Peter Brown For Houston Mayor

[H-Town Man]

Parker spent a lot of political capital getting the historic districts permanently protected. Brown probably would have spent that same political capital getting these setbacks and sidewalk issues taken care of, if not some sort of form-based zoning ordinance.

 

Ross, the fact that so few people care about the setback requirements should make them easier to change, no? To say this "isn't going to happen" seems naive; many people just a decade ago said protected historic districts would never happen in Houston. As far as Houston's developing urbanism, why does this threaten you?

 

 

 

[Ross]

Parker spent a lot of political capital getting the historic districts permanently protected. Brown probably would have spent that same political capital getting these setbacks and sidewalk issues taken care of, if not some sort of form-based zoning ordinance.

 

Ross, the fact that so few people care about the setback requirements should make them easier to change, no? To say this "isn't going to happen" seems naive; many people just a decade ago said protected historic districts would never happen in Houston. As far as Houston's developing urbanism, why does this threaten you?

 

AS far as I know, changing the setbacks requires an ordinance. An ordinance requires discussion, etc, and there would be a lot of parties expressing an opinion over whether the rules should be changed everywhere. There would be arguments over whether the setbacks would be flexible, so CVS can build with parking in front, as they seem to prefer, while Jim Bob's Bar builds right up to the sidewalk. Then there's the whole discussion on where the extra space for wider sidewalks would come from. In the end, everyone would just give up and leave things the way they are.

 

Urbanism doesn't threaten me, it's just not going to happen in the manner many supporters seem to expect.

 

[H-Town Man]

AS far as I know, changing the setbacks requires an ordinance. An ordinance requires discussion, etc, and there would be a lot of parties expressing an opinion over whether the rules should be changed everywhere. There would be arguments over whether the setbacks would be flexible, so CVS can build with parking in front, as they seem to prefer, while Jim Bob's Bar builds right up to the sidewalk. Then there's the whole discussion on where the extra space for wider sidewalks would come from. In the end, everyone would just give up and leave things the way they are.

 

Urbanism doesn't threaten me, it's just not going to happen in the manner many supporters seem to expect.

 

 

Setback rules are by nature flexible. In almost every city, they're expressed as a minimum.  Right now we have a minimum set back of something like 25', the proposition is to get rid of that and make it 0.  CVS could still put a parking lot in front if they wanted.

[Slick Vik]

It would be a far more urban city.

Houston will never have a "true urban experience". We are different. We developed differently, we are laid out differently, we are our own place. Accept it, and be happy with it.

 

What about the people that come from other cities and have certain expectations?

[arche_757]

^How so?  Parker is doing wonders for our park scape inside the Loop.  In fact I can't think of any mayor who has done as much for the park system as she has, and part of any truly world class city are its parks.

 

What would be a better questions is this:  How would Houston be different if Enron hadn't been built on a house of cards?  Afterall they were probably the most progressive company ever in the oil/energy business, and just think/remember all the things Enron's soiled fingers touched before their downfall.  Think of all the wealth their unknowing employees were cheated out of too?  Enron's collapse was epic and set Houston back many years.  I mean didn't Allen and Houston Center 5/6 first come up for discussion during the Enron boom?  I think so.

Enron did afterall trigger the last true "bust" in Houston.

[IronTiger]

What about the people that come from other cities and have certain expectations?

I guess they either accept it for what it is, or stay there.

[Slick Vik]

I guess they either accept it for what it is, or stay there.

 

Or they stick up for what they want. If enough of them come that is what will happen.

[IronTiger]

Or they stick up for what they want. If enough of them come that is what will happen.

That's a dangerous proposition--foreigners move into a unique area and proceed to remake it in their own image. Oy vey!

[Ross]

Or they stick up for what they want. If enough of them come that is what will happen.

 

And that will be a sad day for Houston, one I hope I am not around for. I love Hosuton the way it is, messy, unplanned,  a place where you can be yourself and succeed, with minimal interference in your life from bizarre rules foisted by central planning advocates who think they are the only people with valid views on how a city should look and develop.

 

[livincinco]

I'm really not sure that much would have changed if Peter Brown had been elected because there's a huge difference between being an activist and being a mayor. As an activist, you can focus on a single issue, but as a mayor, you have to maintain that issue inside the context of the larger picture of managing the whole city. Not saying that to diminish the role of an activist, but there is an additional level of complexity that is involved in being mayor.

