I would like to see the Design Ordinance discussed openly on all levels, coming from this question: How can city ordinances affect the following in a positive way?

Neighborhood:

Character – keeping old established look

Vibrancy, renewal, and attraction of new people.

Sustainability – from bungalow to expanded house to empty nester.

More density.

Improves services, schools, parks, walkways, etc.

House design:

Re-use of existing structures.

Reduction in cost.

Passive solar.

Smaller footprint.

Works with unique features of the lot.

Interesting and innovative.

Permitting process:

Less complex.

Does not hinder development.

Does not lead to excessive requests for variances.

Recognized the cost and risk for individual homeowner.

Yet I have noticed that in all neighborhoods the same basic issues come up – aging structure, delayed maintenance, poor floorplan. The new owner often has quite a lot to take on.

You are saying that the Design Ordinance (aka McM) does not necessarily make things more difficult. That is the question that I am posing.

Is it the straw that breaks the camels back?

Or should we find ways to encourage people to come into central areas and invest their savings in renewing homes here?

Thanks and keep in touch!

Roselind

I often think of the quote by Winston Churchill: “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.”

Thank you for adding your comments to the open discussion on the Design Ordinance (aka McM). You are out there actively working with real people trying to find a balance between the cost and quality of life in central Austin.

I think most people who want to settle in central Austin do not want an excessively large house or lot. If they did, they could go elsewhere. They should not have to apologize for wanting a house that is energy efficient, has a good floor plan, and some potential to expand. Is that too much to ask for the big price they are asked to pay?

Thanks and stay in touch!

Roselind

The Mcmansion Ordinance has had some unattended consequences that are not good for the environment.

Urban Sprawl
The Mcmansion Ordinance severely limits the density that is permitted in most of central Austin. By reducing the density, the ordinance is forcing prospective homeowners who want a larger home for a larger family to move outside the affected area. This severely limits the long-term livability of the home. Density is critical for the long-term health of Austin.

Long-term Livability
One of the prime tenants of a sustainable home is to design it to accommodate the long-term needs of the homeowner. If the family has plans for growth, a three bedroom home may not provide the needed space for a larger family. By limiting the size of the home based on FAR, the ability for additional bedrooms is eliminated. Square footage in and of itself is not the enemy or bad for the environment. A small third floor that consist of one/two bedrooms is not inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance.

Affordability
As the square footage of a home is limited by the Mcmansion ordinance the home’s affordability declines. The price of land in Central Austin is not going down. No one wants the value of land and homes to decline. However, with the cost of land where it is, a 1,500-2,000 s.f. home could cost $300k-400k or more. That is certainly not affordable.

Aging and inefficiency
Older homes are inherently less efficient then modern built homes. There have been numerous energy code changes since most of the homes in the affected area were built. Some significant energy code changes occurred in the 1980’s and most recently in 2001. Further, the City of Austin is striving for Zero-energy homes. Older homes in the ordinance area will never come close to attaining Zero-energy. They would have to be totally gutted to get close, this would include all new windows, insulation in the walls and roof, new HVAC equipment, solar PV and solar thermal equipment, etc. To justify the additional expense, the sales price of the home and the accompanied square footage have to be commensurate with each other and their prospective homeowners.

By limiting the square footage of a home, the ordinance limits the redevelopment of older homes. Not every older home is historic or worth preserving. The character of the community is very important to maintain, and the two are not necessarily linked. If older homes are not redeveloped, they remain inefficient, directly in conflict with the City of Austin’s goal to improve the efficiency of the homes in the City.

Solutions
Homes built in the Mcmansion ordinance area could be built to a higher level of design and ascetics than is currently being constructed under the ordinance by being more flexible in the implementation. There could easily be a third story on a home, which would allow the square footage to grow by 300 s.f. +/- yet still maintain a reasonable height (most likely under the current height limits, or very close). If the sidewall articulation and gable wall exemptions were more flexible the projects could also be increased in square footage, yet easily maintain the intent of the ordinance.

The character of the home is not defined by its square footage. A larger home would still be consistent with the character of the neighborhood with the right design.

Bingo on appraisals. They need to change in a big way…

[The ordinance had been drafted with the committee as a safety valve to address design issues and "unforeseen circumstances" but it had been stricken down at the last minute because of disagreements within the task force members.]

