Walkable Us Cities

[RedScare]

Judah, you probably already know this, but any zoning, even in a limited area, would require a citywide vote to change the City Charter. Also, it would be illegal to only zone a small portion of the city, even if we legalized zoning.

However, since we have no zoning, there is nothing to prevent a developer from amassing a portion of land around a rail station and developing it as you suggest. In fact, if you find the money, I have some great ideas.

[N Judah]

I have heard that, but am interested in what sorts of changes to the City Charter that might entail or what the City Charter specifically prohibits. For example, there are policies governing setbacks etc. which (using my definition) are already a form of zoning. Changing/updating those would be a start.

Or maybe the city could eminent-domain crucial plots of land and then let real estate companies submit bids and choose the best proposal. Sort of like choosing the design for a new library, or a new fighter craft...except at the civic level.

[TheNiche]

I have heard that, but am interested in what sorts of changes to the City Charter that might entail or what the City Charter specifically prohibits. For example, there are policies governing setbacks etc. which (using my definition) are already a form of zoning. Changing/updating those would be a start. And anyway I am not suggesting this for the entire city...rather just a chunk of it.

I agree about the setback comment, but Red's point was that enacting zoning for just a chunk of the City is actually a higher hurdle than is enacting zoning for the whole thing.

Or maybe the city could eminent-domain crucial plots of land and then let real estate companies submit bids and choose the best proposal. Sort of like choosing the design for a new library, or a new fighter craft...except at the civic level.

METRO already has the power to do that within (I think) a quarter-mile of any LRT stop; it was a concession granted by the powers that be in order to stave off talk about zoning later on, once rail was built and nothing was happening. So far, however, they've been afraid to use it.

[memebag]

I agree. It probably would have been better if we weren't on the study at all.

Really? I was surprised we were ranked as highly as we were. Are you ashamed of where you live?

I think Houston would be the perfect lab to try new forms of urban planning, but no one seems to be willing to take the risk. In the same way that the Chinese government designated an area of Shanghai (I think it was) to be a free-trade zone, I think Houston should take a chunk of land surrounding, say, a LRT stop and try some zoning or at least something new.

Please, please, please, no. I don't want to live in a lab. If I did I would move to Epcot. If you must take a chunk of land, take the Galleria or a chunk of River Oaks. I'm not using that land for anything right now.

[TheNiche]

Please, please, please, no. I don't want to live in a lab. If I did I would move to Epcot. If you must take a chunk of land, take the Galleria or a chunk of River Oaks. I'm not using that land for anything right now.

You already live in a lab of sorts. Houston being the only major city that has never had zoning, it is completely atypical of most other large cities. It serves as an excellent study of urban form given a natural state and is frequently cited in academic studies of urban economics.

If the idea of changing policies for experimentation's sake was adopted, it'd just be silly. Since no other city is like us, what might be learned from experiments in Houston couldn't be repeated predictably in other settings. That's the epitome of bad science, not only because its poor experimental design but because such experiments would have no practical application.

[houstonmacbro]

You already live in a lab of sorts. Houston being the only major city that has never had zoning, it is completely atypical of most other large cities. It serves as an excellent study of urban form given a natural state and is frequently cited in academic studies of urban economics.

If the idea of changing policies for experimentation's sake was adopted, it'd just be silly. Since no other city is like us, what might be learned from experiments in Houston couldn't be repeated predictably in other settings. That's the epitome of bad science, not only because its poor experimental design but because such experiments would have no practical application.

And what about all these 'master planned communities' (TW, Cinco Ranch, etc.) ... those are all big ole LABS.

[N Judah]

You already live in a lab of sorts. Houston being the only major city that has never had zoning, it is completely atypical of most other large cities. It serves as an excellent study of urban form given a natural state and is frequently cited in academic studies of urban economics.If the idea of changing policies for experimentation's sake was adopted, it'd just be silly. Since no other city is like us, what might be learned from experiments in Houston couldn't be repeated predictably in other settings. That's the epitome of bad science, not only because its poor experimental design but because such experiments would have no practical application.

The practical application would be their success in providing Houston with a type of development that many Houstonians can enjoy via a process that does not compromise Houston's purported tendencies against regulation. I don't care about replicating anything here anywhere else, I just think it would be fun to take a risk and see if we can find a way to make our city a better place to live for the people who live here. For the HOustonians that dont want to take that risk, there is the entire rest of the city.

And what about all these 'master planned communities' (TW, Cinco Ranch, etc.) ... those are all big ole LABS.

Yeah, no kidding! Those places are ultra-zoned. Nothing original or daring there, and in fact they are more regulated than any of the big cities the anti-zoning crowd loves to rail against.

