Jump to content

Unified Development Ordinance


kermit

Recommended Posts

and Houston has no zoning so they developers property owners can do what they want.  (However most of the newer areas of the metro are laid in out in massive planned communities where there is much more control) But in town old Houston they are building residential everywhere and they have really dense townhomes development near downtown.  I will be there in October so take some photos of examples of infill there. 

On pricing and believe me I look and go through models when there (just in my blood) I would say intown Houston inside 610 slightly higher than Charlotte due to tremendous demand.  further out cheaper than Charlotte on average.    I like both the edginess of  EaDo and stately homes of  River Oaks.   Heights like NoDa but bigger and more dense.  

Edited by KJHburg
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

2 hours ago, Blue_Devil said:

I mean, on one hand I would love to build that for the rental income. On the other hand... I kinda feel bad for the immediate neighbors. I can't imagine that is great for their property prices.

Yea, I would not be thrilled to live next door to that either. But this does raise the question of what zoning is for, maintaining property values or making the city a pleasant, affordable and sustainable place to live for all residents. I know the answer is ‘all of the above’ but the question is how to best balance all those goals.

As we see with the local issues of affordable housing and economic mobility, the current system is really only protecting property values (and I would argue those protections are only temporary since the status quo appears to be unsustainable).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, utcltjay said:

Houston is a perfect model of how not develop a city. The lack of zoning and planning resulted in one of the ugliest modern cities of our time. The signage alone off the highways is enough to make you turn around and head back to the airport. There are a bunch of infill townhomes that are trying to improve the hosing options closer into the city, but many of them are riddled with poor build quality issues such as leaks and poor foundations that settle and Crack, which is easy with how swampy the soil is there. I for one would never invest in owning anything there, as it is very likely going to be a victim of climate change in the near future. Not a good investment at all. Lean from Houston's mistakes! 

A lot of what you said is very true. However, I will argue there are plenty of beautiful areas in and around the city! There definitely are many ugly areas due to the lack of zoning and cheap building materials, plus the signage off the highway is something everyone on the Houston development forums complain about. That being said, if you get off those massive highways there are some truly beautiful neighborhoods around the city. I'll always point to Buffalo Bayou Park and Memorial Park as areas I consider to be prime examples of just how underrated of a city it can be. You get some beautiful views and homes in those areas (as well as some fugly McMansions).  I'd argue too that Houston has one of the best skylines in the country, and you get the best views from BBP.

I've only been in Houston for 3 years, and I'll probably be leaving in 1-2 years, so I don't have any strong ties to the city. But I thought I'd give my two cents and defend them a little bit! 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
19 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Is this a draft of the actual UDO? Naming it "2040" makes me think it's just one of those always-updating vision plans, not an actual ordinance overhaul.

I believe 2040 is supposed to be the visioning and policy document that the UDO will follow with the technical requirements

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

^ Yup, their current system is 2 LRT lines that have a total of 37 miles of track (expansion is currently underway). This is a slightly smaller system than we will have when the Gold and Silver Lines are complete. The time to change zoning is now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there is talk of removing single family housing zoning in Charlotte.  Here is a city Houston that has no zoning and some examples of very high density SF houses I saw all over the inside 610 loop area of Houston.  That all being said Houston metro has the highest percentage of new home sales in planned communities in the country.  People are attracted to planned communities there for order and thoughtful planning.  

I call some of these detached townhomes as they are extremely close together.   From the Heights area of Houston (like a Southend) and EaDo (East of downtown more like a NoDa area)  This is a city to study in terms of this as in Houston you can build anything anywhere with the big exception of PUDs and deed restricted areas which there are a lot of both in Htown. 

David Weekley based in Houston but active in Charlotte as well has used some of their plans there.  Every style of home in represented in intown Houston.  Intown housing is more affordable in Houston than in Charlotte because you can build without any rezonings or other costs just to local building codes.  

Photos from 2 weeks ago.   I should have put this on under the 2040 plan but it works here I guess too. 

