TheNiche

METRO's reason to be is to maximally enhance regional mobility within their budget and federal opportunities for matching funds. Part of that is ensuring that transit users receive efficient and qualitatively good service, but the larger part of that is to reduce traffic congestion. The design of the Red Line has serious adverse impacts on traffic congestion (witness Fannin and the South Loop in afternoon rush hour, blocked streets and a broken grid in Midtown, lanes lost to traffic, disruptions of signal timing, et al.). And based upon work that I'd done in 2005, I was able to conclude that many transit riders, especially in poor neighborhoods, were greatly inconvenienced by the redesign of bus routes and an increased number of transfers. It fostered serious doubts as to whether the Red Line was nearly as efficient as it would seem if all that was done was to compare average bus speeds with LRT speeds on account of that the total trip time was seemingly increased for so many. Another adverse external impact was the high-pitched noise from the horn, which I can hear on many nights living a half-mile away from the Red Line.

There is no such thing as a "perfect" solution. Only an "optimal" solution. Paying lots of money for something that undeniably produces enormous benefit is better than paying half of lots of money for something that--I have argued--produces negligible or no benefit at all. And if the first option still costs more to implement than it is worth, then doing nothing is better than spending what is still a lot of money on something that yeilds negligible or no benefit. The funding mechanisms put constraints on what is possible, but I can't change that. They are the rules of the game. Uh huh... So what you're saying is that I have clearly exposed myself as having a position that isn't the same as yours. I am indeed biased--albeit not without reason. And therefore, it is not worth arguing with me because we just won't agree. Might I suggest that arguments based upon reason are most productive when the opposing parties are biased in favor of the arguments that they're putting forth?

I think that the jist of what those kinds of folks want is either very efficient light rail or none at all. They fail to see the merit of hundreds of millions of dollars of outlays on poorly-implemented transit that actually impedes the flow of traffic in its routine operations. And if federal funding isn't there to support it, well that's just reality. And if METRO can't pay the full tab, well that too is just reality. It is the idea that having nothing happen is better than paying lots of money for something that sucks at its intended use.

Because they suck. Never before has a so-called news agency so thoroughly misrepresented so much in the way of dry information. ...I could tell you stories.

Ah, good point. I always forgot about that one back in elementary school, too!

How is that a flaw, in and of itself? Please don't spare me a technical explanation.

It is very unlikely that the land costs were forgiving enough that they could downsize sufficiently to make the neighbors happy and still make money. Buildings of this sort don't just get moved to a different site. They are designed to suit the needs of a particular site. If this dies as proposed, they'll just pull the plug.

. ChannelTwo beat me to it.

Close, but not quite. The first railroad in the State was from Harrisburg to Stafford, completed in 1853.

A traffic study has already been done even though it wasn't required of the developers, and the City of Houston had accepted it. ...and then the City dug out an old document from when the developer made infrastructure with their own money that cited preliminary numbers that had since been revised (and for those not aware, revisions of some sort happen with nearly every development project). The City then rejected the traffic study because of the supposed inconsistency--but not because of a flaw in the study.

A counter-protest is tempting, but it would only validate them as relevent. They aren't.

