URBAN HOUSTON FRAMEWORK Houston, Texas A CASE STUDY FOR THE H-GAC REGIONAL PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT May 2013 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Members: Linda Porras-Pirtle - Planning Commissioner (SAC Chair) Keiji Asakura - Planning Commissioner Antoine Bryant - Planning Commissioner Veronica Chapa-Jones - COH - Housing and Community Development Marlene Gafrick - COH - Planning and Development Mark Loethen - COH - Public Works and Engineering Diane Schenke - Greater East End Management District Ashby Johnson - H-GAC - Transportation & Air Quality Jeff Taebel - H-GAC – Community & Environmental Filo Castore - American Institute of Architects (AIA) Ed Taravela - Greater Houston Builders Association (GHBA) Casey Morgan - Greater Houston Builders Association (GHBA) David Crossley - Houston Tomorrow Bob Collins - Houston Real Estate Council (HREC) Bill Huntsinger - Houston Real Estate Council (HREC) Joshua Sanders - Houstonians for Responsible Growth (HRG) Amanda Timm - Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Clint Harbert - Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) Kim Slaughter - Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) Shon Link - Urban Land Institute (ULI) Irma Sanchez - Westchase District URBAN HOUSTON FRAMEWORK A Case Study for the H-GAC Regional Plan for Sustainable Development May 2013
Client contact: Kelly Porter, AICP Regional Planner Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) 3555 Timmons, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77027 [email protected] 713.993.4529
Amar Mohite Administration Manager City of Houston Planning & Development Department 611 Walker Street, 6th Floor, Houston, TX 77002 [email protected] 713.837.7701
Consultant contact: Rebecca Leonard, AICP, LEED-AP Principal Design Workshop, Inc. 800 Brazos Street, Suite 490, Austin, TX 78701 [email protected] 512.499.0222
Images are from a variety of sources, all of which Design Workshop has obtained rights to use. Executive Summary
Project Background
Throughout the nation, Texas and As the fourth largest city in the US, and Houston-Galveston area, policy mak- with an array of new residents moving to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ers, planning organizations, community Houston every day, the development of U.S. Department of Transportation residents, real estate developers, transit a Framework which promotes a more U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proponents and housing interests are sustainable and targeted approach to striving to prioritize and implement Houston’s current development practices projects, policies, and programs that will is vital to the greater success of the lead to more vibrant, healthy and acces- region as a whole. As such, the purpose sible communities. of this Study is to develop a comprehen- sive Toolbox of policy and regulatory Houston-Galveston State and Local The Houston-Galveston Area Council incentives that Houston can use to stra- Area Council (H-GAC) Funding Partners (H-GAC) – in conjunction with the City tegically encourage dense, sustainable of Houston, Harris County and 22 other Urban Centers in appropriate locations, regional partners – applied for and while maintaining the character of exist- received a 3.75 million dollar regional ing neighborhoods. planning grant administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- The intent of the Urban Houston Frame- velopment’s Sustainable Communities work is to help integrate land use and City of Houston Initiative, and funded in partnership with transportation planning by coordinating the U.S. Department of Transportation land development standards with new (DOT) and Environmental Protection transit investments, and by providing af- Agency (EPA). To learn more about the fordable housing in dense areas around greater Houston-Galveston Regional new transit lines. Plan for Sustainable Development as it relates to the 13-County Texas Gulf The importance of creating a Frame- Coast Planning Region, please visit: work now is that, despite strong growth, http://www.ourregion.org/. there are no comprehensive policies to encourage sustainable forms of develop- A portion of these funds are being used ment in Houston. Today, Houston is a stakeholders to test six case studies throughout the polycentric city facing many challenges region, one of which is highlighted by in promoting walkable, bikeable areas this Urban Houston Framework. with a balance of housing and jobs.
Figure 1: Urban Houston Framework Partners
Urban Houston Framework | 4 Executive Summary
In response to the unique diversity within Table 1: Key Findings Houston’s existing context, the Study VISION CATEGORIES GOAL CHARACTERISTIC MEASURABLE CHARACTERISTICS works to evaluate what constitutes an OF CENTERS Urban Center – or an area of live/work/ play – where all individuals congregate Residential Density (Dwelling Units) providing for maximum use of existing Housing Type Address local Housing Character, Housing Affordability city and regional resources including, and regional Diversity Housing Choice and Mobility (Fair Housing Factor) but not limited to, enhanced pedestrian housing needs Housing Starts (New Construction) and transportation related infrastructure/ Mixed-Land Use (Housing and Localized Services) services, coordinated utilities, drainage Contribute to Vacant Land (%) as well as other benefits detailed in this Infill/ Redevelopment high- quality Improvement to Land Value Ratio Study. Potential infrastructure Significant Potential for Development/Redevelopment Funding Mechanism, Management District However, recognizing that “one size Management Entity Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) does not fit all” this Study works to iden- Encourage Land Use Diversity Index tify the proper characteristics that com- economic Average Residential/Commercial/Office FAR viability and prise such Centers, as well as evaluate Urban Centers diversity Land Use Diversity Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio the tools required to help ensure such are vibrant Area of Center in Acres development practices. Table 1: Key places in which Large Centers people from Medium Centers Parks and Open Space Findings summarizes conclusions all walks of life Small Centers High Employment, Job Density identified by stakeholders throughout the can live, work Enhance Population Density Population Density Urban Houston Framework. and play community stability, Access to Amenities, Amenity Density accessibility Attractions, Amenity Diversity The findings of the Urban Houston and equity Destinations National/Regional (vs. Local) Attractions/Destinations Framework are intended not only to in- Promote Bikeway Density crease housing, economic and transpor- Bike/Pedestrian sustainable, Trail Density tation opportunities at the local level, but Accessibility healthy design Sidewalk Accessibility also demonstrate various ways in which Intersection Density sustainability Tools can be applied to Access to Streets, Street Density (Freeways, Thoroughfares, Streets) Support address planning issues within a variety Freeways multimodal Access to Freeways of geographic contexts. Additionally, the transportation Access to Thoroughfares initiative aims for the implementation of and increased Type of Transit strategic projects, policies and programs connectivity. High Quality Transit Type of Transit Facilities that move above and beyond the ongo- Transit Frequency and Connectivity ing, higher-level efforts of the Houston- Galveston Regional Plan for Sustainable Development.
Urban Houston Framework | 5 Executive Summary
Framework Synopsis
This Study captures the outcomes of the This Urban Houston Framework Study is Urban Houston Framework Focus Group the first of many phases in developing a and interested public dialogues led by comprehensive set of regulatory incen- Design Workshop from October 2012 tives that the City of Houston, as well as to April 2013 in which various issues its regional partners, can use to selec- and solutions involving urban sprawl, tively encourage dense, sustainable low density, lack of pedestrian safety, neighborhoods in appropriate locations, and inequitable access to housing, while protecting the character of existing, economic and transit opportunities were stable residential communities. discussed.
The Framework is intended to assist stakeholders interested in creating vibrant live/work/play environments. Stakeholder expertise consisted of real- tors, developers, policymakers, engi- Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Denver, Colorado neers, architects, landscape architects, The Framework is intended to assist stakeholders interested in creating vibrant live/ urban planners, housing interests and work/play environments. special districts.
These groups were identified early in the process as the key stakeholders and were engaged in each step of the pro- cess. Phone calls, e-mail invitations and advertisements on various social media websites (such as Twitter and Facebook) were posted prior to events to encour- age participation from these audiences. City departments and policy making agencies participated, creating a strong platform for on-going dialogue regarding Urban Centers. Photo Credit: City of Houston | Buffalo Bayou This Urban Houston Framework Study is the first of many phases in developing a comprehensive set of regulatory incentives
Urban Houston Framework | 6 Executive Summary
Envisioning Urban Centers
Stakeholders developed a single, over Large Centers have the highest hous- arching Vision for all Urban Centers: ing and job densities accompanied To create vibrant Urban Centers in with intense cultural and recreational Houston where people from all walks amenities. People arrive via train, bus, of life can live/work/play. These Urban bike, car or taxi and are able to walk Centers will be in varying sizes and to regional, national and international Photo Credit: City of Houston | Houston International Festival provide: attractions. Tall, mixed-use buildings Large Centers have tall, mixed-use buildings and an interconnected inhabit an interconnected street grid that street grid that accommodates the highest densities of housing, jobs • Better connections between desti- encourages pedestrian-oriented retail and amenities. nations in the city; and public transit usage. • Better coordination of land develop- ment standards with transportation Medium Centers have more housing, investments and related regulations; transit, jobs, amenities and activities • Real housing choice for everyone; than other areas and Small Centers. • The elimination of food deserts People arrive via bus, bike, car or taxi where they currently exist; and walk various distances to citywide • More walkable and bikeable areas destinations. Mid- to high-rise buildings with a balance of housing and jobs, and transit enhances community stability and transportation choices. by providing access to goods, services, Photo Credit: City of Houston | Sugar Land Town Center schools and public spaces. Medium Centers have mid- to high-rise buildings and transit that In providing these elements, Urban Cen- enhances access to goods, services, schools and public spaces. ters will decrease household transporta- Small Centers cater to community tion costs and the air pollution and traffic needs and have low- to mid-rise build- congestion associated with a very high ings and a street grid that attracts small percentage of single-passenger vehicle businesses. Although there is a mix of trips per day. This will lead to improved uses, they do not typically have high air quality and reduced greenhouse gas housing and job densities. Instead, they emissions. It will also promote public provide amenities, services and op- health, which results in an enhanced portunities fitting for the neighborhoods quality of life for all Houstonians. they support and contribute to economic vitality by attracting entrepreneurship. Minimal transit exists in the form of local Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Rice Village Small Centers have low- to mid-rise buildings and a street grid that routes connecting to destination routes. attracts businesses and services. People spend a majority of their time in Small Centers that cater to every-day, community needs.
Urban Houston Framework | 7 Executive Summary
Because what gets measured gets done, Designating Urban Centers Incentivizing both the Regional Plan for Sustain- Better Development able Development and Urban Houston Stakeholder dialogue revealed a pro- Framework Study identify Goals and cess by which Urban Centers could be The first phase of the Urban Houston develop benchmarks for measuring designated and through which interested Framework Study tests and evaluates, in long- and short-term sustainability. The parties could voluntarily opt-in to the the most transparent manner possible, establishment of six Goals for achieving Framework. Three, alternative process- incentives that could work alongside ex- the Vision ensures all Centers epitomize es were discussed: a City Initiated Pro- isting and future regulations to promote best practices that lead to walkable, cess, a Voluntary Area Initiated Process, scalable, transferable and sustainable bikeable areas with a balance of jobs, and an Applicant Initiated Process. infill development/redevelopment prac- housing and transportation. tices. These Tools range from Universal A hybrid of the City and Voluntary Area Improvement Tools to Developer Incen- Stakeholders were adamant that “one Initiated Processes was preferred. City tives. size does not fit all” in categorizing and departments and other partners will designating Houston’s Urban Centers. identify areas meeting a series of Urban Universal Improvement Tools are those They differ by size, audience (who Center Criteria, such as job density, that help to improve services within is drawn to them), mix of land uses, residential density, population density, Urban Centers that benefit the area as density, accessibility, and community number of transit facilities, etc. Areas a whole. These Tools require both mu- character. Through the Urban Hous- meeting the Criteria would be assigned nicipal and other organizations to work ton Framework process, the following boundaries avoiding stable neighbor- together to improve services over time, Center descriptions were molded in an hoods, yet capturing key redevelopment such as transit quality and the encour- attempt to capture these subtle differ- parcels in the area. A publicly acces- agement of sustainable development ences. sible database would be available that practices. interested applicants use to determine whether or not a land parcel is located Developer Incentives are available to within an Urban Center, and therefore encourage developers who meet Criteria eligible to have access to incentives within designated Urban Centers, to included in the Toolbox. develop in a character that is more in keeping with the goals of Urban Houston Interested applicants provide the City Framework Study. with development plans that incorporate incentives outlined in the Toolbox crafted by stakeholders. The applicant then con- tributes to the implementation of more sustainable live/work/play environments near transit by building in accordance with Goals for Urban Centers. Urban Houston Framework | 8 Executive Summary
Monitoring the Framework Table 2: Future Performance Measures GOAL MEASURABLE CHARACTERISTICS FUTURE Some performance measures will con- Finally, “ ” is used for those Criteria PERFORMANCE TARGET tinue to increase regardless of Center performance targets are not applicable Residential Density (Dwelling Units) size, location or function. These Char- or measurable. Criteria of this nature, Housing Type acteristics are noted with “” in Table such as the Funding Mechanism/Man- Address local Housing Affordability 2: Future Performance Measures. agement Entity Criteria, simply require and regional Housing Choice and Mobility (Fair Housing Factor) Examples of Characteristics that should a target of yes or no (i.e. yes - a Center housing needs Housing Starts (New Construction) increase into the foreseeable future are has a Management District or TIRZ or Mixed-Land Use (Housing and Localized Services) housing affordability, diversity and popu- no - it does not have a Management Vacant Land (%) lation/employment density, which should District or TIRZ). Contribute to high- quality Improvement to Land Value Ratio become more dense as Urban Centers infrastructure Significant Potential for Development/Redevelopment continue to attract in-migrating popula- As with any new policy effort, there Management District tions from around the region. should be a review time frame estab- Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) lished for each Urban Center to assess Encourage Land Use Diversity Index The performance of a select group of whether or not Universal Improvement economic Average Residential/Commercial/Office FAR Characteristics should decrease in the Tools and Developer Incentives are the viability and diversity Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio future. These are noted with “”. For appropriate mechanisms for achieving Area of Center in Acres example, as Centers become more performance targets and Goals identi- Parks and Open Space established, the percentage of Vacant fied by stakeholders. The time frame of Job Density Land would decrease. review for each Urban Center may vary, Enhance community Population Density but should generally occur every 2-3 stability, Amenity Density Other metrics may increase or decrease, years following designation. Similarly, accessibility Amenity Diversity depending on context. Characteristics Urban Center designation procedures and equity National/Regional (vs Local) Attractions/Destinations of this nature are noted with “”. An need to be monitored semi-annually Promote Bikeway Density example of a Characteristic for which op- to ensure the overall Implementation sustainable, Trail Density timum performance could be indicated Framework for Urban Centers remains healthy design Sidewalk Accessibility by increasing or decreasing numbers accountable to stakeholders’ Vision. Intersection Density is Housing Starts (New Construction). Street Density (Freeways, Thoroughfares, Streets) Some Centers may require retail or com- Support multimodal Access to Freeways mercial construction in lieu of residential transportation Access to Thoroughfares to meet demands of a growing popula- and increased Type of Transit tion. connectivity. Type of Transit Facilities Transit Frequency and Connectivity Increasing measurement Decreasing measurement Increasing or decreasing indicates optimum indicates optimum measurement may indicate performance performance optimum performance Performance target not applicable Urban Houston Framework | 9 Executive Summary
Organization of Study Towards the Future
Purpose highlights the key findings Although findings for Urban Houston Establishing accurate, reliable thresh- It is recognized that this Study will not of stakeholder engagement exercises Framework Study recommendations olds for measuring the performance of lead immediately to implementation of involving approximately 13,818 partici- were largely driven by public and stake- live/work/play environments will be im- improvements and new developer incen- pants from a variety of backgrounds and holder input, this Study is also grounded portant to the overall sustainability of the tives for Urban Centers, but it does fulfill interests. In the Existing Conditions in the realities of technical, market and Urban Houston Framework. Similarly, several Critical Success Factors defined Assessment chapter, various chal- political feasibility considerations. The monitoring thresholds for emergent Cen- early in the process such as: lenges and opportunities to more dense, final chapter of this Study, Urban Center ters may differ from those of established efficient building practices are explored. Implementation, provides a schedule Centers and from those of Centers tran- 1. Address local and regional housing A Peer Review of how other regions for achieving policy, project, and pro- sitioning from one size to the next. needs; in the nation are approaching similar gram aims as well as identifies important 2. Contribute to high-quality regional planning issues using Urban roles, responsibilities, costs and ongoing While more research is required to as- infrastructure; Centers highlights best practices and monitoring techniques for gauging the sess exact targets for ongoing perfor- 3. Encourage economic viability and insights from other parts of Texas and performance of urban environments in mance of Urban Centers (and the Char- diversity; the country. Houston into the future. acteristics thereof) today, it is crucial that the refinement of Criteria, Tools, 4. Enhance community stability, Characteristics of regionally sustain- Expectations and Processes ensue with accessibility and equity; able live/work/play environments are the ultimate goals of monitoring imple- 5. Promote sustainable, healthy discussed in the Urban Center Pattern mentation in mind. design; and Book chapter that creates a concise 6. Support multimodal transportation snapshot of how ideal Urban Centers Although additional phases of the Urban and increased connectivity. are physically designed. Houston Framework will need to focus on thresholds for measuring Urban Nevertheless, dialogue that has arisen Multiple ways in which H-GAC and City Center Characteristics, the analysis from the Urban Houston Framework of Houston could move towards the and stakeholder dialogue included in Study is essential to crafting a program creation of vibrant, dense Urban Centers this Study provided an understanding of that diverse stakeholders can rally are explored in the Urban Center Rec- general performance targets for Criteria around. The terminology, approach and ommendations chapter. This chapter in the future. outcomes resulting from this dialogue discusses the Process and Criteria will form the foundation for continued used to define an Urban Center. It also collaboration among stakeholders, mak- defines Universal Improvement Tools ing the recommendations in this Study that will generally elevate the quality of more realistic and supportable in the Urban Centers as well as direct Devel- years to come. oper Incentives that could be used in Urban Centers.
Urban Houston Framework | 10 CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 4 URBAN CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS. . . .81 Executive Summary ...... 5 Chapter Introduction...... 82 Table of Figures...... 12 Process to Become and Urban Center. . . . . 83 Table of Diagrams...... 13 Criteria for Urban Centers...... 84 Universal Improvement Tools in Urban Centers. .92 PURPOSE...... 15 Developer Incentives in Urban Centers . . . . .95 Chapter Introduction...... 16 Tools Yet to be Addressed ...... 98 Why this Framework is Needed ...... 17 What this Framework Hopes to Achieve. . . . .21 URBAN CENTER IMPLEMENTATION . . . . .99 Timeline...... 22 Chapter Introduction...... 100 Stakeholder Engagement...... 23 Implementation Schedule...... 101 Roles, Responsibilities and Potential Costs. . .103 EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT. . . .25 Performance Metrics for Ongoing Monitoring . .108 Chapter Introduction...... 26 Existing Characteristics ...... 27 APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.112 Housing Character and Diversity ...... 28 Stakeholder Engagement Process...... 113 Infill/Redevelopment Potential ...... 34 Values Workshop ...... 119 Land Use Diversity...... 35 Vision Workshop...... 131 High Employment, Population Density. . . . . 40 Implementation Workshop ...... 140 Access to Amenities, Attractions/Destinations. . 44 Access to Streets, Freeways and Transit. . . . 46 APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW...... 143 Existing Polices and Programs...... 49 Peer Review ...... 60 APPENDIX C: PROCESS ...... 176 Process Alternatives: Applicant Initiated . . . .177 URBAN CENTER PATTERN BOOK ...... 63 Process Alternatives: Voluntary Area Initiated. .178 Chapter Introduction...... 64 Definitions...... 65 APPENDIX D: CRITERIA ...... 179 Narrowing Possibilities...... 66 General Findings...... 68 APPENDIX E: TOOLBOX ...... 186 Center Descriptions ...... 69 General Character...... 70 APPENDIX F: PILOT PROJECTS...... 198 Density ...... 71 Grayfield Site...... 201 Land Use Diversity...... 72 Redevelopment Site...... 207 Transit Quality...... 73 Catalyst Site ...... 213 Housing Mix ...... 74 Affordable Housing Analysis...... 219 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility ...... 75 Access to Amenities...... 76 Street Hierarchy and Connectivity ...... 77 Designing for Safety in Multimodal Environments. 78
Urban Houston Framework | 11 Table of Figures
Table 1: Key Findings ...... 5 Table 2: Future Performance Measures ...... 9 Table 3: Stakeholders Engaged...... 23 Table 4: Example Framework for Measuring Characteristics of Urban Centers...... 27 Table 5: Example Centers for Comparison ...... 28 Table 6: Minimum Employment Densities Near Transit...... 40 Table 7: Employment Densities for Major Cities, 2010...... 40 Table 8: Population Densities for Major Cities, 2010...... 42 Table 9: Recommended Framework for Criteria and Expectations...... 84 Table 10: Criteria under Prerequisite plus Optional Example...... 85 Table 11: Prerequisite plus Optional Example Analysis...... 88 Table 12: Framework Implementation Roles, Responsibilities and Costs...... 103 Table 13: List of Abbreviations...... 104 Table 14: Recommendations for Ongoing Monitoring Targets...... 109
Urban Houston Framework | 12 Table of Diagrams
Figure 1: Urban Houston Framework Partners...... 4 Figure 2: Urban Houston Framework Timeline...... 22 Figure 3: Urban Houston Framework Interactive Blog Website ...... 23 Figure 4: Existing Conditions Assessment Framework...... 26 Figure 5: Residential Density...... 29 Figure 6: Housing Type...... 31 Figure 7: Housing Affordability...... 33 Figure 8: Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio...... 37 Figure 9: Parks and Open Space ...... 39 Figure 10: Employment Density ...... 41 Figure 11: Population Density ...... 43 Figure 12: Amenities...... 45 Figure 13: Potential Goals, Characteristics, Expectations and Criteria...... 67 Figure 14: Small, Medium and Large Centers cited by Values Workshop participants...... 69 Figure 15: Recommended Process...... 83 Figure 16: Prerequisite plus Optional Example...... 89 Figure 17: SAC members appointed by the City of Houston...... 114 Figure 18: Focus Groups...... 119 Figure 19: Values Workshop Meeting Results - Large Center Criteria...... 120 Figure 20: Values Workshop Meeting Results - Medium Center Criteria ...... 122 Figure 21: Values Workshop Meeting Results - Small Center Criteria ...... 124 Figure 22: Urban Houston Framework Website...... 126 Figure 23: Daily Visit Count for Online Poll 1...... 127 Figure 24: Top five Characteristics for each Urban Center Size...... 127 Figure 25: Large Center challenges ranked by level of difficulty and importance...... 128 Figure 26: Medium Center challenges ranked by level of difficulty and importance...... 129 Figure 27: Small Center challenges ranked by level of difficulty and importance...... 129 Figure 28: Vision Workshop keypad polling results showing Tool ranking by Center Size...... 138
Urban Houston Framework | 13 This page intentionally left blank. 1 PURPOSE Chapter Introduction
Throughout the nation, Texas and the As the fourth largest city in the US, and Purpose Houston-Galveston area, policy mak- with an array of new residents moving to Housing and Urban Development ers, planning organizations, community Houston each day, the development The purpose of the Urban Houston Livability Principles residents, real estate developers, transit of a Framework which promotes a more Framework Study is to develop a com- 1. Decrease household transportation costs, proponents and housing interests are sustainable and targeted approach to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas prehensive Toolbox of policy and regula- emissions and promote public health. striving to prioritize and implement proj- Houston’s current development practices tory incentives the City can use to strate- 2. Promote equitable, affordable and energy- ects, policies and programs that will lead is vital to the greater success of the gically encourage dense, sustainable to more vibrant, healthy and accessible region as a whole. neighborhoods in appropriate locations, ages, incomes, races. communities. while maintaining the character of exist- 3. Enhance the City of Houston’s economic competitiveness through reliable and timely ing neighborhoods. The Urban Houston access to employment centers, educational The Houston-Galveston Area Coun- Focus on the fact that Houston Framework will integrate land use and opportunities, services and other basic cil (H-GAC) - in conjunction with the is an International region. Its transportation planning to promote needs of workers as well as expanded business access to markets. City of Houston, Harris County and 22 economic relationships are consistent, affordable and sustainable 4. Support existing communities through other regional partners - applied for and development strategies throughout the primarily global. Its population transit-oriented, mixed-use development, received a 3.75 million dollar regional is the most diverse in the city - particularly in Urban Centers. land recycling and community revitalization. planning grant administered by the U.S. world. 5. Coordinate policies to remove barriers to Department of Housing and Urban De- The stakeholder engagement was collaboration, leverage funding and increase velopment’s Sustainable Communities designed to heighten knowledge of and accountability and effectiveness of all levels Curtis D of government to plan for future growth. Initiative, and funded in partnership with Interactive Blog Participant commitment to a better urban form. The the U.S. Department of Transportation www.urbanhoustonframework.com 6. Value communities and neighborhoods dialogue started during this seven-month by enhancing unique characteristics and (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Study will form the foundation for future investing in healthy, safe, and walkable Agency (EPA). A portion of these funds agreement on Criteria, Process, Univer- neighborhoods. are being used to test six case studies sal Improvement Tools and Developer throughout the region, one of which is Incentives that help to implement dense, the Urban Houston Framework. vibrant Urban Centers that achieve six important livability principles established To learn more about the greater by the U.S. Department of Housing and Houston-Galveston Regional Plan for Urban Development.1 Sustainable Development as it relates to the 13-County Texas Gulf Coast Plan- ning Region, please visit: http://www. ourregion.org/.
