Towering dread
Today’s the day that an aspect of the so-called “McMansion” issue comes before the city council. It’s more a matter of compatibility with existing neighboring structures than one of size or design.
People who used to enjoy backyard privacy and receive enough sun for their gardens suddenly find their environment drastically changed by the alteration of existing or construction of new dwellings.
The draft ordinance instituting a moratorium while possible changes in the development code are considered is a brief temporary measure. Today’s agenda places this issue as items number 26 and 35.
We”ve all got an opinion about this. Whatever yours is, council action may affect your quality of life, or your property taxes or rent and therefore your budget. The all-council e-mail is a good way to reach those making the decision.
Many are those with homesteads in long-tranquil neighborhoods who now are daily subjected to the effects of new “remodeling” that leaves one porch pillar and removes the remainder of the house, the “moving” that’s really an out-of-view demolition, the seven-day endless parades of open dumptrucks removing topsoil and debris, and many, many more examples of the alteration and even degradation of their daily existence. The noise and dirt are temporary; the results are more permanent.
My ox was long since gored, when the beautiful property across the street with its decades-old mature landscaping including displays of spring bulbs, ponds, venerable live oaks, and much, much more was sold to a speculator who flanked the existing historic structure with two houses that could have been uglier than they turned out to be.
Related posts:
I would side with these neighbors if they had ever, just once, even one time, come down on the side of supporting density elsewhere in or near their neighborhoods (even small-scale apartments or condos like you see sprinkled through the older neighborhoods). But they don’t, they never have, and they never will.
Keep in mind that to the people in Circle C, every house in Rosedale or 78704 or whatever is a monstrosity since it’s too close to the street, too close to its neighbors, has too small a driveway, etc. And they’re right - according to code, you could not legally build most of the homes in most of the neighborhoods we like today.
What is being destroyed are the small two- and three-story apartment complexes, the duplexes, the cottages and bungalows with garage apartments. They all exist and have long existed and are everywhere and they’re disappearing as the old people who owned them die. I’m talking about close-in Austin, because that’s what I know best, although a Sunday walk or drive in any of the less-old older neighborhoods (post WWII through the 1950s) will show gaping teeth there as well. It’s the City that requires off-street parking, driveways, and much, much more in the way of costly features that were not designed to go into the streetcar neighborhoods of Austin. Much of this activity is entirely unregulated; for instance, a “remodel” for which there *is* a permit and which left one porch pillar standing while the remainder was razed. The house long was a haven for congeries of poorly paid State workers and graduate students. What replaced it and others like it are one- and two-person households in out-of-scale monstrosities on lots barren of trees. Slabs are being poured right over wastewater lines, which are getting more and more sluggish all the time. There are probably those hoping for a Katrina-like event; that would make the teardowns and complete redevelopment in favor of the rich so much easier. So-called “gentrification” is often discussed as though it were a condition relating only to close-in East Austin or to old-time Clarksville. The people who couldn’t get loans, so that the sellers took back mortgages for their $20,000 and $30,000 houses, had faith in the neighborhoods from which they’re now being driven since plutocraf\ts regard near-downtown locations as being good places for their 5,000-square-foot “starter homes.” … just another you-fill-in-the-blank with an opinion
I have to say I didn’t think some of the more modern houses erected that they featured in the Statesman Sunday were as bad as some of the other monoliths I’ve seen. That’s where it gets tough–where do you draw the line between tastefully done modern homes and ugly abject monstrosities that people knocked down beautiful existing homes to build (like that one developer in Tarrytown)? Dean Barrera of Metrohouse posted about it here.
The neighbors (and the neighborhood associations) actually support a lot more items than they get credit for. There is an inherent asymmetry that opposition raises the profile of controversial projects (Spring) while supported / unopposed projects are quietly approved (Third and Nueces). The battles obviously leave much more of an impression.
I actually like the MetroHouses; they are distinctive and architecturally distinguished, IMO, making good use of their sites.
I don’t know about their structures, but MetroHouse sure has some good easy jam moozak playing over their website.
Here’s the Statesman story from last week (read it quick, it’s only available for a couple more days) and some subsequent letters to the editor.
You can thank the assholes who are moving into the close-in neighborhoods and building new construction with no regard to how it affects the surrounding area. It’s only when there are people who disregard what’s going on around them and abuse the situation that you have local government stepping in to over-regulate something. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it all. If you want to be closer to downtown, then you’re going to have to give up some of the space that you’re used to out there in the ‘burbs.
WAE,
Maybe you were responding in general, but as for me, do you think that I’m unaware of what neighborhoods have opposed and supported, honestly? After reading my crackplog?
I’ve, in fact, recently crackplogged about the new tactic of claiming to be responsible because you support density in Vancouveresque high-rises in a small section of downtown. Check it out here:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000268.html
Rantor, I’m sorry, but I have yet to have seen very many older (affordable) interior-neighborhood apartment and condo buildings being knocked down. And this McMansioning and superduplexing of the center-city neighborhoods is a direct result of attempting to just ignore market demand for central housing for decades and decades and decades, trying to close loophole after loophole after loophole, instead of just saying “we welcome additional neighbors as long as we can get a better streetscape and some park dollars in the bargain”, which would have been the far more responsible position.
You haven’t looked, then. It’s very said that people who haved lived comfortably and cheaply for twenty and thirty years and more are evicted. It’s happening in close-in south Austin and it’s happening just north of campus. People’s lives are disrupted. They’ve lived where they do to be close to the bus lines and able to get to work downtown and on campus and that’s gone. You’d be surprised at how many cheap apartments there are on either side of Congress nestled under the trees and encircled by duplexes and single-family housing and garage apartments. People have to leave their pets. There’s a whole colony of feral cats in Stacy Park right now for this reason. The Don-Mar is going next. The apartments on the west side of Congress not far north of Oltorf that housed parolees for so many years first got a facelift and then another and no doubt they’ll soon be evicted in favor of expensive condos just like so many others have been. Inner-city neighborhoods were redlined; only Franklin would lend anything and then not much. There are already walk-to schools, many parks, bus lines, and wonderful streetscapes. Pretty soon it’ll be goodby Washburn’s, Darrell’s and Angie’s, Long’s Vacuum, and many, many others, who knows, even our food markets, in favor of junko stores that cater to visiting tourists. Sixth Street downtown was once a real place with lots of people living there, then Gellman’s, Shanblum’s, the dry-cleaners, the downtown grocers, the real bars (Freddie’s, the Js, the Plaza, the Green Spot, plus the Raw Deal and many others) went for stupid suburban brats from the Dallas nowhere. People lived all over downtown and then what happened there is what’s happening all over the established neighborhoods. Just wait until people with eyes to see (that is, people from elsewhere), realize that the poorer students and undocumented workers don’t deserve the convenience and beautiful views between Riverside and the river.
M1EK, I was responding to the “they don’t, they never have, and they never will” comment. I know you are fully versed on neighborhood issues, but that blanket statement needed addressing.
I’m as surprised as anyone by what my own neighborhood (in da ‘04) actually does support. There’s plenty of predictable opposition to tall shiny things near water, but projects … even dense ones … that get developed within code and/or with pre-emptive notice to the ‘hood typically get supported.
Rantor, they have really got you fooled. The same neighborhoods who fought tooth and nail against what little multi-family development DOES exist have somehow got you aligned WITH them instead of against. That’s amazing jujitsu.
Ever since I’ve lived in town, I’ve seen exactly ONE instance of multifamily being knocked down to build more multifamily outside West Campus (one apartment building in Clarksville). Every other multifamily development which has gone in has replaced dilapidated single-family housing which was being rented (at unaffordable rates) to students, packed in like sardines.
If they had their way, the garage apartments would be outlawed too, as they effectively have been in Hyde Park and NUNA.
