11th Street Bike Lanes

[samagon]

25 minutes ago, s3mh said:

I am calling these people out because they are not coming at this in good faith ....  

you're calling them names while calling them out, you want to talk good faith? there's nothing good faith about that, and you can start there.

and besides, you can say they aren't coming to the conversation in good faith, and that your concern for everyone's safety gives you the moral high ground, because that's kind of worthless, they say you aren't coming to the conversation in good faith, and that the freedom of everyone to move freely is the moral high ground.

so yeah, explaining why you're calling them names, and not accepting their behavior and opinion, even if you don't agree with it, that's not really getting you there. but you do you, I don't need an explanation for your actions. and don't expect me to cheer you on.

Edited March 25 by samagon

[hbg.50]

I’ve lived in The Heights for 30 years.  “Right-wing conspiracy theorists” doesn’t fit the profile of most people in this area.

I think we should get back to basics.  What problem was the city trying to solve on 11th Street?  Did the city consider all options?  The fundamental pain point is the opposition’s voice was ignored and hence why we’re still discussing this 6 months later.

[Texasota]

It is not possible to eliminate all opposition with *any* project, and road diets in particular always have opponents.

You don't like this project. We get it. That doesn't make it unsuccessful. 11th St was unsafe and uncomfortable and now it is much less so.

Is it perfect? No. But it does a much better job of prioritizing human life and was able to be implemented relatively quickly and cost effectively. 

[mollusk]

Even in a car, getting in and out of most businesses on 11th is now easier and safer, since traffic no longer busts the 30 mph speed limit by 10 - 20 mph.  Beyond that, it's not at all unusual to drive down the length of one of the side streets without encountering another car.  Taking the logic of some to its conclusion, we therefore don't need those streets.

[august948]

On 3/22/2024 at 10:04 AM, s3mh said:

I have no direct knowledge of anyone's political leanings, but my "walks like a duck" instinct tell me that there are a good number of 11th street opponents who are coming at this not from any genuine concern about traffic and public safety, but are acting on right wing conspiracy theories over 15 minute cities and project zero.  The right wing conspiracy theory is that projects that are intended to make communities more bike and pedestrian friendly are just the beginning of extensive government control over people's movements to the point of a China-like society with CCTV monitoring of everyone and social credit scores.  Ultimately, the conspiracy theory is that 15 minute cities are just the beginning of a plan to imprison people.  This conspiracy theory has gone as far as spawning waves of tik toks and social media posts where people claim that the Texas panhandle fires were the result of Amarillo, Texas adopting a "comprehensive plan", which they believe is code for 15 minute cities planning and eventually having George Soros imprison everyone.

Of course, that is the far right extreme.  Most opponents of 11ht street who are on the right are just coming at this from the usual culture war perspective of any effort to promote biking and pedestrian access being a misguided leftist way of saving the environment by unnecessarily burdening people driving their F250s to their office downtown (if they can fit in the garage). 

This just becomes even more apparent when you look at the arguments being made.  There are basically three main talking points.  Traffic on 11th street is now bad.  Emergency vehicles can't get through.  Traffic is spilling over to neighborhood streets.  These are familiar arguments because they have been advanced by people who are concerned about the lack of zoning and overdevelopment that hurts the existing residential neighborhoods.  The right wing response to that has always been "tough sh#t."  If you do not want traffic, move to the burbs.  Many neighborhoods have complained about people parking on their narrow streets for near by commercial development that then makes it hard for emergency vehicles to get through.  And the city does nothing about it.  

But now that those externalities are the result of a project that benefits pedestrians and cyclists (and not private profits), suddenly those impacts are a burden that no one should bear and the improvements cannot be ripped out soon enough.  

Point is that everyone in the Heights has been taking one for the team with increased traffic, on street parking spillover from commercial development and issue with emergency vehicle access (which is probably the least of the problems for 11th street as 14th st is also an emergency corridor) in order to build more apartments and retail development, etc. in the neighborhood.  If you are going to through a fit over those externalities, then you cannot also wag your finger at everyone else and squawk "Houston has no zoning" when those issues are raised about private development.  

 

 

 

There's all kinds of crazy on various social media platforms.  The one I heard about Amarillo was that the fires were started by some sort of "high energy" weapon fired from space and that the same thing was used in the Maui fires.  Then you've got the folks who think that the red states are about to start a civil war with the blue states, those who think what happened on Jan 6 was a serious insurrection, people who believe that climate change is going to end the world in 12 years (actually 7 years now  since AOC predicted it in 2019), and, of course, those who think Trump is actually a nazi and a serious existential threat to American democracy.  Expect more of the above at least through November (though probably much, much longer).

