Eliminate minimum parking requirements?

[august948]

On 12/24/2023 at 1:10 PM, BeerNut said:

It's going to be tough to increase market based parking inside the loop.  All of Midtown was supposed to be included but they got a carve out because so many people complained.  People have become accustomed to idea that street in front of their homes is their personal parking area.  

What would market based parking look like in front of someone's home?

[BeerNut]

38 minutes ago, august948 said:

What would market based parking look like in front of someone's home?

The area wouldn't be subject to minimum parking standards.  

[wilcal]

Some form of parking reform is scheduled to be looked at in 2024 according to some comments made by the Planning Commission/planning director. A robust public engagement will be made and I would imagine that there would be an action committee established with some public meetings.

As mentioned above, it really comes down to what city council wants to do. 

Recently passed Livable Places did have some parking reforms baked-in, but most of them were removed unfortunately (all all apply to residential only). The big change to this is that second dwelling units (garage apartments/etc) have no additional parking required (instead of 1) if 1,000 sf or smaller and that on primary units, homes 1,500 sq ft or smaller only require 1 (instead of 2).

So if you build a 1,500 sq ft house and a 1,000 sq ft garage apartment, the previous parking requirement would have been 3 and the new minimum parking requirement is 1. What had been originally proposed was market-based parking for all residential within 1/4 mile of frequent transit or dedication bike lanes, but that did not receive enough support. 

[__nevii]

On 12/24/2023 at 1:10 PM, BeerNut said:

It's going to be tough to increase market based parking inside the loop.  All of Midtown was supposed to be included but they got a carve out because so many people complained.  People have become accustomed to idea that street in front of their homes is their personal parking area.  

It's still doable. Actually, I'd say it can be done across the entire city (yep, even out to Kingwood and Clear Lake City).

I think the main factors regarding the opposition to the market-based policies are more the usual misunderstandings of what it all truly entails. Given that it simply removes binding requirements, the developers can still build with parking included  — CBD defined area (i.e. Downtown, and parts of East Downtown and Midtown) were never under any requirements, and stuff still includes parking (i.e. parking garage towers in downtown, as well as that infamous CVS around Bagby in Midtown).

The city actually had no minimums whatsoever until ~1990 or so. That entire mess outside the city limits that we call "ETJs/MUDs" all operate without any sort of parking minimums either (despite the fact that they adhere to Houston's Chapter 42 regarding lots, subdivisions, etc). 

So, at the very least, there is precedent that can be pointed to in terms of addressing the complaints at hand. Ultimately, I don't think there are any principled justification for parking minimums whatsoever — it's all arbitrary psuedoscience.

 

3 hours ago, wilcal said:

Some form of parking reform is scheduled to be looked at in 2024 according to some comments made by the Planning Commission/planning director. A robust public engagement will be made and I would imagine that there would be an action committee established with some public meetings.

As mentioned above, it really comes down to what city council wants to do. 

Recently passed Livable Places did have some parking reforms baked-in, but most of them were removed unfortunately (all all apply to residential only). The big change to this is that second dwelling units (garage apartments/etc) have no additional parking required (instead of 1) if 1,000 sf or smaller and that on primary units, homes 1,500 sq ft or smaller only require 1 (instead of 2).

So if you build a 1,500 sq ft house and a 1,000 sq ft garage apartment, the previous parking requirement would have been 3 and the new minimum parking requirement is 1. What had been originally proposed was market-based parking for all residential within 1/4 mile of frequent transit or dedication bike lanes, but that did not receive enough support. 

Interesting. I know that since the 2019 exemptions of EaDo and (more parts of) Midtown, the city extended market-based parking in 2020 to cover "primary transit streets". The original proposal that you refer to regarding 1/4 mile would have been an extension of that.

I'm not sure about Whitmire administration yet — whether or not he would be more or less favorable to walkable urban reform compared to Turner (or Sheila). But the council is crucial, especially since they've gotten more power with the recent passing of Prop A in Nov — at the very least, we can now see where the members stand on specific issues like this parking reform, rather than just faceless goons that do the mayors bidding.