I happen to be a fan of Mayor Parker and I think that she has accomplished a lot during her tenure. it's probably an oversimplification to think that Peter Brown would have accomplished significantly more than Parker. Would Brown have focused more on urbanization, possibly, but I'd argue that Parker has focused pretty heavily on it as well. It's always easy to pick a hypothetical wish list and say "my candidate would have done this", but hypothetical wish lists don't have to deal with the financial constraints (and the need to significantly reorganize city finances) that Parker did. They don't have to deal with whether improving drainage is a more pressing issue like Parker did.

Clearly, this is all hypothetical, so no one can prove anyone else wrong, but looking backwards on her term as mayor, I have a hard time advocating that the city would have been better off with Peter Brown.

[citykid09]

And that will be a sad day for Houston, one I hope I am not around for. I love Hosuton the way it is, messy, unplanned,  a place where you can be yourself and succeed, with minimal interference in your life from bizarre rules foisted by central planning advocates who think they are the only people with valid views on how a city should look and develop.

 

Speak for yourself with liking the messy and unplanned aspects of Houston. Yeah I like see buildings in random places from the freeways, but when you get down to street level and realize that there is no life, no activity going, it can be very depressing. I mean here you are in the 4th largest city in America visiting for the first time, you think you are going to see a city slightly smaller than NY, LA, and Chicago. The skylines surely give you that feel but then you go throughout the city and realize that much of what you see is very suburban.

 

You guys complain about traffic on the streets a lot but to me, traffic makes an area livelier. But you also want to see buildings right up to the sidewalk, sidewalk cafes, people walking and shopping and riding transit, etc.

 

Houston is getting a lot better though; there are a lot of urban developments going up in the city right now. They are not all perfect, but they are a big improvement of the old Houston way of developing strip malls and gated garden apartments.

[IronTiger]

Speak for yourself with liking the messy and unplanned aspects of Houston. Yeah I like see buildings in random places from the freeways, but when you get down to street level and realize that there is no life, no activity going, it can be very depressing. I mean here you are in the 4th largest city in America visiting for the first time, you think you are going to see a city slightly smaller than NY, LA, and Chicago. The skylines surely give you that feel but then you go throughout the city and realize that much of what you see is very suburban.

 

You guys complain about traffic on the streets a lot but to me, traffic makes an area livelier. But you also want to see buildings right up to the sidewalk, sidewalk cafes, people walking and shopping and riding transit, etc.

 

Houston is getting a lot better though; there are a lot of urban developments going up in the city right now. They are not all perfect, but they are a big improvement of the old Houston way of developing strip malls and gated garden apartments.

No activity? I can't remember going anywhere in Houston that didn't have a decent amount of people. Riding on the light rail, Downtown evening, Downtown working hours, Memorial Park, Uptown, Kirby, Montrose, TMC, Rice Village, and much more. If you want a claustrophobic crowded, ultra-"urban" experience, go elsewhere.

In fact, every time someone says that Houston isn't "urban" enough, I cringe. It's just code for "I want Houston to resemble the Northeast" without actually saying it.

[gmac]

No life? No activity going? Just what in the world are you looking for, a constant street circus? I bet for a few dollars you could convince the homeless masses to entertain you like you want.

[Ross]

Speak for yourself with liking the messy and unplanned aspects of Houston. Yeah I like see buildings in random places from the freeways, but when you get down to street level and realize that there is no life, no activity going, it can be very depressing. I mean here you are in the 4th largest city in America visiting for the first time, you think you are going to see a city slightly smaller than NY, LA, and Chicago. The skylines surely give you that feel but then you go throughout the city and realize that much of what you see is very suburban.

 

You guys complain about traffic on the streets a lot but to me, traffic makes an area livelier. But you also want to see buildings right up to the sidewalk, sidewalk cafes, people walking and shopping and riding transit, etc.

 

Houston is getting a lot better though; there are a lot of urban developments going up in the city right now. They are not all perfect, but they are a big improvement of the old Houston way of developing strip malls and gated garden apartments.

 

Houston developed as an aggregation of single family house suburbs, it was never urban in the sense of NY or Boston, or other cities that were more constrained by geography or served as a destination for millions of inbound immigrants and built tenements, townhouses, and large apartment buildings from the start. Some of this was also driven by the wide availability of wood, and the lack of any nearby sources for stone or steel, as well as the need for ventilation on all sides to cope with the much hotter Summers we have.

