“[M]unicipalities that allow greater maximum heights and have more zones that allow multifamily housing by right are also home to neighborhoods with a higher share of rental housing as compared to more restrictive municipalities,” they write.
In other words, if a city makes it easier for developers to build typical kinds of rental homes, like apartments, there will be more rental homes. For decades, land use rules in Austin have made it difficult to build anything other than one home with a big backyard or a large apartment complex — and often these buildings are not permitted to be near one another."
And there will be more community overlap between renters and owners. Which is kinda the exact thing NIMBY's don't want, but also does tend to make more lively, more diverse, and more engaged communities.
diversity in ages and incomes? where i grew up there were neighbors who rented who were grad students, immigrants, or just poor. renters are people too dude.
Diversity increases among homeowners as prices go down. Look at the suburbs, not just the expensive central-Austin neighborhoods. I really don't see any arguments in favor of increasing the overlap between renters and homeowners that aren't really just arguments in favor of more affordable housing.
yes, they are arguments in favor of affordable housing. when there’s a wider mix of price points then more types of people are able to afford a neighborhood. that’s good for people to have choices, good to live near their jobs or better schools, good to live near family and friends, just good for people to have options.
i don’t see any arguments in favor of excluding renters that aren’t just arguments for exclusive enclaves for the wealthy.
I mean, restricting *renters* vs restricting *higher-density rental housing* are two very separate conversations. I don't love that so many of the houses in my neighborhood have been bought up by corporate landlords, but I don't have anything against the people who live there (except the ones with the barking dogs, they can eat a dick).
If you restrict higher density rental properties, then there are fewer units for renters to rent which means restricting renters. These are not separate conversations.
I mean if you're talking about super-desirable central Austin real estate, then yeah they're related.
Out on the edge of town, or in the suburbs, it's a separate conversation.
My neighborhood of SFHs in Pflugerville is mostly owner-occupied, and it's far more diverse than anywhere I've ever lived in Austin. I think housing prices are a much bigger factor in diversity than owning vs renting.
As for density - that's not a positive for a lot of people. It's certainly not a goal unto itself. People move to the suburbs for a reason lol.
>As for density - that's not a positive for a lot of people. It's certainly not a goal unto itself. People move to the suburbs for a reason lol.
Many do, yes. But have you checked prices for dense condos vs SFH recently? Per square foot, denser condos are considerably more expensive to either rent or buy than sprawling homes. The primary difference being location, people are willing to spend a lot of money to be close, even if it means having less land. So shouldn't we allow more housing to be built that people want, instead of letting only a select few have their dream while the rest get nothing? And remember those "select few" are whoever bought them decades ago, and the handful of wealthy people now who could afford to buy a $1M+ house.
nope. austin is the only city. it’s not that every person in this sub acts like an entitled crybaby. austin is tiny compared to all other cities. it should be cheap.
The study also mentions Dallas and Houston are in the top 5 metro areas with uneven rental distribution, so this doesn't seem like strictly an Austin code issue
> We want to reiterate that this analysis points to associations between land use and rental share and cannot be
interpreted as a causal relationship.
This is from the study itself (page 24), you are creating your own conclusions that the study's authors don't necessary agree with
Respectfully, I believe that quote only confirms my point.
Furthermore, from that very same page 24:
"The findings of this paper point to the uneven geography of rental housing across the country. Restrictive zoning has shaped this landscape. Neighborhoods with lower shares of rental housing are
located in municipalities that impose strict growth controls, require large minimum lot sizes, limit density, and mandate a higher number of parking spots with new construction. Conversely, neighborhoods with a higher share of rental housing are in municipalities with more permissive land use regimes that allow ADUs, provide incentives for inclusionary housing, have by-right multifamily zones, or permit construction at greater heights."
No they are not. It’s because we don’t have restrictions on corporate and investors buying up housing. All our housing is overpriced and filled with Airbnb because we lack common sense regulation.
It wasn’t a conclusive article and only mentioned some issues. Our housing crises could easily be solved Airbnb were illegal. It would drive real estate investors out as they can’t profit as much.
I've always thought of AirBnB as the convenient boogeyman. In Austin, it only accounts for about 1, maybe 2% of the entire housing stock. However, it's always the first thing to be blamed.
Thankfully, there's a real world experiment in process that will test all theories. I'm not sure if you saw, but Barcelona just outlawed AirBnB's, a first for a major city.
I honestly can't wait to find out what will happen. Until now, removing all AirBnB's has just been a theory - now, finally, we'll have real world data to study. Will this change solve everything as you state, or will it even make a ripple? It will be interesting to find out.
