Centerfield

McMansions Have Their Uses

Here in Austin, I've been amused to see a number of pro-high-density people come out in favor of restricting "McMansions," big houses in small-house neighborhoods, unfortunately including the Council. People are grumbling about old gardens in places they moved from decades ago being in shade.

Of course, there's a stereotype of just one or two people living in these mansions and not caring the least bit about their neighbors, and the property staying that way over the generations. We never see the reality examined, just the grumbling old women who can't grow tomatoes anymore. Never mind that many of the extensions are built to house family members, and thus raise density, and, most important, are a major source of cheap apartments when carved up after the original upgrader sells it (yes, I've seen this in multiple university towns, and I think it probably is already a source of housing in East Austin).

So high density is OK so long as it's an exquisitely decorated, ecologically sensitive tower that doesn't put anyplace into shade. And necessarily costs a quarter million a unit. No, McMansions is part of the realistic way cities expand - incrementally. Austin is moving from mixed low-medium density to uniformly medium density.

In my opinion, losing this rule would do more to help the poor than all the money the city will spend on low-cost housing during the time the rule is in effect.

This is part of a bad trend here in Austin to forget the blue collar and poor when trying to make the city pleasanter for the rich and those already in pleasant neighborhoods. We've also been "slowing down" a number of downtown roads and cutting down on the parking spaces, which makes it hard for the workers who can't afford to live close to come either to work or to join the well-to-do in enjoying downtown.