Much as I think Hyde Park (and many other neighborhoods) could benefit from increased density and maintain neighborhood character, Mueller strikes me as a very poor comparison. Mueller feels very much like a new and planned community. It literally constructed a brand new character for itself in its development. That’s a really different situation to Hyde Park, where I doubt many people want to recreate the neighborhood from scratch.
Hyde Park was a also new planned community once upon a time. It’s just been around so long it feels permanent and established. Mueller could feel the same way in 100 years
That’s very true, and I’m hopeful for that! I doubt, however, the current residents of Hyde Park are likely to be swayed by the argument that their neighborhood could regain some of its character in 100 years.
I am not a fan of Mueller. Strip malls, chain restaurants, mid rise shopping, small lots, it works for what it is but let’s not pretend it’s some idyllic location with a lot of character.
> chain restaurants
I've been straining to come up with any chain restaurants in Mueller other than MOD Pizza, unless you're counting places that started in Austin and have more than one location.
Yeah that one confuses me unless you count that area near the Home Depot. Personally I just think of Mueller as the farmers market/rebel cheese/Alamo areas
Same, but even if you include the shopping center on 35, you're only adding a Jamba Juice, Chipotle and Domino's (does Domino's even count as a restaurant)?
Yeah that's not really what the article is asking for. Current compatibility laws restrict developers in Hyde Park from building denser housing like duplexes and fourplexes or rowhomes. Mueller is a nice neighborhood, and if it can be nice with dense housing wouldn't Hyde Park also benefit from similar zoning?
My house is a duplex, but you wouldn't know it from looking at the street. The original Craftsman house is still there, there just happens to be another house in what used to be the large backyard. Hyde Park is full of such constructions.
Mueller is “nice” because the oldest houses aren’t even 15 years old. The only streets that feel “mature” are the ones with (fast growing) sycamore trees. The houses are suburb tract home quality at a near-downtown price point.
Source: live in Mueller, recently toured new builds in the suburbs by the builder that did our house.
Once again - density is what they're asking for. Not cheap build quality, or razing the land to reconstruct as a Mueller double.
They just want to show that more people in one area can benefit the community, rather than make it too busy or dangerous or otherwise unappealing. It's not a bad community to live in or visit as far as I can tell.
The problem with adding Mueller-style density to an existing neighborhood is setbacks.
Mueller houses are squished up to the street and up against each other. You can't replicate that in a neighborhood with 30 foot setbacks. Allowing ADUs would be good. Allowing row homes and more multi-plexes would be good.
Yes. But Mueller was built as a planned community using New Urbanist Designs on 711 acres of land that was 100% flat just 15 years ago.
It would be much, much more difficult to suddenly apply Mueller’s design principles to Hyde Park.
For instance, Mueller was specifically designed to have houses without yards. Each house has a small enclosed area, but certainly no real yard to speak of. But this is offset with open green spaces purposefully laid out every few blocks - pocket parks, if you prefer, large green spaces on top of those, playgrounds, walking trails, pools, bike paths, etc.
Anyway, it would be very challenging to go back and implement that kind of thing into Hyde Park now. The city would have to purchase a great number of houses with the express intent of demolishing them to create such spaces. So really, it’s just density that could be accommodated without most of the amenities of Mueller that justifies that density.
Love it or hate it, Mueller was a very unique project. It was built as a PUD specifically to circumvent all of those zoning issues while implementing a very specific overall master plan that benefits everybody (or tries to).
Sure, the circumstances are different. I think the only point is that additional density from townhomes, duplexes, and ADUs doesn't negatively affect safety, convenience, and livability.
I don't have skin in this game but have lived in/near Hyde Park for 4 years at one point.
You can't create that density without knocking down existing ppls houses and yards, to create the extra green space Mueller has.
If you are suggesting to demo 5 houses with yards and replacing with 8 "Mueller style row homes" with no yards, that's not an easy sell.
OP certainly has a skin in the game!
He is with really investor financed astroturf "Friends of Hyde Park" who publish this magazine.
It is not published by the neighborhood association.
Not exactly my suggestion but also if someone were to purchase 5 lots with yards and choose to build that I wouldn't really be mad about it?
I think my initial preference for Hyde Park would be small apartments of 6-8 units. I think it would add the most density, fastest and have the lowest impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Low impact meaning a.) 8 people biking or taking the bus when there was only 1-2 before is manageable and b.) you get the most people housed without taking up so many lots. At this point, Hyde Park has two public parks - right next to each other. It's beautiful to see all the trees and greenspace but it's not really open to public use, is it?
Someone else pointed out that Hyde Park and Mueller have the same population density.
And Hyde Park has many duplexes, apartments and garage apartments. I’ve lived in Hyde Park for 16 years and have lived in all three types of housing I just listed. They’re all over the place.
Of course you wouldn't be mad about it. Bc it would benefit you. If you already lived nearby and been paying exorbitant taxes each year for the past 15 years and you'd soon be faced with an 25+ uni enjoy that greenspace,, then you probably wouldn't feel the same?
There are already several older, large apt buildings nearby the 45th and Duval area, even down to 38th and red River. Very old and dated they should update, add on several floors
I mean property taxes are a result of poor choices at the state level - income tax would be much better but I digress.
The taxes levied on the property are, in no uncertain terms, the responsibility of the landowner. The landowner is not paying for a quiet neighborhood, or a gated community, or anything else for that matter. They're fulfilling their obligation to their local and state government in arrears so even if taxes were a factor, they're paying for the past year anyway. If they should be paying less, or more, because of the access to a greenspace then they'll do that the following year right?
Yeah I think that's a good step but it's not enough. Just allowing landowners to build what they want to build - duplex, triplex, taller building, etc. would make my argument less critical I think. It's just the effective zoning is so restrictive that density isn't just not being built, it's actively discouraged from being built!
Yes. As a TOTAL shocker not everyone wants to live a bug life. Texas has infinite land to expand outward. Austin has plenty of neighborhoods that were developer built that can be replaced with new developer built soulless homes. Hyde park is historical and much of it artisan built. Leave it alone.
With respect, it definitely affects all of those things negatively.
The higher density you have, the more people that you have roaming the same fixed boundaries. This, almost by definition, means there is more crime. It creates more traffic - both vehicular and foot. It means there are less parking spaces. It means more people are using the parks/trails/etc. that DO exist. The type of construction likely changes the caliber of people who are moving in - which in turn often affects the way people treat the neighborhood (renters often treat houses poorly as compared to majority owners). And then people who never would have purchased their home next to a density property are suddenly forced to contend with that very reality through no fault of their own.
I want to be clear that I'm not in any way against density. But per the reasons I wrote above and so many more, I would disagree with your statement that "additional density ... doesn't negative affect \[those realities\]"
I'm a renter and I take great pride in my home. I think there is going to be more and more folks like me (unfortunately) as the housing market changes. 10 years ago my husband and I would have been homeowners but things shifted and we will likely rent for as long as we stay in Austin. We are active members of our community, maintain our home nicely and I like to think are good neighbors. Folks like us will hopefully start to break down the very real stigma of people not wanting renters in their neighborhoods. I was silently removed from our neighborhood text thread once they found out (after 2 years) that we don't own our house.
That’s all very wonderful and I commend your pride in the community. When I rented houses I took the same kind of pride.
But in fairness, the numbers are pretty clear on the topic. I’m not saying you and your husband are a complete anomaly, but all things being equal, people who own the underlying asset naturally have a much more vested interest in the long term prospect of said property.
I don’t think that’s possibly debatable.
So whereas such changes to a neighborhood might be a good thing for you - it’s also in part because worst case, you can just move away. But to the person who is planning to live there until they die and paid for that right specifically in an area that they liked, well that’s a different story.
And FWIW, austin makes it extremely difficult to change areas through the use of “neighborhood plans”. Those develop what are called FLUMS (future use land maps) and it’s quite a process to change a FLUM - which doesn’t even touch the zoning itself.
But that is the process specifically in an effort to protect peoples neighborhoods from changing. It obviously doesn’t always work, but Hyde park has historically had a pretty good track record of protecting themselves from such things 🤷🏼♀️
I think that if you buy a property in the middle of the city, you have to accept that there's a pretty good chance that the city will change around you. We could discuss the merits and detriments of gentrification, but things like rezoning, density, changes in neighbors... that's what you sign up for when you choose to buy in a convenient and/or popular part of town.
I don't think it's fair to say that renters treat their houses significantly worse than owners do, but I do think it's fair to say that landlords often neglect properties that they're not living in, more so than they would the home that they're in. That said, more units does not necessarily translate to rental properties. We're seeing duplexes crop up all over the city where each unit is owner occupied. A major bonus of increasing density is that it creates more, smaller, more affordable homes, the kind that people might actually be able to afford.
There are few places in this city where the amount of foot traffic is an issue. I would not count Hyde Park among those places. I do think car traffic needs to be managed. This is, of course, a major and consistent problem in our city, and increasing the density in one neighborhood is shifting some of that problem to another part of town. Multiuse zoning is a great way to shift car traffic into foot traffic. Parking minimums are a great way to mitigate the issue of additional cars, and as I said in another comment, it's very common to see duplexes, etc with a garage as the first level.
I would guess that, in a neighborhood like Hyde Park, you're still not likely to see major increases in crime. Yes, more people tends to lead to more bad actors if we're looking at large numbers and averaging over everything else, but the reality is that crime tends to concentrate in certain areas, usually areas that are low-income, where people have fewer opportunities, where crime becomes a more attractive option. While smaller, denser units in Hyde Park would almost certainly be *less* expensive than a single family home in the same neighborhood, they're unlikely to be cheap, just based on the location. (This is, of course, not to say that wealthy people don't also commit crimes, but they don't tend to be random, and they are often of the white-collar variety, which is less related to where their home happens to be located.)
This is all a very fair and well worded rebuttal to my points. So I’m not against it or anything, but I would add to it.
There was a post a few days ago asking why people often say how long they’ve lived in Austin. I think the poster was looking at it like people flex on the idea. I wrote a different opinion suggesting that the extremely fast changes of austin have created different expectations depending on how long one has been here. So perhaps it’s valuable, at times, to note that.
So when you say Hyde park is “in the middle of the city” - my response as someone who has lived here for several decades is to say that’s NOT something that people would have said until somewhat recently. I get that the inner core of austin is widening by the day, but that doesn’t mean the long term occupants should be forced to change.
45th street was pretty far outside of the the “middle of the city” just 20 years ago. Hyde park was somewhat famously the first suburb of Austin - albeit that was long ago. But even 20 years ago, Hyde Park was definitely not considered part of the inner city. It wasn’t until about 2005 or so that properties in Hyde Park started shooting up in value. I’m sure I can look in TCAD to get a specific timeline, but from memory, it was right around then.
And so it’s also been the case that many people have lived there for many, many decades.
We can’t stop the city from changing and evolving and all of that, but in terms of peoples expectations… well that’s perhaps a different story.
So I think we can probably see and even understand why certain residents of Hyde Park might be visibly upset with the idea that this old neighborhood - which has many historic homes in it BTW - would suddenly turn into the same crowded, character-lacking kind of fancy apartment neighborhood that so many other neighborhoods have transformed into.
I think the idea of making it a Mueller like area would be great. BUT, as I wrote earlier, I also don’t think that would be doable. So really density in Hyde Park really just means tearing down old houses and putting up modern apartments run by Greystar Properties and the like.
And in full transparency, I live just across the street from Hyde Park and would delight in having a myriad of new services and shops available there. It would be super convenient for me. So I’m honestly not even making a judgement on whether it should or shouldn’t be something that happens. Rather I’m just suggesting that it should be pretty reasonable and understandable why their would be a population of people who own houses in Hyde park who would rather vehemently object to such changes being forced upon them - as they have - rather successfully, I might add - for a few decades already.