Fooled about what? I know exactly what I’m talking about. Cheap apartments, long existing, are vacated and turned into fancy-pants, sometimes fewer and larger, condominiums. Lots with, say, a duplex and two small tourist-cabin-style rental houses on them are scraped for one large one- or two-person household. Multi-family housing has always existed; now it’s going for “grander” things, whether large-floor-space multi-household complexes or for single-houshold low-occupancy stuff. This type of housing is generally not visible from the main thoroughfares through a neighborhood but it certainly does exist and always has. But these days, people who once lived in cheap, companionable creekside, tree-shaded complexes are being evicted. How long will there be trailer houses in town? What great living is off South Congress and Barton and has given way to the Walgreens on Lamar! That’s multifamily housing and people are not unhappy that it’s there, under the trees. Look at the planning department’s land-use maps for the close-in neighborhoods and it’s easy to see where and how much non-SF stuff there is.
Rantor,
You’ve been fooled if you think the current push has anything to do with protecting affordable housing. These people living in the houses that are next to the McMansions don’t want multifamily anywhere in or near their house, and multifamily is the only way you can get anything affordable in central Austin. Period.
All the anectdotes about supposed multi-family teardowns are irrelevant - the people you have allied yourself with have been the greatest force standing AGAINST increased housing supply in the center-city, period. All those apartments you and I have seen were built DESPITE these peoples’ vociferous objections at the time.
They don’t want small-scale multifamily like duplexes or garage apartments or little condos sprinkled among their cottages and big Tarrytown Not-McMansion-Because-We’ve-Got-A-Bigger-Lot-Than-Those-NEW-Rich-Thanksers. They want nothing but single-family, period.
I’ve seen the evidence of the multi-family conversions that Rantor is talking about in upper Hyde Park and the North Loop area. The one that comes to mind is at the corner of Braunig and Duval. For years it was dilapidated student housing. Then a developer bought it, slapped on a new coat of paint, installed “hardwood” (read: laminate) floors, and stuck up a hip sign out front calling them lofts. That’s the only instance I’ve seen of this so far, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are more to come.
I haven’t “allied” myself with anyone. The comments are factual. The original posting has to do with looking at how existing rules and ordinances work with existing zoning, not with changing zoning from SF to other kinds. “Affordable housing” hasn’t been mentioned, merely the disruption and destruction of the lives people are living in their longtime rentals or homesteads. This is probably all a factor of TCAD and the way land is evaluated vis-a-vis its distance from the Capitol. Henry George had thngs to say about taxation of real property.
There is a similar conversion to what Julio described happening at Bluebonnet just NW of Lamar. Dumpy apts + new coat of paint = lofts. These things are advertised as starting from $75k, so at least there’s still an element of affordability to them.
Repainting and reselling is not what the original complainant alleged. There’s still the same number of housing units around, and thus, on a macro scale, that won’t have much effect on overall affordability.
Knocking down 20 apartments to build 4 lofts, on the other hand, would meet those criteria. I haven’t seen that yet, apart from the one exception in Clarksville (and, for your schaudenfreude, they had a lot of trouble selling the $795,000 townhouses that resulted).
Heh. Dahmus continues to write as if central Austin homeowers are under some sort of _obligation_ to scrape their houses to make way to higher-denisty development. Or that central Austin neighborhoods have some imagined _responsibility_ to be OK with drastic, disruptive changes to the neighborhoods. Of course, no such obligations nor responsibilites exist.
As a long-time central Austin homeowner, I am aware that I have undertaken ZERO responsibility toward increasing the housing density in my neighborhood. Moreover, if neighborhood residents (ie. the ones who actually are living in the said neighborhoods) don’t want high-density housing in their neighborhood, then that is the way it will be. Such housing shouldn’t be forced on the unwilling for the sake of perpetuating anyones’s New Urban pipedream.
“Repainting and reselling is not what the original complainant alleged.”