[TheNiche]

For the HOustonians that dont want to take that risk, there is the entire rest of the city.

That's absurd. Public policy does not take place in a vacuum.

THose places are ultra-zoned. Nothing original or daring there, and in fact they are more regulated than any of the big cities the anti-zoning crowd loves to rail against.

Neither of those places are zoned or even situated within municipalities. They are the outgrowth of a lax regulatory environment.

[N Judah]

That's absurd. Public policy does not take place in a vacuum.

I promise you that what I propose is easy to do/implement without affecting the rest of the city.

Neither of those places are zoned or even situated within municipalities. They are the outgrowth of a lax regulatory environment.

TW and CR are extremely regulated, and CR fits my definition of "zoning" (but apparently not yours). Houston also has "zoning" by my definition, for that matter, so I can tell we're approaching it from completely different perspectives.

[TheNiche]

I promise you that what I propose is easy to do/implement without affecting the rest of the city.

Bull___.

TW and CR are extremely regulated, and CR fits my definition of "zoning" (but apparently not yours). Houston also has "zoning" by my definition, for that matter, so I can tell we're approaching it from completely different perspectives.

Zoning is a legal term. Its definition is not disputed.

[N Judah]

Bull___.

Hey, even you admitted that Metro has the power to do what I propose, they have just been too afraid to try it so far.

And anyway, if you're unsatisfied with their results, or if development around LRT stops somehow manages to snowball and take over the rest of Houston's 600+ square miles, you're obviously more than welcome to go back to wherever you're from.

Zoning is a legal term. Its definition is not disputed.

By you, perhaps, or by anyone dumb enough to accept the premise that "zoning is a legal term." But for those of us capable of abstract thinking, its definition is most certainly up for debate.

[RedScare]

You are confusing zoning with deed restrictions. They may achieve similar results, but are two wildly different concepts. One is seller imposed, and accepted by the buyer, the other is government imposed, and can be imposed without consent of the owner.

[TheNiche]

Hey, even you admitted that Metro has the power to do what I propose, they have just been too afraid to try it so far.

And anyway, if you're unsatisfied with their results, or if development around LRT stops somehow manages to snowball and take over the rest of Houston's 600+ square miles, you're obviously more than welcome to go back to wherever you're from.

That what you want to do could be done is not supportive of the assertion of yours that I've challenged. You say that it could be done without affecting any other part of the city. That's absolutely ludicrous.

By you, perhaps, or by anyone dumb enough to accept the premise that "zoning is a legal term." But for those of us capable of abstract thinking, its definition is most certainly up for debate.

Oh, I see. Poor little dumb ol' me misunderstood. I thought that words were commonly understood symbols conveying a finite concept. But I'm clearly wrong. Words mean what you and only you intend them to convey. And if there are already words that mean what you intend to convey, but you don't know what they are, it's just understood that you ought to hijack a disimilar word and redefine it to your liking, right there on the spot. Anybody that can't understand what you mean is clearly retarded...like me, apparently.

[dbigtex56]

Words mean what you and only you intend them to convey.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

[N Judah]

That what you want to do could be done is not supportive of the assertion of yours that I've challenged. You say that it could be done without affecting any other part of the city. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Well, we'll never know unless we try, will we?

...which was my point all along.

Oh, I see. Poor little dumb ol' me misunderstood. I thought that words were commonly understood symbols conveying a finite concept. But I'm clearly wrong. Words mean what you and only you intend them to convey. And if there are already words that mean what you intend to convey, but you don't know what they are, it's just understood that you ought to hijack a disimilar word and redefine it to your liking, right there on the spot. Anybody that can't understand what you mean is clearly retarded...like me, apparently.

I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that my definition of the word "zoning" was broadened as a means of exploring the different ways our physical plant is affected by decisionmakers. I did so in the hopes that someone would come up with new ideas for urbanizing Houston without compromising our tendency against government regulation at the neighborhood level. An understanding of setbacks and other regulations (which incentivize certain types of development over others and impede urbanity as badly as a pro-car version of what you might call "zoning") as being a form of "zoning" would be a step in the right direction.

[houstonmacbro]

Another issue in this whole walkability issue is ability to walk due to infrastructure. I did the little walkability website locator and it showed things being within .5 miles of my home.

Problem...?

Not in terms of distance, but there are NO sidewalks where I live.

[Jax]

Another issue in this whole walkability issue is ability to walk due to infrastructure. I did the little walkability website locator and it showed things being within .5 miles of my home.

Problem...?

Not in terms of distance, but there are NO sidewalks where I live.

It's all covered here: http://www.walkscore.com/how-it-doesnt-work.shtml

I still find it hard to believe that neighborhoods actually exist with no sidewalks.

