__nevii

Already alluded to it regarding housing prices. These decisions that seem reasonable at the small-scale, individual level build up into tremendous externality effects. What happens when more land locked away? Less supply. What happens with less supply? Less options for developments, leading to less affordability. What happens with less options for development and affordability? Further exacerbation of suburban sprawl. And with more sprawl? Comes gross problems of greater flooding, more pollution, more infrastructure burden with less people, etc. And all in the name of propping up petty fiefdoms. I personally think deed-restrictions (and HOAs, "historic districts", and other such stuff) should be abolished outright. However... I'll grant you this — the deed restricted, historical protected, and other such carve-outs are not the "low-hanging fruit" (especially given, as you say, the preference that residents within would have for such protections). Much more crucial things to target for now, such as minimum requirements (i.e. setbacks, off-street parking, etc). What is interesting about the deed restrictions, SPLS, or other such "opt-outs" is that the attempts to justify them often circle back to the problems of car-dependency (and policies that subsidize it). That is, they recognize the problems of car-focused design, how it ruins the aesthetic of constructs in general (parking garages, townhouses, etc). Unfortunately, they simply lack the critical-thinking skills to understanding that the problems that they refer to are precisely a by-product of certain elements of the city's codes: the "NIMBYs" actually should focus their efforts on repealing stuff like parking minimums city-wide, if anything. Hence, I do think that restrictions need to be "loosened up" (at least, shorten the renewal frequency to no more than 2-4 years). If not abolished outright. No more so than the 13th amendment "took away the rights" of certain states to practice certain actions...

Nope, because I acknowledged my error in that specific part regarding the nature of the SPLS request (a renewal as opposed to a new area of coverage). But the problem still remains with valuable land areas (proximity to CBD/walkable urbanity) being locked away, limiting the ability for demand to be satiated (in turn, driving up prices).

Correct. I came across this info a while after I made the initial comment — the area was just renewing the special protections that they already had. Nevertheless ... those shackles will not last forever.

Cities grow and change. Get over it.

The NIMBYs are at it again trying with a "Special Minimum Lot Size" in the Norhill area. I wish there was a way to stop those insolent fools, can't afford to have this city stagnate on developments like alta.

Strange. The argument against Rasmus's attempts was "going against Walkable Places ordinance". But 25ft minimum setback is always talked about on these boards as detrimental to the pedestrian experience. Based on reactions I've seen on this thread, and elsewhere (i.e. Twitter), I assume it's just the NIMBY getting "creative"? Although ... I still don't know if there is a 25ft minimum setback in that swath of Midtown to begin with (as mentioned in previous post, I thought it was already defined as "CBD" with no building line requirements")?

Wait, I thought that the whole area of Midtown along/north of McGowen St was always part of the city's traditional CBD (i.e. present even before the 2019 expansions into much of Midtown, and EaDo). Traditional or expanded, CBD standard for Houston does not call for any minimum building line requirements to begin with. Therefore, I am confused about this recent news, regarding why a variance request/fight for such was needed to begin with? The map below shows what I mean: red = traditional CBD blue = 2019 expansions into EaDo green = 2019 expansion into Midtown

The thing has TIRZ funding, sidewalks widened, drainage being improved... numerous wins. Even regarding "anti-car activism", no lanes are being removed. What is wrong with this mayor?

It shouldn't be. But this mayor sure seems to want it to be the case, given his recent actions.

Every time I hear about Nextdoor, it always is about NIMBYs or something related to exclusionary practices. Why is that?

What is ironic with NIMBYs is that many of the concerns that they refer to are simply about the detrimental effect of the car-centric infrastructure (and associated by-gone mid-20th century policies). Just axe the minimums for parking, setbacks, lot sizes, open space, etc, and that creates more incentives for "gentle density" that provides lively environment ... while also "fitting neighborhood character" more easily. It is much easier for developers to build small-scale multifamilies (like 8unit plexes and such) compared to gigantic apartments + parking garages. Most of the concerns that NIMBYs have are rendered moot with reforms on car-centric policies. However, I am surprised at how many complaints occur with respect to shade cast. Especially considering the summer heat that people often use as an argument against walkability in Houston.

Huh?

I know the perfect way reframe TMC3: "Bringing new volumes to the life sciences" 😉

Forgot to mention that even the Houston townhome structures are not detrimental for walkable urbanity: a form of mixed-use can easily take off in converting those front-loading garages into shop space. I've seen similar examples presented regarding Tokyo. Will have to kill mandates like parking minimums, though (especially needed for the rest of the city outside Downtown, EaDo, and much of Midtown).

The Detroit proposal is exactly LVT as I was referring to. We actually tried a form of it in the past, but it was struck down as unconstitutional (which I alluded to prior): https://x.com/larsiusprime/status/1427107150053183505