Edited December 26, 2023 by __nevii

[__nevii]

22 hours ago, august948 said:

What would market based parking look like in front of someone's home?

 

22 hours ago, BeerNut said:

The area wouldn't be subject to minimum parking standards.  

Yeah, if we are talking about constructs as they already are, then nothing would really change as per "grandfathering." At most, you'd see established restuarants "create more space" via tented outdoor seating (and other similar stuff regarding "businesses out of front yards).

A more pertinent question would be "what would market-based parking do in terms of building design"? And the results would be pretty significant within the Inner Loop (as well as good amounts of Beltway 8) — lots of fine-grained, gentle "middle density" (i.e. courtyards, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, all sorts of plexes, etc) would start to saturate neighborhoods, as well as corresponding amounts of vibrant commercial activity. No longer would we rely on big blocky "5over1s w/storefront." In fact, I'd dare say that Houston transforms into a "true global, pedestrianized city" overnight — a large of this is due to Houston's lack of eucledian zoning, so when you consider the vibrancy that commercial activity can bring, I'd say it would be a far faster transformation than the "townhouse boom" of the late 90s onward.

As an example of how significant this would be — in Houston, triplexes onward are considered "commericial buildings" within the code, not a problem due to lack of zoning ... except that current parking mandates make it such that the spaces needed to fulfill the corresponding commericial requirements would make the developments infeasible for small-lot infill within neighborhoods.

There would not be much change in places like Kingwood, Clear Lake City, except that they would be cheaper (as people that would otherwise be out in those burbs are, instead, going to the newfound greater infill options). Only exceptions would be any new projects that happen associated with Johnson Space Center (and aerospace industry surrounding it).

The entire ETJ in Houston has developed without any parking mandates (counties in are quite lax, and the only Houston codes that I've seen apply to those areas are Chapter 42, which controls subdivision rather than parking).

Here's a writeup regarding outcomes in Buffalo, NY (which, in 2017, became the first city nationwide to remove parking mandates across the entire municipality).

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by __nevii

[wilcal]

Also, additional context on parking restrictions in Houston: there were about a dozen parking variances given last year and most of them were for doggie day cares which don't have a good parking category yet.

Developers don't even think it is worth their time. That is why it is important to make market-based parking the standard so people will take advantage of it. 

[__nevii]

20 minutes ago, wilcal said:

Also, additional context on parking restrictions in Houston: there were about a dozen parking variances given last year and most of them were for doggie day cares which don't have a good parking category yet.

Developers don't even think it is worth their time. That is why it is important to make market-based parking the standard so people will take advantage of it. 

Is the parking really that strict/non-negotiable? As seen through various projects on this forum, developers don't seem to have much issue in terms of variances regarding setbacks and anything else pertaining to Chapter 42.

I'm trying to see all the codes that apply to the ETJ other than Chapter 42. Because it's quite possible that the parking mandates played a role in driving development out to the burbs (though I think that MUD creation + TXDOT highway policy + mid-century ideals were more significant factors).

[wilcal]

On 12/26/2023 at 10:16 PM, __nevii said:

Is the parking really that strict/non-negotiable? As seen through various projects on this forum, developers don't seem to have much issue in terms of variances regarding setbacks and anything else pertaining to Chapter 42.

I'm trying to see all the codes that apply to the ETJ other than Chapter 42. Because it's quite possible that the parking mandates played a role in driving development out to the burbs (though I think that MUD creation + TXDOT highway policy + mid-century ideals were more significant factors).

A couple of things. Basically, parking really is that strict in terms of following the guidelines. If you have a unique use you are able to get a director's discretion opinion but that basically never happens. I honestly think that the bar parking requirements is so onerous (14 spots per 1000 sq ft) because city council wanted to make it harder to build bars. Of course when we are the DWI capital....