[004n063]

7 hours ago, steve1363 said:

The fundamental pain point is the opposition’s voice was ignored and hence why we’re still discussing this 6 months later.

I'm not ultra-close to the 11th project, but this statement - along with similar ones about the Montrose Boulevard project - is deeply frustrating to me.

Do people not realize how insanely hard it is to get anything done for non-drivers in this city? It took six 311 calls to get the knocked-over school speed limit sign outside of my school moved a few inches off of the three-foot sidewalk. Not fixed, not even cleared away. Moved a foot and a half. 

I know that's a pretty stretched anecdote, but my point is this: every piece of infrastructure built for pedestrians and cyclists is the product of years - usually over a decade - of begging, clawing, fundraising, desperate (and mostly ignored) public outreach, and compromise with the twelve angry NIMBYs who default to opposition on everything. 

It may or may not be true in this instance, but the paradigm of bending over backwards to appease every opposing voice has been strangling this city (the whole country, really) for too damn long.

[wilcal]

10 hours ago, steve1363 said:

The fundamental pain point is the opposition’s voice was ignored and hence why we’re still discussing this 6 months later.

Not following what some people want ≠ didn't hear/ignored

I think it was very apparent that many people didn't like the potential changes. Not everyone can be appeased. 

[samagon]

17 hours ago, mollusk said:

Even in a car, getting in and out of most businesses on 11th is now easier and safer, since traffic no longer busts the 30 mph speed limit by 10 - 20 mph.  Beyond that, it's not at all unusual to drive down the length of one of the side streets without encountering another car.  Taking the logic of some to its conclusion, we therefore don't need those streets.

that's a bit silly, because of the way the city is designed, people need to access their homes with cars. 

I'd submit that thoughtfully using one way streets (for cars) in areas that are predominantly residential, along with adding features that make drivers feel like 20mph is a safe speed would go a long way towards slowing people down on streets that are primarily residential, and thereby increasing safety, it would also discourage through traffic.

  

21 hours ago, steve1363 said:

The fundamental pain point is the opposition’s voice was ignored and hence why we’re still discussing this 6 months later.

the opposition didn't have a valid argument. all of the doom and gloom that was presented as reasoning for why 11th shouldn't be redone in this manner has not come to pass. businesses have not shut down, kids are not being mowed down on primarily residential streets, emergency vehicles have not been forced to take other routes because they can't fit on the street.

were there other reasons that the opposition presented for why this shouldn't have been done?

and more to the point, now that it has been done, should it be undone because the opposition feels as if they weren't heard, or that their suggestions weren't taken into account?

should there be a lesson learned by people who do these to better prepare and work with everyone in the community to ensure everyone has a chance to provide fact driven feedback, or that good ideas for compromise should be considered?

at the end of the day, traffic studies showed that the number of lanes far exceeded the needs of vehicular traffic, the road was redesigned to meet demand. so many people cheer when a road is widened to accommodate growing vehicular needs (while ignoring the safety of others), why are so many upset when the same thing happens in reverse?

Edited March 26 by samagon

[TacoDog]

51 minutes ago, samagon said:

that's a bit silly, because of the way the city is designed, people need to access their homes with cars. 

No they don't.

[s3mh]

11 hours ago, wilcal said:

Not following what some people want ≠ didn't hear/ignored

I think it was very apparent that many people didn't like the potential changes. Not everyone can be appeased. 

There were multiple versions of the redesign that were done in order to address complaints before the final plan was put into place.  And that goes back to my long post about the motivations.  I believe that a good bit of the opposition is driven by political ideology and not any real concern about traffic and public safety.  They just want to score a win against the libs and see this as a chance win one for the (insert right wing Trump equivalent to the "gipper").  

[Triton]

5 hours ago, s3mh said:

 I believe that a good bit of the opposition is driven by political ideology

I don't agree with that at all. I know some opposed to it who are ideologically liberal (example provided below). I think there were some just practically concerned people when it came to congestion. I know the majority in the biking community support the 11th St bike lanes but some would have rather seen it go to a less congested road running in parallel to 11th such as 14th St. Although it would have angered some residents to loose their on street parking (see how the bike lanes end at Pecore on 11th... because of on-street parking backlash)... however, it would have been far less controversial on 14th and still would have provided an east-west connection through the Heights, along with the MKT trail.