1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). Sustainable Housing Communities Six Livability Principles. (S. Donovan, Producer) Retrieved January 2012, from HUD.gov: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
Six_Livability_Principles
Urban Houston Framework | 16 Why this Framework is Needed
Over the last few decades, develop- Unlike previous “one-size fits all” ap- Development Trends ment patterns in Houston have generally proaches to planning and development, resulted in low-density development the Urban Houston Framework Study Development patterns in Houston to date Adopting a comprehensive Framework (3,400 people per square mile), sprawl, recognizes the importance of appropri- have been characterized by an outward that focuses on accommodating future and a lack of continuous pedestrian-and ately-scaled development. Recommen- expansion that, in addition to consuming growth by enhancing the quality of life bike-friendly environments. Although the dations for revitalizing existing neigh- vast amounts of previously undeveloped in existing neighborhoods slows the city has made strides to improve these borhoods through densification and land, is requiring huge investments in consumption of undeveloped land in practices through tighter regulations of increased transportation and housing water, wastewater and transportation Houston and lowers infrastructure costs parking, setbacks, park dedication and options are specifically tailored to the infrastructure at the expense of existing to the city. landscaping these regulations form a size and function of each Urban Center neighborhoods. At the current rate of “one-size fits all” approach to planning and designed specifically to preserve development, 81.4 percent of the land If an Urban Houston Framework is not and development that lacks flexibility the unique character of neighborhoods. within the City of Houston will be devel- implemented to refocus investments into and has produced mixed results. oped by 2040 (compared to 62.7 percent existing neighborhoods, these areas While the recommendations may differ of the land in 2006).1 may experience a decline as infrastruc- The investigation of a new Framework slightly depending on the appropri- ture ages and development patterns that guides the development of urban ate scale of development, the guiding This outward expansion of development continue to attract more residents and environments, however, is timely for the principles are the same. Livable places, is characterized by low-density, auto- revenue to the periphery of the city. Ac- City of Houston, as certain trends such no matter what their size, improve the centric neighborhoods that have failed commodating growth in this manner will as shifting demographics, economic quality of life for all residents by increas- to provide high quality and safe pedes- be at a much greater cost to the city, as classes, economic drivers and mobility ing the number of safe, reliable and trian and bicycle infrastructure. A lack of infrastructure will continually have to be concerns are creating new challenges economical transportation choices, comprehensive policies that encourage expanded to keep pace with growth. and intensifying the need for land- and providing affordable housing options and and/or incentivize a more sustainable transportation- based solutions to issues improving access to employment oppor- urban form is part of the problem. While arising from increased population growth tunities and diverse services. the City of Houston has adopted some of and diversification. the same regulations found in zoned cit- ies, these policies are even more critical In the face of no formal zoning code, a to promoting dense, walkable, bikeable comprehensive Framework of policies areas with a balance of housing - includ- and regulatory incentives gives the city ing affordable housing - and jobs, in a the tools it needs to guide development polycentric environment with no formal in a way that is both context-sensitive zoning code. and sustainable.
1 City of Houston. (2012). Case Study Overview. Houston, Texas.
Urban Houston Framework | 17 Why this Framework is Needed
Shifting Demographics
Houston has experienced a tremendous these types of investments in certain Areas inhabited by the Creative Class population boom since the 1990s - grow- areas of the city. It is important that are characterized by eclectic services ing from 1.6 million to 2.1 million people, the City of Houston take into account such as art galleries and upscale restau- according to the U.S. Census Bureau. changing demographics in all transpor- rants, and housing typologies that range The 13-county Texas Gulf Coast Plan- tation and land use planning decisions from restored historic homes to modern ning Region is home to more than 6 mil- to ensure investments in neighborhoods lofts. In contrast with the services and lion people (or nearly a quarter of Texas’ are equitable and increase the quality of building typologies experienced by total population) and is expected to grow life for all of Houston’s residents. the Creative Class, the Service Class by 3.7 million residents and more than populations surrounding these profes- 2 million jobs by the year 2040.2 In his March 2013 article, titled Class- sional clusters have occurred southwest Divided Cities: Houston Edition, Rich- of Loop 610. These predominantly Latino 3 4 In 2012, the share of the region’s ard Florida uses U.S. Census data to communities contend with high crime in Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston residents who are people of color grew explore phenomena of class divisions landscapes characterized by aging resi- to 60 percent. Latinos (predominantly in the nation’s largest cities. The author dential and commercial infrastructure. Mexican-Americans) and Asian popula- suggests that Houston’s class divides Historic Ward communities, in particular, tions have comprised a large portion of are sharp and well defined. Today, these have been negatively affected by shifting the region’s total population over the last class divides are reflected in the quality demographics and the transformation of decade, primarily due to immigration - of infrastructure and the provision of existing structures. making Houston the eighth most diverse basic services in neighborhoods across region in the nation. By 2040, H-GAC Houston. A Framework for development that predicts 76 percent of Houston’s total encourages equitable investments in population will be people of color. The Creative Class, defined as working existing communities and takes into professionals employed in science, engi- account the needs of different popula- Changes in the distribution and/or trends neering, health care, business and edu- tions in all land use and transportation related to such factors as gender, age, cation, typically clusters in and around planning decisions will help to ensure all Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston socioeconomic status and household Houstonʹs Central Business District, the neighborhoods become vibrant centers size and composition create new and upscale Montrose neighborhood, Rice for activity and economic develop- unique demands on a city. Immigrant University, West University Place, and ment. If development patterns continue populations, for example, often rely more neighborhoods adjacent to the Texas to expand outwards, class disparities heavily on walking, bicycling and public Medical Center. will likely increase as residential and transportation, increasing the need for commercial infrastructure continues to deteriorate in these neighborhoods. 2 Houston-Galveston Area Council. (2012, December). Our Region Interim Existing Conditions Report. Retrieved from Houston-Galveston Regional Plan for Sustainable Develop- 3 Florida, R. (2013, March 12). Class-Divided Cities: Hous- 4 Florida, R. (2013, March 12). Class-Divided Cities: Hous- ment: http://www.ourregion.org/ExistingConditionsReport. ton Edition. Retrieved March 2013, from The Atlantic Cities ton Edition. Retrieved March 2013, from The Atlantic Cities html Place Matters: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighbor- Place Matters: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighbor- hoods/2013/03/class-divided-cities-houston-edition/4850/ hoods/2013/03/class-divided-cities-houston-edition/4850/ Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Urban Houston Framework | 18 Why this Framework is Needed
Education Economic Drivers
Houston neighborhoods are character- Historically, families make decision on Houston has a booming economy, and is Job growth from 2005 - 2010 tended to ized by some of the region’s lowest where to live based on accessibility to one of the nation’s largest areas of job occur in Major Activity Centers (MAC), percentages of high school graduates high quality education. Urban Centers growth. Houston added 118,700 net jobs as currently defined by Chapter 42.8 (adults without a high school degree); should acknowledge this trend and work in 2012, and recouped all of the jobs lost According to analysis conducted by the indicating gaps in equitable access to to accommodate and promote both during the 2008 recession by the fall of City of Houston Planning and Devel- quality educational facilities.5 The re- diverse and high quality educational 2011. The unemployment rate stood at opment Department, the city added gion’s population (age 25 and older) has opportunities near or within Center 6.3 percent in February 2013, which is 124,425 jobs between 2005 - 2010, 59.6 a college completion rate of 27.9 percent Boundaries. Where education is not almost 2 points below the nation’s rate of percent of which were located in MACs. which is equivalent to the national aver- directly provided, ample infrastructure 8.1 percent.7 The Central Business District (20 per- age. Houston is behind peer cities such and/or multimodal transportation alterna- cent), the Medical Center (15 percent) as Atlanta (34.1 percent) and Dallas tive should be considered. The sectors experiencing the most job and Memorial City (15 percent) were the 9 Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston (30.0 percent). In addition, only 33.6 per- growth include: top three MACs for job growth. cent of the region’s age 25+ population has at least an associate degree, lower • Architectural and engineering; Adopting policies that encourage the de- than many of its peer regions (e.g., At- • Government; velopment of higher density housing - in- lanta 40.5 percent, Dallas 36.3 percent, • Manufacturing; cluding affordable housing - within these and Denver 46.0 percent). • Mining and logging; and other Urban Centers and investing • Leisure and hospitality; and in appropriately-scaled transportation A Framework for better urbanism must • Financial activities sectors. choices - such as express bus, streetcar, consider the importance of these edu- Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and light rail cational trends. As stated in the book, Sectors experiencing a decline include: - helps to reduce household transporta- Comeback Cities, “[Community develop- tion costs and air pollution by shortening ment groups] could fix housing, revive • Retail trade; commute times and encouraging density shopping areas, raise the level of public • Health care and social assistance levels that support public transit. In the Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston services, even reduce crime. But the sectors. absence of a policy Framework, the schools - probably the biggest factor quality of life of Houston residents will in families’ decision about whether to continue to be eroded by high transpor- remain or flee - were simply beyond the tation costs and long commute times. realm of the organized community”.6 5 Houston-Galveston Area Council. (2012, December). Our Region Interim Existing Conditions Report. Retrieved from Houston-Galveston Regional Plan for Sustainable 8 City of Houston Code of Ordinances, Ch. 42 - Subdivi- Development: http://www.ourregion.org/ExistingCondition- sions, Developments and Platting, http://library.municode. sReport.html com/index.aspx?clientId=10123 6 Grogan, Paul and Tom Procio. Comeback Cities: 7 Greater Houston Partnership (2013, April), The Economy 9 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival. Boulder, CO: at a Glance - Houston, http://www.houston.org/pdf/re- Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, http://lehd. Westview Press, 2000. search/eag.pdf ces.census.gov
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Urban Houston Framework | 19 Why this Framework is Needed
Mobility Challenges
Despite the fact that most of Houston’s A policy Framework that builds upon employment growth is within the city the important relationship between limits, more than 870,000 new residents transportation, land use and urban form are expected to move to areas located to expand transportation choices and outside the city limits.10 Simultaneously, increase system efficiency offers a more the city as a whole is expected to grow sustainable solution to congestion relief by over half a million residents. The at a lower cost to taxpayers. implications for travel mean longer com- mute times and increases in automobile- If the city does not adopt policies that generated air pollution. better link land use and transportation and utilize urban form to encourage Traffic is already ranked as a top non-automobile forms of transportation, concern among Houston residents and congestion will continue to be a serious the city’s projected population growth problem, requiring significant invest- will only present further challenges in ments in new roadways to keep pace transportation and mobility in coming with growth. years.11 Expanding existing roadways and constructing new streets does not Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Houston cannot be seen as Expanding existing roadways and constructing new streets does not offer a sustainable, long- offer a sustainable, long-term solution to term solution to congestion congestion. green as long as its citizens drive more than in any other Improving mobility both within the city metro region, emit more and into the city from outlying areas will carbon than anywhere else, elevate the quality of life for Houston use more gasoline than residents by decreasing transportation anywhere else, and so on. costs and travel times. Until public policies change to allow and encourage walkable urbanism, Houston will never be truly green. David C1 Interactive Blog Participant 10 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. www.urbanhoustonframework.com Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, http://lehd. ces.census.gov 11 City of Houston (2009), City Mobility - Phase I: Execu- tive Summary http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/_cmp/ resources/CMP_ExecutiveSummary.pdf)
Urban Houston Framework | 20 What this Framework Hopes to Achieve
Over the course of the last seven Vision Goals Approach months, the Framework’s Vision, Goals and Approach were developed, dis- Stakeholders agreed upon a Vision for The following goals and objectives To meet these goals, the Consultant cussed and agreed upon with the partici- Urban Centers, stated as “Urban Cen- were established by stakeholders and Team collaborated with the Houston- pating stakeholders and the interested ters are vibrant places in which people interested citizenry. All Urban Centers Galveston Area Council and City of public. It was determined early on that from all walks of life can live, work and should, at a minimum, aim to achieve the Houston during the early phases of the there should not be a “one size fits all” play”. The Urban Houston Framework following: Study to identify a series of important approach to Urban Centers in Houston can be used by the Houston-Galveston Goals for the project that encompass as their Characteristics are very diverse. Area Council, City of Houston, and other 1. Address local and regional housing key areas of sustainability such as envi- In addition, the recommendations should local and regional planning partners needs; ronment, economics and community. A be flexible enough to fit the political and can use to selectively encourage dense, 2. Contribute to high-quality transparent process that is accountable economic conditions today and in the sustainable development in appropriate infrastructure; to the Goals was envisioned from the future. See Appendix A for a complete locations while maintaining the character start. A variety of stakeholders were en- 3. Encourage economic viability and recap of the input from the stakeholder of existing neighborhoods. gaged through a Stakeholder Advisory diversity; engagement process. Committee (SAC) and Focus Groups This Study will help integrate land uses 4. Enhance community stability, consisting of the interested public as with transportation planning by coor- accessibility and equity; well as invited realtors and developers, dinating development standards with 5. Promote sustainable, healthy policymakers and agencies, engineers, financial investments while considering design; and architects, landscape architects, urban barriers to development (especially in 6. Support multimodal transportation planners, housing interests and special densely populated areas, along transit and increased connectivity. districts. corridors and along corridors where urban/suburban building types merge). Using this approach, the Urban Houston These goals are based on the follow- It also considers existing and potential Framework helps to provide a foundation ing six livability principles established connections between Urban Centers for creating true housing choice through- by the U.S. Department of Housing and within the region, and identifies Tools for out the city by promoting walkable, bike- Urban Development1 which include: 1) better connecting these Centers in the able areas serviced by safe, reliable and provide more transportation choices; 2) future. economical transportation options that promote equitable, affordable housing; decrease household costs, improve air 3) enhance economic competitiveness; quality, reduce greenhouse gases and 4) support existing communities; 5) coor- contribute to better environments and dinate policies and leverage investment public health. Results from the testing and 6) value communities and neighbor- and evaluation of the Framework Cri- hoods. teria, as applied to three case studies, 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). Sustainable Housing Communities Six Livability helps identify strategies that can later be Principles. (S. Donovan, Producer) Retrieved January 2012, applied to other locations long after the from HUD.gov: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/ program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/ Study’s completion. Six_Livability_Principles Urban Houston Framework | 21 Timeline
Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Winter 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013
Project Kickoff SAC Meeting Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 SAC Meeting H-GAC, the City of The SAC develops A community-wide The community-wide The interested public The SAC gathers Houston and the project strategies dialogue with the dialogue continues with are introduced to to discuss Study Consultant Team meet and refines a project interested public is the interested public potential development conclusions and Interim to begin efforts and form approach based on initiated to introduce helping to refine the Tools and the findings Report revisions to be a Stakeholder Advisory Houston-specific the Urban Houston Characteristics/Criteria/ from the Urban Houston incorporated into the Committee (SAC) to development trends. Framework project Expectation/Tool/ Framework Pilot final report for the Urban help oversee and guide and define challenges Process alternatives Projects. Houston Framework the Urban Houston Peer Review and Characteristics identified during the Study. Framework Study. The Consultant Team associated with Urban Values Workshop. Online Poll 2 researches Urban Centers. An online survey Final Report SAC Kickoff Center projects, Keypad Polling gathers additional The final report H-GAC, the City of policies, programs and SAC Meeting An interactive voting citywide feedback documenting Houston and the best practices from The SAC meets to system during the regarding Tools conclusions from Consultant Team around the globe. review findings from Vision Workshop for successfully the Urban Houston meet with the SAC to the Values Workshop helps to narrow down implementing Urban Framework Study is discuss objectives and Launch of MindMixer and conclusions and prioritize various Centers. published. scheduling for the Urban Online Blog Website from the Consultant Framework alternatives. Houston Framework An online blog website Team’s peer review. SAC Meeting Implementation Study. is launched to spur The SAC is introduced SAC Meeting The SAC discusses The implementation dialogue and awareness to the Criteria/ The SAC conducts Study findings to date of Urban Center about the Urban Expectation/Tool/ a review of Vision and begins to finalize policy and program Houston Framework Process alternatives Workshop findings, the Characteristics/ recommendations initiative. being developed by the visits real-life Urban Criteria/Expectation/ moves forward. Consultant Team. Houston Framework Tool/Process Pilot Projects and recommendations. Online Poll 1 discusses the findings An online survey is of peer reviews to date. Interim Report launched to gather An interim report draft citywide feedback about documenting the desirable Urban Center process and findings Characteristics and of the Urban Houston challenges to achieving Framework Study is desired Characteristics. drafted.
Figure 2: Urban Houston Framework Timeline Urban Houston Framework | 22 Stakeholder Engagement
The Framework’s Platform for Development - Stakeholder Engagement
A Stakeholder Advisory Committee Prior to events, phone calls and e-mail was formed from a spectrum of invitations were sent and advertisements environmental, development, community on various social media websites (such and transportation interests. The SAC as Twitter and Facebook) were posted. provided feedback throughout the The project also included the following: entire project to ensure transparency and to encourage friends, relatives • A publicly accessible page for and colleagues in their communities to downloading project materials on participate in Urban Houston Framework the City of Houston’s website; events. • An interactive blog to inspire new ideas and spur dialogue between Focus groups participating in Urban meeting events; Houston Framework meeting events • A series of online polls for gather- consisted of the interested public as ing citywide feedback on Urban well as invited realtors and developers, Centers; and policymakers and agencies, engineers, • A dedicated e-mail address through architects, landscape architects, urban which people could submit ad- planners, housing interests and special ditional comments, questions or districts. Approximately 13,818 stake- feedback. holders participated in the Urban Hous- ton Framework Study (as seen below in Feedback received from public out- Table 3: Stakeholders Engaged). reach efforts helped define the relative characteristics of Urban Centers as they Table 3: Stakeholders Engaged relate to size and location. Key findings OUTREACH CATEGORY PARTICIPANTS are summarized throughout this Study. Online Poll 1 5,838 Details of stakeholder engagement can Online Poll 2 1,605 be found in Appendix A. Interactive Blog 6,165 Workshop 1 93 Workshop 2 53 Workshop 3 64 Total Participants 13,818 Figure 3: Urban Houston Framework Interactive Blog Website
Urban Houston Framework | 23 This page intentionally left blank. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Chapter Introduction
Stakeholders and Focus Groups worked To begin to answer these questions, to determine the definition of Goals and each goal was analyzed by mapping their associated Criteria (seen in Table various Geographic Information System Existing Conditions Assessment 4: Example Framework for Measuring (GIS) datasets of demographic, housing, Characteristics of Urban Centers). economic, environment, transportation Once established, the next step was to and other Urban Center characteristics. gain an understanding of the baseline, These datasets were then overlaid to or existing conditions, in Houston for assess general locations, characteristics each. For the purposes of this Report, and existing conditions of Urban Centers an Existing Conditions Assessment is throughout Houston in relation to the an exercise in gaining knowledge about six goals for Urban Centers identified Existing Characteristics Existing Polices and Programs various Characteristics of built environ- by stakeholders (as seen in Table 4: ments that could be used to designate Example Framework for Measuring Urban Centers throughout the city. Characteristics of Urban Centers).
Land Development The intent of conducting an Existing Sources for the analysis include GIS Housing Character and Diversity Subdivision and Platting Conditions Assessment for this Study data, previously completed reports/ Funding Mechanism, Management Entity Housing Choice was to identify various challenges and case studies, peer reviews of scholarly Land Use Diversity Infrastructures High Population, Employment Density opportunities that arose for each Goal articles and dialogue with agencies Transportation Bike/Pedestrian Accessibility and to answer the following questions: and experts involved in development or Urban Design Amenities/Attractions/Destinations development regulation in Houston. Ex- Parking High Quality Transit • What are the conditions of places amples of sources used include datasets Transit-Oriented Development that might be existing Urban Cen- from the H-GAC, U.S. 2010 Census, Figure 4: Existing Conditions Assessment Framework ters today? City of Houston, METRO, Harris County • How might these existing condi- Flood Control District, Texas Transporta- tions and Characteristics affect the tion Institute (TTI) and Texas Depart- achievement of Urban Center goals ment of Transportation (TxDOT). identified by stakeholders? • Is there a best practice or optimum threshold for measuring the perfor- mance and changing conditions of Urban Centers (both now and in the future)?
Urban Houston Framework | 26 Existing Characteristics
Towards a Preferred Table 4: Example Framework for Measuring Characteristics of Urban Centers Framework GOAL CHARACTERISTIC EXAMPLES OF MEASURING CHARACTERISTICS Address local and Housing Character and Diversity Residential Density (Dwelling Units) By integrating datasets with stakeholder regional housing Housing Type feedback and knowledge of on-the- needs Housing Affordability/Housing Cost ground conditions, the Urban Houston Housing Choice and Mobility (Fair Housing Factor) Framework Existing Conditions Assess- ment explores development patterns Housing Starts (New Construction) occurring within the city and identifies Mixed-Land Use (Housing and Localized Services) where potential challenges and op- Contribute to high- Infill/ Redevelopment Potential Vacant Land (%) portunities to achieving Urban Centers quality infrastructure Improvement to Land Value Ratio exist. This helps to ensure that project, Significant Potential for Development/Redevelopment program and policy recommendations Encourage economic Funding Mechanism, Management Entity Management District will work toward meeting the goals of viability and TIRZ this Study. diversity Land Use Diversity Land Use Diversity Index
Table 4: Example Framework for Average Residential/Commercial/Office FAR Measuring Characteristics of Urban Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio Centers shows how, through compar- Area of Center in Acres ing stakeholder Goals with suggested Parks and Open Space Criteria, a Preferred Framework for mea- Enhance High Employment, Population Density Job Density suring characteristics of Urban Centers community stability, Population Density began to emerge. The following pages in accessibility and equity Access to Amenities, Attractions/Destinations Amenity Density this chapter explore various categories Amenity Diversity within this table to discuss the potential challenges and opportunities associated National/Regional (vs. Local) Attractions/Destinations with existing conditions in Houston. Promote sustainable, Bike/Pedestrian Accessibility Bikeway Density healthy design Trail Density Throughout future phases of the Urban Sidewalk Accessibility Houston Framework, these findings will Support multimodal Access to Streets & Freeways Intersection Density serve as a starting point (or benchmark) transportation Street Density (Freeways, Thoroughfares, Streets) for establishing more precise, measur- and increased connectivity. Access to Freeways able criteria for implementing Urban Access to Thoroughfares Centers. The Existing Conditions As- High Quality Transit Type of Transit sessment also informs various recom- mendations discussed throughout the Type of Transit Facilities subsequent chapters of this Study. Transit Frequency and Connectivity Urban Houston Framework | 27 Housing Character and Diversity
Residential Density
Target residential densities for Centers Houston’s current average residen- Another method of measuring whether Successfully implementing Urban would vary depending on the size of the tial density is 2.2 residents/acre. 24.8 a place is addressing local and regional Centers will require a commitment to Urban Center. Reconnecting America percent of all housing units are located housing needs is to look at “housing achieving higher residential densities and the Center for Transit-Oriented within Loop 610 at a residential density starts”, or the number of new houses near transit services that support a live/ Development recommend the following of 3.7 residents/acre. Comparatively, being built within the city. The real estate work/play environment, walkable urban residential densities for Centers.1 three quarters (75.2 percent) of all hous- sector is often one of the first sectors form and increased employment op- ing in Houston is located outside of Loop impacted by impending economic in- portunities. Table 5: Example Centers for 610, at a significantly lower residential stability, making housing starts a highly Comparison density of 1.9 residents/acre. reliable economic indicator. Opportunities CENTER RESIDENTS Despite the fact that 40 percent of Hous- CLASSIFICATION PER ACRE Only 37 percent of the City has a popu- As a result of the recent economic ton jobs are located inside Loop 610, this Local Centers 20 - 75 lation density higher than the citywide recession, new home construction has area accounts for only 24.8 percent of of economic/ average of 2.2 residents/acre. Similar been extremely limited in Houston; com- all housing units. This means that many community activity to Houston’s overall population density prising only 1.15 percent of all construc- employees commute from outside of Suburban Centers 35 - 100 (people/acre), the majority of higher den- tion completed in 2012.2 having significant Other land uses Loop 610, contributing to traffic con- economic/cultural sity residential areas are found inside of such as commercial, retail and office gestion, lengthy commute times, and activity with regional- Loop 610 and in the western portions of comprised the majority of development tremendous amounts of air pollution. scale destinations the City (as seen in Figure 5: Residen- and redevelopment projects completed. Much of the area inside Loop 610 has Urban Centers 50 - 150 tial Density). greater than 3.7 residences/acre, there- having significant economic/cultural Challenges fore focusing job growth inside Loop activity with regional- The majority of Houston (81 percent) has As the economy emerges from reces- 610 may be beneficial - as this is where scale destinations less than 3.7 residences/acre - which sion, Urban Centers will help meet the high density residential tends to locate. Regional Centers 75 - 300 is significantly less than density levels challenge of concentrating residential There are also opportunities to increase of economic/cultural recommended by the Center for Transit- and commercial projects in areas having residences/acre within or in close prox- activity Oriented Development for any Center good infrastructure capacity. This will imity to Loop 610 using infill, mixed-use, type. help to reduce the amount of greenfield multi-family, and small lot single-family development projects (i.e. the develop- development approaches. Infill can help ment of untouched, raw land resources) neighborhoods develop into communi- further utilizing the City’s existing infra- ties in which people from all walks of life structure and helping promote infill and can live/work/play.
