It is my opinion that we will need to wait a few more years for the negative fall out. The little old lady has been effected but we still have to wait for the data to come in and for those looking at this issue to ask the right questions.
The data will show that the suburban areas will appreciate now at a much higher rate than the urban area. Car traffic will incease, the area will have gentrification as families move out of town....this is all short sighted. I believe whole heartedly in incentives...if this is what the town and people want...then the people need to create a "green" fund just as we have our open space fund to create programs to buy valuable lots, provide access to "green" technology and items, etc. Over regulating is never the solution.
Just my opinion. I am a democrat and I believe in protecting our environment but being the first in the door and closing it off to those others is wrong and also some of our beautiful Boulder Historic Treasures (mapleton hill homes for example) could not be built today with the regulations that we have already... Our Council is also being hypocritical by living in "mcmansions" by current views! I also find that a lot of people that want this have small to families of one...With the way our laws are today parents need to keep a watchful eye on their kids inside of our house for fear of someone complaining that we are not watchful enough or the kids getting hurt on some swing or tree and we are not around...I remember in my youth I would be outside and gone for hours without my parents knowing where I was, etc. It was freeing and creative! I rode horses, went for hikes, road bikes, knocked on my friends doors, played golf, road skates and skate boards, ran...! A very good experience for me. We are doing more and more out of our homes...working, playing, entertaining...
A paradigm shift needs to happen in Boulder. It seems that right now it is my view, my home and it includes my abililty to access this view through your home, your view... People should go back to the days of buying lots together to save it...or once again through a "green" fund created through taxes. The burden should not always be placed on the individual property owners or "developers" as some would like to say.
Austin city limits: A home-size example
Texas city imposed restrictions in 2006; observers split on outcome
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Sunday, April 6, 2008
Regulations here and there
The measure limiting home sizes that the city of Austin imposed in 2006 is similar to proposals Boulder's elected leaders are considering. Both target "floor-area ratio" -- that is, the percentage of a homeowner's lot that's covered by square footage, including garages and outbuildings.
Austin's ordinance limits floor-area ratios to 0.4 and also restricts building to an "envelope" meant to protect nearby houses from being crowded. The measure guarantees homeowners on smaller lots that they'll be able to build a house of at least 2,300 square feet.
Boulder's officials have aired several possible floor-area ratio restrictions. Last month, City Councilman Macon Cowles suggested a temporary limit of 0.35 while officials debated a permanent measure. But he and other council members have since backed away from that number.
As Boulder's elected leaders consider whether to impose limits on large houses, they can look 1,000 miles to the south for a how-to guide.
The City Council of Austin, Texas, in 2006 passed an ordinance to limit the size of new houses after residents complained that "McMansions" were threatening the character of the city's older, "core" neighborhoods. Two years later, the ordinance gets mixed reviews.
Proponents say it's working well, while critics in real estate say it's needlessly complicated and threatens home prices.
The Austin ordinance limits "floor-area ratios" of new homes -- that is, the percentage of the lot that's covered by square footage -- to 0.4, but it gives the owners of small lots a minimum of 2,300 square feet to work with. The measure also requires new building to fit within an "envelope" meant to keep new construction from crowding its neighbors.
As in Austin, Boulder's officials are considering placing limits on floor-area ratios, although critics -- including some Planning Board members -- say those limits are too crude.
Danette Chimenti, an Austin resident who served on a task force that delivered the ordinance to the City Council, said she's happy with what it produced. The measure was a compromise, she said, so it wasn't as restrictive as some "McMansion" critics would have liked.
"I think the general feeling, and my personal opinion, is that it has helped some," Chimenti said. "It hasn't been a cure-all. It hasn't totally stopped some of the out-of-scale development that was happening in neighborhoods."
But Chimenti said the ordinance also is notable for what it hasn't done: destroy Austin's housing market, as critics feared. Homeowners, real estate agents and builders in Boulder have voiced similar concerns."In Austin, the real estate market is still pretty strong," Chimenti said. "No little old ladies lost their nest eggs, and all the dire stuff. There have been no negative consequences in that realm."
Building activity actually increased in 2007 and into this year, although it has since slowed slightly. But Harry Savio, vice president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin, said it's hard to tell what would have happened without the ordinance.
Savio's organization unsuccessfully tried to keep the measure from passing. He said he's been flooded with complaints from builders about it.
"There's been some decline in the demand for this kind of housing, but it's hard to distinguish between how much of that is caused by the ordinance and how much has been because of national declines in housing," Savio said.
The real problem with the ordinance, Savio said, is that it's complicated and "draconian." And its impact may not be felt for years, as the real estate market picks up and consumer demand for larger houses returns, he said.
"You can't tell by looking at Austin today -- it's going to be five, 10 years from now for us to see results," he said. "My forecast is that instead of coming back in and going into the core of the city, it's just going to strengthen the suburban high-end subdivisions," which don't put caps on home sizes.
Savio said he couldn't defeat the ordinance, but he did encourage builders and homeowners to rush their building plans down to the city's planning department before the City Council imposed any limits.
"When we knew the ordinance was coming down the pike, we got the word out to our members and encouraged anyone who had a plan on the boards to get it finished up quickly and get it to the city," he said. "I told people, 'If you have anything at all, hard-line it and get it in.'"
So far, that rush hasn't happened in Boulder: The city's planning department said the number of permits requested so far this year trails those issued last year.
Karen McGraw, an architect who helped draft the Austin ordinance, said it's flexible enough to give people the space they need. For example, the square footage of many basements and attics doesn't count toward limits.
The ordinance's goal -- which McGraw thinks has succeeded -- is to keep new homes from towering their neighbors.
"We are a city of many one-story homes and many modest homes, so the relationship to existing development is really the most important thing," she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment