Houston's zoning proposal

[editor]

The Houston Business Journal's web site is running a poll asking, "Is Houston ready for zoning?"

I thought it would be interesting to ask the same question of HAIFers and then compare our results to those from the HBJ.

So, what do you think? Is it finally time, or is Houston doing great without it?

[musicman]

i think form based zoning (which is what is being proposed) will be more controversial than use based zoning (which is what was voted against in the past). form based zoning would limit building size which builders would not agree to. so i'd say NO. houston's not ready.

[Subdude]

As ever, I come down strongly for "Other." It really depends on the nature of the zoning rules. Rather than citywide zoning, I would like to see it as an option to help protect neighborhoods like the Heights or 6th Ward. In more commercial areas I'm less convinced of its value. One would think that most homeowners would love zoning, since it seems to somewhat increase property values.

One question: What do they mean by Houston being "ready" for zoning? How would a city be "ready"? Is there a preparation process? Do we need a practice tee?

[lockmat]

HBJ results are interesting so far.

[shasta]

I think the problem of "Zoning" vs. "No Zoning" should be a compromise of the benefits of both. I think the city should designate some important parts of the city (i.e downtown, midtown, museum district, med center, Rice, UH, Greenway Plaza, Reliant area, etc.) and come up with a good master plan for growth and what they want these areas to ultimately become via planning, how the tax, and zoning. The rest of the areas of the city should be developed based on a free market- no zoning. I'm including the Galleria/ Uptown area in the non-zoned portion so that it is even. Some will have their planned 'urban core' (downtown) and some will get their market driven 'suburban-urban core' (uptown).

I think this would work because it also wouldn't heavily affect those who live in the suburbs who are primarily against zoning and city interference- the suburbs and outer Houston can continue to grow as normal. With this said I do think it is important for the city to decide NOW what areas would benefit by a plan and zoning and try to secure these areas NOW. I call these areas the 'craddles of culture' but the charm and character of these areas could be lost if we don't try to secure them.

Metro in a way is trying to do this with the land aquisition - they have a vision and despite the relaxed city planning they are trying to make the city better and make more 'sense' for what they are trying to ultimately accomplish. It may be hard to see now but it will be a benefit.

Many think zoning means the city would loose it's creativity by using other models but I think it's the opposite. We could zone Houston for what we want Houston to become.

There are many ways the city could act to implement their plan in these areas but they have to make the decision to direct the growth.

[PureAuteur]

How would form zoning affect the way our city looks vs. use zoning? I understand these things conceptually, but it's difficult to imagine how the city would look with either type of zoning, given the way it is now. We already have somewhat of a natural zoning in some areas, like the area between 290 and I-10 is light industrial and distribution centers. Somehow I doubt that zoning would make Houston much nicer looking or more aesthetically pleasing, but it may just make things more orderly looking.

[musicman]

I think the problem of "Zoning" vs. "No Zoning" should be a compromise of the benefits of both. I think the city should designate some important parts of the city (i.e downtown, midtown, museum district, med center, Rice, UH, Greenway Plaza, Reliant area, etc.) and come up with a good master plan for growth and what they want these areas to ultimately become via planning, how the tax, and zoning. The rest of the areas of the city should be developed based on a free market- no zoning. I'm including the Galleria/ Uptown area in the non-zoned portion so that it is even. Some will have their planned 'urban core' (downtown) and some will get their market driven 'suburban-urban core' (uptown).

I think this would work because it also wouldn't heavily affect those who live in the suburbs who are primarily against zoning and city interference- the suburbs and outer Houston can continue to grow as normal. With this said I do think it is important for the city to decide NOW what areas would benefit by a plan and zoning and try to secure these areas NOW. I call these areas the 'craddles of culture' but the charm and character of these areas could be lost if we don't try to secure them.

Metro in a way is trying to do this with the land aquisition - they have a vision and despite the relaxed city planning they are trying to make the city better and make more 'sense' for what they are trying to ultimately accomplish. It may be hard to see now but it will be a benefit.

Many think zoning means the city would loose it's creativity by using other models but I think it's the opposite. We could zone Houston for what we want Houston to become.

There are many ways the city could act to implement their plan in these areas but they have to make the decision to direct the growth.

IMO you're mixing zoning and planning. they aren't the same. most suburban areas aren't against zoning, since many are deed restricted, use is already limited. one thing that would help many older unrestricted areas is that businesses be kept out of residential areas. while it sounds like a simple thing to do, IMO is sure would improve on quality of life.

