Jump to content

__nevii

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    129

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by __nevii

  1. __nevii
    The reporting was sort of strange. The very first report makes references to "man found shot/killed in elevator," only to then learn that the deceased was actually "only" 16 years old (a minor).
  2. __nevii
    Indeed onerous, especially since "impairment begins with the first drink" according to TX law — basically, the establishments are forced to build parking that the customers can no longer legally use. The fact that there were minimums at all was the issue back since the original passage in 1989/1990 (which would have been under Kathy Whitmire's administration). Then I believe the 14 spots was actually a slight stregthening from the original, the modification occuring 2011 (which would be Annise Parker's administration). And to think that those two mayors were supposedly "progressive" in terms of walkability/density: Kathy's admin advocated for the rail system that was later killed by the Lanier successor admin, while Parker's admin actually went on to extend reduced lot size requirements out to the larger Beltway 8 region. Either it was a conflict between mayoral vs council interests, or the leadership only partially, but not fully understood what was required for more ideal pedestrian fabric. Gee, I wonder what the parking requirements are like for places like Sugar Land. Pearland. Friendswood. League City. That's on top of the aformentioned nigh "free for all" ETJ/MUD areas. I don't know what the exact reasons are for Houston enacting those minimums to begin with those days — but the issue definitely should be looked at (particularly in light of "fiscal" talk many people like to harp on").
  3. __nevii
    Is the parking really that strict/non-negotiable? As seen through various projects on this forum, developers don't seem to have much issue in terms of variances regarding setbacks and anything else pertaining to Chapter 42. I'm trying to see all the codes that apply to the ETJ other than Chapter 42. Because it's quite possible that the parking mandates played a role in driving development out to the burbs (though I think that MUD creation + TXDOT highway policy + mid-century ideals were more significant factors).
  4. __nevii
    Yeah, if we are talking about constructs as they already are, then nothing would really change as per "grandfathering." At most, you'd see established restuarants "create more space" via tented outdoor seating (and other similar stuff regarding "businesses out of front yards). A more pertinent question would be "what would market-based parking do in terms of building design"? And the results would be pretty significant within the Inner Loop (as well as good amounts of Beltway 8) — lots of fine-grained, gentle "middle density" (i.e. courtyards, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, all sorts of plexes, etc) would start to saturate neighborhoods, as well as corresponding amounts of vibrant commercial activity. No longer would we rely on big blocky "5over1s w/storefront." In fact, I'd dare say that Houston transforms into a "true global, pedestrianized city" overnight — a large of this is due to Houston's lack of eucledian zoning, so when you consider the vibrancy that commercial activity can bring, I'd say it would be a far faster transformation than the "townhouse boom" of the late 90s onward. As an example of how significant this would be — in Houston, triplexes onward are considered "commericial buildings" within the code, not a problem due to lack of zoning ... except that current parking mandates make it such that the spaces needed to fulfill the corresponding commericial requirements would make the developments infeasible for small-lot infill within neighborhoods. There would not be much change in places like Kingwood, Clear Lake City, except that they would be cheaper (as people that would otherwise be out in those burbs are, instead, going to the newfound greater infill options). Only exceptions would be any new projects that happen associated with Johnson Space Center (and aerospace industry surrounding it). The entire ETJ in Houston has developed without any parking mandates (counties in are quite lax, and the only Houston codes that I've seen apply to those areas are Chapter 42, which controls subdivision rather than parking). Here's a writeup regarding outcomes in Buffalo, NY (which, in 2017, became the first city nationwide to remove parking mandates across the entire municipality).
