"Has Houston development gone wild?"

[lockmat]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...m.80c5ece4.html

What's yalls take on this?

As of now, I just see this as the city being lazy. Although I'm sure it's wise for developers to take certain things into consideration, the City needs to react to the city's trends and changes. (or not react, but be more proactive. Which they are already, but is it enough?)

I don't know if this necessarily calls for more rail, although I want to say it does, the city should not be complaining and instead should find solutions to mitigate problems naturally caused by the new housing market.

[TheNiche]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...m.80c5ece4.html

What's yalls take on this?

As of now, I just see this as the city being lazy. Although I'm sure it's wise for developers to take certain things into consideration, the City needs to react to the city's trends and changes. (or not react, but be more proactive. Which they are already, but is it enough?)

I don't know if this necessarily calls for more rail, although I want to say it does, the city should not be complaining and instead should find solutions to mitigate problems naturally caused by the new housing market.

It is hard to take a stance on this because KHOU provided so few details. I have questions: Would the regulations apply to all parts of the City, both urban and suburban, or just to selected areas? Would the regulation apply to all developments of all sort, ranging from single-family residential, to retail, to hotel, to industrial to special use? Would the regulations apply to large projects just as much as they apply to a few townhomes? Would they apply to a custom-built single-family home? Would the results of the traffic study be used as grounds to deny a building permit, or would they be utilized only to try and optimize project design?

For what its worth, my gut reaction is that someone buying a home in the Montrose area for instance needs to recognize that they aren't the very last new resident of the neighborhood that ever will be. They are buying themselves a position within an unfinished work of art, albeit one that has a predictible conclusion. People want very much to live there, so it will continue to densify and congestion will get continually worse because developers are providing sufficient numbers of people with the ability to live where they want. It is no secret. If you can't deal with it, sell out and move to the Heights until the same thing starts happening there and then move again. Don't buy into the self-absorbed delusion that you 'own' a neighborhood just because you live there, and if you start lobbying politicians to put up barriers to entry, then you'd best be prepared to be called out by me as nothing more than a greedy property owner looking to profit at the expense of society...because that's precisely what you are. ...and if you're a renter supporting these policies, then be prepared to be called a dumb-**** because you're only being a catalyst to your own rents going up.

[lockmat]

It is hard to take a stance on this because KHOU provided so few details. I have questions: Would the regulations apply to all parts of the City, both urban and suburban, or just to selected areas? Would the regulation apply to all developments of all sort, ranging from single-family residential, to retail, to hotel, to industrial to special use? Would the regulations apply to large projects just as much as they apply to a few townhomes? Would they apply to a custom-built single-family home? Would the results of the traffic study be used as grounds to deny a building permit, or would they be utilized only to try and optimize project design?

For what its worth, my gut reaction is that someone buying a home in the Montrose area for instance needs to recognize that they aren't the very last new resident of the neighborhood that ever will be. They are buying themselves a position within an unfinished work of art, albeit one that has a predictible conclusion. People want very much to live there, so it will continue to densify and congestion will get continually worse because developers are providing sufficient numbers of people with the ability to live where they want. It is no secret. If you can't deal with it, sell out and move to the Heights until the same thing starts happening there and then move again. Don't buy into the self-absorbed delusion that you 'own' a neighborhood just because you live there, and if you start lobbying politicians to put up barriers to entry, then you'd best be prepared to be called out by me as nothing more than a greedy property owner looking to profit at the expense of society...because that's precisely what you are. ...and if you're a renter supporting these policies, then be prepared to be called a dumb-**** because you're only being a catalyst to your own rents going up.

It seems like if one project isn't going to bring a great amount of new residents that it wouldn't be such a big deal. But many smaller projects in one place might justify enforcement of this requirement. But then again, the future can't be told. Projects go up at different times and by the time the last one goes up, it might be too late and there won't be any place to put the required green space. And is it fair that only the last developer has to use his own money to fund such a thing?

And I agree 100% with your second paragraph. The neighborhood I live in now is much like the Heights in that it has very old single family homes at high prices, I like it. It's a nice single family neighborhood within walking distance of downtown. But things just have to change I guess, which like you said will happen in midtown and the heights.