Governments exist in many forms and to many ends. You cannot adequately describe the existing situation (as you claim) by saying, "The idea of a government is to give the public some control over what can happen so that there aren't abuses." Frankly, the purpose of government as it exists is open to interpretation. To a crooked politican, the purpose of the government is fame, fortune, and power. To an entrepreneur, it is to protect his property rights and to screw his competition. To a poor person, it is to ensure a redistribution of wealth. To an environmentalist, it is to protect an endangered fruit fly. To an academic scientist, it is to secure funding for a study. To a religious fundamentalist, it is to force everyone to be like them. Governments accomodate many constituencies, even those that are in conflict with one another. Government abuses are in the eye of the beholder, and that makes impossible the conclusion that the prevention of abuses is exemplary of the purpose of government as it exists. Besides, that they exist in one form or another does not mean that it should continue to exist in that form. This line of argument does nothing to support your position. Zoning as it is typically practiced replicates the market-driven land use and density patterns, and does so both at great cost to the taxpayer and at a cost to developers seeking an additional rubber stamp. What is the benefit of higher taxes and more red tape? Besides, giving power of this sort to elected officials is a recipe for corruption and cronyism. I could also make a compelling arguments that zoning discourages architectural creativity (Santa Fe), discourages organic urban form with mixed uses (Anyplace, USA), and that it strongly favors wealthy constituencies (League City, Sugar Land, Pearland, et al.). I am not sure that the City of Houston would practice zoning in a typical manner, however. And that's what scares me the most because I know a lot of planners--and a good number of them are more certain of where you want to live than you are. I'd prefer to let individuals determine how they want to live their lives because I think that they're a better judge of what makes them happy than is a bureaucrat. I will not tell you that a zoning law would not protect this neighborhood from this particular highrise. That is a very specific question, and nobody can know what would be in an alternate universe. Near the affluent Pirate's Cove subdivision in Galveston for instance, a developer proposed a highrise that met all of Galveston's zoning and planning guidelines, and after having received every rubber stamp that was necessary, the planning folks refused to grant a final approval on account of the wealthy folks whining about property values and birds' migratory paths. There was a lawsuit which was settled, and ultimately the thing didn't get built...but the outcome had nothing at all to do with zoning. If you want me to understand you to mean "high-density neighborhood" and not "highrise district", then you need to say "high-density neighborhood". Highrises aren't the same thing as stick or podium multifamily, and Austin isn't the same as Houston. I've explained that to you numerous times and at great length. If you aren't going to read and digest my voluminous posts, then you shouldn't respond to them. And I don't have much respect for a single family homeowner that wants government to force the highrise renter (or buyer) out of their neighborhood of choice and into someone else's. But I don't think that the highrise renter (or owner) or the single family owner really care about whether you or I respect them. They're each just looking out for themselves...and perhaps like does indeed deserve like. Why should government favor one over another? I support indifference. Midtown has lots of bums. Highrise residents don't like bums. Downtown's land prices are so heavily driven right now by office demand that building residential is nearly impossible except possibly as condos over a five-star hotel. And that's a vastly different product than what is proposed for Binz. Downtown also has bums. The Museum District has an excess of supply right now; getting presales would be very difficult. Land values are also pretty extreme. Uptown is always a good place but is another area with a lot of supply. Having too many preselling condo projects in the same area at the same time can easily kill the whole lot of them because there just aren't enough presales to go around...I'm concerned that that is going to happen down in Clear Lake as well. Allen Pkwy. has the Royalton, which sucked as a condo conversion. I've already explained in previous posts that there will almost always be a better site for a highrise, and I've already explained how sites are rationed by the market based upon land prices. We should not expect or want for today's highrises to be built on the *best* sites because then those best sites wouldn't be available for any of tomorrow's highrises. We should want highrises to be built where people want to live. Bottom line: (1) the consumer is a better judge of that than a bureaucrat, and (2) if a highrise full of happy people offends the neighbors, who took the risk of buying into an unprotected neighborhood, then they should either buy the site themselves and develop it as they see fit, sell their home immediately and move somewhere that they'll be more happy, or just shrug it off.

Fair point.

I'm not saying that zoning is an illegal practice--just that it should be. As I said (and you then pointed back out to me as though I didn't already know it), I only stated one man's opinion on the purpose of government. You may have your opinion too, but luckily your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine in the big picture of things. Firstly, as I have already told you time and time again, most cities use zoning to replicate the patterns of market-driven development. Doing so is to essentially create a bureaucracy without purpose or very much effect--which is just stupid--but that's what happens very frequently. Secondly, the growth of a city is dependent upon more factors than just zoning or no zoning, and given that Houston is so unique not only in that the central City is large, that it is the only major City in the country without zoning, that we rely so greatly upon MUDs for utilities, and that its economy is so specialized, it is an inadequate sample from which to measure conclusively the impacts of zoning or no zoning on regional growth. Poor validity of the empirical data largely relegates research to economic theory. You're right about that. I was confusing Hyde Park with a neighborhood opposite Guadalupe from it. My mistake. No matter, though. My point still stands. No highrises there, and you were talking about a "highrise district". Highrises are a distinctly different beast from stick and podium construction because the costs increase dramatically and the market for them reflects that. This thread is about a highrise on Binz in Houston. Why do you want to talk about stick and podium development in Austin? Why does it make sense to keep all the high-density developments together, in your opinion? Doesn't that fail to acknowledge that there is more than one kind of highrise buyer, that might prefer different settings? And if a City does force all the density into one little pocket, what of the people that live, work, or own property in that pocket? Why should they be subject to all the construction noise, strained infrastructure, extra traffic, teardown activity, etc., but not the owner of an expensive single family home? What makes the wealthy single family home owner special? Why should they be privileged at the expense of others?

The idea of a government depends upon who you ask. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of our government in its current form is to prevent tyranny and to ensure that basic human rights are upheld IMO. That a house and a highrise could be adjacent to one another is a non-issue in that context. Don't confuse the 'City' with the 'city'. All that matters in a debate over zoning impacts to population growth is the municipality in which the laws are enforced. Your comments apply to the metropolitan areas, but not very well at all to the central Cities. If I'm not mistaken, the population of the City of Dallas was actually declining for a few years. Houston encompasses an area from the urban core to the suburban fringe; it cannot be directly compared to any other City within a metropolitan area of similar population anywhere in the country. You were refering to a "highrise district". I don't recall there being such a district just along the east side of Guadalupe from Hyde Park; there is however something that could approximate that description in the CBD. I know because I was there, rowing back and forth on Town Lake two weeks ago today, watching the cranes at work.

