__nevii

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

I have spent the last several years defending Houston because of its small but significant and hard-fought improvements. But between HISD, I-45, and the machete spree that the last four months have been to every scrap of progress we've been fighting for, I'll be honest - I'm damn near ready to give up on this city. I suppose that's the goal.

It is — Republicans are cowardly and scared that they are losing their grip regarding state political control. Lots of GOP led positions in Harris county swept by Democrats in 2018 onwards. They are trying every trick in the book to destroy urban areas/make living conditions miserable such as to drive out left-leaning people (who tend to like well-functioning urban environments). This is their dying grasp in attempts to wrestle back power.

That is why they are trying to control elections in Harris county. That is why they took over HISD. That is why they are attempting to push I-45.

Now, the only thing that will complete this theory is whether or not Whitmire is "in on it" regarding the Republican agenda.  Is he a "lackey" of Abbott, sent in to Houston because the state leaders knew that no Republican would win a city race? Or, is he simply a "useful idiot?"

But the wrinkle, is whether or not they truly drive Texans out of the state. Stuff at HISD, I-45, etc might only merely drive Houstonians into suburban counties, or to other cities in the state at best. If the voters themselves have not changed, then popular elections like governor's seat will remain unaffected.

With regards to Elizabeth, she seems relatively good faith regarding transit needs (if a bit misguided). Nothing like Mealer's hostility. The problem is that Elizabeth is seeming like the "religious type", literally putting belief over actual facts and data:

Metro chair aims to boost police presence, on-demand service (houstonlanding.org)

https://x.com/petesfinetweets/status/1786127165827751986

On 4/23/2024 at 12:31 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

Phase 2 funding is being challenged by our mayor. Please let H-GAC know we want these improvements! Send them a quick email: publiccomments@h-gac.com

On 4/23/2024 at 10:02 PM, samagon said:

what does HGAC have to do with Montrose?

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).

5 hours ago, hbg.50 said:

No.  It had federal funding dollars but was not entirely federally funded. 

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

4 hours ago, hbg.50 said:

None of the mayor's actions make sense unless he is reprioritizing the city’s budget.

If you look at the two big projects he's stopped they are both TIRZ-driven. My sense is this mayor is anti-TIRZ.  Maybe he views them as inequitable?

Perhaps, though this particular project was federally funded.
 

Quote

It would be nice if we had an inquisitive press that would actually ASK questions instead of just reporting decisions that have been made.   I would like to know the rationale behind the decisions. 

Then we'll get another round of terrorist excuses (just as with Houston Ave.)

14 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I was worried because he had made negative comments about Washington Ave getting 8-foot sidewalks when Deer Park doesn't have 3-foot sidewalks. But even I didn't expect him to be this much of a steamroller. 

Oh, and I also saw this:

https://x.com/mightylzrdking/status/1784430691398091104

6 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I was worried because he had made negative comments about Washington Ave getting 8-foot sidewalks when Deer Park doesn't have 3-foot sidewalks. But even I didn't expect him to be this much of a steamroller. 

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).

14 hours ago, texan said:

There was a time when a state Senator John Whitmire wrote a letter of support for this project. I really wonder how ignoring the community input to create this project is even possible halfway through the project. I didn't think the mayor had this much power over the city or had this much narcissism to claim he can do the traffic engineers' jobs. More importantly, I wonder who gave him a campaign contribution to cancel this project and how much that was.

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.

12 hours ago, astrohip said:

why is this a problem?

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...

 

Quote

If current residents have "locked away" the land use in their area, doesn't that indicate that current residents want a certain type of development? Why should you, or anyone for that matter, be able to decide how an area should be developed that is "locked away"?

This does not apply to areas that have no restrictions. If there is no zoning, or deed restrictions, or land use limits of any sort, then yes, you can develop. So an Ashby Hi-Rise would be allowed. But if there are restrictions of any sort, why should someone else decide to throw them out?

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.

Quote

Isn't that "taking"?

No more so than the 13th amendment "took away the rights" of certain states to practice certain actions...

11 hours ago, hbg.50 said:

You’re the one who sounds like an insolent fool.

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). 

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

The Norhill area? A lot of that is already historic districts and/or deed restricted. 

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.

7 hours ago, Marray said:

I am not sure why the animosity towards people who ACTUALLY LIVE in the Rice Village area. Many have worked hard and have invested their lives and money into the neighborhood that they call their HOME.  It has been for a CENTURY a VILLAGE of small shops of unique nature which lent charm and the feeling of community to its RESIDENTIAL surroundings.

I am surprised to see that someone has indicated that Randall Davis is about to close with THE OXBERRY GROUP as owners of the property when the Harris County Appraisal District still shows it as owned by a small company and the ground is still classified as a SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING within  the Chaucer STREET neighborhood restrictions. As far as I am aware, unless that property gets a replat on its neighborhood which requires a public notice and hearing any building of a 13 story building is a fantasy. Mind you, the square footage of this lot is 17,500 sqft which is basically two lots wide and is by HCAD records 100x175 feet.  There are in this area HEIGHT limitations and sewer usage additions that would have to be approved long before any building permits  and of course, anyone who chooses can find that the only permit for this property approved as of ten days ago was one for a three story office building to have been completed in 2022 which obviously did not happen.

