Houston's no-zoning: love it or hate it?

[IronTiger]

One of the things that people who know a little bit about Houston talk about is the historic lack of zoning that the city has.

 

This results in random old commercial buildings just thrown in with houses, creating a very mixed layout. To some, it's ugly. Some embrace it. While I only make it to Houston one to two times a year (I wish it were more), I've found another similar city that does it, Bryan, Texas, which also had similar rules. As College Station was mostly built past the 1940s, it puts strict zoning rules in place, so as a result, it's thoroughly unremarkable and boring (and it lacks things to do on weekends, but that's beside the point). Bryan, though, seems more interesting. It's older, and could be perceived as "uglier", but I find myself to be a fan of it.

 

Houston isn't ugly to me, but I can see how it can be to others because of no zoning. (Note that zoning will not produce a better looking city necessarily, see Philadelphia). I love that you can see clearly converted houses doing work as commercial businesses (that seafood restaurant that banned kids after 6, for one).

 

But I'm not here to talk about Houston being ugly (there's other threads for that). The real question is: Houston's no-zoning. Love it? Hate it? Accept it?

[brian0123]

Hate it. Houstonians like to think they're anti-zoning, yet the expensive parts of town Houstonians like are the results of deed restrictions and were/are heavily planned communities (i.e. West U, River Oaks, Braeswood, Bellaire, Woodlands, Sugarland, etc.). Conflicts always arise when something intrudes upon one of these places that don't fit into what neighbors want (Ashby high-rise, nearby hotels, nightclubs, etc.) Popular places where there aren't deed restrictions (but were at some point long ago heavily planned) constantly see conflict and people getting bitter about what's changing around them (i.e parts of the Heights where houses torn down to build townhouses, historic preservation arguments, etc.)

 

Personally speaking, I used to live in Midtown (no deed restrictions, was never master planned, and we accepted it). A building down the street from me was a flophouse where drunks threw beer cans in my yard everyday. The building across the street from me was a metal shed that turned into a welding place, then abandoned to homeless, then ATT put a mobile cellular tower on it. I sold and moved to more $$$ deed restricted Knollwood/S Braeswood where I don't have to worry about a cell tower popping up next door to me now.

 

Houstonians might say they hate zoning, but their wallets say otherwise.

 

 

[arche_757]

I neither love, or hate it.

 

Houston is what it is.  Do we need to improve many aspects of this town?  Absolutely.  But show me a city that is perfect.

[mikehouston]

Hate it.  Some form of zoning is going to happen - the only question is when, and what name other than "zoning" it will have since that is like a 4 letter word to some people in Houston.  There are too many major fights like Ashby and it is only going to continue as highrise gets built next to highrise ruining someone's view, towering over someone's backyard, etc.  Better to have at least some forms-based zoning that says for instance that high-rises belong on Kirby or in the Village or something, not Bissonnet.  Of course nothing is perfect but it seems like you could end up with fewer major fights this way and still be pro-growth and pro-development.  Also if you plan out which areas are going to be high density then you can also serve them better with high quality public transit / complete streets etc.

[august948]

Love it. We're the only city in the world (that I know of) that has this sort of laissez-faire approach to development. It makes Houston unique. It'd be a shame to kill it just so we could be more like Portland.

[ToryGattis]

Love it.  The benefits are strong:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2008/11/houstons-great-competitive-advantage.html

including reducing housing costs to make us the highest standard of living city in the country and probably the world:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-houston-have-highest-standard-of.html

Check out who's at the top of this graph, *by far*:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2013/02/houston-dominates-americas-growth.html

[Subdude]

I’ll take the wishy-washy position.  I neither love it nor hate it, but overall would lean to some degree of planning control recognizing it wouldn’t be perfect.  Lack of zoning is not inherently good or bad, it just involves decisions about trade-offs.