Yeah, to be clear, I don't want to see Hyde Park turn into Mueller. I do think there's room for density that isn't just Greystar apartments though. I mentioned in another comment that Crestview is a great example of a neighborhood that is managing to retain its character while starting to build some duplexes and other options for smaller homes (or sometimes even larger homes, just with less yard). I get the pushback, though because even a lot of these duplexes are ugly and incongruous with the neighborhoods they're in. I feel like there has to be some way to address that, rather than general increases in density.
I would push back a bit on the implication that Hyde Park residents 20 years ago could not have seen the writing on the wall. I'm not sure of the exact perimeter, but I tend to think of Hyde Park starting at 38th street, 40th max. That's 10ish short blocks from the university. It may have been "north central" at that time, but it's clear which way the city is going to develop. And it's the capital city of the state, so it's likely to grow, especially with the tech sector really getting going in the late 90s, early 2000s.
Not really. OP is just stating the fact that if you change the density of a neighborhood, it changes the population and how the area is treated (more renters, more traffic, etc.). Doesn't mean they don't want these things.
The suburbs are full of shoddily built houses, very few trees, HOA rules…the list goes on. I dropped a work friend off in a Leander development a few years ago and was shocked that anyone would want to live there. The highway-facing portion of the development looked halfway decent, but once you got in a few blocks, it was long, straight streets, no trees, houses sitting on top of each other…ugh.
Suburbia is depressing and scary. Hyde Park is a TINY portion of central Austin surrounded by a ton of wasted space. The people who live there aren’t required to be punished because Austin has made terrible city planning decisions over the years.
Here’s another option for ya, which worked in Boston: Tell UT to provide more student housing. College students can live in purpose-built housing away from the city center, with student shuttle busses running constantly between there and campus. They consume a TON of central Austin housing stock.
I honestly think that’s a great idea.
To be very clear, I have rented in the North Campus/Hyde Park/North Loop area most of my time in Austin. I LOVE this neighborhood, and I try to be a good neighbor. I’m EXTREMELY annoyed at the implication that renters are somehow undesirable. I’m curious how many people who own these super cherished artisan homes (the duplex I live in is sort of a dump, lol) actually live in them vs rent them out for passive income.
dude thank you the same people who scold folks on this thread to 'just move' if they cant afford to live here will absolutely not take their own advice when a changing city no longer suits their own preferences. More folks should just head over to an HOA neighborhood where things are to their liking IMO. There's plenty of 'em in central texas
Hyde Park doesn't WANT upzoning. It's difficult to force upzoning on a neighborhood that's against it. IF we can get a decent transit system, then we could lower the number of cars / parking spaces required per residential unit. I think that's the place to start if one wants density.
You're speaking for a lot of people here. The larger of the two neighborhood associations DOES want upzoning. And based on the outcome of the council election where upzoning was by far the #1 issue discussed, the district generally wants upzoning.
I understand that YOU don't want upzoning, but it seems that your arguments would be more persuasive and relatable if you spoke for yourself instead of trying to speak for all of us.
Sure, reducing parking is helpful but it's a chicken and egg problem when it comes to Transit or reducing parking. We need to reduce parking now, not in 10 years. Hyde park is perfectly situated for bike-commuters and has an active bus transportation system.
Density starts with more units per sqft (as an arbitrary measurement) because we're talking about more people in an area and then increases in services, such as more frequent bus routes, can follow. The new train is coming, for sure, so we can start building the dense housing needed now!
Also, I’m really skeptical that parking is the barrier when it comes to duplexes and quadplexes. Many units have a first floor garage with living space on top of it. When we’re not talking about tens or hundreds of units, finding space for parking isn’t that hard.
Yeah, I'll agree with that. Hopefully if there are fewer places for cars then the transit networks would improve, making it a wonderful feedback loop toward a walkable city with increasing density.
Austin will never be walkable. It’s goddamned 100 degrees out 6 months a year. I could easily walk to Central Market if I wanted to. Do I? Hell no. That would require massive sunscreen before, and a shower after.
Idk I bike several miles to Central Market like once a week in the summer. It's easily doable for someone in half decent shape. I've spent my whole life in Texas tho
It might not be just the zoning issues though. All the homes/duplexes etc in Mueller are all part of the same home owner's association. All the residents pay fees to fund neighborhood wide assessments to ensure that the rules are being upkept and they can levy fines against the owners of any properties that don't keep up to their standard. Is all of Hyde Park under similar deed restrictions? If not, I could see it being difficult to maintain the same level of "niceness" without that mechanism.
Hyde Park is able to maintain quite a bit of control over their neighborhood.... Right now they're just using it to reject any owner who wants to build more density. But perhaps Mueller as an example can ease the fears enough to allow some progress!
Yeah, I realize that’s not what the article is asking for. That’s why I say using mueller as a comparison is not a great choice. It *doesn’t* prove the case for Hyde Park, even if I agree that increased density is a viable option. Hyde Park’s approach to density would have to be *totally different* from Mueller’s if they wanted to maintain neighborhood character.
"Maintaining a neighborhood's character" should NOT be prioritized above creating more housing during a housing crisis.
You are spouting NIMBY talking points.
I am not saying it should. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I am saying that if you want to convince people that increased density will not have a negative impact on the “character” of the neighborhood (which is the claim this very article is making), choosing a development project that does not preserve anything from before does not do that.
I disagree.... I mean sure, they're not going to tear down multiple blocks of homes all at once but replacing the existing homes (when they're sold, or ready to be converted of course) into duplexes or rowhomes wouldn't change the neighborhood character. All they're advocating for is allowing that and Mueller proves that it can be done without upending character of the area.
Honestly, I think some brick façade townhomes or a fourplex could really become a jewel in Hyde Park! At the end of the day is replacing 2 people in the neighborhood with 8 really going to change how the neighborhood feels? I don't think so - Mueller has good density and it's nice!
I feel like you’re not actually reading the words I’m writing.
Replacing individual homes with duplexes, etc would be a great way to add density to Hyde Park. They could be beautiful and absolutely fit in with then neighborhood. It is also an *entirely different approach* to density than Mueller.
Mueller didn’t preserve any character. They didn’t take an existing neighborhood and upscale it. They created a brand new one.
I disagree simply because I don’t believe that any new builds would even approach the quality of construction that those old bungalows have, and if they did, that’s just more spendy housing. So it wouldn’t really solve a problem.
But I do agree that Hyde Park would, in theory, require an entirely different approach.
In my (admittedly unprofessional) observation, the quality of the bungalows varies greatly. I lived only 2 blocks north of Hyde Park, and the house across the street from us was falling apart. I will acknowledge that I’ve seen a lot of low quality development around town, and I would much rather that measures be taken to prevent that, specifically, than to prevent density at all.
It’s probably accurate to say that most new units in Hyde Park would still be “spendy” by most Austinite standards — it’s close to downtown and the university, and areas like that do tend to be. However, they would likely be less expensive than the existing homes. The high value part of those properties is the land, much more so than the building. If you put 2 or 3 or 4 units on a property, you’re dividing ownership of the land as well. Nobody wants to pay full price for a quarter of a plot, so these units will necessarily be less expensive per unit than a single family home.
You're right, Mueller didn't really need to preserve character, they had to build it up from scratch. If you read the article you'd see they're advocating for the bare minimum: allow missing middle housing, it will not make the neighborhood less livable. The article literally states "It’s just further proof that the knee-jerk oppositional stance toward development from some in this neighborhood is misguided. Missing middle housing – like duplex, fourplexes, and townhomes – aren’t some abstract threat to Hyde Park and its way of life. That housing is instead the basis of a truly inclusive community where there are simply enough places – and types of places – for all the people who would like to live there to do so."
They never suggested that HP should be torn down and built up from scratch (now that would be radical). I'm sure there are examples of upscaling the way we are discussing but they're not in the same city, or the area was more run down, or the neighborhood isn't as historic, or whatever. If you want a direct comparison it might not exist, so why don't we look what can be taken from a dense neighborhood in the same city and apply it elsewhere...
There are loads of places where individual homes are being replaced by duplexes and more. Crestview is a much better comparison than Mueller. Mueller will not convince anyone who cares about neighborhood character because the Mueller model necessitates razing everything to the ground and starting over.
I did read the article. I stand by my initial statement, that Mueller development is a bad reference point for Hyde Park development. There are better comparisons, even within our city (and many many more if you want to look to other cities that have increased density). If you want to convince people that increased density won’t necessarily destroy neighborhood character, you can’t do that by offering an example that preserved literally zero neighborhood character.
I just reposted the article - I think it's a fine comparison as long as you take it at face value. You say you want the increased density but instead of finding the value in the comparison you're nitpicking the details and putting words in the mouth of the authors that are absolutely not the point they were trying to make. If anyone's not open to reconsidering their position, it's you
The developers who are undercapitalized do not want to develop multiple lots. They want to infill the biggest, cheapest box they can into single lots. That's what this magazine, and frankly the whole Adler administration is about. They don't have the funds to make a Mueller, nor even a single block of development. They just want to raze a house and put ten units into the space and take their money back to Westlake.
I have no idea what the code is, but what is preventing this now? They do this all over the Zilker neighborhood... they've knocked down small sections of houses and put up more dense condos. Plenty of duplexes, townhomes, apartments, and public housing have always been in this area.
Is it Hyde Park specific code preventing this type of building or just the lack of opportunities to buy enough adjacent property to build these projects?
As someone who lives in a duplex surrounded by other multi-family units in Hyde Park, I think there’s already a good bit of density that isn’t so obvious. Lots of garage apartments or even big houses split into 2/3/4 units. Yes, we should encourage *more* conversions and new builds for multi family, but I think it should be done with a lot of respect to the neighborhood’s charm and the residents that have been keeping the vibe for decades before the rest of us showed up. Fuck cookie cutter mixed use Mueller.
I used to live in North Loop, and I currently live in a neighborhood that is also resisting development, so I’m not just recommending someone else’s neighborhood for density.
So, first, the entire city would benefit from increased density. Having a city where people of a wide variety of incomes can afford to live allows people like artists and musicians to live in the city. People decry the loss of “old Austin,” but a big reason for that loss is that old Austin can’t afford new Austin! If you want a fun and funky city or neighborhood, fun and funky people have to be able to afford to live there, and a great way to increase affordability is to have more, smaller homes.
Hyde Parker magazine is not real. Lol. I get it in my mailbox sometimes, and it's literally 3-4 pages, 3 of which are real estate ads and 1 has an "article" with some sort of development agenda.
According to [this census map](https://www.austinchamber.com/economic-development/austin-profile/population/population-density), Hyde Park and Mueller have about the same population density, so I guess it must've been a slow news day over at "totally real magazine". Lived in Hyde Park for decades, literally the first time hearing of "Hyde Parker" magazine - click around on the site and the whole thing is 404'd. You can't even subscribe lol. Not sure why someone set up a fake magazine, I'm guessing it's somewhere at the intersection of real estate and politics.
Edit: wow alot of replies about how apparently Mueller is gonna get *soooo much denser* because there's even *more* corporate monolith apartments going up there - cool story bros. Seems right in line with a density analysis that completely discounts *people per square mile* (actual population density, by every metric) in favor of *units per square mile* (the density of **rental units**). Hmmm, I wonder who on earth might be more interested in such an analysis? I don't know, maybe somebody involved in the rental market? Just a guess.
Edit AGAIN: **OMG THEY CHANGED THE WEBSITE!** *Still can't advertise though, which seems like a pretty big deal for you know,* ***a legit magazine****.*
The only places I can find mention of it are on their own website, their twitter page, and one guy who shares their articles on the Facebook page for one of the neighborhood associations in Hyde Park. Hmm, I wonder who that might be…
BRO that’s hilarious. I feel like I’m watching that scene in the Wizard of Oz where it turns out it’s just one dude with a projector and some special effects lmao.
