Comments on: McMansion Consequence Update http://inspiredaustin.com/blog/2008/09/mcmansion-consequence-update/ Austin Modern Real Estate, Austin Modern Homes Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:06:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Ryan http://inspiredaustin.com/blog/2008/09/mcmansion-consequence-update/comment-page-1/#comment-619 Ryan Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:53:31 +0000 http://inspiredaustin.com/blog/?p=225#comment-619 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric Rauser http://inspiredaustin.com/blog/2008/09/mcmansion-consequence-update/comment-page-1/#comment-617 Eric Rauser Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:51:53 +0000 http://inspiredaustin.com/blog/?p=225#comment-617 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. 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.

]]>