Prime example... the N Main bike lanes around White Oak Music Hall. Most of the people in the area are not conservative (not a telltale sign but most people here had Beto/Biden signs the past few elections), yet they voiced numerous opposition to the city and Bike Houston during their community outreach because they were genuinely concerned that shrinking N Main down to 2 lanes would exacerbate the already insane traffic when WOMH is hosting live events, plus now the events at Htown Brewing and Woodland Social. Hence now, the N Main bike lanes are up for review again under Whitmire.

Last point.... and, as a bicyclist, this is the part that really makes me upset with the city. On Sunday, I biked the route pictured below. The east side bike lanes (think Polk St) were a complete mess.... either full of water from Friday's rains.... or covered in dirt... or rocks... or trash. There was even a part of Waugh Dr in Montrose that I was biking back on and it looked like a lake in the bike lane! I had to hop into the vehicle lanes until the water cleared. If the city is going to invest in bike lanes, then it also needs to take on the responsibility of cleaning them up. 

[j.33]

12 minutes ago, Triton said:

Last point.... and, as a bicyclist, this is the part that really makes me upset with the city. On Sunday, I biked the route pictured below. The east side bike lanes (think Polk St) were a complete mess.... either full of water from Friday's rains.... or covered in dirt... or rocks... or trash. There was even a part of Waugh Dr in Montrose that I was biking back on and it looked like a lake in the bike lane! I had to hop into the vehicle lanes until the water cleared. If the city is going to invest in bike lanes, then it also needs to take on the responsibility of cleaning them up. 

report all the troubled spots to 311. Go to their website: Houston, Texas 3-1-1 Help and Information (houstontx.gov), 

 

Step 1 - Click on Report a Problem

Step 2 - Click on "Streets - Bridges - Drainage"

Step 3 - Click on "Bike Lane Maintenance"

Step 4 - Select the issue with the bike lane: debris removal, bike lane pothole, damaged bike lane barrier

Step 5 - fill out the address and click the link provided to submit your request

[Ross]

12 hours ago, TacoDog said:

No they don't.

Can you expand on why people do not need to access their homes with their cars?

[samagon]

18 hours ago, Triton said:

I don't agree with that at all. I know some opposed to it who are ideologically liberal (example provided below). I think there were some just practically concerned people when it came to congestion. I know the majority in the biking community support the 11th St bike lanes but some would have rather seen it go to a less congested road running in parallel to 11th such as 14th St. Although it would have angered some residents to loose their on street parking (see how the bike lanes end at Pecore on 11th... because of on-street parking backlash)... however, it would have been far less controversial on 14th and still would have provided an east-west connection through the Heights, along with the MKT trail.

Prime example... the N Main bike lanes around White Oak Music Hall. Most of the people in the area are not conservative (not a telltale sign but most people here had Beto/Biden signs the past few elections), yet they voiced numerous opposition to the city and Bike Houston during their community outreach because they were genuinely concerned that shrinking N Main down to 2 lanes would exacerbate the already insane traffic when WOMH is hosting live events, plus now the events at Htown Brewing and Woodland Social. Hence now, the N Main bike lanes are up for review again under Whitmire.

Last point.... and, as a bicyclist, this is the part that really makes me upset with the city. On Sunday, I biked the route pictured below. The east side bike lanes (think Polk St) were a complete mess.... either full of water from Friday's rains.... or covered in dirt... or rocks... or trash. There was even a part of Waugh Dr in Montrose that I was biking back on and it looked like a lake in the bike lane! I had to hop into the vehicle lanes until the water cleared. If the city is going to invest in bike lanes, then it also needs to take on the responsibility of cleaning them up. 

I fully agree with your assessment to the motivation of opposition, I'd suggest that there are probably some that fit the mold of having politics as the motivating factor, but they are the marginal fringe and can be ignored. which is hard because they are usually loud. the bottom line, they can be ignored.

the streets chosen for bike lanes seems silly in a lot of instances. 11th vs 14th for instance. going from Hermann to downtown, they should have used Caroline to minimize the sharrows they had to implement on Austin, and all the turning.

as far as all of the stuff the mayor seems to be able to do, how do I keep reading articles about budget shortfalls for meeting his other campaign promises in Houston, and then he is affording to do this stuff? 

