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.
Oh. No one said a two story building, that was my addition. Someone mentioned a high rise. But really, even a small two story building usually has about 8 apartments - two front, two back on each floor, sometimes one or two in the basement as well. Usually, no more than two cars, maybe three at the most, can park on the street space in front of such a building. That leaves a deficit of five+ cars if there's one per UNIT, when there are often 2-3 people in each unit, each with a car. These buildings are usually in neighborhoods of same, as well, so there are lots of people out looking for parking on the streets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Oh. I didn't think of apartments in the back; was thinking of more like a row-house type building.
A lot of the rentals in Massachusetts are in buildings with only a few units (2/3rds of multi-family housing is in buildings with 9 or less) though new housing is probably different. I noticed out west there were less small multi-unit buildings and more either single family detached or large apartment buildings.
Boston has fewer large apartment buildings than Denver, despite being denser. It does have a smaller % of detached homes, but a lot more small apartment buildings. Even in the city proper where detached homes make up only 10% of the housing stock, it still has a bit less large apartment buildings than the city of Denver. Seattle and Minneapolis appear similar to Denver in housing type; Chicago looks like the closest match to Boston.
Related article on how Houston eliminated a restriction that has resulted in more townhomes being built.
Why Houston has been special since at least 1999 | City Observatory ....
In most other cities, as we’ve covered, politics and the regulatory costs of building housing conspire to make almost all new development either of the density-neutral (or -negative) single-family home variety, or very large multifamily buildings. That’s because if you’re going to go through the process of getting a zoning variance, battling neighborhood opposition, and so on, there needs to be a big payoff on the other end—and building a three-unit building probably isn’t going to cut it. That means when cities do add density, they generally do it with buildings that are often quite a bit larger than their surroundings. Whether or not that’s objectively a problem is up for debate—but clearly, for many people, it is. But by making “missing middle” density legal to build as of right (at least in certain neighborhoods), Houston has seemingly attracted a lot more of it....
Great post OP. It's about time Houston got some love for its lack of zoning.
Houston's lack of zoning is a huge cost reducer; it makes real estate development simpler, due to the lack of red tape, and thus the costs of entry to real estate investment are far cheaper. Therefore, not only can smaller investors (namely, the ever-important middle class) join in real estate development, but savings in start up prices are passed to consumers, which leads to significantly cheaper housing costs. This is something that NYC and SF need to pay close attention to; their stricter codes and NIMBYism prevent a lot of new supply from entering the market and subsequently keep housing prices stable.
Now, if only Houston could get rid of those damn parking requirements!
Great post OP. It's about time Houston got some love for its lack of zoning.
Houston's lack of zoning is a huge cost reducer; it makes real estate development simpler, due to the lack of red tape, and thus the costs of entry to real estate investment are far cheaper. Therefore, not only can smaller investors (namely, the ever-important middle class) join in real estate development, but savings in start up prices are passed to consumers, which leads to significantly cheaper housing costs. This is something that NYC and SF need to pay close attention to; their stricter codes and NIMBYism prevent a lot of new supply from entering the market and subsequently keep housing prices stable.
Now, if only Houston could get rid of those damn parking requirements!
One of the things it also does it make it easier to start up your own business. I noticed when I moved to Atlanta how so many of the stores and restaurants in the city limits were national chains or part of a large local group. The red tape makes it very cumbersome and expensive unless you have deep pockets and connections.
More people in the same area does not translate to easier access to businesses, services, or goods. This fascination with "walkability" reaches levels of absurdity. Look at the "before" and "after" birds-eye view. Although there are more households on the block - each with a smaller footprint - how is it any easier for any of them to "walk" anywhere? They can walk around the block they all live on, big whoop.
First, where do you expect these people to "walk" to? Around the block their townhome project is built on?
Second, even the "pro" article has an obvious backhanded comment: "These are human-scaled, street-focused developments built at a density that makes walking possible, even pleasant, minus the bayou weather." Guess what? The "bayou weather" is permanent - so walking is "pleasant" only for brief periods during the year.