1 Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Orient- redevelopment practices where develop- ed Development. (N.d.). STATION AREA PLANNING: How ment already exists. to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places. Retrieved 2013, from Reconnecting America: People Places Possibility: 2 City of Houston Planning and Development Department. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ (2012, February). Geographic Information System (GIS) tod202.pdf Data. (S. Lee, Ed.) Houston, Texas. Housing Character and Diversity
Figure 5: Residential Density Data sources: City of Houston; 2010 U.S. Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) Homeownership data
Major Freeways
Major Roads
0.1 - 2.2 residential units per acre
2.23 - 3.7 residential units per acre
Above 3.7 residential units per acre
Places cited by Stakeholders during Values Workshop
Citywide Totals
Acreage
Housing Units/Acre
0.1 - 2.2 per acre
2.3 - 3.7 per acre
Above 3.7 per acre
Urban Houston Framework | 29 Housing Character and Diversity
Housing Type
Single-family housing is a free-standing Challenges Opportunities Vacant and under utilized parcels suit- building or duplex while multi-family A high percentage of affordable, resi- Between 2000 and 2010, the City’s able for infill development, particularly residential housing includes apartments, dential units within Houston’s Corporate population grew by 7.5 percent - adding within identified Urban Centers and triplexes and quadriplexes.1 Houston has City Limits priced below $130,000 are 145,820 new residents. Areas outside of inside of Loop 610, represent opportuni- a fairly evenly split between single-family single-family (i.e. a free-standing build- Houston’s Corporate City Limits grew by ties for increasing multi-family housing housing and multi-family housing (52 ing or duplex) while only 33.6 percent of 83.6 percent (with 129,913 single-family and overall residential densities. Infill percent and 48 percent, respectively) housing below $130,000 are multi-family lots platted for new residents since development also offers a chance to both inside and outside Loop 610. How- (such as condominiums, apartments or 2008).3 Comparatively, the area inside focus growth in areas served by exist- ever, Figure 6: Housing Type suggests quadriplexes). This poses a challenge in Loop 610 only grew by 2.4 percent (with ing infrastructure and/or transit. Add- this fairly even split is misleading as that as Urban Centers densify in popula- 27,320 single-family lots platted since ing more urban forms of housing will single-family housing accounts for an tion and jobs, there may continue to be 2008). increase the diversity of housing options astonishing 96 percent of the total land a lack of affordable, multi-family hous- in the City and contribute to greater area in Houston due to its lower residen- ing options for professionals and their Projections for population growth residential density overall. tial density (i.e. a house on a substan- families inside of Loop 610 near transit, through 2020 show similar growth tially bigger piece of land).2 parks and other forms of infrastructure rates for both areas inside and outside required for live/work/play environments. of Houston’s Corporate City Limits as more and more residents, especially There is also a lack of higher density, young professionals and empty nesters, affordable, multi-family outside of Loop move back into the City and region as 610. Approximately 78.4 percent of a whole.4 The area inside Loop 610 is housing below $130,000 outside of projected to grow by 19.5 percent. Loop 610 is low-density, single-family. Only 21.6 percent of affordable units are To address local and regional housing Photo Credit: Design Workshop multi-family. needs, Houston will need to maximize New single-family residential development opportunities for balancing single-family within the City of Houston’s Corporate City Limits should strive for higher densities This indicates that, regardless of and multi-family housing stocks. Multi- (residences per acre) such as the location inside or outside of Loop 610, family housing provides the residential community depicted above. there is a general shortage of qual- density levels needed to support Urban ity multi-family dwellings in walkable Center jobs, retail, services, walkability
1 City of Houston. (2012). Houston, Texas, Code of Ordi- neighborhoods, which is vital to creating and transit. Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Bagby Street in Houston, Texas nances Chapter 42 - Subdivisions, Developments and Plat- sustainable live/work/play environments 3 Houston-Galveston Area Council. (N.d.). Population & ting. Retrieved from municode: http://library.municode.com/ Employment Projection Change (1990 - 2010). H-GAC Focusing medium to high density HTML/10123/level2/COOR_CH42SUDEPL.html#fn_169 in which people of all backgrounds can Projection for 2020, 2030, & 2040. Houston, Texas. residential development in Urban Centers 2 City of Houston Planning and Development Department. thrive. 4 Houston-Galveston Area Council. (N.d.). Population & will work to increase jobs, retail, walkability (2012). Geographic Information System (GIS) Data. (S. Lee, Employment Projection (2010 - 2040). H-GAC Projection for and transit. Ed.) Houston, Texas. 2020, 2030, & 2040. Houston, Texas.
Urban Houston Framework | 30 Housing Character and Diversity
Figure 6: Housing Type Data sources: City of Houston; 2010 U.S. Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) Homeownership data
Major Freeways
Major Roads
Single-Family Housing
Multi-Family Housing
Places cited by Stakeholders during Values Workshop
Citywide Totals
Housing Units
Total Single-Family Multi-Family
Urban Houston Framework | 31 Housing Character and Diversity
Housing Affordability
Approximately 37.5 percent of all hous- Figure 7: Housing Affordability indi- Housing outside of Loop 610 is also Opportunities ing units in Houston are affordable (cost cates that inside of Loop 610, housing is expensive. Approximately 42.3 percent Housing that is affordable to a wide $130,000 or less), however the majority expensive. Approximately 32 percent of of residential units outside of Loop 610 range of income earners can be incor- of higher quality, affordable single-family residential units have a current market have a current market value greater than porated into emergent or transitioning units are located outside of Loop 610. value greater than $650,000 while 19.1 $650,000 while 6 percent are valued Urban Centers or other areas where The development of mixed use, sub- percent of all residential units are valued between $260,000 - $650,000. Only density is increasing and where jobs are sidized housing allows individuals of between $260,000 - $650,000. Only 16.1 12.5 percent of housing units outside of being located. Increasingly higher den- all ages and incomes to live in Urban percent of housing units within Loop 610 Loop 610 are valued between $131,000 sity, urban forms of infill housing could Centers. Subsidized housing is not are valued between $131,000 -$260,000 -$260,000 while 39.1 percent of residen- be added inside of Loop 610 as well as strictly limited to low-income housing, while 32.6 percent of residential units tial units are valued at $0 - $130,000. in or near areas identified as existing it may also include workforce housing are valued at $0 - $130,000. Although Urban Centers to increase residential and housing that accommodates middle this data suggests that affordable units Challenges density. This will be key to increasing the range income earners. priced below $130,000 exist within Loop The majority of housing is not located number and diversity of affordable hous- 610, the physical conditions of these within Loop 610 where jobs are located. ing options available to all. Workforce housing helps to provide homes and the quality of life experi- Despite the fact that nearly a quarter of Houston residents such as teachers, enced by residents vary tremendously. the region’s jobs are within Loop 610, Since the recent economic recession, market- police officers, firemen, public employ- only 24.8 percent of Houston’s hous- rate residential and commercial investment has been limited in the city. Going forward, more ees, librarians, medical technicians and ing is located there. Comparatively, the The East End Livable Centers Plan affordable, mixed-use residential development administrative personnel the opportunity (2009) explores the complexity of housing portion of the city located outside Loop will serve a critical need for housing in the region. Due to a scarcity of raw land inside Loop 610, to purchase a home in areas near jobs in challenges Urban Centers will help to overcome. 610 accounts for 60 percent of the jobs Many of East End’s residences are in poor sometimes new housing units must commingle Houston. The aim of workforce housing condition or approaching the end of their useful and 75.2 percent of the total housing with aging housing types. For example, a is to assist families whose combined life. Others are vacant while some remain units. 63 percent of employees working dilapidated, home might neighbor a brand new, occupied, despite poor conditions. Houses that loft. The Northside – Livable Centers gross annual income is 80 – 110 percent are not in good condition have efforts being made within the city currently reside outside Study (2010) encourages infill development on of Houston’s median income with down to maintain them, however, should maintenance the city limits. 59.1 percent of housing vacant or underutilized properties. Thirty percent cease, these could easily fall into a state of of housing units in Northside are overcrowded, payment, closing cost and pre-paid disrepair. Stakeholders have noted that eastern units located inside Loop 610 are over meaning there is more than one resident items assistance. portions of Houston are under served by transit $195,000. per room. This is nearly twice the rate found and revitalization efforts, so it is important throughout the rest of the city and three times the that Urban Centers help to focus revitalization rate in the region as a whole; indicating a large equitably across all parts of the City in the future. People who work inside Loop 610 who number of multi-generational households as well as unrelated individuals living in homes to reduce cannot afford a single-family/multi-family their rent burden. Areas such as Northside are home over $195,000 must commute to vulnerable to increases in housing costs as new their job from areas outside of the city. development occurs during the recovery period following the recent economic recession. Another challenge is maintaining afford- ability in redevelopment areas that are close to jobs and services.
Urban Houston Framework | 32 Housing Character and Diversity
Figure 7: Housing Affordability Data sources: City of Houston; U.S. Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) Homeownership data
Major Freeways/Tollways
Major Roads
$0 - $65K
$65K - $130
$130K - $195K
$195K - $260K
$260K - $650K
Above $650K
Places cited by Stakeholders during Values Workshop
Citywide Totals
Market Value Number of of Housing Unit Housing Units
$0 - $65K
$65K - $130
$130K - $195K
$195K - $260K
$260K - $650K
Above $650K
Urban Houston Framework | 33 Infill/Redevelopment Potential
Age-in-Place Potential Infill Development Potential
Addressing local and regional housing The closer educational facilities are to Infill development is an important part Over half of the City (60 percent) has a needs by increasing the housing stock homes, the more likely children are to of community revitalization efforts that higher improved value to land value ra- to accommodate Houston’s growing walk to school. This has many benefits, can be used in Urban Centers to provide tio, making infill development more chal- population will be important for creat- including introducing daily activity into increased opportunities for diversify- lenging in these areas. Approximately ing sustainable live/work/play environ- children’s lives, reduction of vehicle ing the housing supply in an area so 39.9 percent of the City has some level ments. Having quality housing choices in miles traveled to school and the feeling that community residents are able to of infill redevelopment potential. This close proximity to schools increases the of a safer neighborhood with more activ- age-in-place in the face of continued analysis would suggest that concentrat- potential for an individual to age-in-place ity on the street. population growth. Infill development po- ing denser urban development in areas - the idea that a community provides its tential measures the acreage of vacant, that are primed for infill redevelopment residents enough housing options and The proximity of homes to schools undeveloped or underdeveloped land has many opportunities, including exist- services such as pharmacies, doctors indicates that there is potential for active, available for future development. This is ing infrastructure and transit service. offices and dry cleaners that allow them pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Of expressed in a ratio of improved value to to live in the same area throughout a life- the 62 percent of Houston’s schools that land value by census block. time - birth, youth, adulthood and senior are located within residential communi- years - regardless of income level. This ties comprised of a mix of single- and Parcels with an infill/redevelopment ratio age-in-place analysis explores the mix multi-family units, it is questionable if value of less than one are very likely to of single- and multi-family housing units the infrastructure is in place to actu- be redeveloped.2 Ratios lower than two near educational facilities. ally provide a safe, continuous routes point to areas of potential redevelopment to schools. Programs such as Safe in the long-term. Data sources used for To complete the age-in-place analysis, Routes to School help to enable this analysis were provided by the City the following map layers were combined: children to walk and bike to school.1 of Houston and the Harris County Ap- Continuing to create and/or focus avail- praisal District. • Multi-family units; able funding on programs similar to Safe • Single-family units; and Routes to School will help fill in gaps • Education facilities. existing between schools and residential neighborhoods. From the 1,943 educational facilities that were mapped, 62 percent were within 0.25 mile distance from single- and multi-family units. The distance parame- ter of a 0.25 mile distance approximates to a five-minute walk.
1 Texas Department of Transportation. (2013). Safe Routes to School. Retrieved from Safe Routes Texas: http://www. saferoutestx.org/contact.php 2 City of Austin & AngelouEconomics
Urban Houston Framework | 34 Land Use Diversity
Land Use Diversity Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Land use diversity is a good measure Challenges The intensity of residential, commercial Challenges of the proportion of mixed (or dissimilar) Future developments should strive for a and office uses is a good indicator of an The majority of Houston (80.6 percent) land uses and the spatial distribution of diversity of uses, ensuring that people Urban Center’s economic viability and has an average FAR between 0 and these differing uses within a boundary. from all walks of life have the opportunity diversity. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a 0.25. This indicates relatively low-den- Having a mixture of land uses - such to live/work/play in one place. good measurement of how much square sity development. Walkable urbanism as single-family residential, multi-family footage of building structure is present and healthy transit require FARs to be residential, commercial, office, industrial, Opportunities on a given piece of land. For example, at least 1.5 to 3.0. Approximately 0.12 and public use - ensures that communi- Areas in Houston which have a diversity an FAR of 1.0 is the equivalent of a one- percent of Houston falls in this category, ties have access to variety of services, index of .75 or higher make up 11.4 per- story building over the entire lot, or a which is concentrated in Uptown, the jobs and entertainment. This also cent of the total acreage of the City. This two-story building over half of the lot. Central Business District and the Medi- measures the diversity of land use types indicates a high diversity of uses. Urban cal Center areas. present and their spatial distribution Centers should build upon areas having within a boundary. a high diversity of land uses. This is Opportunities essential to ensuring that these Centers Other Sunbelt communities, such as Typically, ideal land use mixes1 range are economically viable, live/work/play San Diego, require at least 0.5 FAR from 0 (homogeneous land use, such as environments in which people from all near bus stations while Orlando requires in rural areas or single-family residen- walks of life are able to age-in-place. both a minimum and maximum FAR for tial suburban subdivisions) to 1 (highly most commercial areas. Urban Centers mixed land use, such as a diverse cen- should strive for the highest FAR pos- tral business district). sible to encourage density and better urbanism.
1 Frank, A. M., & Schmid, T. M. (2004). Obesity Relation- ships with Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, pp. 87-96.
Urban Houston Framework | 35 Land Use Diversity
Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio
This measures the amount of surfaces Studies have also correlated impervi- Challenges within the City that allow for stormwater ous/pervious cover ratio with urban heat City of Houston data and Google Earth to percolate and absorb into the ground island effect.1 Urban heat island effect 2011 Satellite Imagery showed that versus surfaces that are impenetrable to is defined by the United States Environ- Houston’s urban areas have more im- stormwater. A low impervious/pervious mental Protection Agency as built up, pervious surfaces than the suburbs (as cover ratio, on a scale from one to ten, urban areas that are hotter than nearby seen in Figure 8: Impervious/Pervious indicates a lack of permeable surfaces. rural and/or suburban areas. According Cover Ratio). Most of the City’s pave- For example, an area having an average to the EPA, the annual mean air temper- ment is concentrated within Loop 610, impervious/pervious coverage ratio per ature of an urban area with one million as this is where the impervious/pervi- acre of less than two will be character- people or more upwards of 22°F warmer ous cover ratio begins to get closer to 1 ized by more trees and vegetation and than its surroundings. (which indicates high levels of pavement less concrete, whereas an area having and concrete). As Urban Centers build an average impervious/pervious cover- Paved surfaces and concrete absorb upon the density already in existence age ratio per acre of greater than five rays from the sun and produce heat. within Loop 610, it will be important to would be characterized by high levels of Chemicals emitted by cars, built struc- encourage LID techniques to help offset pavement. tures and even trees can trap sun in the negative effects of pavement such urban areas and produce more heat. as flooding and urban heat island effect. High amounts of pavement increases Heated air rises, and then collides with the likelihood of flooding during rain moist air from nearby bodies of water – Opportunities events because there is no grass, soil which usually releases rain precipitation Sidewalks, roads and plazas are part or vegetation to capture stormwater somewhere downwind from the heat of an urban environment, but there are runoff moving over streets, parking lots, island. This warm air and precipitation ways to offset the impacts of paving on sidewalks, etc. Low impact develop- can affect winds and weather patterns stormwater through LID techniques. ment (LID) techniques such as pervious for hundreds of miles surrounding an These techniques are discussed in paving, rainwater cisterns, bioswales urban heat island. greater detail in the Urban Center Rec- and rain gardens can help to offset this ommendations chapter. flooding.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013, January 15). Basic Information. Retrieved 2013, from Heat Island Effect: http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/about/ index.htm
Urban Houston Framework | 36 Land Use Diversity
Figure 8: Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio Data sources: City of Houston; Google Earth 2011 Satellite Imagery
Major Freeways/Tollways
Major Roads
0.1 - 2 average ratio per acre (Low levels of pavement)
2.1 - 4 average ratio per acre
> 5 average ratio per acre (High levels of pavement)
Citywide Totals
Acreage
Imp./Per. Cover Ratio Between 0 - 5.22 Between 1 - 2 Between 2 - 3 Between 3 - 5 Above 5
Urban Houston Framework | 37 Land Use Diversity
Parks and Open Space Challenges Houston has many beautiful park The Ensemble/HCC Livable Centers Study Final Report (2010) establishes parkland, gar- Park land is defined as a minimum of spaces, however, some parks lack con- dens, and recreational space, as some of the best tools available for attracting tax-paying businesses and half of a contiguous acre of recreation nectivity meaning that people may have residents. The inclusion of parkland in Urban Centers will reduce costs of handling stormwater, reduce im- land inside of Loop 610 or one contigu- to travel to these areas by vehicle. Also, pervious materials, and allow for regional detention all the while serving as important features for promoting recreational, exercise and healthy communities. ous acre outside of Loop 610. Park defi- open spaces are not public land, and as nitions vary (i.e. Neighborhood Parks, such may not be accessible to all users Houston’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2008) recommends amounts of acreage of the park’s network. Linear Parks, Natural Areas) and sizes that need to be acquired for the additional park facilities to accommodate growing populations. Future plans may range anywhere from half an acre created for Urban Centers should incorporate these findings as the foundation for filling gaps in levels of ser- to 150+ acres of contiguous land.2 This Opportunities vice and infrastructure across the City. The City needs to acquire approximately 3,616 acres of land of parkland includes parks, green space and trails. Approximately 41.71 percent of land in to meet 2020 population demands and to ensure equity and balance in Houston’s park system.1 Today, parks comprise 33,833 acres, or within Houston’s Corporate City Limits is 8.05% of the total land area in the City. within a quarter mile distance of an exist- To reduce impervious surfaces and increase access to parkland, the Upper Kirby Livable Centers ing park or open space. Focusing efforts Study (2010) suggests identifying vacant properties or properties having structures requiring demolition that could transform into parks, community gardens or connections with the Bayou. As Urban Centers evolve, on connecting parks and open spaces Open spaces in Houston are defined policy makers and community leaders should partner together to identify vacant, dangerous structures in as club houses, country clubs with and both in and around existing/future Urban floodplains that could be removed or re-purposed. The creation of floodplain redevelopment guidelines could without golf courses, residential open Centers will benefit the health and well- help determine how and what can be built in the floodplain after vacant structures have been cleared. spaces, retention pond and wetlands.3 being of individuals using the spaces.
These spaces comprise approximately Continuous green spaces also allow for 1. City of Houston Parks and Recreation Department. (2008, May 26). Reports and Publications. Parks & Recreation 15,522 acres, or 3.7% of the total land people to use these spaces for travel Master Plan Update Houston, Texas 2007 (pp. Executive Summary-3, Executive Summary-4). Houston, Texas. Retrieved 2012, from http://www.houstontx.gov/parks/publications_Masterplan.html area of the city. between work and home, which provides multiple environmental benefits. Well Data sources used to identify existing connected parks and open spaces may parks and open spaces include City of also increase the value of lands adjacent Houston Parks and Recreation Depart- to them.4 ment and Harris County Parks datasets and the City of Houston Open Space - Harris County Appraisal District land use dataset. The scale of analysis used was the census block level.
2 City of Houston Parks and Recreation Department. (2008, May 26). Reports and Publications. Parks & Recre- ation Master Plan Update Houston, Texas 2007 (pp. IV-5 to IV-7). Houston, Texas. Retrieved 2012, from http://www. houstontx.gov/parks/publications_Masterplan.html
3 City of Houston. (2012). Houston, Texas, Code of Ordi- 4 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. nances Chapter 42 - Subdivisions, Developments and Plat- (n.d.). Real Property Values: Economic Impacts of Protect- ting. Retrieved from municode: http://library.municode.com/ ing Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors. Retrieved 2013, HTML/10123/level2/COOR_CH42SUDEPL.html#fn_169 from http://www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ1.pdf Urban Houston Framework | 38 Land Use Diversity
Figure 9: Parks and Open Space Data sources: City of Houston
Major Freeways/Tollways
Major Roads
Parks
Open Space*
Water * The open space represented on this map indicates amenities that are submitted as part of a subdivision plat application that specifies how each area not otherwise eligible to be used as compensating open space will be improved and maintained as parks, nature trails, picnic areas or other similar facilities that render the compensating open space accessible to and usable by the owners of lots in the subdivision. * Open space is not public land and as such is not accessible to all users of the parks network.
Acreage
Citywide Totals
Park Land within 0.25 mile distance of Park Open Space
Land within .025 mile distance of Open Space
Urban Houston Framework | 39 High Employment, Population Density
Employment Density
Target employment densities for Urban Los Angeles has a smaller total land To counteract these trends, Urban Cen- This job growth is expected to continue. Centers will vary based on the size of area, but out performs Houston in jobs ters will help Houston focus increased Between 2010 and 2020, the number of the Urban Center, however, the Urban per acre. Houston’s employment density density in strategic places. This will jobs in Houston is projected to grow 15.7 Land Institute, a nonprofit education and is further explored in Figure 10: Em- ensure that Houston does not lose its percent, with jobs inside Loop 610 pro- research institute providing responsible ployment Density. Currently, 40 per- share of in-migrating businesses to other jected to grow 6.2 percent.2 This future leadership in the use of land to enhance cent of all jobs in Houston are concen- areas in the county or region. Infrastruc- job growth presents an opportunity to the total environment, recommends the trated inside Loop 610 at an employment ture, services and transit in these areas encourage employment in Urban Cen- following minimum employment densi- density of 10.2 jobs/acre. The remaining in which growth focuses must be ex- ters where housing occurs, especially ties for an area to be capable of suc- 60 percent of jobs are outside Loop 610 panded to support denser populations. in areas characterized by higher than cessfully supporting transit.1 at 2.63 jobs/acre. Only 21 percent of average residential densities. Planning the city has employment density levels Opportunities for job growth in areas proximate to resi- Table 6: Minimum Employment greater than the citywide average (3.76 The City of Houston added 124,425 jobs dential development has many benefits, Densities Near Transit jobs/acre), and the majority of these job between 2005 and 2010. Approximately including decreased traffic congestion TRANSIT JOBS concentrations are located in the west- 55 percent of these new jobs occurred in and pollution and increased opportuni- SERVICE PER ACRE ern portion of the city. Houston’s Major Activity Centers (as de- ties for people across many different Local Bus, 20 fined in Chapter 42). The Central Busi- income levels to experience live/work/ Intermediate Service Challenges ness District received 20 percent of new play environments. Local Bus, 75 Jobs are disproportionately concen- jobs, Texas Medical Center 15 percent 2 Houston-Galveston Area Council. (n.d.). Population & Frequent Service trated in west Houston. Discrepancies in and Memorial City 10 percent. Employment Projection (2010 - 2040). H-GAC Projection for 2020, 2030, & 2040. Houston, Texas. Light Rail 125+ employment densities between outside and inside of Loop 610 means that work- Table 7: Employment Densities for Major Cities, 2010 In comparison with other major cities, ers are more likely to have to travel by CITY AREA (ACRES) EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT DENSITY Houston ranks sixth in the nation with personal automobile (or public transit (JOBS/ACRE) an average employment density of 3.76 when available) to reach jobs. As Figure New York 193,692 3,698,646 19.1 jobs/acre (seen in Table 7: Employment 10: Employment Density indicates, this San Francisco 29,999 560,854 18.7 Densities for Major Cities, 2010). especially burdens citizens residing in Chicago 145,686 1,239,035 8.5 However, it is important to note the dif- the eastern portions of the city. This fact, Philadelphia 85,825 628,522 7.3 fering acreages of these cities. Houston compounded with people living outside Los Angeles 299,949 1,604,925 5.4 is nearly four times the size of New York of the city and commuting in for work, and twice the size of Los Angeles. means traffic congestion and pollution Houston 401,514 1,507,848 3.76 levels increase and the quality of life of Dallas 217,932 790,099 3.6 Houston residents is diminished due to San Diego 208,120 702,839 3.4 1 Dunphy, R., Myerson, D., & Pawlukiewicz, M. (2003). Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit. increased travel time to work. San Jose 112,977 357,127 3.2 Retrieved 2013, from www.uli.org: http://www.uli.org/wp- Austin 190,653 574,027 3 content/uploads/2012/07/TP_DevTransit.ashx_.pdf
Urban Houston Framework | 40 High Employment, Population Density
Figure 10: Employment Density Data sources: 2010 U.S. Decennial Census American Community Survey (ACS) Homeownership Data; U.S. Census Labor Force Statistics Data
Major Freeways/Tollways
Major Roads
0.1 - 3.76 jobs per acre
3.77 - 10.17 jobs per acre
Above 10.17 jobs per acre
Places cited by Stakeholders during Values Workshop
Citywide Totals
Acreage Jobs/Acre
0.1 - 3.76 per acre
3.76 - 10.17 per acre
10.17+ per acre
Urban Houston Framework | 41 High Employment, Population Density
Population Density
Encouraging the economic viability, city’s population density outside of Loop Opportunities diversity and accessibility of places 610 (4.84 people/acre). Although target In previous years, the growth rate of the in Houston is an important goal of the population densities for Urban Centers entire city has exceeded that of the in- Urban Houston Framework. Population will vary depending on the size of the ner Loop 610. Between 2010 and 2020, density, calculated as the amount of Center, the Capital Area Metropolitan however, the area inside Loop 610 is people per acre, is an indicator of eco- Planning Organization (CAMPO) in estimated to grow faster than the rest of nomic vitality and diversity. Austin offers a few baseline population the city, increasing by as much as 19.5 densities that could help guide the devel- percent due to young professionals and Data analysis shows that 40 percent of opment of Centers within the context of empty nesters moving back into central Houston’s total land area has a popula- Texas: Houston from the outer suburbs. This tion density higher than the citywide presents a great opportunity for funnel- average (5.23 people/acre), however the • Large Centers (2 mile radius) ing in-migrating residents to parts of the majority of these higher density places 15.5 - 62.17 people/acre city that have the infrastructure, services are concentrated within Loop 610 and in • Medium Centers (1 mile radius) and transit to support growth. the western portions of the city. 4.48 - 37.30 people/acre • Small Centers (0.5 mile radius) While Houston is currently the fourth 3.98 - 19.89 people/acre Table 8: Population Densities for Major Cities, 2010. largest city in the nation, it trails be- CITY LAND AREA TOTAL POPULATION hind other major metropolitan areas in Challenges (ACRES) POPULATION DENSITY (PEOPLE/ACRE) terms of population density per acre. Between 2000 and 2010 the Greater New York 191,588 8,175,133 42.70 Philadelphia, for example, has 500,000 Houston area grew by 1.2 million people, fewer people, but its average population increasing by more than 123,000 indi- San Francisco 30,182 805,235 26.70 density is 16.9 people per acre - nearly viduals per year over the decade. The Boston 31,590 617,594 19.60 three times that of Houston’s average City of Houston is projected to increase Chicago 147,725 2,695,325 18.25 population density of only five people its population by 17.9 percent between Miami 23,404 399,407 17.06 per acre. the years of 2010 and 2020. This means Philadelphia 90,112 1,526,006 16.90 that the City of Houston will need to Los Angeles 302,700 3,792,621 12.50 Yet, when compared to other cities in focus this increased density in strategic Seattle 63,744 608,860 9.60 Texas, Houston fares well - ranking areas or it may risk losing its share of Houston 401,513 2,099,451 5.23 above Austin, San Antonio and Dallas in in-migrating residents and businesses to Dallas 246,937 1,197,816 4.90 average people per acre. Within Hous- other areas in the county or region. This ton, there is a stark contrast between also means that the infrastructure, ser- Atlanta 85,766 420,003 4.90 Houston’s population density inside vices and transit services in these areas San Antonio 298,688 1,327,407 4.50 Loop 610 (7.43 people/acre) versus the in which growth will focus should be able Austin 200,695 809,036 4.03 to support denser populations. Urban Houston Framework | 42 High Employment, Population Density
Figure 11: Population Density Data sources: City of Houston; 2010 U.S. Decennial Census data
Major Freeways/Tollways
Major Roads
0.1 - 5.23 people per acre
5.24 - 7.43 people per acre
Above 7.43 people per acre
Places cited by Stakeholders during Values Workshop
Citywide Totals
Acreage People/Acre
0 - 5.23 per acre
5.24 - 7.43 per acre
7.43+ per acre
Urban Houston Framework | 43 Access to Amenities, Attractions/Destinations
Amenity Density
Access to amenities, attractions and Health amenities Challenges Opportunities destinations is an important factor in • Emergency medical services The majority of Houston’s total popula- Opportunities lie within the areas that enhancing community stability, acces- • Hospitals tion (71 percent) lives within a census have an existing amenity density of sibility and equity within Urban Centers. • Medical centers block group served by 10 or fewer over one amenity per acre, which is 12 Amenities are defined as services that • Nursing homes amenities. Approximately 13.4 percent percent of the City. Population and job enhance and maintain people’s quality of • Pharmacies of Houston’s census blocks are served densities should be focused near areas life within a city. Amenities are impor- by 10 to 20 amenities within their block that have a higher amenity density, so as tant components of any live/work/play Retail/Commercial amenities group, and less than four percent are to build upon existing infrastructure. environment. • Banks served by more than 20 amenities. • Bars Nearly 13 percent of Houston’s popula- For the purpose of this Study, amenities • Restaurants tion, or 256,133 people, live in a census have been divided into five categories, • Grocery stores block group with zero amenities. including civic, cultural, educational, • Shopping centers/malls health and retail/commercial amenities This analysis is also limited to show- as follows: Each amenity in the City was mapped ing only the density of amenities. What and then an analysis was run on the total this does not indicate is the quality or Civic amenities number of amenities at the census block existence of walkable or bikable connec- • Community centers group level. Houston averages less tions to them. To truly create a live/work/ • Libraries than 6 amenities for every census block play environment, connections between • Post offices group. Amenities are more frequently amenities, jobs and residences must located within Loop 610, which accounts be safe, accessible and built for human Cultural amenities for 67 percent of the total amenities at comfort, which is particularly important • Historic sites a density level of 8 amenities per acre. in Houston’s summer months. • Movie theaters Currently, 33 percent of the total ameni- • Museums ties in Houston are located outside Loop • Performing arts/theaters 610 at a density level of 6 amenities per acre outside Loop 610. Educational amenities • Child day care services • Colleges, universities and profes- sional schools • Nursery and kindergarten, elemen- tary/junior/high schools • Youth organizations/centers
Urban Houston Framework | 44 Access to Amenities, Attractions/Destinations
¨¦§45
Figure 12: Amenities A m e n i t i e s Data sources: City of Houston D e n s i t y
L e g e n d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Freeways/Tollways ! ! ! Major Freeways/Tollways !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Major Roads ! ! MajorMajor Roads Roads ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 45 ! ¨¦§ ! Less< = than 1 1 amenity per acre (Amenity/Acre)(Amenity/Acre) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 59 ! ! ! ! ! ! £ ! ¤ !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! 1 -1 3
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 290 ! ! ! !! ¤£ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Inwood ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hardy ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Club! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Toll! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ¬ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! «! ! ! ! ! ! ! 90A ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! £ ! ! ! ! ¤ ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Northline! ! ! ! ! ! ! Independence! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Mall ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Heights ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! 610 ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! § ! ! ! ! ¨¦ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Heights!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Energy Corridor ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fifth Ward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! § ! !! !!!!! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ¨¦ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Washington! ! ! Ave! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !City Center ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! § ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ¨¦ ! ! ! ! !!! Second !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! River! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! Ward! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! 610 ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! §! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ¨¦ ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! Oaks! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Ship ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Channel ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! 99 ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ¬ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! « ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! WestChase ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Rice!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! TMC ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! District ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! UofH! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Village ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! WP ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 225 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¬ ! ! ! ! « ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Toll ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! Gulfgate ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! International! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Astrodome!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Citywide Totals ! ! ! ! !! ! District! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Houston City Limit ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! BW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T o t a l ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !8 ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! Memorial! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! % !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! Amenities/Census Amenities ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hermann! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Block Group ! ! ! ! To t a l 4 , 2 6 8 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! S. Main ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Hospital! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 0.10 < - Ratio1 per census<= 1 block 3 , 7 5 8 8 8 % ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! HOU ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 - <3 Ratioper census <= 3 block 3 9 7 9 . 3 % ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 3+Ra per tio >census 3 block 11 4 2 . 7 % ! ! ! ! ! !! !! 59 ! !! ! ! ! £ ! ! ! ! ! ! ¤ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Burnham! ! ! ! ! ! BW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !8 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 45 ! ¨¦§ ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Miles ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! «¬288 ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 01 2 4 6 ! ! ! ! ¯ FB (!Toll !! ! ! ! !