I have to keep telling myself that the alternative was far worse, but this isn't turning out to be much better. let's hope we get a contender in the next cycle that is going to be a better candidate. 

Edited March 27 by samagon

[TacoDog]

16 hours ago, Ross said:

Can you expand on why people do not need to access their homes with their cars?

The only reason someone would need a car to access their home is if the only entrance to the home was a weird garage door that opened for cars but nothing else. You don't need access to your home via a car. If you did, people who utilize other means of transportation could not live there, which is just untrue. 

If your property doesn't have a place to store a car, you end up relying on on-street parking. If you live on a street with lots of people in the same situation, you may not find a parking spot near your place, and have to park a block or two away. Or you have access to a parking garage but it's a block away from your home, same situation. To say you need a car to access your home is simply untrue.

To say you need access to your home via car isn't true at all, it's just a convenience thing. The point @mollusk was making was about how often the streets are being used for certain modes of transportation should dictate how we allow the street to be used, the same argument people are making about the bike lanes on 11th St. If no thru-traffic is being used on a street, and it's local residents only, then we could convert the street into a glorified driveway for those residents only. 

[mollusk]

Actually, the point I was trying to make with an intentionally silly example is that the absence of anyone using the bike lanes at the exact time whoever is complaining is in the act of driving past them is not proof that they're not being used at all.

[Ross]

8 hours ago, TacoDog said:

The only reason someone would need a car to access their home is if the only entrance to the home was a weird garage door that opened for cars but nothing else. You don't need access to your home via a car. If you did, people who utilize other means of transportation could not live there, which is just untrue. 

If your property doesn't have a place to store a car, you end up relying on on-street parking. If you live on a street with lots of people in the same situation, you may not find a parking spot near your place, and have to park a block or two away. Or you have access to a parking garage but it's a block away from your home, same situation. To say you need a car to access your home is simply untrue.

To say you need access to your home via car isn't true at all, it's just a convenience thing. The point @mollusk was making was about how often the streets are being used for certain modes of transportation should dictate how we allow the street to be used, the same argument people are making about the bike lanes on 11th St. If no thru-traffic is being used on a street, and it's local residents only, then we could convert the street into a glorified driveway for those residents only. 

You've obviously never bought 400 pounds of mulch. Or a month's worth of groceries. Or anything else in quantity. The issue in the Heights is that the streets were laid out when people had one car at most. So the streets are narrow, the driveways are narrow, and some people are jerks about how they park.

My great grandparents lived on W 17th from about 1910 to 1919. The had a car, since my great grandfather was a car salesman. So cars in the Heights isn't a new thing.

[Texasota]

This is a deeply unhelpful tangent. In no way is anybody's ability to access their home by car being threatened. 

[s3mh]

On 3/27/2024 at 9:52 AM, samagon said:

 

the streets chosen for bike lanes seems silly in a lot of instances. 11th vs 14th for instance. 

 

This actually is an argument that shows the opposition is more deeply moored in the politics than in any real motivation on balancing bike/pedestrian access in the Heights with the need for people to drive their Land Rovers a half mile to go to a restaurant.  When I moved to the Heights, we had two coffee shops (Cricket's and Antidote).  There are now a dozen, not even counting Starbucks.  Since then, the neighborhood has added about 10,000 multifamily units, townhome farms, and lots of retail.  Many on here have complained about parking minimums and noted that they were mostly a product of complaints by near by residents about people using street parking on their streets and were not necessary because density in the Heights makes it possible to walk or bike to retail development.  So, then why in the world would you put in a bike path on a street that has no retail development and keep 11th street as a death trap for anyone who dares to cross it from the north or south?  The whole point of bike and pedestrian access is to allow people to have access to the retail areas in the Heights so we can keep expanding retail without having issues with parking.  A bike lane on 14th does nothing to improve bike access to retail in the Heights.  