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but how does high density development even happen in a place like Midtown and the Heights when it's so unwanted by current residents? Do developers come in and make irresistable offers to buy homes from home owners?

[cottonmather0]

I think that story misses the point because the problem isn't with traffic, per se - it's with parking and overflow onto the narrow streets because there are no common areas for guests to park when visiting some of these multi-unit developments built on formerly single-residence lots. People end up parking on the street instead, which clogs up traffic as a secondary effect. What the city needs to do is mandate more off-street parking for these projects rather than just requiring a 2 car garage for every unit and leaving visitors to fend for themselves.

[Pumapayam]

Big construction projects on little streets have a lot of people at Houston

[GovernorAggie]

Traffic impact studies are long overdue. I can't believe it's just now coming up. Developers will build what they want as long as they think the market will buy into it...but I think that they should also have to cover that freedom of choice. I think that Houstonians pay too much of their tax dollars for road widening projects for private developers to make money (or at least not spend money to help with needed widenings or turn lanes).

[CDeb]

I think that Houstonians pay too much of their tax dollars for road widening projects for private developers to make money

Private developers may make money, but we also benefit with housing that is more affordable than before.

[TheNiche]

Private developers may make money, but we also benefit with housing that is more affordable than before.

Yeah, there are really two groups that benefit the most from transportation projects: land owners and consumers.

Developers are just a middle man between the two. Once land becomes more accessible, the price of that land increases and developers have to pay that price before they can develop it, which means that their profit margins are effectively the same. The only way that developers benefit is because consumers are able to afford to buy more homes and stimulate more development business as a result...but who would argue that that is a bad thing?

[musicman]

I think that story misses the point because the problem isn't with traffic, per se - it's with parking and overflow onto the narrow streets because there are no common areas for guests to park when visiting some of these multi-unit developments built on formerly single-residence lots. People end up parking on the street instead, which clogs up traffic as a secondary effect. What the city needs to do is mandate more off-street parking for these projects rather than just requiring a 2 car garage for every unit and leaving visitors to fend for themselves.

i tend to agree. but the arguments from the developers would be that it results in lower cost when you can put more units on a single piece of property. currently the city caters to the developers and that is why we have our current ordinance. IMO several of the urban projects in midtown have too little parking which results what we have now.

in neighborhoods, this really has tremendous effects and the resulting quality of life is a lower one.

[cottonmather0]

i tend to agree. but the arguments from the developers would be that it results in lower cost when you can put more units on a single piece of property. currently the city caters to the developers and that is why we have our current ordinance. IMO several of the urban projects in midtown have too little parking which results what we have now.

in neighborhoods, this really has tremendous effects and the resulting quality of life is a lower one.

True enough, but any economist would respond to the developers and say that the true "cost" of the property is constant, whether it's all captured and paid by the homeowners or whether as an externality that is borne by the whole neighborhood. The job of the city is to use good planning and ordinances to make sure the homeowners are paying for the full cost of their home and not shifting it onto their neighbors.

If a homeowner in Hyde Park wants to invite three families over for dinner, those three families will have to park three cars somewhere. If the homeowner lives in some tuna-can-box development with no extra space for off-street parking, then the guests will park in the street and you end up with the problems detailed in the story. In that case, the entire neighborhood bears the cost of the homeowner's decision to have a dinner party that night. It might not be a monetary cost, but it's still a cost.

If the homeowner lives in a less-dense development with extra city-mandated parking spaces off the street, then yes, the developer would say that the cost of the house is more expensive, but the higher mortgage payment is justified though, in an economic sense, because the "cost" of the dinner party is being borne by the person who decided to invite people over and not by motorists who just happen to be driving by that night.

[musicman]

True enough, but any economist would respond to the developers and say that the true "cost" of the property is constant, whether it's all captured and paid by the homeowners or whether as an externality that is borne by the whole neighborhood. The job of the city is to use good planning and ordinances to make sure the homeowners are paying for the full cost of their home and not shifting it onto their neighbors.

the amt that the developer can make is more if they can get another unit on it. ultimately that is why they try and get as many on one lot as possible. with our current ordinance, it becomes difficult to maneuver a silverado or f150 in the complexes. just better hope that a fire truck can maneuver should an emergency arise.