__nevii

As others have mentioned, it does have an impact. The location of ARPA-H is a decision from the federal government, which would be the Biden Administration in thise case: lots of doubt that he would choose a red state making increasingly regressive policies regarding social well-being, healthcare, and higher education over the blue states on the East Coast where such problems are absent. Said regressive policies are already increasingly driving talented students out of the state. And with the progress that has been made in science regarding both abortions and gender-affirming care, it is going to be increasingly an oxymoron to find those talented doctors that also happen to disprove of such practices: this points to a net-result of a clear brain-drain, a drain that could stymie the ambitions of the TMC project (particularly concerning for TMCx, the innovation arm, although the manufacturing BioPort arm would probably still be a boon to cover for things regardless). Nah, far-left is fine. At least then, there's much better oppurtunities regarding robust safety nets, increases in technology, and other advancements of the human condition such that a stronger floor is present regarding mitigation of the suffering inherent with sentience/existence. The overall egalitarian ideals of leftism leads to less indulgence in "migh makes right", "fundamental attribution error", "is-ought fallacy", and other such religious addictions: as a result, leftism is inherently more adaptable, flexible, and reliable in our universe that trends towards entropy (wherein the vast majority of cosmos is inimical to life). Ordinarily I'd agree. But, in this case, actions taken by the state government have direct impacts regarding the results of this particular project: no different than economic circumstances that have altered, postponed, or cancelled numerous development projects.

Frankly, conservatism is an extinction-maker: nothing more than religious addictions to rigid status-quos, hierarchies, and other such apophenias that will easily falter in a universe trending towards entropy... The recent extreme brand of conservatism offered by the current right wing figures like Abbott, Paxton, Cruz, DeSantis, Trump, etc is especially undesirable. It needs to be stopped, lest it festers and infects the entire country (or even the world) with harmful, regressive policies. Might seem like a bold stance in a forum like this, but talented medical officials are currently fleeing/turning down jobs in this state due to recent policies regarding the bans on abortions and gender-affirming care. If it continues long enough, that could totally hobble the ambitions regarding this entire TMC project.

Culture war fluff. The old geezers in government are too infused with religious nonsense to understand the nuances regaring the transgenders (as well as LGBT in general). They think that they are qualified to make medical decisions, as opposed to the doctors, while simultaneously failing to realize the nuances regarding the gender-affirming care given to minors versus adults.

The Texas government is increasingly being a thorn on the side regarding Houston/Harris county. I even created a thread in another forum detailing the predicament (along with the fight against it).

Fair — though the final say would be through city council of course, as per previous processes. By the way, "market-based parking" is actually a good phrase to describe the process: not only would there be a lack of face-value language regarding elimination of parking, you'd have even the suburbanite neoliberals, centrists, mild conservatives, etc getting their economo-phillic fancies tickled by the laissez-faire goodness that is "the market."

What you are describing is most likely the execution as-per the Houston Climate Action Plan guideline (released in 2020): market-based efforts extending first to the Inner Loop, before moving into the Beltway 8 zone in the mid 2020s, and then total elimination city-wide as per the noted 2030 deadline. But you might as well go for a full YIMBY approach and eliminate the minimums on the spot, soon as possible. Several upcoming mayoral candidates have been involved with city council and/or METRO transit, so there's some foundation — however SJL is probably the most well-known name in the race, so hopefully she isn't NIMBY.

That, and non-exempt areas elsewhere across the city influenced the observed so-called "market-demand" within the exempt areas. Hence, as mentioned prior, the true experiment will come with killing parking-mandates city-wide (yes, even for territories like Kingwood and Clear Lake City).

@editor is correct. The front-loading garages ARE a by-product of laws requiring offstreet parkspaces, because they are a follow through of builders from the general offstreet parking (and I did grant that there were options, hence the shared-driveway workarounds as mentioned earlier). Hence, your mentions of the "market" are only correct in the abstract: unfortunately, the reality is that "the market" in this case is perverted by the litanny for car-centric government regulations that have occured for decades in Houston (and other US cities in general due to government subsidies). Abolishing all those regulations in the city will not change car-centricness overnight ... but the groundwork would indeed be solidified in constructing a true pedestrian city, especially as transit options improve: including townhomes, MFHs, etc with true street presence, without any garages, setbacks, etc.