  5. __nevii
    It's still doable. Actually, I'd say it can be done across the entire city (yep, even out to Kingwood and Clear Lake City). I think the main factors regarding the opposition to the market-based policies are more the usual misunderstandings of what it all truly entails. Given that it simply removes binding requirements, the developers can still build with parking included — CBD defined area (i.e. Downtown, and parts of East Downtown and Midtown) were never under any requirements, and stuff still includes parking (i.e. parking garage towers in downtown, as well as that infamous CVS around Bagby in Midtown). The city actually had no minimums whatsoever until ~1990 or so. That entire mess outside the city limits that we call "ETJs/MUDs" all operate without any sort of parking minimums either (despite the fact that they adhere to Houston's Chapter 42 regarding lots, subdivisions, etc). So, at the very least, there is precedent that can be pointed to in terms of addressing the complaints at hand. Ultimately, I don't think there are any principled justification for parking minimums whatsoever — it's all arbitrary psuedoscience. Interesting. I know that since the 2019 exemptions of EaDo and (more parts of) Midtown, the city extended market-based parking in 2020 to cover "primary transit streets". The original proposal that you refer to regarding 1/4 mile would have been an extension of that. I'm not sure about Whitmire administration yet — whether or not he would be more or less favorable to walkable urban reform compared to Turner (or Sheila). But the council is crucial, especially since they've gotten more power with the recent passing of Prop A in Nov — at the very least, we can now see where the members stand on specific issues like this parking reform, rather than just faceless goons that do the mayors bidding.
  6. __nevii
    They still need to let loose regardless. As mentioned before, hustle and bustle is inevitable near the center of a continuously growing city. More pertinently, the vast majority what the push-back is about is really just a by-product of car-dependent policies (i.e. traffic, noise, etc all result from more cars on the road) — there should be more and more support across the city for banning parking mandates, setbacks, lot sizes, and other stuff that reduce density and walkability. That way, the developers might have the chance to create these types of towers in ways that result in reduced/absent traffic. And height is very welcome, the towers should all go crazy as tall as possible — the heterogenity keeps you on your toes, so to speak. Plus, any shade cast would be very welcome given the heat of Houston's summers. But yes, I wish you and everyone else on here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
  7. __nevii
    On the contrary, they should just give it a rest and let loose. What are they so afraid of? If the likes of Sugar Land and Pearland can have "town centres" and apartments, then a little bit of "gentle" middle density + neighborhood commercial won't be the end of the world in the centre of the nation's 4th largest city.
  8. __nevii
    Precisely! If we truly want Tokyo-style "urbanization by right", then we really need to get rid of all these useless rules regarding deed restrictions/HOAs, parking minimums, setbacks, etc. Even if they don't like giant towers, the Boulevard areas (as well as similar places like Southampton, Braeswood, etc) can still integrate well with gentle "missing middle" density, as well as neighborhood-type commerce. Or, at least, they should support eliminating rules city wide — that way, the areas that can absorb the increased gentle building can do so, resulting in less pressure to build "towering apartments" in proximity to the pearl-clutchers.
  9. __nevii
    In summary: @samagon is correct in that policies like minimum parking requirements and setbacks ultimately play a role regarding the development of the city — regardless of city age, time period of boom, etc. Those mandates (especially parking) definitely need to go in order for Houston to achieve more of the Japan-esque, fine-grained "as-of-right" urbanism. @shasta and @Big E are also correct, in that a lot of the critiques for Houston are indeed misguided (or, at least, lacking in nuance and context). A lot of these critiques frame it as if it was Houston's "grand master plan" to be a "boring, utilitarian, sprawled out working city" — but they ignore/don't emphasize/misattribute/etc the significant roles by superior governments (see: Texas legislature and effects on TXDOT, MUDs, etc). This lack of context likely is what causes Houston's "lack of zoning" to be so heavily criticized — and the narratives spun from it (i.e. "Houstonians are uniquely car-dependent, and ONLY want their square footage and space") do play a role in disincentivizing/discouraging wills to change/seek solutions regarding the city's problems. @Justin Welling is, lastly, correct in that modern urban planners do seek the best for cities regarding engagement (i.e. including in terms of pedestrian-friendliness) — for sure, the "Robert Moses(es)" of the world saw it fit to plow freeways through city center ... but times have definitely changed since then. Although, in fairness, I've seen anecdotes and commentaries from professionals that Houston was often used as "example of what NOT to do" in the courses against urban sprawl, etc — so, in those cases, the misunderstandings about the city's/region's development patterns can, sometimes, permeate into the professional space. Although, for the most part, any "lack of progress" regarding these changes to the city would come more from the politicians (mayor, city council, etc), rather than the planners.
