A Grass Roots Push for Urban Change in Houston

[lockmat]

Is there a grass roots organization or group that is for urban change in Houston. Maybe I know about it already and I'm just blanking.

 

If not, maybe we could start a facebook group? A facebook group is something that could grow over time, unlike a petition which is usually signed and ends within a certain time frame.

 

I see our governments and developers are inching towards urbanism, but it needs to be broader and faster, dare I say, more dramatic.

 

I'm not saying forcing urbanism necessarily, but freeing up regulations to allow it to happen more easily...at least for the inner loop.

 

A somewhat recent article by Architect (link below) gave yet another voice to Houston's change to urbanism, while pointing out some the obstacles, as many articles have. But this one had some new angles, some excellent quotes that I thought pointedly addressed some of Houston's problems with converting to urbanism.

 

Each time an article like this comes out or a un-urban project is announced, it frustrates me. 

 

Greater Houstonians need to have their voices heard by the decision makers. To let them know, we're pleased with the direction you're going, but not pleased enough. The voice shouldn't come from developers, architects or elected officials. It needs to come from one massive voice of citizens. If a facebook page touting urban change for Houston has hundreds of thousands of likes/fans, I think that sends a powerful message to decision makers, including political and private (developers, architects)

 

But should our message be broad (More urbanity) or broad with many subpoints (More urbanity, less podium buildings, shorter setbacks, more mixed-use etc)?

 

We all have this vision I think. Maybe the one I'm voicing right now is ambiguous, unclear, too simplistic or unfocused? But let's discuss about forming the vision, the mission, the message. 

 

Here are some quotes from the article that I think summarized our situation well in a way that hasn't been stated before:

 

This may be the most important statement, to me:

 

“I think there’s a danger that in many cases we’re getting the density with none of the benefits,” Hagstette told me, “because the types of projects that are being developed aren’t being developed with the pedestrian and alternative modes of transportation, transit—bicycles, things like that—in mind. The development community is still thinking about, everyone is entering and exiting their property via an automobile.”

 

 

 

EXACTLY:

“In cities like Houston that are contemporary, you drive there, and then you do your urban thing, and then get back in your car and drive home,” says Susan Rogers, the director of the University of Houston’s Community Design Resource Center.

 

 

 

“Houston is the most restrictive place to build an urban style building in the nation,” Crossley contends. He cites “excessive parking requirements” and “huge” setback requirements. To get around them, developers have to apply to a planning commission for variances. And that process demands political skill and, perhaps, connections. “We’ve heard from developers who have tried to come into Houston,” says Crossley. “The national, big developers don’t build in Houston because they believe the system is rigged towards local developers, and it’s too weird and complex to get through.”

 

 

Agreed:

“If you build high-density multifamily and there’s nothing to walk to,” Rogers argues, “it’s not going to increase the kind of culture of urbanity in the city at all. I think that the cultural aspects of what makes a good city—as Saskia Sassen calls the ‘cityness’ of a place—is more difficult to put your finger on. And I think Houston doesn't have that culture.”

 

 

article link: http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/urbanism-planning/will-houstons-city-plan-transform-this-no-zoning-mecca-karrie-jacobs-investigates_o

 

[lockmat]

so, stupid idea? nobody is interested? think it would have no impact?

 

All I want to do is create a presence on facebook and I'm looking for ideas for maybe...what to name it? group description? group mission?

 

After the pre-work to create the group, the only effort this will take is to click a Like button. No protesting, writing letters, nothing.

 

 

[barracuda]

Houston Tomorrow is one organization promoting better urbanism. I don't know if they have a Facebook page.

http://houstontomorrow.org/

[lockmat]

Houston Tomorrow is one organization promoting better urbanism. I don't know if they have a Facebook page.

http://houstontomorrow.org/

 

Yes, but I wouldn't consider that grass roots. David Crossley is a developer or architect, isn't he? Or am I thinking of Peter Brown?

 

I feel like a massive voice from the people would have a greater effect than if it came through a developer, architect or politician. The Rice survey that Klineberg does is one form of that but I still feel something like this could have a greater impact because it's an initiative we the people would be taking, not a passive response that a survey is.

[Luminare]

I would fully support this! I just honestly don't have time to really get much involved :/

[kbates2]

I'd join.

[IronTiger]

Yes, but I wouldn't consider that grass roots. David Crossley is a developer or architect, isn't he? Or am I thinking of Peter Brown?