[TheNiche]

I think the problem of "Zoning" vs. "No Zoning" should be a compromise of the benefits of both. I think the city should designate some important parts of the city (i.e downtown, midtown, museum district, med center, Rice, UH, Greenway Plaza, Reliant area, etc.) and come up with a good master plan for growth and what they want these areas to ultimately become via planning, how the tax, and zoning. The rest of the areas of the city should be developed based on a free market- no zoning. I'm including the Galleria/ Uptown area in the non-zoned portion so that it is even. Some will have their planned 'urban core' (downtown) and some will get their market driven 'suburban-urban core' (uptown).

I think this would work because it also wouldn't heavily affect those who live in the suburbs who are primarily against zoning and city interference- the suburbs and outer Houston can continue to grow as normal. With this said I do think it is important for the city to decide NOW what areas would benefit by a plan and zoning and try to secure these areas NOW. I call these areas the 'craddles of culture' but the charm and character of these areas could be lost if we don't try to secure them.

What you suggest is illegal. Supreme court decisions going way back have found that if zoning is implemented, it must be as part of a comprehensive citywide effort. Certain parts of the city can be designated historic areas with demolition bans in place, but that doesn't mean that other parts of the city could remain a blank slate. By the way, the notion that any neighborhood is a 'cradle of culture' is patently absurd. It sure is funny how a neighborhood just like any other in its day is somehow recognized by some people as being somehow special. Just because something is old doesn't make it important.

Metro in a way is trying to do this with the land aquisition - they have a vision and despite the relaxed city planning they are trying to make the city better and make more 'sense' for what they are trying to ultimately accomplish. It may be hard to see now but it will be a benefit.

METRO is confused. Assuming for the moment that their goals with the project in question are truely in-line with their mobility mission, they still are doing a piss-poor job at executing the deal in a way that won't have adverse consequences on the neighborhood by way of rising land values.

Many think zoning means the city would loose it's creativity by using other models but I think it's the opposite. We could zone Houston for what we want Houston to become.

Tyranny of the majority. Has it ever occurred to you that some individuals have different tastes than the majority? You say you want zoning in order to protect the 'cradle of culture', but in reality it'll just force prices up so high that only people with more money than taste can live there, and the artistic types that you think are so attracted to that particular neighborhood will just end up showing you that culture doesn't sit on a foundation, but upon a human ass...one attached to legs and that can get up from its seat and walk away. And where would it go? To another stagnant majority-rule neighborhood, bent upon keeping out anyone not like them?

I have always wanted to build a tall sleek glass-sheathed townhome along Navigation across from the upper reaches of the Houston Ship Channel. Something starkly juxtaposed to its environment. I could kiss that idea goodbye. San Leon (among the last unincorporated and unzoned bastions of waterfront freedom), here I'd come!

[shasta]

IMO you're mixing zoning and planning. they aren't the same. most suburban areas aren't against zoning, since many are deed restricted, use is already limited. one thing that would help many older unrestricted areas is that businesses be kept out of residential areas. while it sounds like a simple thing to do, IMO is sure would improve on quality of life.

Of course I'm mixing zoning and planning. I'm trying to say that Houston could come up with a model using a mixture of planning, zoning, tax penalties/ benefits, etc. to steer how the city should evolve. Just because it's zoning doesn't mean it has to be the old model of residential/ commercial/ industrial- we need to use our imagination and not only limit to a type of building but a type of place.

Here's a quick definition of zoning-

zon

[musicman]

Of course I'm mixing zoning and planning. I'm trying to say that Houston could come up with a model using a mixture of planning, zoning, tax penalties/ benefits, etc. to steer how the city should evolve. Just because it's zoning doesn't mean it has to be the old model of residential/ commercial/ industrial- we need to use our imagination and not only limit to a type of building but a type of place.

But again, your ideas what an area should be are different than my ideas. Therefore a consus would never be met by the area as a whole. Land can be made restricted which would limit types of buildings and types of places. But at the same time it would also be harder for someone to buy because a property's use becomes too specific. At most we could hope is to keep neighborhoods residential in nature

Other than for deed restrictions in neighborhoods- I'm not buying 'suburban areas aren't against zoning'. Many cities are creating 'city centers' which are more development projects than zoning. The Woodlands did a good job at a early stage of controlling how the city would look.but I think this may be because it is a ultimately a private development and they had the power to enforce their vision.

