__nevii

1 hour ago, editor said:

It was zoning that made mixed use districts possible in big American cities, not a lack of zoning.

With all due respect, this is demonstrably false.

1 hour ago, editor said:

Houston has had 150 years to prove that a lack of zoning makes things better.  Clearly the experiment has failed.

Nope, this is a fallacy of composition/division (well, just division in this case). That there are overall issues with Houston's built environment does not directly equate to "lack of zoning" is a problem/contributor to that.

You are also indulging in sampling bias wherein you are ignoring the earlier parts of those 150 years wherein the city was much more pedestrian-focused, without all the issues of autocentric sprawl that we think of today. As well as ignoring that cities are overall dynamic entities continually changing in every-waking minute of the day (hence, premature to come to te conclusion that "it failed").

In prior comments here, I've specifically mentioned both the overarching factors (USDOT and TXDOT), as well as local factors (i.e. city ordinance minimums in parking, setback, and other such stuff) that have directly contributed to the problems that you speak of regarding Houston: all of these regulations are the end products of government intervention, much in contrast to the market-driven lack of zoning.

@j_cuevas713 @samagon

Indeed, the interference that Culberson and people before him (Lanier, Delay, etc) have caused definitely set the city back in many ways. Getting rid of Culberson during the 2018 race for Lizzie Fletcher definitely helped alot. Especially since the restrictions that Culberson placed on Houston Fed rail funding got totally wiped out the next year.

On 4/16/2012 at 9:26 PM, shasta said:

I definitely agree citykid09. The problem with a city that expands and annexes to capture a tax base is purely short term thinking. They are thinking what is in it for them now and are totally ignoring the fact that they are going to have to go in an maintain the infrastructure and possibly even replace it in 50 years or so.

Houston is entering that stage where they are going to have to allocate a large chunk of their budget to replace aging infrastructure. To add insult to industry, the lack of zoning, city plan, and pro 'sprawl' mentality may actually force that expected tax base to be located outside of the city limits. Where are they going to get money to repair aging infrastructure. The federal government? We all know Texas and Houston is not as aggressive in hunting out federal funds but the Kirby infrastructure project is a great example of a federal/local project. We have to continue to do these and possibly shrink the city limits to maintain.

I sure hope our city leaders is preparing for this future.

I understand that this post was made over a decade ago, but I would say that lack of zoning (in the context of how US zoning laws have been used throughout history) is pretty much the polar opposite of "pro-sprawl": all the mixed use that everyone likes the celebrate in Europe and older parts of American cities are exactly what is possible without the restrictive forms of American zoning.

Houston's main barriers are really just parking minimums (and any FAR, setbacks, etc that exist, although I think those have more variances than the parking minimums).

@Brooklyn173 @j_cuevas713

Some of these cases though seems more like the intervention of larger entities, rather than any individual city's choices. In the above mentioned case, it was USDOT that initiated the partnership with Austin, so will aid in facilitating some of the projects in that city.

In much the same way, pretty much all the issues in Houston regarding sprawl (as well as with the other TX cities) is the end product of TXDOT and mandates regarding highway expenditures (controlled by the state government). A lot of ire should really be directed at the state government: I've always found it interesting how much people try to separate politics from discourse when it has such a major impact regarding outcomes (especially societal concerns like transportation/overall infrastructure, etc.

The city's themselves would be in control of things like minimum parking, and other zoning/building codes that can affect mobility outcomes.

19 hours ago, Big E said:

Transitioning children? Really? That's what you think is going to stop this from happening? Look, I don't care if you think its is God's gift to man or mutilating children. It has nothing to do with ARPA-H which will be focused on things like cancer research.

 

I doubt many doctors are abandoning the state over abortion or "gender-affirming care" for children, especially since many probably oppose these things themselves. And for those that leave, many will arrive to replace them. TMC is not defined by any of these things either.

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).

19 hours ago, HoustonBoy said:

Lets hope Texas can rid itself of the far-right and remain free from the far-left.

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).

8 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:

Let's stay on topic folks. If you'd like to discuss political issues there is a sub-forum for that.

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.

1 hour ago, Big E said:

Over what, exactly?

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.
 

17 hours ago, LosFeliz said:

Uh, Paxton has threatened to sue Texas Children's Hospital and is going after patients and doctors. It will have a devastating effect if the tide doesn't turn quickly.

