astrohip Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, __nevii said: But the problem still remains with valuable land areas (proximity to CBD/walkable urbanity) being locked away, limiting the ability for demand to be satiated (in turn, driving up prices). Without speaking to any particular area or project... why is this a problem? If current residents have "locked away" the land use in their area, doesn't that indicate that current residents want a certain type of development? Why should you, or anyone for that matter, be able to decide how an area should be developed that is "locked away"? This does not apply to areas that have no restrictions. If there is no zoning, or deed restrictions, or land use limits of any sort, then yes, you can develop. So an Ashby Hi-Rise would be allowed. But if there are restrictions of any sort, why should someone else decide to throw them out? Isn't that "taking"? 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXK Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 The hypothetical on the opposite side of that spectrum is why should someone be able to restrict what happens on land that's not their property? Alternative hypothetical would be why does being there first give someone the right to decide what is the best use of land for their area? Personally I think that within reason we shouldn't have policies that artificially limit potential housing supply in a desirable area. I think this development specifically is a net positive for this neighborhood. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__nevii Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 (edited) 12 hours ago, astrohip said: why is this a problem? Already alluded to it regarding housing prices. These decisions that seem reasonable at the small-scale, individual level build up into tremendous externality effects. What happens when more land locked away? Less supply. What happens with less supply? Less options for developments, leading to less affordability. What happens with less options for development and affordability? Further exacerbation of suburban sprawl. And with more sprawl? Comes gross problems of greater flooding, more pollution, more infrastructure burden with less people, etc. And all in the name of propping up petty fiefdoms. I personally think deed-restrictions (and HOAs, "historic districts", and other such stuff) should be abolished outright. However... Quote If current residents have "locked away" the land use in their area, doesn't that indicate that current residents want a certain type of development? Why should you, or anyone for that matter, be able to decide how an area should be developed that is "locked away"? This does not apply to areas that have no restrictions. If there is no zoning, or deed restrictions, or land use limits of any sort, then yes, you can develop. So an Ashby Hi-Rise would be allowed. But if there are restrictions of any sort, why should someone else decide to throw them out? I'll grant you this — the deed restricted, historical protected, and other such carve-outs are not the "low-hanging fruit" (especially given, as you say, the preference that residents within would have for such protections). Much more crucial things to target for now, such as minimum requirements (i.e. setbacks, off-street parking, etc). What is interesting about the deed restrictions, SPLS, or other such "opt-outs" is that the attempts to justify them often circle back to the problems of car-dependency (and policies that subsidize it). That is, they recognize the problems of car-focused design, how it ruins the aesthetic of constructs in general (parking garages, townhouses, etc). Unfortunately, they simply lack the critical-thinking skills to understanding that the problems that they refer to are precisely a by-product of certain elements of the city's codes: the "NIMBYs" actually should focus their efforts on repealing stuff like parking minimums city-wide, if anything. Hence, I do think that restrictions need to be "loosened up" (at least, shorten the renewal frequency to no more than 2-4 years). If not abolished outright. Quote Isn't that "taking"? No more so than the 13th amendment "took away the rights" of certain states to practice certain actions... Edited April 27 by __nevii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Interesting to compare Norhill's deed restrictions to the limitations applied by the historic district. The historic district really just regulates scale and exterior materials, so garage apartments and 2 story multi unit buildings are no problem. Especially since both were built in the neighborhoods during the historic period. The deed restrictions actually limit you to one unit per lot though, so they block any kind of small-scale densification, even garage apartments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__nevii Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 It's just hard to tell when many "historic districts" are used just to disguise the true hinderances that are at play. I know there were controversies in the pasts with some in Heights area, stemming from the actions of Marlene Gaffrick (current "aid" of Whitmire, not ideal for urbanism as seen with latest actions of stalling projects). On the other hand, some areas like "Freedmen's Town" do deserve protection. In contrast, I personally don't see benefit of these Houston deed restrictions. They are no different than subsidizing suburban sprawl, and should be wiped out on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.