The woodlands was developed by a private company and used deed restrictions to ensure their vision was achieved This can be done anywhere as long as you get everyone to agree. But when the area has already been deveoped it would be harder to get a consensus.

Other than that, drive down any suburburban street and you will see the same mix of Wal-Marts, McDonalds, and gas stations.

Well, in the woodlands, these were planned to be there. if you want only certain types of stores in an area, that can be done too.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I have yet to understand how zoning would make Houston a better or prettier place. Since we're the largest city in the US without zoning, and Pasadena is the 2nd largest city in the US without zoning, every city between 150,000 population and 2.5 million population has zoning.

That includes nearly every ugly city in the US. Zoning won't cure all our ills.

My one and only example...Dallas. Dallas has zoning. Do we want to be like Dallas?

I'm not saying Houston is perfection, but I'd have to be convinved of the benefits of zoning. Right now I don't see the benefits.

[GovernorAggie]

If it's what I think it is, I think that some people (including HBJ, which wouldn't be a first) have this confused. If it's form-based, that's all it is--form. It's not just building size, but also setbacks and parking placement. I think it's a good idea if its presented as kind of a "pre-packaged" option for a developer to choose if he wants to build a development that's different than the prevailing ordinances in place. Otherwise, he has to spend time going through time consuming and money-consuming variance requests and processes to reduce setbacks, parking, etc.

I think its harmless to at least have the options.

[musicman]

If it's what I think it is, I think that some people (including HBJ, which wouldn't be a first) have this confused. If it's form-based, that's all it is--form. It's not just building size, but also setbacks and parking placement. I think it's a good idea if its presented as kind of a "pre-packaged" option for a developer to choose if he wants to build a development that's different than the prevailing ordinances in place.

If you're saying that one lot wants to vary from the norm (rest of the neighborhood), then i would say this will never pass. too many would complain.

[RedScare]

Other than for deed restrictions in neighborhoods- I'm not buying 'suburban areas aren't against zoning'.

This is the funniest comment on zoning I have read yet. A "master planned community" is the zenith of zoning. By strictly enforced deed restrictions, the developer, and later the HOA controls home size, home style, home design, home color, grass length, location of garage, height, width, you name it, it is controlled, and backed up by state law. It even controls what vehicles can be parked in your driveway.

The scariest part is that people willingly sign away their property rights for this sameness. Suburban homeowners might SAY they are against zoning...but, that just tells you they have no idea what zoning or deed restrictions are...not that they are pro-property rights.

[TheNiche]

This is the funniest comment on zoning I have read yet. A "master planned community" is the zenith of zoning. By strictly enforced deed restrictions, the developer, and later the HOA controls home size, home style, home design, home color, grass length, location of garage, height, width, you name it, it is controlled, and backed up by state law. It even controls what vehicles can be parked in your driveway.

The scariest part is that people willingly sign away their property rights for this sameness. Suburban homeowners might SAY they are against zoning...but, that just tells you they have no idea what zoning or deed restrictions are...not that they are pro-property rights.

You're right, and deed restrictions are frequently far more strict than zoning (and like you, I don't personally care for them), but deed restrictions are an extension of property rights because individuals have the right to choose to waive their rights and developers are seeking nothing more than to design a set of deed restrictions that will appeal to the greatest number of buyers (or target a niche market, like in active adult communities).

Zoning, on the other hand, is a tyranny of the majority that, when implemented, deprives existing property owners of their rights to the fair use of their land without consent or compensation. Big difference.

[GovernorAggie]

If you're saying that one lot wants to vary from the norm (rest of the neighborhood), then i would say this will never pass. too many would complain.

I don't get how this would be much different than what we already have. People will complain if I have a development that they don't like anyway. After all, this isn't zoning, per se--so what should I care about what someone else has to say about my parcel? If they don't like it, buy it from me. I mean, it's not like there's some city agency that has the job of listening to anyone else but me for what I want to do with my property. The requirement is for 25' setback, but if I want it to be 35', I can make it 35. Why should it be harder for me to make it 15' if I want it to be 15'? Thanks to them, I don't have zoning to deal with and that's all that matters.

If that were the case, maybe the city would be more active in the River Oaks Shopping Center issue. But it's not. Complaints are happening anyway, and that's not stopping the change.