Third, in case you didn't notice, the townhomes are dominated by large driveways to accommodate (gasp!) CARS!!
Fourth, for those complaining about parking garages destroying "urban fabric" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've seen parking garages that are a lot better looking than those cheap looking corrugated metal townhomes. There's far too much emphasis on "aesthetics" in these urbanization forums as the basis for rationalizing all sorts of things and these corrugated metal townhomes illustrate that aesthetics is merely a pre-text 'cause these things certainly wouldn't win any aesthetics awards and it would be difficult to explain how they would be an improvement over a parking garage.
Fourth, who affords and lives in these townhomes (which might actually be condominiums rather than townhomes)? Certainly not the median purchaser. The people more likely to be able to afford them (more senior) would not be in them long because age and mobility impairment will make these multi-story places unsuitable for a long term solution for such folks. In addition, if these buildings are condominiums there is a nightmare of a legal entanglement associated with owning such property which wasn't disclosed anywhere in the article.
More people in the same area does not translate to easier access to businesses, services, or goods. This fascination with "walkability" reaches levels of absurdity. Look at the "before" and "after" birds-eye view. Although there are more households on the block - each with a smaller footprint - how is it any easier for any of them to "walk" anywhere? They can walk around the block they all live on, big whoop.
First, where do you expect these people to "walk" to? Around the block their townhome project is built on?
Second, even the "pro" article has an obvious backhanded comment: "These are human-scaled, street-focused developments built at a density that makes walking possible, even pleasant, minus the bayou weather." Guess what? The "bayou weather" is permanent - so walking is "pleasant" only for brief periods during the year.
Third, in case you didn't notice, the townhomes are dominated by large driveways to accommodate (gasp!) CARS!!
Fourth, for those complaining about parking garages destroying "urban fabric" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've seen parking garages that are a lot better looking than those cheap looking corrugated metal townhomes. There's far too much emphasis on "aesthetics" in these urbanization forums as the basis for rationalizing all sorts of things and these corrugated metal townhomes illustrate that aesthetics is merely a pre-text 'cause these things certainly wouldn't win any aesthetics awards and it would be difficult to explain how they would be an improvement over a parking garage.
Fourth, who affords and lives in these townhomes (which might actually be condominiums rather than townhomes)? Certainly not the median purchaser. The people more likely to be able to afford them (more senior) would not be in them long because age and mobility impairment will make these multi-story places unsuitable for a long term solution for such folks. In addition, if these buildings are condominiums there is a nightmare of a legal entanglement associated with owning such property which wasn't disclosed anywhere in the article.
Houston is quite pleasant to walk in the vast majority of the year, just not mid-May to mid-September.
Actually there are a lot of artists who like these corrugated metal townhomes. Maybe they are cheaper, providing more affordable housing. I was reading somewhere that they are relatively unique to Houston (at least in number-they are quite numerous in the area around Memorial Park) as city requirements wouldn't allow them in many other cities.
Houston is quite pleasant to walk in the vast majority of the year, just not mid-May to mid-September.
We'll have to disagree on that. I lived in Houston and on the coast for many years. If it was so pleasant they wouldn't need underground tunnels for walking in the downtown area. It's hot and miserable for much of the year. Don't get me wrong - I am no weather snob and Houston has lots to offer but the high humidity and heat are not conducive to "pleasant walking" most of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
Actually there are a lot of artists who like these corrugated metal townhomes. Maybe they are cheaper, providing more affordable housing. I was reading somewhere that they are relatively unique to Houston (at least in number-they are quite numerous in the area around Memorial Park) as city requirements wouldn't allow them in many other cities.
My comment here was intended to poke fun at urbanists that go into apoplectic fits over garages based on aesthetic arguments and yet would have no problem with these simply because they house people instead of cars. Regardless a higher number of artists in the same block footprint doesn't make things "walkable".