  10. __nevii
    That said, we do need to watch these eastern developments closely — quite some "surprises" possible.
  11. __nevii
    If future development were to follow the mold of "East River", then maybe ... just maybe ...
  12. __nevii
    What you say is indeed true, and it's actually part of what I alluded to regarding the "misunderstandings." And I honestly feel it might be a culprit in why Houston (and many other US cities in general) have been slower on moving through these issues than they otherwise might have been. The thing is, even on many urbanist-dedicated forums, I've seen, for ages and ages, how "Houston's lack of zoning creates ugly, unregulated sprawl" or other sentiments of the sort. Most likely a conflation of overall lack of regulation regarding development in general (which often happens from various state/federal level policies) with specific laws/lackthereof regarding a specific municipality? Regardless, I've seen the sentiment posted across Reddit, City-Data, etc — it was especially prominent in the wake of the flood events during the mid 2010s (Memorial Day 2015, Tax Day 2016, and especially Hurricane Harvey in 2017). So, when Houston (or some other Texas city except Austin) deals with lax land use the whole time, it's all the usual glib remarks of "small gubmint conservatives cutting corners, enjoying their freedums, etc". But then channels like NotJustBikes come along and advocate the same loosening of zoning restrictions. Or places like Minneapolis, Portland, make moves towards those loosening of laws. All of a sudden, it becomes "educated, enlightened, progressive bastion!" Just my speculation, but I it's possible the sort of "double-standard" might actually have played a role with regards to why changes in these policies have been so slow. It's very easy to look at the expanse of sprawl across the Houston area, and then pass it off as either "market at work, people are just fat and happy" or "Houston city planning sucks, lolz": meanwhile, significant context is ignored regarding the role both the federal and especially state level government (i.e. TXDOT framework, weak counties, powers granted to MUD developers, etc) played regarding all this. The recent proposition from the past November gives stronger powers to council-members regarding the agenda: perhaps that can be channeled for stronger moves regarding the pedestrian-friendly front (regardless of Whitmire, assuming he's more hostile than Turner at that front).
  13. __nevii
    Okay, now I'm starting to to see what posters like @monarch mean when they talk about "Austin and Dallas eating Houston's lunch:" https://candysdirt.com/2023/12/06/dallas-zoning-committee-inches-closer-to-eliminating-minimum-parking-requirements/ Although it should be stated that there's lots of misunderstaning pertaining to these issues — not just from the suburbanites, but even many of the "urbanists" I've seen all across other sites.
  14. __nevii
    The fear with John Whitmire is that he might be a MAGA in sheeps clothing, and screw up the city's politics from the inside-out (hence, completing the "plan" that Abbott and Co have regarding Harris County). I really hope he's just a more of the "reasonable centrist Democrat", as that wouldn't be too terrible an outcome regarding urbanism: a lot of reform. After all "StrongTowns" (i.e. featured on "NotJustBikes", coined the term "stroads") is a strong advocate for encouraging walkability over sprawl, and it does so via a relatively fiscal-based platform (which appeals readily to centrist, conservative/libertarian types). The recent proposition that passed in Nov gave more power additionally for city-council members to push items on agenda. That will give us a chance, at least, to see where they stand on issues pertaining to urbanism. Most important of all is to BAN PARKING MINIMUMS. If there's a way to organize, reach out, inspire action from leadership, gladly will do it.
  15. __nevii
    I'm reviving this thread once again, because I really hope that this newly mayoral + city council administration takes this issue seriously. Minimums need to be abolished STAT. It's quite shocking to see how slow many large cities are on this issue: even the likes of Chicago, Philly, and NY f*****g C still have them.
  16. __nevii
    Alright, all that makes sense. I keep forgetting that this project is strictly pertaining to TMC3, whereas the "BioPort" is a nearby, but distinct initiative (that also is related to TMC's expansion). But I will say this — eliminating parking mandates citywide will probably be the most crucial thing for the city to do in order to maintain the "competitive edge" that the posters might have been alluding to. I hope whoever wins the mayoral election takes the issue seriously.