Besides, I think this would be more like a Midtown situation, take the Superblock for example. If Camden doesn't want to do 25' setbacks, they have to go through a process that is cumbersome at best and senseless at worst to get a variance. If they have a tool available that says, "you have the OPTION" if you choose this development type to be closer to the street, put your parking in the back, and make wider sidewalks--without getting separate variances for each of these things" then I think it's a fine thing to have.

I look at it kinda like tolling a road. At BW8/249, the direct connector from BW8 east to 249N is tolled. It could've been built to be free, but HCTRA saw the opportunity to use that option to toll that ramp--the only one on that interchange and thus different from the others. Some complain that it's wrong to make a person pay for a smooth, fast, easy connection--but people still use it.

[TheNiche]

I don't get how this would be much different than what we already have. People will complain if I have a development that they don't like anyway. After all, this isn't zoning, per se--so what should I care about what someone else has to say about my parcel? If they don't like it, buy it from me. I mean, it's not like there's some city agency that has the job of listening to anyone else but me for what I want to do with my property. The requirement is for 25' setback, but if I want it to be 35', I can make it 35. Why should it be harder for me to make it 15' if I want it to be 15'? Thanks to them, I don't have zoning to deal with and that's all that matters.

If that were the case, maybe the city would be more active in the River Oaks Shopping Center issue. But it's not. Complaints are happening anyway, and that's not stopping the change.

Besides, I think this would be more like a Midtown situation, take the Superblock for example. If Camden doesn't want to do 25' setbacks, they have to go through a process that is cumbersome at best and senseless at worst to get a variance. If they have a tool available that says, "you have the OPTION" if you choose this development type to be closer to the street, put your parking in the back, and make wider sidewalks--without getting separate variances for each of these things" then I think it's a fine thing to have.

I look at it kinda like tolling a road. At BW8/249, the direct connector from BW8 east to 249N is tolled. It could've been built to be free, but HCTRA saw the opportunity to use that option to toll that ramp--the only one on that interchange and thus different from the others. Some complain that it's wrong to make a person pay for a smooth, fast, easy connection--but people still use it.

Are you sure that this is all that form-based zoning is? I'm not. I'm not under the impression that it is merely an option available to developers looking to bypass the variance process, but that it would apply to all neighborhoods and would place limitations on the form of development.

By the way, your BW8/249 analogy leaves something to be desired.

[musicman]

I don't get how this would be much different than what we already have. People will complain if I have a development that they don't like anyway. After all, this isn't zoning, per se--so what should I care about what someone else has to say about my parcel? If they don't like it, buy it from me. I mean, it's not like there's some city agency that has the job of listening to anyone else but me for what I want to do with my property. The requirement is for 25' setback, but if I want it to be 35', I can make it 35. Why should it be harder for me to make it 15' if I want it to be 15'? Thanks to them, I don't have zoning to deal with and that's all that matters.

If that were the case, maybe the city would be more active in the River Oaks Shopping Center issue. But it's not. Complaints are happening anyway, and that's not stopping the change.

Besides, I think this would be more like a Midtown situation, take the Superblock for example. If Camden doesn't want to do 25' setbacks, they have to go through a process that is cumbersome at best and senseless at worst to get a variance. If they have a tool available that says, "you have the OPTION" if you choose this development type to be closer to the street, put your parking in the back, and make wider sidewalks--without getting separate variances for each of these things" then I think it's a fine thing to have.

I look at it kinda like tolling a road. At BW8/249, the direct connector from BW8 east to 249N is tolled. It could've been built to be free, but HCTRA saw the opportunity to use that option to toll that ramp--the only one on that interchange and thus different from the others. Some complain that it's wrong to make a person pay for a smooth, fast, easy connection--but people still use it.

You can't zone one piece of property, you have to zone the entire plat of properties(a neighborhood for instance) as they were originally platted. The requirements in Houston aren't necessarily 25'. look at freedman's town some portions of midtown, etc. if there is a strict set back of 25' vs. one that says 25' or more, there is a distinct difference. Remember YOU purchased the land with the restrictions already in place so you have to live by them as everyone else in the same parcel does. if YOU want to change them, then everyone in the same parcel has to agree.

the city can't do anything to change the restriction on the parcel but a concensus must be obtained by those who live there in order to make the change. as for your beltway comment, it isn't related.