!
Source: City of Houston, Census Block 2010, November 2012
Urban Houston Framework | 45 Access to Streets, Freeways and Transit
Walkable Communities
As sustainable, live/work/play environ- Findings showed that the highest inter- ments, Urban Centers need to be places section, population, and employment characterized by a high level of walkabil- densities occur within Loop 610. Popula- ity. Studies have shown that higher inter- tion and employment densities correlate section densities (calculated as the total with areas having a higher intersection number of street intersections divided by density. The most walkable areas are area in acres) are more responsible for the Central Business District, Montrose, increases in walking and transit use than Fourth Ward, Midtown and Greater Third any other factor.1 Ward.
Intersection density is closely related to Challenges block size - the greater the intersection The majority of Houston has low inter- density, the smaller the block sizes, the section densities. Over 65 percent of the more connected a street network, and City has an intersection density of 0.25 Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Bagby Street in Houston, Texas thus the more walkable a neighborhood. intersections per acre or less, indicating Good sidewalks are unbroken, wide enough for people to walk and pass each other This increased connectivity also has the a general need for more walkable com- shielded from traffic and shaded. Buildings built up to the street creating a continuous street wall are essential to dense, urban neighborhoods. added benefit of reducing traffic conges- munities citywide. Few areas outside of tion in that consistent, regularly shaped Loop 610 have high intersection densi- street grids are the most efficient mech- ties. It is critical to preserve the existing anism for handling high traffic volumes. street network to maintain pedestrian The Northside – Livable Centers Study (2010) recommends that building massings in Urban To explore intersection density and and bicyclist connectivity as Houston Centers should create a “street wall.” Facades can be defined through rhythmically placing vertically-oriented Houston’s potential for walkable commu- continues to grow in population through- windows and building entry points every 25’-50’ and insetting windows to create shade, shadow and detail. nities, this Existing Conditions Assess- out the future. This Study also noted that Urban Centers should foster dense, urban neighborhoods through pedestrian-level detailing that includes quality materials, unique signage, shade awnings and intricate details that reinforce the ment layers the following datasets: pedestrian nature of the street. Opportunities • Intersection density; Population density for areas having an Near Northwest Management District Livable Center Study participants requested opportu- • Population density; and intersection density of 0.50 intersec- nities to walk in safety, with some protection from the sun and to destinations with activities that are currently • Employment density. tions per acre or higher is eight people/ missing or non-existent. Visual preference surveys indicated a clear preference for transit facilities that were acre - 41 percent higher than Houston’s more than just a typical shelter isolated at the edge of a road - emphasizing that design architectural details overall population density. Employment encourage ridership by making transit stations much more safe and inviting. Ways in which the future growth of population and employment will result in more traffic congestion are also discussed. Due to various natural and density for areas with a higher intersec- man-made barriers - such as bayous, floodplains, railroads, and existing development patterns - street con- tion density is 13.7 - or 73 percent higher nectivity will remain a constraint for movement within and amongst Urban Centers in the future. According to than the City average. As areas with low this study, “there is simply no room to add streets or lanes to increase vehicular connectivity in any significant 1 Ewing, R., & Cerver, R. (2010, May 11). Travel and the intersection densities redevelop, protect- manner in [an] area in the near-term. In addition, shared and reduced parking strategies should be explored Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the Ameri- as transit service increases. As [an] area develops, new connections in the street grid should be created”. can Planning Association, 76(3), 31. ing street grids will be very important. Urban Houston Framework | 46 Access to Streets, Freeways and Transit
Residential Access to Transit Employee Access to Transit
Transit is defined as METRO light rail, The housing unit density within 0.25 The areas that are both under served by Challenges and Opportunities express bus routes and regular service miles from transit slightly higher than transit with higher concentrations of em- Although Houston has extensive bus bus routes. Houston currently has 16 the City average. Transit options are ployment are the most in need of transit and light rail service, the outer edges of METRO rail stations and 3,903 miles important to the entire City, but particu- to access jobs. To explore whether the City lack direct public transit ac- of bus routes. This analysis compared larly important where housing costs are employees have access to transit, this cess, especially to stops within a 0.25 housing costs and existing transit ser- lower. If people are to find other options Existing Conditions Assessment com- mile walking distance. Concentrating vices to identify areas currently under to commute in lieu of a personal vehicle, bined the following data sets: housing and jobs on existing transit served by transit - particularly areas those options need to be convenient to connections increases the likelihood that having the lowest housing costs and the place of residence. • Employment density; people will use mass transit to commute the highest need for transit in order to • METRO transit stops; and to work. It will also decrease household access jobs. To show which residents • Major Thoroughfares. transportation costs and environmental have access to transit, with a focus on pollution. Plans for future routes should low-cost areas which have deficiencies Findings showed that 93 percent of the be focused on areas that have denser in transit service, the following map lay- total jobs in Houston are within 0.25 residential and employment areas that ers were combined: miles from transit and employment are currently outside of the 0.25 mile density is 26.7 percent higher in these distance from routes and transit stops. • Housing costs; areas than the City overall. Nearly all of • Percentage of multi-family; the jobs in Houston are located in a five • Overall housing unit density; minute distance from transit. This link • METRO transit stops; and clearly shows the importance of provid- • Major Thoroughfares. ing alternative modes of transportation for access to jobs. Future policies may Findings showed that 82 percent of consider incentivizing creative ways for Houston’s total population is located employers to provide alternative modes within a 0.25 mile distance from transit of transit for their workforce. Sources stops. The distance of 0.25 mile was used in analyzing residential and em- used because it is equal to a 5-min- ployee access to transit include City of ute walk. Over 80 percent (350,172) of Houston and METRO data. the total multi-family units in Houston (400,678) are within 0.25 miles of transit stops.
Urban Houston Framework | 47 Access to Streets, Freeways and Transit
Transit-Oriented Development
Urban Centers will help to support Challenges and Opportunities multimodal transportation and increased Houston has 7.5 miles of light rail that connectivity through encouraging currently runs between the Central transit-oriented development in strategic Business District, Midtown, the Museum places. These types of development are District and the Texas Medical Center.1 typically higher in density and maximize By the end of 2014, however, there will the potential for live/work/play environ- be an expansion of 38.9 miles of new ments. To measure Houston’s potential METRORail tracks constructed that in- for transit-oriented development, the creases access to destinations using the following datasets were layered: METRO’s Red, Southeast, North, East End, Uptown, and University Lines.2 This • Undeveloped land; expansion will also increase the total • Land value; and number of METRORail stations, provid- • Proximity to planned and existing ing a great opportunity for undeveloped
light rail transit. areas near these existing and proposed Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Uptown Houston, Texas stations to become characterized by Transit stops that provide shaded seating and unique architectural details help Undeveloped land is defined as vacant transit-oriented development. encourage ridership by making facilities much more safe and inviting. or undeveloped parcels, however, not all undeveloped land can be looked at as having the potential for redevelopment. Some areas include floodplains, lakes, airports and reservoirs that make devel- opment unfeasible.
1 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Hous- ton, Texas. (n.d.). Rail Lines: Red Line. Retrieved 2013, from GO METRORAIL: http://www.gometrorail.org/go/ doc/2491/1328607/
2 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston, Texas. (n.d.). METRORail Expansion Updates East End Fast Facts. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from METRO Going Places: http://ridemetro.org/CurrentProjects/METRORai- lExpansion.aspx
Urban Houston Framework | 48 Existing Polices and Programs
Land Development
Houston’s ability to remain economically Code of Ordinances Chapter 42: Sub- The Infrastructure Design Manual The U.S. Department of Housing and competitive will depend on its ability to establishes various site design research divisions, Development and Platting Urban Development provides six Livability manage development challenges cre- establishes regulations for the platting, and submittal requirements for projects Principles1 that help guide efforts in responsible ated by rising land values, high construc- subdividing and development of land within Houston’s Corporate City Limits land development that should guide building practices occurring in existing, future and tion costs and decreasing land availabil- within Houston’s Corporate City Limits to and its ETJ. The following sections of transitioning Urban Centers. These six Livability ity. Encouraging infill development and ensure that development and redevelop- this manual were determined to be most Principles are: sustainable reuse of undeveloped and ment efforts in Houston occur in a safe applicable to the implementation of underutilized land to effectively increase and healthy manner. The following sec- Urban Centers: 1. Decrease household transportation costs, the city’s tax base will be vital to meeting tions of Houston’s Code of Ordinances improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas these challenges. There are currently were determined to be most applicable • Chapter 4 Platting Requirements; emissions and promote public health. regulations in place that help to regulate to the implementation of Urban Centers: • Chapter 10 Street Paving Design; 2. Promote equitable, affordable and energy- efficient housing choices for people of all land development and building activities. • Chapter 13 Stormwater Quality ages, incomes, races. These include, but are not limited to, the Design; and 3. Enhance the City of Houston’s economic following: • Sec. 42-154 - Urban area - Major • Chapter 16 Miscellaneous. competitiveness through reliable and timely thoroughfares with planned right-of- access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic • Code of Ordinances Chapter 42 way of 80 feet or less; needs of workers as well as expanded Subdivisions, Development and • Sec. 42-155 - Urban area - Major business access to markets. Platting; and the thoroughfares with planned right- 4. Support existing communities through • Infrastructure Design Manual. of-way of 80 feet or less - Retail transit-oriented, mixed-use development, land recycling and community revitalization. commercial center; 5. Coordinate policies to remove barriers to • Sec. 42-159 - Collector streets and collaboration, leverage funding and increase local streets - Urban area; accountability and effectiveness of all levels • Sec. 42-185 - Standards for com- of government to plan for future growth. pensating open space; and 6. Value communities and neighborhoods • Sec. 42-274 - Major Activity Center by enhancing unique characteristics and investing in healthy, safe, and walkable designation. neighborhoods.2
1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment. (n.d.). Sustainable Housing Communities Six Livability Principles. (S. Donovan, Producer) Retrieved January 2012, from HUD.gov: http://portal.hud.gov/ hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_ housing_communities/Six_Livability_Principles
Urban Houston Framework | 49 Existing Polices and Programs
Land Development
Challenges and Opportunities A few stakeholders, however, noted Code of Ordinances Chapter 42: that given the level of expertise needed Major Activity Center Designation to properly interpret the manual, many Section 42-274 favors large-scale de- design ideas and/or innovative solutions velopment and redevelopment projects expressed by developers are not open by requiring 10,000,000 square feet for interpretation and are left to the of gross floor area for uses other than discretion of the architect or engineer. single-family residential and 400+ acres Stakeholders noted that this becomes of land overall. This is an opportunity an issue when templates have been set, to accommodate large-scale develop- leaving little to no room for discussion ment and redevelopment projects which of “out of the box” LID techniques that may be more appropriate for Large or could serve as new prototypes and Medium Centers. This section of the models of better building practices. existing code also provides buffering of mid- to high-rise developments adjacent Other stakeholders noted that the to traditional single-family residential Infrastructure Design Manual is communities outside of Major Activity very appropriately esoteric (i.e. geared Centers, which helps to protect the char- only towards professional engineers Photo Credit: City of Houston | Buffalo Bayou acter of existing neighborhoods. and architects) in that it is intended to The Infrastructure Design Manual is geared towards professional engineers and be a technical document that guides architects and is intended to be a technical document guiding the design and construction of public infrastructure. Today, divergent audiences using Code the design and construction of public of Ordinances Chapter 42 and Hous- infrastructure. ton’s Infrastructure Design Manual ex- ist. The Infrastructure Design Manual While there may never be consensus is intended for architects and engineers among stakeholders on this topic, and is not intended to act as a develop- there are opportunities to find a middle ment guide for the greater public. New ground. Technical principles from the LID or other innovative practices may be Infrastructure Design Manual that accepted, but need to be presented to relate to transit-oriented, live/work/play the City Engineer’s office. environments could be abbreviated and marketed to various private sector audiences that will be a part of achiev- ing the implementation of Urban Centers throughout the future.
Urban Houston Framework | 50 Existing Polices and Programs
Land Development
Challenges and Opportunities Harris County’s Low Impact Develop- Requiring LID for all projects (regardless There are currently no requirements for ment & Green Infrastructure Design of context) was noted as an inhibitor to LID in Houston - but this is not a gap in Criteria for Storm Water Manage- development by some stakeholders. Yet, sustainability in that LID techniques may ment does not require conventional there was support on behalf of the devel- not be appropriate for every project type. development projects to follow LID opment community for using Urban Cen- Houston’s Infrastructure Design Man- requirements. Requirements only apply ter development projects as an oppor- ual Chapter 13 Stormwater Quality to new development or redevelopment tunity to exemplify what LID techniques Design Requirements specifies design projects choosing to incorporate LID for work and do not work in Houston. criteria, inspection and maintenance the purpose of satisfying current Harris requirements for bioretention, infiltration County Public Infrastructure Department There was also support for working to- trenches, porous pavement, vegetative Architecture & Engineering Division wards a list of acceptable best manage- swales, roof surfaces and rain barrels. (HCPID-AED) and Harris County Flood ment practices that would help contrib- However, these only apply to new devel- Control District (HCFCD) Storm Water ute to more high-quality infrastructure opment on undeveloped parcels of five Management requirements for detention, design and to promote responsible and or more acres or significant redevelop- infrastructure and stormwater quality. sustainable design. This may be one ment (defined as changes of one acre or If requirements are met, applicants are area lacking sustainability that Urban more to existing impervious surfaces) on then eligible to receive Texas Commis- Centers could work towards addressing developed parcels of five or more acres. sion on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) of in the future. Municipal Utility District (MUD) reim- bursements for LID and green infrastruc- ture elements.
Urban Houston Framework | 51 Existing Polices and Programs
Housing Choice
Houston’s capacity to attract and retain The Housing and Urban Development The Minimum Property Standards Parking is another factor affecting residents and protect the vibrancy (HUD) Consolidated 2010-2014 An- (MPS) for New Construction, Re- housing choice and quality of life that of communities depends on housing nual Action Plan is the City of Houston construction, Rehabilitation, and is addressed in the MPS document. choice throughout the city. This entails Housing and Community Development Maintenance of Multi-family Facilities The Americans with Disabilities Act guaranteeing the availability, afford- Department’s (HCDD) official applica- document is important to Urban Centers (ADA) prohibits discrimination based ability, equitable distribution, quantity tion for HUD grant funding. It proposes because it establishes standards and on disability in programs, services, and and quality of housing options. Similarly, programs and services to be funded design criteria for multi-family facilities activities provided or made available the availability of quality education, during the City’s fiscal year and includes receiving federal assistance through by public entities. To comply with the food and services will be vital to Urban the following: HCDD. The goal of the MPS is to ensure law, ADA accessible parking must be Centers in the future. There are cur- that all multi-family developments meet provided. These parking calculations rently several policies in place that help • Community Development Block various health and safety standards and are based on building square footage to promote housing choice in Houston. Grant (CDBG), adhere to local building codes for new for apartment units and common areas, These include, but are not limited to, the • HOME Investment Partnerships construction, reconstruction, rehabilita- number of living units per floor, amount following: Program (HOME), tion and accessibility. of bedrooms and total square footage of • Housing Opportunities for Per- each individual unit. • Housing and Urban Development sons with AIDS (HOPWA); and In addition to setting standards for foun- (HUD) Consolidated 2010-2014 An- • Emergency Solutions Grant dations, drainage, sidewalks, parking, nual Action Plan; and (ESG). windows, doors, stairways, electrical • Minimum Property Standards for wiring, plumbing, ventilation and roofing New Construction, Reconstruction, While all of the grants are important to these standards address energy conser- Rehabilitation, and Maintenance of Urban Centers, the Community Devel- vation measures such as insulation and Multi-family Facilities. opment Block Grant (CDBG) is a great weather stripping. tool for financing housing, public and private facility improvements, as well as for providing public services such as childcare for families with young children and meals for the elderly.
Urban Houston Framework | 52 Existing Polices and Programs
Housing Choice
Challenges and Opportunities This is particularly important in regards Where the City owns viable properties Another potential barrier to housing The objectives of HCDD’s 2012 An- to housing because, due to a variety of for infill development or redevelopment, choice noted by stakeholders is the nual Action Plan - such as economic economic, financial and social reasons, investors - meeting certain favorable expense of providing parking in smaller- development, housing availability, hous- the production of dwelling units that terms and conditions - may be awarded scaled, residential infill development ing accessibility, housing affordability are affordable to lower income earning access to such properties at bargain projects. The monetary costs and gross and sustainability - align perfectly with families does not occur without subsi- rates in exchange for viable housing op- floor area (GFA) needed to construct the goals of Urban Centers expressed dies and/or encouragement. A compre- tions contributing to HCDD initiatives in parking facilities was cited as a burden by stakeholders. The implementation of hensive housing policy could help to Urban Centers. to the financial feasibility of smaller resi- Urban Centers is an excellent opportu- mandate the production of a number of dential projects. nity for overcoming challenges targeted more affordable units as a percentage of These more affordable housing units in HCDD’s 2012 Annual Action Plan the production of all new housing units could in the form of a stand-alone Parking requirements for low- to such as: in Houston. This could work towards residential community or integrated with moderate-income multi-family hous- the goals identified by stakeholders for market-rate housing in a mixed-income ing projects are currently the same as • Lack of affordable rental housing Urban Centers. project. This would help to offset the parking requirements for regular market supply for the elderly population and high market price of land in neighbor- rate residential projects. During future minority families with children; The limited availability of land, as well as hoods where land costs make subsi- phases of this Study, it might be benefi- • Need for more affordable supportive high lot value cost, are two known chal- dized housing too expensive to rent or cial to initiate further dialogue with stake- housing accommodating special lenges to subsidized housing in Hous- sell. Similarly, maximizing the potential holders regarding the effects of parking needs populations; ton. Market forces have led to significant of Houston Revitalization Areas - com- requirements on subsidized versus • Demand for public neighborhood amounts of land, otherwise suitable for munities specially targeted for economic regular market rate residential projects. spaces far surpasses available subsidized housing, cost-prohibitive for and residential revitalization and in- funding supplies; and such use. One opportunity for address- creased home ownership, through public • Low wages impeding individuals’ ing this could be the creation of a fund and private entity funding - is another ability to secure affordable housing. targeted specifically at providing gap- opportunity to align public investments financing to subsidized housing projects. in infrastructure with various community Urban Center implementation efforts This could be funded in part by fees development efforts targeting improve- should coincide with and address topics assessed against market-rate projects in ments in Urban Centers. identified in existing and future HCDD the city, and could provide an additional Annual Action Plans. financing mechanism for projects that would otherwise be infeasible due to overall development cost.
