U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which of the three models of infill best describe the city you live in?
Manhattanization 9 31.03%
Vancouverization 14 48.28%
Brusselization 6 20.69%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2016, 05:28 PM
 
470 posts, read 287,667 times
Reputation: 151

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
Houston development pattern does seem random though.
And to the outsider it is perplexing when there is an interesting looking old building surrounded by acres of empty lots and that architecturally interesting building gets torn down while the empty lots remain.

Now there may be a valid reason for it, but just saying, to someone with no knowledge of the back stories, it does seem perplexing.
Of course, it is all about context. Depending on what type of historic building is on those lots, as well as what types of development is planned, it can actually be justifiable to tear down the historic building (or at least, relocate it or maintain the facade).

I mean, historic buildings like these should be thoroughly preserved:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7632...8i6656!6m1!1e1

But this has no place is a burgeoning urban district:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7555...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
Plus proposals like the Ashby highrise does lend credence to the randomized theory.

Houston's development is not completely randomized, but it is more random than not. When the only thing stopping anything from going up anywhere is located in a deed, that means anything CAN go up anywhere.
Was the project not cancelled?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2016, 05:41 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,163,750 times
Reputation: 4349
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIRAL View Post
Of course, it is all about context. Depending on what type of historic building is on those lots, as well as what types of development is planned, it can actually be justifiable to tear down the historic building (or at least, relocate it or maintain the facade).

I mean, historic buildings like these should be thoroughly preserved:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7632...8i6656!6m1!1e1

But this has no place is a burgeoning urban district:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7555...8i6656!6m1!1e1



Was the project not cancelled?
Personally, I wouldn't like to see either of these structures torn down. Had the city been planned smarter from the jump, they probably wouldn't have to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 06:01 PM
 
470 posts, read 287,667 times
Reputation: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Personally, I wouldn't like to see either of these structures torn down. Had the city been planned smarter from the jump, they probably wouldn't have to be.
To preserve them, but still be able to utilize the site for prime development, those shacks are best to be relocated somewhere, probably as new additions to Sam Houston Park.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 06:15 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,163,750 times
Reputation: 4349
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIRAL View Post
To preserve them, but still be able to utilize the site for prime development, those shacks are best to be relocated somewhere, probably as new additions to Sam Houston Park.
Or, in a better planned city, they would have never been in the way in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,639 posts, read 27,073,493 times
Reputation: 9580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
To make fun of what you said lol
And what was the problem with what I said or are you going to act like a 12 year old for the rest of this thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 06:29 PM
 
470 posts, read 287,667 times
Reputation: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Or, in a better planned city, they would have never been in the way in the first place.
No city knows what kinds of demands/changes will take place in the future, so "in the way" changes depending on the need.

Had Houston remained a small city, many of those historic "shotgun shacks" would have been left untouched where they were. But, Houston happened to have a recently large population influx, meaning that demand for core amenities sees a sudden increase. Thus, if an old neighborhood full of "shotgun shacks" happens to be prime land for urban development, then re-scaling of the fabric to accommodate the increased city size is bound to happen.

And that is what you are seeing in Houston, which appears as "Brusselization" to those with no context of the plan; the old urban neighborhoods of the city are being re-scaled to accommodate the larger population in the core, block-by-block.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 06:43 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,163,750 times
Reputation: 4349
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIRAL View Post
No city knows what kinds of demands/changes will take place in the future, so "in the way" changes depending on the need.

Had Houston remained a small city, many of those historic "shotgun shacks" would have been left untouched where they were. But, Houston happened to have a recently large population influx, meaning that demand for core amenities sees a sudden increase. Thus, if an old neighborhood full of "shotgun shacks" happens to be prime land for urban development, then re-scaling of the fabric to accommodate the increased city size is bound to happen.

And that is what you are seeing in Houston, which appears as "Brusselization" to those with no context of the plan; the old urban neighborhoods of the city are being re-scaled to accommodate the larger population in the core, block-by-block.
Because Houston is the only city in the world that went from small to big within a century? No. The fact is most major American cities have done a far better job of preserving their historic architecture than this city has. With the right zoning in place, those two houses would have never even existed next to a block where you would put a ball park.

