McMansion Consequence Update

Monday, September 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm By Ryan Brown

I have posted a few times regarding the McMansion ordinance:

• McMansion Ordinance Tweaks Possible
• All McMansion topics

The Austin Contrarian blog has better covered the topic: Austin Contrarian – McMansion

I am currently remodeling my own home which is within the ring, so I have personal experience in dealing with the ordinance.  It didn’t really affect our design, however it did add extra time and expense to the permitting process.

Many people disagree as to the effectiveness of these new rules.  I maintain that without a clear statement of the goals of the ordinance, we can’t really measure its success.

However, we can examine the consequences of these rule changes.  For example, some say the McMansion ordinance makes it more difficult to build a duplex.  We could evaluate if duplex construction permit applications have decreased, or if duplex sized lots have decreased in price.  Etc…

In the category of “unintended consequences”, one question I have discussed with friends, architects, builders, and neighbors –

Does the McMansion ordinance motivate developers to max-out their projects?

I’d love to see the data to support an answer.  In the meantime, Austin Contrarian has a great example of what this could look like:

Check out his post for details on how this property meets McMansion requirements.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm and is filed under Austin, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Filed under Austin, News

Related Posts

• McMansion Ordinance Tweaks Possible
• Austin Modern Home Search Update
• Vacation’s Over
• Austin Visitability Outcome

2 Responses to “McMansion Consequence Update”

1. Eric Rauser Says:
   September 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm

   There are two main tragedies as a result of the McMansion Rules:

   First: The final ordinance came into enforcement just in time to be too late to curb the building boom that spawned its creation. Now the out-of-state development rampage is over and local builders and designers are stuck with these rules.

   Second: It is amazing the extent to which the ordinance DOES NOT prevent McMansions. The FAR really isn’t that much more restrictive than the previous building coverage limit. The “tent” still allows a 20 foot wall at any side setback, and if using a shed roof you could have a 30 foot tall wall ten feet away from the house next door.

   There are countless other problems with these rules: affordablility, energy usage, density patterns, West Austin vs. East Austin, outdoor space usage, etc. Each of these topics could fill pages.

   The true punch-line is what it does to duplexes. Because of the tent and common-wall rules, you can still make duplexes, but they have to look like McMansions.

2. Ryan Says:
   September 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm

   Good points Eric. As I said, I can’t really determine if the ordinance is effective because I am not clear on its intended purpose. This is a topic for another post.

   I agree that the new duplex rules encourage large structures with centralized mass. As I recall the 50% shared wall rule was tacked on to the ordinance after most of the public debate had closed.

   I think its clear that a large shared wall reduces the viability of duplex/condo projects made for 2 owners - perhaps this was the true intent of shared wall clause.

Leave a Reply