Great suggestions all around. That’s a lot to absorb, but I think the general idea you’re talking about makes sense. Thanks for the input.

For instance, once you’re into zones T5 and T6, it’s reasonable to mandate that future development account for light rail, larger and/or more frequent bus stops. Transit regulations for zone T3 might be something like requiring that 3/4 of the streets be connecting streets wide enough for buses (or trucks) with parking on only one side. Lets call that “large vehicle access”.

Zone 3
building height: up to 3 stories
large vehicle access: 75% of streets
bike lanes/trails: 10% of streets
pedestrian path: 100% of streets
3+ lane wide right-of-way: 10% of streets
parking requirements/restrictions: none; optional no-yard-parking
public use: 10% of total lot size of development. expected uses: schools (spec. elementary), parks, libraries, community gardens, park-n-rides

Zone 4
building height: up to 6 stories
large vehicle access: 75% of streets
bike lanes/trails: 25% of streets
pedestrian paths: 100% of streets
3+ lane wide streets or equiv right-of-way: 25% of streets
parking requirements/restrictions: none, 70′ max setback
public use: 10% expected uses: zone 3; scenic pathways (pedestrian and bike) with benches, water fountains, art installations, public restrooms; trolley stops and larger bus stops (covered benches, etc)

Zone 5:
building height: up to 12 stories
large vehicle access: 80% of streets
bike lanes: 33% of streets
pedestrian paths: 100% of streets
3+ lane wide streets or right of way: 33% of streets
streets with dedicated public transit lane: 10%
parking requirements/restrictions: no-yard parking, parking only in rear or structures
public use: 7% expected uses: zone 4, light rail stops, transportation hubs, publicly accessible rooftop gardens (during building hours), publicly accessible pedestrian tunnels (during building hours)

Zone 6:
building height: unlimited
large vehicle access: 80% of streets
bike lanes: 50% of streets
pedestrian paths: 100% of streets
3+ lane wide streets or right way: no requirement
streets with dedicated public transit lanes: 25%
parking requirements/restrictions: no surface level parking
public use: 5% expected uses: same as zone 5

This would mean that in a neighborhood of mostly single story homes, you could put up a 3 story home, a small apartment building, small biz, strip malls, grocery stores, etc. But no large apartment complexes or large malls. So if this is anywhere near an urban center or suburb, you have a neighborhood where the mean height slowly goes up (maybe only on some blocks?) and larger buildings can be built. Once you have a concentration of 2 story homes, 3 story apt buildings, and 2 story grocery stores (they only have one floor to walk on, but they always seem to be at least 2 stories high), you can start building larger apartment buildings, small malls, etc. I suppose its important to note that I’m using the highest external point to measure height. There should a way to get an exception to the height – maybe by popular vote – so that if you have a bunch of single story homes and you want to build a church steeple that’s 4 stories high, you can do so. Exceptions probably shouldn’t count towards the average hight calculation.

Of course, that should be coupled with developers paying for infrastructure improvements, but it prevents someones tree-lined neighborhood street from turning into a 6 lane blvd in 6 months.

This does cause more uniformity in the neighborhood and slow change, but I think that’s primarily what people want with zoning type laws anyway.

Of course, this doesn’t apply at all to land that’s not yet developed. It applies to development in existing zones only. I’m not suggesting that all new large developments be limited to less than 3 stories – but honestly, it really does seem like it almost always is anyway.

Impossible in the current real estate market, but in the future? Think about it.

I’m not saying it would piss off Southhampton any less (it would probably piss them off more). Plus, I don’t think the traffic impact was really going to be that severe – it was just the leverage the city was able to invent.

But, if traffic was the issue, and if we did have a requirement that said you couldn’t build over X stories on a street of less than Y lanes, I think that would have killed Ashby. The cost of widening Bissonnet from Montrose to Shepherd / Greenbriar (the closest major thoroughfares on either side) would have made the project unfeasible.

However, if at the end of the day they decided that they were willing to pay the cost to widen the streets to and from their project in order to accommodate the level of development they were proposing, then I would say they should be allowed to do it.

What that would say to me is that the value of the land has gotten dramatically past the uses that are currently occupying it, and if the market is willing to go to such an extreme effort to ‘unlock’ the value there, then it probably should be allowed to do so.

“This would be reflective of the practice we already have in allowing Management Districts (like the Texas Medical Center) to voluntarily self-regulate.”

This is the scary part! TMC will in NO WAY “self-regulate” and is destroying surrounding neighborhoods as I type. City ordinances must be written to protect homeowners from the self-interests of multi-billion dollar corporations. What did we learn from the Lehman Brother, Countrywide Financial, AIG like domination of markets?
TMC is a private non-profit given the power of eminent domain by the Texas Legislature long before most readers of this website were born. Perhaps eminent domain powers were appropriate in the late fifties. Consider what did the area look like then as compared to the present? TMC abuses its power of eminent domain through “blockbusting” property values and overriding deed restrictions, a homeowners strongest protection(as in the Central City neighborhood). TMC’s meeting are private! In any other eminent domain discussion, there would be a series of meetings affecting all stakeholders. TMC’s Board of Directors all have one address…the main TMC office. No contrary thought of TMC’s directors could ever reach the board members.
TMC speaks with a PUBLIC face and a PRIVATE face. John Kajander, TMC vice-president, states publicly in their web video, “Unprecedented Construction Growth in the Texas Medical Center” how TMC “doesn’t want to negatively impact neighborhood in which they surround”, “how they communicate with neighborhoods about ingress-egress solutions”. LIES, LIES, and DAMN LIES. The truth about protecting neighborhoods is accurately and poignantly expressed by TMC Vice-President Robert Stott, when requested by Devonshire Place residents to deflect over 1200 vehicles daily from a local street, “It would not be in our best self-interests.”

Houston neighborhoods need protection now. Transition areas must integrate residential and commercial development. Tall buildings next to residential homes simply do not sustain long term growth and certainly not SMART URBAN GROWTH.
While original zoning ideas were to keep “smokestacks” away from families, todays smokestacks come in the form of light pollution, noise pollution, and unbridled traffic on local residential streets. Some of the very medical institutions that form TMC produce research about the unhealthy aspects of light, noise, and traffic pollution. Unfortunately, the growth driven by excessive profits over smart urban development and co-existence with surrounding neighborhoods may be too late.

Do you think the Southampton kids would have thrown less of a fit if the Ashby high-rise developers had paid to widen Bissonnet to four lanes? I mean, there’s enough room in the existing ROW if you just take out all the street trees and narrow the sidewalks a bit…

It is a kind of zoning map if you do it by fiat.

The opportunity to do something better is to create an urban network plan where the transect level of a property is automatically and non-negotiably determined by its infrastructure.

Therefore, if you’ve got the appropriate infrastructure, you’re automatically allowed to build much bigger stuff – or, if you build the infrastructure, then you’re allowed to build bigger stuff.

The challenge with that approach is it hasn’t been done anywhere, so there’s no model or case study to point to and be sure that it works as it should.