<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Urban[ism] Legend: Is Houston really unplanned?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/</link>
	<description>Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken H.</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-12131</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-12131</guid>
		<description>Another factor is that developers will often just copy plans/models 
developed elsewhere regardless of the existence of regulations allowing 
for a more denser type of development in specific locales. Economics of 
scale at work! No need to come up with specialized plans if the ones 
you&#039;ve spent time and money developing work just fine and turn a profit.
 A jurisdiction may say &quot;You can build what you want&quot;, but a developer 
may just do a cut-and-paste job of developments designed for your 
typical Euclidian zoning jurisdiction for the aforementioned reasons. 
Lending institutions also like the tried and true, and the tried and 
true is low-density, segregated use, auto dependent development with 
plenty of parking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another factor is that developers will often just copy plans/models<br />
developed elsewhere regardless of the existence of regulations allowing<br />
for a more denser type of development in specific locales. Economics of<br />
scale at work! No need to come up with specialized plans if the ones<br />
you&#8217;ve spent time and money developing work just fine and turn a profit.<br />
 A jurisdiction may say &#8220;You can build what you want&#8221;, but a developer<br />
may just do a cut-and-paste job of developments designed for your<br />
typical Euclidian zoning jurisdiction for the aforementioned reasons.<br />
Lending institutions also like the tried and true, and the tried and<br />
true is low-density, segregated use, auto dependent development with<br />
plenty of parking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abram VanElswyk</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-6534</link>
		<dc:creator>Abram VanElswyk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-6534</guid>
		<description>You nicely hit on all of the issues regarding Houston&#039;s supposedly &quot;unplanned&quot; development, but there is a silver lining you miss.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Prior to post-WWII housing boom, most of the deed restrictions expired after 25- to 35- years. What this means is that in Houston&#039;s oldest, gridded neighborhoods, virtually all land is unrestricted. What happens to an established neighborhood with no land-use controls? Fine-grained, Jane Jacobs-style urbanism. Areas like the Heights, the Montrose, and the Third Ward exemplify this; a single &quot;long block&quot; may have a variety of structures spanning 100 years, with multiple uses. Clubs and coffeehouses operate on &quot;backstreets&quot; amidst garden apartments, and townhomes nestle against bungalows and stately old southern mansions. (It should be noted that there was always a loophole which allowed tiny-lot townhomes inside Loop 610, in defiance of the larger lot size restrictions that controlled development in the greater Houston sprawl.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Also: One of the significant differences that *does* exist between Houston sprawl and other Texan or Midwestern cities is that Houston has a lot more land devoted to commercial/multifamily uses. In Dallas, Atlanta, or Kansas City, there are many high-traffic streets which are zoned purely residential, whereas in Houston, land deed-restricted to single family tends to nestle on the interior of the arterial superblocks, while most arterial frontage is retained as &quot;unrestricted reserve,&quot; to be developed into apartments or commercial pads. This pushes down rents, and also leads to other quirks, like an abundance of restaurants - Houstonians eat more meals out than the denizens of any other major American city.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You nicely hit on all of the issues regarding Houston&#39;s supposedly &#8220;unplanned&#8221; development, but there is a silver lining you miss.</p>
<p>Prior to post-WWII housing boom, most of the deed restrictions expired after 25- to 35- years. What this means is that in Houston&#39;s oldest, gridded neighborhoods, virtually all land is unrestricted. What happens to an established neighborhood with no land-use controls? Fine-grained, Jane Jacobs-style urbanism. Areas like the Heights, the Montrose, and the Third Ward exemplify this; a single &#8220;long block&#8221; may have a variety of structures spanning 100 years, with multiple uses. Clubs and coffeehouses operate on &#8220;backstreets&#8221; amidst garden apartments, and townhomes nestle against bungalows and stately old southern mansions. (It should be noted that there was always a loophole which allowed tiny-lot townhomes inside Loop 610, in defiance of the larger lot size restrictions that controlled development in the greater Houston sprawl.)</p>
<p>Also: One of the significant differences that *does* exist between Houston sprawl and other Texan or Midwestern cities is that Houston has a lot more land devoted to commercial/multifamily uses. In Dallas, Atlanta, or Kansas City, there are many high-traffic streets which are zoned purely residential, whereas in Houston, land deed-restricted to single family tends to nestle on the interior of the arterial superblocks, while most arterial frontage is retained as &#8220;unrestricted reserve,&#8221; to be developed into apartments or commercial pads. This pushes down rents, and also leads to other quirks, like an abundance of restaurants &#8211; Houstonians eat more meals out than the denizens of any other major American city.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tebici</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-5965</link>
		<dc:creator>tebici</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 15:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-5965</guid>
		<description>The problem with the Bissonnet example is not that it was necessarily ok for a 23 story building to go there. I&#039;m personally kind of agnostic on that point. It&#039;s the fairness question of &quot;well there&#039;s no planning/zoning&quot; until we feel like having some. If they really think a lack of planning and land use regulation works then they should stick with it. If not, then they should plan ahead for what they actually want and create a predictable environment for residents and builder/developers rather than mediating problem via political catfight. If you really want to go free market then if a hi rise building moves in beside you or traffic gets to bad, you have the option to move out (now there is a legitimate question of externalities; perhaps the developer should have to compensate you for loss of value in your property if caused by traffic or shadows etc; but the complexity of externalities is one reason we often choose to regulate rather than try to price everything). What this example does suggest is that average american citizens are all about the free market until it gets too close to home.

