Hacker News Reader

Comment by rossdavidh | Hacker News Reader

While Austin's zoning laws could definitely be better, there is tons of housing being built even now. I see large numbers being built at the edge of town. Not saying there's not problems, especially for new construction in old neighborhoods, but it's not like there isn't a lot of construction happening.

View on HN

It's true. There are subdivisions going up everywhere in Hays and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. And you can't be more in the nose than a place called "Caliterra" unless you called it "CA Expats Welcome Here." I have 2.8 unrestricted acres in Driftwood that I bought a year ago and after I sell the other house I tent out in a Subdivision up the road, I'll squat in this alone until I can avoid the capital gains and likely sell it for a significant profit. The greater Austin area is exploding with houses and it still can't meet demand. They sell fast and generally over asking, even in the off season and during a pandemic.

Building large numbers of housing at the edge of town isn't the solution. It is the core problem with American city planning.

Sprawl is an environmental disaster. On top of land-use changes, it also causes longer commutes, both of which produce more CO2 than upzoning and densifying city centers. Unfortunately, it's in most property owners' best financial interests to rent-seek by blocking any new development, especially considering Texas passed our own version of California's disastrous Proposition 13 in the last legislative session.

Has nothing to do with rent seeking. Density ruins neighborhoods.

> Density ruins neighborhoods

Can you give examples?

Well, for one, while there are some conflicting results, there is lots of research pointing to high-density housing leading to elevated rates of violent crime.

e.g., https://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13030.html

Increased traffic and related issues if housing is added without new roads, traffic signals, etc... Increased 911 response times, food deserts and the related social problems, air quality problems for increased traffic and so on. Tnstaafl

We can’t let our kids and our dogs out in the yard to play. This is hugely valuable to some people, and it’s why they chose the neighborhoods that they did. You probably got to do that as a kid.

Nothing to do with rent seeking. The only thing increased property value does is make property tax and excise tax go up. Nobody cares about that. We don’t want a condo building dropped on both sides of us. Who would?

Can you explain how having buildings erected on adjacent (i.e. not your) property prevents you from using your yard however you want?

If you want low density, don't let employers move in and create lots of jobs.

But if you do allow job creation, while not creating housing for the people working those jobs, that absolutely is rent seeking.

There is a place between sprawl and skyscrapers: 4-6 story buildings are considered ideal by city planners (IIRC) because you get pretty good density (i.e. low distance to work/shopping and so on) while still feeling familiar (you know your neighbours, there are public spaces to hang out on or do sports etc.).

Copenhagen ist built almost completey like that and has a population of about 800k. It feels great: Quite urban, with many cafés and small shops, while still feeling friendly and human. Much of Berlin is also like that.

They are starting to do some of that in Austin. The lower levels are supposed to be businesses, but the rent on them is way too high and the businesses go under regularly. Something still not worked out about that.

They are also building high rise residential building in the city center including numerous 50+ story residential skyscrapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A...

You're not wrong, but the main obstacle is legal (lawsuits), so it's either build nothing, or build at the edge of town. But there is some high-density stuff in the center of town in the last 10 years or so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com