Quote:
Originally Posted by br323206
It's a common trope that Houston doesn't have planning or zoning. That's not really true. They don't have traditional Euclidean zoning with a colorful map depicting uses, but they absolutely have land use controls. They have ordinances that restrict height, bulk, density, and dictate design. They also have restrictive covenants that control use and historic designation. If anything, their regulatory scheme works better than what we have here--where everyone needs a variance so they have to beg at the feet of their district councilperson.
|
Yeah, I should have been more specific in saying I was talking about 80s boom Houston, when a builder could put up a 40 story building in a neighborhood of ranch houses. Really citing "Houston" as a metaphor for unregulated development gone awry.
Not that anyone (least of all 1487) would be shocked, I am not so up to speed on the latest in Houston planning. But what you are saying is depressing but not surprising: Houston's planning regime is more effective than our own in generating sound development.
Which goes to my point. It is so sad that our personality/politician-driven development approach is so bad, even Houston has figured out how to do it better. One would imagine a city with Philadelphia's deep urban planning and architectural heritage would be at the forefront, yet it is falling further and further behind in terms of facilitating quality urban design. Now, apparently, even Houston is better at it than we are.
Larry King's comment, however offhanded, captures the resignation so many Philadelphian's have about this situation: "well, it's just a student ghetto, we can't expect an better . . . .". Sleazy, visionless entrenched politicians like Jannie Blackwell and Darrell Clarke thrive when citizens feel powerless and resigned to a dismal status quo.