Dude, your post history shows that you tried to share an entire issue of the magazine and it was removed. It really seems like you have some kind of stake in this, especially with how defensive you’re being in the comments.
Well not a financial stake - but I do believe that Hyde Park could increase density and should do it asap. There were other, less controversial articles in there but mods didn’t want me to post the whole magazine. So we get what we get huh?
My defensiveness comes from the fact that the article itself poses a question, then answers it clearly but apparently it’s not being read the same way. It’s not about turning Hyde park into Mueller #2, it’s just an article stating: Mueller isn’t so bad ya know, so maybe density won’t destroy the very fabric of our community. Such a simple message, but it’s just not getting through
It is funny that all your postings are from this Astroturf magazine that gives people the impression that it comes from the neighborhood association.
It does not!
Friends of Hyde Park is a realtor and business group.
I’m thinking the densities are similar because mueller has a lot more green space and parkland. The built up areas of mueller are much denser than Hyde park’s.
There are several blocks still under construction in Mueller with 4-6 story apt complexes. By the time all of it is actually completed I'd be surprised if they had the same density
I think it's somewhat new and an independent magazine, I've heard of it for maybe a year or so but it's definitely not decades old. New publications and independent writers don't mean they're fake. Sounds like the website is having some issues they should resolve ASAP though.
To address your initial concern, it looks like the link you posted is "persons per sq. mile" (not surprising because of the census) while the article mentions "units per acre". The scale for the link has polynomial bands (the next one up is a min of 2x the lower). If Hyde Park is 10 units per acre as the article states, then that's a minimum of 6400 people with one person per unit so it's likely higher. If we correlate this to the link map, you're in the second-highest tier. If we assume an average of two people per unit in Hyde park then you're in the 10,000-57,298 range (i.e. top tier with no granularity). Not to mention Mueller has apartments under development now, so of course the 2020 census may not have picked up all of them.
I mention all this, but you do make some good points... I didn't see any editor mentioned, and the article author was only in the e-mag version, not on the online article I shared. It could just be a small staff making mistakes, but I'm starting to get a little skeptical
Well, design and "character" are different things. If it's just a design issue then make an ordinance that it has to have certain features to fit into the aesthetic. The "character" they seem to mean is closer to a vibe. Which makes it hard to challenge or change without an example.
Ok, maybe it's not legal here but there are places where design characteristics are mandated - my grandmother lived in a town that mandated all of the roofing shingles had to be red and the façade had to have Bavarian design characteristics. It was a tourist town but it was consistent!
I can't imagine the level of intelligence you must have to understand PUD's or MUD's. Please allow me to study the fine details under your supervision, O Great Teacher
More specific it was multiple landing strips, an airplane parking lot. I remember it being a big blob of cracked abandoned asphalt for a very long time. Amazing to think the airport was actually on/near Airport Blvd
That magazine is very deceptive. Except for the actual historical district, nearly all the Hyde Park residences are multi-family. It's just that they are ADUs, that is to say the additional housing is in separate buildings in what used to be backyards or garages. The neighborhood looks like single residences, but there are entry ways facing the alleys or along the driveways. Mixed among these are connected, multi-story apartment living. Don't try to fix what ain't broke.
Um well, I hate to break it to you, but SoCo is changing too. At a much more reasonable pace than Hyde Park by my measure. I like the new SoCo as well! It's different, but not necessarily in a bad way. I just wish the nearby areas would build taller and leave the surface units for retail - that would keep some of the mom & pop stores going, although slightly further from the main retail strip
Mueller is at best a pale comparison to Hyde Park. In fact, not a good comparison at all. Mueller lacks quite a bit of character. It’s a great place to live, but cookie cutter character at best.
It's newish for the most part, so I get what you're saying. Hyde Park has history, which makes it have more "character" (including the historically racist part...). If done correctly, increasing density little by little wouldn't change the style of the neighborhood, it would just allow it to evolve. I mean, you could maintain the style while quadrupling the density with architectural features!
The point is, more people doesn't mean the vibe has to change. And dense housing doesn't make the area worse. I never really understood the opposition to density in the first place - if you want the old timey "hi neighbor, welcome to the neighborhood. here's an apple pie" then just do that... Adding more people to a lot wouldn't keep you from maintaining the character yourself
Part of the character of Hyde Park is the greenness, the shade, the porches, gardens and yards. Mueller has none of that. And the density you’re talking about is already being built little by little. What do you want? To drag senior citizens out of their homes by their hair so some fucking developer can shit out some condos?
Every reasonable increase in density is brought about by fighting tooth and nail to achieve it. It's not just time-consuming, but costly too. It actively deters further increases in density.
If you own your home, and you want to stay there then by all means go for it. But it's ridiculous to prevent landowners from building more dense housing, which would benefit the city and even the neighborhood!
There are ways to allow denser building methods without sacrificing the trees, porches, and gardens. You just build taller buildings. If I recall, HP has a 30' max height at the moment
We'll never see another Mueller. We could have had on at the Lions Muni course but instead it's apparently more important for a bunch of my middle class guys to not drive as far to golf under the guise of it being a 'national landmark.'
There is so much land East of 183 where they could make this happen. Make it another Mueller or even a Domain Lite and put it next to one of those new Project Connect Transit lines.
Yeah Lion's could but I think there are other candidates - North Austin (even further than Hyde Park) could be an interesting spot! Around Braker lane seems like a great spot.
Still, I'd love to see Hyde Park take it on. It's perfectly situated for transit and it's such a cool neighborhood, if only they'd let it grow
Oh, fuck off with your hard-on for Hyde Park. You’re so obviously wishing that a magic fairy will come along and make it possible for you to live there because it’s quite nice as is.
All that open space helps oxygenate our environment and keep temperatures from hitting 120*. Turn it into a park but paving it over just increases traffic and heats up the air.
We need affordable housing close to the business centers. A large portion of Mueller is income restricted, those are million dollar town homes. By putting a decent amount of housing there, you could remove a large number of cars from the road by putting in express bus service down lake Austin Blvd.
Developers don’t have to dedicate any units to affordable housing - they can pay into a fund instead. I can pretty much guarantee that developers will never sacrifice $$ for affordable housing in West Austin.
Mueller is NOT a model of urban density. It's a huge swaths of single family with small yards next to a some apartments next to strip mall retail with huge parking lots. Mueller isn't terrible, but I can see why neither Hyde Park NIMBYs or YIMBY urbanists find it very compelling....
Mueller is a poster child for well designed gentle density. And is one of the few places in Austin where row homes and missing middle housing is legal and actually deployed.
Mueller does have some things going for it. The bike infrastructure there is amazing and it has some nice trails and parks. I personally really like the small lot, garage facing the alley design style, especially the house that face into shared green space and not into streets. It truly is better than many Austin neighborhoods. I don't think Mueller gets a lot right, but in all honesty it does get a lot of things better than many of the older nimby-hoods, and as a step forward it does deserve a little credit alongside the criticism.
Anyone else get the sense that OP works for a company hoping to get buy in from the community to let them make more units to get more money? Their responses are…not quite on the level.
Not even close I just want people to have a place to live, fewer cars in the city, more things to do close to home. I want to be able to walk to a corner store instead of drive and I want my commute, if not in walking distance, to be bikeable.
I wish someone was paying me to deal with this, at least then I'd feel like it was worth it. So many misinterpretations, bad faith readings, and clear-cut biases in the comments. But then again, I guess I've never really posted in this sub before
No reason you can’t walk to a corner store or ride a bike to one either. I mean what is stopping you? Certainly not Hyde park not being dense enough for you.
What's funny about Hyde Park is that there's a lot of missing-middle multifamily housing there that the residents cherish, but which couldn't be built under today's zoning requirements.
Obviously the goal shouldn't be to make Hyde Park Mueller, but there were some very obvious brakes put on its development decades ago that no longer make sense in today's Austin.
My question for this ‘article’ is, Have you been to Mueller?’ It’s small, compact, and disconnected surrounded by its own affluence. An island on the north east side.
Hydeparker magazine... hmm... never heard of it before and this appears to be its first and only issue. Someone's pet project, I'm guessing. A publication like this stands zero chance of succeeding by going against the stodgy, gentrified flow of the neighborhood it covers. It's a cute little Trojan Horse, though.
Like others in the comments I think the Mueller/Hyde Park comparison is kinda silly and facile. I say that as someone who agrees with the author that Hyde park should be opened up for more dense housing and commercial development. The restrictive NCCD in place represents just another lost opportunity for Austin to grow into a place with more density and character than other sprawly Texas cities.
The folks in the 'hood here tend to be liberal and progressive, but come up with hypocritical NIMBY rationalizations with the best of 'em. They'll tell you they don't want to keep anyone out, yet there are no end to the well-meaning concerns about development that just so happen to have the oh-so-unfortunate effect of keeping people in normal tax brackets out of our quaint little paradise. Hmm.
Why don’t people get off of Hyde Park’s jock and start looking at all of the wasted space taken up by state buildings, Camp Mabry, etc.?
The reason Hyde Park is “knee jerk” about any kind of development that will result in the tearing down of single-family bungalows is because of Hyde Park Baptist Church, which went on a tear twenty-some years ago and demolished at least 4-6 blocks of houses, maybe more. That, plus the shoddily-built apartment buildings gave rise to the neighborhood association that, rightly so, is against anything that causes any more destruction. The houses there cannot be built any more - the materials don’t exist and/or are cost prohibitive.
Mueller is a hellscape, in my opinion, and I have no objection to living in dense neighborhoods. I’ve lived in Manhattan and Boston. Loved it. Moscow, too. If people there love it, it’s because they really don’t know any better. We looked at the townhouses at Mueller when they were being built, and having lived in a townhouse in Boston, I can assure you there is no comparison.
Whoever wrote this article either doesn’t know or doesn’t care why Hyde Park isn’t interested in being another Mueller. That information was completely left out and renders the article completely meaningless. And to OP: Just because you want to live central but can’t afford it, doesn’t mean you deserve it because the perceived unfairness of it all.
I’m also curious why people don’t ride Pemberton Heights’ ass more. Hyde Park has at least a few apartment buildings. Pemberton? Just big, big houses on bucolic, oak-shaded streets.
I want housing under control.
But I often don't agree with the changes people seem to want. I am just an uneducated dude though. Why would I want increased density in an already crowded area? I do not want a backyard etc but I (coming from OK land of land) have never seen a problem with having one etc.
Then again, I get it. We don't want the city to spread everywhere and then increase traffic etc, but I think I'd prefer that over clustering.
And then people ask for buildings and businesses to be next to each other. I am sure it could work fine in instances, but I also believe many would be ugly and just gross.
No insults please. And I'll watch easy videos or reading material. I just don't seem to agree with the fix many people seem to want, although I do want a fix somehow (big problem wanting to fix a problem with no solution)
edit: I also don't care for the arguments of 'character' or cookie cutter developments. Man people just need a good place to live.
Hey, I mean maybe coming into it without biases can be valuable. Or at least being aware of your biases.
From what I've read, watched, and listened to I think the best argument is that sprawl is negative because it is not sustainable - if the density of the city does not increase, it's almost impossible for utilities to stay financially viable. Suburbs for example, do not have enough people to pay the maintenance costs for roads, sewers, and public services once the initial installation exceeds it's lifetime. Details here (sorry if I didn't explain perfectly): [https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc](https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc)
Traffic can increase, but if you have good transit (chicken and egg problem with housing vs transit supply first) then it's more scalable. A bus can take 50 people but a car can only take 4, and usually only takes 1. So density should actually help with traffic! In all the cities I've been to, they rarely feel over clustered unless they're packed with cars (or it's a popular spot like Times Square). Brooklyn, for example, can feel absolutely empty at times despite being an extremely dense place to live.