Is Rantor on trial here? I only made an observation based on something he said.
By the way, there will be an effect on affordability if the trend of developers buying crapped-out apartment complexes, “renovating” them, and then leasing them out for double or triple their original rent continues.
Tim, that Statesman article isn’t the huge one that was in the Sunday rag. I’ve been looking in vain for it. Damn, the council passed the moratorium. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO.
Spook, if you can’t call me by my first name, or at least my login, kindly fuck off.
Julio,
Renovating apartment complexes doesn’t change the supply of housing units - thus, somebody else’s marginally affordable unit will get a bit more affordable if you make yours a little less. Only changes in supply (or truly dramatic changes in quality of supply - going way beyond simple coats of paint, in other words) could have the negative effect on affordability people claim.
Oh, and here’s the beauty part:
“Moreover, if neighborhood residents (ie. the ones who actually are living in the said neighborhoods) don’t want high-density housing in their neighborhood, then that is the way it will be. Such housing shouldn’t be forced on the unwilling for the sake of perpetuating anyones’s New Urban pipedream.”
Somehow, they’re casting their self as the defender of freedom, when, in fact, the primary restriction being debated here is that you want the ability to tell your next-door neighbor not to build something on _his_ property.
Whether or not such restrictions are appropriate in general, it’s very obvious that the ‘force’ being brought to bear here is by the neighborhoods, not the developers.
Ouchy! Whatever. Still no obligation. Have you considered moving to San Fransisco? There’s lots of townhouses there.
“it’s very obvious that the ‘force’ being brought to bear here is by the neighborhoods, not the developers.”
Well, yes. If force has to be used, then I want it to be used to further my cause. Pretty obvious. Better us than them.
“Somehow, they’re casting their self as the defender of freedom …”
Defenders of freedom? Please. You put words in our mouths. The only thing that freedom has to do with this issue is that either the developers will lose some freedom or the neighborhoods will.
We want our neighborhoods to be the way that we want them. If someone is denied freedom, well that’s too bad. We’re also under no obligation to be fair to anyone. And neither are the developers. They lose no chances to demonstrate that fact.
The developers aren’t using ‘force’. The proper analogy would be if they pushed the City Council to write zoning laws requiring a MINIMUM building size of McMansionesque proportions and requiring that all smaller houses be knocked down.
“And this McMansioning and superduplexing of the center-city neighborhoods is a direct result of attempting to just ignore market demand for central housing for decades and decades and decades, trying to close loophole after loophole after loophole, instead of just saying “we welcome additional neighbors as long as we can get a better streetscape and some park dollars in the bargain”, which would have been the far more responsible position.” I meant to say something about this. There were no “decades and decades” of market demand for close-in housing; that’s why lenders would not offer mortgages; they were afraid they’d take a loss. Eventually they began doing so for Hyde Park, Fairview Park, and Travis Heights, but that was only about fifteen years ago that it didn’t take a perfect credit record and a non-conventional lender. The demand wasn’t there. Even now in East Austin, the lenders will help out the developers who have assembled numerous small properties but they’re not jumping all over one another to help out the individual homeowner. Austinites wanted N-P-C, John Lloyd, Bill Milburn; they wanted “new.” Demand is ramping up because there are Suburban-loads of California speculative investors here every weekend. They don’t see Austin in the same way that Austin has been seen in the past, and that especially includes close-in East Austin. They see accessibility, “cheap” land in their eyes, water views, and more. In the tech bust, some Californians and NW people returned home but kept their Austin properties (and their illegal homestead exemptions). I’ve kept MLS booklets and real-estate classified ads going back four decades and I have a very good sense of how the market has been.
“Demand is ramping up because there are Suburban-loads of California speculative investors here every weekend. They don’t see Austin in the same way that Austin has been seen in the past, and that especially includes close-in East Austin.”
