Proposal puts city in step with pedestrians

[musicman]

A vision of central Houston transformed by wide, tree-shaded sidewalks teeming with people walking from homes to jobs and entertainment lies at the heart of proposed new city policies.

The proposal, still subject to months of review and public hearings, would extend city government's regulatory reach into certain building design standards. The idea might be a tough sell in a city accustomed to leaving such decisions to property owners.

After two years of work, Houston's Department of Planning and Development has released recommendations that cover pedestrian zones, building styles, driveway spacing and other elements of development in corridors served by Metro's light rail lines.

full article

[sarahiki]

A vision of central Houston transformed by wide, tree-shaded sidewalks teeming with people walking from homes to jobs and entertainment lies at the heart of proposed new city policies.

The proposal, still subject to months of review and public hearings, would extend city government's regulatory reach into certain building design standards. The idea might be a tough sell in a city accustomed to leaving such decisions to property owners.

After two years of work, Houston's Department of Planning and Development has released recommendations that cover pedestrian zones, building styles, driveway spacing and other elements of development in corridors served by Metro's light rail lines.

full article

Will it matter, though? Look at Kirby.

[musicman]

Will it matter, though? Look at Kirby.

this is for rail corridors only...with ROW being gathered now they'll be plenty of open space

[sarahiki]

don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice idea. I just don't believe it will happen. What happened on Kirby shows that people in this city lack a commitment to providing pleasant, shady streets.

with ROW being gathered now they'll be plenty of open space

I don't understand. what does that mean?

[musicman]

don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice idea. I just don't believe it will happen. What happened on Kirby shows that people in this city lack a commitment to providing pleasant, shady streets.

what happened on kirby?

I don't understand. what does that mean?

the dozers will be out.

[TheNiche]

In all the corridors, the city would require a 15-foot pedestrian zone from the curb to the front of the building. Sidewalks would be on the 5 feet closest to the building, with the other 10 feet set aside for landscaping.

Historically, the City has been responsible for maintenance of sidewalks, which in most cases have been part of a thoroughfare's right-of-way. This is evidenced not only in older neighborhoods but also as part of the Kirby widening, now in progress.

The design of this 15-foot pedestrian zone will place a great many of the new sidewalks on private property. Who is responsible, and for what? Will the City maintain the landscaping within their ROW? Will property owners maintain their sidewalks even though the public is essentially being invited to trespass by dictate of the City? Who bears legal liability for an accident or crime that occurs on quasi-public property that is privately-owned?

Perhaps, if the City (i.e. the public) values it that much, they ought to start buying land from developers upon the start of new construction projects.

Also in every corridor, the city would enforce restrictions on the spacing of driveways so pedestrians would have to stop less often for cars pulling in and out of businesses.

Does this apply only to commercial developments and not residential? Does driveway spacing take into account only what is proposed on a single parcel, or do neighboring properties impact one another? Could it prohibit driveway access to a narrow property if pre-existing driveways were situated on either side of it on neighboring properties?

In other corridors, the building design standards would be voluntary and generally would be limited to areas within a quarter-mile walking distance of transit stations. Developers who met these standards would be exempt from certain requirements such as parking or building setbacks.

Does it mean that if a property is along a different corridor and also within 1/4 mile of a transit station, that this code would be voluntary and subject to incentives, but that if it is not within 1/4 mile of a transit station, it is also voluntary but not subject to incentives? That's what I'm getting out of it, but I could see how it might be read differently. Also, is this applicable to all transit stations or just light rail stations? Does it apply to all major thoroughfares, or are secondary thoroughfares and neighborhood streets also able to take advantage of incentives?

Midtown, between downtown and the Texas Medical Center, is the site of one piece of property that provides a dramatic opportunity to use the new policies: a vacant, 270,000-square-foot site between Main and Travis south of McGowen known as the "superblock."

Larger properties actually are a less dramatic opportunity to eliminate the 25-foot setback because they are projects where variances already would've been sought and granted without much controversy and at relatively low expense in the context of such a large project.