Whichever is the better approach, they shouldn&#039;t play both sides.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with the Bissonnet example is not that it was necessarily ok for a 23 story building to go there. I&#8217;m personally kind of agnostic on that point. It&#8217;s the fairness question of &#8220;well there&#8217;s no planning/zoning&#8221; until we feel like having some. If they really think a lack of planning and land use regulation works then they should stick with it. If not, then they should plan ahead for what they actually want and create a predictable environment for residents and builder/developers rather than mediating problem via political catfight. If you really want to go free market then if a hi rise building moves in beside you or traffic gets to bad, you have the option to move out (now there is a legitimate question of externalities; perhaps the developer should have to compensate you for loss of value in your property if caused by traffic or shadows etc; but the complexity of externalities is one reason we often choose to regulate rather than try to price everything). What this example does suggest is that average american citizens are all about the free market until it gets too close to home.</p>
<p>Whichever is the better approach, they shouldn&#8217;t play both sides.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-8744</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 15:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-8744</guid>
		<description>The problem with the Bissonnet example is not that it was necessarily ok for a 23 story building to go there. I&#039;m personally kind of agnostic on that point. It&#039;s the fairness question of &quot;well there&#039;s no planning/zoning&quot; until we feel like having some. If they really think a lack of planning and land use regulation works then they should stick with it. If not, then they should plan ahead for what they actually want and create a predictable environment for residents and builder/developers rather than mediating problem via political catfight. If you really want to go free market then if a hi rise building moves in beside you or traffic gets to bad, you have the option to move out (now there is a legitimate question of externalities; perhaps the developer should have to compensate you for loss of value in your property if caused by traffic or shadows etc; but the complexity of externalities is one reason we often choose to regulate rather than try to price everything). What this example does suggest is that average american citizens are all about the free market until it gets too close to home.

Whichever is the better approach, they shouldn&#039;t play both sides.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with the Bissonnet example is not that it was necessarily ok for a 23 story building to go there. I&#8217;m personally kind of agnostic on that point. It&#8217;s the fairness question of &#8220;well there&#8217;s no planning/zoning&#8221; until we feel like having some. If they really think a lack of planning and land use regulation works then they should stick with it. If not, then they should plan ahead for what they actually want and create a predictable environment for residents and builder/developers rather than mediating problem via political catfight. If you really want to go free market then if a hi rise building moves in beside you or traffic gets to bad, you have the option to move out (now there is a legitimate question of externalities; perhaps the developer should have to compensate you for loss of value in your property if caused by traffic or shadows etc; but the complexity of externalities is one reason we often choose to regulate rather than try to price everything). What this example does suggest is that average american citizens are all about the free market until it gets too close to home.</p>
<p>Whichever is the better approach, they shouldn&#8217;t play both sides.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mhelie</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-3037</link>
		<dc:creator>mhelie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-3037</guid>
		<description>What you are thinking about is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/producing-land-with-nested-markets/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nested marketplace&lt;/a&gt;. It is profitable. What is stopping it is the regulatory system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you are thinking about is a <a href="http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/producing-land-with-nested-markets/" rel="nofollow">nested marketplace</a>. It is profitable. What is stopping it is the regulatory system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mhelie</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-8743</link>
		<dc:creator>mhelie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-8743</guid>
		<description>What you are thinking about is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/producing-land-with-nested-markets/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nested marketplace&lt;/a&gt;. It is profitable. What is stopping it is the regulatory system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you are thinking about is a <a href="http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/producing-land-with-nested-markets/" rel="nofollow">nested marketplace</a>. It is profitable. What is stopping it is the regulatory system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rationalitate</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-3036</link>
		<dc:creator>rationalitate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-3036</guid>
		<description>I meant developer in the broadest possible way – as in, anyone who buys land, improves it, and either sells it on, lives/works in it, or rents it out.