Here, here! In the current real estate boom, we have such an influx of immigrants from other places that really don’t give a whit about what came before. That is going to be a challenge to this city for some time to come.
“The proper analogy would be if they pushed the City Council to write zoning laws requiring a MINIMUM building size of McMansionesque proportions and requiring that all smaller houses be knocked down.”
What makes you think that they haven’t already thought of that (or something similar)?
Maybe it’s just that we just beat them to the punch.
Wow, 28 posts before somebody blamed Californians. I’m amazed it took this long.
True Story Time: In 1999, at the worst possible time to be doing so, I was looking to buy a house. I’d just gotten married, and my wife wasn’t too cool on my 900 sqft East Austin house very near the Holly power plant.
It was the height of the boom, we wanted to stay central (I’ve been in Austin since 1978), and the market was, to say the least, crazy. Without running on too long about it, we bid and lost out on three houses (one in Hyde Park, and two in Rosedale) because on each occasion someone would swoop in and make cash-offer-no-inspection-close-in-a-week deals that no sane seller would refuse. Three times!!
And, yes, all three times, they were newcomers from California. Losing out on the Hyde Park house was particularily heartbreaking. It was a very cool house.
I suppose the next step in the neighborhoods uber alles plan for Austin will be to have a “locals-only bidding period” for houses, since you clearly deserve those houses more than do those evil Californians.
I suggest that the year we use as the dividing line between “locals” and “evil newbies” be 1977.
It’s certainly true that many now single-family houses from North Hyde Park all the way down to far, far Oltorf and throughout downtown from the campus to the river (though downtown properties of that sort are now mostly offices or demolished) were much more densely populated then than they are now, at just about that time. It’s surprising, for instance, how many people spent a shorter or a longer period living among the two dozen or so people who populated the Academy at any given time. At about that time it was surrounded by a cyclone fence and the group establishment conducted a yard sale almost every weekend. Now it’s a historic landmark and a mere two people or so appear to live there. “Locals” the old Academy residents weren’t, although many are now; then they were generally students, musicians, workers at one of the State schools, and the like who never made that return trip to their hometowns.
Touche, M1EK. Had to go there, I guess. 34 posts. Is this a record?
“I suppose the next step in the neighborhoods uber alles plan for Austin will be to have a “locals-only bidding period” for houses, since you clearly deserve those houses more than do those evil Californians. I suggest that the year we use as the dividing line between “locals” and “evil newbies” be 1977.”
Spoken like a true newcomer. But I know you’ve lived here longer than that, and that’s what’s so puzzling. After living here all these years, you still sound exactly like a newcomer. Puzzling.
I’m having a deja-vu moment. Now I’m not quite sure that this forum isn’t actually austin.general circa 1998. How many times will the same tedious arguments be argued over and over again? And by the exactly the same posters?
Go get a life, guys.
“Spook”:
My wife moved here when she was like 2 years old, and thus, as long as the bidding is done in her name, we beat you newbies.
PUZZLING!
Could the clue-by-four have been any more obvious? Those Californians have as much of a right to live here as you do or I do.
“Those Californians have as much of a right to live here as you do or I do.”
Depends on who you ask. We’ll have to disagree about this one.
What do you suggest, Spook? Setting up sentrys at the stateline to keep out undiserable left coasters? (Ironically, California did that in the 1930s until it was struck down by the Supreme Court).
Blaming Californians is a lazy reaction to the changes going on in town and in the real estate market. I’ve met plenty of Austin property flippers from Boston, New York and Seattle. How about barring them as well?
Barring property flippers … not a bad idea. Thanks Julio!
M1EK if you are so in love with density. And the idea of quaint neighborhoods with small houses is too much to take move the fuck out of Austin. Move to fucking Houston. Developers have less restrictions. You can tear down houses and build condos and no bats an eye.
Lurker,
The idea that Houston has less restrictions is fundamentally untrue. See:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000212.html
short summary: They have enough other restrictions on the market to more than make up for the lack of zoning.