 

I think there is a also an incorrect image of "urban" streets. Not all streets in the urban environment have cafes and wide sidewalks. The vast majority are, in fact, wastelands of anonymous residential facades hiding the quiet desperation that living in crowded urban conditions brings.

 

 

[livincinco]

Houston developed as an aggregation of single family house su, it was never urban in the sense of NY or Boston, or other cities that were more constrained by geography or served as a destination for millions of inbound immigrants and built tenements, townhouses, and large apartment buildings from the start. Some of this was also driven by the wide availability of wood, and the lack of any nearby sources for stone or steel, as well as the need for ventilation on all sides to cope with the much hotter Summers we have.

I think there is a also an incorrect image of "urban" streets. Not all streets in the urban environment have cafes and wide sidewalks. The vast majority are, in fact, wastelands of anonymous residential facades hiding the quiet desperation that living in crowded urban conditions brings.

I'm constantly amazed at the way that people want to ignore the impact of geography on the ways cities develop. The most urban cities in the US, San Francisco, New York, Boston, are all constrained why geography. A city like Houston has no geographic constraint, yet there seems to be a belief that it will density in the same way as those other cities.

[Slick Vik]

No activity? I can't remember going anywhere in Houston that didn't have a decent amount of people. Riding on the light rail, Downtown evening, Downtown working hours, Memorial Park, Uptown, Kirby, Montrose, TMC, Rice Village, and much more. If you want a claustrophobic crowded, ultra-"urban" experience, go elsewhere.

In fact, every time someone says that Houston isn't "urban" enough, I cringe. It's just code for "I want Houston to resemble the Northeast" without actually saying it.

And?

[Slick Vik]

Houston developed as an aggregation of single family house suburbs, it was never urban in the sense of NY or Boston, or other cities that were more constrained by geography or served as a destination for millions of inbound immigrants and built tenements, townhouses, and large apartment buildings from the start. Some of this was also driven by the wide availability of wood, and the lack of any nearby sources for stone or steel, as well as the need for ventilation on all sides to cope with the much hotter Summers we have.

I think there is a also an incorrect image of "urban" streets. Not all streets in the urban environment have cafes and wide sidewalks. The vast majority are, in fact, wastelands of anonymous residential facades hiding the quiet desperation that living in crowded urban conditions brings.

First of all there was a houston before suburbs. Second of all, there's a tremendous difference between the heights and Katy or the woodlands. Look at the distance.

[Slick Vik]

And that will be a sad day for Houston, one I hope I am not around for. I love Hosuton the way it is, messy, unplanned, a place where you can be yourself and succeed, with minimal interference in your life from bizarre rules foisted by central planning advocates who think they are the only people with valid views on how a city should look and develop.

It will be a great day for houston.

[Slick Vik]

I'm constantly amazed at the way that people want to ignore the impact of geography on the ways cities develop. The most urban cities in the US, San Francisco, New York, Boston, are all constrained why geography. A city like Houston has no geographic constraint, yet there seems to be a belief that it will density in the same way as those other cities.

Yea those guys in San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, charlotte, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Austin, and Oakland are all clueless making major investments in rail.

[Ross]

Yea those guys in San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, charlotte, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Austin, and Oakland are all clueless making major investments in rail.

 

We weren't talking about rail. We were talking about how the growth of cities is impacted by geography. Houston never had a geographic reason to limit growth, unlike many other, more dense, cities where water and terrain either stop growth, or force it into a limited set of directions. Until LA filled up all of the flat space, there was no real limit to growth there, either.

 

[Ross]

First of all there was a houston before suburbs. Second of all, there's a tremendous difference between the heights and Katy or the woodlands. Look at the distance.

 

Other than distance from the center of the city, there's no real conceptual difference between the Heights and any of the newer suburbs.

 

Houston before suburbs was essentially the Downtown area. Suburbs were added in all directions over the years, some near, some far. When Oak Forest/Garden Oaks was started in the 30's, it was way out of town, now it is close. HOuston always chose to grow out, not up, because land was cheap, and the weather did not favor townhome type development.

[livincinco]

Yea those guys in San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, charlotte, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Austin, and Oakland are all clueless making major investments in rail.

