Houston doesn’t have zoning, which means that it doesn’t say how land can be used. As far as the city is concerned, you can buy land anywhere in the city and use it for commercial, retail, industrial, multi-family, or single-family residential. (About half of all residential areas in Houston have protective covenants limiting uses.)
This is a city that needs more affordable “workforce housing”? This three-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath, 2,140-square-foot house on a 7,500-square-foot lot is currently for sale in Houston for $60,000.
Though it doesn’t regulate how you use your land, Houston does have some basic development codes such as minimum lot sizes, set back requirements, and height limits that vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. Now, in an effort to compete for newcomers against its suburbs, Houston is considering the first changes to its development code in 14 years.
According to this summary, the changes will allow much higher densities in some areas. Where minimum lot sizes are now 3,500 square feet in much of the city, the new code would reduce it to as little as 1,400 square feet. Lots can be as narrow as 15 feet, though the average lot on a block must be 18 feet, which is still pretty narrow.
Most people fear and ask the question, is there any room left in the ED market for interested newcomers? Sildenafil, Vardenafil and Tadalafil are cialis buy cheap the active member of that foreign pharmacy. http://greyandgrey.com/steven-d-rhoads/ purchase generic cialis The results of this medication last for nearly 10 hours. Erectile function depends on amount sales online viagra http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/historia/ of blood, which flows into the penile region. Relationship issues with spouse over sexual matters may become a common issue among men all over the world. viagra cheap price According to the news reports, the city is concerned about the affordability of “workforce housing.” This seems like a peculiar worry in a city whose median home value was only $122,800 in 2011–a bit less than the urban area’s value of $131,000 and much less than the nation as a whole, which was $173,600 (according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey).
It is still possible to buy fixer-uppers for under $20,000 in Houston, and a search of the Houston multiple-listing service for, say, three-bedroom homes for under $60,000 finds plenty of choices both in the city and its suburbs.
The standard smart-growth line is that people would live closer in to the city if they could afford to do so. According to some researchers, Houston’s development code, as loose as it is, still promotes sprawl. The city says that “The practice of subdividing larger, single-family lots into multiple single-family lots continues throughout many neighborhoods in the city,” which suggests that people might be willing to live on smaller lots close in. However, the city doesn’t say how small the lots that result from these subdivisions truly are.
The Antiplanner doesn’t have any objections to the changes in the code as they seem to be optional and any existing neighborhood can protect itself against densification by adopting and maintaining deed restrictions. This could even be a good test case to see whether there is a significant demand for living on lots as small as 1,400 square feet.
It is slightly worrisome that smart-growth advocates Houston Tomorrow see these changes as “inadequate” and continue to press the city to write a comprehensive plan. Such a plan would likely lead to zoning, which would likely lead to more losses of property rights as planners would (as they do in Portland and elsewhere) seek to impose, not just allow densification.
For the moment, Houston is still the closest thing we have to true market urbanism. Even if the city has a development code, counties in Texas are not allowed to regulate land use. If Houston or other cities tried to impose rules that prevent developers from building to market demand, those developers would merely have to go outside the cities’ extraterritorial limits to do what they want. This in turn pressures the cities to minimize their regulation. One result is that it is possible to buy land in Houston, get permits to build, build on it, and move in within 120 days of closing on the land. Not many other places in the country can say that.
Texas! Rain is taxed in Maryland…
The interesting thing about Houston is that there are areas that are becoming much denser, very rapidly because of market demand for density and, consequently, developers responding to that demand. Some of the places, like Montrose and the Museum District are dense and cool. Others, like Gulfton, are dense but not considered cool. Nonetheless, the density is there for those who desire it. And, there is always a developer who is up to the challenge of making it denser. The lack of zoning is what makes this possible.
This is contra to Austin where there is also demand for density but density never prevails. It is held up at every turn by a restrictive planning and building code and the army of NIMBY’s who use the code to fight density everywhere they live(ehh, Bennett). In Houston, it is routine to build apartment blocks with 300 units or more. In Austin, there are few if any locations where a developer can build a block of just 50 units.
This is something that the pinheads like Crossley, et al, in their echo chamber of Houston Tomorrow, blithely ignore. If there is demand for density and market forces are allowed to work, then you will get density. Fortunately, Houstonians blithely ignore the folks at Houston Tomorrow and choose to let the market work.
see these changes as “inadequate” and continue to press the city to write a comprehensive plan. Such a plan would likely lead to zoning, which would likely lead to more losses of property rights as planners would (as they do in Portland and elsewhere) seek to impose, not just allow densification.
It may lead to Euclidian zoning, it may not. We don’t know. Pretty far down the road to go backwards.
Denver and Miami and others (not really Denver, but still) have worked to eliminate Euclidean zoning in favor of form-based code, which HOU basically is, in addition to having parking mins. The setbacks are what drive the density. I suspect, however, that if you propose city-wide elimination of setbacks (save for what Fire wants), people will think some sort of zoning. That’s why you want a comprehensive plan – hopefully it reflects the will of the people, and not just the will of the armed men who showed up. Changes are likely coming. Are they the changes the residents want? is the important question.
DS
Gotta agree with Dan. While Houston lacks traditional centrally planned/dictated, euclidean zoning rules, there is an extensive patchwork of land use controls that must be navigated on any development. The big question is, why are developers able to glide through the motley array of land use controls in Houston, but in other Metro’s, it takes months and years to obtain approval? The other question is why don’t the NIMBY’s hijack the development process more often in Houston. NIMBY’s are everywhere. What is it about Houston’s land use controls that prevents NIMBY’s from hijacking the process?
“Though it doesn’t regulate how you use your land, Houston does have some basic development codes such as minimum lot sizes, set back requirements, and height limits that vary from neighborhood to neighborhood.”
Aren’t these, along with Houston’s parking minimums, just zoning by another name? After all, they have a direct impact on density, built pattern, property values, and land rights. This being Houston, moreover, they have been written in a way that encourages sprawl and automobile use. My question is: why doesn’t the “anti-planner”, who has no problem trashing government regulations when they favor density, do the same when they favor sprawl? I’ve always sensed a certain bias from him towards suburbia, over any real philosophical commitment to free market economics.