[samagon]

there's nothing politically motivated in any of the things you suggest that would be reasons for putting a bike lane on one street vs another. you've been watching either CNN, or Fox News way too much. just unplug for a minute and stop presuming that everything is politically motivated.

parking minimums are a lot more complex than just living somewhere within walking distance of a restaurant, bar, retail, or coffee shop. many people who frequent those places (most specifically the restaurants, bars, and retail) are coming in from a place that makes the destination not walkable. now, when they arrive, maybe walking from a restaurant to a bar (or vice versa), or walking from shop to shop, in which case a nice parking garage should be considered, rather than forcing the tourists to park on neighborhood streets, or offer better public transit.

even still, the probability of anyone in the Heights choosing to walk to any specific destination (depending on time of year and time of day) is probably restricted to .5 miles. maybe more on a nice March morning like today, but probably a lot less on an August afternoon.

anyway, you're assuming that the bicycle rider is only interested in destinations on 11th street. and even if the destination is something on 11th, most people who use a bicycle as their preferred transportation are very used to, if there is even infrastructure for bicycles, we are used to having to do the last portion of whatever journey without even having a bicycle lane.

a completely different subject, but regarding the parking, whatever TIRZ collects taxes from businesses in the area should consider building a parking garage near 19th street, 11th street, and then also on White Oak, or maybe some big parking garage somewhere with a circulator bus that hits stops at major retail/restaurant hubs. not sure they can do a circulator though, I know a TIRZ can build parking structures though.

Edited March 28 by samagon

[__nevii]

17 hours ago, Ross said:

You've obviously never bought 400 pounds of mulch. Or a month's worth of groceries. Or anything else in quantity.

City living is more about smaller purchases in more frequent store/shop visits, so the concerns that you bring up are mostly moot:

• The whole concept of "large bulk purchases" comes precisely because of the isolated nature of post-WWII single-family suburban buildouts: even a simple trip to the grocery store is an arduous drive, so you HAVE to buy all the bulk stuff that you can in order for the supply to last longer until the next trip.
   
• Some of the stuff you bring up (like the pounds of mulch) naturally get less use-cases in a more urbanized setting anyway (or the use of it is less individualized, meaning that no one individual has to worry about such purchases).

 

Quote

The issue in the Heights is that the streets were laid out when people had one car at most. So the streets are narrow, the driveways are narrow, and some people are jerks about how they park.

My great grandparents lived on W 17th from about 1910 to 1919. The had a car, since my great grandfather was a car salesman. So cars in the Heights isn't a new thing.

Precisely why we need to axe parking minimums all over the city. Removing that burden will allow development in "narrow street" areas like Heights to be even more "context sensitive." The recent Livable Places did some great work in terms of "middle housing", as well as addressing driveway structures (i.e. such that there are less driveway curbcuts destroying the previous street parking)  ..... but relinquishing the remaining useless rules throughout the city would assist a ton in preventing the issue of cars in "streets too narrow for them."

Heights was one of the original "streetcar neighborhoods" in Houston: we're going to have to build that back.

 

Edited March 28 by __nevii

[__nevii]

4 hours ago, s3mh said:

Many on here have complained about parking minimums and noted that they were mostly a product of complaints by near by residents about people using street parking on their streets and were not necessary because density in the Heights makes it possible to walk or bike to retail development.

 

3 hours ago, samagon said:

parking minimums are a lot more complex than just living somewhere within walking distance of a restaurant, bar, retail, or coffee shop. many people who frequent those places (most specifically the restaurants, bars, and retail) are coming in from a place that makes the destination not walkable. now, when they arrive, maybe walking from a restaurant to a bar (or vice versa), or walking from shop to shop, in which case a nice parking garage should be considered, rather than forcing the tourists to park on neighborhood streets, or offer better public transit.

There are loads of negative externality effects regarding parking minimums. It isn't just about the pleasantness of the urban environment, it goes all the way to the issues of affordability, gentrification/"pricing out", that lots of people keep complaining about.

When parking minimums are too excessive (hint: they always are) for what would otherwise be a neighborhood-level business:

1. That is suddenly a lot of overhead that an aspiring business owner must account for (land area + pavement for parking spaces).
    
2. Which means that the business must draw a larger market area in order to recoup the costs of all the infrastructure...
    
3. And what happens with drawing from a larger area? More busy, hectic traffic into the neighborhood that people are turned off with (especially if vehicular).

In other words, all the problems the people refer to regarding "cool stuff shutting down in Heights, Montrose, etc" or "overpriced yuppie gentrification" is 100% the work of parking minimums.

Same with residential. The "ugly driveway curbcuts" of new townhouse infill would not exist if not for the paired parking minimum + setback rules. But, more crucially, there is a lot of smaller scale multifamily ("missing middle") that parking minimums and other ancillary regulations make uncommon (if not outright infeasible ... even in unzoned Houston). If the cost to develop is expensive due to required land + parking infrastructure, then I might as well go for the "towering luxury apartment" in order to recoup the cost.