Urban Houston Framework | 53 Existing Polices and Programs
Infrastructure & Transportation
High-quality transportation and infra- The Infrastructure Design Manual sets The 2013 - 2017 Adopted Capital The Major Thoroughfare and Free- structure is a key Urban Center charac- standards for all development plans by Improvement Plan (CIP) serves as way Plan (MTFP) guides mobility teristic identified by stakeholders. Ensur- addressing various drawing conventions the City’s infrastructure improvement within Houston’s Corporate City Limits ing the creation of quality roadways lined such as scales, labeling, computer-aided strategy through the year 2017. In 2012, and areas of Harris, Fort Bend, Waller, with continuous, walkable sidewalks design line symbology, paper sizing, ink voters established the following funding Montgomery and Liberty Counties.1 that provide safe, accessible gathering type, etc. The following sections of this priorities through 2017 (listed in order Published in 1942, the MTFP is a long spaces for citizens will be paramount to document were determined to be most of greatest amount of funding to lowest standing document that coordinates ensuring Urban Centers are live/work/ applicable to infrastructure and transpor- amount of funding). thoroughfare and highway improvement play environments. tation in Urban Centers: efforts amongst various state and local • Street and Bridge Improvements governmental agencies. Annual amend- Multimodal transit, increased connectiv- • Chapter 1 General Requirements; • Public Safety Facilities Improve- ments to the MTFP incorporate citizen ity and clear wayfinding and signage are • Chapter 2 Survey Requirements; ments feedback about traffic congestion, key to solving complex growth issues • Chapter 3 Graphic Requirements; • General Public Improvements general mobility issues and development created by changing populations. The • Chapter 9 Stormwater Design Re- • Parks and Recreation Facility Im- plans that will affect the functionality of creation of complete, context sensitive quirements; and provements Houston’s Street Hierarchy System.2 street designs that work to incorporate • Chapter 15 Traffic and Signal De- • Library Improvements All streets within Urban Centers are all users of a roadway will assist visi- sign Requirements. • Subsidized Housing Improvements categorized as Principal Thoroughfares, tors and residents in navigating within Thoroughfares, Collector Streets or Lo- and between Urban Centers. The City This is the structure by which public proj- cal Streets based on: currently has several policies aimed at ects are prioritized, funded and imple- regulating construction of and alterations mented. The goal is to create achievable • Length of road; to infrastructure. These include, but are steps for meeting facility and infrastruc- • Existing/projected traffic volumes; not limited to, the following: ture needs of the city. • Character of nearby properties; and • Possibility of future expansion, in- • Infrastructure Design Manual; cluding man-made/natural barriers. • 2013 - 2017 Adopted Capital Im- provement Plan (CIP); and • Major Thoroughfare and Freeway 1 City of Houston Planning and Development Department. (n.d.). Major Thoroughfare and Freeway Plan Policy State- Plan (MTFP). ment. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from The City of Houston Official Site for Houston, Texas: http://www.houstontx.gov/ planning/DevelopRegs/mobility/docs_pdfs/07policy_state- ment.pdf
2 City of Houston Planning and Development Depart- ment. (2013). Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan (MTFP). Retrieved 22 2013, May, from The City of Houston Official Site for Houston, Texas: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/ DevelopRegs/mobility/MTFP.html
Urban Houston Framework | 54 Existing Polices and Programs
Infrastructure & Transportation
Challenges and Opportunities While the 2013-2017 CIP aligns very well There are several challenges associ- with the goals established by stakehold- ated with current stormwater mitigation ers for Urban Centers, there are no standards. Detention rates are subject funds specifically set aside for areas to change at City discretion based upon designated as Centers. Monies are cur- sound engineering analysis/practices. rently spread throughout all parts of the The Harris County Flood Control District city. Investments to infrastructure (and (HCFCD) has not changed rates in 30 hydraulic infrastructure in particular) will years and the City has not changed need to be directed more towards Urban rates since it started requiring off-street Centers throughout the future. However, stormwater detention, yet stakeholders it is important to note that for capital noted perceived risk within the develop- improvement projects, Houston voters ment community that rates could under- approved a “worst first” approach to mine the financial stability of a project. stormwater and street drainage. Thus, if the worst areas in need of improvement Second, stormwater detention must occur within Urban Centers, these would occur on the site for which stormwa- take precedence over areas outside of ter runoff is being mitigated. Smaller Center boundaries. development projects may have trouble financing detention devices required to Current infrastructure standards are meet regulations - making development also geared towards accommodating of the property financially unfeasible. In automobile traffic and do not explicitly general, this will be a challenge through- address travel modes required by other out the future for smaller development uses of roadways such as cyclists or projects attempting to locate in Urban public transit users. It will be important Centers. to better address these other modes of travel as polices and programs are revised and updated going forward.
Urban Houston Framework | 55 Existing Polices and Programs
Urban Design & Density
Citizens recognize the need for increas- • Code of Ordinances Chapter 42 The H-GAC Fourth Ward Livable Challenges and Opportunities ingly dense, sustainable design that Subdivisions, Development and Centers Study: Final Report discusses According to the Fourth Ward Liv- utilizes infrastructure in a more efficient Platting Article III Planning Stan- conflicts that have arisen as a result of able Centers Study: Final Report and effective manner. The reduction of dards Division 3. - Building Lines; current setbacks along major thorough- the Historic Preservation Ordinance at impervious surfaces and reclamation • Chapter 42 Subdivisions, Develop- fares and offers solutions for historic that time was ineffective in protecting of vacant or underdeveloped land (i.e. ment and Platting Article III Plan- districts characterized by setbacks that historic structures and thus the process brownfields) have been noted as impor- ning Standards Division 4. - Lots are significantly smaller than today’s of reviewing this set of ordinances was tant approaches for improving the physi- And Reserves; and standards outlined in Chapter 42. In underway. The changes helped align the cal form and functionality of Houston’s • Code of Ordinances Chapter 33 response to conflicts arising between old tools for preservation and work in con- built environments. Yet new development Planning and Development Article and new building types, several districts junction with the goals for Urban Centers and redevelopment must respect exist- VII Historic Preservation; and have adopted tougher standards for his- identified by stakeholders. There is more ing character. • H-GAC Fourth Ward Livable Cen- toric preservation.3 Amendments have work to be done to ensure increased ters Study: Final Report. taken inconsistencies by adopting: density aligns with historic preservation Urban design is not explicitly addressed efforts. by the City of Houston Code of Ordi- Code of Ordinances Chapter 42 • Elimination of the 90-day waiver for nances. Density, however, is addressed establishes Minimum Lot Sizes (MLS) historic properties when a Certifi- by current code, but standards are not and Minimum Building Lines (MBL) that cate of Appropriateness is denied found in a centralized location. H-GAC preserve and protect the established by the Houston Archaeological and has conducted a number of corridor character of communities and neighbor- Historical Commission; and area planning studies through its hoods by requiring new development or • A revised historic district designa- Livable Center Program that can help redevelopment projects to respect exist- tion process; to guide policy and decision makers in ing community building typologies. • Compatibility guidelines for new the creation of urban design standards construction in an historic district affecting Urban Centers going forward. Chapter 33 is intended to preserve and such as setback, exterior features Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Fourth Ward Houston, Texas Amendments to Houston’s The following documents help to inform protect historically significant structures and proportions of contributing and Historic Preservation Ordinance helped address urban design patterns. These include, and sites. Landmark and Protected potential contributing structures conflicts arising between old and new but are not limited to, the following: Landmark designations allow for the on the block-face and facing block building types within Urban Centers. recognition and protection of individual faces; and historic structures while Historic District • Clarifications regarding the use of designations help neighborhoods by new building materials. classifying a specific area of a communi- ty as historically important. The Houston 3 City of Houston. (2010, October 13). Houston, Texas Code of Ordinances Chapter 33, Article VII Historic Preservation Archaeological and Historical Commis- Ordinance. Retrieved from The City of Houston Official Site for Houston, Texas: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/ sion (HAHC) administers this ordinance. HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html
Urban Houston Framework | 56 Existing Polices and Programs
Parking
One of the biggest challenges identi- To add to the complexity of issues, con- Developments on smaller land parcels fied by stakeholders in reaching Urban struction costs may vary tremendously. are burdened not only by the monetary Center goals is the construction and For example, the time, materials, and costs of completing a traffic and parking availability of parking facilities to support labor costs associated with construct- assessments, they are also burdened by increased densities. This is a challenge ing spaces can range from $4,500 per the physical space taken up by off-street because the amount of time, money and surface parking space to $7,500-12,500 parking garages. Parking garages mean energy expended in planning and con- per structured parking space (located less income generating gross floor area structing parking spaces is great. Past in a multi-level, shared garage facility). (GFA) or usable floor area (UFA) - which development practices have also re- Parking facilities that go below ground- reduces the profitability and therefore sulted in too much parking. However, as level, can cost upwards of $30,000 per probability of more dense, mixed-use Urban Centers continue to become more parking space.5 projects. dense, and parking structures become a more viable option, Urban Centers much The high costs of planning for and Regardless of context, however, the acknowledge the added cost associated constructing parking (including time and cost of parking affects on many other with providing adequate parking. materials, in addition to money spent) economic and environmental challenges have a significant influence on urban that Urban Centers should address, According to a recent parking impact design and the quality of street-life and such as traffic congestion, air quality, analysis of empty land parcels, and pedestrian environments - which are key water quality, land uses and the overall Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Midtown Houston, Texas In addition to flooding challenges created vacant, unoccupied developments, determinants of transit choice in a com- density of development. These unin- by impervious surfaces, excessive 6 the cost of assessing the impacts of a munity. These costs also vary by loca- tended consequences can reinforce parking can undermine community development project in Houston - which tion. For example, the cost of providing dependence on cars by undermining the revitalization efforts. includes an anticipated number of park- parking in an established Urban Center availability of parking facilities near tran- ing spaces - can range from $20,000 such as the Central Business District sit or by generally reducing the pedestri- for surface parking up to $30,000 for where land values are high and large, an-friendliness of urban environments. structured parking.4 vacant land parcels are rare, would be much greater than providing parking in less dense areas in the city.
5 Ibid.
6 Weinberger, R., Kaehny, J., & Rufo, M. (2010, February). 4 Walter P. Moore. (2013, January). Urban Houston Frame- U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strate- work Parking and Transportation Analysis. Houston, Texas: gies. New York, New York. Retrieved from http://www.itdp. Lee Anne Dixon. org/documents/ITDP_US_Parking_Report.pdf
Urban Houston Framework | 57 Existing Polices and Programs
Parking
In reviewing existing policies in light of Parking space requirements for all non- Only City Council has the authority to varying hurdles generally affecting park- residential uses are calculated based designate a PBD. Revenues gener- ing in Houston, the following documents upon the “parking factor”, or unique ated through parking meters are used were determined to be most applicable quality, for each use classification. to offset the City’s administrative costs to Urban Centers. These include, but are Examples of parking factors include and financial contributions to signage, not limited to, the following: gross floor area, usable floor area and enforcement, debt service, installation, the number of dwelling units, employees, operation and maintenance of parking • Code of Ordinances Chapter 26: sleeping rooms, storage units or bays, meters. Revenues in excess of $250,000 Off-Street Parking; or occupants, depending on the specific go to projects recommended by an • Code of Ordinances Chapter 26: use classification being considered. advisory committee or deposited into Article XI - Parking Benefit Districts; the City’s parking management special and Shared parking requirements are also revenue fund. Revenue generated from • Code of Ordinances Chapter 26: addressed in that a parcel of land can a PBD may be used in conjunction with Article VIII - Special Parking Areas. be eligible for a shared parking credit other public or private funds. Currently, schedule if it contains mixed-use there is only one PBD in Houston - the Code of Ordinances Chapter 26: development. Single family residential Washington Avenue Corridor Parking Off-Street Parking prohibits construc- uses are not eligible for a shared parking Benefit District (bounded by Houston tion of development or redevelopment adjustment. Avenue, Center Boulevard, Lillian Street/ projects unless off-street parking facili- Decatur Street and Westcott Street). ties are provided. Residential parking Within Code of Ordinances Chapter is calculated per single-family dwelling 26: Parking Article XI a Parking Benefit Code of Ordinances Chapter 26: unit, multi-family dwelling unit, bedroom, District (PBD) is defined as a geographic Parking Article VIII also establishes sleeping room, or beds (depending on area in the city (typically in the Central Special Parking Areas (SPA) in which type of residential facility). Business District or along major com- specialized off-site parking requirements mercial or transit corridors) in which apply. Unlike a City operated PBD, an revenue generated from parking facilities SPA is maintained by a management en- is used to fund improvements. tity that must submit a parking manage- ment plan to the Planning Commission every two years to remain designated. The City maintains a website that lists all SPA’s and their approved parking man- agement plans. Currently the Central Business District, Texas Medical Center and Uptown are the only areas in the city with an SPA. Urban Houston Framework | 58 Existing Polices and Programs
Parking
Challenges and Opportunities Moreover, residential parking spaces in As Urban Centers move towards achiev- While having parking is pivotal to pro- many areas go unoccupied during the ing goals for multi-modal transportation, moting multimodal transportation, the daytime while residents are at work, opportunities for continued dialogue funding required to meet parking require- so the benefits of providing the parking with the development community about ments sometimes pose challenges to facilities could be greater if shared with optimal parking arrangements for mixed- development efforts. In attempting to nearby retail or commercial uses. Re- use infill projects in Large, Medium and guarantee parking for tenants and their cent amendments to Code of Ordinanc- Small Urban Centers should be pursued. guests, many residential projects tend to es Chapter 26: Parking Article VIII7, Although many of these challenges “err on the side of caution” and go above however, ensure that Urban Centers will are addressed in recent amendments and beyond current parking require- help address these challenges in the to Code of Ordinances Chapter 26,8 ments to “over park” projects. future. parking regulations in Urban Centers should strive to strike a balance between While this may seem to be a positive Stakeholder feedback suggests that ensuring parking is available for daytime trend, it can increase the construction balanced parking regulations will be key and nighttime users of a place. cost of a project which decreases the to creating places in which people will affordability of residential units. In other want to live/work/play. This will lay the cases, high-levels of parking accom- groundwork for land developers and modation have reduced the overall housing interests to be able to supply profitability of redevelopment in an area, facilities that meet parking demands undermining community revitalization but does not overly burden smaller land efforts. parcels that oftentimes have more dif- ficulty in successfully funding profitable projects.
7 City of Houston. (2013, March 6). Houston, Texas, Code 8 City of Houston. (2013, March 6). Houston, Texas, Code of Ordinances Chapter 26 - Parking, Article VIII - Off-Street of Ordinances Chapter 26 - Parking, Article VIII - Off-Street Parking aned Loading, Division 2 Requirements for Parking Parking and Loading, Division 2 Requirements for Parking Spaces, Amended Version. Retrieved May 22, 2013, from Spaces, Amended Version. Retrieved May 22, 2013, from municode: http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level3/ municode: http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level3/ COOR_CH26PA_ARTVIIIOREPALO.html#TOPTITLE COOR_CH26PA_ARTVIIIOREPALO.html#TOPTITLE
Urban Houston Framework | 59 Peer Review
In addition to exploring Existing Charac- Examples of sources reviewed include Process Findings Goal Findings teristics, polices and programs related Miami-Dade County, Florida’s Standard to Urban Centers in Houston, a peer Urban Centers District Regulations The comprehensive planning process, Several reoccurring themes emerged review of other cities’ Urban Center (2012) and the Puget Sound Regional which is required by state law to guide among peer reviewed visions and asso- plans, documents, policies, processes Council’s Regional Centers policy decision-making about built and natu- ciated goals. The most commonly noted and programs was conducted to inform (2002). Findings highlight what other ral environments, was the most com- goal adhered to increased density within the this Study. areas have done to successfully encour- monly used process by municipalities strategic locations of a greater region or age Urban Centers and also explore and regional councils reviewed for area. Cluster, or the compilation of mul- Peer reviews focus on areas comparable potential criteria, expectations and tools the purposes of this Study. During the tiple nodes, was especially important for to Houston in size, population and/or that might be applicable to Houston. comprehensive planning (or compre- areas of employment in terms of acces- overall regional context (such as having This overview highlights these general hensive plan review/update process), sibility via transit. Other goals identified an economy dependent upon industrial/ findings, however, a more detailed list many jurisdictions engaged in dialogue included the following: manufacturing located near a major of findings and related sources are in- with citizens about Urban Centers and waterway port). Publications from the cluded in Appendix B: Peer Review. formulated both the criteria and adminis- • Encouragement of affordable, subsi- following areas were reviewed during trative processes for designating Urban dized housing; this Study: Centers. • Stimulation of job growth; • Support or creation of multimodal • Pinal County, Arizona; Stakeholder engagement, transpar- transit; • Puget Sound, Washington; ency and dialogue were key to all peer • Encouragement of sustainability • Tysons Corner, Virginia; reviewed sources. Municipalities, often through urban design; • Western Australia Region; working with many inter-jurisdictional • Support of historic preservation; • Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Area; planning groups, relied heavily on in- • Linkage of parks and open spaces; • Broward County, Florida; teractive public engagement to develop and • Alexandria, Virginia; criteria for identifying and designating • Increase of livable, family-friendly • Bloomington, Indiana; Urban Centers. The shapes and sizes environments. • Hillsborough County, Florida; of Urban Centers varied tremendously • Kirkland, Washington; throughout peer reviewed sources. • Miami-Dade County, Florida; • State of Michigan; • Kings County, New York; • San Francisco, California; and • Montgomery County, Maryland.
Urban Houston Framework | 60 Peer Review
Challenges Findings Criteria Findings Overall Outcomes of Established Polices/ Many areas are grappling with popula- The following baseline Criteria are com- Programs tion growth and infrastructure challenges monly used in other cities of the nation very similar to Houston. Sources peer to verify the location of Urban Centers In addition to Criteria and Tools for reviewed suggest that cities are tailor- and to establish boundaries thereof: encouraging Urban Centers, often- ing Center policies to address issues, times design guidelines were needed to including but not limited to the following: • Land area (in acres); strategically guide the creation of built • Population or population per gross environments that were more consistent • Protection of neighborhood char- acre; with community goals. All cities and acter; • Employment or employment per regions have met or exceeded goals for • Prevention of large, pedestrian gross acre; economic growth, new development, unfriendly super-block land develop- • Housing units or employees per redevelopment, connectivity and hous- ment patterns; housing unit; and ing - although many had to amend their • Mitigation of environmentally dam- • Land use. original Urban Center policies following aging “leapfrog “development; adoption to guarantee this success. • Reduction of vitality in aging com- Generally, Criteria for Urban Centers in mercial and residential areas; and peer cities was expanded upon to es- • General lack of multimodal transit tablish differing levels, or sizes of Urban connectivity. Centers based on:
• Types of existing land uses - such as office, civic/educational, medical, commercial or residential; • Overall capacity for growth - such as housing, transportation, stormwater and utilities infrastruc- ture; • Function - i.e. local destination versus national or international destination; and • Intensity/Density - low levels of den- sity, mixed uses and transit versus high levels of density, mixed uses and transit.
Urban Houston Framework | 61 This page intentionally left blank. 3 URBAN CENTER PATTERN BOOK
Urban Houston Framework | 63 Chapter Introduction
Previous chapters of this Study Framework Goals Characteristics examined existing Characteristics, policies and programs relevant to Urban A Framework is an outline or blueprint Goals are defined as ideal results that Characteristics are measurements Centers to pinpoint challenges and of a general concept or idea. It’s intent the City, Stakeholder Advisory Com- established through SAC, focus group opportunities for encouraging better is to not only highlight the general vision mittee (SAC), focus groups and citizens and citizen input used to validate Large, development practices in Houston. and goals of a project (see Purpose desire to achieve through the establish- Medium or Small Center eligibility as vet- chapter), but also indicate the various ment of well-planned, well-designed ted through peer review. These may also In an effort to start addressing these components of an idea that must be Urban Centers. These overarching goals function as a mechanism by which loca- challenges and opportunities, the fully enhanced and executed for the final will guide how Criteria and Expectations tions and boundaries for Urban Centers following provides a summary of key desired result. for Centers are determined. Simply put, could be established. Generally, Urban definitions and discussions as presented these are ideals that all Urban Centers Centers have higher measurements than by this Framework. The intent of this Frameworks, however, are not intended should strive for (i.e. encourage eco- the rest of the city on average for several chapter is to build upon previous findings to be constant and should alter nomic viability and diversity, enhance categories such as density, intensity of to create a concise “pattern book” that throughout the developmental process community stability). For the full list of use, diversity of use and connectivity. conveys how the physical form of built as the general concept continues to Goals, refer to Purpose. Examples include jobs/housing ratio, environments can help to overcome mature at all phases of development - average commercial/office floor-to-area various “gaps” in sustainability to including reevaluation of the Framework ratio, land use diversity index and aver- achieve Urban Center goals identified by years after implementation. Framework age block size. stakeholders. components for this Study include:
• Goals/Characteristics; • Criteria; • Tools; • Expectations; and • Process.
Definitions, as they pertain to this Study, are provided in this chapter.
Urban Houston Framework | 64 Definitions
Toolbox Expectations Process Pilot Projects
A Toolbox includes incentives offered by Expectations are standards for higher Process is the overall methodology, Pilot Projects are defined as three real- the City to encourage more sustainable quality, urban development that an ap- eligibility criteria and regulatory tools/in- life case studies in Houston that will be development practices that fall into two plicant proposing a project (new con- centives for encouraging Urban Centers used to evaluate the preferred Process, categories: Universal Improvement Tools struction, infill or otherwise) must meet in Houston. The Process determines eligibility Criteria and regulatory Tools and Developer Incentives. Universal in order to gain access to Developer how boundaries are established, who identified through SAC and citizen input. Improvement Tools, are those that im- Incentives provided by the Framework. initiates the application and designation Findings from these pilot projects will be prove services within Urban Centers that Expectations require all applicants to Process, and how long Urban Center used to guide policy revisions, decision benefit the area as a whole. Universal adhere to various design standards, designations are valid. The preferred making and implementation of Urban Improvement Tools are coordinated performance levels and construction Process identified during Urban Hous- Centers throughout the future. Pilot Proj- through various agencies to encourage best practices before receiving build- ton Framework meetings and work- ect sites selected by the City include: higher quality, urban development. For ing development or other City permits. shops must gain approval by the City of example, additional transit services or An example of an Expectation in the Houston legal department and adhere • OST/Griggs and Cullen Streets in prioritizing funds towards improvements Toolbox is a building’s doors may never to all existing citywide policies to date. southeast Houston/Third Ward; in an Urban Center are efforts requiring swing into the pedestrian realm (Transit A detailed exploration of all processes • Montrose and Westheimer area; both municipal and other organizations Corridor Ordinance1). A detailed matrix explored during this Study may be found and to work together to improve services of all the Universal Improvement Tools, in Appendix C: Process. • Westchase District. over time. These efforts are often done Developer Incentives and Expectations with the expectation that development explored during this Study is available in Detailed Pilot Project analyses are avail- practices will align with improved ser- Appendix E: Toolbox. able in Appendix F: Pilot Projects. vices by creating denser, more pedes- trian-friendly environments. However, the benefits of Universal Improvement Tools apply to all development projects in an area, regardless of development practices.
Developer Incentives are available to individuals meeting Criteria to develop in a character that is more in line with the goals of Urban Centers. Developer Incentives may vary by Urban Center, but all are intended to reduce the time, 1 City of Houston. (n.d.). Houston, Texas, Code of Ordinanc- financial risk and resources expended es Chapter 42 - Subdivisions, Developments and Platting by developers building in alignment with Article IV Transit Corridor Development. Retrieved 2012, from municode: http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/ the Goals of the Framework. level3/COOR_CH42SUDEPL_ARTIVTRCODE.html Urban Houston Framework | 65 Narrowing Possibilities
Beginning with the research outlined Characteristics Expectations Criteria in the Existing Conditions Assessment chapter of this Study, Urban Center Feedback received from public out- The following represent measures of The following characteristics were Characteristics were further explored reach efforts also helped to define an characteristics that indicate what a cited as aspects that all Urban Centers and vetted through the public participa- assortment of characteristics for Urban Center should achieve. It is acknowl- should have in order to meet stakehold- tion process. As discussed in subse- Centers in Houston. After brainstorming edged that through adjustments to ers’ vision and goals for dense, vibrant quent pages, Center Characteristics are dozens of characteristics, the follow- services offered by various agencies Centers. comprised of two potential categories. ing were cited as aspects that all Urban in the Center or by using incentives to These include: Centers should have in order to meet encourage better development practices 1. Residential density (dwelling units) stakeholders’ Vision and Goals. in the Urban Centers, these measures of 2. Vacant land (%) 1. Expectations - or what is expect- character can be improved from baseline 3. Improvement to land value ratio ed to be developed in a Center 1. Housing character and diversity conditions. 4. Management District, TIRZ that may be currently lacking or 2. Infill/redevelopment potential 5. Area of center in acres absent - and; 3. Funding mechanism or manage- 1. Residential density 6. Job density 2. Criteria - those characteristics ment entity 2. Housing type/cost/starts 7. Population density expected (to some degree) within 4. Land use diversity 3. Vacant land (%) 8. Amenity density all Urban Centers. 5. High population & employment 4. Improvement to land value ratio 9. National/regional destinations density 5. Management District, TIRZ 10. Access to freeways, thoroughfares The following outlines the overall ap- 6. Access to amenities, attractions and 6. Average FAR, land use diversity 11. Type of transit, transit facilities proach used to define such a matrix destinations 7. Impervious/pervious cover during the Urban Houston Framework 7. Bike/pedestrian accessibility 8. Parks and open space Study. 8. Access to streets & freeways 9. Job density 9. High quality transit 10. Population density 11. Amenity density/diversity 12. National/regional destinations 13. Bikeway density, trail density 14. Sidewalk accessibility 15. Intersection density, street density 16. Streets/freeways/thoroughfare ac- cess 17. Type of transit, transit facilities 18. Transit frequency and connectivity
Urban Houston Framework | 66 Narrowing Possibilities
Figure 13: Potential Goals, Characteristics, Expectations and Criteria
Urban Houston Framework | 67 General Findings
Throughout the Urban Center Framework process, stakeholders, focus group members and interested citizenry shared ideas regarding their desired characteristics for Ur- ban Centers. The diagrams below indicate those items that were identified as key characteristics from community workshops and online polls. The results of the first Online Poll revealed the most important challenges facing tomorrow’s Urban Centers.
As challenges were identified for each Urban Center size (Large, Medium and Small) several challenges emerged as major concerns for all Urban Centers. These included: 1) lack of funding to maintain existing infrastructure, 2) poor pedestrian infrastructure, 3) lack of policies and funding to increase safety, and 4) lack of connectivity between nodes. The following pages expand on the general functions and definitions established by stakeholders to explore how the physical environments of Centers should help to further regional sustainability goals.
