__nevii

I think HGAC represents another route regarding state and/or federal funding. They have tiers regarding plan priorities for projects (one for 20 year plan, one for 10 year, and then one for 4 year).

Regardless, we still have yet another display of "transparency" and "fiscal responsibility" from Whitmire. Sabatoging the very things that overcome "Houston is broke."

Perhaps, though this particular project was federally funded. Then we'll get another round of terrorist excuses (just as with Houston Ave.)

Oh, and I also saw this: https://x.com/mightylzrdking/status/1784430691398091104

At the time the comment was made, the framing looked as if he was concerned about the inequity of some places having sidewalks and others lacking in them. But after all that's been happening, no. It looks to me that it was a fake virtue signal all along. Especially considering that there are numerous methods to resolve the disparity that he could be looking at now (say, sidewalk bonds).

Did Whitmire run on anti-urbanism/road diets? Reviewing past articles, media coverage during the election, I did not see any indication that he would be this hostile to urbanism: mostly just focused on firefighters, even talked about traffic safety and whatever. I'm just perplexed at what is going on. I did not vote for him, but I expected him to be more like Turner's pragmatism.

It's just hard to tell when many "historic districts" are used just to disguise the true hinderances that are at play. I know there were controversies in the pasts with some in Heights area, stemming from the actions of Marlene Gaffrick (current "aid" of Whitmire, not ideal for urbanism as seen with latest actions of stalling projects). On the other hand, some areas like "Freedmen's Town" do deserve protection. In contrast, I personally don't see benefit of these Houston deed restrictions. They are no different than subsidizing suburban sprawl, and should be wiped out on the spot.

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

There's good amounts of usage, but you can't exactly see that human-scale detail when you are whizzing by in your car: Nobody Bikes (@nobody.bikes) • Instagram photos and videos

I feel like street-design is a big culprit. Not sure why many areas of Midtown are "one-way traffic", that effectively makes them multi-lane stroads: granted, having a single point of traffic to worry about is not as difficult for a pedestrian compared to a Westheimer-type outside Beltway 8 situation ... but still. And Midtown is actually an extension of the original core grid: the car-design must have been a retro-fit.

And there's nothing stopping that (policy-wise, at least). Even in terms of ancillary mandates pertaining to parking requirements, setbacks, etc portions of Midtown (north of McGowens) were always CBD standard (hence, free from mandates), and the 2019 expansion ensures that (much of) the rest of the neighborhood is now free. If the area was not desired, then there wouldn't be all this talk about how "expensive" the neighborhood is. Any hurdles regarding land-use regulations, taxation structures, etc need to be cleared. And it doesn't even need to be additional industry either. Even excluding any potentials regarding ION, there's nothing that says Midtown (and Museum Park) can't function is neighborhoods housing those that work in, say, Downtown or Medical Center. As another comment alluded to, company buildings are precisely what create pedestrian dead-zones/lack of vibrancy once of work hours are over (especially if said buildings are single-use). Mix-use structures w/ ground floor retail + residential higher floors are much better: Midtown (and Museum Park) can "right the wrongs" of Uptown/Galleria, so to speak. As far as industries going to Austin or Dallas, none of it matters UNLESS it is towards their respective central core areas (and not just developments in suburbia like Round Rock or Plano, respectively).