I think that also with developers getting variances approved, there is an extended period working with staff to get something that the department would recommend approval on. People initially show up with some wild stuff. 5% or less of the plats need a variance and so many of them are addressing intersection spacing variances (outside in the ETJ) or things like addressing stub streets or instead of frontage on a public street, taking access from a permanent access easement. 

There just aren't that many controversial variances because 42 is pretty flexible and usually developers are willing to improve something like the pedestrian realm in order to get a slightly reduced BL. 

 

[__nevii]

On 12/28/2023 at 7:24 AM, wilcal said:

A couple of things. Basically, parking really is that strict in terms of following the guidelines. If you have a unique use you are able to get a director's discretion opinion but that basically never happens. I honestly think that the bar parking requirements is so onerous (14 spots per 1000 sq ft) because city council wanted to make it harder to build bars. Of course when we are the DWI capital....

Indeed onerous, especially since "impairment begins with the first drink" according to TX law — basically, the establishments are forced to build parking that the customers can no longer legally use.

The fact that there were minimums at all was the issue back since the original passage in 1989/1990 (which would have been under Kathy Whitmire's administration). Then I believe the 14 spots was actually a slight stregthening from the original, the modification occuring 2011 (which would be Annise Parker's administration).

And to think that those two mayors were supposedly "progressive" in terms of walkability/density: Kathy's admin advocated for the rail system that was later killed by the Lanier successor admin, while Parker's admin actually went on to extend reduced lot size requirements out to the larger Beltway 8 region. Either it was a conflict between mayoral vs council interests, or the leadership only partially, but not fully understood what was required for more ideal pedestrian fabric.

Gee, I wonder what the parking requirements are like for places like Sugar Land. Pearland. Friendswood. League City. That's on top of the aformentioned nigh "free for all" ETJ/MUD areas. I don't know what the exact reasons are for Houston enacting those minimums to begin with those days — but the issue definitely should be looked at (particularly in light of "fiscal" talk many people like to harp on").

[editor]

From Austin to Anchorage, U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums
 

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1221366173/u-s-cities-drop-parking-space-minimums-development

[__nevii]

On 1/3/2024 at 12:41 PM, editor said:

From Austin to Anchorage, U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums
 

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1221366173/u-s-cities-drop-parking-space-minimums-development

Things definitely are ticking. Definitely time for Houston to rip this band-aid off (along with Ch42 setback rules if needed).

I think it should be done. I revisited older parts of this thread, especially where the Midtown neighborhood complaints were listed: and it seems that the neighborhood pushback had more to do with "lack of notification of the proposal", not much complaints I saw regarding the parking in/of itself.

Additionally, years have passed since the initial 2019 expansion (along with the 2020 TOD extension) so some precedent should already be established by now.

Also, another way to think of it: "in the ETJ, no one can hear you scream" ...

The main problem is that this Whitmire administration seems quite hostile to multimodal stuff (or anything that reduces car-dependency). But the passing of Prop A does give power to city council (in addition to any abilities for city planning commission to affect, as per OP post of this thread).

Edited March 21 by __nevii

[editor]

Every time I'm disappointed with the rate of development in Midtown, I try to remind myself of what it looked like when I lived in Houston in the 90's.  Mostly one-story abandoned commerical buildings, surface parking lots, and a struggling Little Saigon neighborhood.  

The development of West Gray between Bagby and Cushing was just getting started, and very few people could envision what it became.

Anyone who thinks pedestrian-oriented development can't work in Houston should visit that area.

[__nevii]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:26 AM, editor said:

Anyone who thinks pedestrian-oriented development can't work in Houston should visit that area.

If Midtown is indeed struggling, then I don't know what else it will take to speed development there other than a change in financing/taxation structures (such as an LVT).

Parking minimums have already been axed in Midtown (unlike many other areas of the city at this time), and the portion along/north of McGowens St was never under any minimums as it was grouped with CBD (i.e. so, neither parking nor setbacks).

