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.
Well Houston still prides itself not having zoning. Other aspects yes by other names, but clearly a developer COULD build a large development to immitate a charming Parisian block or more. Within the development grounds itself that is. Build its own streets probably just as walkable corridors etc.
More or less. What I mean is that the lack of zoning and many other regulations helps those "Parisian" type of infill constructions to be built with relative affordability and ease in Houston, where in other cities there's more red tape and NIMBYs that slow down development and drive up costs.
Furthermore, the deregulated Houston can actually infill and redevelop neighborhoods with developments in a way that is impossible (legally) in other cities. With modern-American zoning, an SFH neighborhood, for instance, can only be redeveloped with newer SFHs. And then all the shops and businesses have to be separate from homes, so you end up having to go to the other side of town just to get basic groceries.
Meanwhile in Houston, businesses can freely develop where the residents live, making for natural mix use. This is what allows the city's walkscores to be relatively high for how sprawling and autocentric the city is - the physical distances to commerce are still close enough for residents to get to their destinations with ease just by walking. Entire SFH neighborhoods can the entire area can undergo replacement with dense townhomes, apartments, etc without hassle:
You can move around the different years in the streetview to see what I mean.
Quote:
Many a Houston inner-loop infill developments are mini-gated looking developments. I could find streetviews of what looks like row-housing within them.
They have good density superficially. However, the real issue is with street-interaction, the gates basically close off the presence. It's one of the issues with what would otherwise be good urban infill in Houston - it comes from the parking and setback ordinances, along with the suburban mentality some renters seem to have despite moving into the central city.
More or less. What I mean is that the lack of zoning and many other regulations helps those "Parisian" type of infill constructions to be built with relative affordability and ease in Houston, where in other cities there's more red tape and NIMBYs that slow down development and drive up costs.
Furthermore, the deregulated Houston can actually infill and redevelop neighborhoods with developments in a way that is impossible (legally) in other cities. With modern-American zoning, an SFH neighborhood, for instance, can only be redeveloped with newer SFHs. And then all the shops and businesses have to be separate from homes, so you end up having to go to the other side of town just to get basic groceries.
Meanwhile in Houston, businesses can freely develop where the residents live, making for natural mix use. This is what allows the city's walkscores to be relatively high for how sprawling and autocentric the city is - the physical distances to commerce are still close enough for residents to get to their destinations with ease just by walking. Entire SFH neighborhoods can the entire area can undergo replacement with dense townhomes, apartments, etc without hassle:
You can move around the different years in the streetview to see what I mean.
They have good density superficially. However, the real issue is with street-interaction, the gates basically close off the presence. It's one of the issues with what would otherwise be good urban infill in Houston - it comes from the parking and setback ordinances, along with the suburban mentality some renters seem to have despite moving into the central city.
Aren't quite a few neighborhoods around Rice/Military and the Westside deed-restricted though?
I remember a few years back there was a huge controversy and pushback against a highrise residential tower somewhere around Rice. Did that ever go through, or did the neighborhood prevail?
More or less. What I mean is that the lack of zoning and many other regulations helps those "Parisian" type of infill constructions to be built with relative affordability and ease in Houston, where in other cities there's more red tape and NIMBYs that slow down development and drive up costs.
Furthermore, the deregulated Houston can actually infill and redevelop neighborhoods with developments in a way that is impossible (legally) in other cities. With modern-American zoning, an SFH neighborhood, for instance, can only be redeveloped with newer SFHs. And then all the shops and businesses have to be separate from homes, so you end up having to go to the other side of town just to get basic groceries.
Meanwhile in Houston, businesses can freely develop where the residents live, making for natural mix use. This is what allows the city's walkscores to be relatively high for how sprawling and autocentric the city is - the physical distances to commerce are still close enough for residents to get to their destinations with ease just by walking. Entire SFH neighborhoods can the entire area can undergo replacement with dense townhomes, apartments, etc without hassle:
You can move around the different years in the streetview to see what I mean.
They have good density superficially. However, the real issue is with street-interaction, the gates basically close off the presence. It's one of the issues with what would otherwise be good urban infill in Houston - it comes from the parking and setback ordinances, along with the suburban mentality some renters seem to have despite moving into the central city.
I did mention this to a point. Just most are small developments and some replicated for blocks. They are multi-residential micro-plexes that mimic a bit of uniqueness but you still you drive into your garage and none are on any scale to have their own shops within and nice HOA fees that these for-profit developments continually take in. You get a decent residence to call home. Just will forever need a car.