[TheNiche]

Well, we'll never know unless we try, will we?

...which was my point all along.

I can know without trying.

Empiricism is not the only theory of knowledge.

I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that my definition of the word "zoning" was broadened as a means of exploring the different ways our physical plant is affected by decisionmakers.

You described zoning as such:

Zoning is just a collection of policies relating to the geography of a particular area.

You did not define zoning, any more than I might try and fail to define "war", "infrastructure improvements", or a "legal system" by the same criteria. They are all policies that relate to aspects of the geography of an area...well unless you want to redefine what is 'policy' or 'geography' to your liking.

An imprecise description of zoning does not broaden its meaning.

[N Judah]

I can know without trying.

Empiricism is not the only theory of knowledge.

You did not define zoning, any more than I might try and fail to define "war", "infrastructure improvements", or a "legal system" by the same criteria. They are all policies that relate to aspects of the geography of an area...well unless you want to redefine what is 'policy' or 'geography' to your liking.

An imprecise description of zoning does not broaden its meaning.

Hmmm...I call flame. Nice attempt, however.

[TheNiche]

Hmmm...I call flame. Nice try, however. Let us know when you have something thoughtful to contribute.

No flame.

When I speak to someone about zoning, I expect "zoning" to mean "zoning", not "deed restrictions", just as a discussion aboiut an "apple" ought to refer to an "apple", not an "orange".

[Jax]

Just give it up.

[Subdude]

Oh for god's sake..

[houstonmacbro]

It's all covered here: http://www.walkscore.com/how-it-doesnt-work.shtml

I still find it hard to believe that neighborhoods actually exist with no sidewalks.

My neighborhood subdivision has sidewalks. From my subdivision to the places I'd want to go, doesn't.

[TheNiche]

Oh for god's sake..

No, it is for my sake.

[moni]

No, it is for my sake.

About walkability in Houston, all big cities are made up of neighborhoods. I am sure the NYC walkability status was mainly of Manhatten Island where parking costs a fortune and most of the citizens do not even have a Driver's License, much less a car. Who wants that??? Also, I have been in San Francisco many times and it is not "walkable" if you are a visitor. Sure people live there so they walk there. It is very hilly and except for certain areas, not at all walkable. From a different perspective, my daughter-in-law moved here from Tokyo where Driver's License are really just used as IDs, and she just loves all the space of the Desert and has no plans to ever go back to Japan. She has been here 6 years now. Everyone see's things from their own special perspective.

[memebag]

Also, I have been in San Francisco many times and it is not "walkable" if you are a visitor. Sure people live there so they walk there. It is very hilly and except for certain areas, not at all walkable.

What are you talking about? Every time I visit San Francisco, I walk all over the place. Are you saying that the hills stop people from walking? If so, why?

[Jax]

Also, I have been in San Francisco many times and it is not "walkable" if you are a visitor.

I would have to disagree with that statement. Sure it's hilly, but it's totally walkable for a visitor. I did it last month and I had never been to SF before. I walked more that weekend than I have ever walked in my life.

A lot of the steepest hills were residential neighborhoods anyways.

[moni]

I would have to disagree with that statement. Sure it's hilly, but it's totally walkable for a visitor. I did it last month and I had never been to SF before. I walked more that weekend than I have ever walked in my life.

A lot of the steepest hills were residential neighborhoods anyways.

Sure you can walk in any city. My point is: Cable cars have to take you up and down the hills which are impossible to climb and enjoy the walk. If you go to certain neighborhoods, you can walk all you want but then that is true anywhere. Every time I went to SF, I just took cabs and forgot the walk.

[memebag]

Cable cars have to take you up and down the hills which are impossible to climb and enjoy the walk.

What are you talking about? I've walked up and down the steepest hills in SF and enjoyed the walk. Why is that "impossible"?

[Jax]

Cable cars have to take you up and down the hills which are impossible to climb and enjoy the walk

Cable cars are more tourist attractions than anything (or so I have heard), and they are good if you need to get across town fast, but they aren't there because walking is impossible. Powell Street is lined with restaurants, hotels, cafes, and retail, and I saw lots of people walking. Most of the people riding the cable car I was in were going across town, not just using it because the hill was too steep. I walked to the top of the hill on Powell Street myself and it wasn't so bad.

The steepest hill I saw near Mission Dolores Park (where there are no cable cars) and it was damn steep. Didn't stop me from walking to the top of it though. The view was amazing up there.

One thing I noticed in SF was that some parts of town had the widest sidewalks I had ever seen. Wider than anywhere I've been in Toronto or Montreal or NYC.