The dramatic impact is that smaller properties now have more net usable acreage; that means that greater density can be obtained at the same cost. No one of the smaller projects that will come of this are going to redefine the area, but taken together as a whole, that will be where the impact can be described as dramatic. ...but that also means that the land is worth more, and landowners will capture the gain in terms of higher land prices. This means that financial feasibility of these projects is still going to be marginal and that the process will still be slow-going.

[musicman]

i agree that this is easier said than done. in order for this to be feasible, property will need to be acquired and the current owners will be not be happy at their losses. the one who eventually ends up fronting will be the one to reap the benefits.

[TheNiche]

i agree that this is easier said than done. in order for this to be feasible, property will need to be acquired and the current owners will be not be happy at their losses. the one who eventually ends up fronting will be the one to reap the benefits.

I haven't concluded anything negative yet. At this point I just want clarification.

Perhaps Suzy could put out an official press release that outlines what is being proposed with greater clarity.

[TheNiche]

One last thing:

The new policies would apply to new development or redevelopment, but not to existing buildings.

Is there any impact to properties that are being substantially remodeled but not demolished? What happens if someone builds an addition onto their existing building?

[RedScare]

Well, they did say that there will be months of review and public hearings, so it is sure to be vetted. As a veteran downtown walker, I can attest to the benefits of shade on a summer day. And, as Niche stated, there are benefits to developers, in that they may use more of the lot for building. The tradeoffs may well be worth it to developers AND pedestrians. It certainly does not look worse, so far. And, the questions Niche raises do not look to be insurmountable obstacles, just issues that need to be addressed.

[TheNiche]

Big brother at City Planning is watching. He contacted me personally regarding the questions I raised here on HAIF. Luckily I've met him and as it turns out, he's a really nice guy.

The City's Urban Corridor Planning website provides a tremendous amount of information on this whole project. Be sure to check out the 'Implementation' page. It is much clearer than the Chronicle article.

Below, I've paraphrased some of the comments that were made to me but have withheld anything that may have been speculative on his part. I don't want to run the slightest chance of getting anybody in trouble, after all.

----------------

Apparently property owners are responsible and legally liable for the operation and maintenance of the curb and everything behind the curb, including sidewalks, even if it is beyond their property line (bus stops possibly being an exception)...not that this is enforced almost at all (obviously). The city has actually refused historically to invest in any sidewalks except in TIRZs or as part of total street reconstruction, although that changed with the latest Capital Improvement Plan budgets for 2010 and 2011.

Personally, I kind of wish that they would make this more apparent, for instance by putting together some kind of annual newsletter program or the like, because even though I own three properties in the City, both residential and commercial, and all of them fronting major or secondary thoroughfares, I knew nothing about this. I'm not in violation on any of them, but all the same, if I were a homeowner in Broadmoor, for instance, it would be nice to know that I take legal liability for a pedestrian tripping over a cracked up sidewalk and injuring themselves.

----------------

The driveway spacing requirements are a work in progress and will probably apply more to owners of single properties which would desire multiple driveways; access to smaller parcels cannot be denied.

----------------

At this point, the incentives for voluntary compliance would only apply to properties within 1/4 mile of a light rail station. It doesn't seem that bus stops count.

Edited August 11, 2008 by TheNiche

[musicman]

the property owners have been responsible for sidewalks per city ordinance for years. sounds like your contact isn't in the know.

[TheNiche]

the property owners have been responsible for sidewalks per city ordinance for years. sounds like your contact isn't in the know.

Yeah, he corrected me on that. And I quote:

...property owners are responsible and legally liable for the operation and maintenance of the curb and everything behind the curb, including sidewalks...

Read more carefully.

Edited August 11, 2008 by TheNiche

[musicman]

Read more carefully.

i'm reading just fine, he's the one that's slow otherwise he wouldn't have said "apparently property owners are responsible." we have been for years.

Edited August 11, 2008 by musicman

[TheNiche]

i'm reading just fine, he's the one that's slow otherwise he wouldn't have said "apparently property owners are responsible" we have been for years.

I paraphrased his comments and inserted a few of my own. Since that was a reversal of what I thought had been the case, I used the word apparently because it came as something of a surprise to me.