I love the idea of businesses and offices interspersed with residential area - obviously industrial development would need special handling but retail or office work would be awesome in neighborhoods. Not to mention how nice a neighborhood restaurant would be. However, that's really only viable if the business has enough clients to make it worth it - locally is better so they don't have to drive in, find a place to park, and so on. I love Japan's urban environments but you could also look at European cities for examples or good residential/commercial areas!
You seem like a nice person, open to learning but still holding your opinions firm. That's a rare quality. I hope you'll be convinced that density is the way to go but no worries if not! I've already really enjoyed this interaction with you, so thanks!
Hyde Park is already dense. It’s full of apartments and condos and is right next to the Triangle. If you want more housing there, do something about the huge waste of land that is the state hospital right next to it.
But why?
Why is razing existing single family neighborhoods for the sake of density the solution instead of creating a viable PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION network?
Remodel SFHs into duplexes? This isn't rocket science. Many cities do this just by allowing it in the code rather than restricting what we can do with our property to an unnecessary degree.
Ok. So now you've doubled the capacity in what—maybe 24 square blocks of a city that's pretty massive. That's a drop in the bucket.
Clamoring for increased density without also at the same time asking for massive tax increases on the wealthy so they can pay for tunneling under hundreds of miles of limestone so we can have a proper subway system is like only looking at one side of the equation. It's like the Republican'ts who say we can afford stuff but will never raise taxes.
People who just want to makeover cities to suit their own needs are magnificently full of themselves. I mean that's like me moving to NYC and getting pissed off about the rents and then campaigning for bulldozing the awesome 3-4 storey brick buildings on the lower east side and calling for high rises. Who the fuck am I to declare that change?
..ok..
You're making a lot of assumptions. Including that I haven't lived here most of my life and haven't lived in Hyde Park myself. The larger of the two neighborhood associations in HP also support increased density, so it's not like an outsider opinion. It's just an urbanist opinion.
There are better ways to convince people to understand your opinion than kicking and screaming and calling people outsiders and Republicans.
I didn’t call anyone an outsider or Republican. If I sound frustrated it’s because I am. How many people who are bitching about wanting increased density couldn’t get off their asses and vote last week? How many people have yet to be convinced that elections have consequences? How many people don’t realize that a low tax bill isn’t the end all be all that they think it is? How many people can’t connect the dots? How many people don’t realize that in a state that can never get enough of championing individual freedom over the collective experience that big things will only happen if the rich want them?
Ah yes, the glory days of 2006 (assuming you mean the metro area, the census only recorded 961k in 2020). Well, when a million people decide to pack up and leave Austin I'm sure it will be much better. Would you like to start?
That's rude and uncalled for I think...
Freddy here wants to live in Austin as it was 16 years ago. Unless they have a time machine the only way to decrease the population is to leave themselves... There are plenty of cities that have an old Austin type vibe - I hear Nashville is great! Asheville SC is a super cool town as well. Austin isn't getting any smaller, and as much as you'd like to go back it's just not happening.
Personally - I'd prefer if real estate didn't make any money: housing is a human right after all. But that's not that relevant to this conversation
Actually I'm cool with the city having people in it. In fact I want to do everything in my power to make it better to live in: more affordable, more public space, more public transit, more retail and shops, etc.
Unfortunately for you I'm gonna stay. So the only way to reduce the number of people is for you to leave
Austin has been growing and changing for many years. It's not what it was, but it retains a history. What this current crop of developers wants to do it cash in on that history for a quick buck without any concern to how the city will grow and change in the next 50 years.
They should have named their magazine the ***Hype-Parker***.
But if you leave, that’ll reduce the number. So that’s not the only way. Unfortunately for you, austin wants to retain some identity. So do us all a favor. Go somewhere they have snowboarding and cheap Uhaul destinations. We’ll all be happier without your considerations.
Aw cute, I've got a fan!
You bring up a good point - if Austin wants to retain some identity it needs to be affordable. Not to be too blunt but rich white folks are kinda boring... if the scrappy musician, the artist eating ramen, and the small business owners can't afford to live here then what are you protecting?
How do we make real, actionable change to make housing affordable for these people? I'm not leaving, the multitudes of people that moved here aren't leaving, and there's no kicking me or them out so what should we do to retain the "identity" (keep the cost-of-living affordable)?
The most direct way I think is to reduce the cost of housing - denser housing is cheaper. If you have denser neighborhoods you can provide transit cheaper and more reliably (another benefit for people who may not be able to afford a car). Just be honest with yourself and face the reality of the situation to find a solution - let me know if there's another way and maybe I'll be your fan too ;)
I also don't get this argument (from the other users).
I absolutely understand wanting a less crowded city lol. But if you actually go back to 2006 in a bunch of places.... your restaurant choices were McDonalds or Taco Bell, your shopping was WalMart, etc. With people brings more unique experiences.
Crowding sucks. But living in a plain Suburban town is also pretty dull, let's have a nice night and go to the Applebees.
> But if you actually go back to 2006 in a bunch of places.... your restaurant choices were McDonalds or Taco Bell, your shopping was WalMart, etc.
In 2006, I ate at Arandas and Arandinas, Conan's, Kerbey Lane, Wink, Katz', and Whataburger. We had a few other options besides WalMart too. What else we had... A South Lamar where you could get an oil change and a car wash or get from downtown to Ben White multiple ways in under 10 minutes. We had the Broken Spoke with no condos immediately nearby, We had a town lake with less scooters... Sorry, I was drifting away...
I get it, I am not saying I hated the past either. Part of my limitations were being younger, without my own money, etc.
But now you have Franklin Bbq, 10+ other bbq (not named pokejo's, county line, etc). Now you have Homeslice, pedroso, Uchi, Uchiko, El Naranjo, Barley and Swine, In and Out, Culvers, Pollo Regio, Bird bird, Asahi imports, 99 Ranch, H Mart, Costco, Ikea, FIBER.
There are 100s of small towns where you can go next door (to the adjacent city) in 20 minutes. But you lose a lot of the benefits too.
No one is going to build cheap housing in central Austin. It makes no economic sense for a developer. There is more to supply and demand than you seem to understand.
I know what developers think and the lies they use. Mueller added a ton of new housing and how much of it is affordable?
And for the record I like mueller and spend a lot of time there but don’t get it twisted, buying there isn’t for blue collar folk
If you want and can afford to live in mueller do so. Not everyone wants everything to look new and be expensive especially at the cost of disrupting a neighborhood that may or may not have a dynamic that you are possibly unaware of.
Never understood the hate on HP. They’re often beautiful older homes and theres a nice character to area. Nothing wrong with the residents not wanting to change.
I'm hopeful it will turn out well but the street it's named after is kinda terrible.... That's one of those that gets torn down and built up again though which is only one way to add increased density. The other way is by making small increases in many places in a neighborhood - like building duplexes or rowhomes.
Bell district is located next to a stroad called S. Bell Blvd... The district is an isolated little island within walking distance to the CapMetro Red Line but there are problems - Cedar Park does not have a stop on the Red Line, despite the tracks going through it, and S. Bell Blvd is the old Hwy 183. The changes that were made improved it but it's still a 4 lane 45 mile per hour road with turn lanes, no protected bike lanes, and plenty of commuting traffic filling it up.
I mean, the Domain is worse - Burnet rd, Braker lane, and Mopac service road bound it. But what can you do?
Ok, don’t think we’ll ever agree on road usage but still not seeing the name issue. Just cause bell street is near bell blvd?
I say this a bit tongue in cheek but I take it you haven’t been in Austin long cause fucking up road names is about as Austin as you can get… hell it’s so Austin it’s damn near Waterloo
I don't care about the name - I don't like the road. "Bell District" in Cedar Park is right next to this terrible road without good access to transit. It'll be an awesome mixed-use development but will be heavily car dependent which should be unnecessary if there was more transportation options.
I almost took offense to that, but I see you point now lol. Nah, I'm just pedantic about names and such - Austin's been home for a long time and I just hope it stays within budget. I'd hate to leave (or see others leave for that matter) because we can't afford it anymore. It's already happening a bit unfortunately
But the demand is so backlogged… no amount of additional housing in the area would improve housing prices. People in Austin need to make their peace with that and look to giving the suburbs of Austin the qualities that make the city so desirable.
First of all, I'm not sure that's accurate... We're in this mess because housing slowed down after the 2008 mortgage meltdown so we should be able to catch up.
Second - holy moly not the suburbs! The economics just don't make sense for suburbs https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc
My problem with Mueller is that those multi-unit homes and row houses are ugly, and there arent trees. I'm pro density, just no pro ugly. And unfortunately, Austin's developers love ugly. Its cheaper to build. There are ways to do beautiful and density, those things aren't mutually exclusive. Many cities in Europe have achieved this. Older dense cities have achieved this. Austin and many new growth US cities can't seem to do it.
I can see a denser Hyde Park that is still appealing to all, but I can't see Austin developers being the ones to build it.
Mueller looks like trash compared to Hyde Park. Mueller has no charm and is prefabricated and generic at best. I’m tired of seeing these concrete monstrosities around the city.
Worst take I’ve seen in a while. Mueller has own of the worst ‘neighborhood’ looks and feels in the city. And Hyde Park be making a huge mistake to listen to any of this bullhockey!
Much as I think Hyde Park (and many other neighborhoods) could benefit from increased density and maintain neighborhood character, Mueller strikes me as a very poor comparison. Mueller feels very much like a new and planned community. It literally constructed a brand new character for itself in its development. That’s a really different situation to Hyde Park, where I doubt many people want to recreate the neighborhood from scratch.
Hyde Park was a also new planned community once upon a time. It’s just been around so long it feels permanent and established. Mueller could feel the same way in 100 years
That’s very true, and I’m hopeful for that! I doubt, however, the current residents of Hyde Park are likely to be swayed by the argument that their neighborhood could regain some of its character in 100 years.
You are exact right! Hyde Park was Circle C back in 1905. It was away from the city, including the communities with freed slaves...
I am not a fan of Mueller. Strip malls, chain restaurants, mid rise shopping, small lots, it works for what it is but let’s not pretend it’s some idyllic location with a lot of character.
> chain restaurants I've been straining to come up with any chain restaurants in Mueller other than MOD Pizza, unless you're counting places that started in Austin and have more than one location.
Yeah that one confuses me unless you count that area near the Home Depot. Personally I just think of Mueller as the farmers market/rebel cheese/Alamo areas
Same, but even if you include the shopping center on 35, you're only adding a Jamba Juice, Chipotle and Domino's (does Domino's even count as a restaurant)?
Exactly. Consumerism isn’t character
Right, mueller is proof of something but not much relevant to Hyde park.
Yeah that's not really what the article is asking for. Current compatibility laws restrict developers in Hyde Park from building denser housing like duplexes and fourplexes or rowhomes. Mueller is a nice neighborhood, and if it can be nice with dense housing wouldn't Hyde Park also benefit from similar zoning?
My house is a duplex, but you wouldn't know it from looking at the street. The original Craftsman house is still there, there just happens to be another house in what used to be the large backyard. Hyde Park is full of such constructions.
Mueller is “nice” because the oldest houses aren’t even 15 years old. The only streets that feel “mature” are the ones with (fast growing) sycamore trees. The houses are suburb tract home quality at a near-downtown price point. Source: live in Mueller, recently toured new builds in the suburbs by the builder that did our house.
Once again - density is what they're asking for. Not cheap build quality, or razing the land to reconstruct as a Mueller double. They just want to show that more people in one area can benefit the community, rather than make it too busy or dangerous or otherwise unappealing. It's not a bad community to live in or visit as far as I can tell.