 

No-zoning arguments

• Should allow for faster and more economically responsive development
• I’ve lived in zoned cities and they are not necessarily less prone to bad development since the process can often be corrupted by developers.  Implementing zoning just wouldn’t have the massive impact that people think. 
• Suburban sprawl is going to occur regardless.
• I don’t agree that lack of zoning leads to ugliness
• May be associated with lower property cost

Arguments for zoning

• Every other large city in the world apparently sees some value in it.  I haven’t seen a raft of proposals to repeal zoning to be more like Houston. Wearing a fez is also unique, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.           
• Inefficient from a shared resource perspective.  Zoning might have worked to concentrate business downtown instead of across multiple employment hubs, which in turn could help make infrastructure investment more efficient and viable.
• It’s something in the toolkit to help prevent development unwanted by neighbors (the Ashby high-rise dilemma) 
• May be associated with higher property values

Overall I would say the positives of zoning somewhat outweigh the negatives, although I could live with measures short of full zoning.  For example, I think there should be a formal process to allow residents to challenge unwanted development within their neighborhood (eg Ashby or 2229 San Felipe) before a building permit could be issued.  This would have the benefits of transparency, not requiring wealthy neighbors, and providing a strong incentive for property developers to work with neighbors early on, rather than risk ending up in court. 

 

 

 

Speaking of zoning and ugly, there was a recent topic on Houston being included on a list of world’s ugliest cities, justified in part because of lack of zoning.  It kind of ticked me off, since there was no explanation of how ugliness was a consequence of no zoning, just an assertion that it was so.

[august948]

Love it.  The benefits are strong:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2008/11/houstons-great-competitive-advantage.html

including reducing housing costs to make us the highest standard of living city in the country and probably the world:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-houston-have-highest-standard-of.html

Check out who's at the top of this graph, *by far*:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2013/02/houston-dominates-americas-growth.html

 

I didn't realize they were expanding the Panama canal.  I wonder if some cargo that would normally offload in LA or San Diego will now transit to Houston or New Orleans.

 

[livincinco]

I didn't realize they were expanding the Panama canal. I wonder if some cargo that would normally offload in LA or San Diego will now transit to Houston or New Orleans.

That's exactly what's expected to happen. The current Panama Canal is pretty much maxed out in terms of freight capacity that can move through it. Also, many modern container ships are too large to fit through the existing canal as a result, most Asian freight comes into LA and moves across country by truck or rail. Most of the ports along the Gulf Coast are trying to position themselves to attract some of that volume.

Port of Houston is expecting a big increase in volume.

[IronTiger]

I wouldn't say lack of zoning causes the "fights", it's that the Super Neighborhoods (IIRC from Swamplot, which educated me) were supposed to decide this sort of thing for themselves and create their own identity. Houston's strength comes from its neighborhoods, after all...

[livincinco]

Like it. Houston's approach allows the market to determine response to demand and keeps housing prices much more affordable. It has it's downsides, but the alternatives are worse. Interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle today illustrates the contrasts by showing what happens when the market isn't allowed to flex to keep up.

http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Rents-soaring-across-region-4924282.php

From the article:

The root cause is simple, Metcalf said: "The growing regional economy coupled with decades of under-building housing."

[IronTiger]

San Francisco is experiencing problems because of what amounted to decades of resistance to density and building, creating an artificial spike in housing prices. Of course, Houston is busy tearing down single family homes and replacing them with townhomes, and it's still expensive to live in the inner loop.

[livincinco]

San Francisco is experiencing problems because of what amounted to decades of resistance to density and building, creating an artificial spike in housing prices. Of course, Houston is busy tearing down single family homes and replacing them with townhomes, and it's still expensive to live in the inner loop.

The difference though is that Bay Area constrained housing growth throughout the region, Houston didn't. You can get cheap housing in Houston within a reasonable distance of the loop. You can't in SF.

[ArchFan]

My feelings are pretty much in sync with Subdude's, but I also think everyone has made good points.  I'm from here and love my hometown, despite the fact that I think we could do better.  That doesn't mean we should just copy other cities; I would just like us to be the best Houston we can, in our own way.