And the idea of neighborhoods telling OTHER people what to do with THEIR houses is what’s “too much to bear”. Just as you’d probably find it too much to bear if I came to your house and told you that you MUST build a garage apartment on your lot.
Dude did you read that article. I dont think you did. Basically Houston has rules about minimal lot sizes and requiring parking spaces for residence (so people dont park in the street). But Austin has these restrictions as well as its zoning laws. So basically if we want to reduce or remove Austin’s zoning laws we will end up in the same situation as we currently have in Houston. So again instead of trying to make Austin like Houston move to fucking Houston.
Second when people bought their homes there were certain zoning restrictions in place. So they bought their homes with this in mind. So if someone buys a house that is zoned single family and gets pissed they cant build a fourplex they are a fucking idiot. Yes they are being told they cant build a fourplex but that should not be “to much to bear” because that restriction was in place at the time of purpose.
Again if you want to reduce or remove zoning move to fucking Houston. They already did it there. You can get all happy looking at a sea of concrete.
I mistyped it should have read
because that restriction was in place at the time of purchase.
Lurker,
You misread. Houston has MORE restrictions than does Austin which affect the ability to build density in residential development. Not less, MORE. They force houses to be on bigger lots; and effectively outlawed what we’d call townhouses before 1998, allowing them since then in only a small area.
Their offstreet parking requirements are HIGHER than ours; and their restrictive covenants, mandatory long blocks, and other regulations more than make up for the lack of zoning.
So, no, we wouldn’t ‘end up like Houston’ if we relaxed zoning laws. We’d have to first apply all of Houston’s rules, which for the fourth time since apparently you’re willfully obtuse on the matter, ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN AUSTIN’S.
Are you really arguing that Houston has more restrictive zoning than Austin. Knowing several people that have developed in both Austin and Houston that is simply not the case.
And by the way the article you keep posting to prove that Houston has more restrictive zoning than Austin doesnt even mention Austin. But lets look at the particulars
Houston says you cant build on a lot smaller than 5000 square feet. In Austin you need 5750 square feet. That is why in Austin there are several vacant lots that have been vacant for years because there are undersized.
From the article when talking about Houston
*Single-family homes must be on lots large enough to “(e)nsure that two vehicles per dwelling unit can be parked entirely on the lot.”
Austin has this same requirement. I know because I have had to go to the city to get plans approved. In addition if you have a duplex you have to have 4 spaces. But in addition Austin has a requirement you cannot stack more than two cars in.
In addition Austin has impervious cover requirements. And in addition to that we have zoning. So when you sum it all up Austin easily has more restritive development requirements than Houston. The fact that you are even arguing to the contary is silly.
I repeat from the other thread: The author of that paper concluded that the sum total of regulations in Houston which affect residential density are MORE onerous than in most cities, not less. If we assume Austin is LESS onerous than most (a reasonable assumption given the changes attempted via Smart Growth and the like), then it follows that density is actually more restricted in Houston than in Austin.
Again, read the paper, from beginning to end. You can’t argue with it - it’s just quoting regulations on the books; there’s no subjectivity.
Dude this is pretty amusing. Your argument is getting really really weak. Im sure your realize this but there is no way you can admit your wrong.
So you used the paper to argue that Houston has more restrictive zoning than Houston.
I went through the article and basically the semi zoning Houston has Austin has as well. In addition to that Austin has impervious cover requirements and has actual zoning.
And your response is basically “but the paper”. Im sure you quote this paper all the time you cant do anything but keep pointing to it even though it totally fails to prove your case about Austin and Houston.
Second this paper is crap. It says Houston has restrictive zoning. All it does is mention alot of requirements that are true in most cities. Minimum lot sizes and parking requirements. These are true in every city I have ever dealt with.
I had a long comment, since lost, since the fine folks running this site apparently banned “M1EK” from commenting.
Nice work, guys. Real classy.