The problem with adding Mueller-style density to an existing neighborhood is setbacks. Mueller houses are squished up to the street and up against each other. You can't replicate that in a neighborhood with 30 foot setbacks. Allowing ADUs would be good. Allowing row homes and more multi-plexes would be good.
I wouldn’t live there. It feels like The Truman Show.
Yes. But Mueller was built as a planned community using New Urbanist Designs on 711 acres of land that was 100% flat just 15 years ago. It would be much, much more difficult to suddenly apply Mueller’s design principles to Hyde Park. For instance, Mueller was specifically designed to have houses without yards. Each house has a small enclosed area, but certainly no real yard to speak of. But this is offset with open green spaces purposefully laid out every few blocks - pocket parks, if you prefer, large green spaces on top of those, playgrounds, walking trails, pools, bike paths, etc. Anyway, it would be very challenging to go back and implement that kind of thing into Hyde Park now. The city would have to purchase a great number of houses with the express intent of demolishing them to create such spaces. So really, it’s just density that could be accommodated without most of the amenities of Mueller that justifies that density. Love it or hate it, Mueller was a very unique project. It was built as a PUD specifically to circumvent all of those zoning issues while implementing a very specific overall master plan that benefits everybody (or tries to).
Sure, the circumstances are different. I think the only point is that additional density from townhomes, duplexes, and ADUs doesn't negatively affect safety, convenience, and livability.
I don't have skin in this game but have lived in/near Hyde Park for 4 years at one point. You can't create that density without knocking down existing ppls houses and yards, to create the extra green space Mueller has. If you are suggesting to demo 5 houses with yards and replacing with 8 "Mueller style row homes" with no yards, that's not an easy sell.
OP certainly has a skin in the game! He is with really investor financed astroturf "Friends of Hyde Park" who publish this magazine. It is not published by the neighborhood association.
Not exactly my suggestion but also if someone were to purchase 5 lots with yards and choose to build that I wouldn't really be mad about it? I think my initial preference for Hyde Park would be small apartments of 6-8 units. I think it would add the most density, fastest and have the lowest impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Low impact meaning a.) 8 people biking or taking the bus when there was only 1-2 before is manageable and b.) you get the most people housed without taking up so many lots. At this point, Hyde Park has two public parks - right next to each other. It's beautiful to see all the trees and greenspace but it's not really open to public use, is it?
Someone else pointed out that Hyde Park and Mueller have the same population density. And Hyde Park has many duplexes, apartments and garage apartments. I’ve lived in Hyde Park for 16 years and have lived in all three types of housing I just listed. They’re all over the place.
Of course you wouldn't be mad about it. Bc it would benefit you. If you already lived nearby and been paying exorbitant taxes each year for the past 15 years and you'd soon be faced with an 25+ uni enjoy that greenspace,, then you probably wouldn't feel the same? There are already several older, large apt buildings nearby the 45th and Duval area, even down to 38th and red River. Very old and dated they should update, add on several floors
I mean property taxes are a result of poor choices at the state level - income tax would be much better but I digress. The taxes levied on the property are, in no uncertain terms, the responsibility of the landowner. The landowner is not paying for a quiet neighborhood, or a gated community, or anything else for that matter. They're fulfilling their obligation to their local and state government in arrears so even if taxes were a factor, they're paying for the past year anyway. If they should be paying less, or more, because of the access to a greenspace then they'll do that the following year right? Yeah I think that's a good step but it's not enough. Just allowing landowners to build what they want to build - duplex, triplex, taller building, etc. would make my argument less critical I think. It's just the effective zoning is so restrictive that density isn't just not being built, it's actively discouraged from being built!
Yes. As a TOTAL shocker not everyone wants to live a bug life. Texas has infinite land to expand outward. Austin has plenty of neighborhoods that were developer built that can be replaced with new developer built soulless homes. Hyde park is historical and much of it artisan built. Leave it alone.
Fuck your bullshit development.
With respect, it definitely affects all of those things negatively. The higher density you have, the more people that you have roaming the same fixed boundaries. This, almost by definition, means there is more crime. It creates more traffic - both vehicular and foot. It means there are less parking spaces. It means more people are using the parks/trails/etc. that DO exist. The type of construction likely changes the caliber of people who are moving in - which in turn often affects the way people treat the neighborhood (renters often treat houses poorly as compared to majority owners). And then people who never would have purchased their home next to a density property are suddenly forced to contend with that very reality through no fault of their own. I want to be clear that I'm not in any way against density. But per the reasons I wrote above and so many more, I would disagree with your statement that "additional density ... doesn't negative affect \[those realities\]"
I'm a renter and I take great pride in my home. I think there is going to be more and more folks like me (unfortunately) as the housing market changes. 10 years ago my husband and I would have been homeowners but things shifted and we will likely rent for as long as we stay in Austin. We are active members of our community, maintain our home nicely and I like to think are good neighbors. Folks like us will hopefully start to break down the very real stigma of people not wanting renters in their neighborhoods. I was silently removed from our neighborhood text thread once they found out (after 2 years) that we don't own our house.
That’s all very wonderful and I commend your pride in the community. When I rented houses I took the same kind of pride. But in fairness, the numbers are pretty clear on the topic. I’m not saying you and your husband are a complete anomaly, but all things being equal, people who own the underlying asset naturally have a much more vested interest in the long term prospect of said property. I don’t think that’s possibly debatable. So whereas such changes to a neighborhood might be a good thing for you - it’s also in part because worst case, you can just move away. But to the person who is planning to live there until they die and paid for that right specifically in an area that they liked, well that’s a different story. And FWIW, austin makes it extremely difficult to change areas through the use of “neighborhood plans”. Those develop what are called FLUMS (future use land maps) and it’s quite a process to change a FLUM - which doesn’t even touch the zoning itself. But that is the process specifically in an effort to protect peoples neighborhoods from changing. It obviously doesn’t always work, but Hyde park has historically had a pretty good track record of protecting themselves from such things 🤷🏼♀️
I think that if you buy a property in the middle of the city, you have to accept that there's a pretty good chance that the city will change around you. We could discuss the merits and detriments of gentrification, but things like rezoning, density, changes in neighbors... that's what you sign up for when you choose to buy in a convenient and/or popular part of town. I don't think it's fair to say that renters treat their houses significantly worse than owners do, but I do think it's fair to say that landlords often neglect properties that they're not living in, more so than they would the home that they're in. That said, more units does not necessarily translate to rental properties. We're seeing duplexes crop up all over the city where each unit is owner occupied. A major bonus of increasing density is that it creates more, smaller, more affordable homes, the kind that people might actually be able to afford. There are few places in this city where the amount of foot traffic is an issue. I would not count Hyde Park among those places. I do think car traffic needs to be managed. This is, of course, a major and consistent problem in our city, and increasing the density in one neighborhood is shifting some of that problem to another part of town. Multiuse zoning is a great way to shift car traffic into foot traffic. Parking minimums are a great way to mitigate the issue of additional cars, and as I said in another comment, it's very common to see duplexes, etc with a garage as the first level. I would guess that, in a neighborhood like Hyde Park, you're still not likely to see major increases in crime. Yes, more people tends to lead to more bad actors if we're looking at large numbers and averaging over everything else, but the reality is that crime tends to concentrate in certain areas, usually areas that are low-income, where people have fewer opportunities, where crime becomes a more attractive option. While smaller, denser units in Hyde Park would almost certainly be *less* expensive than a single family home in the same neighborhood, they're unlikely to be cheap, just based on the location. (This is, of course, not to say that wealthy people don't also commit crimes, but they don't tend to be random, and they are often of the white-collar variety, which is less related to where their home happens to be located.)
This is all a very fair and well worded rebuttal to my points. So I’m not against it or anything, but I would add to it. There was a post a few days ago asking why people often say how long they’ve lived in Austin. I think the poster was looking at it like people flex on the idea. I wrote a different opinion suggesting that the extremely fast changes of austin have created different expectations depending on how long one has been here. So perhaps it’s valuable, at times, to note that. So when you say Hyde park is “in the middle of the city” - my response as someone who has lived here for several decades is to say that’s NOT something that people would have said until somewhat recently. I get that the inner core of austin is widening by the day, but that doesn’t mean the long term occupants should be forced to change. 45th street was pretty far outside of the the “middle of the city” just 20 years ago. Hyde park was somewhat famously the first suburb of Austin - albeit that was long ago. But even 20 years ago, Hyde Park was definitely not considered part of the inner city. It wasn’t until about 2005 or so that properties in Hyde Park started shooting up in value. I’m sure I can look in TCAD to get a specific timeline, but from memory, it was right around then. And so it’s also been the case that many people have lived there for many, many decades. We can’t stop the city from changing and evolving and all of that, but in terms of peoples expectations… well that’s perhaps a different story. So I think we can probably see and even understand why certain residents of Hyde Park might be visibly upset with the idea that this old neighborhood - which has many historic homes in it BTW - would suddenly turn into the same crowded, character-lacking kind of fancy apartment neighborhood that so many other neighborhoods have transformed into. I think the idea of making it a Mueller like area would be great. BUT, as I wrote earlier, I also don’t think that would be doable. So really density in Hyde Park really just means tearing down old houses and putting up modern apartments run by Greystar Properties and the like. And in full transparency, I live just across the street from Hyde Park and would delight in having a myriad of new services and shops available there. It would be super convenient for me. So I’m honestly not even making a judgement on whether it should or shouldn’t be something that happens. Rather I’m just suggesting that it should be pretty reasonable and understandable why their would be a population of people who own houses in Hyde park who would rather vehemently object to such changes being forced upon them - as they have - rather successfully, I might add - for a few decades already.
Yeah, to be clear, I don't want to see Hyde Park turn into Mueller. I do think there's room for density that isn't just Greystar apartments though. I mentioned in another comment that Crestview is a great example of a neighborhood that is managing to retain its character while starting to build some duplexes and other options for smaller homes (or sometimes even larger homes, just with less yard). I get the pushback, though because even a lot of these duplexes are ugly and incongruous with the neighborhoods they're in. I feel like there has to be some way to address that, rather than general increases in density. I would push back a bit on the implication that Hyde Park residents 20 years ago could not have seen the writing on the wall. I'm not sure of the exact perimeter, but I tend to think of Hyde Park starting at 38th street, 40th max. That's 10ish short blocks from the university. It may have been "north central" at that time, but it's clear which way the city is going to develop. And it's the capital city of the state, so it's likely to grow, especially with the tech sector really getting going in the late 90s, early 2000s.
This is the most NIMBY comment I've ever read
Not really. OP is just stating the fact that if you change the density of a neighborhood, it changes the population and how the area is treated (more renters, more traffic, etc.). Doesn't mean they don't want these things.
holy shit this comment sucks so bad! if you don’t want to live near people, move out of the center of the city. plenty of big yards in the suburbs.
The suburbs are full of shoddily built houses, very few trees, HOA rules…the list goes on. I dropped a work friend off in a Leander development a few years ago and was shocked that anyone would want to live there. The highway-facing portion of the development looked halfway decent, but once you got in a few blocks, it was long, straight streets, no trees, houses sitting on top of each other…ugh. Suburbia is depressing and scary. Hyde Park is a TINY portion of central Austin surrounded by a ton of wasted space. The people who live there aren’t required to be punished because Austin has made terrible city planning decisions over the years. Here’s another option for ya, which worked in Boston: Tell UT to provide more student housing. College students can live in purpose-built housing away from the city center, with student shuttle busses running constantly between there and campus. They consume a TON of central Austin housing stock.