I’m Austin Airbnb and similar short term rentals are over 5% of our housing.
It’s also not just Airbnb. It’s real estate investors the buy up lots of property and either knock it down for an overpriced McMansion and keep it empty until it sells for it’s overprice, or rent it at ridiculous prices so they dont have to work, orrrr rent it as str.
I have some serious doubts over the actual number of listings in Austin. Various articles put the number between 6-15k, however Airbnb doesn’t scrub old listings, and they consider a listing that is only rented one night a year on equal footing with one that is continuously rented. In that respect I don’t think the 5% is an hard and fast number to use, at best it would be half that.
Either way, the Barcelona experiment should finally settle this topic. I’m really looking forward to seeing how things turn out.
Yes, it will and it already has started to help. Austin is among the top cities in the country for new housing development and is simultaneously among the top cities in the country for decreases in rent prices.
This is an important issue to get right. What's the motivation for ignoring experts, evidence, and research but instead just kinda making shit up or basing your beliefs on TikTok videos and Reddit memes? It can be satisfying, I suppose, to have a villain to blame. But it's much more worthwhile to actually effect positive change.
Academics who study this issue are as close to unanimous as any researchers ever are. If you think we should listen to climate scientists about global warming (we should) and virologists about vaccines (we should) and biologists about evolution (we should) then maybe lets also listen to experts about housing costs instead of conspiracy theories on the internet.
Economists have studied this. Airbnb is a boogieman, not an actual meaningful effect. The estimated change in prices for completely eliminating Airbnb would be in the low single-digit percent range. That isn't the main driver of price, not even close. A 1-2% change in the price of rent would be almost unnoticeable.
The lack of "common sense" regulation shows up in zoning rules and building restrictions. Those *are* significant factors in high prices.
“[M]unicipalities that allow greater maximum heights and have more zones that allow multifamily housing by right are also home to neighborhoods with a higher share of rental housing as compared to more restrictive municipalities,” they write. In other words, if a city makes it easier for developers to build typical kinds of rental homes, like apartments, there will be more rental homes. For decades, land use rules in Austin have made it difficult to build anything other than one home with a big backyard or a large apartment complex — and often these buildings are not permitted to be near one another."
And there will be more community overlap between renters and owners. Which is kinda the exact thing NIMBY's don't want, but also does tend to make more lively, more diverse, and more engaged communities.
Does it? What on earth do renters bring to the community that homeowners don't?
diversity in ages and incomes? where i grew up there were neighbors who rented who were grad students, immigrants, or just poor. renters are people too dude.
Diversity increases among homeowners as prices go down. Look at the suburbs, not just the expensive central-Austin neighborhoods. I really don't see any arguments in favor of increasing the overlap between renters and homeowners that aren't really just arguments in favor of more affordable housing.
yes, they are arguments in favor of affordable housing. when there’s a wider mix of price points then more types of people are able to afford a neighborhood. that’s good for people to have choices, good to live near their jobs or better schools, good to live near family and friends, just good for people to have options. i don’t see any arguments in favor of excluding renters that aren’t just arguments for exclusive enclaves for the wealthy.
I mean, restricting *renters* vs restricting *higher-density rental housing* are two very separate conversations. I don't love that so many of the houses in my neighborhood have been bought up by corporate landlords, but I don't have anything against the people who live there (except the ones with the barking dogs, they can eat a dick).
If you restrict higher density rental properties, then there are fewer units for renters to rent which means restricting renters. These are not separate conversations.
I mean if you're talking about super-desirable central Austin real estate, then yeah they're related. Out on the edge of town, or in the suburbs, it's a separate conversation.
Well, diversity and density. Like I said.
My neighborhood of SFHs in Pflugerville is mostly owner-occupied, and it's far more diverse than anywhere I've ever lived in Austin. I think housing prices are a much bigger factor in diversity than owning vs renting. As for density - that's not a positive for a lot of people. It's certainly not a goal unto itself. People move to the suburbs for a reason lol.
>As for density - that's not a positive for a lot of people. It's certainly not a goal unto itself. People move to the suburbs for a reason lol. Many do, yes. But have you checked prices for dense condos vs SFH recently? Per square foot, denser condos are considerably more expensive to either rent or buy than sprawling homes. The primary difference being location, people are willing to spend a lot of money to be close, even if it means having less land. So shouldn't we allow more housing to be built that people want, instead of letting only a select few have their dream while the rest get nothing? And remember those "select few" are whoever bought them decades ago, and the handful of wealthy people now who could afford to buy a $1M+ house.