Houston's inner-loop clearly had developers buy the smaller bungalows on large lots and level them for new larger housing or these micro-mulit-residential where some appear as if a tiny gated community, They add density but really are no changing Houston to a new Urban wonder. SFH's still have a large part.
This street shows large new homes that simply replaced the smaller bungalows across the street. In time them rest of the smaller bungalows will probably become what is on the left too.
The multi-residential developments here have the gate and fence around it. You have merely a common interior driveway to everyones garage. Nice yet nothing like some true European inspired new community, Each just its own micro-woodframed building.
Here just a bunch of new replicated from the same floor-plan over and over. Close-knit to add density, but quaintness and a sense of community or any area of its own shops and corner stores? I say not. You just drive to the nearest strip mall.
These below are are like the above. Looking like duples-double homes built back to back with their own alley-street to get to the interior ones. It provides denser housing, but quaint and well built? I really question how well built. Most times Power-line poles are just left to show their ugliness over burying them as all is new and if a ditch drainage along the main streets? They just leave them their. They are required to add sidewalks and degree of frontage on the main streets,
Here showing what the wood skeleton looks like under these tall-skinny tight-knit micro developments look like. How soundproof and sturdy they will be to last 50-yrs? I am not sure?
Here another view of how those homes above will probably look on the left and how THE DITCHES ARE LEFT INTACK. The developer could landscape over them and add curbing. The city surely will not. Most developers leave the ditch OMG HOW UNSAFE ARE THESE??? Anyone could fall in or drive in. UGLY.
Awwe so cute. A lonely OLE LITTLE BLUE HOUSTON BUNGALOW HERE among the new developments and ditches. Apparently the bungalow owner refused to sell so the built around him.
More of them under-construction. Not the best materials use, but meet the pricepoint to keep Houston cheaper. COULD THEY ADD MORE QUAINT EUROPEAN FEEL? Oh for sure. JUST IT COST MORE.
There are better developments of course and very nice SFH's too. But many are just replicated close-knit homes built for a growing population. Built to LAST??? Time will tell.
I did mention this to a point. Just most are small developments and some replicated for blocks. They are multi-residential micro-plexes that mimic a bit of uniqueness but you still you drive into your garage and none are on any scale to have their own shops within and nice HOA fees that these for-profit developments continually take in. You get a decent residence to call home. Just will forever need a car.
Houston's inner-loop clearly had developers buy the smaller bungalows on large lots and level them for new larger housing or these micro-mulit-residential where some appear as if a tiny gated community, They add density but really are no changing Houston to a new Urban wonder. SFH's still have a large part.
This street shows large new homes that simply replaced the smaller bungalows across the street. In time them rest of the smaller bungalows will probably become what is on the left too.
The multi-residential developments here have the gate and fence around it. You have merely a common interior driveway to everyones garage. Nice yet nothing like some true European inspired new community, Each just its own micro-woodframed building.
Here just a bunch of new replicated from the same floor-plan over and over. Close-knit to add density, but quaintness and a sense of community or any area of its own shops and corner stores? I say not. You just drive to the nearest strip mall.
These below are are like the above. Looking like duples-double homes built back to back with their own alley-street to get to the interior ones. It provides denser housing, but quaint and well built? I really question how well built. Most times Power-line poles are just left to show their ugliness over burying them as all is new and if a ditch drainage along the main streets? They just leave them their. They are required to add sidewalks and degree of frontage on the main streets,
Here showing what the wood skeleton looks like under these tall-skinny tight-knit micro developments look like. How soundproof and sturdy they will be to last 50-yrs? I am not sure?
Here another view of how those homes above will probably look on the left and how THE DITCHES ARE LEFT INTACK. The developer could landscape over them and add curbing. The city surely will not. Most developers leave the ditch OMG HOW UNSAFE ARE THESE??? Anyone could fall in or drive in. UGLY.
Awwe so cute. A lonely OLE LITTLE BLUE HOUSTON BUNGALOW HERE among the new developments and ditches. Apparently the bungalow owner refused to sell so the built around him.
More of them under-construction. Not the best materials use, but meet the pricepoint to keep Houston cheaper. COULD THEY ADD MORE QUAINT EUROPEAN FEEL? Oh for sure. JUST IT COST MORE.
There are better developments of course and very nice SFH's too. But many are just replicated close-knit homes built for a growing population. Built to LAST??? Time will tell.
