3 ms·

If it were truly no zoning in practice, I think Houston might actually be densifying faster than it currently is. But large parts of it are saddled with rules (

If it were truly no zoning in practice, I think Houston might actually be densifying faster than it currently is. But large parts of it are saddled with rules (both private- and public-sector) explicitly requiring low-density housing. A lot of the city was developed in big chunks as master-planned neighborhoods laid out by a single developer. In addition to setting up the initial lots as low-density housing, most of these developers added deed restrictions that prohibit higher-density redevelopment. In effect the deed restrictions end up creating a kind of perpetual "zoned single-family-home" status for much of the city. The city has added its own bit to that, with requirements in some areas that tend to also favor or require low-density development: minimum-setback rules, minimum parking requirements, etc.

briandear 12y ago
The simple problem in Houston is the generally white, left-wing NIMBY crowd. Case in point-- a mid-rise multi use commercial/residential building was going up near Kirby Drive and the upper-middle class residents of the area fought it tooth and nail because it would lead to more "congestion" in the area. I say "left-wing" because it's a fact. This particular neighborhood votes overwhelmingly democrat. Yet out in the more 'conservative' suburbs such as the Woodlands, mixed use higher density housing is being welcomed and encouraged by residents. It's a classic limousine liberal situation -- they want all of these 'great' things until it interferes with their view or they ability to not have to wait an extra five minutes at the Starbucks. Extreme left wing mayor Anise Parker, for example, draws much of her support from these groups, yet refuses to address the infrastructure issues that would make these developments more feasible -- she spends political capital on bike trails in parks, but refuses to maintain roads that would make these higher density developments more palatable to existing residents. For example, one of the main arteries in Houston is Westheimer Road -- I've driven in smoother roads in Beirut than this one. The problem with high density development isn't the developers, it's the NIMBYs who were their first and object to their zone of exclusivity being encroached upon by typically younger, more urbanized new arrivals. This is ironic because generally the left wing in cities promote this kind of thing, but Houston's political makeup is actually rather unique. So if you are a 'left-winger' not from Houston, I don't mean an insult. Houston's left is a special breed. Another reason for the development of Houston's suburban 'cities' such as the Woodlands is because the climate in the city proper is comparatively more anti-business. Tasks like getting permits approved is a Kafka-esque process, not to mention the endless regulations that make running a restaurant, shop or other small business in the city limits so painful. Interestingly, in the Woodlands for instance, that 'city' center resembles something one might see in Portland -- walkable, bike friendly roads, high density residential and retail, mixed with greenspace and office buildings. More telling is that the woodlands is privately developed. Exxon is actually building their new headquarters in that area and housing prices have already started to skyrocket.. There's a demand for an 'urban' experience. Unfortunately, the political power in Houston itself misses the forest for the trees.
- _delirium 12y ago
  My own experience hasn't seen much correlation between politics and NIMBYism in Houston. I don't know much about the Woodlands, but I've spend a good number of years in Clear Lake, which is conservative and opposed to development of anything other than suburban-style, single-family homes (it was also privately developed, by a subsidiary of Exxon, who set up the anti-redevelopment deed restrictions). That's done mostly through the weird quasi-municipal-politics of the homeowners' associations though rather than "regular" politics. The homeowners' associations seem to be almost all controlled by people who really want to maintain a kind of wealthy-suburban-enclave feel, and are scared that allowing apartment complexes to be built, or relaxing anti-rental regulations, might result in "the wrong kind of people" moving in to their neighborhood. I agree the west-side are pretty anti-development, but again that seems to go across the whole political spectrum, from liberals in Montrose to conservatives in River Oaks. Even John Culberson (R, 7th district) has gotten himself involved in west-side NIMBY causes.
shiftpgdn 12y ago
The minimum parking requirements in Houston are absolutely insane. It's 7-10 spaces per 1000 sq ft of business. A small 2000 sq ft restaurant would need about 20 parking spaces directly next to the business. It's just unbelievably wasteful and makes developing a walk-able city next to impossible.

briandear 12y ago

The simple problem in Houston is the generally white, left-wing NIMBY crowd. Case in point-- a mid-rise multi use commercial/residential building was going up near Kirby Drive and the upper-middle class residents of the area fought it tooth and nail because it would lead to more "congestion" in the area. I say "left-wing" because it's a fact. This particular neighborhood votes overwhelmingly democrat. Yet out in the more 'conservative' suburbs such as the Woodlands, mixed use higher density housing is being welcomed and encouraged by residents. It's a classic limousine liberal situation -- they want all of these 'great' things until it interferes with their view or they ability to not have to wait an extra five minutes at the Starbucks. Extreme left wing mayor Anise Parker, for example, draws much of her support from these groups, yet refuses to address the infrastructure issues that would make these developments more feasible -- she spends political capital on bike trails in parks, but refuses to maintain roads that would make these higher density developments more palatable to existing residents. For example, one of the main arteries in Houston is Westheimer Road -- I've driven in smoother roads in Beirut than this one. The problem with high density development isn't the developers, it's the NIMBYs who were their first and object to their zone of exclusivity being encroached upon by typically younger, more urbanized new arrivals. This is ironic because generally the left wing in cities promote this kind of thing, but Houston's political makeup is actually rather unique. So if you are a 'left-winger' not from Houston, I don't mean an insult. Houston's left is a special breed. Another reason for the development of Houston's suburban 'cities' such as the Woodlands is because the climate in the city proper is comparatively more anti-business. Tasks like getting permits approved is a Kafka-esque process, not to mention the endless regulations that make running a restaurant, shop or other small business in the city limits so painful. Interestingly, in the Woodlands for instance, that 'city' center resembles something one might see in Portland -- walkable, bike friendly roads, high density residential and retail, mixed with greenspace and office buildings. More telling is that the woodlands is privately developed. Exxon is actually building their new headquarters in that area and housing prices have already started to skyrocket.. There's a demand for an 'urban' experience. Unfortunately, the political power in Houston itself misses the forest for the trees.

_delirium 12y ago
My own experience hasn't seen much correlation between politics and NIMBYism in Houston. I don't know much about the Woodlands, but I've spend a good number of years in Clear Lake, which is conservative and opposed to development of anything other than suburban-style, single-family homes (it was also privately developed, by a subsidiary of Exxon, who set up the anti-redevelopment deed restrictions). That's done mostly through the weird quasi-municipal-politics of the homeowners' associations though rather than "regular" politics. The homeowners' associations seem to be almost all controlled by people who really want to maintain a kind of wealthy-suburban-enclave feel, and are scared that allowing apartment complexes to be built, or relaxing anti-rental regulations, might result in "the wrong kind of people" moving in to their neighborhood. I agree the west-side are pretty anti-development, but again that seems to go across the whole political spectrum, from liberals in Montrose to conservatives in River Oaks. Even John Culberson (R, 7th district) has gotten himself involved in west-side NIMBY causes.

shiftpgdn 12y ago

The minimum parking requirements in Houston are absolutely insane. It's 7-10 spaces per 1000 sq ft of business. A small 2000 sq ft restaurant would need about 20 parking spaces directly next to the business. It's just unbelievably wasteful and makes developing a walk-able city next to impossible.