Houston's zoning proposal

[TheNiche]

To answer your first question, yes, form-based can be applied to specific areas instead of just layering over a whole municipality. Even zoning is flexible enough to be applied to certain areas that want certain qualities. Davidson, NC (a small city mind you) went to a form-based approach for its downtown area, for example. With a form-based approach, Midtown, Uptown, Downtown, and Westchase are going to have different approaches than Third Ward, Fifth Ward, or Montrose--and they should because those are the people that actually live there! Washington Heights probably will not like 8-story condo buildings in its neighborhood, but maybe they would like more homes that have front porches instead of garages as the dominant feature of homes. Likewise, based upon Westchase's new plan, it's unlikely that the built form along Westheimer will begin to look more like Washington Ave.

Form-based embraces the different forms in a city. It actually addresses the different forms within an area. In Midtown, for example, the form that Midtowners may want might have bigger, more intense structures (notice that I didn't say uses), wider sidewalks (with provisions for sidewalk cafes), and benches along Main Street, Travis, McGowen, and Elgin. However, along Caroline or Bagby, the preferred approach is shorter buildings, maybe skinnier sidewalks, and more on-street parking. Form based looks at the relationship of the public ROW to the private ROW.

For your second question, it has nothing to do with health, safety, welfare, in my opinion. That's why it's more of an electable method, not one that is imposed upon property owners in an area by some arbitrary body.

I'm not asking whether different parts of town can get different treatments, but whether it is possible for parts of town to get no treatment at all. With traditional zoning, it would be illegal to zone some but not all of a municipality, for instance.

Also, planning folks often fail to recognize that even if you mandate that structures be larger in Midtown, for instance, that doesn't mean that anything will be built. More likely, all that happens in that case is that such regulations impede the pace of development and delay the onset of a critical mass necessary to kick the market into gear for such projects. This is one reason that I'm skeptical of zoning and form-based codes: planners frequently have no grasp of reality and can do more harm to their own cause than good.

How are form-based codes electable? Are they enacted like deed restrictions? Or is there a comprehensive plan that has to be approved by referrendum (i.e. a tyranny of the majority)?

No chopping. i will add that i attended the kickoff meeting of this phase of the urban planning initiative on saturday. turnout was horrible and the group i was in mentioned the "z" word and the responses definitely varied from one end of the spectrum to the other. the city planning people were very frustrated as well.

Yeah, I heard from sources that turnout was 88 persons. And yes, it seems that they were immensely frustrated.

[musicman]

I'm not asking whether different parts of town can get different treatments, but whether it is possible for parts of town to get no treatment at all. With traditional zoning, it would be illegal to zone some but not all of a municipality, for instance.

Also, planning folks often fail to recognize that even if you mandate that structures be larger in Midtown, for instance, that doesn't mean that anything will be built. More likely, all that happens in that case is that such regulations impede the pace of development and delay the onset of a critical mass necessary to kick the market into gear for such projects. This is one reason that I'm skeptical of zoning and form-based codes: planners frequently have no grasp of reality and can do more harm to their own cause than good.

How are form-based codes electable? Are they enacted like deed restrictions? Or is there a comprehensive plan that has to be approved by referrendum (i.e. a tyranny of the majority)?

Yeah, I heard from sources that turnout was 88 persons. And yes, it seems that they were immensely frustrated.

i think 88 would be an overestimate. 4 of the 10 at my table were city planners. maybe 88 would include the planners.

[DJ V Lawrence]

At first, I didn't see any point in having any zoning in Houston, but then I saw this earlier today...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4717463.html

It's the article on where they're planning on doing a crackdown on SOBs (the PG term for those kinds of businesses on HAIF). The article clearly states where those kinds of businesses are not supposed to be established, but it doesn't state where they CAN be located. It'd probably be smart if the city and those types of businesses worked a deal and said "hey, this particular area will be designated for those kinds of clubs, and we'll assist with the move, and those that stay in the current spots will be shut down."