 

I feel like a massive voice from the people would have a greater effect than if it came through a developer, architect or politician. The Rice survey that Klineberg does is one form of that but I still feel something like this could have a greater impact because it's an initiative we the people would be taking, not a passive response that a survey is.

The article talked about Jay B. Crossley, not David Crossley as being with Houston Tomorrow. David Crossley is the anti-freeway/pro-rail advocate who, to put in the kindest terms possible, I would not want to associate with.

 

That said, what Houston needs is a master plan. College Station and Bryan do, and you'll notice the major arterials are outlined. Forced densification is bad, I think, and you shouldn't plop down high-rises anywhere you'd please (Ashby High Rise, specifically), but it needs a plan and to create real density, not just cancerous townhomes. 

 

So part of the problem is set-backs? We can use that to our advantage: it makes no sense to sabotage major road corridors (which we need) for light rail (which we also need). That way those set-backs can be eliminated for new ROW. 

 

In reality, what I think is just a master plan and then start working toward those goals. 

[Blue Dogs]

Isn't that what's happening in Austin right now ?

 

Pushing minorities out of their neighborhoods, etc.,

 

 

[lockmat]

I would fully support this! I just honestly don't have time to really get much involved :/

 

Good to hear, because all you'll have to do is hit a Like button on facebook. As I said, there will be no rallies, email campaigns or anything else. Just a ton of Likes of facebook. It will get the public and private city leaders' attention if we get enough Likes.

 

The article talked about Jay B. Crossley, not David Crossley as being with Houston Tomorrow. David Crossley is the anti-freeway/pro-rail advocate who, to put in the kindest terms possible, I would not want to associate with.

 

That said, what Houston needs is a master plan. College Station and Bryan do, and you'll notice the major arterials are outlined. Forced densification is bad, I think, and you shouldn't plop down high-rises anywhere you'd please (Ashby High Rise, specifically), but it needs a plan and to create real density, not just cancerous townhomes. 

 

So part of the problem is set-backs? We can use that to our advantage: it makes no sense to sabotage major road corridors (which we need) for light rail (which we also need). That way those set-backs can be eliminated for new ROW. 

 

In reality, what I think is just a master plan and then start working toward those goals. 

 

David Crossley started the organization, Jay is a relative.

 

I thought I heard recently that Houston created a master plan, or updated the general plan. Something like that. It was noted it's not enough but it's a start. Update, they did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/04/03/does-fast-growing-houston-need-a-master-plan/

 

But yes, having a master plan could possibly be one of our bullet points to create an legitimate urban Houston.

 

Isn't that what's happening in Austin right now ?

 

Pushing minorities out of their neighborhoods, etc.,

 

You're talking about gentrification. That and ubanization don't have to coexist, but most likely they will in some cases. It's happenening(ed) in Houston and every other city, too. That's something that could be a bullet point, too.

[Montrose1100]

I'll join only if we change the name.

 

"Grass Roots Movement for Zoning in Houston (4th time's the charm)".

 

Joking aside it proves what the free market has produced. An auto-centric, automobile culture that wants more buildings. At this point in time something needs to be done to herd the sheep in the right direction for walk-ability and other modes of transportation (not just trains). Many cities around the globe have the same temperature and humidity as us, and manage to have an urban environment. I don't know what it will take to change people's minds (including myself). 

 

What could be done to push developers in the right direction besides zoning to address this?

[cspwal]

The downtown living initiative was a pretty big driver to increase downtown's walk-ability - maybe similar programs elsewhere in the city?  As in you get a tax benefit or some other credit for doing something that would improve walk-ability of the city.

 

For example, maybe make in the back parking decrease your property tax rate by a small amount compared to traditional suburban head in parking.

 

Just throwing ideas out there.

[lockmat]

I'll join only if we change the name.

 

"Grass Roots Movement for Zoning in Houston (4th time's the charm)".

 

Joking aside it proves what the free market has produced. An auto-centric, automobile culture that wants more buildings. At this point in time something needs to be done to herd the sheep in the right direction for walk-ability and other modes of transportation (not just trains). Many cities around the globe have the same temperature and humidity as us, and manage to have an urban environment. I don't know what it will take to change people's minds (including myself). 

 

What could be done to push developers in the right direction besides zoning to address this?

 

I agree with every word, even the joke. haha

 

Unless we make triple stacked freeways, double stacked artery roads and tons of garages, building all these tall buildings and apartments at this pace is not sustainable unless we do as you say and create multiple modes of transportation, including walking, buses etc.

 

As far your question goes, it seems from what I read in news articles that our codes allow urban development, but it's designed for suburban development.

