The Langley: Residential High-Rise At 1717 Bissonnet St.

[wxman]

In that case The Woodlands has the strictest deed restrictions in the region. You can't cut a tree down without replacing it. You can't paint your house without permission. You can't paint your house just any color. It has to be approved. EVERYTHING you do, The Woodlands would like you to get permission first. That's not to say you can't do anything. God knows my grandmother cut down 24 trees between the front and back yard. If you ever come across a treeless yard in The Woodlands, it's my grandmothers. I think it's the only one in The Woodlands like that.

[N Judah]

Houston should (with the aid of the wealthy people in neighborhoods that don't want the development) create incentives (design/QOL-related incentives, not just financial) that make developers want to put these big highrises elsewhere. Or in other words: what is it that could make this developer want to move this development someplace less "disruptive"? Maybe in the future these well-connected people would find out what that is ahead of time and make it happen, thus pre empting these battles. But at any rate, this particular development doesn't seem that bad, other than being unattractive.

Edited October 16, 2007 by N Judah

[KinkaidAlum]

The effect of zoning is dependent upon how it is implemented. But the unavoidable conclusion is that it does represent a barrier to entry in some form or fashion.

Take your example for instance: The DC metropolitan area is comprised of both the District of Columbia and the suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. While the District of Columbia is extremely difficult to get into, the suburbs don't have nearly as many barriers to entry--and that's where their growth is occuring. One city's laws don't apply to the whole metropolitan area. Your DC point illustrates a downside to zoning: if Houston's barriers to entry are greater, more growth will likely occur outside of Houston, where the barriers are lesser.

Wow. Over simplification at its finest.

[Subdude]

Overall, I think the point is that controls may hinder development, but there are a lot more drivers for growth than just lack of zoning, and developers will work with regulators if they have to. At least that's how it works out everywhere else. The assertion is constantly being made here that growth is due to lack of regulation:

the suburbs don't have nearly as many barriers to entry--and that's where their growth is occuring

Aren't the suburbs growing for a lot of other reasons? I'm just going to keep repeating, "correlation is not causation." How do you explain growth in the tightly regulated Woodlands?

[GovernorAggie]

Niche,

Thanks for the responses to my post. The biggest statement IMO is that we are relegated to theory. Theory. In a "prove it to me" city. That being said, I don't think traditional zoning fits Houston, but some regulation is needed. And while they may seem inefficient, I do in fact trust one planning commission to handle the issues related to land development. Give the people a little credit. After all, the worst that would happen is that Southampton would whine and complain and the Ashby Tower would either be reduced in scale or not happen in this location. Development for the sake of development is not always optimal. It's harder to unscramble eggs than it is to crack them--meaning that a mistake is harder to undo than it is to prevent (such as your dislike of the Costco development on Richmond--would it have been better for the Planning Commission to work with the developer for a better arrangement of the site?).

Regarding the Woodlands, I should have read my post and finshed my thought. What it should have said is that once it becomes a city in 2014 or whenever, the Woodlands may have the strictest zoning in the region. I realize that it's a private venture today, but in less than a decade, it will be an EXTREMELY heavily regulated city--in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't be the most regulated in the State. I would be extremely surprised if the people of the Woodlands who take so much pride in their look would allow the area to go to a fragmented deed restriction system. Instead, it will have a strong comprehensive plan with zoning (or some land development code similar to form-based or zoning). I almost feel like I can guarantee that. Which presents an interesting thought--you yourself don't trust the public sector (or maybe just the COH) to make good decisions, but the Woodlands is turning itself into the very system that you don't trust. Is this going to hurt their development or economy? I would hope not. If their economy is so fragile that a silly zoning ordinance would hamper or kill it, then it wasn't strong in the first place. I would say the same about any city--including Houston. It's not too dissimilar to a person living paycheck to paycheck--highly susceptible to outside influences throwing their financial solvency out of whack.

Lastly, regarding your last response, the only parallel to zoning is that the City is trying to change its involvement in land development issues (note that I did not say land use). Zoning in and of itself is concerned about land use and many will tell you has contributed to many urban problems today.

[GovernorAggie]

Overall, I think the point is that controls may hinder development, but there are a lot more drivers for growth than just lack of zoning, and developers will work with regulators if they have to. At least that's how it works out everywhere else. The assertion is constantly being made here that growth is due to lack of regulation:

Aren't the suburbs growing for a lot of other reasons? I'm just going to keep repeating, "correlation is not causation." How do you explain growth in the tightly regulated Woodlands?

One word: schools. It can't be taxes because people in Cy-Fair pay out the nose for things like "Educational Support Centers" with property taxes. Other than that, I would argue that the suburbs have MORE barriers for entry than Houston.