(Not sure if this part's related) I also think that zoning or no zoning, the city needs to help assist Midtown developers more with revitalizing that area by not having so many codes and restrictions on new developments there i.e. high-rises, new restaurants along Main, etc.

[musicman]

(Not sure if this part's related) I also think that zoning or no zoning, the city needs to help assist Midtown developers more with revitalizing that area by not having so many codes and restrictions on new developments there i.e. high-rises, new restaurants along Main, etc.

speculators caused much of the problem. land is just too expensive and developers are scared they won't make a profit.

[TheNiche]

It's the article on where they're planning on doing a crackdown on SOBs

Is there any evidence that strip clubs and schools don't mix well? Serious question.

(Not sure if this part's related) I also think that zoning or no zoning, the city needs to help assist Midtown developers more with revitalizing that area by not having so many codes and restrictions on new developments there i.e. high-rises, new restaurants along Main, etc.

Concur.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Is there any evidence that strip clubs and schools don't mix well?

That's a good question. I don't think it does anything to the schools because of the good laws already in place to ensure that the kids aren't exposed to that kind of stuff. I think Mayor White's problem is that it just doesn't sound good to say that a stripclub or adult shop are in the same neighborhood as a school. Either that, or he doesn't like the thought of having any SOBs whatsoever in Houston, and he's doing everything in his power to shut the entire industry down. I really don't know their crackdown intent.

If it's just the school thing, and Mayor White doesn't intend to force people to lose money or jobs etc., he'll in the coming days announce that should these types of business places decide to move to another part of the city instead of just close completely, then there would be certain parts of town where they could rebuild and be protected from being forced to move again. (If that happened, I think it'd be smart to just have an area for that so other developers knew where they all were, instead of them scattered out throughout the city where it could affect multiple developments, future schools, etc.).

If it's the total shutdown thing he wants, then he's going to say that there's no place SOBs could move to in Houston without scrutiny and the threat of being forced to move again. Sure, a club could move to a space where it's nowhere near a school, but what would happen when HISD decided to build a school beside a stripclub after they already met all the ordinances?

Is White moving to have clubs relocate, or to ban them all together?

[N Judah]

If it's what I think it is, I think that some people (including HBJ, which wouldn't be a first) have this confused. If it's form-based, that's all it is--form. It's not just building size, but also setbacks and parking placement. I think it's a good idea if its presented as kind of a "pre-packaged" option for a developer to choose if he wants to build a development that's different than the prevailing ordinances in place. Otherwise, he has to spend time going through time consuming and money-consuming variance requests and processes to reduce setbacks, parking, etc.

I think its harmless to at least have the options.

I like that idea. Get someone to create a list of traits we would like to see in our city or in a particular neighborhood, and anyone who meets the criteria gets (a) fast-tracked, (b.) doesn't have to do any heavy lifting or experience any anxiety over uncertainty when it comes to design, and maybe even (c.) gets some decent tax breaks. Developers who meet the list of criteria would naturally also want to develop near other developments that meet the criteria (since a development with tree-shaded sidewalks, pedestrian orientation etc. both receives and creates added value from being near other pedestrian enviromnets instead of, say, a used car lot). Get a bunch of them together and presto -- I think you could get something pretty interesting.

[GovernorAggie]

I'm not asking whether different parts of town can get different treatments, but whether it is possible for parts of town to get no treatment at all. With traditional zoning, it would be illegal to zone some but not all of a municipality, for instance.

Also, planning folks often fail to recognize that even if you mandate that structures be larger in Midtown, for instance, that doesn't mean that anything will be built. More likely, all that happens in that case is that such regulations impede the pace of development and delay the onset of a critical mass necessary to kick the market into gear for such projects. This is one reason that I'm skeptical of zoning and form-based codes: planners frequently have no grasp of reality and can do more harm to their own cause than good.

How are form-based codes electable? Are they enacted like deed restrictions? Or is there a comprehensive plan that has to be approved by referrendum (i.e. a tyranny of the majority)?