 

I'm a "govt get out of the way, in most instances" kind of guy and let the free market and the people dictate what should be done.

 

1. So I would say they should change the codes to allow urban or suburban type development and let the market decide. As of now, if you want to create an urban/walkable building, you have to get a variance. Change the code so the setback is closer and if you want to make a suburban style development, a variance is not required. Both sides win.

 

2. Don't make the parking requirements so stringent. If a developer wants to build an apartment tower without a parking garage in autocentric Houston, let him. He is the one taking on the risk. If the market truly won't support it, the banks won't loan him the money and even if they do and the market won't accept it, he's gonna have a see-through building. The next developer won't try it. Developers might make ugly buildings, but they're not stupid, so if they don't want a garage, don't make them. They're in business to make money. They won't usually risk something that won't work. If a restaurant/retail strip that doesn't want to build parking, don't require it. If there's no on-street parking and nobody goes, that's a bad business decision.

 

The market will figure it out. If someone messes a development up, this is Houston, they'll tear it down and building something that suites the market.

[Luminare]

I think what everyone in this thread who is for this should do is start looking into theories on "Choice Architecture" and "Nudging". That's how you get the ball rolling is with these types of maneuvers. The last thing, anyone who creates such a group, should do is start taking the extremist end of this particular view point. The only way long lasting change will occur is if there is some sort of compromise and if the approach is pragmatic in nature. Militarist tones or themes in "forcing" people into any line of thinking or living should be shunned immediately (the ones who don't take the pragmatic, nudging approach of course).

 

The key issue on any agenda should be transportation and infrastructure. Not patch work or infill or any of that bs. A building is only as good as it's foundation and any step forward will require a complete transformation of the underlying system/infrastructure. Central to this transformation is the rebalancing of the scales in modes of transit. There should be no language ever about EVER about the abolition or end goal of eliminating cars or personal means of travel. I for one welcome a future where cars coexist with all forms of transit and it has it's place in the urban landscape. I don't like to drive, but many do and so the focus should be on expanding alternatives and striking a balance of all alternatives. Once that mission has been established a plan should be set forth by the group to develop of a Houston "vision". A comprehensive plan or in this case a "battle plan" from which to sell or project ideologies.

 

Only then and only when this plan for infrastructure is created then other issues could be addressed. We have already see examples where developers have made attempts at "walkable communties", etc... but due to the rest of the surrounding system completely divorced from this new construction and the current set back, and parking requirements a project is almost doomed from the start simply because people will still take their cars elsewhere even in these supposed walkable communties.

Just some two cents while I was at work

 

I'm open to further conversation in a private chat or in this thread.

[lockmat]

I think what everyone in this thread who is for this should do is start looking into theories on "Choice Architecture" and "Nudging". That's how you get the ball rolling is with these types of maneuvers. The last thing, anyone who creates such a group, should do is start taking the extremist end of this particular view point. The only way long lasting change will occur is if there is some sort of compromise and if the approach is pragmatic in nature. Militarist tones or themes in "forcing" people into any line of thinking or living should be shunned immediately (the ones who don't take the pragmatic, nudging approach of course).

 

The key issue on any agenda should be transportation and infrastructure. Not patch work or infill or any of that bs. A building is only as good as it's foundation and any step forward will require a complete transformation of the underlying system/infrastructure. Central to this transformation is the rebalancing of the scales in modes of transit. There should be no language ever about EVER about the abolition or end goal of eliminating cars or personal means of travel. I for one welcome a future where cars coexist with all forms of transit and it has it's place in the urban landscape. I don't like to drive, but many do and so the focus should be on expanding alternatives and striking a balance of all alternatives. Once that mission has been established a plan should be set forth by the group to develop of a Houston "vision". A comprehensive plan or in this case a "battle plan" from which to sell or project ideologies.

 

Only then and only when this plan for infrastructure is created then other issues could be addressed. We have already see examples where developers have made attempts at "walkable communties", etc... but due to the rest of the surrounding system completely divorced from this new construction and the current set back, and parking requirements a project is almost doomed from the start simply because people will still take their cars elsewhere even in these supposed walkable communties.

Just some two cents while I was at work

 

I'm open to further conversation in a private chat or in this thread.

 

So something real passive like, "Greater Houstonians for Possibly Allowing Urban Change, Maybe??? Please?"

 

just kidding, I'll reply more when I get the time...

[Blue Dogs]

Good to hear, because all you'll have to do is hit a Like button on facebook. As I said, there will be no rallies, email campaigns or anything else. Just a ton of Likes of facebook. It will get the public and private city leaders' attention if we get enough Likes.