  17. __nevii
    That post genuinely confused me as well. Is something bad happening regarding this project (and TMC3 as a whole?). Would be quite sudden if so, given the branding + proposed missions.
  18. __nevii
    In many ways, I actually do agree with this. While there's certainly quite some context concerning decades-old sports conflicts, I ultimately don't care for "fixations" that people might have regarding Dallas (and vice-versa): I just don't see any "goal" there is to derive from it. Matter of fact, the same applies to comparisons regarding places like NYC, Los Angeles, etc — those are very preeminent, well-loved cities for sure, but none of it is a "threat" to my liking of Houston (especially regarding the ability of the city to resolve the issues it has). I guess it sort of comes from discussions in urbanist circles that have become more prominent ever since the rise of StrongTowns, NotJustBikes, etc — it all reframes the debate in a way that more actionable, solutions-orientated pathways become more in greater focus. It stands in stark contrast to older discussions that I've seen across forums (from like, a decade or more back), wherein problems like "Houston's lack of tourism", "city just for work," "sprawl just cuz flat land, etc" were all treated as some sort of predestined outcome (as if there was some "God" of sorts that planned for the outcome). As far as any "inferiority complexes", those types of accusations ultimately don't matter when looking in terms of the truth value of propositions: it's all just ad homienms dressed up as paperback pop-psych. As the saying goes, "The map is not the territory."
  19. __nevii
    In a way, this is a good point. If Houston "was never on the radar to begin with", then the "rise of Austin" would be more a threat to DFW rather than Houston when in consideration of many "white collar sensibilities". I recall from demographic data that Houston's population growth has greater reliance on international migration, compared to both Austin and DFW that rely more on domestic migrants — and this does bear out, I notice that a lot more of the whole "Californians jacking everything up" rhetoric comes more heavily from Ausitn and Dallas areas relative to Houston. Meanwhile, Houston's greater international growth would me it more "removed from it all", especially when people oversesas might not necessarily be aligned with US domestic sensibilities (and that, if channeled, can go a long way regarding the ease at which "middle housing" policies, parking mandate cancellations, etc are dealt with).
  20. __nevii
    It's always interesting to see NOLA in this types of threads. Because, to me, the appeal of that side provides a direct falsification to a lot of the features that people claim as "handicaps" regarding the ability of Houston to "move forward." For instance, it's interesting how the terminology of "swamp" is used as a derogatory when describing the landscape, weather, etc of the Houston area compared to Austin, Dallas, and other inland Texas cities. But, notice how that very same attribute contributes heavily to the "mystique" that, along with the historical culture and demographics, generates a level of appeal regarding that city. It's the very same thing with climate. On sites like reddit or elsehwere, a lot of opposition regarding "walkability" in Houston is common refrains of how "its too hot to ever happen." Meanwhile, New Orleans a state away provides direct demonstration of hot, humid walkability, including infrastructural designs, sidewalks, dense mixed-use, etc. A similar phenomenon goes regarding the appeals seen in SE coastal cities such as Charleston, Savannah, as well as St. Augustine in Florida. Most recently, there's quite a bit of buzz regarding many US cities going through processes of "loosening" their zoning codes. And it's very interesting because in the past (even just, like 10 years ago), the common critique is how "Houston is unplanned mess due to lack of zoning": people talk about "Houston being an example of how NOT to plan your city" (nevermind that a lot of the issues that people refer to regarding sprawl are more the result of suburbanization enabled by Federal policies, along with State-level codes such as the TXDOT legislation, lax county powers, MUDs, etc). Now, it's turning out that Houston was "right" all along regarding the approach to eucledian zoning — and the city actually did not have any mandates regarding setbacks and parking minimums until 1982 and 1989, respectively ... so it's possible that the rhetoric is problematic as it might have caused leaders to "adopt" these policies due to wanting to avoid negative PR of "being unplanned." Hence, at this point, a lot of these "critiques" against the city, to me, just turn into a "badge of honor" if you will. Gotta truly embrace the "Great Unzoned City in the Swamp": great for building headquarters like this for a master plan 😁 The first step? ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS.