If there are going to be public policies that restrict development, they need to be codified. Even more dangerous to a pro forma than having to comply with lots of rules or regulations or paying fees is uncertainty. It costs money (and lots of it) to be able to evaluate a site, conduct initial due diligence, draw up architectural plans and renderings, and make a public presentation. And if the developer is required to prove that there aren't any negative effects, then they usually have to hire a bunch of third party consultants to prove their point. They won't even bother in the first place if the outcome is based upon the whim of an arbiter, and not steadfast rules.

I didn't say that growth would necessarily be stifled--only if, contrary to the way that it is typically practiced, zoning is actually implemented with the intention of doing something other than what market forces would otherwise bring about. While zoning does provide order, so does the free market. The key premise of zoning is that government bureaucrats are able to provide a better order than individuals acting alone. I would dispute any such assertion. Dallas and Atlanta each have zoning, and yes indeed, they are growing less than we are. I'm not going to attribute that entirely to zoning, however. The different levels of growth are affected by a myriad of issues, the first among them being that Houston's land area is larger. Austin's zoning policies are regularly nonsensical. I would provide a specific example to which I am privy, but am held to confidentiality. The bottom line is that there are sites zoned for something that can't possibly exist on them, either because it is just a bad zone or because the zoning in concert with other codes makes it impossible for a developer to turn a profit. However, that they would create a highrise district in the CBD and not Hyde Park is mimicking market forces. I've already explained to you how the Austin market is fundamentally different than the Houston market. If you have a criticism of that explanation, please make it known. Otherwise, I'd request that you read what I write and not ignore it in your response. Btw, it always astounds me when someone just assumes that developers in Houston (or anywhere) could get by with one or another new regs in place. While it is true that there are always other places for them to invest their money--and perhaps not in condos/apartments--the developers are hurt less than the prospective residents of projects that restrictive public policy makes impossible to build. Not only are they denied the option of living in the best neighborhoods, but it puts in place a barrier to development that in the long run drives up the market price of housing.

So, on the basis of protecting investments in residential real estate, you might believe it justified that homeowners would back a politician that wants to halt all new development within a metropolitan area so as to ensure future price appreciation? It'll work if that's your goal. It'll also destroy that city's future and seriously hurt anyone that isn't already a property holder (i.e. people that statistically tend to be poorer). ...of course, that's an extreme example of a barrier to entry, but that is the same essential effect that occurs as a result of restrictive zoning--assuming, of course that the city's leaders aren't just creating a massive bureaucracy and zoning exactly as the market would dictate in the first place, which is fairly typical. I was born in Austin, visit frequently, and have worked on several projects in and around it, including by sheer coincidence one in Hyde Park. I tend to consider multifamily in Hyde Park as competing for the same buyers/renters as product downtown and immediately around UT and up Guadalupe to about the Triangle. Lots of students, even in the more expensive projects; barring age restrictions, which very quickly kill a central Austin deal, they're pretty much unavoidable. They are younger and from a very different psychographic than highrise buyers/renters in Houston, which tend to be transplants from New England, the west coast, or from overseas...there is a reason that Finger's downtown project looks like it was plucked from NYC. Houston highrises need to be situated near work, near cultural amenities, or somewhere quiet and private--Austin's multifamily buyers/renters are all about social hiving. They want to be in the midst of the action as it pertains to people of their own age cohort; they wouldn't care so much about being in walking distance to MFAH and most would find Northhampton pretty boring. Also bear in mind that in Houston, if you want a view, you've got to go vertical. There is no geographically-convenient alternative. In Austin, there are plenty of nice peaceful hillside neighborhoods with the capacity for sweeping vistas.

I agree that people should be able to protect the quality of life in their neighborhood. I do not agree that zoning is an effective mechanism, especially considering that a City that chooses zoning has to zone their entire municipality--not just the neighborhoods that want it. This is one reason of many that I prefer deed restrictions enacted among private parties. What, you think they threw a dart at a map, it landed on 1717 Bissonnet, and so they decided to build a tower there!? To get as far as they have, they've probably cleared half a dozen individuals both internal and external to the company that could've killed the deal. Austin is different in nearly every respect from Houston--demographically, economically, politically, geographically. Attempts at comparison between their multifamily or highrise markets are very weak. Let me just ask you, with a market perspective in mind: who would want to pay highrise pricing to live in just about any part of Austin other than where their highrises are being built?

