5 ms·

I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives

I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way. Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning, developers will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.

ars 8y ago
That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right? In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely. > will not build denser properties because they’re riskier. Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?
- graeme 8y ago
  I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks. Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston. https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-land-use/ https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
  - smcameron 8y ago
    Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.
    - brailsafe 8y ago
      Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.
      - romwell 8y ago
        There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out. (And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable).
        kraigie 8y ago
        Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.
    - graeme 8y ago
      I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style. In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street. In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - exelius 8y ago
        Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long. Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess. So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.
        graeme 8y ago
        That's a good argument: the development of cities post-AC and post-car strongly favours the current model. But, is it possible that cities were small because the wrong building style was used? After all, the Spanish colonies to the south of the US are warmer than the South, but had large cities.
        waldrews 8y ago
        Cuba is small? The length, just under 800 miles, is about the same as the distance from New York to Chicago.
    - kraigie 8y ago
      There are underground and above ground non auto networks. See Canada, las Vegas, Portland transit mall
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
graeme 8y ago
I just did a cursory search, and houston has mandatory parking minimums. Those are one of the most sprawl policies you can find. It also mandates setbacks from the street, wide roads, and long blocks. Overall Houston does a lot of stuff right! But, I think they have still baked sprawl into their system. From what I can see, my dense Montreal neighbourbood would be illegal in Houston. (It's illegal almost everywhere in North America, of course) https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-land-use/ https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
- so33 8y ago
  The aerial picture of downtown Houston with all its parking lots is a favorite to show the deleterious effects of mandatory parking minimums: http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-in-downtown.html http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-...
  - graeme 8y ago
    In the same blog I linked (different article I think) they actually noted that the downtown has no mandatory minimums, but it needs lots of lots because there are mandatory minimums elsewhere and everyone has cars as a result.
    - exelius 8y ago
      Part of my point is that I think the cause-effect relationship may be reversed anyway. Texas is also so hot in the summer that people will not be walking outside for any appreciable period of time; it becomes a health risk after a certain point when temperatures can be above 100F / 90% humidity for months on end. It’s not an accident that Texas looked more like Montana in 1900 than California. The mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning made large cities in Texas possible; and the low population density made land cheap. The centers of most big southern cities were never walkable. Most of those cities would never have existed without cars. I don’t know how you introduce density into a situation like that, and I don’t think zoning rules would be able to undo the damage of the last century. These cities were built around cars, and you can’t just roll that back without remaking the whole city and displacing many, many people.
oftenwrong 8y ago
Houston doesn't have zoning, but it does have development regulations that accomplish what zoning codes accomplish in other US cities. https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/ https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/
msandford 8y ago
I have to respectfully disagree as someone who has lived in Houston for more than a few years. The density in Houston is bimodal because the traffic makes commuting so painful. There are huge numbers of zero lot line 2-4 story townhouses being built within say 5 miles of downtown. 4-6 houses on 1/4 acre so not a lot of room to waste. And then once you get past say 5-10 miles from downtown the sprawl is undeniable. But to paint Houston as all sprawl just isn't honest.

ars 8y ago

That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right? In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely. > will not build denser properties because they’re riskier. Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?

graeme 8y ago
I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks. Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston. https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-land-use/ https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
- smcameron 8y ago
  Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.
  - brailsafe 8y ago
    Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.
    - romwell 8y ago
      There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out. (And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable).
      - kraigie 8y ago
        Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.
  - graeme 8y ago
    I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style. In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street. In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - exelius 8y ago
      Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long. Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess. So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.
      - graeme 8y ago
        That's a good argument: the development of cities post-AC and post-car strongly favours the current model. But, is it possible that cities were small because the wrong building style was used? After all, the Spanish colonies to the south of the US are warmer than the South, but had large cities.
      - waldrews 8y ago
        Cuba is small? The length, just under 800 miles, is about the same as the distance from New York to Chicago.
  - kraigie 8y ago
    There are underground and above ground non auto networks. See Canada, las Vegas, Portland transit mall
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

graeme 8y ago

I just did a cursory search, and houston has mandatory parking minimums. Those are one of the most sprawl policies you can find. It also mandates setbacks from the street, wide roads, and long blocks. Overall Houston does a lot of stuff right! But, I think they have still baked sprawl into their system. From what I can see, my dense Montreal neighbourbood would be illegal in Houston. (It's illegal almost everywhere in North America, of course) https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-land-use/ https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...

so33 8y ago
The aerial picture of downtown Houston with all its parking lots is a favorite to show the deleterious effects of mandatory parking minimums: http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-in-downtown.html http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-...
- graeme 8y ago
  In the same blog I linked (different article I think) they actually noted that the downtown has no mandatory minimums, but it needs lots of lots because there are mandatory minimums elsewhere and everyone has cars as a result.
  - exelius 8y ago
    Part of my point is that I think the cause-effect relationship may be reversed anyway. Texas is also so hot in the summer that people will not be walking outside for any appreciable period of time; it becomes a health risk after a certain point when temperatures can be above 100F / 90% humidity for months on end. It’s not an accident that Texas looked more like Montana in 1900 than California. The mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning made large cities in Texas possible; and the low population density made land cheap. The centers of most big southern cities were never walkable. Most of those cities would never have existed without cars. I don’t know how you introduce density into a situation like that, and I don’t think zoning rules would be able to undo the damage of the last century. These cities were built around cars, and you can’t just roll that back without remaking the whole city and displacing many, many people.

oftenwrong 8y ago

Houston doesn't have zoning, but it does have development regulations that accomplish what zoning codes accomplish in other US cities. https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/ https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/

msandford 8y ago

I have to respectfully disagree as someone who has lived in Houston for more than a few years. The density in Houston is bimodal because the traffic makes commuting so painful. There are huge numbers of zero lot line 2-4 story townhouses being built within say 5 miles of downtown. 4-6 houses on 1/4 acre so not a lot of room to waste. And then once you get past say 5-10 miles from downtown the sprawl is undeniable. But to paint Houston as all sprawl just isn't honest.