Spent a Week in Houston

[H-Town Man]

I was in Houston last week (I live in Austin) and had a chance to drive around and reacquaint myself, a chance I get once or twice a year. For anyone who's interested, a couple of observations.

 

Downtown and most of the surrounding core have turned the corner and are headed inexorably upward. Seems like every time I come back, downtown is on a new level. Up until about five years ago I think it was still in doubt whether it would really take off and since then it has. The battle is not yet won, but the momentum has shifted. 

 

Now the negative. 80% of the city, the city lived and experienced by most Houstonians most of the time, is as one person described to me a "concrete jungle." The neighborhoods are nice enough, but the freeways and major thoroughfares that make up most people's perceptions of the city blend after awhile into a seamless experience of parking lots, power lines, and stucco buildings of various shape, size, and condition. If you know where to look, you can find the escapes, the green oases of Memorial Park or the reservoirs, or the heightened experiences of Uptown or the Rice/Museum District area or the Heights. But to the average person who doesn't have time or leisure to seek these places out, the overall experience is bruising. 

 

I don't remember thinking this about Houston 10 or 20 years ago. It seems like during that time, densification of population (mostly through multi-family infill) has brought with it a commercial densification that has systematically eliminated all the old stands of trees and scattered green vacant lots that formerly brought relief to the eye. I think the densification is good - we are maturing as a city - but it has come at a cost in terms of aesthetics in all but the wealthiest areas.

 

What would make a difference? I am not sure what our requirements on trees or minimum greenspace are for commercial development, but something like a universal 20% or even 10% minimum greenspace requirement with required tree planting would make a vast change over time. I think we have some such requirement but very minimal. When I got back to Austin I drove north on I-35, which I normally think of as an ugly freeway, and was astonished how green and verdant everything looked, despite the sprawl of commercial businesses. Buildings seemed to swim in a canopy of trees rather than parking lots. I know some people think that any regulations will squelch our freedom and take away some special thing that makes us great, but this seems like a worthwhile tradeoff. I am also an advocate of doing away with minimum parking requirements; a combination of these two changes (abolish minimum parking and enact a minimum greenspace requirement) would make it easy to retrofit properties: simply tear up some of the parking and put in some grass and trees.

 

Such a rule would have a significant transformative effect over the next 20-30 years as properties are renovated and required to meet code. It would also prevent our greener areas today from becoming the gray areas of tomorrow.

 

 

[dbigtex56]

@H-Town Man As someone who's known and (sometimes) loved Houston for almost 40 years, I agree.
As has been mentioned in other places on this Forum, places such as the Heights and Montrose have suffered the effects of having been loved to death, and are in danger of losing the qualities that once made them desirable. The building of larger houses does not necessarily translate to greater density. Replacing a single family house occupied by four people with two townhomes occupied by two residents in each is a wash when it comes to density, and there's a net loss of trees and parking spaces. 
Houston has some deep seated traditions which are resistant to change. The oldest, and the one on which this city was founded, is profiting on real estate. Another is that any business that makes money is a good business. People speak of the stench from the Ship Channel industries as "the smell of money". More highways mean more development mean more money. 
Can this cycle be broken? Some might reasonably ask, should it be? Surely, there's been a greater interest in making Houston a more desirable place to live in the past decade or two than we've seen in decades. It's an exciting time to live here. 
Just curious - which neighborhoods struck you as having changed the most for the worst?

[samagon]

Houston is huge. compare Houston against cities of similar populations and it's obvious Houston has a lot more green.

 

Here's a good read from a few years ago:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/green-acres-2/

 

I do think that I agree with you regarding trees and greenery just in general, but I think Houston has a roundabout solution, they do require stormwater detention these days, I don't think it's too far a stretch to assume that some of the better designs to stormwater will include some trees in the detention area.

[H-Town Man]

3 hours ago, dbigtex56 said:

@H-Town Man As someone who's known and (sometimes) loved Houston for almost 40 years, I agree.
As has been mentioned in other places on this Forum, places such as the Heights and Montrose have suffered the effects of having been loved to death, and are in danger of losing the qualities that once made them desirable. The building of larger houses does not necessarily translate to greater density. Replacing a single family house occupied by four people with two townhomes occupied by two residents in each is a wash when it comes to density, and there's a net loss of trees and parking spaces. 
Houston has some deep seated traditions which are resistant to change. The oldest, and the one on which this city was founded, is profiting on real estate. Another is that any business that makes money is a good business. People speak of the stench from the Ship Channel industries as "the smell of money". More highways mean more development mean more money. 
Can this cycle be broken? Some might reasonably ask, should it be? Surely, there's been a greater interest in making Houston a more desirable place to live in the past decade or two than we've seen in decades. It's an exciting time to live here. 
Just curious - which neighborhoods struck you as having changed the most for the worst?