Further to that, upon asking the Davis company rep what the intended to do about garbage pickup as the plat rendered for the building indicated that it would be wider than possible to allow access for a garbage truck to pickup a dumpster.  The rep said, and I quote " the houses behind here have their garbage picked up on the street". Yes, that is absolutely true, one black wheeled bin on Tuesdays and Green recycled every other. Does Randall Davis expect the neighborhood to deal with thirty black bins sitting on the curb every Tuesday?

And what about traffic? Rice Boulevard is basically two lanes with a center turning lane to help traffic for the SHOPS and the RESTAURANTS and the CHURCH AND ITS DAY SCHOOL access their very limited parking and drop off. Rice is also a main artery for Medical Center due to the confirguration of Greenbriar and Shepherd. A real estate broker I spoker with told me that when Davis built the LONDON HOUSE they blocked off San Felipe and took it to one lane. What damage would that do to the retail in the Village if their parking and access are blocked? They are already operating with very limited parking- it is a VILLAGE.  When viewing the Chaucer's plans they had only reserved 8 guest parking places so where will housekeepers, repair people, friends, healthcare workers, decorators, park? In the shops parking? And what about during construction that will have to involve cranes?  Chaucer Street itself is constantly used for parking both sides and is too narrow for cranes so what RICE Boulevard will be blocked off and people going to the Medical Center will be rerouted through the Rice Campus? I think not.

And what of the MILLION dollar plus homes behind this approximately 175 foot tower? How would you like that looming over your HOME? And, yes, the people who bought there knew they were up against commercial but those commercial lots had HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS  why do you think Hungry's new building is as tall as it is? This height based on the fact they are offering 11 foot ceilings in 2 bedrooms and 13 foot in Penthouses and four floors of parking and the obligatory build up Harris County requires for flooding- OH DID I MENTION FLOODING????? YES, this area floods. The corner of Rice and Morningside has flooded a number of times. The vet office on the corner up to the office, the shops along Rice up to their doors several times. And while this would be a high rise, getting in and out in a flood is impossible.  I personally watched a man kayak down Bolsover.  Has drainage improved? Of course but what do you think will happen to the system when 30 more kitchens and at least 50 more bathrooms are added?

And, for you all that say oh it is progress. Yes, Houston is a growing city. One must only drive out to Fulshear and see what used to be beautiful ranches with horses now cookie cutter houses all basically the same house every fifth one. And before you shred me, I am a NATIVE HOUSTONIAN, born in Hermann Hospital, raised in Oak Forest in a middle class post WWII GI LOAN house.  My Daddy, a Yankee, used to drive us down Sunset to look at the trees on Sundays and then spend a day in Hermann Park.  I am glad he got to know I lived in Southampton , NOT WEST U but part of THE RICE VILLAGE for THIRTY YEARS.  I have seen progress when the largest building was 20 stories went to 49 and was called the Humble Building and the observation tower had a machine that made plastic models of it.  I was around when they converted the cow pasture at Post Oak and Westheimer into the Galleria  and that was 1968!  I have been here when Highway 59 stopped at about Voss and they were widening Highway 45 to Galveston. WAIT!!!!!! They still are widening Highway 45!!!!!

The point I am trying to make is the residents, NOTE I SAY RESIDENTS, of the RICE VILLAGE, which includes RICE University, Southampton,Broadoaks, Southside, Pemberton, and the West U  care about our VILLAGE. We are not afraid of RICH PEOPLE, you are correct in saying most people there are THE RICH PEOPLE and they pay A BOATLOAD of taxes to Houston, Harris County, HISD, and to their individual city entities to have the homes they do. What they don't need or want is a bunch of entitled out-of-towners who don't really want to be part of a VILLAGE to trash, overpopulate, clog up with traffic, or disrespect our century year old community.  By essence the very construction of this monstrosity will kill the retail , the shops, the economy, the ECO SYSTEM as a building of that size will do nothing to help the 100 year old oaks on Bolsover.  This building is not appropriate for this sized lot, the community, or our village and will only serve the line the pockets of egotistical developers.  We are a diverse community of many backgrounds, cultures, religions, and age groups not forgetting it is RICE Village and is part of the UNIVERSITY - students and their interests.

PLEASE, I invite you to do your homework and read about how the Hanover Rice Village got built and HOW Randall Davis promised the same sort of product and got the city of Houston to sell Bolsover to him with promises of a RESIDENTIAL parklike strolling lane which became a COMMERCIAL GARAGE,with  loud, rowdy, drunken brawling street level restaurant clients  and apartments above it  when he backed out, sold out the community by making the OWNED CONDOS into rental units.  We remember it well and all the lovely oak trees sacrificed as well.