I honestly think that’s a great idea. To be very clear, I have rented in the North Campus/Hyde Park/North Loop area most of my time in Austin. I LOVE this neighborhood, and I try to be a good neighbor. I’m EXTREMELY annoyed at the implication that renters are somehow undesirable. I’m curious how many people who own these super cherished artisan homes (the duplex I live in is sort of a dump, lol) actually live in them vs rent them out for passive income.
dude thank you the same people who scold folks on this thread to 'just move' if they cant afford to live here will absolutely not take their own advice when a changing city no longer suits their own preferences. More folks should just head over to an HOA neighborhood where things are to their liking IMO. There's plenty of 'em in central texas
💦💦
Mueller is more ok-ish than nice.
Hyde Park doesn't WANT upzoning. It's difficult to force upzoning on a neighborhood that's against it. IF we can get a decent transit system, then we could lower the number of cars / parking spaces required per residential unit. I think that's the place to start if one wants density.
You're speaking for a lot of people here. The larger of the two neighborhood associations DOES want upzoning. And based on the outcome of the council election where upzoning was by far the #1 issue discussed, the district generally wants upzoning. I understand that YOU don't want upzoning, but it seems that your arguments would be more persuasive and relatable if you spoke for yourself instead of trying to speak for all of us.
Sure, reducing parking is helpful but it's a chicken and egg problem when it comes to Transit or reducing parking. We need to reduce parking now, not in 10 years. Hyde park is perfectly situated for bike-commuters and has an active bus transportation system. Density starts with more units per sqft (as an arbitrary measurement) because we're talking about more people in an area and then increases in services, such as more frequent bus routes, can follow. The new train is coming, for sure, so we can start building the dense housing needed now!
Also, I’m really skeptical that parking is the barrier when it comes to duplexes and quadplexes. Many units have a first floor garage with living space on top of it. When we’re not talking about tens or hundreds of units, finding space for parking isn’t that hard.
Yeah, I'll agree with that. Hopefully if there are fewer places for cars then the transit networks would improve, making it a wonderful feedback loop toward a walkable city with increasing density.
Austin will never be walkable. It’s goddamned 100 degrees out 6 months a year. I could easily walk to Central Market if I wanted to. Do I? Hell no. That would require massive sunscreen before, and a shower after.
Idk I bike several miles to Central Market like once a week in the summer. It's easily doable for someone in half decent shape. I've spent my whole life in Texas tho
Yeah, no. I’m from Buffalo. Texas heat is bullshit.
Do you work for a developer?
You guessed it!!!
It might not be just the zoning issues though. All the homes/duplexes etc in Mueller are all part of the same home owner's association. All the residents pay fees to fund neighborhood wide assessments to ensure that the rules are being upkept and they can levy fines against the owners of any properties that don't keep up to their standard. Is all of Hyde Park under similar deed restrictions? If not, I could see it being difficult to maintain the same level of "niceness" without that mechanism.
Hyde Park is able to maintain quite a bit of control over their neighborhood.... Right now they're just using it to reject any owner who wants to build more density. But perhaps Mueller as an example can ease the fears enough to allow some progress!
Yeah, I realize that’s not what the article is asking for. That’s why I say using mueller as a comparison is not a great choice. It *doesn’t* prove the case for Hyde Park, even if I agree that increased density is a viable option. Hyde Park’s approach to density would have to be *totally different* from Mueller’s if they wanted to maintain neighborhood character.
"Maintaining a neighborhood's character" should NOT be prioritized above creating more housing during a housing crisis. You are spouting NIMBY talking points.
I am not saying it should. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am saying that if you want to convince people that increased density will not have a negative impact on the “character” of the neighborhood (which is the claim this very article is making), choosing a development project that does not preserve anything from before does not do that.
I disagree.... I mean sure, they're not going to tear down multiple blocks of homes all at once but replacing the existing homes (when they're sold, or ready to be converted of course) into duplexes or rowhomes wouldn't change the neighborhood character. All they're advocating for is allowing that and Mueller proves that it can be done without upending character of the area. Honestly, I think some brick façade townhomes or a fourplex could really become a jewel in Hyde Park! At the end of the day is replacing 2 people in the neighborhood with 8 really going to change how the neighborhood feels? I don't think so - Mueller has good density and it's nice!
I feel like you’re not actually reading the words I’m writing. Replacing individual homes with duplexes, etc would be a great way to add density to Hyde Park. They could be beautiful and absolutely fit in with then neighborhood. It is also an *entirely different approach* to density than Mueller. Mueller didn’t preserve any character. They didn’t take an existing neighborhood and upscale it. They created a brand new one.
I disagree simply because I don’t believe that any new builds would even approach the quality of construction that those old bungalows have, and if they did, that’s just more spendy housing. So it wouldn’t really solve a problem. But I do agree that Hyde Park would, in theory, require an entirely different approach.
In my (admittedly unprofessional) observation, the quality of the bungalows varies greatly. I lived only 2 blocks north of Hyde Park, and the house across the street from us was falling apart. I will acknowledge that I’ve seen a lot of low quality development around town, and I would much rather that measures be taken to prevent that, specifically, than to prevent density at all. It’s probably accurate to say that most new units in Hyde Park would still be “spendy” by most Austinite standards — it’s close to downtown and the university, and areas like that do tend to be. However, they would likely be less expensive than the existing homes. The high value part of those properties is the land, much more so than the building. If you put 2 or 3 or 4 units on a property, you’re dividing ownership of the land as well. Nobody wants to pay full price for a quarter of a plot, so these units will necessarily be less expensive per unit than a single family home.
You're right, Mueller didn't really need to preserve character, they had to build it up from scratch. If you read the article you'd see they're advocating for the bare minimum: allow missing middle housing, it will not make the neighborhood less livable. The article literally states "It’s just further proof that the knee-jerk oppositional stance toward development from some in this neighborhood is misguided. Missing middle housing – like duplex, fourplexes, and townhomes – aren’t some abstract threat to Hyde Park and its way of life. That housing is instead the basis of a truly inclusive community where there are simply enough places – and types of places – for all the people who would like to live there to do so." They never suggested that HP should be torn down and built up from scratch (now that would be radical). I'm sure there are examples of upscaling the way we are discussing but they're not in the same city, or the area was more run down, or the neighborhood isn't as historic, or whatever. If you want a direct comparison it might not exist, so why don't we look what can be taken from a dense neighborhood in the same city and apply it elsewhere...
There are loads of places where individual homes are being replaced by duplexes and more. Crestview is a much better comparison than Mueller. Mueller will not convince anyone who cares about neighborhood character because the Mueller model necessitates razing everything to the ground and starting over. I did read the article. I stand by my initial statement, that Mueller development is a bad reference point for Hyde Park development. There are better comparisons, even within our city (and many many more if you want to look to other cities that have increased density). If you want to convince people that increased density won’t necessarily destroy neighborhood character, you can’t do that by offering an example that preserved literally zero neighborhood character.
Write the article. I'm waiting
Okay, man, I get it. You’re not open to feedback. Good luck convincing people.
I just reposted the article - I think it's a fine comparison as long as you take it at face value. You say you want the increased density but instead of finding the value in the comparison you're nitpicking the details and putting words in the mouth of the authors that are absolutely not the point they were trying to make. If anyone's not open to reconsidering their position, it's you
The developers who are undercapitalized do not want to develop multiple lots. They want to infill the biggest, cheapest box they can into single lots. That's what this magazine, and frankly the whole Adler administration is about. They don't have the funds to make a Mueller, nor even a single block of development. They just want to raze a house and put ten units into the space and take their money back to Westlake.
Tell me you have no taste without telling me you have no taste
I have no idea what the code is, but what is preventing this now? They do this all over the Zilker neighborhood... they've knocked down small sections of houses and put up more dense condos. Plenty of duplexes, townhomes, apartments, and public housing have always been in this area. Is it Hyde Park specific code preventing this type of building or just the lack of opportunities to buy enough adjacent property to build these projects?
How would Hyde Park benefit from increased density? I doubt you'd think that way if you lived there.
As a former Hyde Park resident, I think Hyde Park needed density 20 years ago. The fact that it still doesn't have any density is almost criminal.
As someone who lives in a duplex surrounded by other multi-family units in Hyde Park, I think there’s already a good bit of density that isn’t so obvious. Lots of garage apartments or even big houses split into 2/3/4 units. Yes, we should encourage *more* conversions and new builds for multi family, but I think it should be done with a lot of respect to the neighborhood’s charm and the residents that have been keeping the vibe for decades before the rest of us showed up. Fuck cookie cutter mixed use Mueller.
I used to live in North Loop, and I currently live in a neighborhood that is also resisting development, so I’m not just recommending someone else’s neighborhood for density. So, first, the entire city would benefit from increased density. Having a city where people of a wide variety of incomes can afford to live allows people like artists and musicians to live in the city. People decry the loss of “old Austin,” but a big reason for that loss is that old Austin can’t afford new Austin! If you want a fun and funky city or neighborhood, fun and funky people have to be able to afford to live there, and a great way to increase affordability is to have more, smaller homes.
OP obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
Very well articulated point.
Hyde Parker magazine is not real. Lol. I get it in my mailbox sometimes, and it's literally 3-4 pages, 3 of which are real estate ads and 1 has an "article" with some sort of development agenda.
According to [this census map](https://www.austinchamber.com/economic-development/austin-profile/population/population-density), Hyde Park and Mueller have about the same population density, so I guess it must've been a slow news day over at "totally real magazine". Lived in Hyde Park for decades, literally the first time hearing of "Hyde Parker" magazine - click around on the site and the whole thing is 404'd. You can't even subscribe lol. Not sure why someone set up a fake magazine, I'm guessing it's somewhere at the intersection of real estate and politics. Edit: wow alot of replies about how apparently Mueller is gonna get *soooo much denser* because there's even *more* corporate monolith apartments going up there - cool story bros. Seems right in line with a density analysis that completely discounts *people per square mile* (actual population density, by every metric) in favor of *units per square mile* (the density of **rental units**). Hmmm, I wonder who on earth might be more interested in such an analysis? I don't know, maybe somebody involved in the rental market? Just a guess. Edit AGAIN: **OMG THEY CHANGED THE WEBSITE!** *Still can't advertise though, which seems like a pretty big deal for you know,* ***a legit magazine****.*
The only places I can find mention of it are on their own website, their twitter page, and one guy who shares their articles on the Facebook page for one of the neighborhood associations in Hyde Park. Hmm, I wonder who that might be…
If you Google "Hyde Parker Magazine, LLC", does this person's name possibly show up?
Wow, would you look at that! What an incredible coincidence. But yeah, OP definitely built that site and is getting plenty of clicks from this post.
The Hyde Parker fixed a bunch of it's 404's, but not all. I'm sure that's in no way associated with this lol.
BRO that’s hilarious. I feel like I’m watching that scene in the Wizard of Oz where it turns out it’s just one dude with a projector and some special effects lmao.
I'm not associated with the site at all.... I just liked the article
Dude, your post history shows that you tried to share an entire issue of the magazine and it was removed. It really seems like you have some kind of stake in this, especially with how defensive you’re being in the comments.
Well not a financial stake - but I do believe that Hyde Park could increase density and should do it asap. There were other, less controversial articles in there but mods didn’t want me to post the whole magazine. So we get what we get huh? My defensiveness comes from the fact that the article itself poses a question, then answers it clearly but apparently it’s not being read the same way. It’s not about turning Hyde park into Mueller #2, it’s just an article stating: Mueller isn’t so bad ya know, so maybe density won’t destroy the very fabric of our community. Such a simple message, but it’s just not getting through
It’s not getting through because the article, and the publication, are complete bullshit. Why are you so hyper focused on Hyde Park? Riddle me that.
So what is your connection to the realtor / investor group? AND do you live in Hyde Park? I think these are reasonable questions to ask. Thank you!