[Subdude]

One word: schools.

Precisely.

And by the way, you cite The Woodlands as an example of a place with strict zoning. The Woodlands has no zoning. It has deed restrictions. It was developed by a profit-driven entity that wanted to bring people to their land and do so over the course of decades.

Of course zoning is a messy political process, and it is never going to be perfect. That doesn't mean it is bad. Unfortunately, we all live in a real world where political processes are used to mediate among competing interests, not an ideologically pure fantasy-land. Apart from personal philosophical beliefs, I can't quite buy the argument that restricting development is fine if it is done by a profit-driven entity, but not it is done by means of government.

[TheNiche]

Houston should (with the aid of the wealthy people in neighborhoods that don't want the development) create incentives (design/QOL-related incentives, not just financial) that make developers want to put these big highrises elsewhere. Or in other words: what is it that could make this developer want to move this development someplace less "disruptive"?

Regulations can be created that would make developers want to put highrises elsewhere...but that won't change consumer preferences. The problem in my mind is not that developers are being influenced or even that they'd be put out of business; developers are only a means to an ends. It is that a minority of citizens are prevented from living where and how they like by a majority that assumes that the minority will be satisfied with the majority's preferences. I am not.

Perhaps the tower does not conform to its surroundings. Well neither do I, as an individual. Perhaps I should be outlawed. The world would be a more pleasant place.

[TheNiche]

Overall, I think the point is that controls may hinder development, but there are a lot more drivers for growth than just lack of zoning, and developers will work with regulators if they have to. At least that's how it works out everywhere else. The assertion is constantly being made here that growth is due to lack of regulation:

Aren't the suburbs growing for a lot of other reasons? I'm just going to keep repeating, "correlation is not causation." How do you explain growth in the tightly regulated Woodlands?

The Woodlands is the ideal example of how private property rights are superior to property rights usurped by government. Had The Woodlands been incorporated as its own municipality and tried to use zoning, I seriously doubt that it would've become the gem that it is.

My thesis is NOT that restrictions on land use are bad or that they discourage growth. It is that government restrictions tend to be bad and discourage growth. The key difference is who gets to do the deciding.

[TheNiche]

The biggest statement IMO is that we are relegated to theory. Theory. In a "prove it to me" city. That being said, I don't think traditional zoning fits Houston, but some regulation is needed. And while they may seem inefficient, I do in fact trust one planning commission to handle the issues related to land development. Give the people a little credit. After all, the worst that would happen is that Southampton would whine and complain and the Ashby Tower would either be reduced in scale or not happen in this location. Development for the sake of development is not always optimal. It's harder to unscramble eggs than it is to crack them--meaning that a mistake is harder to undo than it is to prevent (such as your dislike of the Costco development on Richmond--would it have been better for the Planning Commission to work with the developer for a better arrangement of the site?).

WHOEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SAKE OF DEVELOPMENT!? It is for people! I need to take a break from HAIF. This is just disgusting.

Regarding the Woodlands, I should have read my post and finshed my thought. What it should have said is that once it becomes a city in 2014 or whenever, the Woodlands may have the strictest zoning in the region. I realize that it's a private venture today, but in less than a decade, it will be an EXTREMELY heavily regulated city--in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't be the most regulated in the State. I would be extremely surprised if the people of the Woodlands who take so much pride in their look would allow the area to go to a fragmented deed restriction system. Instead, it will have a strong comprehensive plan with zoning (or some land development code similar to form-based or zoning). I almost feel like I can guarantee that. Which presents an interesting thought--you yourself don't trust the public sector (or maybe just the COH) to make good decisions, but the Woodlands is turning itself into the very system that you don't trust. Is this going to hurt their development or economy? I would hope not. If their economy is so fragile that a silly zoning ordinance would hamper or kill it, then it wasn't strong in the first place. I would say the same about any city--including Houston. It's not too dissimilar to a person living paycheck to paycheck--highly susceptible to outside influences throwing their financial solvency out of whack.

The Woodlands' deed restrictions aren't fragmented. They're master-planned! I susect the opposite, that as it is mostly built-out anyway and that there are already deed restrictions to fulfill the functions of a City government, that they will either be very lightly regulated or that the regulations will be largely duplicative. Any major changes would seem unlikely.

[N Judah]

Regulations can be created that would make developers want to put highrises elsewhere...but that won't change consumer preferences. The problem in my mind is not that developers are being influenced or even that they'd be put out of business; developers are only a means to an ends. It is that a minority of citizens are prevented from living where and how they like by a majority that assumes that the minority will be satisfied with the majority's preferences. I am not.