 

Over the years, I've seen assertions that Houston has more master-planned communities than any other large metro area in the US.  It's evident that lots of people want to live in such places far from the core.  Many -- including some of those folks --seem to have a philosophical commitment to individual liberty (e.g., against zoning and government controls in general), but still want to live in a certain kind of neighborhood in which forces outside their control can't diminish their quality of life.  I understand that point of view and have no quarrel with it.   But ... it seems as if the only way to enjoy that kind of situation in the Houston area is to be somewhat affluent.  In my parents' era, it mean being able to afford to live in zoned enclaves like the Memorial villages.  Today, I guess that would also include The Woodlands, First Colony, et al.  

 

However, something else interesting is happening.   Now there is a sizable population of relatively wealthy people living close to the core -- but in less protected neighborhoods (not West U, River Oaks, etc.)  -- that feel their quality of life is threatened by some consequences our laissez-faire system.  Which leads me to wonder if we might wind up having tighter restrictions on new development, but perhaps just close to the core (e.g., certain areas inside Loop 610).  Actually, that wouldn't be the first time that happened:  ever wonder why the only Houston bayou that's never been scraped, channelized, and concreted is Buffalo Bayou west of downtown?

[ToryGattis]

Over the years, I've seen assertions that Houston has more master-planned communities than any other large metro area in the US.  It's evident that lots of people want to live in such places far from the core.  Many -- including some of those folks --seem to have a philosophical commitment to individual liberty (e.g., against zoning and government controls in general), but still want to live in a certain kind of neighborhood in which forces outside their control can't diminish their quality of life.  I understand that point of view and have no quarrel with it.   But ... it seems as if the only way to enjoy that kind of situation in the Houston area is to be somewhat affluent.  In my parents' era, it mean being able to afford to live in zoned enclaves like the Memorial villages.  Today, I guess that would also include The Woodlands, First Colony, et al.  

 

Actually, they have a choice to live in a deed restricted community inside the City of Houston, and there are many of these communities affordable to the middle class.  In addition, new ordinances allow neighborhoods as small as a single block face to agree on new restrictions.  The best thing about deed restrictions (inc. in MPCs) is that they allow totally local neighborhood control, as opposed to a remote city-level zoning board controlled by insiders, the city council, and (often) corruption.

[ArchFan]

Actually, they have a choice to live in a deed restricted community inside the City of Houston, and there are many of these communities affordable to the middle class.  In addition, new ordinances allow neighborhoods as small as a single block face to agree on new restrictions.  The best thing about deed restrictions (inc. in MPCs) is that they allow totally local neighborhood control, as opposed to a remote city-level zoning board controlled by insiders, the city council, and (often) corruption.

You are absolutely right on that.  However, I do feel bad when I see neighborhoods that were beautiful in the late 1960s and are blighted now, due to demographic changes followed by the lapse of deed restrictions within the CoH.  In my life experience, I saw a lot of that in certain Spring Branch neighborhoods that one would expect to continue to be desirable (e.g., decent lot sizes, forested with pines and oaks).  But by the 80s, the people who continued to live there found themselves surrounded by houses turned into commercial businesses (e.g., used car lots, exotic bird stores, vacuum cleaner repair shops).  

 

So, while I like the idea of deed restrictions, their being temporary ultimately didn't protect the homeowners who wanted to stay in their neighborhoods, rather than flee farther out into the sticks.  

 

The point I want to make is that, in those cases, individuals who wanted to continue to live in their neigboorhood were unable to defend their quality of life without banding together in sufficient numbers to fight for a common cause.  

[ArchFan]

I also agree with concerns about giving power to zoning boards that do not act in accord with their (supposed) mission.  Moreover, I'm not sure I'd expect them to always make the right decisions, even if they were well-intentioned.  