IMG_5868.JPG

IMG_5869.JPG

IMG_5870.JPG

IMG_5871.JPG

IMG_5717.JPG

IMG_5718.JPG

IMG_5719.JPG

IMG_5720.JPG

IMG_5723.JPG

IMG_5728.JPG

IMG_5730.JPG

IMG_5734.JPG

IMG_5736.JPG

IMG_5738.JPG

IMG_5742.JPG

IMG_5772.JPG

Edited by KJHburg
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2020 at 8:46 PM, Spartan said:

The challenge is how to do you convince people who live in single family neighborhoods that additional housing (is: townhomes) near them is a good thing? People in subdivisions flip their crap when anything more dense is proposed.

The best way to describe it is the adage about the older neighborhoods. Myers Park and Dilworth are some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city. They both have foursquare apartments, duplexes, and ADUs a plenty, and no one bats an eye. If you imagine that type of density, its completely different than suddenly having a South End Texas doughnut next door to your Ballantyne McMansion. That would never happen under what's being discussed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2020 at 3:19 PM, CLT> said:

The best way to describe it is the adage about the older neighborhoods. Myers Park and Dilworth are some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city. They both have foursquare apartments, duplexes, and ADUs a plenty, and no one bats an eye. If you imagine that type of density, its completely different than suddenly having a South End Texas doughnut next door to your Ballantyne McMansion. That would never happen under what's being discussed.

I can imagine that when some owners think of multi-family housing near them they imagine southend style apartment buildings, giant townhomes that fill up an entire lot.  Most the multi-family in Dilworth and Myers Park are nice looking, set back from the street. Not over powering 'modern' looking buildings. Some of them I can tell if they are multifamily or not until you see multiple front doors, or realize they are just too big to be single.

I haven't seen many that look like the ones in the pictures above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I work in single family residential and we get a lot of requests for ADUs (accessory dwelling units) as well as accessory structures that are not full living spaces but rather a rec room with a bathroom.  That being said, I've heard that there will be some changes coming in the new ordinance to allow some flexibility (or at least more definitive language around these, especially since AirBnb wasn't a thing when the last ordinance was released).  Does anyone have any ideas what info surrounding ADUs/accessory buildings are in the new document?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Was just talking to the wife about this.  What exactly would abolishing the Single family zoning in Charlotte do?  I have heard both sides and still don’t understand.  I mean - what has doing this done for Minneapolis and others that have went down this road a year or more?  How does NC Restrictive Covenants come into play with existing Single Family Subdivisions?  This is all confusing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, kermit said:

It would allow landowners to add an accessory dwelling, convert a SFH to a duplex or, on some streets, a quad if they choose to.

Not only would this change increase property values for landowners, but it would also allow for increased densities which would improve walkability and make it more efficient to serve neighborhoods with transit. More immediately the change would reduce pressure on home prices in intown neighborhoods since the change would increase the number of units available.

Eliminating the prohibition on non single family properties allows individual landowners to make the decision to densify their lots, this makes the process of change is slow (I don't think Minneapolis has seen much impact yet). The NIMBY pushback is generally focused on increased traffic and parking issues. What they don't see is the change will improve transit service and traffic is going to get even worse if we just allow sprawl to continue.

IMO increasing residential densities is an ecological (and economic) imperative. I can't think of a less disruptive way to accomplish this.

This kind of change has been implemented in San Diego where I live, and my neighborhood has been impacted by it.  I never heard of anyone complaining, though.  Personally I welcomed it for many of the reasons you cite.  Building a second unit on my property is now an option that would increase my property value.  The only complaints I have heard about are in another part of the city near the water, where the city increased the height limit and people there complained about losing their views.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kermit said:

This is an existential issue for the city, we don't have time for this pearl-clutching bullsh1t.

While there may be concerns from the “nicer” parts of town it also seems like they believe deed restriction may be their solution. Not sure if that’s true.
 

What’s really interesting is it appears that real opposition is coming from the believe that this plan will disproportionately negatively impact residents in the crescent. If most of the land in the crescent is owned by LLCs or can be acquired for a bargain due to historical inequalities in Charlotte  then the increased in density will be highly concentrated in these areas that are perhaps the least equipped for those changes. Not sure what the answer is there or even how large this perceived issue is.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.