I am not disagreeing with you that that this is a problem. However, I am saying that from a practical point of view, these wealthy people would have made themselves better off by pre-emptively putting in the effort to improve other parts of the city. To avoid such battles in the future, the government could create QOL incentives that would redirect these massive highrises elsewhere.

Perhaps the tower does not conform to its surroundings. Well neither do I, as an individual. Perhaps I should be outlawed. The world would be a more pleasant place.

It would fit in better elsewhere. (I think it is too late for that, however.) I wonder if the developers anticipated this and over-reached in their initial sketches, expecting to scale it back. Also, I wonder if changing the design itself would appease the neighborhood.

Edited October 16, 2007 by N Judah

[GovernorAggie]

WHOEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SAKE OF DEVELOPMENT!? It is for people! I need to take a break from HAIF. This is just disgusting.

Calm. down. niche.

I should know your reasoning on this board by now but here goes anyway...

No one has explicitly said verbatim "development for the sake of development". I said it as a part of my comment. However, a lot of attitudes in this town is that development is better than none--even if the development may not be optimal. Otherwise, what development are people fearing would leave or not happen in Houston in the event of more guidelines. Truth be told, Houston may have more requirements than any other city--I think the people here are just used to them.

I also don't disagree that it's for people, but do you disagree that people's choices are shaped by other stimuli than their own independent, unbiased thoughts? People are guided into decisions sometimes. We are sometimes guided into what we want. Houston's energy bust has made people 21 years later afraid to say the city is in a "boom" time. The point is that do you think that people would flock to a development because the totally want and like it exactly--or because its there? The CVS on Gray does not reinforce that its development style is ok with people--it just reinforces that there is lack of services in that particular sector for that area, in my humble opinion.

Lastly (since the topic has really taken a tangent) it's clear Niche that you believe that private endeavors and ventures are almost always superior to public-based alternatives--if nothing else for efficiencies.

The biggest reason, IMO that government tends to be more ineffective (at least in perception) than the private sector is that private sector ventures have many fewer masters than gov't. People feel (rightly so) that gov't has to answer and respond to everyone. The fact that no two people are alike already puts gov't on a "bad" footing.

That being said, private ventures fail every blue moon too. Small failures usually don't affect the general population like a gov't failure would. However, if the venture is large enough (Vegas Monorail, the airlines, steel and textile factories, etc.) the threat of failure can have an equally adverse effect on people in general.

[Subdude]

The Woodlands is the ideal example of how private property rights are superior to property rights usurped by government. Had The Woodlands been incorporated as its own municipality and tried to use zoning, I seriously doubt that it would've become the gem that it is.

My thesis is NOT that restrictions on land use are bad or that they discourage growth. It is that government restrictions tend to be bad and discourage growth. The key difference is who gets to do the deciding.

Yes, but society is more than just private property transactions. Government acts so that even people without private property rights have a voice. That's why we don't pay to vote. Of course it is messy, and in many ways not as effective as private market transactions, but that is the price we pay for democracy. Market efficiencies simply aren't the right criteria to assess these things.

[H-Town Man]

Anyway, heavy traffic is a reality of urban life. If you've avoided it until now, it's only because of the mid/late 20th century conditions that caused urban real estate to be undervalued, mostly due to race prejudice.

lol, yeah, race prejudice. Not the fear of getting your front door kicked down in a home invasion, streets where drugs are traded in broad daylight, or schools where teachers fear for their lives. Nor could it have been simply the fact that it was the golden age of the automobile and people wanted to live in new areas designed with cars in mind. No, it was just racism. It's always racism.

[TheNiche]

No one has explicitly said verbatim "development for the sake of development". I said it as a part of my comment. However, a lot of attitudes in this town is that development is better than none--even if the development may not be optimal. Otherwise, what development are people fearing would leave or not happen in Houston in the event of more guidelines.

Well if that's not my attitude and if its not your attitude, then its an extraneous and irrelevant premise.

I also don't disagree that it's for people, but do you disagree that people's choices are shaped by other stimuli than their own independent, unbiased thoughts? People are guided into decisions sometimes. We are sometimes guided into what we want. Houston's energy bust has made people 21 years later afraid to say the city is in a "boom" time. The point is that do you think that people would flock to a development because the totally want and like it exactly--or because its there? The CVS on Gray does not reinforce that its development style is ok with people--it just reinforces that there is lack of services in that particular sector for that area, in my humble opinion.

Anyone that is afraid to say that Houston is booming because it conjures negative imagery is an idiot.

The Midtown CVS stores reinforce that most of their customers drive vehicles.

Lastly (since the topic has really taken a tangent) it's clear Niche that you believe that private endeavors and ventures are almost always superior to public-based alternatives--if nothing else for efficiencies.