[musicman]

I paraphrased his comments and inserted a few of my own. Since that was a reversal of what I thought had been the case, I used the word apparently because it came as something of a surprise to me.

sound like someone should paraphrase more carefully.

Edited August 11, 2008 by musicman

[TheNiche]

sound like someone should paraphrase more carefully.

Perhaps so. I'll just leave it at that...

EDIT:

Edited August 11, 2008 by TheNiche

[dbigtex56]

Big brother at City Planning is watching. He contacted me personally regarding the questions I raised here on HAIF. Luckily I've met him and as it turns out, he's a really nice guy.

The City's Urban Corridor Planning website provides a tremendous amount of information on this whole project. Be sure to check out the 'Implementation' page. It is much clearer than the Chronicle article.

Below, I've paraphrased some of the comments that were made to me but have withheld anything that may have been speculative on his part. I don't want to run the slightest chance of getting anybody in trouble, after all.

----------------

Apparently property owners are responsible and legally liable for the operation and maintenance of the curb and everything behind the curb, including sidewalks, even if it is beyond their property line (bus stops possibly being an exception)...not that this is enforced almost at all (obviously). The city has actually refused historically to invest in any sidewalks except in TIRZs or as part of total street reconstruction, although that changed with the latest Capital Improvement Plan budgets for 2010 and 2011.

Personally, I kind of wish that they would make this more apparent, for instance by putting together some kind of annual newsletter program or the like, because even though I own three properties in the City, both residential and commercial, and all of them fronting major or secondary thoroughfares, I knew nothing about this. I'm not in violation on any of them, but all the same, if I were a homeowner in Broadmoor, for instance, it would be nice to know that I take legal liability for a pedestrian tripping over a cracked up sidewalk and injuring themselves.

----------------

The driveway spacing requirements are a work in progress and will probably apply more to owners of single properties which would desire multiple driveways; access to smaller parcels cannot be denied.

----------------

At this point, the incentives for voluntary compliance would only apply to properties within 1/4 mile of a light rail station. It doesn't seem that bus stops count.

Thank you for a very helpful post, TheNiche.

The responsibility for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks has long been a source of confusion within the city of Houston. My understanding was that the matter remains unclear, and can vary depending on what stipulations were put forth when any particular subdivision was developed. In other words, what may legally apply in River Oaks might not be applicable in parts of the Fifth Ward.

I've quizzed various officials for years, and have never twice received the same answers. Your comments clarify things....somewhat.

I'm still unclear about property lines, and who calls the shots on whether a sidewalk is required. I've seen 100 year old sidewalks removed in my neighborhood, because apparently the McMansion builders thought they didn't look 'nice'.

[TheNiche]

Thank you for a very helpful post, TheNiche.

The responsibility for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks has long been a source of confusion within the city of Houston. My understanding was that the matter remains unclear, and can vary depending on what stipulations were put forth when any particular subdivision was developed. In other words, what may legally apply in River Oaks might not be applicable in parts of the Fifth Ward.

I've quizzed various officials for years, and have never twice received the same answers. Your comments clarify things....somewhat.

I'm still unclear about property lines, and who calls the shots on whether a sidewalk is required. I've seen 100 year old sidewalks removed in my neighborhood, because apparently the McMansion builders thought they didn't look 'nice'.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were exceptions or inconsistent implementation. It's bound to happen in a City with 171 years of history. But my contact was citing an existing ordinance with respect to sidewalk and curb maintenance being the landowner's responsibility. That would seem to indicate that unless the CCRs agreed to between the original developer and the City specifically called for city maintenance AND precluded the possibility of being affected by future ordinances, the ordinance probably applies. You ought to try looking this stuff up on MuniCode. It's interesting what you'll find in there sometimes.

[Montrose1100]

So the city is not responsible for the sidewalks where the roots have deformed them?

[TheNiche]

So the city is not responsible for the sidewalks where the roots have deformed them?

Nope.

[Montrose1100]

Nope.

Well thats gay. I remember riding my Bike around and crashing a lot because I didn't know how to bunny hop yet.