 

Edited March 28 by __nevii

[samagon]

18 minutes ago, __nevii said:

 

There are loads of negative externality effects regarding parking minimums. It isn't just about the pleasantness of the urban environment, it goes all the way to the issues of affordability, gentrification/"pricing out", that lots of people keep complaining about.

When parking minimums are too excessive (hint: they always are) for what would otherwise be a neighborhood-level business:

1. That is suddenly a lot of overhead that an aspiring business owner must account for (land area + pavement for parking spaces).
    
2. Which means that the business must draw a larger market area in order to recoup the costs of all the infrastructure...
    
3. And what happens with drawing from a larger area? More busy, hectic traffic into the neighborhood that people are turned off with (especially if vehicular).

In other words, there are no principled justifications for parking minimums whatsoever: those minimums create all the problems that people complain about.

no doubt, there's all sorts of sides to the subject, and no one way to do it is the right way. the thing of it is, it needs to be understood that there are trade-offs both ways. in some scenarios the business owner suffers, in others, the local homeowners suffer. 

if you have less requirements for parking minimums because it's a neighborhood level business, when the store/restaurant/coffee shop that is opened with every intention of being used by locals becomes popular and people who aren't local want to come, so now, if they don't have appropriate parking in a city like Houston where driving is the only option provided by government, we are stuck with people parking on neighborhood streets. the locals that once sang the praises of that amazing local business are now cursing everyone that goes to it.

as an example, you want to go to Permission? if you don't grab one of the 10 slots shared by it and Pho Binh, you are either paying for parking in the lot formerly known as Fitzgeralds, or you are parking on a neighborhood street. and that's the case for any place on White Oak.

if only we had a real public transit option, then the minimum parking discussions kind of just disappear. 

Edited March 28 by samagon

[august948]

54 minutes ago, __nevii said:

City living is more about smaller purchases in more frequent store/shop visits, so the concerns that you bring up are mostly moot:

• The whole concept of "large bulk purchases" comes precisely because of the isolated nature of post-WWII single-family suburban buildouts: even a simple trip to the grocery store is an arduous drive, so you HAVE to buy all the bulk stuff that you can in order for the supply to last longer until the next trip.
   
• Some of the stuff you bring up (like the pounds of mulch) naturally get less use-cases in a more urbanized setting anyway (or the use of it is less individualized, meaning that no one individual has to worry about such purchases).

 

Precisely why we need to axe parking minimums all over the city. Removing that burden will allow development in "narrow street" areas like Heights to be even more "context sensitive." The recent Livable Places did some great work in terms of "middle housing", as well as addressing driveway structures (i.e. such that there are less driveway curbcuts destroying the previous street parking)  ..... but relinquishing the remaining useless rules throughout the city would assist a ton in preventing the issue of cars in "streets too narrow for them."

Heights was one of the original "streetcar neighborhoods" in Houston: we're going to have to build that back.

 

I think you are confusing suburban with rural.  A trip to a local grocery store is hardly an arduous drive unless you view all driving as arduous.  Since the Heights is a suburban development, it's natural that residents there are going to buy bulk items that can't be carried on a bike or on public transport.  Perhaps you are confusing the Heights with a truly urbanized, multistory residential district like those that exist in some spots here and in some other cities around the world.

[__nevii]

13 minutes ago, august948 said:

I think you are confusing suburban with rural.  A trip to a local grocery store is hardly an arduous drive unless you view all driving as arduous. 

No confusions here. The nigh 100% single-family nature of the post-war suburbia, combined with the large lot homes + setbacks, roadways, and other space-consuming requirements, makes the trip to the store effectively arduous even in the context of a car (let alone those that don't have vehicles ... too young, too old/infirm, other family members out at work, etc):
 

1 hour ago, august948 said:

Since the Heights is a suburban development, it's natural that residents there are going to buy bulk items that can't be carried on a bike or on public transport.  Perhaps you are confusing the Heights with a truly urbanized, multistory residential district like those that exist in some spots here and in some other cities around the world.