[TheNiche]

You can't zone one piece of property, you have to zone the entire plat of properties(a neighborhood for instance) as they were originally platted. The requirements in Houston aren't necessarily 25'. look at freedman's town some portions of midtown, etc. if there is a strict set back of 25' vs. one that says 25' or more, there is a distinct difference. Remember YOU purchased the land with the restrictions already in place so you have to live by them as everyone else in the same parcel does. if YOU want to change them, then everyone in the same parcel has to agree.

the city can't do anything to change the restriction on the parcel but a concensus must be obtained by those who live there in order to make the change. as for you beltway comment, it isn't related.

I believe the 25-foot setback is what applies to major thoroughfares; I think neighborhood streets are different. Also, what you see in place right now may either have 1) been grandfathered in, or 2) been built under a variance. Also, replace word "parcel" with "blockface", and only a majority (51%) have to agree to adopt new deed restrictions in addition to the existing restrictions (if any).

[musicman]

I believe the 25-foot setback is what applies to major thoroughfares; I think neighborhood streets are different. Also, what you see in place right now may either have 1) been grandfathered in, or 2) been built under a variance. Also, replace word "parcel" with "blockface", and only a majority (51%) have to agree to adopt new deed restrictions in addition to the existing restrictions (if any).

.

there are numerous percentages. i believe the 51% is if there aren't any restrictions in place.

i just looked at the state property code ch 201

If the petition allows owners to indicate only approval or disapproval of the entire proposal, the proposal is adopted if owners of at least 66 percent of the real property in the subdivision vote in favor of the proposal. If the petition allows owners to indicate approval or disapproval of specific provisions of the proposal, a provision is adopted if owners of at least 66 percent of the real property in the subdivision vote in favor of the provision.

If a subdivision consisting of multiple sections, each with its own restrictions, is represented by a single property owners' association, a proposal or specific provision of a proposal is adopted if owners of at least 66 percent of the total number of properties in the subdivision vote in favor of the proposal or provision.

i know ch 204 is different, i think there is a 60% number there.

some restrictions specific what percentage is necessary as well.

westheimer and richmond sure don't have 25' setbacks either.

[TheNiche]

.

there are numerous percentages. i believe the 51% is if there aren't any restrictions in place.

i just looked at the state property code ch 201

If the petition allows owners to indicate only approval or disapproval of the entire proposal, the proposal is adopted if owners of at least 66 percent of the real property in the subdivision vote in favor of the proposal. If the petition allows owners to indicate approval or disapproval of specific provisions of the proposal, a provision is adopted if owners of at least 66 percent of the real property in the subdivision vote in favor of the provision.

If a subdivision consisting of multiple sections, each with its own restrictions, is represented by a single property owners' association, a proposal or specific provision of a proposal is adopted if owners of at least 66 percent of the total number of properties in the subdivision vote in favor of the proposal or provision.

i know ch 204 is different, i think there is a 60% number there.

some restrictions specific what percentage is necessary as well.

westheimer and richmond sure don't have 25' setbacks either.

That's funny. Wasn't there a recent article in the Chronicle that said that the City Council had voted to go with a simple majority as opposed to the super majority? Sounds like someone at the City didn't do their research...

[musicman]

That's funny. Wasn't there a recent article in the Chronicle that said that the City Council had voted to go with a simple majority as opposed to the super majority? Sounds like someone at the City didn't do their research...

The city has no say with respect to property laws. they must abide my state property code which dictates land use in texas. the numbers i mentioned were concerning deed restrictions.

[GovernorAggie]

Are you sure that this is all that form-based zoning is? I'm not. I'm not under the impression that it is merely an option available to developers looking to bypass the variance process, but that it would apply to all neighborhoods and would place limitations on the form of development.

By the way, your BW8/249 analogy leaves something to be desired.

No I'm not sure that's what form-based zoning is, because I specifically said that it is NOT zoning. No one is dumb enough to recommend zoning in Houston--no one. You can't zone this place and around the country zoning is being looked at more and more as a problem instead of an answer. This is focused purely on development styles. I don't think form-based development codes or ordinances restrict or place limitations on development any more than our current ordinances--tree ordinance, parking ordinance, setback ordinance, replat processes, etc., etc., etc. You and other Houstonians are delusional if you think that this place has no development regulation already. You know it does but since they aren't under some umbrella called "zoning", I guess that makes it better, right?