The biggest reason, IMO that government tends to be more ineffective (at least in perception) than the private sector is that private sector ventures have many fewer masters than gov't. People feel (rightly so) that gov't has to answer and respond to everyone. The fact that no two people are alike already puts gov't on a "bad" footing.

No, not always. Just the vast majority of the time.

Government is ineffective for many reasons, not limited to inefficiency or that decisions are made by comittee. Think about favoritism, corruption, back-room deals, accountability, defining success or failure, unintended consequences, unequal constituencies, etc. The private sector is accountable to their own bottom line.

That being said, private ventures fail every blue moon too. Small failures usually don't affect the general population like a gov't failure would. However, if the venture is large enough (Vegas Monorail, the airlines, steel and textile factories, etc.) the threat of failure can have an equally adverse effect on people in general.

Business failure is good. It weeds out the bad investors and managers and reallocates factors of production (land, labor, and capital) to more productive purposes. It is very unfortunate that government failure does not occur so easily or perceptibly.

[TheNiche]

Yes, but society is more than just private property transactions. Government acts so that even people without private property rights have a voice. That's why we don't pay to vote. Of course it is messy, and in many ways not as effective as private market transactions, but that is the price we pay for democracy. Market efficiencies simply aren't the right criteria to assess these things.

Who lacks property rights? Even a beggar has property rights; the right to the clothes on his back, whatever meager assets he can claim, and whatever assets he can obtain by honest work or from honest begging. If the beggar wants something built a certain way, he is free to talk about it, act on it, or pay for it. He has that right.

If the beggar has generated assets sufficient to buy even a hundred square feet for himself and a tin shed as his home, but a government somewhere claims that that is not fitting with their planning regulations and that the beggar is not within his right to do so...THAT is when a man is without private property rights. He has earned the means and is stopped by those who have not.

[H-Town Man]

Niche, I thought you were taking a break from HAIF.

[TheNiche]

Niche, I thought you were taking a break from HAIF.

So did I.

[GovernorAggie]

...

Edited October 16, 2007 by GovernorAggie

[nate]

This was featured in today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119257756005161262.html

[bkjones98]

This was featured in today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119257756005161262.html

Wow, I didn't realize the developers had already invested so much money. They paid $500,000 for utility up-grades? This is going to get real ugly.

[ricco67]

Truly, it should be interesting indeed.

This project is going to get fun to follow.

[suzerain]

It seems like they are completely hanging their hat on the traffic issue. Would a "traffic ordinance" like the one suggested by Bill White (no zoning on his watch btw, lol) really do a whole lot to curb development. Especially since the city seems pretty insistent on making adding lanes to road to handle anticipated increases in traffic. It seems like the city is saying they want to help, just not so much so they do not ruffle too many (read wealthy contributors) feathers.

I had heard they were looking at trying to claim the building would be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Seems like a bit of reach to me.

The only common theme I see in all the articles is that there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop the developers, but the residents and their friends in city hall (though the politicians have to play both sides of the fence...developers contribute a lot of money and it is an election year) are going to do their damnedest anyhow.

[N Judah]

I think that neighborhood works better with the kind of development that is proposed, rather than just a bunch of single family homes. If they are so worried about it they should have lived in one of the many, many other cities with zoning.

[lockmat]

Just an obvservation here. Development continues to spread like wild fire in existing suburbs. Traffic just continues to get absolutely terrible. You never hear current residents whining about increased traffic to the county. It's accepted that it will happen in such a big city that never quits growing.

Especially since these people live inside the loop, they need to keep the complaints to themselves and learn the facts of life. Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there. And I hope they realize it's only gonna get worse.

[musicman]

Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there.

so now you're against single family homes too?

[lockmat]

so now you're against single family homes too?

You mean, in addition to everyone else who is against single family housing? Or am I against it in addition to say, multi-family? I'm not understanding the question.

And I'm not against it. I just don't think they're thinking rationally. I know this may be an extreme example, but this kind of reminds me of those pictures editor took of downtown Chicago with those mansions sitting next to gigantic skyscrapers. I'm sure they didn't like it at one time. But hey, they're sitting in the middle of a international downtown area. Of course, this is no downtown area, but ya know what people...times, they are uh-changin'.

Edited October 18, 2007 by lockmat

[Jax]

Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there.

so now you're against single family homes too?

Just because "the land is too valuable to just have single family homes there" doesn't make him (or anybody else) "against single family homes". Don't jump to conclusions.

[musicman]

Just because "the land is too valuable to just have single family homes there" doesn't make him (or anybody else) "against single family homes". Don't jump to conclusions.

and they're not thinking rationally? hard not to.

Edited October 18, 2007 by musicman

[lockmat]

and they're not thinking rationally? hard not to.

oh, musicman...

is that you in your avatar?