The rest of your post is just restating the problem: the negative externalities of car-centric buildout even in Heights, or other "Inner Loop walkable" neighborhoods. The parking minimums and other onerous codes effectively crowd out "the little guy" such that larger chains represented in "consolidated big box stores" are naturally the ones that persist (i.e. larger companies have more wealth = much easier to hire the lawyers, consultants, etc that go through the city codes, land acquisitions, etc). Relinquish the useless minimums, and watch the area flourish with neighborhood commercials that allow the frequent buys, selections, etc of all types of LOCAL stuff pertaining to clothing, jewelry, toys, food, etc

Again, Heights is a STREETCAR neighborhood: it is only "suburban" in the sense that streetcar TODs were, in the past, the forms of expansion. But TODs and pedestrian-friendliness of streetcar neighborhoods are very different from the current car-centric suburbia that we know today.

And cities grow and change. Increasing land-values calls for increasing density ... including higher rises, whether in Heights or other areas of Houston. After all, another famous "streetcar suburb" is none other than the Brooklyn Borough of NYC. The overall loose regulations of Houston help a lot in creating the Inner Loop densification (particularly residential): all that's left is to kill the remaining useless rules (particularly low-hanging fruit like parking minimums and setbacks), and allow truer urbanity to really flourish.

[__nevii]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

no doubt, there's all sorts of sides to the subject, and no one way to do it is the right way. the thing of it is, it needs to be understood that there are trade-offs both ways. in some scenarios the business owner suffers, in others, the local homeowners suffer. 

As mentioned before, there are negative externalities in car-dependent policies like parking minimums, large setbacks and lot sizes, etc that don't exist in the other (more denser) way: whether it is environmental sustainability/flooding, or rising prices/city finances, or traffic, all of it is worse with car-centric policies compared to denser urbanity. In that respect, there is no "both sides" to it:

Quote

if you have less requirements for parking minimums because it's a neighborhood level business, when the store/restaurant/coffee shop that is opened with every intention of being used by locals becomes popular and people who aren't local want to come, so now, if they don't have appropriate parking in a city like Houston where driving is the only option provided by government, we are stuck with people parking on neighborhood streets. the locals that once sang the praises of that amazing local business are now cursing everyone that goes to it.

as an example, you want to go to Permission? if you don't grab one of the 10 slots shared by it and Pho Binh, you are either paying for parking in the lot formerly known as Fitzgeralds, or you are parking on a neighborhood street. and that's the case for any place on White Oak.

if only we had a real public transit option, then the minimum parking discussions kind of just disappear. 

There are no principled justifications for parking minimums in anywhere, even when factoring in transit options/lackthereof.

In fact, most stuff in US zoning codes (setbacks, residential density limits, etc) have no principled justification.

Most of the complaining is irrelevant: just a bunch of shooting the messenger, poisoning the well, affirming the consequent, and other fallacious, misdirected ire that misses the core causal connections (i.e. and, hence, important keys to true problem solving).

Edited March 28 by __nevii

[Ross]

5 hours ago, __nevii said:

City living is more about smaller purchases in more frequent store/shop visits, so the concerns that you bring up are mostly moot:

• The whole concept of "large bulk purchases" comes precisely because of the isolated nature of post-WWII single-family suburban buildouts: even a simple trip to the grocery store is an arduous drive, so you HAVE to buy all the bulk stuff that you can in order for the supply to last longer until the next trip.
   
• Some of the stuff you bring up (like the pounds of mulch) naturally get less use-cases in a more urbanized setting anyway (or the use of it is less individualized, meaning that no one individual has to worry about such purchases).

 

Precisely why we need to axe parking minimums all over the city. Removing that burden will allow development in "narrow street" areas like Heights to be even more "context sensitive." The recent Livable Places did some great work in terms of "middle housing", as well as addressing driveway structures (i.e. such that there are less driveway curbcuts destroying the previous street parking)  ..... but relinquishing the remaining useless rules throughout the city would assist a ton in preventing the issue of cars in "streets too narrow for them."

Heights was one of the original "streetcar neighborhoods" in Houston: we're going to have to build that back.

 

We live inside the loop.. We have a 1/4 acre lot and live within a few blocks of Kroger. We still use the car to shop for groceries.  Anything to do with the yard is going to require a car. I've known a few people who tried to live without a car in Houston. One managed pretty well, but he was a coworker who was literally a rocket scientist, but was absent minded. He never learned to drive. All the other gave up after a month or so. The other issue is getting to and from work. Unless your office is downtown, public transport is tough. When we lived in Midtown, I had to take the bus to Bellaire for work for 6 weeks after TS Allison flooded my car. 6 block walk to the bus and it dropped off across the street from my office. It turned a 10 to 15 minute commute into 45 minutes or longer. Why would I not use a car for that?