 

The whole Westchase area has not worn well. Looking across it from Beltway 8 reminds me of how I used to think Greenspoint looked. Briefly saw Highway 6 and it has declined except in Sugarland. Roads on the north side like Louetta, Jones, Kuykendahl, and much of FM 1960 remind me of what Veterans Memorial used to look like. Veterans Memorial today I have no basis of comparison for, it is like something out of the second or third world.

 

As for the freeways, I drove on the Grand Parkway (west), Beltway 8 (west and north), Southwest freeway, 249, and 290 on this trip. All except the Grand Parkway were relentless concrete, power lines, and stucco. I seem to remember that driving southwest on 59, once you got past Beltway 8, looked like your average well-to-do suburban area and now it seems blighted at least as far as Highway 90 in Sugarland. 249 used to be a nice road, still is in just a few spots. I've seen no greater change than the area around Louetta, Interstate 45, and 2920, which looks like a wasteland where there used to be a forest. I went to Old Town Spring to eat at Corkscrew BBQ and the trees and greenness surrounding me there were like aloe on a burn.

 

3 hours ago, samagon said:

Houston is huge. compare Houston against cities of similar populations and it's obvious Houston has a lot more green.

 

Here's a good read from a few years ago:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/green-acres-2/

 

I do think that I agree with you regarding trees and greenery just in general, but I think Houston has a roundabout solution, they do require stormwater detention these days, I don't think it's too far a stretch to assume that some of the better designs to stormwater will include some trees in the detention area.

 

It is green when you look across Houston from atop one of our tall buildings. We have an admirable canopy, but this is all in the residential neighborhoods. On major thoroughfares, the green seems far away. Unfortunately this is how most visitors experience our city and make first impressions. It also has an exhausting, degrading effect on residents.

 

[s3mh]

Houston requires development fees for larger developments that do not dedicate sufficient greenspace.  Those development fees are supposed to go to HPARD to acquire land for new parks.  Under Mayor Parker, HPARD was using the funds for maintaining existing parks.  Mayor Parker generally would do what ever she wanted until someone made her stop doing it that way. 

 

i do agree with the OP that most of the city is pretty awful when it comes to greenery.  The worst offenders are the clear cut housing developments.  They are just acres of roofs, concrete, St. Augustine and the occasional shrub or tiny live oak transplant.  

[H-Town Man]

Another thing that would help the overall look of things is if we could repaint the concrete along some of the freeways, especially the connectors. I remember when the Southwest Freeway was rebuilt about 20 years ago, it was like a big burly concrete beast, but at least it was clean and impressive in a way. Now the paint is peeling on all the concrete (especially the connectors to Beltway 8 ) and it looks run-down.

 

[august948]

I have to admit, one of the things Austin does do right is planting trees in parking lots.  I'm not sure what causes the difference, but it's a practice in the cities that surround Austin as well.

[samagon]

I think maybe the difference is I spend 90% of my time in/around the oldest parts of town. east end, etc.

 

If I were stuck out near 59 and the BW8 (south) I might agree with this sentiment. very few pockets of trees, and vast seas of parking lots. 45 north of town has a similar problem, as does the gulf freeway once you cross all the bayous. Katy freeway and BW8 (west) isn't too grand either.

 

the biggest difference is the ratio of big box stores to other things.

[august948]

No doubt the freeways aren't all that beautiful, but they're commercial zones so I wouldn't have high expectations in that regard.  Once off the freeways, though, there is plenty of green.  I think it's a stretch to say 80% of the city lived and experienced by Houstonians is the concrete jungle.  That's part of the point of the master planned communities where many Houstonians live.  Green spaces, hike/bike trails, etc.  The portion of hwy 6 that looks nice in Sugar Land runs through First Colony.

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, august948 said:

No doubt the freeways aren't all that beautiful, but they're commercial zones so I wouldn't have high expectations in that regard.  Once off the freeways, though, there is plenty of green.  I think it's a stretch to say 80% of the city lived and experienced by Houstonians is the concrete jungle.  That's part of the point of the master planned communities where many Houstonians live.  Green spaces, hike/bike trails, etc.  The portion of hwy 6 that looks nice in Sugar Land runs through First Colony.

 

I mentioned above that the neighborhoods are nice enough. But I think it's kind of a Houston mindset to say, "Well, the commercial areas are going to look terrible, they're commercial areas." We become inured over time to the way things look; our surroundings determine what is normal. But when you go away for awhile and then you come back, the difference hits you.

 

[august948]

21 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I mentioned above that the neighborhoods are nice enough. But I think it's kind of a Houston mindset to say, "Well, the commercial areas are going to look terrible, they're commercial areas." We become inured over time to the way things look; our surroundings determine what is normal. But when you go away for awhile and then you come back, the difference hits you.