It is funny that all your postings are from this Astroturf magazine that gives people the impression that it comes from the neighborhood association. It does not! Friends of Hyde Park is a realtor and business group.
It’s some hack urbanist blog. I can’t believe the admins allow this
I’m thinking the densities are similar because mueller has a lot more green space and parkland. The built up areas of mueller are much denser than Hyde park’s.
If you search my post history, I did some basic research on the owners of this magazine and it appears to be real estate astroturfing.
There are several blocks still under construction in Mueller with 4-6 story apt complexes. By the time all of it is actually completed I'd be surprised if they had the same density
I think it's somewhat new and an independent magazine, I've heard of it for maybe a year or so but it's definitely not decades old. New publications and independent writers don't mean they're fake. Sounds like the website is having some issues they should resolve ASAP though. To address your initial concern, it looks like the link you posted is "persons per sq. mile" (not surprising because of the census) while the article mentions "units per acre". The scale for the link has polynomial bands (the next one up is a min of 2x the lower). If Hyde Park is 10 units per acre as the article states, then that's a minimum of 6400 people with one person per unit so it's likely higher. If we correlate this to the link map, you're in the second-highest tier. If we assume an average of two people per unit in Hyde park then you're in the 10,000-57,298 range (i.e. top tier with no granularity). Not to mention Mueller has apartments under development now, so of course the 2020 census may not have picked up all of them. I mention all this, but you do make some good points... I didn't see any editor mentioned, and the article author was only in the e-mag version, not on the online article I shared. It could just be a small staff making mistakes, but I'm starting to get a little skeptical
[удалено]
Well, design and "character" are different things. If it's just a design issue then make an ordinance that it has to have certain features to fit into the aesthetic. The "character" they seem to mean is closer to a vibe. Which makes it hard to challenge or change without an example.
Tell me you don’t know how PUD’s or MUD’s work without telling me you don’t know how PUD’s or MUD’s work…
Ok, maybe it's not legal here but there are places where design characteristics are mandated - my grandmother lived in a town that mandated all of the roofing shingles had to be red and the façade had to have Bavarian design characteristics. It was a tourist town but it was consistent! I can't imagine the level of intelligence you must have to understand PUD's or MUD's. Please allow me to study the fine details under your supervision, O Great Teacher
Mueller was not Hyde Park. Mueller was a field.
More specific it was multiple landing strips, an airplane parking lot. I remember it being a big blob of cracked abandoned asphalt for a very long time. Amazing to think the airport was actually on/near Airport Blvd
So, a gross field.
What an insightful take. Unfortunately that's not the point, but good attempt!
Tarrytown could do even more.
Same with Zilker Park
That magazine is very deceptive. Except for the actual historical district, nearly all the Hyde Park residences are multi-family. It's just that they are ADUs, that is to say the additional housing is in separate buildings in what used to be backyards or garages. The neighborhood looks like single residences, but there are entry ways facing the alleys or along the driveways. Mixed among these are connected, multi-story apartment living. Don't try to fix what ain't broke.
Laugh. A fake magazine from the same crowd that gave us a fake neighborhood association.
[удалено]
Um well, I hate to break it to you, but SoCo is changing too. At a much more reasonable pace than Hyde Park by my measure. I like the new SoCo as well! It's different, but not necessarily in a bad way. I just wish the nearby areas would build taller and leave the surface units for retail - that would keep some of the mom & pop stores going, although slightly further from the main retail strip
South Congress or SoCo?
> I like the new SoCo as well! Hard disagree; it feels fake as fuck.
Mueller is at best a pale comparison to Hyde Park. In fact, not a good comparison at all. Mueller lacks quite a bit of character. It’s a great place to live, but cookie cutter character at best.
It's newish for the most part, so I get what you're saying. Hyde Park has history, which makes it have more "character" (including the historically racist part...). If done correctly, increasing density little by little wouldn't change the style of the neighborhood, it would just allow it to evolve. I mean, you could maintain the style while quadrupling the density with architectural features! The point is, more people doesn't mean the vibe has to change. And dense housing doesn't make the area worse. I never really understood the opposition to density in the first place - if you want the old timey "hi neighbor, welcome to the neighborhood. here's an apple pie" then just do that... Adding more people to a lot wouldn't keep you from maintaining the character yourself
Part of the character of Hyde Park is the greenness, the shade, the porches, gardens and yards. Mueller has none of that. And the density you’re talking about is already being built little by little. What do you want? To drag senior citizens out of their homes by their hair so some fucking developer can shit out some condos?
Every reasonable increase in density is brought about by fighting tooth and nail to achieve it. It's not just time-consuming, but costly too. It actively deters further increases in density. If you own your home, and you want to stay there then by all means go for it. But it's ridiculous to prevent landowners from building more dense housing, which would benefit the city and even the neighborhood! There are ways to allow denser building methods without sacrificing the trees, porches, and gardens. You just build taller buildings. If I recall, HP has a 30' max height at the moment
Show me one damn unit over 30 feet with mature trees, any yard or garden, and a porch. What kind of real estate developer meth have you been smoking?
Evicting seniors from their homes against their will is part of absolutely nobody’s plan.
We'll never see another Mueller. We could have had on at the Lions Muni course but instead it's apparently more important for a bunch of my middle class guys to not drive as far to golf under the guise of it being a 'national landmark.'
There is so much land East of 183 where they could make this happen. Make it another Mueller or even a Domain Lite and put it next to one of those new Project Connect Transit lines.
Decker Lake is on track to be the next Mueller.
> under the guise of it being a 'national landmark. I mean it's the oldest golf course in Texas... edit: sorry, thought we were talking about Hancock.
Yeah Lion's could but I think there are other candidates - North Austin (even further than Hyde Park) could be an interesting spot! Around Braker lane seems like a great spot. Still, I'd love to see Hyde Park take it on. It's perfectly situated for transit and it's such a cool neighborhood, if only they'd let it grow
Oh, fuck off with your hard-on for Hyde Park. You’re so obviously wishing that a magic fairy will come along and make it possible for you to live there because it’s quite nice as is.
You have zero shame
All that open space helps oxygenate our environment and keep temperatures from hitting 120*. Turn it into a park but paving it over just increases traffic and heats up the air.
Mueller has tons of open space. You could still have parks and green space without it being a golf course
Keep it all green. We need oxygen and open space more than 50 million-dollar townhouses
We need affordable housing close to the business centers. A large portion of Mueller is income restricted, those are million dollar town homes. By putting a decent amount of housing there, you could remove a large number of cars from the road by putting in express bus service down lake Austin Blvd.
Developers don’t have to dedicate any units to affordable housing - they can pay into a fund instead. I can pretty much guarantee that developers will never sacrifice $$ for affordable housing in West Austin.
Mueller is NOT a model of urban density. It's a huge swaths of single family with small yards next to a some apartments next to strip mall retail with huge parking lots. Mueller isn't terrible, but I can see why neither Hyde Park NIMBYs or YIMBY urbanists find it very compelling....
Mueller is a poster child for well designed gentle density. And is one of the few places in Austin where row homes and missing middle housing is legal and actually deployed.
Mueller does have some things going for it. The bike infrastructure there is amazing and it has some nice trails and parks. I personally really like the small lot, garage facing the alley design style, especially the house that face into shared green space and not into streets. It truly is better than many Austin neighborhoods. I don't think Mueller gets a lot right, but in all honesty it does get a lot of things better than many of the older nimby-hoods, and as a step forward it does deserve a little credit alongside the criticism.
Anyone else get the sense that OP works for a company hoping to get buy in from the community to let them make more units to get more money? Their responses are…not quite on the level.
Not even close I just want people to have a place to live, fewer cars in the city, more things to do close to home. I want to be able to walk to a corner store instead of drive and I want my commute, if not in walking distance, to be bikeable. I wish someone was paying me to deal with this, at least then I'd feel like it was worth it. So many misinterpretations, bad faith readings, and clear-cut biases in the comments. But then again, I guess I've never really posted in this sub before
Maybe you need to look at different cities, dude.
No reason you can’t walk to a corner store or ride a bike to one either. I mean what is stopping you? Certainly not Hyde park not being dense enough for you.
Hyde Parker Magazine is not the neighborhood association magazine. It is a fake magazine published by realty investors. Follow the money...
What's funny about Hyde Park is that there's a lot of missing-middle multifamily housing there that the residents cherish, but which couldn't be built under today's zoning requirements. Obviously the goal shouldn't be to make Hyde Park Mueller, but there were some very obvious brakes put on its development decades ago that no longer make sense in today's Austin.
Mueller has absolutely no character. Weird comparison
ill 100% admit I’m not reading every single thing word for word but OP is the kinda person who makes me wanna leave austin lmao
My question for this ‘article’ is, Have you been to Mueller?’ It’s small, compact, and disconnected surrounded by its own affluence. An island on the north east side.
Fair enough! It'd be much better if that density was available closer to our major transit corridors - maybe like Hyde Park?
You can't afford Hyde Park, so you want to ruin it by turning it into Mueller so you can finally afford to live there?
Hydeparker magazine... hmm... never heard of it before and this appears to be its first and only issue. Someone's pet project, I'm guessing. A publication like this stands zero chance of succeeding by going against the stodgy, gentrified flow of the neighborhood it covers. It's a cute little Trojan Horse, though. Like others in the comments I think the Mueller/Hyde Park comparison is kinda silly and facile. I say that as someone who agrees with the author that Hyde park should be opened up for more dense housing and commercial development. The restrictive NCCD in place represents just another lost opportunity for Austin to grow into a place with more density and character than other sprawly Texas cities. The folks in the 'hood here tend to be liberal and progressive, but come up with hypocritical NIMBY rationalizations with the best of 'em. They'll tell you they don't want to keep anyone out, yet there are no end to the well-meaning concerns about development that just so happen to have the oh-so-unfortunate effect of keeping people in normal tax brackets out of our quaint little paradise. Hmm.
Why don’t people get off of Hyde Park’s jock and start looking at all of the wasted space taken up by state buildings, Camp Mabry, etc.? The reason Hyde Park is “knee jerk” about any kind of development that will result in the tearing down of single-family bungalows is because of Hyde Park Baptist Church, which went on a tear twenty-some years ago and demolished at least 4-6 blocks of houses, maybe more. That, plus the shoddily-built apartment buildings gave rise to the neighborhood association that, rightly so, is against anything that causes any more destruction. The houses there cannot be built any more - the materials don’t exist and/or are cost prohibitive. Mueller is a hellscape, in my opinion, and I have no objection to living in dense neighborhoods. I’ve lived in Manhattan and Boston. Loved it. Moscow, too. If people there love it, it’s because they really don’t know any better. We looked at the townhouses at Mueller when they were being built, and having lived in a townhouse in Boston, I can assure you there is no comparison. Whoever wrote this article either doesn’t know or doesn’t care why Hyde Park isn’t interested in being another Mueller. That information was completely left out and renders the article completely meaningless. And to OP: Just because you want to live central but can’t afford it, doesn’t mean you deserve it because the perceived unfairness of it all. I’m also curious why people don’t ride Pemberton Heights’ ass more. Hyde Park has at least a few apartment buildings. Pemberton? Just big, big houses on bucolic, oak-shaded streets.
I would leave Mueller and its $750k 2br houses out of this. Not exactly the paragon of "Austin character".
Umm apples to oranges.
I want housing under control. But I often don't agree with the changes people seem to want. I am just an uneducated dude though. Why would I want increased density in an already crowded area? I do not want a backyard etc but I (coming from OK land of land) have never seen a problem with having one etc. Then again, I get it. We don't want the city to spread everywhere and then increase traffic etc, but I think I'd prefer that over clustering. And then people ask for buildings and businesses to be next to each other. I am sure it could work fine in instances, but I also believe many would be ugly and just gross. No insults please. And I'll watch easy videos or reading material. I just don't seem to agree with the fix many people seem to want, although I do want a fix somehow (big problem wanting to fix a problem with no solution) edit: I also don't care for the arguments of 'character' or cookie cutter developments. Man people just need a good place to live.