Yeah, I heard from sources that turnout was 88 persons. And yes, it seems that they were immensely frustrated.

I would think that there would be options for parts of town to get no treatment at all. Regarding Saturday's event (which I attended), it only applies to the areas directly around transit stations, and nowhere else UNLESS other areas wanted it to. I think that a great way for a form-based approach to work in Houston would be to make it that a self-designated (or city-designated like superneighborhoods) area like Old Sixth Ward decides what they want their area to look like, and then they proceed with the tools provided through exercise like these to decide their own path. On the other hand, Tanglewood could say, "we're fine as is" and not have anything at all if they don't want to. I like Super Neighborhood structure because they already have active, aware citizens and memberships--and their boundaries are set. A Super Neighborhood like #64 could, as a part of their regular meetings and workshops, bring up this issue and foster neighborhood communication on whether they want it or not. If they don't, then they do nothing. If they do, they get city staff (who they pay through tax dollars) instead of paying consultants like a TIRZ would do, to help them with workshops, etc. using tools and ideas that may come out of this urban corridor exercise to help them decide their own destinies. Kind of like deed restrictions on a Super Neighborhood level--but they wouldn't supercede existing deed restrictions or areas with Super Neighborhoods. Once the SN decides what they want, the people can vote on it.

Also Niche, I think that you broad-brush too many planners. I don't know how many you know personally, but I will tell you that Houston's planners are some of the more realistic that I've ever seen. Almost too realistic compared to planners in other cities. With that in mind, Houston planner KNOW that zoning won't work here, and some are even glad that we don't have it. Planners in Houston know that the market rules the day here as well--but at the same time, they're the ones who know more than you and I if they've gotten applications for developers wanting to do development that's unlike your typical Hwy. 6 development. They know how often developer may not have bothered due to the variance issue. Wouldn't that be ironic that "free-market" Houston makes it tough for developers of a niche-market like urban/transit-oriented development to come here en masse--because of regulations?

As far as electability, I would think that the codes are electable just like anything else, and since they aren't zoning ordinances, there's really no comp plan that has to come along with them. Speaking of, why do you call that tyranny of the majority? It seems to me that it would be more "tyranny of those who attend the workshops to determine these comp plans". Comp plans don't happen without a lot of public input, and then scrutiny before being approved by a local planning commission.

[TheNiche]

I would think that there would be options for parts of town to get no treatment at all. Regarding Saturday's event (which I attended), it only applies to the areas directly around transit stations, and nowhere else UNLESS other areas wanted it to. I think that a great way for a form-based approach to work in Houston would be to make it that a self-designated (or city-designated like superneighborhoods) area like Old Sixth Ward decides what they want their area to look like, and then they proceed with the tools provided through exercise like these to decide their own path. On the other hand, Tanglewood could say, "we're fine as is" and not have anything at all if they don't want to. I like Super Neighborhood structure because they already have active, aware citizens and memberships--and their boundaries are set. A Super Neighborhood like #64 could, as a part of their regular meetings and workshops, bring up this issue and foster neighborhood communication on whether they want it or not. If they don't, then they do nothing. If they do, they get city staff (who they pay through tax dollars) instead of paying consultants like a TIRZ would do, to help them with workshops, etc. using tools and ideas that may come out of this urban corridor exercise to help them decide their own destinies. Kind of like deed restrictions on a Super Neighborhood level--but they wouldn't supercede existing deed restrictions or areas with Super Neighborhoods. Once the SN decides what they want, the people can vote on it.

Even then, the more I think about it, the more I'd be weary of this process. I think that the end result would be a lot of neighborhoods jumping on the bandwagon, whether there's a real need for these kinds of restrictions or not, and if it were decided at the Super Neighborhood level, I can tell you right now there would be lots of internal conflict. Some parts of Super Neighborhoods are disproportionately more vocal or forceful than others (i.e. 3rd Ward, MacGregor Terrace, Eastwood, Lindale Park, Idylwood, etc.) and could really dominate any discussions or input. I can see how this might errupt into conflict along racial lines. And I can especially see how this might result in gobs of money spent on a problem that, IMO, just isn't a problem. Workshops and planning staff aren't inexpensive.