Also read about the Randall Davis Diamond Beach development that the Sales office at Chaucer touts perhaps read about how that business unfolded. Maybe talk to owners at Chateau Ten on Sunset and ask did they get what they were promised .  The Sales Office at The Chaucer has a huge disclaimer that says what you are looking at subject to change or cancellation  hmmm  and they are taking contracts on property they do not yet own and have no permits for?   Taking 10% deposits with 2% back if the deal folds when they can get 5% on YOUR MONEY and do nothing.  What kind of cancellation fee DO YOU PAY?   Back to the disclaimer...the groundplat for the building shows a thirty foot residential rear buffer yet the building if one adds the size of the drawings of the apartments makes the building longer than the 22 foot and the 8foot alleyway  behind.  The 8 foot alleyway along three properties behind has been enclosed and fenced since before 1995 so their drawing is inaccurate and would not allow for either garbage pickup or the "over sized dog park" they advertize.  So BUYER BEWARE .  DO YOUR HOMEWORK . This property has NOT according to HCAD RECORDS been replatted and is still a residential  SINGLE FAMILY HOME subject to the same restrictions as the CHAUCER STREET properties which run perpendicular to this lot owned by Rice University and the Christ the King Church and ALL three stories or less.

Why do I care? I lived for thirty years EXACTLY behind this location. I made friends and neighbors here. I have done business and still do business with many of the shops even though I must drive to them and hassle with the parking. I feed my former neighbor's cat when he goes out of town. I buy doggie treats , get my cleaning done, fill my prescriptions, have a coffee, and say hello to those faces I have known for DECADES.  It is still my VILLAGE and I care that the people that live there with their FAMILIES, their cats, their doggies,  have a place that they can call their community .

You cannot allow this building to further destroy the Village .  

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.

13 hours ago, hindesky said:

Rasmus is a respected pastor in Houston with a long-standing reputation for completing apartments in the low-income neighborhood with city and state support. So Rasmus said he was surprised to read a recent Houston Chronicle story that described how the law firm Hoover Slovacek had raised concerns over Rasmus asking the city's Planning Commission for permission to build the Crawford closer than 25 feet from the property line.

The attorneys representing a real estate developer, which specialize in upscale apartment complexes, said the Crawford's request for a variance goes against Houston's Walkable Places ordinance promoting wide sidewalks, and that the request could interfere with ambitions to remove the Pierce Elevated as part of I-45 expansion and build a park resembling the popular High Line in New York City.

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

27 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

The sidewalks are legit soo narrow, you have to walk in a single file instead of side by side if you're walking with someone...... I cannot stand this roach mayor. Are we not paying thousands of dollars in taxes for these services? Our infrastructure is legit crumbling.... we can't seem to fix the traffic problem because we're told we just need more roads, the actual roads are pothole infested and falling apart, the side walks are abysmal, we have 3 nice parks in the entire city. Now the mayor wants to budget cut on an extra foot or 2 on wider side walks???? 

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?

17 hours ago, staresatmaps said:

Car "access" like it's some form of disability to not own a car.

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

On 8/27/2022 at 2:24 PM, Ross said:

You don't read the Greater Heights Nextdoor, do you. It's full of hate and venom about how the street changes and the new apartments and such are just ruining and destroying their idyllic little world, and the City needs to stop all of this from happening.

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.

On 4/6/2024 at 10:19 PM, Highrise Tower said:

Shame what happened to this proposal. Really hoping there is a capital investor to fund this development sometime soon.  I know that Houston's life science sector really hasn't gained traction yet.  Let's hope it picks up steam soon!

Huh?

I know the perfect way reframe TMC³:

"Bringing new volumes to the life sciences" 😉

On 3/31/2024 at 4:57 PM, Renaissance1999 said:

 I really don't want midtown to turn into another mostrose or heights filled with townhomes.

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).

5 hours ago, editor said:

I think more "alleviate" than "resolve."  I don't think there's a magic bullet for solving the problem.

An interesting idea that is very old, but I only learned of recently, is changing the way property is taxed.

Instead setting the tax based on the improvements on the land, the government taxes the value of the actual land.  Here's a Times article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/business/georgism-land-tax-housing.html

Here's the upshot:

---

 

“Blight is rewarded, building is punished,” he said in a recent speech, repeating it over and over for emphasis.

The refrain is a windup for Mr. Duggan’s scheme to fix the blight: a new tax plan that would raise rates on land and lower them on occupied structures. Slap the empty parcels with higher taxes, the argument goes, and their owners will be forced to develop them into something useful. In the meantime, homeowners who actually live in the city will be rewarded with lower bills.

…

The notion that land is an undertaxed resource — and that this distorts markets in destructive ways — unites libertarians and socialists, has brought business owners together with labor groups and is lauded by economists as a “perfect tax.” And yet despite all that agreement, there are just a handful of examples of this policy in action, and none in America that match the Detroit proposal in scale.

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