Definitely agree with the bottom two posts, it does seem that a true "live-let-live market utopia" could actually have produced a sleeker, sexier, walkable building than what we are getting. The current parking minimum exemptions only encompass Downtown, as well as parts of Midtown and East End, meaning that this building in the Museum District was still subject to the regulations. As a result, the developers were forced by the city to include lots more parking (in garage form) than they would have desired. Parking mandates need to die citywide.

I think the common "Western Wall" shot from Buffalo Bayou Park/Elanor Tinsley is actually the weakest angle regarding Houston's skyline. You have all the non-descript 80s buildings all in one front: the issue is that they are big and beefy enough to hide the true skyline density contributed by the many shorter buildings, while also being so massive that it would be hard for a new tower to stand out (even if it were a super tall). The result is that it makes the skyline look so spaced-out/low density. The southerly and easterly views are better in that they show more of the building density. But some filling out is what is needed to make those views better. For now, I much prefer view with a northerly component, especially northeasterly like the one below. Captures the true building density, a good amount of the ornate older buildings, while also having clear views of the modern additions. A supertall would show up nicely.

The recent actions from the Texas government has made it increasingly clear that the state has it out for Harris County. Not only with the suspicious state takeoever of HISD (despite an overall decent "B" grade, with plenty of worse off elsehwere in the state), but also the recent laws that have been coming out of state legislature: SB1993 grants the Secretary of State (SoS) the authority to rerun elections "under certain circumstances" for counties with at least 2.7 million people. This bill passed Senate, and is currently in House limbo. Unfortunately, two other bills have made it past House, with only the Governor's pen awaiting... SB1750 abolishes the election administrator position for "counties with 3.5 million or more," returning duties to elected county clerk and tax asscessor. Both positions are currently (D) in Houston, so not a big deal (overreach aside), right .... https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/texas-bill-abolishing-harris-county-election-position-heads-to-governor/ Not so fast! Here's the particularly egregious doozy: SB1933, which grants the SoS the power to seize election authority (administration, voter registration) from local officials, and even suspend and replace them, with nothing more than "good causes to believe in 'problems'". The dooziest part? The bill had a last minute amendment right on the spot in House just to increase the population threshhold way up 4 million... https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1661106078518476810 So, why such specific threshholds, hmm? Want to take a guess which is the ONLY county in Texas to fulfill said population thresholds (at least, at time of bill creations)? Moreover, are the purported "election problems" in question not possible STATEWIDE, regardless of population? Oh, and the Secratery of State is actually one of the few Texas positions that is non-elected (instead, appointed by governor) ... and there is NO BURDEN OF PROOF regarding the so-called "causes to believe" in question: clearly not a conflict of interest, right? 🙄 No matter how it is sliced, this is straight up targeting baked into legislature. Way worse than the uproar concerning the "Tennessee Three". The "F-word" not only came out of hiding, it is blatant and blaring its foghorns loud and clear... Note: this thread has political relations, but I posted it here since this forum was more active/livelier, as well as the fact that the particular forum in question (Local, State, Federal politics offtopic) was missing the option to "create a thread."

You know, I never actually said that they specifically mandated garages: more that those features were often the byproduct of the remaining pedestrian-unfriendly regulations still in city code. (setbacks, minimum parkings, etc).

The garages for the townhomes (and the driveways that lead to them) are part of the offstreet parking requirement. That said, there are some workarounds regarding shared driveways.