Sorry my analogy doesn't meet your level of detail. I did say it was kinda like the interchange.

Musicman, in cities that do zone (which I am not advocating because regulating uses is kinda--there's that word again--archaic) you can indeed re-zone one property, it just has to be approved by the zoning commission--AFTER the proposed rezoning has been posted and notices sent to all neighbors within a certain distance of the subject property, giving them a chance to comment at the zoning commission meeting.

[musicman]

Musicman, in cities that do zone (which I am not advocating because regulating uses is kinda--there's that word again--archaic) you can indeed re-zone one property, it just has to be approved by the zoning commission--AFTER the proposed rezoning has been posted and notices sent to all neighbors within a certain distance of the subject property, giving them a chance to comment at the zoning commission meeting.

I guess that's similar to the replatting (and renaming) they do here where developers put up signs in unrestricted areas. i know they did that in my parents neighborhood, but the deed restrictions kept them from actually changing the setbacks, limiting it to one house ,etc. They wanted to put 3 houses on 2 lots so it was a waste of money for them! they do the name change so the neighborhoods wont be alerted since the original neighborhood name won't pop up on the notice online.

Since the state property laws here are so strong and zoning is usually controlled at the local level, it would be interesting to see how the law works here. If i get some free time this weekend, i may delve into the state property laws to see if i can get some additional insight.

[TheNiche]

No I'm not sure that's what form-based zoning is, because I specifically said that it is NOT zoning. No one is dumb enough to recommend zoning in Houston--no one. You can't zone this place and around the country zoning is being looked at more and more as a problem instead of an answer. This is focused purely on development styles. I don't think form-based development codes or ordinances restrict or place limitations on development any more than our current ordinances--tree ordinance, parking ordinance, setback ordinance, replat processes, etc., etc., etc. You and other Houstonians are delusional if you think that this place has no development regulation already. You know it does but since they aren't under some umbrella called "zoning", I guess that makes it better, right?

I'm not clear on how form-based development codes or ordinances are all that different in how they are administered than are zoning codes and ordinances. Moreover, it would seem that form-based codes and ordinances would have a very strong influence upon land use that effectively mirrors zoning in many cases. Can you clarify on what is different beyond that they don't come right out and say that the land use must be x or y?

One thing I'm also not clear on is that zoning was only upheld as a legitimate tool by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it contributed to the health and welfare of the public. In that era, where towns were smaller and an upwind placement of one factory could cover a town in soot or other noxious emisssions, that was pretty easy to justify. But when we're talking about form-based regulations on how land can be developed (i.e. used, put together, the concept is called land use) for the sake of aesthetics by themselves...that's not a very firm case.

[GovernorAggie]

I guess that's similar to the replatting (and renaming) they do here where developers put up signs in unrestricted areas. i know they did that in my parents neighborhood, but the deed restrictions kept them from actually changing the setbacks, limiting it to one house ,etc. They wanted to put 3 houses on 2 lots so it was a waste of money for them! they do the name change so the neighborhoods wont be alerted since the original neighborhood name won't pop up on the notice online.

Since the state property laws here are so strong and zoning is usually controlled at the local level, it would be interesting to see how the law works here. If i get some free time this weekend, i may delve into the state property laws to see if i can get some additional insight.

I agree, they're pretty similar. Look forward to seeing what you can find regarding the property laws vs. zoning. What I do know is that Texas laws for zoning are kinda funky. If I remember correctly from planning law, it has to be congruent with a comprehensive plan. In other words, in Texas, zoning and a comp plan have to match, but the comp plan doesn't necessarily govern the zoning changes. Then again, my memory is a little foggy an I'd have to check my notes. This is very different from a state like Florida, where cities actually HAVE to have a comp plan according to state law.

I'm not clear on how form-based development codes or ordinances are all that different in how they are administered than are zoning codes and ordinances. Moreover, it would seem that form-based codes and ordinances would have a very strong influence upon land use that effectively mirrors zoning in many cases. Can you clarify on what is different beyond that they don't come right out and say that the land use must be x or y?

One thing I'm also not clear on is that zoning was only upheld as a legitimate tool by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it contributed to the health and welfare of the public. In that era, where towns were smaller and an upwind placement of one factory could cover a town in soot or other noxious emisssions, that was pretty easy to justify. But when we're talking about form-based regulations on how land can be developed (i.e. used, put together, the concept is called land use) for the sake of aesthetics by themselves...that's not a very firm case.