Basically, it boils down to this:
All cities have rules preventing residential density. Houston’s, despite popular misconceptions, are MORE restrictive than average. That’s what the paper shows, and it’s what you continue to fail to accept.
I posted this in the other thread as well, but you haven’t been banned, M1EK. Are you getting some sort of message saying that you have or are the comment posts just screwing up?
I almost feel bad continuing this argument. I feel like im kicking someone when they are down.
There was a paper that people used to prove Houston has more restrictive zoning than Austin.
We went through the items in the paper. The problem is Austin has almost all of these same rules. In fact in many cases Austin has these same rules but they are actually stricter in Austin.
In addition to the rules Houston has Austin also has impervious cover requirements and Austin has actual zoning.
All MD or M1EK can do is dumbfoundly point back at the paper. I think they are so used to pointing at the paper they have no other response.
Its kind of amusing but its kind of sad at the same time.
Its really funny you keep pointing to the conclusion of the paper. Dude did you actually read the paper. All it mentions is a bunch of rules that for the most part Austin has in place and in Austin they are actually stricter.
So I want to be as clear as possible
Houston restrictions
A bunch of random rules about lot size and parking and what not
Austin restrictions
1. A bunch of random rules about lot size and parking and what not that are for the most part more restrictive than Houston.
2. Impervious Cover Requirements
3. Actual Zoning.
Lurker,
NO,
Austin: a bunch of random rules which are much less restrictive than Houston’s (lot length, parking, etc.).
Houston: more restrictive rules.
Austin: zoning
Houston: restrictive covenants (MORE restrictive in most cases than would be zoning).
Im almost begining to feel bad. Its like im kicking you around like a football.
Your argument just gets weaker and weaker.
> NO,
> Austin: a bunch of random rules which are much less restrictive than Houston’s (lot length, parking, etc.).
> Houston: more restrictive rules.
I love that you think by stating your opinion that proves your argument. I mean at some point did you
become the the pope.
Ok lets go through a few specifics
-parking.
From the article when talking about Houston
*Single-family homes must be on lots large enough to “(e)nsure that two vehicles per dwelling unit can be parked
entirely on the lot.”
Austin has this same requirement. I know because I have had to go to the city to get plans approved.
In addition if you have a duplex you have to have 4 spaces. But in addition Austin has a requirement where you
cannot stack more than two cars in.
-lot size
Ok first off most of Austin is zoned where 5750 square feet is required. You mentioned 3600 which is true of SF-4A and SF-4B lots. Do you know how many lots in Austin are zoned SF-4A and SF-4B the answer hardly any.
But wait its gets better. I said Houston has a mimimum lot size of 5000. I didnt want to get into specifics but I guess I will. From your glorious paper you are all ga ga about.
In 1998, [FN63] Houston narrowed the scope of its minimum lot size ordinance: the
5000-square-foot minimum now applies only to “suburban” areas, [FN64] defined as areas
outside Interstate Highway 610, [FN65] a highway which encircles, and is about five miles from,
downtown Houston. [FN66] In “urban areas,” by contrast, the minimum lot size is now typically
3500 square feet.” …. “And in 1998, the city did exactly that, reducing the minimum lot size within the 610 Loop from
5,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet–and even to 1,400 square feet under certain circumstances”
And trust me the number of lots in Houston in the urban area is far far far greater than the number of SF-4a and SF-4b lots in Austin.
So in summary in Austin most lots have to be 5750. A very very small number of lots can be 3600. In Houston suburban lots can be 5000. And urban lots can be 3500.
- lot length
This is much less important than lot size. But Austin actually does have a restriction on this.
I could not find a mention of Houston having such a restriction.
> Houston: restrictive covenants (MORE restrictive in most cases than would be zoning).
Yeah you guessed Austin has restrictive covenants as well. As do most cities in Texas.
I know because I have had to deal with restrictive covenants on properties in Austin.
In addition Austin has impervious cover requirements. And in addition to that we have actual zoning.