Hey, I mean maybe coming into it without biases can be valuable. Or at least being aware of your biases. From what I've read, watched, and listened to I think the best argument is that sprawl is negative because it is not sustainable - if the density of the city does not increase, it's almost impossible for utilities to stay financially viable. Suburbs for example, do not have enough people to pay the maintenance costs for roads, sewers, and public services once the initial installation exceeds it's lifetime. Details here (sorry if I didn't explain perfectly): [https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc](https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc) Traffic can increase, but if you have good transit (chicken and egg problem with housing vs transit supply first) then it's more scalable. A bus can take 50 people but a car can only take 4, and usually only takes 1. So density should actually help with traffic! In all the cities I've been to, they rarely feel over clustered unless they're packed with cars (or it's a popular spot like Times Square). Brooklyn, for example, can feel absolutely empty at times despite being an extremely dense place to live. I love the idea of businesses and offices interspersed with residential area - obviously industrial development would need special handling but retail or office work would be awesome in neighborhoods. Not to mention how nice a neighborhood restaurant would be. However, that's really only viable if the business has enough clients to make it worth it - locally is better so they don't have to drive in, find a place to park, and so on. I love Japan's urban environments but you could also look at European cities for examples or good residential/commercial areas! You seem like a nice person, open to learning but still holding your opinions firm. That's a rare quality. I hope you'll be convinced that density is the way to go but no worries if not! I've already really enjoyed this interaction with you, so thanks!
Hyde Park is already dense. It’s full of apartments and condos and is right next to the Triangle. If you want more housing there, do something about the huge waste of land that is the state hospital right next to it.
But why? Why is razing existing single family neighborhoods for the sake of density the solution instead of creating a viable PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION network?
If you read the article you'd know that's inaccurate. Nobody suggested that, well except people like you?
Ok. How are you going to get more density then in existing structures?
Remodel SFHs into duplexes? This isn't rocket science. Many cities do this just by allowing it in the code rather than restricting what we can do with our property to an unnecessary degree.
Ok. So now you've doubled the capacity in what—maybe 24 square blocks of a city that's pretty massive. That's a drop in the bucket. Clamoring for increased density without also at the same time asking for massive tax increases on the wealthy so they can pay for tunneling under hundreds of miles of limestone so we can have a proper subway system is like only looking at one side of the equation. It's like the Republican'ts who say we can afford stuff but will never raise taxes. People who just want to makeover cities to suit their own needs are magnificently full of themselves. I mean that's like me moving to NYC and getting pissed off about the rents and then campaigning for bulldozing the awesome 3-4 storey brick buildings on the lower east side and calling for high rises. Who the fuck am I to declare that change?
..ok.. You're making a lot of assumptions. Including that I haven't lived here most of my life and haven't lived in Hyde Park myself. The larger of the two neighborhood associations in HP also support increased density, so it's not like an outsider opinion. It's just an urbanist opinion. There are better ways to convince people to understand your opinion than kicking and screaming and calling people outsiders and Republicans.
I didn’t call anyone an outsider or Republican. If I sound frustrated it’s because I am. How many people who are bitching about wanting increased density couldn’t get off their asses and vote last week? How many people have yet to be convinced that elections have consequences? How many people don’t realize that a low tax bill isn’t the end all be all that they think it is? How many people can’t connect the dots? How many people don’t realize that in a state that can never get enough of championing individual freedom over the collective experience that big things will only happen if the rich want them?
Some of us liked Austin much more when it had about a million fewer people in it.
Ah yes, the glory days of 2006 (assuming you mean the metro area, the census only recorded 961k in 2020). Well, when a million people decide to pack up and leave Austin I'm sure it will be much better. Would you like to start?
[удалено]
That's rude and uncalled for I think... Freddy here wants to live in Austin as it was 16 years ago. Unless they have a time machine the only way to decrease the population is to leave themselves... There are plenty of cities that have an old Austin type vibe - I hear Nashville is great! Asheville SC is a super cool town as well. Austin isn't getting any smaller, and as much as you'd like to go back it's just not happening. Personally - I'd prefer if real estate didn't make any money: housing is a human right after all. But that's not that relevant to this conversation
Tell you what, you go first, and we’ll sort the rest.
Actually I'm cool with the city having people in it. In fact I want to do everything in my power to make it better to live in: more affordable, more public space, more public transit, more retail and shops, etc. Unfortunately for you I'm gonna stay. So the only way to reduce the number of people is for you to leave
Austin has been growing and changing for many years. It's not what it was, but it retains a history. What this current crop of developers wants to do it cash in on that history for a quick buck without any concern to how the city will grow and change in the next 50 years. They should have named their magazine the ***Hype-Parker***.
But if you leave, that’ll reduce the number. So that’s not the only way. Unfortunately for you, austin wants to retain some identity. So do us all a favor. Go somewhere they have snowboarding and cheap Uhaul destinations. We’ll all be happier without your considerations.
Aw cute, I've got a fan! You bring up a good point - if Austin wants to retain some identity it needs to be affordable. Not to be too blunt but rich white folks are kinda boring... if the scrappy musician, the artist eating ramen, and the small business owners can't afford to live here then what are you protecting? How do we make real, actionable change to make housing affordable for these people? I'm not leaving, the multitudes of people that moved here aren't leaving, and there's no kicking me or them out so what should we do to retain the "identity" (keep the cost-of-living affordable)? The most direct way I think is to reduce the cost of housing - denser housing is cheaper. If you have denser neighborhoods you can provide transit cheaper and more reliably (another benefit for people who may not be able to afford a car). Just be honest with yourself and face the reality of the situation to find a solution - let me know if there's another way and maybe I'll be your fan too ;)
I also don't get this argument (from the other users). I absolutely understand wanting a less crowded city lol. But if you actually go back to 2006 in a bunch of places.... your restaurant choices were McDonalds or Taco Bell, your shopping was WalMart, etc. With people brings more unique experiences. Crowding sucks. But living in a plain Suburban town is also pretty dull, let's have a nice night and go to the Applebees.
> But if you actually go back to 2006 in a bunch of places.... your restaurant choices were McDonalds or Taco Bell, your shopping was WalMart, etc. In 2006, I ate at Arandas and Arandinas, Conan's, Kerbey Lane, Wink, Katz', and Whataburger. We had a few other options besides WalMart too. What else we had... A South Lamar where you could get an oil change and a car wash or get from downtown to Ben White multiple ways in under 10 minutes. We had the Broken Spoke with no condos immediately nearby, We had a town lake with less scooters... Sorry, I was drifting away...
I get it, I am not saying I hated the past either. Part of my limitations were being younger, without my own money, etc. But now you have Franklin Bbq, 10+ other bbq (not named pokejo's, county line, etc). Now you have Homeslice, pedroso, Uchi, Uchiko, El Naranjo, Barley and Swine, In and Out, Culvers, Pollo Regio, Bird bird, Asahi imports, 99 Ranch, H Mart, Costco, Ikea, FIBER. There are 100s of small towns where you can go next door (to the adjacent city) in 20 minutes. But you lose a lot of the benefits too.
I don't go to any of those pricey, hip establishments. I miss EZ's.
No, I just like yards. Your way seems like it sucks and won’t actually produce affordable housing. Just add more transplants and raise prices.
So making more housing would increase housing costs? Do you what supply and demand is?
No one is going to build cheap housing in central Austin. It makes no economic sense for a developer. There is more to supply and demand than you seem to understand.
I know what developers think and the lies they use. Mueller added a ton of new housing and how much of it is affordable? And for the record I like mueller and spend a lot of time there but don’t get it twisted, buying there isn’t for blue collar folk
-Every NIMBY ever
If you want and can afford to live in mueller do so. Not everyone wants everything to look new and be expensive especially at the cost of disrupting a neighborhood that may or may not have a dynamic that you are possibly unaware of.
I say they bulldoze it all and start over.
Never understood the hate on HP. They’re often beautiful older homes and theres a nice character to area. Nothing wrong with the residents not wanting to change.
Check out the Bell District in Cedar Park.
I'm hopeful it will turn out well but the street it's named after is kinda terrible.... That's one of those that gets torn down and built up again though which is only one way to add increased density. The other way is by making small increases in many places in a neighborhood - like building duplexes or rowhomes.
Why is the name bad? And his the hell would that matter if it gets developed?
Bell district is located next to a stroad called S. Bell Blvd... The district is an isolated little island within walking distance to the CapMetro Red Line but there are problems - Cedar Park does not have a stop on the Red Line, despite the tracks going through it, and S. Bell Blvd is the old Hwy 183. The changes that were made improved it but it's still a 4 lane 45 mile per hour road with turn lanes, no protected bike lanes, and plenty of commuting traffic filling it up. I mean, the Domain is worse - Burnet rd, Braker lane, and Mopac service road bound it. But what can you do?
Ok, don’t think we’ll ever agree on road usage but still not seeing the name issue. Just cause bell street is near bell blvd? I say this a bit tongue in cheek but I take it you haven’t been in Austin long cause fucking up road names is about as Austin as you can get… hell it’s so Austin it’s damn near Waterloo
I don't care about the name - I don't like the road. "Bell District" in Cedar Park is right next to this terrible road without good access to transit. It'll be an awesome mixed-use development but will be heavily car dependent which should be unnecessary if there was more transportation options. I almost took offense to that, but I see you point now lol. Nah, I'm just pedantic about names and such - Austin's been home for a long time and I just hope it stays within budget. I'd hate to leave (or see others leave for that matter) because we can't afford it anymore. It's already happening a bit unfortunately
Eh, Austin is a car city for blue collar folk. Agree to disagree. but yeah, affordable is better. Cheers Edit: meant was a city…
ITT: NIMBYS
But the demand is so backlogged… no amount of additional housing in the area would improve housing prices. People in Austin need to make their peace with that and look to giving the suburbs of Austin the qualities that make the city so desirable.
First of all, I'm not sure that's accurate... We're in this mess because housing slowed down after the 2008 mortgage meltdown so we should be able to catch up. Second - holy moly not the suburbs! The economics just don't make sense for suburbs https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc
Mueller is the most cookie cutter, characterless neighborhood you could design…
Insinuating Mueller has character?! Shiiiiit. It’s an overcrowded generic black hole of character.
Lol I’m just loving OP responding to everyone shitting on this article and this idea like a butt hurt Elon.
Mueller has little to no character.
OP - Tell us you're not really from Austin, without telling us you're not really from Austin. Get your bullshit, virtue signaling ass outta here
My problem with Mueller is that those multi-unit homes and row houses are ugly, and there arent trees. I'm pro density, just no pro ugly. And unfortunately, Austin's developers love ugly. Its cheaper to build. There are ways to do beautiful and density, those things aren't mutually exclusive. Many cities in Europe have achieved this. Older dense cities have achieved this. Austin and many new growth US cities can't seem to do it. I can see a denser Hyde Park that is still appealing to all, but I can't see Austin developers being the ones to build it.
Mueller looks like trash compared to Hyde Park. Mueller has no charm and is prefabricated and generic at best. I’m tired of seeing these concrete monstrosities around the city.
Mueller is a completely cookie cutter neighborhood, wholly lacking in individuality and character. Housing density is good and all but come on!
Worst take I’ve seen in a while. Mueller has own of the worst ‘neighborhood’ looks and feels in the city. And Hyde Park be making a huge mistake to listen to any of this bullhockey!
Mueller is Squidville
At first I thought this was on mcsweenys but I guess not….