And? What is the point to all of this exactly, other than questioning the soundness and quality of construction materials used? And stick built projects are going up coast to coast, including in your beloved Chicago. Just out of curiosity, what type of construction materials are used where you live - if in fact there is anything new being built at all?
Yet again, it appears your anti-Southern bias is coming through loud and clear.
Aren't quite a few neighborhoods around Rice/Military and the Westside deed-restricted though?
They do have deed restrictions, although the dynamics at hand are a bit more agile than traditional zoning with regards to changing neighborhood patterns. This allows developers greater ease to accommodate their projects to the neighborhood preferences.
Quote:
I remember a few years back there was a huge controversy and pushback against a highrise residential tower somewhere around Rice. Did that ever go through, or did the neighborhood prevail?
That was the Ashby Highrise project, indeed controversial. There were actually quite a few other high rise developments that did spring up around the area, so it may have simply been contempt for that one specific developer.
In any rate, the courts actually ruled in favor of the developers around 2014. There were mentions of site work as recent as 2017, but no further news as of now. Interestingly, the area around the proposed highrise site has seen development of other towers, so perhaps the contempt could just have been for that one developer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl
And? What is the point to all of this exactly, other than questioning the soundness and quality of construction materials used? And stick built projects are going up coast to coast, including in your beloved Chicago. Just out of curiosity, what type of construction materials are used where you live - if in fact there is anything new being built at all?
Yet again, it appears your anti-Southern bias is coming through loud and clear.
They do have deed restrictions, although the dynamics at hand are a bit more agile than traditional zoning with regards to changing neighborhood patterns. This allows developers greater ease to accommodate their projects to the neighborhood preferences.
That was the Ashby Highrise project, indeed controversial. There were actually quite a few other high rise developments that did spring up around the area, so it may have simply been contempt for that one specific developer.
In any rate, the courts actually ruled in favor of the developers around 2014. There were mentions of site work as recent as 2017, but no further news as of now. Interestingly, the area around the proposed highrise site has seen development of other towers, so perhaps the contempt could just have been for that one developer.
They do have deed restrictions, although the dynamics at hand are a bit more agile than traditional zoning with regards to changing neighborhood patterns. This allows developers greater ease to accommodate their projects to the neighborhood preferences.
That was the Ashby Highrise project, indeed controversial. There were actually quite a few other high rise developments that did spring up around the area, so it may have simply been contempt for that one specific developer.
In any rate, the courts actually ruled in favor of the developers around 2014. There were mentions of site work as recent as 2017, but no further news as of now. Interestingly, the area around the proposed highrise site has seen development of other towers, so perhaps the contempt could just have been for that one developer.
Chicago? Reminds me of DavePa.
I do like Chicago despite its issues. But at least I was to Houston. Just agree streetviews are a great asset for seeing areas you saw only a part of. Houston will definitely go on. It does not need posters hyping it. Generally, those there do admit issues and much is as a booming city that does not have to force its arrival. Aspects of the city I like. I do fear too much built today is not built to last. Somewhat worst in cities of less regulations. I still admire Houston as a ALL AMERICAN of the South as Chicago is of the Midwest. Different sets of issues today.
Some should be happy no one brings in Atlanta to this thread. That city you cannot say anything not being perfect. My vote went to Houston for this thread topic. I feel despite my comments on housing and of course, as all cities have their issues. It still has a Unfair reputation that is more on C-D then in general. It has far more civil posters who do not go overboard if something not in praise is mentioned.
You should visit Houston if you can. No matter what I or others say on it. Houston surely will go on being a booming city. Not alone but still will be and whatever fast growing pains it has to come.
Just agree streetviews are a great asset for seeing areas you saw only a part of.
Of course. You can literally see every detail for any city that you wish, regarding the built environment. Even some natural wilderness is available, in the form of virtual tours. However, less popular areas are have less frequency with respect to updates.
Quote:
You should visit Houston if you can. No matter what I or others say on it. Houston surely will go on being a booming city. Not alone but still will be and whatever fast growing pains it has to come.
Well, I already live in the Houston area, specifically in Sugar Land SW of the city.
Some should be happy no one brings in Atlanta to this thread. That city you cannot say anything not being perfect.
Huh???? This thread is about cities with unfair reputations and the only way the mention of Atlanta here could be construed negatively is if its reputation were overwhelmingly positive and even you know better than that.
Sheesh dude...get it together.
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.
