looking for ways to fulfill FAN’s vision.
I’m very interested in being proven wrong on the value of the occupancy limit ordinance. Since the same number of buildings are being torn down as before the ordinance, what do you see being built in their place? And since there doesn’t seem to have been any enforcement of the ordinance, what do you see as the reason why developers stopped building “stealth dorms”. Altruism?
There has been a subtle, yet important, effect on how housing stock has been developed since the ordinance went into effect, at least in North Loop. The difference between a stealth dorm and the types of houses that have been built here since the ordinance is that stealth dorms are not well suited to single-family occupancy. They are designed to house students (hence the name stealth dorm), often with 6 bedrooms and 6 baths. What works well as a stealth dorm is overbuilt for a single family.
The handful of developers who were building these houses literally told us that they were going to stop building this kind of project and instead focus on “single-family” houses, with ADUs in back. Which we as a neighborhood gladly accepted. We’ve always been on the vanguard of promoting ADUs as a neighborhood. This alternate kind of house can work well for roommate situations as well as family use. Unlike stealth dorms, they at least have the POTENTIAL of someday being owned and occupied by the same people, which is good for the neighborhood. There are a lot of old houses that can’t realistically be saved in this neighborhood. But I personally feel that some thoughtfulness into what goes up to replace them is a positive thing for the neighborhood.
Of course developers didn’t stop building them out of altruism. They stopped building them because the business model that they were based on became illegal, and even if enforcement was uneven, the financial risk was high enough to prevent those projects from moving forward. That was the basis for the entire strategy.
If FAN really wants to be an echo chamber of people who are all aligned with the exact same vision, that’s fine. But don’t hold yourself up as “inclusive” if that’s the case. It’s simply (to use a favorite word of Dahmus) disingenuous.
If FAN really wants to be an echo chamber of people who are all aligned with the exact same vision, that’s fine. But don’t hold yourself up as “inclusive” if that’s the case. It’s simply (to use a favorite word of Dahmus) disingenuous.
Hey Crenshaw, try having this discussion on ANCTALK in the public eye and see how far you get. I’ll wait for you to report your results.
“To your point of thinking that 9 or even 18 different households living on a single family lot is OK, well, that sounds exactly like slum conditions. Do you think that slums are good for neighborhoods?”
I would like to extend an invitation to you and @swren (and any others interested), in a warm and welcoming spirit, to walk my block together to look at the SF-3 zoned lot across the street from me - .94 acre, 12 units 33,000 SF, row house / duplex style. One unit is for rent for $4K/mo so it’s not a slum and I am confident you will see it as an appropriate use of the space, if not under utilized. It is in the transition zone from UNO, bordering MLK, and was built before UNO and a much denser structure a block away. Apparently in 1985 this was an allowed SF-3 use in appropriate circumstances, I assume before being overridden by more simplistic rules intended to fix other “problems”.
Then I would invite you to see my backyard and give an opinion of whether it is “wasted space” in a “compact and connected” era, and whether a 6 person limit on a .85 acre lot, within the Downtown Plan boundaries, makes sense as the City planning guidance / restriction.
@rcauvin - perhaps we should build a list of properties to test various proposals against, just as the City had 9 areas they used to benchmark against for Sound Check. We are not a one size fits all city, and it may help move us from generalizing to testing out concepts. I gladly offer mine up as a candidate, likely @ttomas48 will do the same - it would probably not be good form to use property that does not belong to a member, or at least has the owners support…
@Phil_Wiley Like I mentioned before, I was referring to a small lot, not a large lot. I was also talking about cramming that many people into a single family home, not apartments. I’m sure the development you’re talking about is fine. And also, it and all other properties that are already built would be grandfathered in under the stealth dorm ordinance. I think I’ve done a pretty good job of explaining my position and rationale for supporting the stealth dorm ordinance, more than once in this very thread.
Perhaps the ordinance needs more qualifications, like exceptions for extra large lots, or maybe your .85 acre lot needs to be rezoned if you want to build more density on it. And if you like your big backyard, then I would personally say that it’s not being wasted!
