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.
The fact is had good schools, good job opportunities, comparatively reasonable rel estate prices, they may also include racial diversity or other similar items are what makes it rated a good place to live. That does not make it a good city.
Good planning is often critical to a good city. However good planning is not all that common. In fact I wold call it rare. There are many great cities that grew organically without restrictions and planning, but Houston is not a good example.
Part of the reason so many were flooded out after Harvey was because of little or no zoning laws...which allowed multiple cookie cutter neighborhoods to sprout up in the flood plains and either next to or in some cases in the lower laying bayous. Good zoning and planning could have prevented a lot of the losses people had.
There is a myth that Houston doesn't have land regulations which is not true. There are parking minimums except for DT and other regs like this taken from their website: " Development site plans are checked for compliance with regulations that include parking, tree and shrub requirements, setbacks, and access." Moreover there are private deed covenants that the public may be unaware of but among other things can restrict types of businesses.
As far as this topic in general Houston does benefit from its general lack of rules. Neighborhoods like Montrose can evolve very quickly to the demands of the residents and would-be residents. Houston is one of the only cities I have seen with multiple high density clusters something that usually can't happen in cities with a single CBD. I wish my city Austin would dial back some of the height restrictions, setbacks and homogeneous land use patterns that stifle development and create sprawl. Unfortunately the neighborhood associations want to preserve the small town feel to the detriment of newcomers and housing affordability.
Last edited by verybadgnome; 12-20-2017 at 11:26 AM..
There is a myth that Houston doesn't have land regulations which is not true. There are parking minimums except for DT and other regs like this taken from their website: " Development site plans are checked for compliance with regulations that include parking, tree and shrub requirements, setbacks, and access." Moreover there are private deed covenants that the public may be unaware of but among other things can restrict types of businesses.
As far as this topic in general Houston does benefit from its general lack of rules. Neighborhoods like Montrose can evolve very quickly to the demands of the residents and would-be residents. Houston is one of the only cities I have seen with multiple high density clusters something that usually can't happen in cities with a single CBD. I wish my city Austin would dial back some of the height restrictions, setbacks and homogeneous land use patterns that stifle development and create sprawl. Unfortunately the neighborhood associations want to preserve the small town feel to the detriment of newcomers and housing affordability.
Lack of restrictions has made Houston the king of sprawl. Mix in less than 30 miles of commuter rail and the ability to drop 30 story towers easily and you have the gigantic traffic jam that is Houston. Houston's public transportation answer is always build more tolled highways. Houston's 3rd ring highway, 99, is about halfway built. I guess the building of 99 has nothing to do with sprawl?
Lack of restrictions has made Houston the king of sprawl. Mix in less than 30 miles of commuter rail and the ability to drop 30 story towers easily and you have the gigantic traffic jam that is Houston. Houston's public transportation answer is always build more tolled highways. Houston's 3rd ring highway, 99, is about halfway built. I guess the building of 99 has nothing to do with sprawl?
Well then they are no different than other Texas and Sunbelt cities in that regard, though they have more potential to mitigate the impacts of sprawl if the market responds accordingly and people want to live in denser areas. This is Texas so there are almost no land use controls in unincorporated areas. Add to that the surrounding cities that can have their own rules.
Probably not impressive compared to other parts of the country, but Houston is the densest major city in Texas at 2,978 people per square mile.
Last edited by verybadgnome; 12-20-2017 at 03:03 PM..
Sprawl got a head start in Houston, as the city had one of the most severe building restrictions through most of the 1970s and 1980s due to limitations in the sewage capacity within about 70% of the city limits. Apartments and high rises were restricted in most of the central city until new capacity was built, resulting in increasing sprawl. Until the late 1990s Houston had minimum lot sizes for homes and townhouses much higher than other cities, which limited density.
Houston also has minimum setbacks and parking requirements in most of the city, again limiting density.
None of the above is "zoning" specifically, but there are restrictions on building nonetheless.
Most people criticizing the city about lack of zoning really have no idea about the stipulations it entails other than the supposed stories of stripmalls next to sex shops; in fact, that is actually reasonable considering that both developments represent commercial areas. Just for starters, everything built in the US before 1916 was built without zoning.Everything.
Therefore, the lack of zoning, if anything would increase the ease of at which infill occurs. Said infill can easily get to a form that is illegal to build in other US cities, which would contribute to uniqueness factor. Indeed, an area with SFHs can be replaced with terraced housing at an ease not seen with other US cities.
What critics really are having the problem with is the autocentric mindset peppered into the city's code: the minimum setback and parking requirements. This hampers the city's lack of zoning from allowing a truly cohesive urban environment. Furthermore, it forces aesthetics onto building types that lead to the "haphazardness" critics perceive: for example, "businesses next to homes" is quite acceptable when in the form of street-level pedestrian retail next to your urban apartment... but can look quite off when in the form of an office park complex right next to a mcmansion.
Part of the reason so many were flooded out after Harvey was because of little or no zoning laws...which allowed multiple cookie cutter neighborhoods to sprout up in the flood plains and either next to or in some cases in the lower laying bayous. Good zoning and planning could have prevented a lot of the losses people had.
Utter nonsense. The area received over 52" of continuous rain. Zoning would not have changed anything except that it would have been a flooded city with zoning.
Utter nonsense. The area received over 52" of continuous rain. Zoning would not have changed anything except that it would have been a flooded city with zoning.
A house that was never built cannot flood.
There are flood plains associated with the Barker Dam and the Addicks Dam on the western side of Houston that are covered with houses and roads. There are other examples. If the houses had not been built they never would have flooded, even with 52" of rain.
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.