The difference is in the terms. Form-based are administered based upon how the proposed development may fit in a certain area. For example, we have a wide range of mixed uses in Houston, and with those mixed uses come mixed forms. A form-based code for an area that is clearly a neighbrohood or ped-oriented area would be focused on a building's relationship with the street. So if a 19-story condo tower wants to come into Midtown say around West Gray, all the form-based code would do is look at how the tower addresses the street. This could result in a tower design that has more windows at its base than say the Bank of America Center. It could even go as far as resulting in a tower that has its first 3-5 floors up to the sidewalk but then floors 6-19 are stepped back. The height is still there but maybe not as imposing on a pedestrian. Form-based cares less about a use as much as its fit into a particular area--not the whole city. This is a rather simple example but hopefully it makes sense.

Zoning, however might look at the 19-story residential tower and say that it can't be on West Gray b/c it's a commercial area. Older zoning ordinances won't mix residential with commercial. That's why many cities are finding traditional zoning to be outdated and an impediment to infill development. Zoning mainly cares more about the use than about the form.

Regarding the Supreme Court case in the 1920s, believe it or not, the US Chamber of Commerce was in favor of zoning, and the Supreme Court did something it rarely does--allowed the town of Euclid's attorney to re-present his case against Ambler (he apparently had some issues presenting the first go-around). It did indeed mandate it for health, safety, welfare, and MORALS at the time. Morals has since been dropped for many b/c it's subjective in a lot of circles. I think your example of the factories is another reason why many locales are wondering why zoning is needed in the first place. I don't know if anyone has ever contested the validity of a form-based code, but I can't see why one would try, nor could I predict what the Court's opinion would be. After all, who would've thought that a conservative-leaning court would give a decision like Kelo?

Houston doesn't zone but it has accomplished all the things that a place where I used to live hopes to accomplish through zoning (multiple centers). Of course this is mainly due to markets but it's also due to government policies. For example, places like Fairfield can exist in Texas due to the abilities of the MUDs here. Other places can hold the development down in areas by delaying utility hookups.

There are some steaks musicman and niche. I'm sure you're both ready to chop them up.

[TheNiche]

The difference is in the terms. Form-based are administered based upon how the proposed development may fit in a certain area. For example, we have a wide range of mixed uses in Houston, and with those mixed uses come mixed forms. A form-based code for an area that is clearly a neighbrohood or ped-oriented area would be focused on a building's relationship with the street. So if a 19-story condo tower wants to come into Midtown say around West Gray, all the form-based code would do is look at how the tower addresses the street. This could result in a tower design that has more windows at its base than say the Bank of America Center. It could even go as far as resulting in a tower that has its first 3-5 floors up to the sidewalk but then floors 6-19 are stepped back. The height is still there but maybe not as imposing on a pedestrian. Form-based cares less about a use as much as its fit into a particular area--not the whole city. This is a rather simple example but hopefully it makes sense.

Zoning, however might look at the 19-story residential tower and say that it can't be on West Gray b/c it's a commercial area. Older zoning ordinances won't mix residential with commercial. That's why many cities are finding traditional zoning to be outdated and an impediment to infill development. Zoning mainly cares more about the use than about the form.

Regarding the Supreme Court case in the 1920s, believe it or not, the US Chamber of Commerce was in favor of zoning, and the Supreme Court did something it rarely does--allowed the town of Euclid's attorney to re-present his case against Ambler (he apparently had some issues presenting the first go-around). It did indeed mandate it for health, safety, welfare, and MORALS at the time. Morals has since been dropped for many b/c it's subjective in a lot of circles. I think your example of the factories is another reason why many locales are wondering why zoning is needed in the first place. I don't know if anyone has ever contested the validity of a form-based code, but I can't see why one would try, nor could I predict what the Court's opinion would be. After all, who would've thought that a conservative-leaning court would give a decision like Kelo?

Houston doesn't zone but it has accomplished all the things that a place where I used to live hopes to accomplish through zoning (multiple centers). Of course this is mainly due to markets but it's also due to government policies. For example, places like Fairfield can exist in Texas due to the abilities of the MUDs here. Other places can hold the development down in areas by delaying utility hookups.