There are indeed better sites, but those sites tend to be more expensive so as to kill the deal's profit margins. That means that many of our city's best sites will be vacant for a long time, but that when they are put to use, it'll be on on a scale that reflects the land price. Since the land price is supported by high enough market demand to justify a highrise, what is really occuring here is market-based zoning for both use and density. If a zoning variance occurs, the process that you describe applies. But in coming up with a zoning plan, usually what happens is that cities bring in outside consultant that goes through the motions of soliciting public input, which is then summarized and put in the appendix of a document that nobody will ever read. The zoning plan reflects market demand and usually won't vary greatly from what developers would've built anyway. The exception, of course, is that any industry near residential (which was usually built prior to the homes being there) gets rezoned to some special designation. It doesn't change anything though; the industry is still there, but it gives the local politicians a reason to play up that they care about environmental issues and the public health. Many cities, especially those that are largely suburban in character (like most of Houston), initially zone out multifamily almost altogether because they know that it would piss off a lot of people throughout the city all at once. Instead, good multifamily sites are zoned commercial. When a developer requests that a zoning designation be changed, it usually happens if the site is in a lower- or middle-class neighborhood; this pisses off a small portion of a constituency each time it happens, but not one large enough to make a difference. Politicians don't get much campaign support from these areas anyway and usually don't live there, themselves. Wealthier neighborhoods, on the other hand, complain loudly and in an organized way, contribute to campaigns, and vote. So they receive special treatment. Smaller cities are certainly more entrenched on account of that it is harder to build away from where the politicians actually live, however their public officials tend not to be under as great a level of scrutiny; it is a breeding ground for back-room deals and under-the-table goings-on.

There are numerous factors that drive construction costs up as a building becomes increasingly vertical. The pilings need to be sunk deeper, need to be larger, and the structural members need to be stronger. Different techniques and materials are used at different thresholds, per the instruction of a structural engineer. Bear in mind that if you put 50 stories on the ground, then you only have so much weight and so many vector forces that have to be built for. If you put a 50-story building on top of another 50 story building, then not only does the top 50 have to be able to withstand the same downward force vectors, but it has to perform better in high winds because the building as a whole has a higher center of mass and will tend to sway more. Simultaneously, the bottom 50 floors have to support much greater downward forces. Safety is a factor. It is always riskier to have people working in the sky; they are compensated accordingly. Likewise, while the building is under construction and its envelope is not sealed, it is more subject to catastrophic failure, either from human error or from natural disaster. Although unlikely, if it occurs, it is worse to have lots of already-completed floors underneath those that were being worked on up top and that were more likely to fail. This is reflected in commercial property insurance rates, or if the general contractor, an engineering firm, or another party is indemnified, then it is reflected in their costs. Larger cranes and heavier-duty equipment cost more to buy or lease. Lower parts of the building tend to have smaller leaseable floorplates because elevator and service shafts take up so much room. At certain levels, skyscrapers have sky lobbies to serve elevator transfers; these account for common area that the building owner isn't going to be compensated for and that a shorter building could forgo. The developer also recognizes an opportunity cost because the structure won't be physically occupied for a much longer period of time than if they were building a smaller building, but is still making massive financial outlays with lots of associated interest expenses.

That someone has money does (and should) not automatically endow them with privileges. It affords them the option to purchase privileges from those willing and able to guarantee them. The City of Houston is not zoned. The site of that proposed highrise is not deed restricted. This knowledge is contained in publicly-available documents. A homeowner in the affected neighborhood could have paid to be in West University, but didn't. They instead chose willfully to purchase a home in a neighborhood that is subject to greater risk of changing. The risk seems to be playing out in a way that is not to their advantage but that is instead to the advantage of hundreds of future residents of a great neighborhood. Why should the greed/money of a wealthy few trump that of the greater aggregate greed/money of the slightly-less-wealthy masses? This is, of course, keeping in mind that the United States does not recognize an aristocracy. Newsflash: Austin ≠ Houston

Woolie already told you. The marginal cost of each additional floor increases exponentially. If several firms needing several buildings at the same time got together on it and split costs of the total project evenly, it would only increase the total outlay paid by each firm, at the same time increasing the wait before the space became available, increasing the time spent by their employees in elevators, decreasing the useful size of each floorplate because more of it would be comprised of elevator shafts, and as a cherry on top, only one firm could get naming rights--not all that went in on the project. I'd like having a supertall in Houston too, but the bottom line is that its just hard to justify without office rents becoming outrageous and vacant lots becoming unavailable.

Why? Don't mean to sound flippant; this is a serious question.

Yeah, that sounds right. A 40,000-square-foot floorplate (from a 10-story building) would've been excessively large for most users.