Large Centers Medium Centers Small Centers
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 5 5 6 7 6 6 7 6 7 8 7 8 9 8 8 9 9 10 9 10 10 10 Most Important Most Important Most Important
Most Challenging Most Challenging Most Challenging
1. Planning/fiscal support for transit 1. Planning/fiscal support for transit 1. Multimodal transportation (bike) 2. Quality of life 2. Policies requiring developers to 2. Connectivity between nodes 3. Multimodal transportation (rail) bear cost of infrastructure (rail) 3. Funding for education 4. Pedestrian infrastructure 3. Multimodal transportation (rail) 4. Funding to maintain infrastruc- 5. Funding to maintain infrastructure 4. Connectivity between nodes ture 6. Policies requiring developers to 5. Policies requiring developers to 5. Poor bicycle infrastructure bear cost of infrastructure (rail) bear cost of infrastructure (bike) 6. Poor pedestrian infrastructure 7. Connectivity between nodes 6. Funding to maintain infrastructure 7. Ability to change policies with 8. Policies/funding to increase safety 7. Bicycle infrastructure the Independent School District 9. Funding for education 8. Pedestrian infrastructure 8. Policies/funding to increase 10. Ability to change policies with the 9. Policies/funding to increase safety safety Independent School District 10. Lack of skilled and trained workforce 9. Funding park programming and maintenance 10. Poor sidewalk maintenance
Urban Houston Framework | 68 Center Descriptions
Stakeholders were adamant that “one Large Centers Medium Centers Small Centers size does not fit all” when it comes to Houston’s Urban Centers. They felt that Large Centers have higher housing Medium Centers have more cultural Small Centers cater to community needs Centers differed by their size, audience and employment densities than other activities, recreational amenities, hous- and may have low- to mid-rise buildings. (who is drawn to the Center), mix of areas in the city along with more intense ing options, transportation choices and Although there is a mix of uses, they do land uses, density, accessibility, and cultural activities and recreational employment opportunities than other not typically have high housing and em- community character. Through the amenities. People arrive via train, bus, areas in the city and Small Centers. ployment densities. Instead, they provide Urban Houston Framework process, bike, car or taxi and are able to walk to People arrive via bus, bike, car or taxi amenities, services, opportunities and the following Center descriptions were destinations. Large Centers cater to re- and are able to walk longer to destina- activities fitting for the neighborhoods molded in an attempt to capture these gional, national and international needs tions through systems of good connec- they support and contribute to economic subtle differences. and consist of tall buildings and a street tivity. Medium Centers draw citywide vitality by attracting and retaining small grid that encourages pedestrian activity, users and have a mix of mid- to high-rise businesses. A minimal amount of transit Following, each characteristic of a multi-use retail opportunities and public buildings. They enhance community exists in the form of local routes con- Center is described comparing the transit usage. These Centers enhance stability by providing varied access to necting to destination routes. Small Cen- generalized current conditions with the community stability by offering services goods, services, schools and public ters support multimodal transportation generalized planned conditions. These such as educational programs, post spaces. The types of parks in Centers by being a place in which people arrive provide a compass point with which to offices, police and fire stations and civic may vary, but Medium Centers conserve via foot, bicycle, car or bus and are able navigate toward full implementation of amenities such as museums, perform- environmental resources and have a to bike or walk short distances to desti- the program. ing arts venues and public parks. The network of parks and/or open spaces nations. The types of parks in Centers types of parks in Centers may vary, but connected by high-quality infrastructure may vary, but Small Centers conserve Large Centers conserve environmental and urban design. environmental resources and have a resources and have a network of parks network of parks and/or open spaces and/or open spaces connected by high- connected by high-quality infrastructure quality infrastructure and urban design. and urban design.
Central BusinessTexas District Medical CenterGreater Uptown Midtown Westchase Fourth Ward Energy Corridor Third Ward Rice Village City Centre/Memorial CityGreater East End Greater GreenspointPalm Center
Large Centers Medium Centers Small Centers
Figure 14: Small, Medium and Large Centers cited by Values Workshop participants Urban Houston Framework | 69 General Character
Large Medium Small
Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Seagler Road & Meadowglen Lane, Houston Photo Credit: Petersgroup Consulting | University Boulevard & Morningside, Houston Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Calhoun Street, Houston
Today, the Large Center is national and international Today, the Medium Center is a citywide destination. Today, the Small Center is a neighborhood destination destination within the city. Development may be com- Development patterns may be compact or auto-orient- containing goods and services needed by local resi- pact, however land use patterns typically tend to be ed. The Medium Center is typically 200 - 500 acres in dents daily. Development patterns are auto-oriented. auto-oriented. Land area comprising the Large Cen- size*. It may be characterized by regular, geometrically The Center is typically less than 200 acres* of land in ter is 500 acres or greater* characterized by boundar- shaped boundaries or may exist in the form of a linear, size and characterized by boundaries that are fairly ies that are fairly regular and geometrical in shape corridor-like environment (similar to the high density geometrical or linear in shape. There are infill and (i.e. circular, rectangular or triangular). There may be corridors of Washington or Westheimer Avenue). There redevelopment opportunities as evidenced by vacant or infill and redevelopment opportunities as evidenced are infill and redevelopment opportunities as evidenced underutilized parcels. by vacant or underutilized parcels. by vacant or underutilized parcels.
In the future, the Large Center is a national and inter- In the future, the Medium Center is a citywide destina- In the future, the Small Center is a neighborhood national destination within the city. Due to the number tion. Due to the number of people present in the Center destination containing services and retail opportunities of people present at various times of the day/night, at various times of the day/night, development patterns needed daily. Development patterns are more compact walkability of the Large Center is compact and pedes- are more compact and walkability is better than in other and walkability is better than in other areas in the city. trian-oriented. The Large Center is typically greater areas in the city. The land area of the Medium Center is The Small Center is typically less than 300 acres* in than 700 acres*. typically between 300 and 700 acres*. size.
Photo Credit: City of Houston | Buffalo Bayou Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Baldwin & Gray Street, Houston Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Note: Acreages were derived first, by looking at peer reviewed sources (specifically Puget Sound Regional Centers) and then by comparing acreages to known Urban Centers in Houston (such as the Central Business District) and picking a range for each Urban Center size based on existing conditions and the current Houston, Texas, Code of Ordinances Chapter 42 - Subdivisions, Developments and Platting Sec. 42-274. - Major Activity Center (MAC) designation in which designation is applicable to areas comprised of at least 400 acres of land. All acreages in this Study are subject to change based on future analysis. Urban Houston Framework | 70 Density
Large Medium Small
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Petersgroup Consulting | Montgomery Street, Houston
Today, the combined densities of population, jobs Today, the combined densities of population, jobs and Today, the combined densities of population, jobs and and visitors (such as tourists, shoppers, teachers, visitors (such as shoppers, students and profession- visitors (such as shoppers and students) creates activ- students, medical professionals and patients) creates als) creates activity levels essential to the character of ity levels essential to the character of a Small Center. activity levels essential to the character of the Large a Medium Center. These densities only support public These densities only support transit options such as Center. These densities support public transportation transportation options such as express or local bus local bus service in the Small Center. options such as light rail and express bus service in service in the Medium Center. the Central Business District and the Texas Medical Center.
In the future, the combined densities of population, In the future, the combined densities of population, In the future, the combined densities of population, jobs and visitors creates activity levels essential to jobs and visitors (such as shoppers, students and jobs and visitors (such as shoppers and students) cre- a Large Center. Densities should grow to support professionals) creates activity levels essential to the ates activity levels essential to the character of a Small increased public transportation options such as com- character of a Medium Center. These densities should Center. These densities should grow to support transit muter rail, light rail, streetcars or express bus service. grow to support public transportation options such as options such as streetcars, express bus service or light rail, streetcars or express bus service. enhanced local bus service.
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Portland Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Portland
Urban Houston Framework | 71 Land Use Diversity
Large Medium Small
Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Tranquility Park, Houston Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Petersgroup Consulting | Rice Village, Houston
Today, the Large Center has a horizontal and vertical Today, the Medium Center has a horizontal and verti- Today, the Small Center has a horizontal mixture of mix of uses. Due to the Center’s function as a na- cal mix of uses. Due to the Center’s function as a city- uses. Due to the Center’s function as a neighborhood tional and international destination, land uses typically wide destination, land uses typically include mid-rise destination, land uses typically include low-scale multi- include high-rise multi-family residential, large office, multi-family residential, office, retail, health care and family residential, townhomes, small retail, and educa- retail, health care and educational or cultural facilities. educational or cultural facilities. The presence of parks tional and cultural facilities. The presence of parks is The presence of parks is inconsistent. is inconsistent among Medium Centers. inconsistent among Small Centers.
In the future, the Large Center has a horizontal and In the future, the Medium Center has a horizontal and In the future, the Small Center has a horizontal mix- vertical mix of uses that are accessible by all forms of vertical mix of uses that are accessible by multimodal ture of uses that are accessible by walking or biking. As multimodal transit. As a national and international des- transit. As a citywide destination, land uses typically a neighborhood destination, land uses typically include tination, land uses include high-rise residential, large include mid-rise multi-family residential, office, retail, low-scale multi-family residential, townhomes, small re- office, retail, health care and educational or cultural health care and educational or cultural facilities. A hier- tail, and educational and cultural facilities. A hierarchy facilities. A hierarchy of parks is present, but there is archy of parks are present, but there is typically at least of parks are present, but there is typically at least one typically at least one regional park or open space area one community park or open space area connected to neighborhood park or open space area connected to a connected to a larger network of open space with trails. a larger network of open space with trails. larger network of open space.
Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Riverfront Park, Denver Photo Credit: Design Workshop | The Woodlands, Houston Photo Credit: Petersgroup Consulting | City Centre, Houston
Urban Houston Framework | 72 Transit Quality
Large Medium Small
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Montrose Boulevard & Westheimer Avenue, Houston
Today, light rail, express and local bus services are Today, light rail, express and local bus services are Today, express bus, local bus and METROLift services present in select Large Centers. The frequency of present in the Medium Center. The frequency of bus are present in Small Centers, however, the frequency bus stops and service is fairly often, especially in the stops and service is often. Light rail, however, is limited of bus stops and service varies. Hours of operation for Texas Medical Center (TMC) and the Central Busi- to the CBD, TMC, Midtown and the Museum District. local bus services are available most days of the week ness District (CBD). Light rail is limited to the CBD The quality and user friendliness of bus stops varies, but METROLift has limited hours. The existence and and TMC. Light rail operates seven days a week and but current METRORail expansions are underway that quality of the stops varies and may act as a barrier for the quality and user-friendliness of rail stops is high. will increase trail services in Medium Centers. people considering alternative modes of transit.
In the future, the Large Center is served by light rail, In the future, light rail, express and local bus services In the future, express bus, local bus and METROLift express bus and local bus services. The frequency of are present in the Medium Center. The frequency of services are present or in very close proximity to Small bus stops and service is often. Light rail connects mul- bus stops and service for is often. Light rail is ac- Centers. The frequency of bus stops and service is tiple Large Centers and runs seven days a week. The cessible to multiple Medium Centers via multimodal consistent and predictable, which encourages people quality and user-friendliness of all rail and bus stops is transportation seven days a week. The quality and user to take alternative modes of transit. Hours of operation very high. friendliness of stops is consistent and makes public for local bus services run most days of the week and transit an attractive option to residents and visitors of stops are of very high quality. the Medium Center.
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Uptown Houston, Texas
Urban Houston Framework | 73 Housing Mix
All Centers
Today, some Centers include a variety of housing. High-rise multi-family residential units typically locate in Large Centers and are very expensive. Mid-rise townhome units tend to locate in Medium Centers. Today, Small Centers include few, if any, housing types other than single-family residential units or low density apartments and there are very few housing starts (new construction of residential units). The cost of a residential unit in a Large, Medium or Small Center varies based on the land/property values of Photo Credit: Design Workshop Photo Credit: Design Workshop Photo Credit: Design Workshop surrounding neighborhoods. Depending on the age of the Center and the amount of vacant or under utilized land, there may be new or existing units being bought and sold in the marketplace. Today, people spend hundreds of dollars a month on fuel commuting to jobs, adding to congestion and pollution. Urban Centers could be more beneficial if they were more able to house a portion of the “diverse” (income) workforce.
In the future, all Centers include a variety of hous- ing. Large Centers include high-rise multi-family resi- dential units to mid-rise residential units. While many of these units are very expensive, a percent of them are subsidized to provide affordable options near transit Photo Credit: Design Workshop Photo Credit: Design Workshop Photo Credit: Design Workshop opportunities for the workforce of an area. Medium Centers include a range of mid-rise multi-family resi- dential units to townhome units available at a variety of price points. Small Centers include a variety of hous- ing types ranging from mid-rise multi-family residential units to caretaker and accessory dwelling units. A variety of price points that make units affordable to the workforce in Small Centers are offered, also. Depend- ing on the age of the Center and the amount of vacant or under utilized land, there may be new or existing units consistently bought and sold. All Centers have housing mixes and typologies built to the street edge that help to form continuous, dense, pedestrian-orient- ed, live/work/play environments. Photo Credit: Design Workshop Photo Credit: Design Workshop Photo Credit: Design Workshop Urban Houston Framework | 74 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility
All Centers
Today, all Centers have uneven qualities of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that rarely allows people to travel throughout a Center or connect to other Centers without using a personal automobile. Where bikeways, trails and sidewalks do exist, they are rarely accessible to a variety of users - commuters, people exercising for fitness, people strolling and individuals with disabilities.
In the future, all Centers have a hierarchy of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that allows people to travel throughout a Center as well as connect to other Centers without using a personal automobile. Bikeways, trails and sidewalks are key elements of this network. Centers must be accessible to a variety of users - commuters, people exercising for fitness, people strolling and individuals with disabilities. Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority Photo Credit: Design Workshop Urban Houston Framework | 75 Access to Amenities
All Centers
Today, the diversity and density of amenities vary and Urban Centers tend to be focused narrowly on one type of user - resident, worker, shopper, visitor, student or patient. Large Centers cater to local, regional, national and international audiences that visit the Center. Attractions include cultural amenities such as universities and museums. Medium Centers cater to local and regional audiences and include citywide destinations such as festivals and theaters. Small Centers cater only to local audiences and are usually home to local serving amenities such as post offices, libraries, health care facilities and schools, although these may also be found in Large and Medium Centers.
In the future, the diversity and density of amenities vary in each Urban Center would grow Photo Credit: City of Houston Photo Credit: Design Workshop | Cherry Creek North, Denver to accommodate a variety of users. Large Centers cater to local, regional, national and international audiences that visit and include destination cultural amenities like universities, museums, convention centers, public plazas and arts districts. Medium Centers cater to local and regional audiences and include citywide destination amenities such as farmers markets, festivals and theaters. Small Centers cater to local audiences. All Centers anchor increasing densities of local serving amenities such as post offices, libraries, health care facilities and schools.
Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Photo Credit: Midtown Redevelopment Authority | Midtown, Houston Urban Houston Framework | 76 Street Hierarchy and Connectivity
All Centers Large Block Sizes, Lower Connectivity and Density Today, streets in all Urban Centers provide for safe, direct, and convenient access by automobile, but the quality of the experience for bicycles and pedestrian users is uneven. Blocks are often large and act as barriers to travel through the Center. Large Centers have direct access to freeways and thoroughfares. Medium Centers have direct access to thoroughfares and collectors. Small Centers have direct access to collectors and local roads. Despite access to roadways, all Centers suffer from uneven conditions or streets that occasionally create barriers to movement throughout a Center.
In the future, streets in all Centers form a well- connected network that provides for safe, direct, and convenient access by automobile, bicycle and pedestrian. Small blocks sizes and a well-connected street network accommodates increased travel choices, helps to disperse traffic, and encourages pedestrian and bicycle travel. Large Centers have Small Block Sizes, High Connectivity and Density direct access to freeways and thoroughfares. Medium Centers have direct access to thoroughfares and collectors while Small Centers have direct access to collectors and local roads. No Centers have block sizes or street patterns that hinder movement or accessibility by all modes of travel. Where direct access has been hindered by past development practices, alternative connections are provided to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle movement through easements, etc.
Urban Houston Framework | 77 Designing for Safety in Multimodal Environments
All Centers
Today, there is a lack of pedestrian connectivity across large blocks and parcels. This places barriers between neighborhoods and transit facilities, as well as limits retail opportunities. This challenge is present in all Urban Centers, but more common in Large and Medium Centers. This challenge is present in relatively “new” centers such as Westchase, established areas with large single users such as the Energy Corridor and Texas Medical Center, and established area like Midtown where streets have been abandoned.
In the future, parks and pedestrian access ways will provide activated passage for pedestrians throughout and between Urban Centers. Streets with pedestrian facilities or, at minimum, pedestrian access ways will be provided every 500 - 700 feet for Photo Credit: Design Workshop new development on large blocks.
Photo Credit: Kelly Porter Photo Credit: Design Workshop Urban Houston Framework | 78 Designing for Safety in Multimodal Environments
All Centers
Today, there is a lack of quality, pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented design in Large, Medium and Small Centers. Large Centers experience conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles where there are frequent parking garage access points and few, if any crosswalks. Medium Centers experience issues with on-site parking facilities creating “dead zones” with very little activity at the pedestrian level. Small Centers are faced with a multitude of small auto-oriented businesses like fast food establishments and drive through banks.
In the future, pedestrian and bicycle movement will be considered paramount (or at least on par) with vehicular movement. Vehicular access to sites will be minimized and strategically located to minimize Photo Credit: Jana Ellis pedestrian conflict. Buildings will be pushed to the lot line and the ground floor will be activated with retail and amenity areas. Parking will be provided both on-site at reduced levels and on the street with the intent of keep- Pedestrian-Friendly Multimodal Design Automobile Centric Design ing a strong edge to the street.
Photo Credit: DesignGoogle WorkshopEarth Photo Credit: DesignGoogle WorkshopEarth Urban Houston Framework | 79 This page intentionally left blank. 4 URBAN CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS
Urban Houston Framework | 81 Chapter Introduction
Feedback received from public outreach efforts helped to define a process by which Urban Center boundaries could be designated and through which inter- ested parties could voluntarily opt-in to Urban Houston Framework Toolbox. The City Initiated Process was the preferred option out of the following three alterna- tive scenarios that were voted on by stakeholders (see Appendix C: Pro- cess):
1. City Initiated Process; 2. Community Initiated Process; and 3. Applicant Initiated Process.
Figure 15: Recommended Process outlines the City Initiated Process in which Houston’s Planning & Develop- ment Department, Housing & Commu- nity Development Department, Public Works & Engineering Department, Parks & Recreation Department, and other partners identify areas meeting a series of thresholds required for Urban Center Criteria--such as job density, residential density, population density, number of transit facilities, etc.
Feedback received from public outreach efforts helped to define a process by which Urban Center boundaries could be designated and through which interested parties could voluntarily opt-in to Urban Houston Framework Toolbox.
Urban Houston Framework | 82 Process to Become and Urban Center
Areas meeting the Criteria would be It is important to note that the City Initi- assigned boundaries and the City would ated Process would include a voluntary 1 City Designation maintain a publicly accessible database opt-in process for anyone interested in City identifies and maps the locations and boundaries of that interested applicants could use to participating in better building practice potential Urban Centers. determine whether or not a land parcel Tools offered through the Urban Hous- is located within an Urban Center, and is ton Framework. This opt-in process therefore Toolbox eligible. would be very similar to the current 2 opt-in process for Transit Corridor Devel- Voluntary Designation To gain access to the Toolbox, an appli- opment participation today.1 For more A Voluntary Opt-in Process will always be available for any area seeking to become an Urban Center. This procedure would be very cant provides the City with development detail on how this voluntary opt-in appli- similar to the process for becoming a Special Parking Area that plans that incorporate at least some (but cation process would work, see Figure exists today. preferably all) of the Tools outlined by 15: Recommended Process. the Urban Houston Framework. 1 City of Houston. (n.d.). Houston, Texas, Code of Ordinanc- es Chapter 42 - Subdivisions, Developments and Platting Article IV Transit Corridor Development. Retrieved 2012, 3 Once the City has evaluated the ap- from municode: http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/ City maintains publicly accessible map that can be used to plicant’s development plans to verify level3/COOR_CH42SUDEPL_ARTIVTRCODE.html determine if a site is located in an Urban Center and Toolbox Toolbox eligibility, it would then provide eligible. the applicant with the Tools needed to complete the plans. The applicant then proceeds to conduct building practices 4 Once the new Urban Center is added, parties interested in that adhere to Toolbox expectations; accessing the Framework’s Toolbox opt-in to it. The procedure contributing to the implementation of for accessing the Toolbox would be very similar to the Transit more sustainable live/work/play environ- Corridor Development opt-in process that exists today. ments near transit. 5 Applicant provides the City with development plans incorporating some/all Tools and Expectations from the Toolbox.
6 City evaluates plans based on Toolbox and provides the applicable Tools. The applicant conducts building practices that adhere to Toolbox Expectations.
Figure 15: Recommended Process
Urban Houston Framework | 83 Criteria for Urban Centers
Towards a Framework Table 9: Recommended Framework for Criteria and Expectations GOAL CHARACTERISTIC EXAMPLES OF MEASURING CRITERIA EXPECTATION Table 9: Recommended Framework CHARACTERISTICS for Criteria and Expectations outlines Address local Housing Character, Residential Density (Dwelling Units) n n an approach for merging Urban Center and regional Diversity Housing Type n Goals and Characteristics identified by housing needs Housing Affordability/Housing Cost n stakeholders with available data. Char- Housing Choice and Mobility (Fair Housing Factor) n acteristics with a “dot” in the Criteria n column indicate items for which accu- Housing Starts (New Construction) rate, up-to-date, citywide data exists (or Mixed-Land Use (Housing and Localized Services) n is feasible to create or obtain) and could Contribute to Infill/ Redevelopment Vacant Land (%) n high- quality Potential therefore become a mandatory Criteria Improvement to Land Value Ratio n n infrastructure for all Centers. For example, population Significant Potential for Development/Redevelopment n density is freely and routinely available Encourage Funding Mechanism, Management District n n Management Entity through the U.S. Census Bureau. economic Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) n n viability and diversity Land Use Diversity Average Residential/Commercial/Office FAR n Characteristics having a “dot” in the Land Use Diversity Index n Expectation column, however, are items Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio n for which adequate data sources do not Area of Center in Acres n currently exist and for which creating Parks and Open Space n data may be unfeasible (due to funding challenges, lack of data, or both). For Enhance High Employment, Job Density n n Population Density community Population Density n n instance, a comprehensive, citywide stability, inventory of sidewalks does not exist. accessibility Access to Amenities, Amenity Density n n Attractions/Destinations Until a database can be built, it is recom- and equity Amenity Diversity n mended that sidewalks be an Expecta- National/Regional (vs. Local) Attractions/Destinations n n tion of the program and not a Criteria to Promote Bike/Pedestrian Bikeway Density n Accessibility qualify as a Center. sustainable, Trail Density n healthy design Sidewalk Accessibility n Other Characteristics are recommended Support Access to Streets, Intersection Density n as Expectations because it would be Freeways multimodal Street Density (Freeways, Thoroughfares, Streets) n n unrealistic to require them for all Centers transportation Access to Freeways n and because few places in Houston cur- and increased connectivity Access to Thoroughfares n rently meet the Expectation today. For High Quality Transit Type of Transit n n example, not all places have access to light rail, so that cannot be a Criteria. Type of Transit Facilities n n Transit Frequency and Connectivity n
Urban Houston Framework | 84 Criteria for Urban Centers
Three potential scenarios were explored Prerequisite Plus Optional Table 10: Criteria under Prerequisite plus Optional Example for requirements to be considered an Criteria Example Rationale LARGE CENTER MEDIUM CENTER SMALL CENTER Urban Center by the City of Houston. Jobs + Population Density 25 or more 12 to 25 Less than 12 These include the following: The intent of the Prerequisite plus Op- Funding Mechanism tional example is to provide the highest • Prerequisite Only; Infill/Redevelopment level of flexibility for designating areas Potential • Prerequisite plus Optional; and as Urban Centers; therefore, the only Plus meet Plus meet Plus meet Major Thoroughfares • Point System. required prerequisite Criteria is a com- thresholds of thresholds of thresholds of Amenities 6 - 8 Optional 6 - 8 Optional 4 - 6 Optional bined jobs + population density. Criteria Criteria Criteria Of the three scenarios explored (see Intersection Density Appendix D: Criteria), the Prerequi- This combined density has universal Bus Routes site plus Optional received the greatest application across all Center types; ac- Bikeways support from the SAC, Focus Groups, counting for centers both more residen- Note: All thresholds in this Study are subject to change based on future analysis. Further interested public and City staff, alike. tial or commercial in nature. Potential research will be needed to determine the number and combination of these “optional” Criteria. For this example, the only criteria considered a prerequisite is Jobs + Population thresholds are defined in Table 10: Cri- Density allowing for greatest flexibility and starting point for future consideration. This following scenario illustrates one teria under Prerequisite plus Optional example of how the Characteristics, Example and are reflective of analysis Criteria and Expectations - as illustrated conducted on areas as defined by the in Table 9: Recommended Framework SAC as potential Urban Center locations for Criteria and Expectations - may given today’s exiting conditions (seen in be incorporated for identifying Urban Table 11: Prerequisite plus Optional Centers. The accompanying analysis in- Example Analysis). cludes preliminary findings. Thresholds will need to be calibrated as current and Stakeholders cited jobs + population future Urban Centers are mapped. per acre density as one of the best indicators of Urban Center size. Under Challenges encountered during this the Prerequisite plus Optional example, analysis are also documented to better all Centers would be required to meet understand the potential incorporation of the baseline or prerequisite density future phases within the Framework for thresholds as well as a minimum number furthering research on precise, measur- of the following options - as defined by able thresholds for Small, Medium and Table 10: Criteria under Prerequisite Large Center Criteria. plus Optional Example.
Urban Houston Framework | 85 Criteria for Urban Centers
Funding Mechanism - All areas inter- Major Thoroughfare(s) - Access to major Amenities - Centers provide access to Food Amenities: Food Amenities include secting TIRZ or Management District roadways is important for the efficient a mixture of amenities within a comfort- farmers markets, grocery stores and boundaries can apply to become Urban movement of people and goods. The able 0.25 mile distance. The greater the super markets. The understanding is Centers or other as defined - and further threshold of a 0.25 mile distance from number of amenities nearby, the larger that Urban Centers provide access to a validated - by the City or applicant. a Major Thoroughfare was deemed the the center designation. For a definition of mixture of establishments providing raw best threshold for designating Urban facilities defined as amenities see Ame- produce and healthy food options. The Infill/Redevelopment Potential Ratio - Centers as this threshold is used in City nity Density in the Existing Conditions greater the number of food amenities in Infill redevelopment is an important part of Houston, Texas Ordinance No. 2009- Assessment chapter. Future analysis each census block, the larger the Urban of community revitalization that can be 762 and represents reasonable access should incorporate the consideration of Center designation. used to provide more opportunities for to the Center from the Major Thorough- barriers - such as bayous, highways or residents to age-in-place in the face of fare for vehicles. other obstacles to pedestrian passage. Note: After several iterations of continued population growth. This mea- analyses, it was found that the 0.25 mile distance threshold to food amenities sures the acreage of vacant, undevel- Note: There is a great need (and great disqualified many Centers identified by oped or underdeveloped land available potential) for continued research on stakeholders. Therefore, the threshold access to amenities and access to at- for future development. It is expressed in was expanded to a 0.50 mile distance. tractions/destinations as Urban Centers a ratio of improved value to actual land begin to develop and densify throughout value by census block. the city. For example, there are many remaining questions that future analyses will need to better assess. These include, If the ratio is less than or equal to one, but are not limited to, the following: the parcel offers an opportunity for development or redevelopment.1 Ratios • How can we better define, catego- rize and locate amenity types? lower than two indicate areas less likely • Are there differing amenity types to redevelop through infill development. that could/should be prioritized or In the Prerequisite plus Optional analy- more heavily valued based on Cen- ter size, function, location, etc? sis, all areas having a ratio greater than • Is there an optimally sustainable one qualify to be designated as Urban combination of amenities for creat- Centers. ing vibrant live/work/play Centers? • What network barriers must be overcome to guarantee equitable Note: The ratios for this Criteria are pre- access to amenities - such as Bay- liminary findings. Thresholds provided ous, large “super block” develop- in this Study will need to be calibrated ments, disjointed sidewalks, etc? as current and future Urban Centers are identified and mapped. Future analysis The Urban Houston Framework Exist- should also incorporate the consid- ing Conditions Assessment does not eration of barriers - such as bayous, explicitly address the interplay between highways or other obstacles to pedes- multimodal connections and Center ame- trian passage - within a 0.25 - 0.50 mile nities, so future research in this regard is pedestrian shed. highly recommended.
