A tiny step in the right direction

I was pretty excited to be quoted in the Chronicle two days ago. With regards to the passage of the Transit Corridor Streets ordinance, Mike Snyder reported the following:

The changes drew support from real estate organizations including Houstonians for Responsible Growth, which generally resists new development regulation. But others who have followed Houston’s efforts to encourage so-called “transit-oriented development” offered only qualified praise, noting that the city’s consultants recommended more far-reaching changes.

“On the whole, it’s a teeny-tiny step in the right direction,” said Andrew Burleson, a development consultant and blogger. While the incentives for enhanced pedestrian amenities aren’t sufficient, Burleson said, the measure makes progress simply by providing a good definition of “quality urban development.”

The new rules will require unobstructed, 6-foot-wide sidewalks — two feet wider than the current standard — for new development along transit corridor streets and certain intersecting streets near transit stations. In most other areas of the city, the sidewalk standard will be increased to 5 feet.

Developers who provide additional amenities such as transparent building facades and doors that don’t swing into the pedestrian area would be permitted to bring their buildings closer to the street, providing more space for revenue-generating shops or offices.

I thought I’d take this chance to elaborate just a bit on my stance with regards to the new ordinance.

First, many of you read my reaction when the City first revealed the draft ordinance. My basic point of view on this issue hasn’t changed. To say that the City is promoting urban development is untrue – there’s nothing in the ordinance that the City wouldn’t have given a developer already.

And I remain concerned that the city may inadvertently tilt the “ease of development” balance even further toward the suburban product, since they’re now formally requiring developers to meet stringent new design standards if they want to build urban, but requiring nothing of people who want to build a big-box store across the street from a train station.

This represents a tragic punt on behalf of the city. While taxpayers are making a multi-billion dollar investment in new light-rail with the specific goal of creating new transit-oriented communities, the city doesn’t see any need to help ensure this public mandate actually happens.

Now, as I’ve said over and over again, the solution is not creating endless new regulation – it’s removing barriers. The biggest single barrier right now is parking requirements. For developers who choose to meet the city’s design standards, parking requirements should be dropped entirely.

If this happened the market would respond dramatically. Free to solve their parking needs creatively and collaboratively in the marketplace, we would witness a tremendous change in the quality and quantity of development and parking provision in our urban areas.

Instead, our fiat parking controls remain. As long as we control parking by fiat and do nothing to resist pedestrian-hostile development we will never see any better redevelopment in our urban core than what is already occuring in the Main Street Corridor: a patchwork with a few good projects isolated in a sea of astronomically over-priced and under-developed lots held hostage by speculators.

All of that said, there is a silver lining to this process. The city is requiring wider sidewalks, and the optional sidewalk and building design guidelines are excellent. Development that does meet these standards will have a top-quality interface – and therefore should positively impact its surroundings.

Additionally, these standards make the difference between good urbanism and bad urbanism clear. This should help City officials to see the difference when evaluating any kind of development proposal. That, in and of itself, is worthwhile.

We can only hope that those two factors (A few more exemplary projects and more awareness at City Hall) will be enough to push the discussion forward. Maybe then we’ll add some real incentives, and finally see some real change.