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.
Balancing cost of living -zoning implementation impacts and asthetics
Rather than criticize Houston for lacking zoning. Are there some lessons we can learn from Houston other cities should consider? Or are there other cities with a zoning implementation model to learn from too?
We have many examples of large, high cost of living cities which people consider world class cities. We need more medium cost of living cities which may or may not be world class but offer a different balance between cost of living and asthetics. I believe zoning implementation can strongly influence cost of living and of course asthetics.
To explore this matter, lets consider the following question.
Do you agree zoning is not an on/off topic? (ie are there cities with different approaches to zoning since we know only Houston is off and all others are on.)
Are some cities with zoning more attractive than others due to more effectively zoning or their natural canvas of natural beauty in the area?
Has lack of zoning and zoning lite (as I refer to it in the Dallas area) contributed to a recent report of higher levels of integretation in Houston and Dallas vs other major US cities?
If zoning has been implemented differently (proffers vs land use and setback guidelines etc) which city or cities have achieved the right balance of cost versus asthetics? When I see the list of most important or largest cities, I see high cost of living....what city has the best balance of asthetics and COL?
Thanks in advance for thoughts and insights and other questions to conider and better explore this topic
Zoning is definitely an on/off switch...LA and Houston are cases in point. They got "religion on their deathbed," so to speak. I'm primarily referring to transit. Houston's sprawl seems more haphazard than LA's, partly because LA has natural boundaries (the ocean and mountains) to hem in and give zones some identity. LA could have had a world-class transit system long ago and several "interested" parties made sure it didn't happen...and SF beat them to it with BART. The same is true of Houston. They're racing to build a viable light-rail system, and do so quickly. They, too, should have had heavy rail, rather than a streetcar that runs from Reliant Field, Rice Univ. and onto the downtown streets. To the west, I-10 is insanely wide to handle no transit provisions and neighborhoods spring up in the direction of Katy in an unwieldy manner. If its suburbia could only look more "organized" as is Kingwood or The Woodlands.
Consider this - all of the European cities that people on this forum hold so highly grew that way without codes. NYC, Philly, Chicago also grew up without codes. NYC first got zoning codes in 1916 that's nearly 300 years after it was settled. Zoning Codes and Parking Codes too are not good. I'm all for stripping away every single one of them.
Consider this - all of the European cities that people on this forum hold so highly grew that way without codes. NYC, Philly, Chicago also grew up without codes. NYC first got zoning codes in 1916 that's nearly 300 years after it was settled. Zoning Codes and Parking Codes too are not good. I'm all for stripping away every single one of them.
Your argument doesn't hold up too well. European cities, along with NYC, Philly and Chicago are great because they were built for people ... not the chunks of metal we call cars. You can't really attribute the desirable way they are laid out to lack of zoning.
Your argument doesn't hold up too well. European cities, along with NYC, Philly and Chicago are great because they were built for people ... not the chunks of metal we call cars. You can't really attribute the desirable way they are laid out to lack of zoning.
Wrong, cars are not the problem absurd parking regulations, ****ty zoning, and massive set backs are the problem. They force buildings to be more spaced out which makes it more difficult to walk not only because of distance but because of shade. Fix those three things and the rest would take care of itself.
Your argument doesn't hold up too well. European cities, along with NYC, Philly and Chicago are great because they were built for people ... not the chunks of metal we call cars. You can't really attribute the desirable way they are laid out to lack of zoning.
His argument holds up exceedingly well. Its not zoning that made those cities compact. They developed compactly because they had too.
On the flip side its not a lack of zoning that made LA and Houston spread out, they developed that way because they could.
Zoning is definitely an on/off switch...LA and Houston are cases in point. They got "religion on their deathbed," so to speak. I'm primarily referring to transit. Houston's sprawl seems more haphazard than LA's, partly because LA has natural boundaries (the ocean and mountains) to hem in and give zones some identity. LA could have had a world-class transit system long ago and several "interested" parties made sure it didn't happen...and SF beat them to it with BART. The same is true of Houston. They're racing to build a viable light-rail system, and do so quickly. They, too, should have had heavy rail, rather than a streetcar that runs from Reliant Field, Rice Univ. and onto the downtown streets. To the west, I-10 is insanely wide to handle no transit provisions and neighborhoods spring up in the direction of Katy in an unwieldy manner. If its suburbia could only look more "organized" as is Kingwood or The Woodlands.
There is nowhere in Houston with the kind of density to support heavy rail. Eventually there may be the density in patches to support heavy rail, but it will be very patchwork and unpredictable because there is no zoning in Houston.
In LA most of the hyper-dense areas are located in Central or South LA (along the path of the Red Line, the extended Purple Line and in South LA), and those are the only places in LA that will probably ever get a true heavy rail subway, because they are the only areas that can truly make it cost effective. Zoning has kept those places dense while the Westside retains a (fairly) low density (5k ppsm - 20k ppsm).
Both cities' light rail plans are for the most part right on the money (Perhaps the Blue Line to LB could have/should have been heavy rail - but there are good reasons/arguments that light rail was the right choice as well.)
I do like that "religion on their deathbed" analogy.
Wrong, cars are not the problem absurd parking regulations, ****ty zoning, and massive set backs are the problem. They force buildings to be more spaced out which makes it more difficult to walk not only because of distance but because of shade. Fix those three things and the rest would take care of itself.
I agree that parking requirements are an issue for a city are detrimental to great urban planning (LA still has them, though luckily 90 percent of parking is built underground these days ). Setbacks aren't much of an issue unless they are huge underutilized spaces. Lots of neighborhoods in LA reach the 40k ppsm density range and have apartment buildings with small setbacks.
I agree that parking requirements are an issue for a city are detrimental to great urban planning (LA still has them, though luckily 90 percent of parking is built underground these days ). Setbacks aren't much of an issue unless they are huge underutilized spaces. Lots of neighborhoods in LA reach the 40k ppsm density range and have apartment buildings with small setbacks.
Its really sad especially now as big box stores and shopping malls are collapsing left and right. There's one mall by me that is less then 50% occupancy and has a parking lot like you wouldn't believe. The community ends up using the parking lot for fairs, little league type games, car shows and that sort of thing when they can but most of the time its just a big deserted lot.
Even in this the lot is completely empty and to give a good sense of scale if you can't figure it out by the cars you can figure it out by knowing that the 417 is an expressway.
There is nowhere in Houston with the kind of density to support heavy rail. Eventually there may be the density in patches to support heavy rail, but it will be very patchwork and unpredictable because there is no zoning in Houston.
Have you seen Houston's ridership per mile numbers? they are at or above the ridership per mile of some heavy rail systems in other cities. I am scared that when they finally build the University line it will be over capacity. I hate riding the rail in the medical center sometimes because it gets so packed I have to wait for the next one. also when there are special events the system just cannot handle the effect.
Houston 4680 per mile for light rail compared to
BART 3,664
Miami Heavy Rail 2,727
Marta 5,179 heavy rail
Baltimore subway 3,768
The numbers ARE there to support heavy rail. The funding and public support for it is another issue.
Heavy rail would do well in the areas where the light rail is planned. Inner loop plus Uptown and the south west would support heavy rail
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.
). Setbacks aren't much of an issue unless they are huge underutilized spaces. Lots of neighborhoods in LA reach the 40k ppsm density range and have apartment buildings with small setbacks.