[004n063]

10 hours ago, Ross said:

We live inside the loop.. We have a 1/4 acre lot and live within a few blocks of Kroger. We still use the car to shop for groceries.  Anything to do with the yard is going to require a car. I've known a few people who tried to live without a car in Houston. One managed pretty well, but he was a coworker who was literally a rocket scientist, but was absent minded. He never learned to drive. All the other gave up after a month or so. The other issue is getting to and from work. Unless your office is downtown, public transport is tough. When we lived in Midtown, I had to take the bus to Bellaire for work for 6 weeks after TS Allison flooded my car. 6 block walk to the bus and it dropped off across the street from my office. It turned a 10 to 15 minute commute into 45 minutes or longer. Why would I not use a car for that?

I've been without a car for a year and a half now, and while I'd never consider buying one again, I think it's silly to scold people for using cars in a city that consistently makes cars the easiest option for many tasks. 

The goal should be to consistently cut into the overall automotive modeshare by making alternatives viable and appealing. If people who used to drive for everything now drive to the grocery store, home depot, and work, but bike to coffee, the bookstore, and school, and walk to the park and the bar, then that's a win.

More importantly, though, like another commenter said, this has nothing to do with the 11th street bike lanes.

[__nevii]

On 3/28/2024 at 8:09 PM, Ross said:

We live inside the loop.. We have a 1/4 acre lot and live within a few blocks of Kroger. We still use the car to shop for groceries.  Anything to do with the yard is going to require a car. I've known a few people who tried to live without a car in Houston. One managed pretty well, but he was a coworker who was literally a rocket scientist, but was absent minded. He never learned to drive. All the other gave up after a month or so. The other issue is getting to and from work. Unless your office is downtown, public transport is tough. When we lived in Midtown, I had to take the bus to Bellaire for work for 6 weeks after TS Allison flooded my car. 6 block walk to the bus and it dropped off across the street from my office. It turned a 10 to 15 minute commute into 45 minutes or longer. Why would I not use a car for that?

 

14 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I've been without a car for a year and a half now, and while I'd never consider buying one again, I think it's silly to scold people for using cars in a city that consistently makes cars the easiest option for many tasks. 

The goal should be to consistently cut into the overall automotive modeshare by making alternatives viable and appealing. If people who used to drive for everything now drive to the grocery store, home depot, and work, but bike to coffee, the bookstore, and school, and walk to the park and the bar, then that's a win.

More importantly, though, like another commenter said, this has nothing to do with the 11th street bike lanes.

It has nothing to do with "scolding" anyone. More just pointing out that all these problems (in addition to merely being from policy choices that can easily be reversed at no cost) do also have a component that stems from personal choices ("self-inflictions"): for instance, complaining about Houston's mass transit ... while living out in Fulshear (hence, sprawled away from the action to begin with).

Now, I do feel that much of the sprawl in Houston stems from the policies of higher governments (federal and especially state-level policies). But, what was mentioned regarding parking, setback, lotsize, etc reforms would assist the city a lot: and all it takes is a city council vote.

As for the 11th St. project, the discussion is relevant because those bike lanes represent more of the city's recent steps towards greater multimodality ... steps that are in jeopardy of being regressed given the current mayor's rhetoric (hasty actions on Houston Avenue, unironic mentions of "anti-car activists", etc).

[august948]

On 3/29/2024 at 9:51 PM, __nevii said:

 

It has nothing to do with "scolding" anyone. More just pointing out that all these problems (in addition to merely being from policy choices that can easily be reversed at no cost) do also have a component that stems from personal choices ("self-inflictions"): for instance, complaining about Houston's mass transit ... while living out in Fulshear (hence, sprawled away from the action to begin with).

Now, I do feel that much of the sprawl in Houston stems from the policies of higher governments (federal and especially state-level policies). But, what was mentioned regarding parking, setback, lotsize, etc reforms would assist the city a lot: and all it takes is a city council vote.

As for the 11th St. project, the discussion is relevant because those bike lanes represent more of the city's recent steps towards greater multimodality ... steps that are in jeopardy of being regressed given the current mayor's rhetoric (hasty actions on Houston Avenue, unironic mentions of "anti-car activists", etc).

Anybody here living in Fulshear and complaining about mass transit?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?