And yeah, I did neglect to mention Houston&#039;s uncommonly large streets, which Lewyn also discusses in his paper.  I guess I just felt that those were too much entrenched and difficult to change going forward, so I&#039;d concentrate on the more malleable things.  But reading about plans for redevelopment in Tysons Corner, where they want to make more city-like blocks, I guess I shouldn&#039;t have been so hasty in ruling out re-gridding Houston&#039;s streets as a way to encourage denser development.

Though actually, that brings up an interesting possibility – what if developers were given the rights to chop up blocks that they own, and put in either public streets or use the space as a private driveway, cafe seating area, or whatever?  I&#039;d be interested to know what barriers there are already to making that happen, and if the barriers were taken away, would it actually happen, or could it never actually be profitable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant developer in the broadest possible way – as in, anyone who buys land, improves it, and either sells it on, lives/works in it, or rents it out.</p>
<p>And yeah, I did neglect to mention Houston&#8217;s uncommonly large streets, which Lewyn also discusses in his paper.  I guess I just felt that those were too much entrenched and difficult to change going forward, so I&#8217;d concentrate on the more malleable things.  But reading about plans for redevelopment in Tysons Corner, where they want to make more city-like blocks, I guess I shouldn&#8217;t have been so hasty in ruling out re-gridding Houston&#8217;s streets as a way to encourage denser development.</p>
<p>Though actually, that brings up an interesting possibility – what if developers were given the rights to chop up blocks that they own, and put in either public streets or use the space as a private driveway, cafe seating area, or whatever?  I&#8217;d be interested to know what barriers there are already to making that happen, and if the barriers were taken away, would it actually happen, or could it never actually be profitable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rationalitate</title>
		<link>http://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-8742</link>
		<dc:creator>Rationalitate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-8742</guid>
		<description>I meant developer in the broadest possible way – as in, anyone who buys land, improves it, and either sells it on, lives/works in it, or rents it out.

And yeah, I did neglect to mention Houston&#039;s uncommonly large streets, which Lewyn also discusses in his paper.  I guess I just felt that those were too much entrenched and difficult to change going forward, so I&#039;d concentrate on the more malleable things.  But reading about plans for redevelopment in Tysons Corner, where they want to make more city-like blocks, I guess I shouldn&#039;t have been so hasty in ruling out re-gridding Houston&#039;s streets as a way to encourage denser development.

Though actually, that brings up an interesting possibility – what if developers were given the rights to chop up blocks that they own, and put in either public streets or use the space as a private driveway, cafe seating area, or whatever?  I&#039;d be interested to know what barriers there are already to making that happen, and if the barriers were taken away, would it actually happen, or could it never actually be profitable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant developer in the broadest possible way – as in, anyone who buys land, improves it, and either sells it on, lives/works in it, or rents it out.</p>
<p>And yeah, I did neglect to mention Houston&#8217;s uncommonly large streets, which Lewyn also discusses in his paper.  I guess I just felt that those were too much entrenched and difficult to change going forward, so I&#8217;d concentrate on the more malleable things.  But reading about plans for redevelopment in Tysons Corner, where they want to make more city-like blocks, I guess I shouldn&#8217;t have been so hasty in ruling out re-gridding Houston&#8217;s streets as a way to encourage denser development.</p>
<p>Though actually, that brings up an interesting possibility – what if developers were given the rights to chop up blocks that they own, and put in either public streets or use the space as a private driveway, cafe seating area, or whatever?  I&#8217;d be interested to know what barriers there are already to making that happen, and if the barriers were taken away, would it actually happen, or could it never actually be profitable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

