In my last post I posited that real estate *development* lags real estate *demand,* because developers and their investors are an inherently conservative lot. I also pointed out that a little government regulation goes a long way toward influencing neighborhood design. It’s the latter that we’ll look at in this post.
Now before I go any further I want to refer everyone back to my first post for context. I love suburban Houston, and while I tend to spend a majority of my time in the ‘trose, the Heights, and the 3rd, I have derived much enjoyment from suburban Houston’s myriad of delicious restaurants and spacious residential units. But as one drives further out and the scenery ceases to vary, one sometimes ponders:
Where’s The Suburban TND?
Houston has no shortage of gridded, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. Thing is, they’re all kind of squished together. And with a couple of exceptions, they were all platted out before 1935. What’s there is there. We’re not adding to it.
Why?
Developer conservatism plays a role, but is ethereal, subject to evaporate as soon as *someone* steps up and proves that suburban TND is sufficiently profitable. But several city standards and rules are standing in the way.
Regulating Place
Looking at the myriad ways which subdivision design has been influenced by government policy is an exhaustive work, which is why I’m grateful that someone has already done it for me. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities, by Michael Southworth and Eran Ben-Joseph, is a book every urban designer and libertarian economist needs to read. In it they explain how the *topology* of the suburban subdivision – not the houses themselves, but the layout and design of the streets – is almost entirely the result of government policy. How does this work in Houston?
- Building placement and parking. Houston’s minimum building line requirements prohibit zero-lot-line “main street” style commercial development in every area except the recently-designated transit corridors. And the 25′ setback for buildings fronting major arterials effectively ensures that all commercial development will take the form of parking-in-front strip centers, since the most economical way to use that 25′ dead zone is to extend it to 60′ and put in a full row of head-in parking.
- Street width, alignment, and geometry. Tory has a recent post where, in arguing for the necessity of a “strong” agency like TXDOT (a point which I agree with), he comments: “Think about how master-planned communities prefer cul-de-sacs over street grids – nice for residents, totally unhelpful for people trying to pass through.” But this isn’t really exactly true. We actually require this. Let’s quote the relevant sections of the Houston code, and then analyze what their effect is on subdivision layout:
DIVISION 2. STREETS
Sec. 42-120. General layout and arrangement of street systems.
(a) The street system proposed within any subdivision plat or general plan shall comply with the design standards of this section and shall provide:
(1) A sufficient number of continuous streets to accommodate the traffic generated by the development of the subdivision;
(2) A system serving properties to be developed for residential purposes that discourages through traffic while maintaining adequate access and traffic movement for convenient circulation within the subdivision and access for fire, police and other emergency services;
(3) Adequate vehicular access to all properties within the subdivision plat boundaries;
(4) Connections to adjacent properties to ensure adequate traffic circulation within the general area; and
(5) The dedication of rights-of-way, including the rights-of-way for major thoroughfares in accordance with the major thoroughfare plan.
[snip]
Sec. 42-122. Right-of-way widths.
The minimum right-of-way required for each of the following types of streets or public alleys shall be as follows, subject only to the street width exception areas established pursuant to section 42-123 of this Code:
Major thoroughfares (1) The lesser of 100 feet or the right-of-way specified by the street hierarchy classification established by the major thoroughfare and freeway plan; or
(2) 100 feet for streets designated on the major thoroughfare and freeway plan for which a street hierarchy classification is not established
Collector streets designated on the major thoroughfare and freeway plan The right-of-way width established by the major thoroughfare and freeway plan
Other collector streets (1) 60 feet; or
(2) 50 feet if all properties on both sides of the collector street consist of single-family residential lots that do not have driveway access to the collector street.
Local streets (1) 50 feet if adjacent to exclusively single-family residential lots; or
(2) 60 feet if adjacent to any other development
Public alleys 20 feet
[snip]
Sec. 42-127. Intersections of major thoroughfares.
(a) A major thoroughfare shall intersect with a public local street, a collector street or another major thoroughfare at least every 2,600 feet.
(b) Intersections along a major thoroughfare shall be spaced a minimum of 600 feet apart.
(c) An intersection with a major thoroughfare shall not be within 400 feet of the intersection of two major thoroughfares.
(Ord. No. 99-262, § 2, 3-24-99)
[snip]
Sec. 42-132. Curves.
(a) Curves for the right-of-way of a major thoroughfare shall have a centerline radius of at least 2000 feet. Reverse curves shall be separated by a tangent distance of not less than 100 feet.
(b) Reverse curves with a tangent distance of 100 feet or less along collector streets and local streets shall have a centerline radius of at least 300 feet. Reverse curves shall be separated by a tangent distance of not less than 50 feet.
(c) Curves along a type 2 permanent access easement or a private street may have any centerline radius except that the centerline radius of a reverse curve shall not be less that 65 feet. Reverse curves shall be separated by a tangent of not less than 25 feet.
(d) At the request of an applicant, the commission shall approve a lesser curve radius upon certification by the director of public works and engineering that the lesser radius meets nationally accepted standards set forth in either the “Guidelines for Urban Major Streets Design” of the Institute of Transportation Engineers or “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
(Ord. No. 99-262, § 2, 3-24-99)
How does this affect subdivision layout?
1: Discourages through traffic, but maintains internal circulation.
This wording effectively bans a Montrose- or Heights- style street grid. No allowance is made for gridded areas which discourage through traffic with vertical or horizontal traffic calming devices; doing such would require a variance. Moreover, by *simultaneously* requiring that through traffic be discouraged while “internal circulation” is encouraged, this wording enthrones the “loops and lollipops” street pattern of most of Houston’s newest MPCs.
