Living Central, considering a change. Advice welcome! (Austin, Cedar Park: apartments, city hall)

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Oh gee, gosh, it's so hard to come up with wonderfully dense neighborhoods. . .

Georgetown DC


Lower West Side NYC


Montmartre Paris


Boston's Back Bay


Nob Hill in San Francisco


But gosh - we wouldn't want to have that in Austin would we?

BTW - every single picture I should you is ILLEGAL to build in Hyde Park and NUNA and most of the rest of Austin.

Nob Hill....Montmartre...Austin? We're talking about historic, beautiful neigborhoods that grew around infrastructure, not like the POS that would be put up here.

[gpurcell]

They have similar form because they were built over a hundred years ago in much smaller cityscapes.

How can you not understand that?

[Trainwreck20]

How much do the houses cost on Nob Hill?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

They have similar form because they were built over a hundred years ago in much smaller cityscapes.

How can you not understand that?

They are being built today because they are allowed. How can you not understand that? In anycase, why on earth would you make such housing illegal?

[mackenziep]

Median list price in Nob Hill: $136,500,000
Avg price per sq/ft: $1,035
Median sale/list price: 104.80%

Boston/Back Bay median sales price: $810,750
Avg price per sq/ft: $867

Philadelphia:
Center City West
Rittenhouse Square
Fitler Square
All average home price greater than $600,000
Average price per sq/ft: $557/441/446
(But you have to live in Philadelphia, which is mostly awful)

Cheapest flat in the 18th Arrondissement (Butte-Montmarte - the picture komeht showed): $543,000
About 450 square feet of living space.

I think I've made my point that real estate in these desirable places is the opposite of affordable. Here's what "affordable" housing generally looks like in Europe:

Paris banlieue:


Moscow suburbs:


Affordable student housing in Amsterdam:

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Nob Hill....Montmartre...Austin? We're talking about historic, beautiful neigborhoods that grew around infrastructure, not like the POS that would be put up here.

The way we can guarantee such neighborhoods won't develop here is to make them illegal, as we have done.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mackenziep

Median list price in Nob Hill: $136,500,000
Avg price per sq/ft: $1,035
Median sale/list price: 104.80%

Boston/Back Bay median sales price: $810,750
Avg price per sq/ft: $867

Philadelphia:
Center City West
Rittenhouse Square
Fitler Square
All average home price greater than $600,000
Average price per sq/ft: $557/441/446
(But you have to live in Philadelphia, which is mostly awful)

Cheapest flat in the 18th Arrondissement (Butte-Montmarte - the picture komeht showed): $543,000
About 450 square feet of living space.

I think I've made my point that real estate in these desirable places is the opposite of affordable. Here's what "affordable" housing generally looks like in Europe:

Paris banlieue:


Moscow suburbs:


Affordable student housing in Amsterdam:

Paris, Amsterdam, Moscow...these are some of the richest real estate markets in the world and world class cities which Austin is not. Real estate won't be nearly as expensive as those places, yet we can still have the graceful beautiful places by allowing them to exist.

What is the public policy justification for outlawing such wonderful places?

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Komeht

The way we can guarantee such neighborhoods won't develop here is to make them illegal, as we have done.

You want charm, sophistication, unique expression. That develops over time- lots of time. What we would get is something cheap, ugly, and boxy.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

You want charm, sophistication, unique expression. That develops over time- lots of time. What we would get is something cheap, ugly, and boxy.

How does McMansion ensure that new buildings aren't cheap ugly and boxy?

Again - under McMansion and other Austin zoning this is legal:



and this is not:



You tell me what the public policy reason is to prefer that the first picture over the second.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

You want charm, sophistication, unique expression. That develops over time- lots of time. What we would get is something cheap, ugly, and boxy.

And why would this not apply equally to SF-3 based new development? Are you arguing that DR Horton pod developments in Manor will in 50-100 years be thought of as beautiful, historic neighborhoods? Or will they be "cheap, ugly, and boxy."

It seems we're conflating two issues: 1) What form should new development be? To which Khomet, I, and others argue "a diverse mix, which includes single family detached in some/many places, but is not limited to it" vs ONLY sf-3 everywhere. The second issue: 2) "Is a lot of new development cheap, ugly crap?"

The answer to two is, unfortunately, yes. But that's just as true of SF-3 too. Getting builders to build better is an issue for all forms of development. It's hard but it can be done. There are excellent new townhouses being built here and in Europe. And crappy ones. Just like with single family detached. You can't build new "old" neighborhoods. You have to build good new neighborhoods so they can turn into cool old neighborhoods.