Also Niche, I think that you broad-brush too many planners. I don't know how many you know personally, but I will tell you that Houston's planners are some of the more realistic that I've ever seen. Almost too realistic compared to planners in other cities. With that in mind, Houston planner KNOW that zoning won't work here, and some are even glad that we don't have it. Planners in Houston know that the market rules the day here as well--but at the same time, they're the ones who know more than you and I if they've gotten applications for developers wanting to do development that's unlike your typical Hwy. 6 development. They know how often developer may not have bothered due to the variance issue. Wouldn't that be ironic that "free-market" Houston makes it tough for developers of a niche-market like urban/transit-oriented development to come here en masse--because of regulations?

Actually, I agree with you. In relative terms, Houston's planning staff has become very pragmatic since Mayor White took office. We certainly haven't seen as many go-nowhere planning studies that reflect amateur uninformed opinions from the neighborhood that are neither realistic in the market or even tied to the CIP. Unfortunately, he is subject to term limits. I prefer to design our political systems to survive stupid people.

And as far as the existing regulations being a burden to developers, I'm with you on that one too. Let's make it easier, but not by creating a complicated system of exceptions to the existing rules. Let us embrace a very broad freedom as a driving motivation for planners. What could be simpler? What could be more efficient?

As far as electability, I would think that the codes are electable just like anything else, and since they aren't zoning ordinances, there's really no comp plan that has to come along with them. Speaking of, why do you call that tyranny of the majority? It seems to me that it would be more "tyranny of those who attend the workshops to determine these comp plans". Comp plans don't happen without a lot of public input, and then scrutiny before being approved by a local planning commission.

A tyranny of the majority is bad enough because all it takes is for 51% of people to say that the other 49% cannot do what they'd prefer to do. It stifles creativity. It devalues the individual. It strips property owners of the rights that they bought into without their expressed consent.

And the "tyranny of those who attend the workshops to determine these comp plans" is far worse. Do you honestly think that the folks that show up at these events are a valid cross-section of the public, the voting public, property owners, or just about any constituency from any particular geographic area?

[plumber2]

That's a good question. I don't think it does anything to the schools because of the good laws already in place to ensure that the kids aren't exposed to that kind of stuff. I think Mayor White's problem is that it just doesn't sound good to say that a stripclub or adult shop are in the same neighborhood as a school. Either that, or he doesn't like the thought of having any SOBs whatsoever in Houston, and he's doing everything in his power to shut the entire industry down. I really don't know their crackdown intent.

If it's just the school thing, and Mayor White doesn't intend to force people to lose money or jobs etc., he'll in the coming days announce that should these types of business places decide to move to another part of the city instead of just close completely, then there would be certain parts of town where they could rebuild and be protected from being forced to move again. (If that happened, I think it'd be smart to just have an area for that so other developers knew where they all were, instead of them scattered out throughout the city where it could affect multiple developments, future schools, etc.).

If it's the total shutdown thing he wants, then he's going to say that there's no place SOBs could move to in Houston without scrutiny and the threat of being forced to move again. Sure, a club could move to a space where it's nowhere near a school, but what would happen when HISD decided to build a school beside a stripclub after they already met all the ordinances?

Is White moving to have clubs relocate, or to ban them all together?

I feel sorry for the neighborhood that gets to host these relocated businesses. How is this process going to work? The one neighborhood that doesn't get the word quick enough to put up a complaint gets the rotten egg. Let them stay were they are at. All businesses run in cycles, so as soon as one of theses shuts down don't

allow another one to reopen in it's place.