1 City of Austin & AngelouEconomics Urban Houston Framework | 86 Criteria for Urban Centers
Intersection Density - Safe, comfortable Transit Stop(s): Access to transit is also Bikeways: All centers should provide walking environments are key to the important for the movement of people. access to bikeways. The threshold 0.50 success of Urban Centers. Intersec- All Centers should provide access to bus mile distance is used in this analysis. tion density is defined as the frequency and/or light rail stops within a comfort- This distance is considered adequate for of intersections per acre. In order to able 0.25 mile distance. This distance people on bicycles to access the major maximize the potential of this Criteria, represents a comfortable five minute bicycle routes through the city. the Houston-Galveston Area Council’s walking distance. StarMap - which includes all local roads An overview of recommendations for along with minor arterials, major arteri- Note: It is assumed that most transit how these Optional Criteria could work als, freeways and tollways - was used for riders in Centers will walk from their to designate Urban Centers is provided home or place of employment to access determining intersection density. in Table 10: Criteria under Prerequi- METRO bus stops. While the number of bus stops is also an important factor, site plus Optional Example. It is im- A density of 0.39 intersections per acre it was determined that access to bus portant to note that this is only intended or greater is cited by the Journal of the routes and the location of transit stops to serve as one example of potential were better measures of the goals ex- American Planning Association as the pressed by the Urban Houston Frame- Criteria that would have to be further universal indicator of pedestrian friendly, work’s stakeholders. explored. The more detailed findings walkable environments.2 Initial analy- of this analysis are seen in Table 11: Oftentimes the number of transit stops sis for this optional Criteria used 0.39 in an area does not necessarily mean Prerequisite plus Optional Example intersections per acre as the minimum equitable access to transit routes. Analysis and Figure 16: Prerequisite threshold for qualifying as a Center. Stakeholder dialogue also revealed that plus Optional Example. equitable access to transit stops also requires the presence of high quality, Note: Multiple iterations of analysis ADA accessible ramps and continuous, revealed that the 0.39 intersections per unobstructed sidewalks. This is a future acre threshold is too high for Houston. consideration that should be addressed The reasoning behind this determination throughout later phases of dialogue and was that the Central Business District, research. Texas Medical Center and Greater Uptown areas (the most walkable envi- ronments cited by stakeholders), could not qualify as Large Centers until the threshold was lowered to 0.20 intersec- tions per acre. Thus, in future phases, the threshold of 0.20 intersections per acre or greater is recommended.
2 Ewing, R., & Cerver, R. (2010, May 11). Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the Ameri- can Planning Association, 76(3), 31.
Urban Houston Framework | 87 Criteria for Urban Centers
Table 11: Prerequisite plus Optional Example Analysis Note: All thresholds in this Study are subject to change based on future analysis. Further research will be needed to determine the number and combination of these “optional” Criteria. For this example, the only Criteria considered a prerequisite is Jobs + Population Density allowing for greatest flexibility and starting point for future consideration.
Optional Name Boundary Used Prerequisite Criteria
Infill Redevelopment Infill Redevelopment Major Major METRO Population + Job Funding Potential Potential Thoroughfare Thoroughfare Food Amenity Intersection Transit Column1 Density Mechanism (Residential) (Com., Office, Ind.) (w/in 1/2 mile) (w/in 1/4 mile) Amenities Amenities Density Density Bikeways Stops Large Center Threshold Central Business District Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Population + Job Density Central Business District 139.34 (Average) - 0.32 4.42 - - 359 7 0.32 0.81 - - > 25 Texas Medical Center Super Nbrhd. - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes No - Yes Yes Yes Texas Medical Center 68.19 (Average) - 2.38 1.63 - - 64 1 0.05 0.26 - - Greater Uptown Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes No - Yes Yes Yes Greater Uptown 62.37 (Average) - 2.91 1.57 - - 154 3 0.19 0.27 - - Midtown Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Midtown 37.36 (Average) - 2.05 0.36 - - 122 6 0.17 1.02 - - Westchase Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Westchase 29.24 (Average) - 1.43 1.69 - - 138 7 0.05 0.1 - - Fourth Ward TIRZ - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Fourth Ward 20.57 (Average) - 1.7 1.02 - - 23 0 0.16 1.12 - - Energy Corridor Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes No - Yes Yes Yes Energy Corridor 18.73 (Average) - 2.77 3.5 - - 63 0 0.03 0.29 - - Medium Center Threshold Third Ward Super Nbrhd. - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Population + Job Density Third Ward 17.3 (Average) - 0.64 0.78 - - 59 14 0.04 0.63 - - 12 < 25 Rice Village Super Nbrhd. - No - - Yes Yes Yes No - Yes Yes Yes Rice Village** 16.77 (Average) - 0.49 0.67 - - 116 4 0.07 0.4 - - City Centre/Memorial City Proposed Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes No Yes No - Yes Yes Yes City Centre** 12.51 (Average) - 2.71 0.48 - - 32 2 0.05 0.32 - - Greater East End Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Greater East End* 10.44 (Average) - 1.54 1.37 - - 224 34 0.02 0.47 - - Small Center Threshold Greater Greenspoint Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Population + Job Density Greater Greenspoint 5.33 (Average) - 2.54 2.73 - - 127 12 0.02 0.16 - - < 12 Palm Center Super Nbrhd. - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Palm Center** 8.85 (Average) - 1.98 1.21 - - 67 13 0.03 0.4 - - Greater Greenspoint Mgmt. District - Yes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Greater Greenspoint 5.33 (Average) - 2.54 2.73 - - 127 12 0.02 0.16 - -
Urban Houston Framework | 88 Criteria for Urban Centers
Figure 16: Prerequisite plus Optional Example Data sources: City of Houston; H-GAC StarMap; U.S. Decennial Census 2010 and 2012 data Note: This is a draft to be calibrated through City and Community-initiated processes. Subject to change; not final.
Major Freeways/Tollways
Major Roads
Large Centers cited by Stakeholders
Qualifying Large Centers not cited by Stakeholders
Medium Centers cited by Stakeholders
Qualifying Medium Centers not cited by Stakeholders
Small Centers cited by Stakeholders
Qualifying Small Centers not cited by Stakeholders
Large Central Business District Pop + Job Texas Medical Center Density > 25 Greater Uptown Midtown Westchase Medium Fourth Ward Pop + Job Energy Corridor Density Third Ward 12 < 25 Rice Village City Centre/Memorial City Small Second Ward Pop + Job Greater East End Density < 12 Palm Center Greater Greenspoint
Urban Houston Framework | 89 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
The intent of this section is to present, How Tools were Developed and further discuss, potential Univer- sal Improvement Tools and Developer When developing the Tools and Ex- Incentives to be incorporated into the pectations - as defined in the Urban Urban Houston Framework. Provided Center Pattern Book - two categories Tools are presented as a means of emerged: Universal Improvement Tools advertising, streamlining and further pro- and Developer Incentives. viding incentives for promoting desired characteristics within defined Urban 1. Universal Improvement Tools are Centers. Related Expectations are also those that help to improve services defined based on those expected by within Urban Centers that benefit both individual developers as well as the the area as a whole. Universal greater Urban Center. Improvement Tools require both municipal and other organizations to work together to improve services over time, such as transit quality and the encouragement of sustain- able development practices.
2. Developer Incentives are tools available to developers who meet the Criteria within designated Urban Centers, to build in a character that is more in line with the goals of Urban Centers.
Based on these two provided catego- ries, it is evident that the City of Houston maintains several viable tools and poli- cies in use today. However, due to cur- rent legislative procedures, they are only available via a variance or additional permitting processes.
The toolbox will help incentivize the desired built form for Urban Centers.
Urban Houston Framework | 90 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Towards a Future, Comprehensive Toolbox
To help streamline the development New Tools within the Toolbox, however, process and eliminate costs associated are provided as innovative concepts with these additional steps, Urban Hous- not currently utilized by the City, but ton Framework participants would have expressed as viable options within peer access to the Toolbox without having to reviewed studies (see Appendix B: go through the variance or permitting Peer Review) or as expressed by stake- process. holders (Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement). Developer Incentives would automati- cally become available to those develop- The list of Tools that follows is the ers that meet, or could provide proof of beginning of a comprehensive Toolbox meeting, the established criteria upon that touches on implementation efforts final build out. toward all of the Framework goals. Some of these can move forward soon and Some Universal Improvement Tools many others will need to be phased in included in the Toolbox are existing poli- over a longer duration of time. Phasing cies modified to be more applicable to will be discussed in the Urban Center Urban Centers. For instance, in an urban Implementation chapter. area, there may not be enough land to meet parkland dedication requirements. Reduced acreage urban parks, as cur- rently allotted on a case-by-case basis in section 42-252 (f) of the City’s current code, could be provided as a more stan- dardized policy.
Other Tools built on current policies to involve programs and projects that could be used as incentives for developers include economic development tools like 380 Agreements and state-funded bond programs for community development. This is the first step towards a comprehensive Toolbox that touches on implementation efforts toward all of the Framework goals.
Urban Houston Framework | 91 Universal Improvement Tools in Urban Centers
Urban Center Plans High Quality/Capacity Transit
The development community has re- Irregular roadways grids have been cited When a governing entity completes a As an Urban Center becomes more quested that Urban Centers describe, in by stakeholders as posing challenges TIA prior to development, investors have dense with residents and employment, more detail, what is needed in each area to the construction of some mixed use additional assurance that their project the quality and capacity of the transit of the city. An Urban Center plan does building typologies. As a result, devel- can be built in a timeline that protects must increase. just that by providing an idea of what a opers sometimes seek modifications their investments. TIAs also help to potential Urban Center could yield when to existing roadway segments to better provide a streamlined approach and Universal Improvement Tool 3 fully redeveloped with compatible dense, accommodate short-term project goals assurance for all developments in Urban METRO and other partners will coor- mixed-use building forms. Similarly, (often at the expense of long-term, Centers regardless of size. dinate to provide high quality and high plans for Centers also help anticipate large-scale mobility goals). capacity transit services for Large and commitments regarding needed infra- Universal Improvement Tool 2 Medium Centers perhaps upgrading structure such as drainage, sewage, Urban Center Plans will help maximize The Urban Center Plan should encour- facilities around stops or stations, pro- roadway connectivity, key transit consid- street grid connectivity by identifying age a more dense street grid for circula- viding better pedestrian connectivity to eration, as well as other considerations areas in which new roads should be tion, and it is not the practice of the City the stops or stations, and installing new providing a benefit to the greater Urban added to serve long-term transit and to encourage the abandonment streets transit options. Center. connectivity needs (at the local, citywide within such Centers. However, there are and regional scale). This allows for the instances in which a very fine street grid Individual developers also benefit from possibility of denser development and may actually inhibit certain sustainable these plans, as potential investors may the preservation of pedestrian connec- development practices. In such instanc- better target project dollars where they tivity and walkability in strategic areas. es Urban Center Plans preemptively de- know the infrastructure required to sup- termine which utilities, street segments port their project exists. These plans will Universal Improvement Tool 1 and ROW must remain in place to serve project the necessary infrastructure to A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) done local, citywide and regional connectiv- support the anticipated level of develop- on a centerwide scale and in conjunc- ity goals so that it is clear to developers ment in the Urban Center. tion with the Urban Center Plan will owning property on both sides of the Houston’s light rail line carries many help support multimodal transportation right-of-way which may be abandoned. riders from Downtown south to the Texas Similarly, these plans will help guarantee and increased connectivity by holisti- Medical Center. that Centers have consistent, rectilinear cally considering the traffic impacts of The Urban Center Plan and centerwide roadway grids with short, walkable block all development and/or redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis would work to- lengths - essential ingredients in creat- projects. TIAs should take into account gether to provide individual development ing sustainable, mixed-use, multimodal various forms of transit and include a and redevelopment projects clear direc- environments. pedestrian and bicycle mobility analysis. tion about how more urban, dense forms and land uses could affect the traffic patterns of an area, saving time, energy and resources for individuals opting into in the Urban Houston Framework.
Urban Houston Framework | 92 Universal Improvement Tools in Urban Centers
Developer Participation Parking Benefit District (PBD) Special Parking Area Reduced Park Requirement Contract (DPC) Utility Infrastructure Upgrade PBDs are defined geographic areas, Formerly known as “Parking Manage- Pocket parks are allowed in areas that Reimbursement typically in the Central Business District ment Areas”, the eligibility criteria was are considered denser and well served or along commercial corridors in which a written for large areas like Uptown and by other parks in lieu of larger parks. Allowing for upgrades to water and majority of the revenue generated from the Texas Medical Center. SPAs now The current parkland dedication can wastewater infrastructure systems ear- on-street parking facilities within the dis- allow City Council to establish smaller be burdensome to developers in urban lier than might be possible if the City had trict is returned to the district to finance areas that would benefit from different areas who must provide valuable land to finance the improvement will provide neighborhood improvements. parking requirements than what is other- towards parks. The more dense a the capacity needed to accommodate wise required by ordinance. development is, the more parkland must denser, urban forms of development. A The primary goal of a PBD is to effec- be dedicated, but this may not necessar- DPC is an existing tool that allows de- tively manage an area’s parking supply Additional consideration should be paid ily reflect a more urban environment. If velopers to be reimbursed for a portion and demand so that parking is conve- to surrounding development and ensure there is not enough land to dedicate to of the cost of upgrading infrastructure. nient and easy for motorists. PBDs typi- that shared parking assumptions are parkland, then the developer must pay DPCs are principally used for infrastruc- cally employ a number of parking man- convenient to all participants. a fee instead. This fee is based on the ture construction in residential projects. agement techniques to manage parking number of units and can be costly, po- supply and demand. By implementing a Universal Improvement Tool 6 tentially preventing denser development Universal Improvement Tool 4 PBD, the parking will be managed more This Tool establishes who may apply for in urban areas. There are several DPCs included in effectively and a majority of the revenue SPA designation. It also specifies func- Code of Ordinances Chapter 47 Ar- is reinvested back into projects deter- tions and responsibilities, application Universal Improvement Tool 7 ticle IV beginning with Section 47-161: mined by the community. submittal requirements, review process, A full set of guidelines are developed for potential impact analysis and a once- Urban Center Parks that includes minor • 30-70 DPCs: Intended for reim- Universal Improvement Tool 5 every-two-years reviewing process. A improvements and maintenance agree- bursement of water and wastewater The City coordinates with stakeholders 20 percent parking reduction for Transit ments. The Parks Director agrees to ap- infrastructure for new construction. in the area, installs meters and distrib- Oriented Developments may be granted, prove these if they meet the guidelines. The cap on reimbursement is limited utes funds back to the district according if the pedestrian realm is provided by the to $1,000,000 and only includes to the agreement with the stakeholders. developer. construction costs. • 50-50 DPCs: Intended for reim- bursement of water and wastewater infrastructure. There is no provision for reimbursement of storm sewer costs. The cap on reimbursement is limited to $50,000 and includes construction and engineering costs. Special Parking Areas allow smaller Providing parkland in highly urban areas can be a challenge due to scarcity of land, areas to reduce their parking demand. but it should still be encouraged.
Urban Houston Framework | 93 Universal Improvement Tools in Urban Centers
Stormwater Facilities Stormwater Treatment Credits Low Impact Development (LID) Celebrating Sustainable Development Practices Supporting privately or publicly created Encouraging stormwater filtration meth- Exemplifying what works and doesn’t and maintained stormwater detention ods in landscape buffer zones through work in Houston and agreeing upon a Marketing sustainable projects will facilities that serves multiple develop- stormwater credits can reward efforts to list of acceptable Best Management provide an incentive for developers to ments will help contribute to high-quality incorporate low impact development and Practices (BMPs) will help contribute to include innovative design elements. In infrastructure. Creating denser develop- to manage stormwater at the source. high-quality infrastructure and promote addition to responsible environmen- ment through use of off-site/regional Allowing an Urban Center to bank qual- responsible and sustainable design tal design, noteworthy development stormwater mitigation may also lead to ity credits, which could then be traded in Houston. Sustainable development practices may encompass other areas of better return on investments given the or sold between adjacent properties, is practices are integrated into public de- sustainability, such as historic preserva- potential for high land prices in highly a potential strategy for contributing to velopments such as roads, parks, public tion efforts, cutting edge cyclist facili- demanded Urban Centers. high-quality infrastructure and encourag- facilities such as the Green Building ties that promote transit, educational ing the cleaning and reuse of stormwa- Resource Center. wayfinding amenities, etc. Universal Improvement Tool 8 ter. Privately or publicly held stormwater Universal Improvement Tool 10 Universal Improvement Tool 11 facilities are oversized and the additional Universal Improvement Tool 9 The City identifies areas of common Sustainable projects are celebrated cost of oversized, publicly held facilities Water quality credits for treating storm- ground in achieving sustainable urban through an awards program and press is recouped by selling surplus capacity water within the public rights-of-way developments in partnership with private releases by agencies throughout the to private developers. This commitment could be traded or sold between adja- sector developers. The City will encour- region. would only be available in cases where cent properties (within the watershed) age better development practices by implementation of the Tool benefits the provided the use does not interfere with demonstrating innovative LID principles Urban Center as a whole. pedestrian clear zone and is outside the and techniques in City projects. bike and vehicle travel ways.
An Urban Center could bank water quality credits, which can then be traded or sold Shared stormwater facilities allow for between properties to further stormwater infrastructure goals. denser development in urban areas.
Urban Houston Framework | 94 Developer Incentives in Urban Centers
Flow Chart Entitlement Grant Gap Local Tax, Bond and State-Funded Bond Financing for Housing Development Incentives for Programs for Community Addressing local and regional housing Community Development Development initiatives is a key goal for Urban Cen- There are four HUD entitlement grants ters cited by stakeholders. Ensuring a administered by Housing and Commu- In addition to federal entitlement grants, In addition to local and federal grants, smooth and timely progression through nity Development Department (HCDD) other sources of funds for community other sources of funds for community building permit/plat review processes will that finance annual HUD objectives, development activities work cooperative- development activities. Programs work be important to ensuring Urban Centers including the Community Development ly with tax-related incentives that facili- cooperatively with other tax-related in- successfully become live/work/play envi- Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Invest- tate economic growth through affordable centives that facilitate economic growth ronments. Encouraging the development ment Partnerships (HOME) Program, housing, business development, and job through affordable housing, business of mixed use, mixed income, affordable the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) creation. development, and job creation and workforce housing options will allow and Housing Opportunities for Persons a range of income groups and ages to with AIDS (HOPWA). Two of the grants, Developer Incentive 3 Developer Incentive 4 live in Urban Centers. CDBG and HOME may be utilized as Several tax incentives are available for • State of Texas Bond Program a form of gap financing for affordable Urban Centers and funding resources • Tax-Exempt Bonds, TSAHC - The Developer Incentive 1 housing. Multifamily Housing Program are prioritized for Centers. These in- Texas State Affordable Housing A city-approved flow chart is developed activities are funded at various times clude: Corporation (TSAHC) indicating the order, department and as- throughout the year through a Request sociated contact person responsible for for Proposal (RFP) process. • Tax Abatement Ordinance Expectation the approval and processing of Urban • Chapter 380 of the State of Texas The developer works to obtain these Center development applications. Main- Developer Incentive 2 Local Government Code bond funds earmarked for Urban Cen- taining an assigned representative, each Financing projects that contribute to • Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone ters as long as they provide a minimum relative department may then facilitate housing supplies in Urban Centers (TIRZ) percentage of affordable housing units the permitting/plat review process and should be a priority in submitting grant • Private Activity Bonds and Mort- at a variety of price points and the discusses a variety of options available applications (regardless of whether grant gage Revenue Bond Program project will be developed in keeping for successfully achieving mixed-use, applications are submitted by the Hous- • Developer Participation Contract with the character of Urban Centers and affordable or workforce housing. ing Authority, HCDD, etc.). (70-30 DPCs) meet the needs identified for the Urban Center. Expectation Expectation Expectation The developer and City utilize the The developer works to obtain grants The developer works to obtain tax incen- provided flowchart to help streamline earmarked for Urban Centers as long tives earmarked for Urban Centers as Urban Center development practices. as they provide a minimum percentage long as they provide a minimum per- Updates to the flowchart will be provided of affordable housing units at a variety centage of affordable housing units at a as needed ensuring a “cradle to grave” of price points and the project develops variety of price points and the project de- approach to center developments. in keeping with the character and needs velops in keeping with the character and identified for the Urban Center. needs identified for the Urban Center.
Urban Houston Framework | 95 Developer Incentives in Urban Centers
Federal Tax Incentives for Other Federal Incentives for Off-Street Parking Community Development Community Development - US Department of Housing Providing public parking in dense Urban HCDD’s programs work cooperatively and Urban Development Centers that can be shared, reducing the with other tax-related incentives that (HUD) requirement to provide on-site parking facilitate economic growth through for each project, will help developers and affordable housing, business develop- Along with local grants, HCDD uses encourage an active and transparent ment, and job creation. other sources of funds for community ground floor. This strategy also seeks development activities. HCDD’s pro- to balance the needs of area residents Developer Incentive 5 grams work cooperatively with other with the parking needs of the district. • Section 202 - HUD: Provides capital tax-related incentives that facilitate It does so by encouraging mixed use advances to finance the construc- economic growth through affordable development within close proximity of a tion, rehabilitation or acquisition with housing, business development, and job public parking amenity without creating or without rehabilitation of structures creation. a shortage of parking that might impact that will serve as supportive housing neighboring properties and existing for very low-income elderly persons, Developer Incentive 6 stable residential communities. and provides rent subsidies for the • New Market Tax Credits projects to help make them afford- • State of Texas Housing Tax Credit Developer Incentive 7 able. Program A 20 percent reduction of parking re- • Section 811: HUD provides fund- • Historic Preservation Tax Credit quirement. This is in line with the TOD ing to develop and subsidize rental • Raza Development Fund: Pre-de- reduction currently in place. If there is a housing with the availability of sup- velopment loans, acquisition loans Special Parking Area in place, then that portive services for very low-income for vacant land or improved lots, and takes precedent. adults with disabilities. construction/rehabilitation financing for multi- and single-family units. Expectation Expectation The developer provides an active and The developer works with HCDD to ob- Expectation transparent ground floor and a mixed- tain these tax incentives earmarked for The developer works with HCDD to use development where at least two Urban Centers as long as they provide a obtain these other incentives earmarked of the uses have compatible uses for minimum percentage of affordable hous- for Urban Centers as long as they pro- parking. ing units at a variety of price points and vide a minimum percentage of afford- the project will be developed in keeping able housing units at a variety of price with the character of Urban Centers and points and the project will be developed meet the needs identified for the Urban in keeping with the character of Urban Center. Centers and meet the needs identified for the Urban Center.
Urban Houston Framework | 96 Developer Incentives in Urban Centers
Pedestrian Realm Improvement
Improving pedestrian environments Developer Incentive 8 Expectations (Continued) Expectations (Continued) helps support multimodal transporta- • Reduced building setback from • No doors swinging into the pedes- • Street furniture (benches, bicycle tion by ensuring public safety and by proposed back-of-curb (width varies trian realm parking, etc.) increasing connectivity near street grids. based on size of center and street • 30% of façade surface less than 8’ • Public/Civic Art or Cultural/Heritage Connecting properties and destinations type) above the ground be transparent Attractions using wide sidewalks along major thor- • No parking requirements or parking • Door, window, or other opening at • Publicly accessible and walkable oughfares will encourage walking as an managed by Special Parking Area least every 20 feet where the build- parks or plazas alternative to private automobile trips. ing is within 10 feet of the pedes- • LID or other sustainable infrastruc- Expectations trian realm ture practices As an area grows more dense and • Certain width of Pedestrian Realm • Softscape planting area limited to includes additional transit services, with sidewalk and clear zone (width 20% walkability becomes a critical element of varies based on size of Urban Cen- • Softscape at least 2’ back from any pedestrian accessibility. In exchange for ter enter and street type) on-street parking reduced building setbacks and a reduc- • Pedestrian access corridor tion in parking requirements for Large, • Maximum uninterrupted block face Medium and Small Centers, a develop- of no more than 450’ ment project may provide improvements • Intersecting streets are placed at in- to pedestrian environments. This would tervals of 500 to 600’ and no greater include contributing to a continuous built than 800’ apart any single stretch form along streets that includes parking • 70% of building frontage within 10’ for automobiles behind the building or of pedestrian realm screened from public view. • Public entrance adjacent to pedes- trian realm Encouraging developers to provide park- • Active and transparent ground floor ing behind the building, not between the use right-of-way and front entrance to build- • Screened parking garages adjacent ings will help to promote sustainable, to the street healthy design, universal accessibility to • No on-site parking or driveways building entrances and better construc- between building façade and pedes- tion practices. The details of the Tools trian realm and Expectations per size of each Urban • Vegetative buffer between pedes- Center can be found in Appendix E. trian realm and any surface parking Pedestrian realm improvements create a more comfortable, safe environment for citizens of communities.