 

 

David Crossley started the organization, Jay is a relative.

 

I thought I heard recently that Houston created a master plan, or updated the general plan. Something like that. It was noted it's not enough but it's a start. Update, they did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/04/03/does-fast-growing-houston-need-a-master-plan/

 

But yes, having a master plan could possibly be one of our bullet points to create an legitimate urban Houston.

 

 

You're talking about gentrification. That and ubanization don't have to coexist, but most likely they will in some cases. It's happenening(ed) in Houston and every other city, too. That's something that could be a bullet point, too.

Now that's scary due to several people using code words "Taking Back Houston" or "Redrawing the lines"!

[Luminare]

Houston right now is only working on a "General Plan". The general plan is mostly just to try and get all the various government and quasi-government corporations on the same page all on one plan which honestly is a great start. However what Houston needs desperately is a Comprehensive Plan which it never has had. College Station has developed one and they are following it to the T which has lead to incredible growth and some since of organization (it's still very suburban in nature). The next step for Houston is a Comprehensive Plan.

[Montrose1100]

Question. Could these current set backs be aimed at a long term goal of widening streets/sidewalks? I obviously don't know what the future holds for our fair city (or for urbanism or city planning). But let's say we continue our growth and the following generations romanticize an urban lifestyle more and more. It would be easier to create a street with enough lanes to support vehicle traffic (buses, trucks, cars, delivery trucks), and create wide enough sidewalks for more than one pedestrian walking in one direction? The current sidewalks, like along Montrose or even Post Oak, I have to turn sideways or step slightly in the grass to pass children. I'm a big guy, so anyone with wide shoulders must feel my pain. So let's say Post Oak or Montrose grow into dense urban canyons. How do we address widening the streets for another lane in each direction plus a big Downtown sized sidewalk? Will they be thanking the leaders of the turn of this century for mandating a set back when buildings don't pose a "narrow" threat?

Or if I'm completly nuts that's ok too.

[Luminare]

Question. Could these current set backs be aimed at a long term goal of widening streets/sidewalks? I obviously don't know what the future holds for our fair city (or for urbanism or city planning). But let's say we continue our growth and the following generations romanticize an urban lifestyle more and more. It would be easier to create a street with enough lanes to support vehicle traffic (buses, trucks, cars, delivery trucks), and create wide enough sidewalks for more than one pedestrian walking in one direction? The current sidewalks, like along Montrose or even Post Oak, I have to turn sideways or step slightly in the grass to pass children. I'm a big guy, so anyone with wide shoulders must feel my pain. So let's say Post Oak or Montrose grow into dense urban canyons. How do we address widening the streets for another lane in each direction plus a big Downtown sized sidewalk? Will they be thanking the leaders of the turn of this century for mandating a set back when buildings don't pose a "narrow" threat?

Or if I'm completly nuts that's ok too.

 

Your speculation is warrented, but not when it's 25ft. even at 10ft you have plenty of room to add another lane, but the thing here is.....that should be planned from the beginning! The 25ft setback is an old suburban holdover where the aim was to push buildings as far from the streets as possible due to the new urban planning ideal of giving breathing room between buildings and major thoroughfares. Along with setting back buildings what would have gone into the middle area between the building and road would be lots of greenery and parkland and lots of sidewalks, but that was never the case. Instead it became an excuse to have massive amounts of frontage parking. This mutation in the original intent of the setbacks means that the former logic has been lost therefore becoming inadequate and should be abandoned. Setbacks have their place, but they shouldn't be a substitute for poor/lazy planning.

[mollusk]

IIRC the impetus for setbacks was the Woodway Canyon, just one of many choke points in that part of town.

[Ross]

IIRC the impetus for setbacks was the Woodway Canyon, just one of many choke points in that part of town.

 

Exactly. Woodway cannot be expanded due to the buildings being too close to the street. That led directly to the adoption of the setback rules.

 

[lockmat]

IIRC the impetus for setbacks was the Woodway Canyon, just one of many choke points in that part of town.

 

 

Exactly. Woodway cannot be expanded due to the buildings being too close to the street. That led directly to the adoption of the setback rules.

 

 

I think Tiger's and Luminare's proposal would eliminate problems like that in the future, a more detailed plan, at least for infrastructure, not building uses. There probably aren't too many other areas of town that don't have room to expand.

[Blue Dogs]

Interesting to see if Corpus Christi ends up booming like Austin, etc.,