 

The OP's question strikes me as involving very fundamental philosophical questions.  E.g., involving the agreements we make with the people around us in which we give up the right to do absolutely whatever we want, in return for the same from them.  It seems reasonable to me that people might feel more comfortable engaging in that sort of contract with people that one knows and shares some common interest with.  

 

I think a big practical issue is whether/how we can agree on the size of that sphere of trusted  people?   Self, family, neighborhood, city, country, planet?

 

 

[ToryGattis]

I also agree with concerns about giving power to zoning boards that do not act in accord with their (supposed) mission.  Moreover, I'm not sure I'd expect them to always make the right decisions, even if they were well-intentioned.  

 

The OP's question strikes me as involving very fundamental philosophical questions.  E.g., involving the agreements we make with the people around us in which we give up the right to do absolutely whatever we want, in return for the same from them.  It seems reasonable to me that people might feel more comfortable engaging in that sort of contract with people that one knows and shares some common interest with.  

 

I think a big practical issue is whether/how we can agree on the size of that sphere of trusted  people?   Self, family, neighborhood, city, country, planet?

 

Deed restrictions can be renewed if the neighborhood wants to keep them

 

Legal contracts don't require trust, although it certainly helps.  In this case, neighborhood is the right size unit.

[august948]

Do deed restrictions lapse automatically unless the HOA acts?  Or is this something different?

[ToryGattis]

Do deed restrictions lapse automatically unless the HOA acts?  Or is this something different?

 

I'm not sure of the details, but my understanding is that there is some sort of renewal process.  An HOA is ideal to drive it, but not required.  There is also a new process where neighborhood blocks can apply to the city for protections.

[Slick Vik]

In additon to the deed restricted communities, many businesses never open because of the antiquated minimum parking requirements. This makes it very difficult to create walkable areas.

[IronTiger]

many businesses never open because of the antiquated minimum parking requirements.

That's another made up if/then statement...I'm guilty of it myself, inferring Houston was a bit unsightly because of no zoning.

[Slick Vik]

That's another made up if/then statement...I'm guilty of it myself, inferring Houston was a bit unsightly because of no zoning.

 

Not made up. I know people that have not opened businesses because of this. 

[livincinco]

In additon to the deed restricted communities, many businesses never open because of the antiquated minimum parking requirements. This makes it very difficult to create walkable areas.

Agreed that the minimum parking requirements should be repealed. That would be a strong step towards allowing Houston to continue its past development as a high-growth, low government regulation city.

[Marcus Allen]

Love it. One of the only cities I have flown over and heard newcomers exclaim, OMG! Where is downtown in this city? I don't know why, I just get a kick out of that. Then again, I haven't experienced some of the headaches that some of you have. That might change my perspective. A soaring tower next to a cattle field is novel. One next to an established neighborhood, well, I can see the neighborhoods point.

[lockmat]

Question: What is the next biggest city without zoning???

 

Second, PBS covers Houston zoning in "Here & Now."

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/23/houston-no-zoning

 

Lastly, it's pretty funny that the wiki page gives Houston its own section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States

 

 

[samagon]

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people don't care.

 

Most of the issues are with residents. and those issues are all inside the loop for the most part (specifically the neighborhoods that don't have restrictive covenants). And even then, there's plenty of areas without any issue at all. So it's an extremely small subdivision of our population that is affected negatively by lack of zoning.

 

Bottom line, people need to do their homework before they buy a house (actually, shouldn't the realtor be educating potential buyers?) in an old neighborhood that doesn't have any restrictive covenants that protect them from what their neighbors do with the land they own.

 

Sure, there are examples of places that are built in weird locations, but in my mind, things like the smut shop in the galleria parking lot gives our city a certain character that no other city our size is going to be able to duplicate.

 

So realistically, the lack of zoning only makes a very small subset of residents unhappy. Most don't care, and if zoning were introduced, I'd bet that most of the residents would be unhappy with the change.

 

For instance, gas stations and banks on every corner may be unsightly, but it is convenient.