I am not sure what went on to cause that infamous suburban-style Midtown CVS at Bagby. That thing needs to be demolished, and replaced with more developments like what is at the Preston light rail station Downtown: even more development like the Post Midtown Square would be an improvement.

[editor]

On 3/25/2024 at 5:52 PM, __nevii said:

If Midtown is indeed struggling, then I don't know what else it will take to speed development

Simple answer: More people.

Hard answer: More people.

 

[__nevii]

20 hours ago, editor said:

Simple answer: More people.

Hard answer: More people.

Yes, though I still agree that Midtown (along with Downtown and EaDo) should have blown up much more.

The three neighborhoods are the freest in the city in terms of not being burdened by parking requirements, setbacks, and other such ancillary codes cited as a problem. So developers should have been free to go all out.

So, if land-use isn't the issue, then probably taxation structure changes are something to look into.

Edited March 27 by __nevii

[mattyt36]

Probably not the best thread for this article, but it is a good one discussing the success of the City's land use reforms that are now celebrating their 25th anniversary.  (It does mention parking requirements, however.)

Houston, we have a solution - Works in Progress

[editor]

On 3/27/2024 at 4:27 PM, __nevii said:

Yes, though I still agree that Midtown (along with Downtown and EaDo) should have blown up much more.

The three neighborhoods are the freest in the city in terms of not being burdened by parking requirements, setbacks, and other such ancillary codes cited as a problem. So developers should have been free to go all out.

So, if land-use isn't the issue, then probably taxation structure changes are something to look into.

I think taxation is the easy go-to boogeyman for every city's problems.  Citing taxation shifts the burden onto some opaque bureaucracy, rather than actually doing something to make things better.

Both Midtown and Downtown have to work to change the perception of the CBD in the minds of people.  Every time my wife meets someone they can't believe she lives downtown.  They either say "Nobody lives downtown," or "Ooooh!  That must be scary!"

Does nobody live downtown?  No.  But that's what a lot of people in Houston think.  Is downtown scary?  I don't think so.  I'm more afraid of getting gunned down in downtown Conroe than in downtown Houston.  

What little promotion of downtown I see has always been directed at people who already know that people live downtown/Midtown and that it's not scary.  You're never going to get the suburban lot-dweller who's using his quarter-acre home as a piggy bank to move downtown.  But you can get his kids to consider it, because they're not already burdened with three decades of sunk cost mortgage payments and constantly telling themselves the lie that renting is more expensive than owning.

I think the Post is doing a good job of bringing in open-minded people from the 'burbs to show them that downtown is just a place like any other.  I expect that a few of those people will consider living an urban lifestyle in the nation's fourth-largest city.  Sportsball fans always fill my parking garage on game days, and I often get into very brief conversations with people when I enter from a residential floor.  They can't believe that anyone lives downtown.  These are always suburban families, so you're never going to get them to move here.  But I make sure I tell them that there's 20,000 people living downtown, and there's lots of good things about it.  Perhaps their kids will remember that and consider it in the future.  If there's time, I let the parents know I only have to put gas in my car three times a year, so my total gas\ expense is less than $100 for an entire year.  Maybe it's mean, but maybe it will also make them think that there are benefits they didn't consider.

[__nevii]

6 hours ago, editor said:

I think taxation is the easy go-to boogeyman for every city's problems.  Citing taxation shifts the burden onto some opaque bureaucracy, rather than actually doing something to make things better.

I mentioned taxation because I saw it mentioned in previous posts here that a proportion of empty lots in the city exist due to land-speculation: wherein land is held until "flipped", while development is disincentivized given the property tax structure. Like Downtown, some lots are said to be held by some energy firm in Taiwan.

A change to LVT would resolve that issue ... although Texas constitution opposes it.

[hbg.50]

8 hours ago, editor said:

 If there's time, I let the parents know I only have to put gas in my car three times a year, so my total gas\ expense is less than $100 for an entire year.  Maybe it's mean, but maybe it will also make them think that there are benefits they didn't consider.