I would question that list, but it's an interesting point that you bring up, because mosg of those cities and many more are making major investments in highways. If your measure of whether a project makes sense is the number of cities that have active projects, then you must be a huge proponent of highways, unless you think that all those cities are clueless.

[IronTiger]

And?

There's nothing actually wrong with wanting Houston to become more like Eastern seaboard cities. It's a valid opinion, and you (et. al.) are entitled to it. What is wrong is disguising this with nonsense statements like "Houston isn't urban enough" and "We need to be doing urbanism the 'correct' way".

[Slick Vik]

I would question that list, but it's an interesting point that you bring up, because mosg of those cities and many more are making major investments in highways. If your measure of whether a project makes sense is the number of cities that have active projects, then you must be a huge proponent of highways, unless you think that all those cities are clueless.

 

Not sure how you could question that list when projects are under construction at the moment. Also in the cases like Denver the highway proponents added on highway projects to transit bills to the chagrin of voters, but it was a deal with the devil in the way. I am not a proponent of highways through city centers and quite frankly they should be eradicated.

[Ross]

Not sure how you could question that list when projects are under construction at the moment. Also in the cases like Denver the highway proponents added on highway projects to transit bills to the chagrin of voters, but it was a deal with the devil in the way. I am not a proponent of highways through city centers and quite frankly they should be eradicated.

 

Are you still saying that Houston would be a better place if all the drivers on I-10, I-45, and US 59 had to use the Loop 610 to go around town? If all of them had to take surface streets to get from the Loop to Downtown, Greenway, etc? What about the interstate traffic on those roads? Where would it go? As I've said before, you never went through Houston in the pre-freeway days. It was not fun, and took the better part of an hour during non-rush hour periods. to get from Main and the South Loop to what is now I-10 and 610 East.

 

[Slick Vik]

Are you still saying that Houston would be a better place if all the drivers on I-10, I-45, and US 59 had to use the Loop 610 to go around town? If all of them had to take surface streets to get from the Loop to Downtown, Greenway, etc? What about the interstate traffic on those roads? Where would it go? As I've said before, you never went through Houston in the pre-freeway days. It was not fun, and took the better part of an hour during non-rush hour periods. to get from Main and the South Loop to what is now I-10 and 610 East.

I get that but if you have freeways plowing through cities in the end it hurts the city and it's neighborhoods. Would you prefer manhattan to have more freeways going through it?

[swtsig]

I get that but if you have freeways plowing through cities in the end it hurts the city and it's neighborhoods. Would you prefer manhattan to have more freeways going through it?

 

why do we have to be compared to Manhattan, one of the most land-constrained cities on the planet? your comparisons border on the innane.

 

sure i'd prefer a little more cohesion of our urban fabric by implementing more rail (both light and commuter) but what you completely fail to grasp is that the freeway system we have in place in conjuction with our abundance of cheap land is a huge part of why this city's economy has become a true global force. no matter how hard you wish it wasn't so, our ability to move people and products to and from different parts of the city hepl drive this economy, no pun intended. take away houston's economic prowess and your fantasy of dense urban development isn't even an afterthought it becomes entirely meaningless.

[Slick Vik]

why do we have to be compared to Manhattan, one of the most land-constrained cities on the planet? your comparisons border on the innane.

 

sure i'd prefer a little more cohesion of our urban fabric by implementing more rail (both light and commuter) but what you completely fail to grasp is that the freeway system we have in place in conjuction with our abundance of cheap land is a huge part of why this city's economy has become a true global force. no matter how hard you wish it wasn't so, our ability to move people and products to and from different parts of the city hepl drive this economy, no pun intended. take away houston's economic prowess and your fantasy of dense urban development isn't even an afterthought it becomes entirely meaningless.

 

European cities don't have freeways plowing through them and also can be economic powers. It's not a zero sum game.

[plumber2]

Most people do not understand how difficult and time consuming it was to get around Houston before the present freeway system was completed. I agree with Swts, our free system has been the driver of our success.

[citykid09]

Most people do not understand how difficult and time consuming it was to get around Houston before the present freeway system was completed. I agree with Swts, our free system has been the driver of our success.

 

And also the driver of making it an appealing city. I would not mind the freeways if they were all like US-59 in the Montrose area, or like freeways in other cities (especially Atlanta), lined with trees and not feeder roads, billboards and miles of junk shopping centers.