Revised Plan Would Guide Development

[Houston Retail]

Revised plan would guide development

Mayor wants planning board to have active role

By MIKE SNYDER

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

URBAN LANDSCAPE

Characteristics of urban development that might emerge under area plans:

[kzseattle]

"Houston has had this huge fear that planning could lead to zoning. That's not true," said Richard Everett, the chairman of Century Development Corp., who has been involved in the area plan effort for more than three years.

The concept never was intended to dictate land uses, a defining characteristic of zoning. Development codes address design issues such as building setbacks, lot sizes, parking lot locations and landscaping requirements.

Voters dislike zoning

Houston, with a strong tradition of property rights, is the nation's only major city without a zoning code. Voters have rejected zoning three times, and no serious effort has been made to resurrect the idea since the last election in 1993.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh! Fear of zoning? Who is so afraid of zoning? Who would be the biggest losers if Houston had zoning? Walmart and CVS, perhaps?

I read someplace that lack of zoning is actually hurting retailers/businesses. In addition to increased competition from existing stores, there is always a fear of what else might be built nearby. That is why, retailers and other businesses prefer such locations as Sugarland, Woodlands or any other location where land for commercial use is hard to come by. If a business is able to establish itself in such location, it has the comfort of knowing that it will be among the handful of a few other businesses serving the vicinity. The competitive threat is therefore reduced.

This seems to suggest that lack of zoning doesn

[UrbaNerd]

Whoa, 25' setbacks? That would be a heck of a sidewalk!

[N Judah]

I read it to mean that a 25' setback rule is currently in place (for parking lots, i'm guessing), and that developers wanting to build closer to the street had to spend time getting waivers. But now, with these new development guidelines in place, developers no longer have to get special permission to build all the way up to the sidewalk. In fact, I'm guessing that these new development guidelines actually will specify that developers *have* to build all the way up to the sidewalk, guaranteeing that developments like the CVS pharmacy (which they showed in the picture in the newspaper) don't happen.

I think this is a cool idea. Development guidelines conducive to a pedestrian friendly urban environment + organic zoning-free development + rail expansion = some pretty sweet mixed use neighborhoods coming very soon

[bachanon]

....and so it begins. this is precisely the direction i had hoped for.

let the market determine who builds what, where, but set development guidelines that allow for a walkable, livable environment near each light rail stop.

now, let's hope for a school or church near each of these areas before a strip club or porno store moves in. ;)

[Talbot]

I am extremely glad that something like this is being put in place. With stuff like this if we still did have CVS and the likes of those places atleast they will have to comply with these guidelines and you wont have to have a parking lot to ruin the landscape. i hope it is enacted soon, and I hope eventually this guideline will evolve and spread into wider areas. My dream is coming true!

[Guest danax]

I used to have Liberatarian leanings but the free-for-all, every-man-for-himself, "I'll do what I damn well please", third-world entreprenuerial mish-mash in this city has got me fed up and dizzy.

We need just a little master-planism like this to turn this whole place around, hopefully throughout the entire city boundaries eventually.

[Talbot]

^I agree.

One thing I didn't understand though, maybe i just didn't read it well enough, but is this throughout all of downtown or just where they are planning to have light rail extensions? Hopefully throughout all of it.

[YakuzaIce]

^Well I think it is for along major corridors, which I guess would include Light rail, so that areas like Midtown and other places around Downtown can create more urban neighborhoods. Because right now they are forced to get a waiver costing them time and money to be along the street. I am not quite sure if it includes Downtown since most things are along the street, but lot sizes, parking lot locations and landscaping requirements might also apply. I guess downtown is included.

[Talbot]

Alright, that's what I was thinking. I think it would be kind of stupid just to do it along the major corridors.

[tony]

Aren't those wide sidewalks along the major thoroughfares in Manhattan the results of set-back laws? I'm all for eliminating those little narrow grassy strips that characterize most pedestrian right-of-ways in Houston. You have to walk on them on the rare occasion you meet someone or have to pass a stroller.