2: Street Width tied to land use, reverse frontage.
Minimum rights-of-way of 50 feet for deed-restricted single-family and 60 feet for others encourage larger blocks and the proliferation of private access easements as an alternative to public streets. In addition, a ROW differential which is tied to deed restrictions creates a financial incentive for any residential development to be deed-restricted to single-family, since less ROW = more lots = more $$$.
3: 600′ Minimum intersection spacing along arterials.
While not exactly a unique requirement – it’s based on national ITE standards developed in the 60’s – the long intersection spacing discourages pedestrian circulation to and from our major streets, creating an additional barrier to mixed-use development. And because the minimum intersection spacing is absolute, it encourages four-way intersections at the expense of more and safer “T” intersections. A well-written intersection spacing standard should include a 50-60% reduction in distance between two “T” intersections; ours doesn’t. This is a bad regulation, poorly written.
4: 2000′ Minimum arterial curve radius.
The broad 2000′ curves of the Houston thoroughfare network encourage high traffic speeds, such that the city is criscrossed by nominally 35mph arterials with 85th percentile speeds of 50mph and above. I’m not going to cluck about this – I drive quickly, and I’d find it annoying if the Houston arterial network was a clusterf*** of tight reverse curves. But the requirement that *every* curve be 2000′ makes it impossible to get traffic to slow down in a New Urban context. Even if you could get a variance to build zero-lot-line, mixed-use development on all four corners of an arterial-arterial intersection, they’re still going to have a high-speed 100′ ROW that encourages 45mph traffic.
Looking Ahead: How can we fix this stuff, to clear the way for suburban, mixed-use, TND? Find out, in the next post!
7 responses so far ↓
Jessie M // July 13, 2009 at 11:27 pm
You get my vote for M.V.B.
Keep it up
John // July 15, 2009 at 1:42 am
For an alternate approach, consider Virginia’s move to discourage cul de sacs because they’re expensive and impede traffic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248.html
Basically, Virginia’s approach is that if you build it, they – as in government maintenance of the streets – aren’t going to come.
The cul de sac is the wrong answer to a created problem – build wide roads that encourage people to speed, then twist them up so people don’t want to use them. Or, of course, you could build smaller streets appropriate to residential use.
keephoustonhouston // July 15, 2009 at 4:33 am
The upshot is that Houston’s standard local street section is 28′ back-to-back, which is in line with other cities’ skinnier, “New Urban” street grids. A lot of places require(d) 32, 36 foot widths for residential neighborhoods… we never got to that level of excess.
Forget the city – Cul-de-sacs cost developers money, because they create odd triangular lots that are difficult to build on. For large-lot single family, this is a toss – but for small-lot (less than 5000sqft) single family, cul-de-sacs actually reduce the number of buildable lots in the plat. If we don’t require them, they’ll eventually disappear… or at least retreat to the ritzy ‘hoods, which probably aren’t that walkable to begin with (think how far parts of River Oaks are from the nearest retail… and that’s streetcar-era development).
finness // July 15, 2009 at 2:00 pm
But where does the city turn when writing ordinances/Chapter 42? The developers, of course. I’m certain that the HBA crafted this themselves, as their refrain has always been that they simply want “uniformity.” By making all comers replicate what is already there, builders make sure that new entrants will not undercut prevailing costs. It is a form of price control.
The second reason I believe the builders write the laws is that I have also had dealing with the planning department. There are no ideas generated there. That is where ideas from homeowners or urban planners go to die.
Ian Hlavacek // July 15, 2009 at 7:30 pm
KHH – How much of the local wowwipop development is occuring within the City? How about all of that happening on the fringes, in the County (and other counties)? If your theory is true, that without the City’s regulations we’d see fewer cul-de-sacs, then what’s with all those cul-de-sacs on the periphery? Does the County impose similarly restrictive regulations?
keephoustonhouston // July 16, 2009 at 3:44 am
It doesn’t have to. Chapter 42 standards for infrastructure (including all the street standards) apply within Houston’s ETJ, which extends five miles beyond the city limits. And in many places, Houston has creatively annexed roads, or other long skinny parcels of land, so that the ETJ often extends considerably further than the contiguous limits might suggest.
As far as cul-de-sacs on the periphery, I made the point that cul-de-sac neighborhoods tend to result in a net reduction in buildable lots, as compared to gridded neighborhoods. For infill suburban development (i.e., those leftover 40-acre plots just outside BW8), this makes all the difference in the world. For outer-fringe development (i.e. Grand Parkway and beyond), land is cheap enough that the lot difference doesn’t matter as much. In that case the developer’s bigger challenge is to “get people out there,” usually through dedicating a significant chunk of land to golf courses, trails, and other “amenities.”
It needs to be pointed out that I’m not anti cul-de-sac. Some people expressly prefer to live on one, and I don’t see any reason to deny them that for “the greater good.” The problem isn’t that we’re building cul-de-sacs, it’s that we’re building cul-de-sacs *to the exclusion of all other street forms*. People who want a new home in a new neighborhood have no choice but to accept lollipop-land, because it’s all that’s being offered.
Yes, the existing big developers and their existing consultants are set in their ways. Modifying 42 won’t result in Newland suddenly turning around and dropping 2000 acres of TND. What it *will* do is clear the path for smaller developers to make waves.
Laurence Aurbach // July 21, 2009 at 12:30 am
Nice post. I agree that “Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities” is a must-read for anyone interested in the U.S. transportation system and how we got to where we are today. For more about the benefits and characteristics of well-connected street networks, take a look at this series on street connectivity.