Is it mean because you are lying?   I don't get it. 

Living downtown is a romantic idea but I would miss the privacy of my own backyard.   I'm not even sure who the target market is anymore.   One thing is for sure, it's not the average Joe. 

[editor]

22 hours ago, steve1363 said:

Is it mean because you are lying?   I don't get it. 

Living downtown is a romantic idea but I would miss the privacy of my own backyard.   I'm not even sure who the target market is anymore.   One thing is for sure, it's not the average Joe. 

I'm not lying at all.  I'm not sure why you would imply that I am.  Aside from choosing to be rude.  I'm not going to choose a lifestyle that keeps money out of real estate agents pockets and doesn't require burning dinosaurs and ruining the planet every day.  

I'm not sure what "privacy" people are missing living in an apartment.  Do you have some fantasy that there are people with jet packs hovering around skyscrapers looking in windows?   I'd be more worried about creepers driving through my single-family neighborhood looking in my house and garage, or weirdo neighbors with drones and binoculars checking out my daughter's bedroom in a single-family house.  Nobody's looking into a window 300 feet up.  

Different people value different things.  You value your backyard.  I value the thousands of dollars saved from not needing a car, and using that money for traveling overseas.  You value the illusion that somehow you have more privacy than someone living a different life.  I value what when something goes wrong with my dishwasher, I make a phone call and an hour later two guys are replacing it at zero cost to me.  Maybe you value bad neighbors, and watching your neighborhood go to seed.  I value being able to immediately pick up and move someplace better if that happens.  Maybe you value using your home as an imaginary piggy bank and watching its value go up and down with the whims of the market.  I value putting that money into investments that I can control.

As for "Average Joe," I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  There are over 110 million Americans in multi-family housing (36.8 million in apartments + 73.9 million in condominiums).  It's not like multi-family life in some weird niche.  

If you think the "Average Joe" will only consider a single-family home on a half-acre lot with 2.5 children and mortgage for the rest of his life, 1953 called and wants its goggles back.  

[editor]

19 hours ago, __nevii said:

I mentioned taxation because I saw it mentioned in previous posts here that a proportion of empty lots in the city exist due to land-speculation: wherein land is held until "flipped", while development is disincentivized given the property tax structure. Like Downtown, some lots are said to be held by some energy firm in Taiwan.

A change to LVT would resolve that issue ... although Texas constitution opposes it.

I think more "alleviate" than "resolve."  I don't think there's a magic bullet for solving the problem.

An interesting idea that is very old, but I only learned of recently, is changing the way property is taxed.

Instead setting the tax based on the improvements on the land, the government taxes the value of the actual land.  Here's a Times article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/business/georgism-land-tax-housing.html

Here's the upshot:

---

 

“Blight is rewarded, building is punished,” he said in a recent speech, repeating it over and over for emphasis.

The refrain is a windup for Mr. Duggan’s scheme to fix the blight: a new tax plan that would raise rates on land and lower them on occupied structures. Slap the empty parcels with higher taxes, the argument goes, and their owners will be forced to develop them into something useful. In the meantime, homeowners who actually live in the city will be rewarded with lower bills.

…

The notion that land is an undertaxed resource — and that this distorts markets in destructive ways — unites libertarians and socialists, has brought business owners together with labor groups and is lauded by economists as a “perfect tax.” And yet despite all that agreement, there are just a handful of examples of this policy in action, and none in America that match the Detroit proposal in scale.

[Ross]

1 hour ago, editor said:

I think more "alleviate" than "resolve."  I don't think there's a magic bullet for solving the problem.

An interesting idea that is very old, but I only learned of recently, is changing the way property is taxed.

Instead setting the tax based on the improvements on the land, the government taxes the value of the actual land.  Here's a Times article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/business/georgism-land-tax-housing.html

Here's the upshot:

---

 

“Blight is rewarded, building is punished,” he said in a recent speech, repeating it over and over for emphasis.

