January 28, 2008
To Biggie-Size or Not Biggie-Size Your Home
Austin imposed a moratorium on "McMansions" while we were in the midst of renovating (and super-sizing) Erwin House. In the spring of 2006, our city council unanimously voted in favor of certain restrictions which would limit the size of residential developments in single-family neighborhoods.
Although David and I agreed with the intent of the rule (to prevent house flippers and other developers from outrageously maxing out the buildable square footage of a small urban lot), we were very disappointed with the lack of due process.
A couple of days ago, a former Austin resident left us this comment:
"The question that doesn't seem to get discussed much around this issue is how big does a house really have to be for a modest family? In the U.S., I think our first answer is always "as big as I want it and can afford!" . . . [H]ow is it that 40 years ago, many of the same houses being demolished in Crestview to make a 3 story, 2800 sq' mod box for 4 people probably were used to raise families of 6 or more?"
I ask myself the same question ALL the time. We're raising a family of five (plus a dog and a cat) in 2100sf. It feels exactly right, sometimes even a bit generous. We probably could do without 200 of those square feet, but we've also talked about expanding the family at some point... Why did it seem so impossibly to raise our five-person family in 830 square feet?
I have talked to people who grew up in our neighborhood, families of four, five or six in 800 square feet, adults in one bedroom and all of the children in the other, all of them squeezed around a tiny kitchen table to eat breakfast or dinner. Where did they put all their stuff?
My mother-in-law and others I know have explained that they didn't have a lot of stuff growing up. They had two outfits, one for school/church, and one for play. Their clothes were washed in the sink daily. They didn't have many toys, and they ate many of the same meals over and over again, mothers shopping for fresh food at the market daily rather than stockpiling in the cabinets.
Call me shallow: this all sounds very spartan, like something I half admire and half fear. The people I've talked to don't look back on these times fondly. They remember feeling poor and being constantly hungry. They resented the lack of privacy. My mother-in-law explained that they didn't really choose to live in a small house, they had to. They weren't trying to be environmentally conscious, most people simply couldn't afford a larger home. And many parents who had grown up during the depression were afraid to purchase a larger home, one they might not be able to afford were the market to suddenly crash again.
We started with a drawing for a 3,600sf home and whittled it down to 2,100, partly because we realized that we had originally drawn a bedroom the size of an airplane hangar (things look smaller on paper, I swear!) and partly because we simply couldn't afford to build that big.
What is too big? What is not big enough? Are today's standards gluttonous, or were yesterday's homes too tight?
Posted by Christiane at 02:28 PM | Comments (7)
March 06, 2007
What's So Funny 'Bout Vertical Mixed Use Development
Lincoln Properties and Walmart hosted an open house last night. It was creepy. Even 7yo picked up on the creepy vibe and clung to me the whole time we were there.
The first thing that struck me was all the high-res renderings, maps and aerial photos of the design. I had to drive to a conference center on a Monday night between soccer practice and dinner to see these? Seriously. Post it online. Why in the world would I trust an organization that holds its cards so close to its chest?
Second, this open house was at least one year too late. How can you say you're accepting input when construction has already started? Gross.
It's a big box. It belongs on a highway. Ten years ago. A little limestone on the facade won't fix that.
Posted by David at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)
April 16, 2006
Built to Sell, Not to Live
We regularly get flyers on our front door that publish recent selling prices for houses in our neighborhood. They encourage us to cash out. It feels like vultures circling our house. Christiane and I know 5 families that have moved out because they couldn't buy a bigger house here. Usually getting pregnant is the trigger. No wonder our elementary school is at 57% capacity. I'd like to distribute flyers that say, "Don't leave, especially if you have kids. Don't give our neighborhood to the vultures."
I had hoped that the people building this house (below) were like us, and just wanted to live here. When they put up a For Sale sign I was disappointed. I don't know their story. Maybe they couldn't afford it by the time they were done. But it sure looks like they built it for profit. If they don't live here, is it okay for them to reshape our neighborhood?
On the other hand, some builders are bringing a great funky style to our area. This new house (duplex actually) doesn't have much in common with it's neighbors, but I think it's going to be gorgeous.