Please find below our position about the ordinance at the time it happened:

Dear Mayor and members of the City Council:

Regarding the issue of the Zoning and development ordinance we, M. J. Neal, AIA and Viviane Vives, would like you to consider the following:

(1) We ask that you give the architectural profession the say it deserves in this pertinent matter, so we have the time to address the unintended consequences that we all without a doubt, foresee.

(2) We’ve heard from dozens of local contemporary architects in the last days, and not one has been in favor of this ordinance as it is written.

Although some, including ourselves are possibly in agreement with the .4 FAR (.5 for duplexes) everything else in the ordinance has encountered opposition, shared privately.

You have to understand that no person in the service industry likes risking their livelihood by taking an unpopular position in public.

(3) We all want the curbing of McMansions, especially when, in essence and from our point of view, the issue boils down to irresponsible design; at what price is the issue at hand. A rash action may affect thousands of individuals for years.

This is an ordinance that needs study and discussion by professionals. To have one of the most restrictive zoning codes in the nation is not something to be decided at this speed and in this fashion.

It affects too many people, may create enormous expense and consequences and we all need to sit down and discuss from many different angles. What the rush is, is beyond our comprehension.

(4) Al York is giving you a proposal that reduces the map to a lesser zone, we think that’s a step in the right direction, and we support it as a last resort, but we also think that it is NOT thorough enough solution.

(5) A concerted response by the profession to the specifics of the ordinance needs to be drafted. It is my belief that neighbors fueling this ordinance don’t really understand its consequences. We all need to understand how this ordinance also:

Curbs proper massing flexibility

Interferes with solar orientation issues

Interferes with other site particulars (placement of trees, creeks, boulders, neighbors) and so many other design issues.

Indirectly causes increase of impervious coverage – the very reason that was given as an excuse to begin the process.

(6) Is this it worth clipping the wings of worthy designers even further, considering the painfully slow evolution of aesthetics in our town.

(7) Maybe food for thought is that the City of Barcelona, where Viviane is from, has code AGAINST imitating the old. They want modern structures next to the old ones, as to not lose the truth of both. Makes a 100% sense. As for remodels, they don’t allow changing the massing in an imitative style. They allow, however, modern additions to traditional structures.

(8) Acknowledging and celebrating the passage of time was always the thing that showed us our own evolution. It has always worked aesthetically, where matters are in the hands of rigorous professionals.

The old and the modern coexist and enhance each other. The same is true in Venice, Italy, and many other cities with some history to speak of. We have ruins there that are 3,000 years old, not 70. I love the past as much as anyone, I want to preserve it, but to let it hurt our future is just plain dumb.

(9) Please GIVE this ordinance SOME TIME FOR RESPONSE. Take it to the professionals, and show please due deference to the responsible designers in this town. There are so many. And please consider that this is a step that may have to be taken in private, in order not to hurt their business any further.

Many thanks for your time and consideration to this important matter.

All best,

Viviane Vives
MJ Neal Architects, LLC

Are you aware of the currently proposed changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance working its way through boards and commissions toward council this summer? I contacted the government relations person at Austin Board of Realtors and their response was luke warm. Seems like the McMansion ordinance really wore them out.

I’m really concerned about the accumulative impact that the various ordinances are having on affordability, sustainability and long term viability of Austin as a place to live. Where any one ordinance may not seem to be that bad, together they become a major obstacle to maintaining a home and certainly to that home evolving to meet our needs in the future.

R. Larry Halford, aia

Thank you for your thoughts on the McMansion Ordinance. I do think that the ordinance restricts creativity but understand that it is a reaction to the ridiculous thinking that more is better. As an Architect I try to educate my clients that “big size” does not relate to “quality of life” issues. It is often my experience that families stay closer, both literally and figuratively, within a smaller home. I try encourage people to analyze their family values and build/occupy only what they need. Do we really want the kids to have a wing of their own? unsupervised?

In regard to speculative builders, I don’t know how it will happen, but appraisals need to move away from a basis on size to a quality of life standard. That will be a hard one to measure but the change will be necessary as mindless consumption is no longer an option.

Thanks for giving me something to ponder early on this Monday morning.

Tim Cuppett, AIA, IIDA
http://www.cuppettarchitects.com