Why the Smart Code is no Panacea for Houston - and a Workable Alternative

[WAZ]

The Smart Code has been proposed in response to the AshbyHigh Rise as a way to solve Houston’s development problems. Planners like it because it is based in SmartGrowth. Developers like it because theyassume it would make the City much more predictable in which projects itfights. But while the SmartCode would have helped in the Ashby High Rise case,it would not address the greater problem of development in Houston.

The SmartCode is a form-based code. It differs from traditional zoning because itdoes not concentrate on land use. Formwas the fundamental problem with theAshby High Rise, so it’s easy to see how the idea came up. But not all development is unwanted becauseof its form. The Magnolia Glen Homelessshelter would have been acceptable to the SmartCode – despite seriousneighborhood concerns. In that case,neighborhood concerns were not about the form of the building, but its use.

Traditional zoning would be more effective than theSmartCode in situations like the Magnolia Glen, because it governs land use aswell as form. But a zoning ordinance isa non-starter in Houston. The absence ofzoning has helped make this an affordable place to live and do business, not tomention property rights lobbyists and political opposition to zoning.

Fortunately there is a simple alternative. We could require public hearings for certaintypes of projects, like high rises, hazardous occupancy buildings, and largeresidential developments. Non-bindinghearings would allow neighbors to speak and be heard, and developers to gagepublic sentiment on their projects. TheCity should not decide to issue or deny permits based solely on these hearings,but developers could use them to help decide to go through with projects. If the hearings were held early enough,neighborhood concerns could be taken into consideration during the designprocess, and developers would face only minimal losses if they backed out.

There is precedent for this kind of hearing. The Texas Department of Housing and CommunityAffairs (TDHCA) holds hearings to help decide who gets tax grants for low costhousing. The benefits are numerous. Neighbors feel satisfied that their concernsare heard. Developers are not blindsidedby eleventh hour opposition. If we broughthearings like these to more types of development, fights like the Ashby HighRise and Magnolia Glen could be athing of the past.

[names]

I believe the status quo needs to be defended in this particular matter. It one of the few things that truly makes Houston unique compared to any other major city. Please work within this system, it is probably the most important ongoing urban experiment in America and only the unfettered lives of residents can execute this phenomena. Having walked plenty of permits over the years, I can say the process could be improved but not so much the paradigm.

The real foul taste in my mouth is that the political clout of one neighborhood can influence the political dialog and the politicians, who have turned a blind eye to their obligations to all of their constituents. Do not oil squeaky wheels, fix your drive train; meaning, stick to the status quo or have a referendum to enact zoning. Anything in between is a compromise that only complicates the process, is reactionarily ad hoc, and in turn drives up costs, real or perceived. Neighborhoods already have consensual contracts in the form of deed restrictions that effectively govern land use and form. Also the gov't naturally zones by way of infrastructure allocation. We are not land locked. Negative consequences from buildings/land use are acceptable in that the horizontal spread of Houston has granted the metro a plethora of equivalent land. We demo unacceptable buildings daily. Do not concede to the NIMBY's an inch, they will take a mile. The case studies of this type of human behavior are virtually endless and all have the similar result of an increasing amount of control by society and a decrease of control by the property owner. Houston has had it's societal balance for some time now and to great effect. A compromise as described by the OP is the foothold necessary for grassroots or astroturf campaigns to effectively enact development calcification. The only issues neighbors need to concern themselves with or should be allowed to voice are the impacts to their land use; ie pollution, accessability, crime etc. Granted that eminent domain for infrastructural purposes is a very painful process (another debate), but in the case of neighbor to neighbor issues, these should be handled by the appropriate court system after rights infringements have occurred.

You can not own a view in 3-d space, you can own the land below and the air space above however. The messy vitality of Houston is something people should not be so shallow towards and it simply highlights the weakness of average folks who are stuck in the visceral vacuum of post modern life.

[N Judah]

I think nonbinding hearings are unnecessary. Just put up a web site and a bunch of signs.