The house across the street from us is being rebuilt with a 400 square foot addition right now. It looks like they are doing a great job. But, my opinion about these houses depends on whether there is a for sale sign or a moving van in front when they are done.
Posted by David at 02:11 AM | Comments (8)
February 18, 2006
Crestview Station
We got a notice in the mail alerting us to an application for site development at Crestview Station (where the old Huntsman chemical plant rests in peace).
The applicant is proposing to construct four multi-family buildings and four parking garages, with associated streets and utilities.
The applicant in question is Bury + Partners. I'm excited--these are the people that did the GSD&M building across from Whole Foods. When building, they were very careful to reduce impervious cover and the drainage impact on Shoal Creek, preserve existing natural resources on the banks of the creek, and promote water conservation through xeriscaping.
A quick look at the application website doesn't reveal much detail, so I googled it. The basics about the site development were reported in the Austin Biz Journal last July, including an overview:
- 150,000 square feet of retail and office space.
- Roughly 500 single-family lots.
- Up to 600 multifamily units.
- Upgrades to existing ball fields.
- Environmental cleanup with a price tag exceeding $3 million.
I'm particularly interested in the "cleanup." Every few weeks last fall, we would hear a strange noise coming from Huntsman, a loud hissing sound that permeated our home even with all the windows and doors closed. Usually the noise lasted less than 10 minutes, but one night it droned on for over an hour. We called the fire department, and they went to investigate, but we never found out what the source of the noise was. It sounded eerily like gas escaping from a pipe. It wasn't exactly comforting.
I heard some neighborhood buzz a while back about not wanting a direct thru-road to Crestview from this new neighborhood. I'm not sure I understood why. If I were a parent moving into one of those new homes or condos, my greatest concern would be the walkability of getting to and from the elementary school every day. I'd love to see more families move into the area, but I wouldn't blame anyone for being a little freaked out about their kiddos having to cross the lightrail tracks. The journal article mentions "narrow streets, alleys, ponds and community parks easily reachable from every home;" I hope they are thinking about pedestrian safety as they develop the plans.
Apparently there was also a Statesman article (cached but not up on the Statesman site) that noted:
- 550-600 apartments will be built in three and four story buildings at a density of 60 units per acre.
- 500 single family lots will only be 25-30 feet wide.
- 150,000 sf of retail and office space will be built into six two-story buildings with retail on ground floor and office above.
- 17 acre North Austin Optimists ball fields will be preserved as well as 4 more acres for open space.
Wahoo! They're keeping the ballparks.
As for the businesses... I have to admit that Burnet Road just keeps getting cooler. I remember that 12 years ago, when I used to take Cap Metro up to Northcross Mall from the campus area for a summer job, I thought that Burnet Road was a concrete jungle. Nowadays (and I am sure David will expound on this), it seems like it just keeps attracting and sustaining funky mom-and-pops. I rarely leave north-central Austin to do my shopping or go out to eat. I hope North Lamar starts catching up ;-)
Posted by Christiane at 10:36 PM | Comments (3)
February 07, 2006
An Angled Setback
From the Austin Chronicle
"At last Thursday's City Council meeting it was McCracken vs. McMansions. A resolution initiating changes to city code to ensure that development is consistent with existing neighborhoods, sponsored by McCracken, passed unanimously. Council is set to vote on similar interim rules at tonight's meeting to quell a perceived influx of building permits before the so-called McMansion ordinance is finalized in March. Materials accompanying the proposed measure state that 'due to an increase in property values and the desire to live in Austin's central city area, many property owners are demolishing or moving smaller older homes and replacing them with larger homes known as McMansions.' The new ordinance would seek to regulate such constructions by employing any number of the following methods: changing the maximum allowed building height for single-family uses, creating a new floor-to-area ratio (meaning the ratio of building square footage to lot size), applying compatibility standards to new homes or remodeled homes with significant additions, revising building setbacks for homes exceeding a certain size, limiting home size based on the average size of nearby homes, or providing an angled stepback from the front property line of the lot so a new or remodeled home would not tower over the adjacent street. - D.M."
Seriously? They put the word "McMansion" in the official language? Can we replace "smaller older homes" with "Cracker Box Houses"?
I'm not against the City Council addressing this issue. I'm just against them being silly about it.
Posted by David at 08:37 AM | Comments (1)