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).

1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

Starting with the Inner Loop seems more politically feasible. My experience is that many laypeople think “market parking” means “no parking” would get built with new developments, when that’s not the case (look at Texas Tower, Brava, et al in Downtown). Starting with the Inner Loop helps drive that point home.

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."

53 minutes ago, houstontexasjack said:

Let’s start with market-based parking throughout the Inner Loop.

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.

12 hours ago, HNathoo said:

They're within the TOD area that would allow for up to a 50% reduction in code based parking.

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.

On 5/15/2023 at 3:58 PM, cityliving said:

The design of the building definitely sucks but I guess in a city like Houston developers can build whatever they want because there is no zoning.

On 5/15/2023 at 5:25 PM, Brooklyn173 said:

Zoning has little impact on good versus bad design. An apathetic market that accepts whatever is dished out is what truly impacts the zeal for better design. If cheap and bland sell, then give 'em cheap and bland.

On 5/16/2023 at 7:26 AM, Texasota said:

This building is literally worse than it could have been because the city *didn't* let the developers "build whatever they want". 

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."

On 5/19/2023 at 10:11 PM, Houston19514 said:

Yeah.  But there’s no regulation requiring them to have garages.  

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).

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

Outside of the exempt areas (downtown and parts of MIdtown and EADO), townhouses are required to provide off-street parking, but I don't know of any regulation that requires them to have garages.  Is there one?

But more importantly, even if they weren't required to provide off-street parking, it's pretty unlikely many townhouses would be bult without garages, the vast majority with two-car garages.

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. 🤷‍♀️

14 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah he ended up calling him to ask about his comments and then from what I understood, asked for an apology. If we're going to tout ourselves as the 4th biggest city, we need to quit crying over spilled milk comments from random people. From what I gathered, a lot of people liked Houston and had a great time. Now I do personally believe his comments were nonsense. Downtown was alive, and people were everywhere. If he had a bad time, that's his boring ass fault. 

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.

On 4/10/2023 at 6:23 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I hope it does. A few Super Bowls and other big events haven't shifted much. I'd say a lot more has come in the form of private development than the city getting it's act together. The problem with Houston is it moves way too damn slow. I hear it all the time from people from other cities. One lady I met from NJ asked me why it seemed like people didn't take their job serious enough down here. It was actually one of the reasons she left Houston and went back to NJ. At the time I was like screw you you're from NJ, but now that I think about it I get what she was saying. It seems like city leaders move at a pace of "we'll get it done at some point" instead of having a sense of urgency to get it done TODAY. If I'm the city, I would find every available dollar to get reconstruction going on a lot more streets. I'm still waiting for W Alabama and Emancipation to finally kick off, but who knows when they actually will. While we don't have the most extensive transit system compared to other cities, we also don't provide enough incentive to walk and use what we have. We need to start enforcing our sidewalk ordinance where property owners are responsible for maintaining them. The city can work with property owners who have more serious sidewalk issues but basic cleanliness shouldn't be an issue. We also need to get rid of parking minimums inside the Loop and the city needs to quit being scared to force people out of their cars. 

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).

On 4/13/2023 at 9:09 AM, Naviguessor said:

Cannot Wait, until this topic just blows over.  It's embarrassing insisting on an apology and shows everyone just how insecure we can be.

Just let the breeze of time carry it away already.  

On 5/10/2023 at 1:18 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I agree. Mayor Turner should have never called him back expecting an apology. 

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.

On 4/8/2023 at 3:07 PM, editor said:

Hopefully, this acerbic opinion from an importantish outsider will act as a little kick in the pants of local officials to get them to stop staring at their bellybuttons and understand that Houston needs to step it up. 

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.

On 4/10/2023 at 7:39 PM, steve1363 said:

You know, I think you might be right.  Case in point…The Houston Botanic Garden…first it took decades to actually open and now it is developing at a snail’s pace.  There is literally nothing to see there (after 2 1/2 years)…It makes me mad when I compare it to the Dallas Arboretum and Fort Worth Botanic Gardens.

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).

On 2/13/2023 at 2:58 PM, NB_Brendan said:

🚨NEW BLOG!🚨

Why parking lots are a waste of space in the Space City.

https://www.nobull.blog/p/parking-lots-nothing-city

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