[musicman]

I feel sorry for the neighborhood that gets to host these relocated businesses. How is this process going to work? The one neighborhood that doesn't get the word quick enough to put up a complaint gets the rotten egg. Let them stay were they are at. All businesses run in cycles, so as soon as one of theses shuts down don't

allow another one to reopen in it's place.

supposedly now that the ordinance has been upheld, the distances mentioned between the biz and a church/school/day care/and same type of SOB will severly hinder the owners.

[nmainguy]

I feel sorry for the neighborhood that gets to host these relocated businesses. How is this process going to work? The one neighborhood that doesn't get the word quick enough to put up a complaint gets the rotten egg. Let them stay were they are at. All businesses run in cycles, so as soon as one of theses shuts down don't

allow another one to reopen in it's place.

We were able to put a bar on N. Main out of buisness by constantly reporting every thing we could think of: noise, parking, public intoxication, broken bottles in the street, mis-placed trash, on-site junk piles, etc...the last two are $500 per occurance fines.

If you report often enough the police will continue to hammer them with fines until they either move or have their license pulled. This technique also works well with Alley issues and people building on the ROW.

We have no desire to have bars or SOBs in our neighbor hood. We prefer to have higer property values to keep the low-lifes at bay-plus it makes for a more pleasent place to live.

[dbigtex56]

That's a good question. I don't think it does anything to the schools because of the good laws already in place to ensure that the kids aren't exposed to that kind of stuff. I think Mayor White's problem is that it just doesn't sound good to say that a stripclub or adult shop are in the same neighborhood as a school. Either that, or he doesn't like the thought of having any SOBs whatsoever in Houston, and he's doing everything in his power to shut the entire industry down. I really don't know their crackdown intent.

If it's just the school thing, and Mayor White doesn't intend to force people to lose money or jobs etc., he'll in the coming days announce that should these types of business places decide to move to another part of the city instead of just close completely, then there would be certain parts of town where they could rebuild and be protected from being forced to move again. (If that happened, I think it'd be smart to just have an area for that so other developers knew where they all were, instead of them scattered out throughout the city where it could affect multiple developments, future schools, etc.).

If it's the total shutdown thing he wants, then he's going to say that there's no place SOBs could move to in Houston without scrutiny and the threat of being forced to move again. Sure, a club could move to a space where it's nowhere near a school, but what would happen when HISD decided to build a school beside a stripclub after they already met all the ordinances?

Is White moving to have clubs relocate, or to ban them all together?

It sounds like he's out to ban them altogether. There are no 'grandfather' clauses for SOBs and no assurances that they won't be forced to move again for the reasons you mentioned.

I have to echo a question previously asked - what do schools, daycare centers or churches have to do with SOBs? I know a man who owns several adult bookstores. His properties are more attractive than any of the surrounding buildings. Signage is discreet, landscaping has been installed and maintained and security provided. Isn't this a more desirable neighbor than, say, a combination convenience store/gas station/crackhead hangout?

The laws banning such businesses within a certain distance of churchs is especially egregious. Where does 1500' feet appear in the Bible or the Constitution? Absurd.

[Montrose1100]

I have always wanted to build a tall sleek glass-sheathed townhome along Navigation across from the upper reaches of the Houston Ship Channel. Something starkly juxtaposed to its environment. I could kiss that idea goodbye. San Leon (among the last unincorporated and unzoned bastions of waterfront freedom), here I'd come!

How dare you steal my dream!

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Zoning is stupid and im very much against it! Im not quick to put more power in the hands of a few short term and mildly informed jackasses, "city council".

Only thing that should be encouraged is the creation of deed restrictions in areas that currently dont have them. That gives the residents of those areas a voice in thier communities as to how things should be run without the lunatics in city government touching it.

In our area, Champions/Champion Forest/Northgate Forest, we have VERY STRONG deed restrictions and they work just fine for us. The same can be had in other areas of Houston free from excessive government legislation.

[TheNiche]

How dare you steal my dream!

Sign a prelease. It can be a duplex.

Nah, its still a ways off. Probably at least 5 years, and that's only if I do really really well for myself.