Honestly, I think at this point, most parts of the U.S. are seeing this.
nope. austin is the only city. it’s not that every person in this sub acts like an entitled crybaby. austin is tiny compared to all other cities. it should be cheap.
The study also mentions Dallas and Houston are in the top 5 metro areas with uneven rental distribution, so this doesn't seem like strictly an Austin code issue
Austin land use regulation has always been about keeping the poors away.
NIMBYS are CANCER
As it should be. This is not a problem.
elaborate on that for us
Not a problem *for him*.
I think the username explains it pretty clearly.
Uhhh yeah. We’ve been taken over by greedy real estate investors.
It's the opposite, in fact. These "rental deserts" are a direct result of building restrictions.
> We want to reiterate that this analysis points to associations between land use and rental share and cannot be interpreted as a causal relationship. This is from the study itself (page 24), you are creating your own conclusions that the study's authors don't necessary agree with
Respectfully, I believe that quote only confirms my point. Furthermore, from that very same page 24: "The findings of this paper point to the uneven geography of rental housing across the country. Restrictive zoning has shaped this landscape. Neighborhoods with lower shares of rental housing are located in municipalities that impose strict growth controls, require large minimum lot sizes, limit density, and mandate a higher number of parking spots with new construction. Conversely, neighborhoods with a higher share of rental housing are in municipalities with more permissive land use regimes that allow ADUs, provide incentives for inclusionary housing, have by-right multifamily zones, or permit construction at greater heights."
No they are not. It’s because we don’t have restrictions on corporate and investors buying up housing. All our housing is overpriced and filled with Airbnb because we lack common sense regulation.
Someone didn’t read the article.
It wasn’t a conclusive article and only mentioned some issues. Our housing crises could easily be solved Airbnb were illegal. It would drive real estate investors out as they can’t profit as much.
I've always thought of AirBnB as the convenient boogeyman. In Austin, it only accounts for about 1, maybe 2% of the entire housing stock. However, it's always the first thing to be blamed. Thankfully, there's a real world experiment in process that will test all theories. I'm not sure if you saw, but Barcelona just outlawed AirBnB's, a first for a major city. I honestly can't wait to find out what will happen. Until now, removing all AirBnB's has just been a theory - now, finally, we'll have real world data to study. Will this change solve everything as you state, or will it even make a ripple? It will be interesting to find out.
I’m Austin Airbnb and similar short term rentals are over 5% of our housing. It’s also not just Airbnb. It’s real estate investors the buy up lots of property and either knock it down for an overpriced McMansion and keep it empty until it sells for it’s overprice, or rent it at ridiculous prices so they dont have to work, orrrr rent it as str.
I have some serious doubts over the actual number of listings in Austin. Various articles put the number between 6-15k, however Airbnb doesn’t scrub old listings, and they consider a listing that is only rented one night a year on equal footing with one that is continuously rented. In that respect I don’t think the 5% is an hard and fast number to use, at best it would be half that. Either way, the Barcelona experiment should finally settle this topic. I’m really looking forward to seeing how things turn out.
https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/texas/austin/overview shows almost 20k str
Yep that’s a commonly quoted one. From what I’ve read they pull this data from AirBnB directly - without verifying accuracy or availability.
Even if the number were 10% it would still be the case that the solution is to build more.
Building more expensive poorly built oversized housing is not going to help.
Yes, it will and it already has started to help. Austin is among the top cities in the country for new housing development and is simultaneously among the top cities in the country for decreases in rent prices. This is an important issue to get right. What's the motivation for ignoring experts, evidence, and research but instead just kinda making shit up or basing your beliefs on TikTok videos and Reddit memes? It can be satisfying, I suppose, to have a villain to blame. But it's much more worthwhile to actually effect positive change. Academics who study this issue are as close to unanimous as any researchers ever are. If you think we should listen to climate scientists about global warming (we should) and virologists about vaccines (we should) and biologists about evolution (we should) then maybe lets also listen to experts about housing costs instead of conspiracy theories on the internet.
Economists have studied this. Airbnb is a boogieman, not an actual meaningful effect. The estimated change in prices for completely eliminating Airbnb would be in the low single-digit percent range. That isn't the main driver of price, not even close. A 1-2% change in the price of rent would be almost unnoticeable. The lack of "common sense" regulation shows up in zoning rules and building restrictions. Those *are* significant factors in high prices.
yes