I feel like this horse is dead enough at this point. I don’t really have much more to add.
Out of curiosity, have you ever considered up-zoning your property to MF? One of our neighbors had a vacant lot, and he didn’t want to build a standard SF house on it. He asked for a zoning change to MF and, of course, was granted one – no problem.
It seems to me that if you own nearly an acre next to MLK that you think is under-utilized, your problem is not occupancy limits – you just have the wrong zoning on your property.
tthomas48 kindly described my neighbors as irrational, shrill, and angry a while back, but I have to say, my neighbors (who are actually incredibly rational, intelligent and forward-thinking) would quite reasonably allow a property-owner to up-zone their property to MF if that seemed like an appropriate use for that land. In fact, the property Phil_Wiley is describing probably never would have been zoned SF in our neighborhood in the first place.
I’m sure you have do have nice progressive neighbors. The ones who throw childish temper tantrums at city council meetings are the ones who tend to make an impression on me.
And I’ll take you up on you offer. I don’t have many involved progressive neighbors, but if you do I suggest getting together and writing up a document like Mueller did. Asking the city to let you develop north loop to its maximum extent. In other words - prove it.
Also I have suggested single family zoning be removed in my neighborhood. I got penned into the back of the room at the end of that meeting by an octogenarian ANC member waving her finger in my face for my trouble.
@wren, re this “have you ever considered up-zoning your property to MF?”,
Specialists (City, other) have told me my lot was “MF” (no restriction on # of families, occupants, stories, or height), based on a 1947 subdivision deed. As were the 3 lots next to me bordering MLK - allowing for all 4 to independently change their use, or be recombined into a single 1.64 acre lot. It makes sense when you look at the location, and consider the person who made the subdivision rules homesteaded on what is now my lot.
My situation is not a unicorn, many lots in Austin were labeled SF-3 at a time when it allowed for much more density in form and occupancy, and Imagine Austin is suggesting we need to go back to allowing it again. Re-zoning is a huge tax on the system - we need to make the code supportive of the Imagine Austin goals. There is more than one way to get things done, and I believe common ground can be found for protecting peoples interests without infringing on others interests.
@rickyhennessy, thank you for the time for further discussion. Perhaps a few minor edits, incorporating comments since your last draft, gets us a little closer to something most can warm up to…
Friends of Austin Neighborhoods is opposed to the current occupancy limit of four unrelated adults in single family zoned properties as a one size fits all solution which ignores the tremendous variability in those properties (location, size, form) , and in doing so compounds affordability and segregation issues.
As the occupancy limit is scheduled to expire on March 31st, 2016, we ask that the the entire approach to encouraging and managing density be re-examined and bench marked with other cities, then be modified to support current community values, and, in advance, support objectives laid out for CodeNEXT.
Austin is becoming increasingly unaffordable for the middle class, and for many, the only way to afford living in Austin is to share the cost of rent. Now that Austin has become the most economically segregated city in the country, it is more important than ever that we allow more than four unrelated adults to live together. This will help our neighborhoods become complete communities, where families and people of all ages and socio-economic backgrounds can live together.
Ok after reading through this discussion, I still think it’s best we avoid the Stealth Dorm issue and instead create a resolution that fixes the problem by allowing a broader mix of housing types in our neighborhoods. Here’s my most recent draft:
The City of Austin should allow a broader mix of housing types within our neighborhoods to increase the economic and demographic diversity of those who are able to live in our city. This mix of housing types would include smaller lots, row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes. This doesn’t remove the option of detached single family homes; rather it increases the opportunities for more efficient use of very limited land resources. These additional types of housing will be less expensive than new large detached single family homes. As part of CodeNEXT, the city should decrease the minimum lot size for single family housing and provide opportunities for the construction of row-houses, triplexes, and quadplexes in all of our neighborhoods.
Also, be careful not to let your tone sound too patronizing.