 

 

A good point.  Wouldn't mind if they put more trees in the parking lots a la Austin.  I'm still curious if that's a developer choice or if it's mandated.  Would be something for city council to consider if it's mandated.  Not sure what else you could do along those lines, though.

[gmac]

7 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

Wouldn't mind if they put more trees in the parking lots a la Austin.

 

Wonder what effect the roots would have on the surface after a couple years. It would indeed be good to have them, and they seem to work in Target and grocery store lots around town.

[Houston19514]

The linked document summarizes Houston's tree and shrub ordinance, including landscaping minimums for parking lots. I believe this is the current ordinance.  I have not been able to find  Austin's comparable ordinance.

 

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/docs_pdfs/tree_shrub.pdf

 

Here's the actual ordinance:

 

https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH33PLDE_ARTVTRSHSCFE_DIV2BUSI_S33-127PALOPLTRSHRE

[Houston19514]

25 minutes ago, gmac said:

 

Wonder what effect the roots would have on the surface after a couple years. It would indeed be good to have them, and they seem to work in Target and grocery store lots around town.

 

There shouldn't be any if appropriate trees are planted.  I think most cities have a listing of required/appropriate trees for street trees/parking lot trees.

[august948]

20 minutes ago, gmac said:

 

Wonder what effect the roots would have on the surface after a couple years. It would indeed be good to have them, and they seem to work in Target and grocery store lots around town.

 

I wondered that too on another thread about the Post Oak Blvd work and someone said that they need to be planted below grade so the roots go down and under the concrete.

[Houston19514]

1 minute ago, august948 said:

 

I wondered that too on another thread about the Post Oak Blvd work and someone said that they need to be planted below grade so the roots go down and under the concrete.

 

Aren't all  trees planted below grade? 

[august948]

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Aren't all  trees planted below grade? 

 

I would think so, but some of the sidewalks around town beg to differ....

[Houston19514]

2 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

I would think so, but some of the sidewalks around town beg to differ....

 

LOL   Those were planted below grade,  but of course have roots that come to the surface; perfect examples of planting inappropriate trees

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

The linked document summarizes Houston's tree and shrub ordinance, including landscaping minimums for parking lots. I believe this is the current ordinance.  I have not been able to find  Austin's comparable ordinance.

 

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/docs_pdfs/tree_shrub.pdf

 

Here's the actual ordinance:

 

https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH33PLDE_ARTVTRSHSCFE_DIV2BUSI_S33-127PALOPLTRSHRE

 

Thanks. I was pleasantly surprised to see that a tree is required for every 10 parking spaces, and no space can be further than 120 feet from a tree. I wonder when this was passed? It looks like older commercial properties that were built before these requirements will have to meet them if they expand by 1,000 SF, but it does not appear that renovation will trigger a need to meet current code. So properties with existing buildings are largely off the hook for their usable life.

 

There is no minimum greenspace requirement that I can see. This would pair really well with a relaxed or nullified minimum parking requirement.

 

[Luminare]

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

There shouldn't be any if appropriate trees are planted.  I think most cities have a listing of required/appropriate trees for street trees/parking lot trees.

 

Yes. Houston has ordinances on what trees can be planted in specific circumstances such as parking lots, streets, and major thoroughfares (recently worked on a parking lot project). 

 

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Aren't all  trees planted below grade? 

 

Unfortunately no. Its more money to plant them below grade. I'm sure the city makes recommendations, but doesn't make it mandatory. Post Oak Blvd and Westheimer via Upper Kirby are rare examples where this is done right in town (though I'm sure there are others).

 

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

LOL   Those were planted below grade,  but of course have roots that come to the surface; perfect examples of planting inappropriate trees

 

Its not just the plants that are the problem when they are planted above grade, but its also how we build our sidewalks. The ideal condition in this city would be to plant trees below grade, and making sure you have a substrate/layer of dirt that isn't the crappy clay we have here in town under the sidewalk. About 85% of the sidewalks I see are placed right on top of our crappy overly expansive clay soils. The third ideal is that any ground that starts to slope up from a sidewalk should have a retaining wall to buttress the property/lawn and keep the sidewalk from sagging when mud overcomes it. Of course, these things cost money to do, and your local, just trying to get by, contractor isn't going to put the extra money or effort to do any of these things.

[zaphod]

If you have the Google Earth for PC(not the app or the web version) you can use the historic imagery slider to see how things looked going back to roughly 1978 for most of the area(some areas have imagery going back to 1953). It's a bit shocking how extensive and unbroken the forest along the San Jacinto river was up until the late 1990s. Now it is fragmented by sprawl. Houston in the 1980s and 1990s had a lot of empty space, now its all filled in.