5 ms·

The development is happening outside of the city limits. Which means that no amount of zoning in the already annexed land could or would stop developers from d

The development is happening outside of the city limits. Which means that no amount of zoning in the already annexed land could or would stop developers from doing things in the unannexed land. In order for your assertion that zoning is the problem to hold water, the city of Houston would have to annex faster than the developers popped out new subdivisions, which definitely isn't happening. I agree that there's a distinct lack of planning in Houston which is a problem. But those aren't necessarily the same thing. Further there are good local neighborhoods popping up all over, especially wherever the light rail is going. All without any zoning whatsoever.

ska 10y ago
I haven't lived there for a while , so perhaps good neighbourhoods are popping up, I hope so. They certainly weren't therr 8 or so years ago. I think you are missing the degree to which zoning is needed as a tool for effective planning.
- msandford 10y ago
  > I think you are missing the degree to which zoning is needed as a tool for effective planning. Okay, so enlighten me! I totally understand how zoning and planning theoretically go hand-in-hand so that you build stuff near transit, and have transit near stuff, and the like. But Houston's problem is that all the first-round development happens outside city limits. Meaning that the overarching plan (if there was one) would still not be able to influence in any way what's happening in places where the city has no jurisdiction. So how would zoning inside the city limits do anything to influence people building outside city limits?
  - ska 10y ago
    Building outside the city limits only works be use of the infrastructure projects to support it, so you are right in that this isn't simply a zoning issue (unless they did something like Toronto's green belt. Which is effectively zoning writ large). But that isn't by any means the only problem. People buy on the outer rim because there is very little advantage to buying anywhere else. This, in part because there aren't cohesive areas, and that has more to do with zoning. In most cities the size of Houston you'll have a denser core with some strong arguments for living there, and these are strengthened by city planning, which zoning is part of. Houston has very, very little of that. Why buy a place in the loop if I still have to get in my car for most things I need or places to be? Part of the problem is lack of planning, and part of the reason is that lack of zoning allows redevelopment without much (any?) thought about impact. I'm not suggesting zoning is at all the only issue, but it is part of why Houston is such a mess as a city in many ways. While I agree with another respondent that zoning can be part of the problem too, I disagree that it is inherent. It's a tool for planning, and can be used well or poorly.
    - msandford 10y ago
      > Why buy a place in the loop if I still have to get in my car for most things I need or places to be? Because traffic is a total nightmare, because they keep building bigger freeways and making it possible for people to live further and further out. They're exacerbating the problem, not helping it. That road planning is done 100% without zoning too, I might add. But I agree with your point that doing smarter stuff at the denser core might make it easier to entice people inwards and perhaps start Houston growing up instead of out. What's interesting is that people are actually starting to do that now; suburban houses inside the loop are incredibly expensive so most of the new development goes like: 1. buy a $500k, tiny house for the land 2. tear it down 3. build 4-8 townhomes instead 4. sell each for 200k-300k It's getting denser, though not fast enough to make traffic any better.
      - ska 10y ago
        It's interesting that the pricing is changing. In 2007-2009 or so a house in the loop would be $300k (Houston pricing wasn't really affected by 2008). So clearly things are changing. For what it's worth, $500k is still very cheap compared to many metros - a comparable house in many cities would be twice that. 3-4 times in (much of) NY, the bay area, Toronto, Chicago, Vancouver. I think we are making the same point about infrastructure progams there - but traffic still sucks (although it's nothing like some cities) if you live in the core, but you still have to drive all over to do basic things.
        msandford 10y ago
        That's "new" development. If you want a cute little house in the Heights, prepare to shell out very close to a million. Those houses aren't getting bought and torn down. But where prices are low enough and lots are big enough, that's absolutely how new housing is being built.
        ska 10y ago
        When I was there not so long ago, a cute little house in the heights was $350k. I knew people who bought detached homes for less than 100k (not in the heights, and definitely fixer uppers), and that was only 10 years ago. You can't buy nearly any detached homes in some metro cores today for less than a million. "Cute little house in the Heights" equivalent is more like 2-3 million.

ska 10y ago

I haven't lived there for a while , so perhaps good neighbourhoods are popping up, I hope so. They certainly weren't therr 8 or so years ago. I think you are missing the degree to which zoning is needed as a tool for effective planning.

msandford 10y ago
> I think you are missing the degree to which zoning is needed as a tool for effective planning. Okay, so enlighten me! I totally understand how zoning and planning theoretically go hand-in-hand so that you build stuff near transit, and have transit near stuff, and the like. But Houston's problem is that all the first-round development happens outside city limits. Meaning that the overarching plan (if there was one) would still not be able to influence in any way what's happening in places where the city has no jurisdiction. So how would zoning inside the city limits do anything to influence people building outside city limits?
- ska 10y ago
  Building outside the city limits only works be use of the infrastructure projects to support it, so you are right in that this isn't simply a zoning issue (unless they did something like Toronto's green belt. Which is effectively zoning writ large). But that isn't by any means the only problem. People buy on the outer rim because there is very little advantage to buying anywhere else. This, in part because there aren't cohesive areas, and that has more to do with zoning. In most cities the size of Houston you'll have a denser core with some strong arguments for living there, and these are strengthened by city planning, which zoning is part of. Houston has very, very little of that. Why buy a place in the loop if I still have to get in my car for most things I need or places to be? Part of the problem is lack of planning, and part of the reason is that lack of zoning allows redevelopment without much (any?) thought about impact. I'm not suggesting zoning is at all the only issue, but it is part of why Houston is such a mess as a city in many ways. While I agree with another respondent that zoning can be part of the problem too, I disagree that it is inherent. It's a tool for planning, and can be used well or poorly.
  - msandford 10y ago
    > Why buy a place in the loop if I still have to get in my car for most things I need or places to be? Because traffic is a total nightmare, because they keep building bigger freeways and making it possible for people to live further and further out. They're exacerbating the problem, not helping it. That road planning is done 100% without zoning too, I might add. But I agree with your point that doing smarter stuff at the denser core might make it easier to entice people inwards and perhaps start Houston growing up instead of out. What's interesting is that people are actually starting to do that now; suburban houses inside the loop are incredibly expensive so most of the new development goes like: 1. buy a $500k, tiny house for the land 2. tear it down 3. build 4-8 townhomes instead 4. sell each for 200k-300k It's getting denser, though not fast enough to make traffic any better.
    - ska 10y ago
      It's interesting that the pricing is changing. In 2007-2009 or so a house in the loop would be $300k (Houston pricing wasn't really affected by 2008). So clearly things are changing. For what it's worth, $500k is still very cheap compared to many metros - a comparable house in many cities would be twice that. 3-4 times in (much of) NY, the bay area, Toronto, Chicago, Vancouver. I think we are making the same point about infrastructure progams there - but traffic still sucks (although it's nothing like some cities) if you live in the core, but you still have to drive all over to do basic things.
      - msandford 10y ago
        That's "new" development. If you want a cute little house in the Heights, prepare to shell out very close to a million. Those houses aren't getting bought and torn down. But where prices are low enough and lots are big enough, that's absolutely how new housing is being built.
        ska 10y ago
        When I was there not so long ago, a cute little house in the heights was $350k. I knew people who bought detached homes for less than 100k (not in the heights, and definitely fixer uppers), and that was only 10 years ago. You can't buy nearly any detached homes in some metro cores today for less than a million. "Cute little house in the Heights" equivalent is more like 2-3 million.