What is this "plan" you keep speaking of?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 07:08 PM
 
470 posts, read 287,667 times
Reputation: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Because Houston is the only city in the world that went from small to big within a century? No. The fact is most major American cities have done a far better job of preserving their historic architecture than this city has. With the right zoning in place, those two houses would have never even existed next to a block where you would put a ball park.

What is this "plan" you keep speaking of?
This whole "Houston didn't preserve its historic architecture as well as other cities" argument is very vague, and, honestly, isn't easily quantifiable. For example, I'm sure NYC, Chicago etc tore down loads and loads of historic buildings as they developed, is just that they have so much stock (compared to Houston), that losing historic buildings won't have an effect on the overall fabric. All cities that boomed like Houston did tore down loads of historic architecture.

Again, it still stands that the future is unknown, and no-one knows what needs/demands will exist in a given area of the city. Zoning/lack of zoning has nothing to do with it. Those two houses were probably the remnants of a fabric that once existed in Houston, until the city got large, and decided to re-scale its fabric to properly accommodate its size; the Minute Maid Park is one of many results from this re-scaling. Had those two shacks been large enough to be of appropriate scale of the planned district, they would have been preserved. But, trust me, no urbanist is going to miss worthless shacks like those as the area develops.

The plan is simple: reworking kinks to create a masterpiece.

Last edited by VIRAL; 08-08-2016 at 07:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 07:48 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,163,750 times
Reputation: 4349
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIRAL View Post
This whole "Houston didn't preserve its historic architecture as well as other cities" argument is very vague, and, honestly, isn't easily quantifiable. For example, I'm sure NYC, Chicago etc tore down loads and loads of historic buildings as they developed, is just that they have so much stock (compared to Houston), that losing historic buildings won't have an effect on the overall fabric. All cities that boomed like Houston did tore down loads of historic architecture.
Still not as much as Houston. Atlanta says hi.

Quote:
Again, it still stands that the future is unknown, and no-one knows what needs/demands will exist in a given area of the city. Zoning/lack of zoning has nothing to do with it. Those two houses were probably the remnants of a fabric that once existed in Houston, until the city got large, and decided to re-scale its fabric to properly accommodate its size; the Minute Maid Park is one of many results from this re-scaling. Had those two shacks been large enough to be of appropriate scale of the planned district, they would have been preserved. But, trust me, no urbanist is going to miss worthless shacks like those as the area develops.
Zoning has plenty to do with it. And it's precisely the reason other cities don't suffer the same ills over and over again.

Quote:
What Houston might have is the worst of both worlds: all the burdens of regulation and none of the foresight to use it effectively. “It works like zoning,” Festa said, “but it’s not the product of a comprehensive plan.”
Forget What You
Quote:
The plan is simple: reworking kinks to create a masterpiece.
Okay, you call it that and I'll call it what it is: a mess. A dynamic mess, but still a mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 08:24 PM
 
470 posts, read 287,667 times
Reputation: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Still not as much as Houston. Atlanta says hi.
You still just can't quantify things straight up like that. There is no substantial evidence, other than the vague cries and emotions of uber whiners, that prove Houston's supposed negligence of history compared to its other peer cities (or other large cities, period).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Zoning has plenty to do with it. And it's precisely the reason other cities don't suffer the same ills over and over again.



Forget What You
The article has nothing to do with the point at hand, which is that cities grow and re-scale to accommodate population fluxes. As this happens, some structures that aren't fit are demolished, while those that sync with the scale are saved. All cities do this as they grow.

Those two shacks would have been in the area, regardless of zoning or no zoning, as they are remnants of the area before urban re-scaling. And due to the developing scale of the surrounding environment, the shacks are out of place, and must be eliminated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Okay, you call it that and I'll call it what it is: a mess. A dynamic mess, but still a mess.
And the current mess is re-ordering itself to a masterpiece. I believe a general plan was adopted by Houston under Annise Parker. In that case, even if I was wrong, and zoning did have an impact on chaotic development, it seems that the chaos can be unwinded and reordered, now that a general plan is in place.
Houston Has a Plan. Now What? - The Urban Edge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top