More people in the same area does not translate to easier access to businesses, services, or goods. This fascination with "walkability" reaches levels of absurdity. Look at the "before" and "after" birds-eye view. Although there are more households on the block - each with a smaller footprint - how is it any easier for any of them to "walk" anywhere? They can walk around the block they all live on, big whoop.
First, where do you expect these people to "walk" to? Around the block their townhome project is built on?
Because there's no businesses or services to walk to, yet. With a denser population, though, there is a much stronger market for a local corner grocer or small bike shop or something similar to open up. Be a little more patient and if the demand is there, then supply will respond.
However, there are transit stops nearby that can be walked to, to access other parts of town. Or pocket parks a block or two away. (If there aren't, there should be).
Quote:
Second, even the "pro" article has an obvious backhanded comment: "These are human-scaled, street-focused developments built at a density that makes walking possible, even pleasant, minus the bayou weather." Guess what? The "bayou weather" is permanent - so walking is "pleasant" only for brief periods during the year.
Weather sucks everywhere except the Mediterranean and California. But that doesn't stop walkers in NYC, Shanghai, Boston, London, Seattle, Paris, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Beijing, Rio De Janeiro, Mexico City, among others.
Quote:
Third, in case you didn't notice, the townhomes are dominated by large driveways to accommodate (gasp!) CARS!!
Because, despite a lack of a zoning code, Houston does still have parking requirements, among other codes that are zoning in all but name. This is not by the developer's choice, as it's an extra cost to them; as said in the parking thread (forgot by whom exactly but he worked in the developing business), builders often have to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into providing parking. If the developers had a choice, those garages likely would not be there; but if they were, then hey, more power to the market.
Quote:
Fourth, for those complaining about parking garages destroying "urban fabric" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've seen parking garages that are a lot better looking than those cheap looking corrugated metal townhomes. There's far too much emphasis on "aesthetics" in these urbanization forums as the basis for rationalizing all sorts of things and these corrugated metal townhomes illustrate that aesthetics is merely a pre-text 'cause these things certainly wouldn't win any aesthetics awards and it would be difficult to explain how they would be an improvement over a parking garage.
I personally agree that garages aren't good for a classic urban appearance, which detracts from a positive, walker-centric atmosphere that encourages people to go out and admire the scenery. However, I will concede that appearances are totally subjective and opinions vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I think it should be up to developers to decide whether they should put in garages or not, and if so, how they look, which way they face, etc. Because those developers will build what is in demand, what is wanted by buyers. I would like to think that front facing garages would be less popular without their requirement, but I am more than open to being proved wrong by the free market.
Quote:
Fourth, who affords and lives in these townhomes (which might actually be condominiums rather than townhomes)? Certainly not the median purchaser. The people more likely to be able to afford them (more senior) would not be in them long because age and mobility impairment will make these multi-story places unsuitable for a long term solution for such folks. In addition, if these buildings are condominiums there is a nightmare of a legal entanglement associated with owning such property which wasn't disclosed anywhere in the article.
That's not true; a lot of those townhomes are fairly affordable for the median purchaser, primarily because of their smaller size. That may be perceived as a weakness, but in real estate, that doesn't matter-it's all about location.
Because there's no businesses or services to walk to, yet. With a denser population, though, there is a much stronger market for a local corner grocer or small bike shop or something similar to open up. Be a little more patient and if the demand is there, then supply will respond.
You obviously are not familiar with restrictive covenants - which are either used to prevent such things or to create monopolies which a market is not allowed to correct through competition or choice. In the configurations illustrated, however, there is not going to be a local corner grocer because the block is consumed by residences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs
However, there are transit stops nearby that can be walked to, to access other parts of town. Or pocket parks a block or two away. (If there aren't, there should be).
'Cause it's always fun to try to lug groceries back to your abode via public transit and because people have lots of leisure time to blow walking around and waiting on transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs
Weather sucks everywhere except the Mediterranean and California. But that doesn't stop walkers in NYC, Shanghai, Boston, London, Seattle, Paris, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Beijing, Rio De Janeiro, Mexico City, among others.