@j_cuevas713 Indeed. Many a buisiness owner would like to open their bakeries, coffee shops, book stores and other such niche botiques nestled within the burgeoning townhouse neighborhoods. But they can't, because the parking minimums, setbacks, and other such nonsense rules mean that they have to include more spaces than they'd want, limiting them to fewer options across the city: and dealing with the legal hassles can eat up money, especially for immigrants whom mom-and-pop businessse are the most accessible option for making money. In fact, even the townhouse developments themselves are stymied, since regulations force them to include garages that limit the street level from what it'd otherwise be. The rules could possibly be preventing other middle options (duplexes, triplexes, etc) from becoming more common too. If there are any new townhouse/building developments in Eado and Midtown that have occured between 2020 to now, those should be a bit different from the previous wave given the 2019 exemptions in those areas. Hopefully, the city takes the data into account. But, yes. The city already lacks zoning, so it might as well go full free-market and abolish the remaining regulations that it does have. 🤷‍♀️

Also, the city released a climate action plan back in 2020 that called for parking minimums to be abolished city wide no later than 2030 — I updated the one parking minimums thread that I saw elsewhere on the forum. I'm thinking that they are extending exemptions piece-by-piece through the decade (startng inside 610 first, before gradually expanding to Beltway8 and beyond to even annexed Kingwood, Clear Lake, etc). I just don't want a situation like you mentioned, where they are too slow and "twiddle-their thumbs," only for politicians like Abbott to swoop in, and enact even more stringent controls against the cities than he is already is doing (i.e. the election laws in Texas Senate targeting Harris county being the most egregious).

Since the discussion that has occured, the 2020 Climate Action Plan released by the city calls for the elimination of parking minimums citywide no later than 2030. http://greenhoustontx.gov/climateactionplan/CAP-April2020.pdf That leaves me wondering whether the city will do it "step-by-step", starting with 610 before moving to Beltway 8 and beyond. That's what I hope, because it is much better than the alternative of thumb-twiddling until the very last minute.

I mentioned this in response to @editor's post, but I do wonder how much of the city is purely from the leader's disgression, versus how much depends on feedback from the locals. Because if the leaders are slow and inefficient as suggested, then the whole thing is a kakistocracy that needs to be thrown out. On the flip side, the latter predicament would mean that we need to get as much urbanists on board in order to get the city to abolish things like parking minimums. I'm really not sure the delay with respect to "parking minimums," because that stuff looks like it is easily solved with the stroke of a pen. The city already made the efforts to extend exemptions into EADO and Midtown back in 2019: so I don't know if the delay is them trying to figure out how to address the more autocentric portions of the city outside of the 610 Loop (especially since places like Kingwood are inside Houston city limits).

I haven't seen much of what became of this topic other than the initial remark, tbh. Ned did eventually apologize, although I'm not sure if Turner took it personally to reach out for that, or if the apology was simply given after the responses from Turner, Lina, etc. If Turner reached out personally, then it was indeed overdone. But I will say that addressing Ned's remarks, especially in disagreement, isn't necessarily "insecurity": that stuff is just irrelevant ad hominem/affirming-the-consequent fallacy, no different that MAGAs crying "WOKE" in response to pushback against their policies.

I agree. At the same time though, what does "stepping it up" entail? There's too much subjectivity and "humptydumptyism" that comes with terms like "ugly" or "soulless." The particular reasons that "Ned" might have had in saying what he said about downtown Houston would differ greatly from what you or some others might feel. This is why lots of discourse like this becomes an unproductive circle-jerk of "Houston sucks:" no concrete paramaters are given, nor are sound arguments addressed thoroughly. Anyway, if we assume that "Ned's" comment was referring strictly to the lack of active vibrancy in downtown Houston compared to what he was used to in the Northeast, then I do not disagree: there's no doubt lots of work to be done on that front by the city officials. That said, how much of the control comes purely from the local officials? If they don't know what they are doing, then the leadership is a pure kakistocracy that needs to be replaced (whether democratic or republican). However, I don't doubt that local residents can have a say in what policies get enacted: I guess we need to get enough people on board with urbanism and YIMBY to relinquish things like parking minimums.