The refrain is a windup for Mr. Duggan’s scheme to fix the blight: a new tax plan that would raise rates on land and lower them on occupied structures. Slap the empty parcels with higher taxes, the argument goes, and their owners will be forced to develop them into something useful. In the meantime, homeowners who actually live in the city will be rewarded with lower bills.

…

The notion that land is an undertaxed resource — and that this distorts markets in destructive ways — unites libertarians and socialists, has brought business owners together with labor groups and is lauded by economists as a “perfect tax.” And yet despite all that agreement, there are just a handful of examples of this policy in action, and none in America that match the Detroit proposal in scale.

An LVT would force land owners to build buildings that are not needed and that would not produce enough income to cover the costs of the development. If buildings were economic to build, land owners would build them.

[editor]

2 hours ago, Ross said:

An LVT would force land owners to build buildings that are not needed and that would not produce enough income to cover the costs of the development. If buildings were economic to build, land owners would build them.

I'm not sure how it would force anyone to do anything.  A landowner can still choose not to build something.  Or they can choose to build something and recoup the cost of the property tax, just like with any other building.  

As for new buildings not being needed, if that was true, we wouldn't have a nationwide housing shortage.

The part about "If buildings were economic to build, land owners would build them" is demonstrably false.  Even demonstrated in downtown Houston where a foreign government and a major oil company sit on undeveloped land just because they can afford to.  And the reason they can afford to is because it's not being taxed at its value. 

[__nevii]

5 hours ago, editor said:

I think more "alleviate" than "resolve."  I don't think there's a magic bullet for solving the problem.

An interesting idea that is very old, but I only learned of recently, is changing the way property is taxed.

Instead setting the tax based on the improvements on the land, the government taxes the value of the actual land.  Here's a Times article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/business/georgism-land-tax-housing.html

Here's the upshot:

---

 

“Blight is rewarded, building is punished,” he said in a recent speech, repeating it over and over for emphasis.

The refrain is a windup for Mr. Duggan’s scheme to fix the blight: a new tax plan that would raise rates on land and lower them on occupied structures. Slap the empty parcels with higher taxes, the argument goes, and their owners will be forced to develop them into something useful. In the meantime, homeowners who actually live in the city will be rewarded with lower bills.

…

The notion that land is an undertaxed resource — and that this distorts markets in destructive ways — unites libertarians and socialists, has brought business owners together with labor groups and is lauded by economists as a “perfect tax.” And yet despite all that agreement, there are just a handful of examples of this policy in action, and none in America that match the Detroit proposal in scale.

The Detroit proposal is exactly LVT as I was referring to. We actually tried a form of it in the past, but it was struck down as unconstitutional (which I alluded to prior):
https://x.com/larsiusprime/status/1427107150053183505

[Ross]

3 hours ago, editor said:

I'm not sure how it would force anyone to do anything.  A landowner can still choose not to build something.  Or they can choose to build something and recoup the cost of the property tax, just like with any other building.  

As for new buildings not being needed, if that was true, we wouldn't have a nationwide housing shortage.

The part about "If buildings were economic to build, land owners would build them" is demonstrably false.  Even demonstrated in downtown Houston where a foreign government and a major oil company sit on undeveloped land just because they can afford to.  And the reason they can afford to is because it's not being taxed at its value. 

One of the empty blocks is the old YMCA location owned by Chevron. The taxes on that property are about $500,000 per year. The block immediately to the North is also owned by Chevon and the taxes are just under $7 million. Under a LVT would the tax on the vacant property also be $7 million, or would the developed lot drop to say $3 million and the vacant lot increased to $3 million?  Or would the vacant lot be taxed at $7 million and the developed lot at $3 million? The land value for both those blocks is about the same under the current scheme as $32 million, but the developed block is valued at $334 million.

Is the thought that Chevron would build a 40+ story building on the empty lot? Who would occupy that space? Or would we get another 5 story apartment building?

I suspect that Chevron would just pay the taxes on the vacant land and leave it undeveloped.