[WAZ]

I believe the status quo needs to be defended in this particular matter. It one of the few things that truly makes Houston unique compared to any other major city. Please work within this system, it is probably the most important ongoing urban experiment in America and only the unfettered lives of residents can execute this phenomena. Having walked plenty of permits over the years, I can say the process could be improved but not so much the paradigm.

The real foul taste in my mouth is that the political clout of one neighborhood can influence the political dialog and the politicians, who have turned a blind eye to their obligations to all of their constituents. Do not oil squeaky wheels, fix your drive train; meaning, stick to the status quo or have a referendum to enact zoning. Anything in between is a compromise that only complicates the process, is reactionarily ad hoc, and in turn drives up costs, real or perceived. Neighborhoods already have consensual contracts in the form of deed restrictions that effectively govern land use and form. Also the gov't naturally zones by way of infrastructure allocation. We are not land locked. Negative consequences from buildings/land use are acceptable in that the horizontal spread of Houston has granted the metro a plethora of equivalent land. We demo unacceptable buildings daily. Do not concede to the NIMBY's an inch, they will take a mile. The case studies of this type of human behavior are virtually endless and all have the similar result of an increasing amount of control by society and a decrease of control by the property owner. Houston has had it's societal balance for some time now and to great effect. A compromise as described by the OP is the foothold necessary for grassroots or astroturf campaigns to effectively enact development calcification. The only issues neighbors need to concern themselves with or should be allowed to voice are the impacts to their land use; ie pollution, accessability, crime etc. Granted that eminent domain for infrastructural purposes is a very painful process (another debate), but in the case of neighbor to neighbor issues, these should be handled by the appropriate court system after rights infringements have occurred.

You can not own a view in 3-d space, you can own the land below and the air space above however. The messy vitality of Houston is something people should not be so shallow towards and it simply highlights the weakness of average folks who are stuck in the visceral vacuum of post modern life.

As an architect, I was taught all about those evil NIMBYs. It wasn’t until I got involved in Civic Clubsand Super Neighborhoods that I saw the other side to it. We all want the same thing – safe, vibrantneighborhoods in which to live and work; stable property values. All too often, people in Houston feel that those things are threatened.

The problem is that when neighbors feel threatened, they putpressure on elected officials. If electedofficials are under enough pressure, they attack the development. The Ashby High Rise got the most press, butit was the same story with the Magnolia Glen Homeless Shelter, and the SCCConcrete Crushing Plant in Sunnyside. Unfortunately,by the time the City attacks the development, it’s often too late fordevelopers to call it off. And unless developers meet with neighborhoods attheir own volition, it’s impossible for them to know whether the City willattack their development .

Hearings would allow developers to gage neighborhoodconcerns about their projects – and still have time to alter or back out of theprojects. They won’t have so muchinvested in A/E fees and they won’t have signed contracts. Developers would know ahead of time whetheror not the City might attack their project. They could go into projects much more confident than they are.

Regarding “calcification” of development if there are hearings. It’s been raised before, and I don’t think it’s something to be worried about. Developers still use TDHCA grantsto build housing, even with the hearings. I'm not suggesting hearings for every little house and fastfood joint that goes up in Houston – just three kinds of development that have a big impact on the City.

I must close by saying, I do like how you described Houston: "messy vitality." Very nice. :-)

[names]

As an architect, I was taught all about those evil NIMBYs. It wasn’t until I got involved in Civic Clubsand Super Neighborhoods that I saw the other side to it. We all want the same thing – safe, vibrantneighborhoods in which to live and work; stable property values. All too often, people in Houston feel that those things are threatened.

The problem is that when neighbors feel threatened, they putpressure on elected officials. If electedofficials are under enough pressure, they attack the development. The Ashby High Rise got the most press, butit was the same story with the Magnolia Glen Homeless Shelter, and the SCCConcrete Crushing Plant in Sunnyside. Unfortunately,by the time the City attacks the development, it’s often too late fordevelopers to call it off. And unless developers meet with neighborhoods attheir own volition, it’s impossible for them to know whether the City willattack their development .

Hearings would allow developers to gage neighborhoodconcerns about their projects – and still have time to alter or back out of theprojects. They won’t have so muchinvested in A/E fees and they won’t have signed contracts. Developers would know ahead of time whetheror not the City might attack their project. They could go into projects much more confident than they are.