Perhaps. But the comparison is quite flawed, since those DFW gardens have been present/growing in for decades, as opposed to the Houston site that you acknowledge is only 21/2 years old. It might simply be that the recent winter events across Texas have stalled the aggressiveness that might otherwise have taken place in the garden, though Houston's climate profiles are better off in that regard compared to pretty much the rest of the state (everywhere else statewide is either hotter/drier and/or gets colder during winter, both factors that limit plant diversity).

In 2020, Houston released a "climate action plan" that calls for, among other things, the city-wide abolishment of parking minimums (and other such regulations). More steps towards YIMBY goals. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-21/houston-s-climate-plan-could-make-it-a-green-model

I agree with this, especially as it comprises part of what I meant in my above comment regarding "question-begging." Basically, a lot of the "problems" for Houston are "taken for granted/as a given" without any attempt to support the arguments. Then, the (often sound) dissent is always shouted down as "delusional," "not-well-travelled," or other such attempts at affirming-the-consequent condescention. For instance, as you allude to, biodiversity is known to be maximized with both warmth and wetness, which the coastal South (including Houston) has in spades compared to much of the land north (colder in winter), or west (largely more arid). There is great agricultural, cultivational, horticultural, silvicultural, etc oppurtunities to be enjoyed, especially in accordance to the subtropical Deep South aesthetic (palmettos, evergreen oaks and magnolias, thick spanish moss, etc). All of that provides solid counterpoints regarding why the "consensus" (unscientific) of Houston's "inferior outdoor oppurtunities, aesthetics, etc" can't be taken for given.

The problem with these articles (and many of the discussions that emanate from them across the various threads) is that they always devolve into hierachial presups, and other contrivances related to the religious reification of cities as if they were sentient entities. Must be why there's often the typical laudry list of unsupported circularity (begging the question, affirming the consequent, etc), fact-value gaps (is/ought-naturalistic, just-world errors, often backed by ad populum), etc. The end product? People always making these non-cognitive, (Dunning-Krugered)confident assertions of "what Houston is" (as if some fixed, unchanging entity) as well as "what the world thinks of Houston" (which is impossible to be certain of). That said, I will say that the vast majority of problems of this sort are solved simply by greater urbanization of the city: abolishment of minimim parking, setbacks, etc that allow the true potential of "no zoning" to be unleashed. The urban environment will take the city's already existing food, culture, arts, iconic scenes, etc and elevate them into the palpaple entities sought after by the "creative-class" types that tend to create these articles/pass these judgements of Houston. On another note, it's interesting to see how "cool and hip" tech, media, associated venture capital. etc were even as recent as 2014, contrasted with the more cynical "late stage capitalism" outlooks recently regarding ALL corporations (regardless of "boring O&G" or "flashy tech/media"). It really does seem

@hindeskyhas some bayou photos in another thread from the regatta that look quite nice. Not to mention the sheer density the townhomes are adding (though their pedestrian-friendliness is up for debate).

It seems to me that the Burnett area around San Jacinto Monument, or even the Braes/Buffalo confluence around Brady's Island/Harrisburg, would have been much better siting regarding the intesity of development that we now see from Houston. The Allen's Landing location seemed fine in the past when the city was much smaller and low intensity. But now? The heavy skyscrapers and freeways just seem so overhwelming for how narrow the bayou is farther west. I think the intensity of development and resultant alterations in run off ecology leads to far less days of clearer bayou water as depicted in @hindesky's post above. Take, for instance, the Brazos River southwest of Houston: that is a much larger watershed across the state, and a much stronger/faster current, so I'd expect stronger sediment suspension naturally. In contrast, the slower, gentler Buffalo Bayou would lead to less energy for sediment suspension, so the water was probably clearer until changes in runoff from Houston's sheer growth: I would imagine that the bayou was consistently clearer in the past, either blue-green like those photos above in open areas, or stain-glass tea-colored "blackwater" when through thicker forested areas like around Memorial (due to tannins from pines and other such trees).