The examples you provide of form-based codes and ordinances are indeed superior IMO to zoning, but I would pose two questions to you: 1) with zoning, it is all or nothing--but can form-based be applied only to very specific neighborhoods without being applied to others in any way whatsoever within the same municipality, and 2) what does the "building's relationship with the street" have to do with health, safety, or welfare? The legality of building codes, for instance, are based upon the same basic three-pronged legal justification as is zoning, so why would form-based codes be exempt from needing that justification?

I ask this because, just as "morality" was removed as a justification for zoning, aesthetics (which I think would fall under the morality umbrella) are entirely subjective. I for one find imposing buildings to be awe-inspiring. I want more of them. You may disagree, but it is an argument with no objective solutions. And perhaps neither of us should want a 'solution' because it would only serve to limit architectural diversity and experimentation, which I think neither of us would be in favor of...correct me if I'm wrong.

Incidentally, I don't think it necessarily matters whether a conservative or liberal court was in power at the time. Zoning is one of those strange things that gets support from both sides in mixed proportions. It makes for some very strange bedfellows.

[musicman]

There are some steaks musicman and niche. I'm sure you're both ready to chop them up.

No chopping. i will add that i attended the kickoff meeting of this phase of the urban planning initiative on saturday. turnout was horrible and the group i was in mentioned the "z" word and the responses definitely varied from one end of the spectrum to the other. the city planning people were very frustrated as well.

[GovernorAggie]

The examples you provide of form-based codes and ordinances are indeed superior IMO to zoning, but I would pose two questions to you: 1) with zoning, it is all or nothing--but can form-based be applied only to very specific neighborhoods without being applied to others in any way whatsoever within the same municipality, and 2) what does the "building's relationship with the street" have to do with health, safety, or welfare? The legality of building codes, for instance, are based upon the same basic three-pronged legal justification as is zoning, so why would form-based codes be exempt from needing that justification?

I ask this because, just as "morality" was removed as a justification for zoning, aesthetics (which I think would fall under the morality umbrella) are entirely subjective. I for one find imposing buildings to be awe-inspiring. I want more of them. You may disagree, but it is an argument with no objective solutions. And perhaps neither of us should want a 'solution' because it would only serve to limit architectural diversity and experimentation, which I think neither of us would be in favor of...correct me if I'm wrong.

Incidentally, I don't think it necessarily matters whether a conservative or liberal court was in power at the time. Zoning is one of those strange things that gets support from both sides in mixed proportions. It makes for some very strange bedfellows.

To answer your first question, yes, form-based can be applied to specific areas instead of just layering over a whole municipality. Even zoning is flexible enough to be applied to certain areas that want certain qualities. Davidson, NC (a small city mind you) went to a form-based approach for its downtown area, for example. With a form-based approach, Midtown, Uptown, Downtown, and Westchase are going to have different approaches than Third Ward, Fifth Ward, or Montrose--and they should because those are the people that actually live there! Washington Heights probably will not like 8-story condo buildings in its neighborhood, but maybe they would like more homes that have front porches instead of garages as the dominant feature of homes. Likewise, based upon Westchase's new plan, it's unlikely that the built form along Westheimer will begin to look more like Washington Ave.

Form-based embraces the different forms in a city. It actually addresses the different forms within an area. In Midtown, for example, the form that Midtowners may want might have bigger, more intense structures (notice that I didn't say uses), wider sidewalks (with provisions for sidewalk cafes), and benches along Main Street, Travis, McGowen, and Elgin. However, along Caroline or Bagby, the preferred approach is shorter buildings, maybe skinnier sidewalks, and more on-street parking. Form based looks at the relationship of the public ROW to the private ROW.

For your second question, it has nothing to do with health, safety, welfare, in my opinion. That's why it's more of an electable method, not one that is imposed upon property owners in an area by some arbitrary body.

[musicman]

Form-based embraces the different forms in a city. It actually addresses the different forms within an area. In Midtown, for example, the form that Midtowners may want might have bigger, more intense structures (notice that I didn't say uses), wider sidewalks (with provisions for sidewalk cafes), and benches along Main Street, Travis, McGowen, and Elgin. However, along Caroline or Bagby, the preferred approach is shorter buildings, maybe skinnier sidewalks, and more on-street parking. Form based looks at the relationship of the public ROW to the private ROW.

This topic was brought up quite a bit saturday at the same meeting. i think that our table's view was that each area is different and will require different approaches. the planning people were trying to force us to adhere to one recommendation.....that is the WRONG answer IMO because each area of town is different.