Comments on: Urban[ism] Legend: Is Houston really unplanned? https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/ Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:30:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1 By: Texas Move-It https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-21784 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:52:00 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-21784 Interesting article, thank you for sharing!

http://www.TexasMoveIt.com

]]>
By: How Spontaneous Order Keeps Houston Affordable - Self-Reliance Central https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-21676 Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:54:50 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-21676 […] of this should be taken to mean that Houston is perfect. As Stephen Smith and Daniel Hertz have rightly pointed out, regulations related to mandatory parking minimums, […]

]]>
By: Houston, lenda do urbanismo de mercado | Caos Planejado https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-20150 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:32:35 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-20150 […] Leitura adicional recomendada: “How Overregulation Creates Sprawl (Even in a City without Zoning”, Michael Lewyn “Is Houston Really Unplanned?”, Stephen Smith […]

]]>
By: 2014 Stadium Series Game at Dodger Stadium - Page 70 https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-13533 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:54:55 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-13533 […] optimal in the long run. Looking at the Elysian Park area of Los Angeles, compared to cities like Houston Texas, they've done pretty good. Compared to cities like Canberra Australia, not so good. The folks who […]

]]>
By: Ken H. https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-12131 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:56:00 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-12131 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’ve spent time and money developing work just fine and turn a profit.
A jurisdiction may say “You can build what you want”, 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.

]]>
By: Abram VanElswyk https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-6534 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:13:56 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-6534 You nicely hit on all of the issues regarding Houston's supposedly “unplanned” development, but there is a silver lining you miss.

Prior to post-WWII housing boom, most of the deed restrictions expired after 25- to 35- years. What this means is that in Houston'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 “long block” may have a variety of structures spanning 100 years, with multiple uses. Clubs and coffeehouses operate on “backstreets” 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.)

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 “unrestricted reserve,” 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.

]]>
By: tebici https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-5965 Thu, 14 May 2009 15:04:46 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-5965 The problem with the Bissonnet example is not that it was necessarily ok for a 23 story building to go there. I’m personally kind of agnostic on that point. It’s the fairness question of “well there’s no planning/zoning” 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’t play both sides.

]]>
By: Anonymous https://marketurbanism.com/2008/12/10/is-houston-really-unplanned/#comment-8744 Thu, 14 May 2009 15:04:00 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=625#comment-8744 The problem with the Bissonnet example is not that it was necessarily ok for a 23 story building to go there. I’m personally kind of agnostic on that point. It’s the fairness question of “well there’s no planning/zoning” 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’t play both sides.

]]>