Nothing stopped the residents of the former property from walking irrespective of weather. How does this help your "walkable" form factor goal? This configuration might make it easier for people to walk around the block - as stated earlier, big whoop. Also, this did not bring goods or services any closer for any of the residences nor shorten the trip. All it did is cram more people into the same block.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs
Because, despite a lack of a zoning code, Houston does still have parking requirements, among other codes that are zoning in all but name. This is not by the developer's choice, as it's an extra cost to them; as said in the parking thread (forgot by whom exactly but he worked in the developing business), builders often have to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into providing parking. If the developers had a choice, those garages likely would not be there; but if they were, then hey, more power to the market.
Well the parking in the pictures illustrated isn't that costly and it's doubtful that the places would sell unless parking can be assured somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs
I personally agree that garages aren't good for a classic urban appearance, which detracts from a positive, walker-centric atmosphere that encourages people to go out and admire the scenery. However, I will concede that appearances are totally subjective and opinions vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I think it should be up to developers to decide whether they should put in garages or not, and if so, how they look, which way they face, etc. Because those developers will build what is in demand, what is wanted by buyers. I would like to think that front facing garages would be less popular without their requirement, but I am more than open to being proved wrong by the free market.
I was referring to parking garages - not garages associated with individual residences.
You know "aesthetics" is often self-defeating for the pro-density crowd. Houses with side loaded garages tend to require more lot space than houses with front loading garages. But some urbanist had an issue with the appearance of front loading garages so they will mandate side-loading garages thus creating impediments to densification. As far as the "free market" is concerned there isn't one. That "new housing" in Houston is going to have an HOA (for townhome and detached housing) or a condominium corporation (for condominiums). People fundamentally need housing and they have to choose from what is available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs
That's not true; a lot of those townhomes are fairly affordable for the median purchaser, primarily because of their smaller size. That may be perceived as a weakness, but in real estate, that doesn't matter-it's all about location.
...and you have no idea whether many of these are townhomes or condominiums nor what the costs are nor what their location is - yet you are arguing they are affordable.
The truth is, alot of the great cities people are mentioning here like New York and SF became the sort of cities they are because of an older era when there were less restrictions on what people could build, when there was a freer real estate development market. That said, ideological rules like "no zoning ever" or "we always need zoning to protect urbanism and the environment" are rarely a good idea. In a certain time, in a certain place, you always end up making the wrong call by adhering to your dogma. I wish my city (Vancouver, BC) would adopt a more Houston style approach. We have only a little original urbanism from that older, freer time and what we have is all developed now. Micromanaged development set in place by unimaginative politicians hounded by NIMBYs has destroyed this city. It's become a no-fun, sterile, cramped, unaffordable playground for the rich and is everything wrong with today's urban planning. We need freedom. We need to be allowed to develop what the market demands, when it demands it, and we need to be able to take chances, make mistakes, and let small groups and individuals, not just implacable governments and enormous developers, do new and interesting things. This city is choking to death on its own restrictions and needs to stop favouring the existing homeowners at the expense of the class that aspires to own. Too much consulting with communities for years and years and years. Sometimes, a community needs to deal with competition and stop stifling the future, because the future comes for us all just the same.
If we loosened restrictions now, the city would emerge a great one, but the government deserves some credit for that. With all the bad I spoke of, they also led the way towards a better philosophy towards city building. Developers and the people now have a culture and experience with an urban, sustainable way of life, and if were freed would build it everywhere. The city deserves credit for leading the way on that, and it wouldn't have been possible without powers. So, there's a balance to be struck. Lead the way, preserve when you should, allow creative destruction when you should. A very difficult balance to strike. We failed on allowing the creative destruction, others failed on preservation, others still on leading the way forward. One day, someone will strike it right again.
Terrific post.
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.
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.