  21. __nevii
    I do wonder what exactly is "scaring" these developers from investing more in the Inner Loop? Are the parking minimums really that much of a deal-breaker? Or are there still some obscure ordinances in place that disincentivize development? I know that it can't be the minimum lot sizes, because those apply strictly for sfhs in the city (and they are absent regarding other use types) — and the lot sizes in the Inner Loop (and within Beltway 8) are more permissive than the rest of the area (ch42 also controls ETJ development). Similar story with setbacks. Ideally (and optimistically), I'd like a "decentralized but cohesive" approach, on account of the lack of zoning. Basically, every square inch, nook, crannie, etc of this city is thoroughly saturated with dense walkable urbanity — for instance, I'd like to "blur" the line between downtown and elsewhere, get some mix-use, shops, etc to "erase" the "office park" ... but still have good accessability with other areas so that you don't have "disconnected islands" like what CityCentre is currently (it's like you said: a nice development that would have been even better along/connected to Inner Loop, if not necessarily inside Downtown). Not to mention, there's lots of talk about the "separation" between downtown, TMC, Uptown, etc but they are not all that far from each other. For example, TMC to Downtown is just a straight shot across a park (Hermann) and two tight neighborhoods (Midtown and Museum Park) — meanwhile, Downtown to Uptown follows through Montrose and Greenway/Upper Kirby. Even when the other poster mentioned "the center of the city regarding 34th and Ella", that is basically still right upon the Inner Loop and the urban form there (not to mention that the study wasn't even about the city's population, but more about the metro area sprawl in relation Harris county's distinct shape with that "northwestern point." Basically, I'd like to move beyond the "quintessential American" zoning product of "singular downtown and everything else drop off to sfh" and go more "raw urban mass saturated throughout the city". I guess Tokyo provides a good example of what I mean, especially as I've seen many urbanists praise the Japanese national zoning system for the deregulated approach and resultant affordable urbanity (similar to Houston). But these places in Asia like Shenzen, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc they are living in the future.
  22. __nevii
    I don't know if there is an ordinance or something preventing it ... but I just feel that there is a better way to construct pathways (both pedestrian and cyclist) in this city, as opposed to what some of these recent developments are doing. You can see the problem in the streetview below — a historical structure of good form w/respect to the bayou banks (while admittedly old and worn out) was completely razed, only to be replaced with a sidewalk that looks more at home in Cinco Ranch (rather than the downtown of America's 4th largest city). https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7635853,-95.3578698,3a,75y,176.78h,90.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sk5tl9jQvAGpLL6g1C5YgLg!2e0!5s20230101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
  23. __nevii
    That said, I'm confused about these parts in bold. While I do agree that the lingering building regulation can stymie ideal urbanist's environment, Houston doesn't even segregate housing types (in addition to lack mandated residential, commercial, etc separations). Hence, I don't see any legality stopping a huge surge of "middle housing" in Houston in case density is needed. The overall lack of absolute density restrictions in the city can yeild apartment towers where needed (hence highrises in Montrose, even River Oaks at Huntingdon). The ETJs/suburban areas have deeds of their own, as well as larger minimum lot sizes compared to city center. Parking mandates were also not present at all in the city until 1989/1990 period, I believe. So, basically, I'm not sure how much developers are actuall prevented in building new infill in Houston given the lingering regulations. Or if they simply go for the suburbia green-fields due to being enabled by state legislature's highway building (via imposing highway focus on TXDOT).
  24. __nevii
    BWAHAHAHA, glad to see this project still going. NIMBYs can stuff it. Now if only we can them to recognize the connection between the "problems" associated with the increased developments, and the city's lingering regulations regarding parking mandates (which need to be axed ASAP, they are the number one rule that is limiting Houston's infill potential).
  25. __nevii
    They could at least make the garage less conspicuous, if not drastically reduce/eliminate it outright. The LRT station is literally a few hundred feet from this thing.
×
×
  • Create New...