Regarding “calcification” of development if there are hearings. It’s been raised before, and I don’t think it’s something to be worried about. Developers still use TDHCA grantsto build housing, even with the hearings. I'm not suggesting hearings for every little house and fastfood joint that goes up in Houston – just three kinds of development that have a big impact on the City.

I must close by saying, I do like how you described Houston: "messy vitality." Very nice. :-)

As an architecture intern/arch student, my school experience is quite the opposite.I've spent many a semesters doing community oriented projects, adherence to vernacular customs & creating historical continuity, etc. Shoot, I even did a day labor center to organize residents in the Gulfton area.

The thing about "feeling threatened" for a homeowner is that, currently, preemptive actions would violate the rights of the new land owners freedom to build as needed/desired. There should never be a hierarchy of rights distribution. To forfeit the experiment of Houston IMO would be a great loss to humanity akin to the burning of the library of Alexandria. Is it heartless to say that people should move if they don't like how their neighborhoood is changing?

And then the issue is vast in terms of threshold, i.e. what makes a project big enough to qualify for preview. What typologies are subject to, and then what about mixed typologies, special rules? It gets so complicated immediately.

By human nature, if hearings are instituted, developers would learn how to game the system of expectations by bartering down the public by proposing the absurd and whittling it down to what they really wanted to begin with. I foresee market distortion at best and insulated corruption at worst.

[house567]

As a long time homeowner of moderate means near the Medical Center, I have learned that (under the current city policies);there is NO incentive to keep investing in my property. Large institutions can act privately and influentially to "blockbust neighborhoods", impair resident safety through self-serving traffic diversions, and delay, control, or obstruct neighborhood concensus solutions to co-exist. World class cities find ways for neighborhoods to co-exist with large commercial entities by way of transition zones, protective restrictions, and smart urban planning.

Ashby is but one Houston example where the powerful economic desires of a few individuals override the majority of mostly contented homeowners.

[WAZ]

As an architecture intern/arch student, my school experience is quite the opposite.I've spent many a semesters doing community oriented projects, adherence to vernacular customs & creating historical continuity, etc. Shoot, I even did a day labor center to organize residents in the Gulfton area.

The thing about "feeling threatened" for a homeowner is that, currently, preemptive actions would violate the rights of the new land owners freedom to build as needed/desired. There should never be a hierarchy of rights distribution. To forfeit the experiment of Houston IMO would be a great loss to humanity akin to the burning of the library of Alexandria. Is it heartless to say that people should move if they don't like how their neighborhoood is changing?

And then the issue is vast in terms of threshold, i.e. what makes a project big enough to qualify for preview. What typologies are subject to, and then what about mixed typologies, special rules? It gets so complicated immediately.

By human nature, if hearings are instituted, developers would learn how to game the system of expectations by bartering down the public by proposing the absurd and whittling it down to what they really wanted to begin with. I foresee market distortion at best and insulated corruption at worst.

I don’t think “heartless” is the right word for it. “Encouraging of sprawl” is a better way todescribe the “don’t like it – move” argument. Population growth has been the primary factor for Houston’s sprawl, butit doesn’t help that people are constantly being told to move. If we want to curb sprawl, one thing weshould do is make it easier for people to stay in their old neighborhoods.

Architects like us help to put buildings in neighborhoodswhere we don’t live. Can we claim tohave as much to lose as the people who live there? Shouldn’t their interests be given at leastas much weight as ours and those of outside developers? Or should we and our developer clients keeptelling them to move out to the suburbs?

I am proposing hearings for high-rises and buildingscontaining hazardous occupancies. Bothare defined in the International Building Code and City of HoustonAmendments. A building either falls intothose categories, or it doesn’t. I amalso proposing hearings for developments with more than 200 residential unitson a single piece of land. That’s asimple count.

The goal with the hearings is that neighborhood concernscould be taken into account during the value engineering process. The impact on buildings might be noticeable,but the impact on the design process should be minimal. There shouldn’t be any more insulatedcorruption or market distortion than there already is. In fact, there could be less, sincedevelopers would have to be more up-front about their proposals.