A "General Plan" has extensive implications and is best addressed through a systematic dialogue and review of the issues involved.
Houston still needs time to see the results of the Light Rail impact and what the new extensions will do, especially as there was heavy opposition to the Richmond Light Rail line before passage. There is no Commuter Rail in place, and much infrastructure remains under construction.
With Texas relying on Real Estate taxes for education in lieu of Income Tax in many other states, the 2.85% Houston property tax drives the economics and the change to higher yielding developments.
Only recently did FEMA publish the new flood maps, and we're currently witnessing several lawsuits as a result, claiming "Taking without compensation".
A "Plan" is bound to have repercussions. The ideas herewith are intended to initiate a dialogue, and to help crystallize the issues.
When the neighborhoods protected are in prime areas and become too old to maintain and out of date, they are sold for land value. Much more expensive housing takes place, driving out the homeowners that asked for protection, transforming the neighborhood fabric as many original owners get displaced.
The "Assembling" of the homes that became Greenway Plaza today, would not have been possible had there been "neighborhood protection" of the old houses there.
How much of Houston needs protection? How to determine where fairly? What is to be classified as worthy of protection and how?
Commercial properties are owned by some of the "homeowners". How are commercial property values to be protected from adjacent residential owners who have more "election power"?
The typical 5,000 sf lot of Montrose is too tight for 2 units, and when it reaches $400,000 in value, it becomes too expensive for a medium price home, and too small for an upper end home. If it is permanently protected, how well does it serve Houston in the long term?
Should dilapidated neighborhoods be "protected" simply because the original developer placed "Deed Restrictions"? Should a neighborhood vote be made every 20 years on maintaining restrictions? Should it allow opting out?
Lots in Midtown are fairly small, and assembling them remains at the whims of the adjacent property owners and their asking price. There may not be enough contiguous land to allow for large scale, high density developments within a certain area to create a critical mass for a "walking town".
On about 2 acres, would the city be better served with 8 to 10 houses paying taxes, or by a 200,000 sf office building or a 20 story residential tower? Where should this be considered and how to apply fair regulation?
Commercial real estate is very sensitive to new regulations. Investment capital could seek market returns in other areas, increasing commutes and traffic. It affects the Tax Base of Houston.
Real estate values reflect the understanding of existing rules. New Regulations that add building step- backs, both at the front and rear of commercial properties, and restrictive limitations, could make many existing commercial properties "non-conforming", with all the inherent complications involved and affecting the sale and remodeling of these properties.
New projects undergo extensive studies over long periods of time before fruition. With each new regulation, the "due diligence" period could become longer, and the findings may not be reliable when opposition to a particular project can result in fast changes to codes. There would be no certainty that amendments would not be forthcoming.
What will happen if and when a "Plan" gets near implementation? Will the markets freeze?
Can Predictability be restored to a market?
Suburban lifestyle where the car culture dominates is not easy to change by regulation. Reducing parking availability may drive clients to easier parking. In Downtown, parking structures are now in competition with office buildings for the few remaining suitable tracts.
Should the City provide much more public parking and where? Can the city afford it? Should this be part of the Plan?
Should this become a priority regardless of the progress of public transportation?
Would holding back on public parking speed public transportation and produce higher density, or will it drive out companies and employees to easier and cheaper areas?
Legal and Economic Implications
Houston is different in the fact its high-rise residential buildings are scattered, although most are either inside the Loop or near the Galleria. Developers consider the view of a location as the prime factor for sales in a specific building, whereas in Downtown, tenants may sacrifice the view in favor of proximity to their clients or the County Courts. (The Ashby / Bissonnet location for a high rise offered great unobstructed views all around).
The "Plan" may be heavily concerned with what occurs on the street level, but the bulk of economic value of a multistory building is in the upper levels.
How much would be considered a "Taking" if such buildings get bunched together, the views get restricted, and the value and sales drop drastically?
Should there be interference in the Markets? Where is the dividing line?
Is it fair to taxpayers to channel Utility capacity and infra-structure only to selected areas?
The Ashby / Bissonnet high-rise already polarized the city considerably, with traditional Land Owners and Developers in a very defensive mode. A new "Plan" affects too many City Officials, may invade turf, and undue obstacles may result. Elected officials can be impacted.
Should this be of concern with the AIA involvement?
With Architect Peter Brown on City Council, how will the position of the AIA be interpreted?
How would the AIA and its membership be affected if the next election becomes Plan polarized?
The "Visioning Process"
The future does not lend itself well to "Visioning", as today's vision may fall short for an evolving 500 square mile metropolis, especially when expecting 2 million new Houstonians by 2025.
A "Plan" could take 5, 10 or 20 years, and may become obsolete before it is implemented. How far into the future can we envision? Do we change regulations every 5 years?
The owner of the "Houston Pavilions", a 3 block Downtown project still under construction, is already voicing concern that only 200,000 sf of office was incorporated. "The Pavilion" on Post Oak is being torn down and it is less than 30 years old. The 20 story "Southwest Tower" at Milam and McKinney was only 15 years old when it was torn down around 1980 to make room for a 50 story tower (never built due to the recession of the eighties).
Will today's mixed use developments become obsolete before the system of transit and infrastructure become interconnected?
Whereas other cities may consider subways, it is not an option for Houston. In Texas, property owners own their property above and underground and to the center of the earth, including mineral rights. Subways require Houston to use the power of Eminent Domain to obtain the underground "right of way", and it is beyond economic feasibility versus surface transportation.
Is Monorail feasible with all the ADA access requirements for elevated platforms? Can systems be combined? Will there be again "Jitney Service" in the future, by taxis or by private car?
How much more "Transportation Infrastructure" is needed in-place before intelligent decisions can be made? How to factor Technology?
In summary, a steady and continuous dialogue is warranted, whereby the AIA gets fully engaged. There is ample time for this process, and it can be joined by other professionals in a more open forum, including engineers, attorneys, informed citizens, developers, and large real estate owners and commercial brokers.
Houston is probably the only "experimental city" of size, and it can become an urban guide for newer cities of the future. It is well to maintain this ability, and to spend the time and effort to refine this experiment.
