> it was rare to see development that was crazy or so "out of place" Part of that is because, imo, the "no zoning" mythos doesn't really result in practical fr

> it was rare to see development that was crazy or so "out of place" Part of that is because, imo, the "no zoning" mythos doesn't really result in practical freedom to develop land however you want. There are two big zoning-like restrictions in practice, which if anything end up with more restrictive land use than many cities which do officially have zoning. The first is that just about all neighborhoods built after WW2 are master-planned communities laid out by one developer (in many parts of Houston, subsidiaries of the various oil companies who were selling off land). These developers built neighborhoods intended to have a particular character, most commonly a suburban-style character, and attached deed restrictions to the properties requiring buyers to maintain that character in perpetuity. This has very similar effects to zoning, in that there are huge swaths of Houston which are by deed restriction not allowed to be redeveloped into anything but single-family homes with a minimum lot size (owners also cannot subdivide their home into rental units). In some ways it's even worse because "rezoning" is even more difficult than usual. Most of these communities do have a way to modify the deeds in principle, but it's all routed through homeowners' association politics, which make regular municipal politics look well-functioning. The second is a big set of development restrictions from the city which, while not precisely zoning, strongly influence what can practically be built. Rules on minimum setbacks, height, and minimum parking really constrain a lot of possible redevelopment.