Urban Houston Framework | 97 Tools Yet to be Addressed
The Toolbox has Universal Improvement Tools and Developer Incentives that touch on, to some degree, the six Goals. These include:
1. Advance local and regional housing initiatives 2. Contribute to high-quality infrastruc- ture 3. Encourage economic viability and diversity 4. Enhance community stability, ac- cessibility and equity 5. Promote sustainable, healthy design and better construction practices 6. Support multimodal transportation and increased connectivity
Other tools should be explored in the future including those that incent the integration of arts and culture into developments. Civic art funding as- sistance will help to ensure that Urban Centers are the focal point of arts and culture in Houston, and that visitors have a strong urban environment to enhance their experience. Additional housing Tools could also be explored. For example, the City could consider leveraging publicly owned land to reduce the cost of development. This could include parking areas, green space, or other City owned parcels. The City could also identify under utilized areas lacking useful functions today, such as freeway underpasses or other areas, for future Public art provides a cultural experience to both residents and visitors. parking Tools.
Urban Houston Framework | 98 5 URBAN CENTER IMPLEMENTATION Chapter Introduction
This chapter outlines the next steps towards implementing Urban Centers. The six Livability Principles of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), one of the Tools, Criteria, Process and other steps funding partners, were met through the goals from this Study. These principles include: are divided into short- and long-term strategies to explain what the City may 1. Providing more transportation choices. move forward with immediately and vari- 2. Promoting equitable, affordable housing. ous other steps that will take longer to 3. Enhancing economic competitiveness. implement. 4. Supporting existing communities. 5. Coordinating policies and leveraging investment. 6. Valuing communities and neighborhoods. Roles, responsibilities and potential costs are provided to show who the partners are in moving the Framework towards implementation and how much cost a project, policy or program may have.
Performance metrics are provided at the close of this chapter so that City depart- ments may monitor the effects of what gets implemented. This is an important tool, as what gets measured gets done.
This chapter explores next steps towards implementing Urban Centers.
| 100 Implementation Schedule
Legend Criteria Refinement Tools/Expectations Refinement
Short-term Strategies Mid-term Strategies Long-Term Strategies
Obtain or create data for measuring Urban Center Characteristics if currently unavailable
Conduct detailed analysis of Centers identified by stakeholders – utilizing the proposed list of Criteria in Table 9: Recommended Framework for Criteria and Expectations to determine appropriate thresholds for each • Determine the initial thresholds for all Urban Centers • Determine if there are various sizes of Urban Centers as discussed conceptually to this point • Determine a process for continually updating the thresholds as conditions change on the ground
Identify boundaries for each Urban Center – including key redevelopment parcels while leaving enough buffer between Center and stable residential neighborhoods
Work with the local stakeholders to vet the newly created boundaries.
Develop a process for regular updates to the analysis to accommodate newly emerging Urban Centers of places transitioning from one Center size to the next.
Further refinement of each tool by the leading agency in concert with the other key partners
Work with the stakeholder to vet new iterations and changes
Identify which tools are required of applicants that opt in to the program and which are allowed to be chosen “a la carte”
Identify which tools will be crafted into ordinance first and which will have longer implementation horizons
Develop a process for monitoring success of each tool/ expectation
Urban Houston Framework | 101 Implementation Schedule
Legend Process Refinement Other
Short-term Strategies Mid-term Strategies Long-Term Strategies
Assign leadership responsibilities for further refinement of Criteria, Tools/Expectations and capturing of outcomes in ordinance language
Develop an opt-in process for applicants in emerging Centers
Determine which departments will be responsible for managing Center designation processes, reviewing applications and monitoring performance targets
Develop new ordinance(s) for program implementation
Develop flow chart with contacts for each step in the project
Train key contacts in each department on how program works
Market overall program to developers
Use low impact development techniques in public projects
Create comprehensive database of low impact development techniques best practices for urban areas
Continue dialogue about funding options used in successful housing development/redevelopment projects
Adopt an approach for sharing housing program successes
Work with partners to create plans for each Center
Work with partners to create a Traffic Impact Analysis for each Center
Partner with METRO and others to coordinate high quality and high capacity transit
Create Parking Benefit Districts/Special Parking Areas to accommodate Centers
Urban Houston Framework | 102 Roles, Responsibilities and Potential Costs
Legend n Implementation Responsibility $ 0 - 50,000 dollars n Coordinating Partnership $$ 50,000 - 250,000 dollars
$$$ 250,000 - 1,000,000 dollars
$$$$ 1,000,000+ dollars
Table 12: Framework Implementation Roles, Responsibilities and Costs
ESTIMATED
TOOLBOX ARA CDC CDFI CSH ECP GHP HAHC HCDD HCFCD HCHA H-GAC HISD HMD HPD HUD LISC-GH LISC-N MD METRO NDC P&D PRD PWE SN TDHCA TIRZ TSAHC COST Urban Center Plan n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n $ High Quality/Capacity Transit n n n n n n n n n n n $ $ $ $ Developer Participation Contract n $ $ Parking Benefit District n n n n n n n $ Special Parking Area n n n n n n n n $ Reduced Park Requirement n n $ Stormwater Facilities n n n $ $ Stormwater Treatment Credits n n n $ Low Impact Development n n n n n n $ $ Celebrating Sustainable Practices n n n n n n n n n n $ Flow Chart n n n $ Entitlement Grant Gap Financing n n n n n $ $ Local Tax, Bond and Development Incentives n n n n $ State-Funded Bond Programs n n n n $ Federal Tax Incentives n n n n n n n $ Other Federal Incentives n n n $ Off-Street Parking n n n n n n n $ Pedestrian Realm Improvement n n n n $ Abbreviations for organizations included below are defined on the following page.
Urban Houston Framework | 103 Roles, Responsibilities and Potential Costs
Table 13: List of Abbreviations Leadership Organizations ABBREVIATION ORGANIZATION n CDC Community Development Corporations Housing & Community Development Department (HCDD) Houston’s HCDD manages and administers federal and non-federal funds ear- n CDFI Community Development Finance Institutions marked for the development of viable urban communities in Houston. This Depart- n CSH Corporation for Supportive Housing ment will play a key role in successfully implementing Urban Centers by leading ef- n ECP Enterprise Community Partners forts to provide housing in ways that create live/work/play environments that expand n GHP Greater Houston Partnership economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons. This will n HAHC Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission include leadership responsibility for helping to provide/coordinate the following Tools: n HCDD Housing & Community Development Department n HCFCD Harris County Flood Control District • State-Funded Bond Programs for Community Development n HCHA Harris County Housing Authority • Federal Tax Incentives for Community Development • Other Federal Incentives for Community Development – US Department of n HPD Historic Preservation Districts Housing & Urban Development (HUD) n H-GAC Houston-Galveston Area Council n HISD Houston Independent School District Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) n HMD Houston Museum District HCFCD will be a key partner (in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) n HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in protecting businesses and homeowners through ensuring Urban Center projects n LISC-GH Local Initiatives Support Corporation of Greater Houston do not contribute to flood risks in Harris County. As Urban Centers emerge and n LISC-N Local Initiatives Support Corporation National Office grow, HCFCD should be a partner in devising and implementing flood reduction n MD Management Districts plans and maintaining infrastructure in watersheds. This will include leadership responsibility for helping to provide/coordinate the following Tools: n METRO Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston n NDC National Development Council • Stormwater Facilities n P&D Planning & Development Department • Stormwater Treatment Credit n PRD Parks & Recreation Department n PWE Public Works and Engineering Department Planning & Development Department (P&D) n SN Super Neighborhoods P&D will lead City efforts in Urban Center research. It will help guide and implement n TDHCA Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs the development of all future policies and incentives that may be used by develop- n TIRZ Tax Increment Financing Zones ers, citizens and the community at large for responsible, sustainable development n TSAHC Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation throughout Houston.
Legend Parks & Recreation Department (PRD) PRD manages over 38,992 acres of parkland and greenspace for the City of Hous- Leadership Responsibility ton; develops and implements recreational programming for citizens of all abilities; and manages all PRD facilities. Implementation Partnership Urban Houston Framework | 104 Roles, Responsibilities and Potential Costs
Public Works and Engineering Department (PWE) Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) The City of Houston Public Works and Engineering Department (PWE) provides The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) provides technical assistance in a many of the basic services that affect the daily lives of everyone who lives and range of areas that include: project feasibility, planning, finance, community support works in Houston. The department is primarily responsible for the administration, building, service delivery design, employment programs, property and asset man- planning, maintenance, construction management and technical engineering of the agement. CSH also works with local governments to help finance and implement City’s infrastructure. The department is also responsible for implementing the storm plans to end homelessness and to design initiatives targeting specific populations, water, street, wastewater and water programs of the Mayor’s five-year Capital such as mentally ill ex-offenders. Improvements Plan (CIP). Enterprise Community Partners (ECP) Partnership Organizations Enterprise is a national charitable organization offering expertise for affordable housing for low- and moderate income people, driving social and financial innova- Community Development Corporations (CDC) tion across private, public and government sectors. Enterprise authors the Green Partnerships with Houston’s many non-profit, Community Development Corpora- Communities Criteria, the only national framework for building and preserving green tions to preserve the stability of residential neighborhoods in Centers will be key to affordable housing. Enterprise could partner in providing debt and equity financing a successful Urban Houston Framework. CDCs create balanced live/work/play en- for Urban Center housing initiatives such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits and vironments in which individuals of all backgrounds and income groups are able to New Market Tax Credit Equity for multifamily projects. ECP could also be a partner age-in-place. Moreover, they are instrumental to providing affordable neighborhood in creating public policy for housing initiatives in Urban Centers. services such as medical care, pharmacies and grocery stores and will be con- tributors to the development of affordable housing, retail centers and commercial Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) businesses. CDCs help achieve economic stability and protect the spirit and culture The Greater Houston Partnership, which traces its roots back to Houston’s original of historic Houston communities by leading physical and socioeconomic improve- Chamber of Commerce founded in 1840, could be a partner in the economic pros- ment efforts in areas having populations at or below the area median income. perity of Centers. GHP facilitates national and international business outreach initia- tives and economic planning that could support the goals of Urban Centers - particu- Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFI) larly those hoping to attract investment in catalyst development or redevelopment New Market Tax Credits (NMTCs) are administered by Community Development Fi- projects. GHP also works to improve the quality of life for Houston’s residents by nance Institutions (CDFIs) or banks that have applied to administer NMTCs locally. developing green space, bike trails, parks and other amenities, as well as promoting New Market Tax Credits are an important resource for providing tax incentives green building practices. for businesses that make commitments to investments and job creation in Urban Centers.
Urban Houston Framework | 105 Roles, Responsibilities and Potential Costs
Harris County Housing Authority (HCHA) Houston Independent School District (HISD) HCHA is an important resource for providing housing opportunities for area resi- Equitable access to quality educational facilities was cited as an important factor dents and could be a potential partner in promoting innovative housing solutions that in achieving a successful, live/work/play environments through the Urban Houston go beyond conventional boundaries of subsidized housing. The goals of HCHA may Framework. HISD will be a key partner in making this goal a reality for all Centers. align with emergent Urban Centers to provide communities with jobs and to help As Houston’s population continues to grow and change, levels of service in educa- provide balance and stability for individuals who might otherwise not have access to tion should remain at the forefront of planning and development efforts throughout much needed services. the city. Moreover, schools are catalysts for creating a powerful sense of place that will help Houston attract and retain the best and the brightest within the region. Historic Preservation Districts (HPD) Historic Preservation Districts should be partners in preserving the significant re- Houston Museum District Association (HMD) minders of Houston’s collective past as represented through built environments. As The Houston Museum District is comprised of a number of artistic, scientific and Urban Centers emerge, Landmark and Protected Landmark designations will help educational institutions that house resources that should be accessible to all citizens emphasize and protect culturally important, historic structures while Historic District of and visitors to Houston. HMD will need to be a partner in discussions regarding designations will protect historically significant communities. levels of transportation service in Urban Centers and infrastructure accommodations for a growing number of visitors to the arts district. Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission (HAHC) HAHC is a potential partner for implementing historic designations in Urban Centers. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) It will review all projects seeking to alter the exterior appearance of a City designated HUD administers national programs that create strong, sustainable, inclusive com- historic property and help to further the historic preservation goals of stable, residen- munities and quality affordable homes for all. Section 202 provides capital for the tial communities. construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of structures serving as supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons. Section 811 provides supportive housing for Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) disabled individuals in Urban Centers as well as funding to develop and subsidize H-GAC is the regional leader in solving area wide problems and using strategic rental housing with supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities. planning studies to conserve public funds. The H-GAC consists of the region’s local HUD entitlement grants administered by HCDD will finance annual objectives as- governments and their elected officials, and partners with multiple public and private sociated with Urban Centers including the Community Development Block Grant sector organizations and volunteers to achieve area wide change. It will be impor- (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the Emergency tant to include H-GAC in conversations regarding the development of Urban Center Solutions Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Plan(s) as well as efforts to provide High Quality/Capacity Transit, as these efforts work in tandem with many other aspects of regional planning.
Urban Houston Framework | 106 Roles, Responsibilities and Potential Costs
Local Initiatives Support Corporation of Greater Houston (LISC) Super Neighborhoods (SN) LISC of Houston works to overcome affordability gaps by providing financial resourc- Houston has been divided into 88 Super Neighborhoods where residents of neigh- es (loans, grants), technical assistance (consulting), and relationships with local and boring communities are encouraged to work together to identify, plan, and set national policymakers to local community development corporations. This organiza- priorities to address the needs and concerns of their community. The Super Neigh- tion will be an important partner in helping distressed communities transform into borhood Council serves as a forum where residents and stakeholders can discuss more sustainable, live/work/play environments in which residents are able to raise issues, establish priority projects for the area and develop a Super Neighborhood families and age-in-place. Action Plan to help them meet their goals.
Local Initiatives Support Corporation National Office (LISC-N) Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) The national LISC office is a potential partner for connecting local organizations The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) receives ap- and community leaders to revitalize neighborhoods and improve quality of life. LISC proximately $45 million annually for distribution and administers the The Housing specializes in helping funding partners leverage investments to transform distressed Tax Credit (HTC) Program. An application for State of Texas Housing Tax Credits neighborhoods into healthy, sustainable communities of choice. LISC staff could does not guarantee support or award of funds; however, proposals that meet the help to identify priorities and challenges to deliver the most appropriate support to multi-family policy priorities of Urban Centers should partner with HCDD to apply. meet local needs of Urban Centers. Tax Increment Financing Zones (TIRZ) Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston A Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone is a municipality created to implement tax METRO will be a major partner in successfully achieving multimodal transportation increment financing, a type of public financing that is used as a subsidy for redevel- connectivity and ridership amongst Urban Center by planning and providing bus opment. They are created by the City Council to attract new investment to an area. routes, rail service and transit facilities. METROLift services will be key to protecting TIRZ help finance the cost of redevelopment and encourage development in an area and enhancing community stability through it’s pre-scheduled, curb-to-curb, shared- that would otherwise not attract sufficient market development in a timely manner. ride transportation for persons with disabilities and it’s management of emergency Taxes based on new improvements are put in a fund that finance public improve- transportation services throughout Houston. As Centers emerge and grow, METRO ments within boundaries of the zone. will help accommodate growing populations. Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC) National Development Council (NDC) A 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization that was created by the Texas Legislature in NDC is the oldest national non-profit community development organization in the 1994 to serve as a self-sustaining, statewide affordable housing provider. TSAHC’s U.S. and works to provide assistant to under served urban areas for job creation and multifamily tax-exempt bond issuance program was established in 2001 and has community development through debt and equity for residential, commercial, public since provided more than $600 million in financing to help build or preserve afford- and non-profit facilities projects. It also offers a variety of services for Urban Centers able housing in Texas. As one of only two authorized statewide issuers of housing such as development finance and small business lending, new markets tax credits, bonds, TSAHC receives 10% of the statewide volume cap for multifamily private historic rehabilitation tax credits and real estate recycling, just to name a few. activity bonds and has unlimited authority to issue 01(c) (3) bonds for rental housing projects.
Urban Houston Framework | 107 Performance Metrics for Ongoing Monitoring
Looking to the Future
Establishing accurate, reliable thresh- Although future phases of the Urban The performance of a select group of Finally, “ ” is used for those Criteria olds for measuring the performance Houston Framework will need to focus Urban Center Characteristics will need performance targets are not applicable of live/work/play environments will be on thresholds, the analysis and stake- to decrease in the future. These Char- or measurable. Criteria of this nature, important to the overall sustainability holder dialogue included in this Report acteristics are noted with “” in Table such as the Funding Mechanism/Man- of the Urban Houston Framework. This provided a general of understanding 14: Recommendations for Ongoing agement Entity Criteria, simply require may, however, prove to be an ongoing of targets for Criteria in the future, and Monitoring Targets. For example, op- a target of yes or no (i.e. yes - a Center challenge in that metrics for monitoring ensured that the HUD Livability Prin- timum performance for Improvement to has a Management District or TIRZ or Urban Centers would vary based on ciples were met through the goals. Table Land Value Ratio is characterized by a no - it does not have a Management size, location and function. 14: Recommendations for Ongoing decreasing ratio of 2.0:1 or lower. As Ur- District or TIRZ). Monitoring Targets is an overview of ban Centers become more established, For example, the monitoring thresholds these conclusions. the percentage of Vacant Land would As with any new policy effort, there for Small Centers would likely vary from also decrease. should be a review time frame estab- those of Large Centers and vice versa. Some measurements of Urban Center lished for each Urban Center to assess Similarly, monitoring thresholds for performance will need to continue to Other metrics may increase or decrease whether or not Universal Improvement emergent Centers may differ from those increase in number regardless of Center in number depending on the Center. Tools and Developer Incentives are the of established Centers and from those size, location or function. These Char- Characteristics of this nature are noted appropriate mechanisms for achieving of Centers transitioning from one size acteristics are noted with “” in Table with “” in Table 14: Recommenda- performance targets and Goals identi- to the next. Moreover, this will become 14: Recommendations for Ongo- tions for Ongoing Monitoring Targets. fied by stakeholders. The time frame of increasingly complex as Centers begin ing Monitoring Targets. Examples of An example of a Characteristic for which review for each Urban Center may vary, to collide with each other or as the Characteristics that should increase into good performance numbers could be but should generally occur every 2-3 functions of these urban environments the foreseeable future are housing af- indicated by either increasing or de- years following designation. Similarly, become more balanced with socioeco- fordability, diversity and population/em- creasing numbers is Housing Starts Urban Center designation procedures nomic demands and available infrastruc- ployment density, which should become (New Construction). Some Centers may need to be monitored semi-annually ture capacity. more dense as Urban Centers continue require retail or commercial construction to ensure the overall Implementation to attract in-migrating populations from in lieu of residential to meet demands of Framework for Urban Centers remains While more research is required to as- around the region. a growing population. accountable to stakeholders’ Vision. sess exact targets for monitoring the ongoing performance of Urban Centers (and the Characteristics thereof) today, it is crucial that the refinement of Criteria, Tools, Expectations and Processes en- sue with the ultimate goals of monitoring implementation in mind.
Urban Houston Framework | 108 Performance Metrics for Ongoing Monitoring
Table 14: Recommendations for Ongoing Monitoring Targets GOAL CHARACTERISTIC MEASURABLE CHARACTERISTICS BASELINE THRESHOLD TODAY FUTURE PERFORMANCE TARGET Address local and Housing Character, Diversity Residential Density (Dwelling Units) 20 - 300 residences per acre regional housing needs Housing Type Varies Housing Affordability Varies Housing Choice and Mobility (Fair Housing Factor) Varies Housing Starts (New Construction) Varies Mixed-Land Use (Housing and Localized Services) .75 or higher Contribute to high- Infill/ Redevelopment Potential Vacant Land (%) Varies quality infrastructure Improvement to Land Value Ratio 2.0:1 or lower Significant Potential for Development/Redevelopment Varies Encourage economic Funding Mechanism, Management Entity Management District Yes viability and diversity TIRZ Yes Land Use Diversity Average Residential/Commercial/Office FAR 1.5 to 3.0 Land Use Diversity Index 1 Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio 0.1 - 2 Area of Center in Acres Varies Parks and Open Space Varies Enhance community High Employment, Population Density Job Density 12 - 25 + people per acre stability, accessibility Population Density 12 - 25 jobs + people per acre and equity Access to Amenities, Attractions/Destinations Amenity Density 3+ amenities per census block Amenity Diversity Needs additional data/research National/Regional (vs. Local) Attractions/Destinations Needs additional data/research Promote sustainable, Bike/Pedestrian Accessibility Bikeway Density Bikeway w/in mile distance healthy design Trail Density Trail w/in mile distance Sidewalk Accessibility Needs additional data/research Support multimodal Access to Streets, Freeways Intersection Density 0.22 intersections per acre transportation and Street Density (Freeways, Thoroughfares, Streets) Varies increased connectivity. Access to Freeways Varies Access to Thoroughfares Varies High Quality Transit Type of Transit Varies Type of Transit Facilities Varies Transit Frequency and Connectivity Varies Increasing measurement indicates Decreasing measurement Increasing or decreasing Performance target not applicable optimum performance indicates optimum performance measurement may indicate optimum performance Urban Houston Framework | 109 This page intentionally left blank. This page intentionally left blank. A APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Stakeholder Engagement Process
Overview Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Kick Off Values Workshop Stakeholder Advisory Committee Buy-in from key stakeholders and the A Stakeholder Advisory Committee The first round of stakeholder meetings (SAC) Meeting 3 community is important to the future (SAC) was formed by the City of Hous- occurred over a two day time period The third Stakeholder Advisory Commit- success of creating an Urban Centers ton Planning Department. The purpose on December 4th and 5th, 2012. The tee meeting (held January 10th, 2013) in Houston. This buy-in started early in of the SAC is to provide input from a purpose of the Values Workshop was reviewed the outcomes from the first the Urban Houston Framework planning spectrum of interests within Houston’s to introduce the targeted public to the public workshop, presented an analysis process, and is an integral part of this community, including those with environ- project, discuss Urban Centers, and re- of comparable cities, and presented Study. Implementing Urban Centers will mental, development, community and ceive feedback on initial challenges and initial Framework Process alternatives require partnerships with the community, transportation interests. Regular meet- potential tools for development. and Toolbox. property owners, businesses, City and ings with the SAC throughout the project other appropriate agencies and utility ensured that the Urban Houston Frame- Online Poll 1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee companies. work process reflected the thoughts and Concurrent with each stakeholder (SAC) Meeting 4 ideas of Houston’s stakeholders. meeting series, the Consultant Team The fourth Stakeholder Advisory Com- The overall Stakeholder Engagement launched an online poll. The first online mittee meting (held February 13th, 2013) Plan included a steering committee, fo- Stakeholder Outreach poll (active from December 10th to Janu- introduced the Pilot Project analysis and cus groups, online polls, project website/ There were various forms of stakeholder ary 30th, 2013) was aimed at reaching assumptions to gain feedback and sign- blog for brainstorming ideas and public outreach conducted during the Urban out to a broader public to elicit feedback off prior to finishing the analysis. workshops. The process was specifically Houston Framework Study, including on the most important criteria within an developed to create successful out- three stakeholder workshops. Urban Center, and challenges to creat- Vision Workshop comes, gain valuable input, and build ing active Urban Centers in Houston. The second round of stakeholder meet- consensus among the public and stake- MindMixer Website ings occurred over a two day time period holder interest groups about the Urban UrbanHoustonFramework.com was Stakeholder Advisory Committee on February 13th and 14th, 2013. The Houston Framework. launched on December 7th, 2012 and (SAC) Meeting 2 purpose of these workshops was to will remain active through at least The second Stakeholder Advisory Com- review the benchmarking analysis and Project Kick Off December 2013. The purpose of the mittee meeting (held December 3rd, results from online poll, present pro- A Strategic Kick Off Meeting was held website was to provide a convenient and 2012) presented the analysis of Urban posed Framework Process alternatives on October 30th, 2012 to discuss goals interactive forum for sharing ideas about Center characteristics from the first SAC and resultant Toolbox. and expected outcomes of the Urban what makes Houston great, what needs meeting and concepts for the applicant Houston Framework Study, develop a to change, and how to increase the city’s Process, Criteria, and Tools and Expec- Stakeholder Advisory Committee community engagement strategy and diversity and competitiveness while tations. (SAC) Meeting 5 identify Stakeholder Advisory Committee preserving the character of existing The fifth Stakeholder Advisory Com- members. neighborhoods. mittee meeting (held March 27th, 2013) reviewed the outcomes from the Vision Workshop and further discussed the development standards Framework.
Urban Houston Framework | 113 Stakeholder Engagement Process
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting 6 The sixth Stakeholder Advisory Com- mittee meeting (held April 11th, 2013) was focused on an affordable housing discussion and appropriate Tools and Expectations for the City of Houston.
Implementation Workshop The third round of stakeholder meet- ings occurred on April 11th, 2013. The purpose of this workshop was to present the results of the Pilot Project analysis Figure 17: SAC members appointed by the City of Houston and Toolbox to the general public. Urban Houston Framework Online Poll 2 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) The second online poll (active April 12th to April 26th, 2013) allowed the general 1. Linda Porras-Pirtle - Planning Commissioner (SAC Chair) public to provide feedback on Tools and 2. Keiji Asakura - Planning Commissioner Expectations. 3. Antoine Bryant - Planning Commissioner 4. Veronica Chapa-Jones - COH - Housing and Community Development 5. Marlene Gafrick - COH - Planning and Development Stakeholder Advisory Committee 6. Mark Loethen - COH - Public Works and Engineering (SAC) Meeting 7 7. Diane Schenke - Greater East End Management District The final Stakeholder Advisory Com- 8. Ashby Johnson - H-GAC - Transportation & Air Quality mittee meeting (held on May 1st, 2013) 9. Jeff Taebel - H-GAC – Community & Environmental 10. Filo Castore - American Institute of Architects (AIA) presented the final plan to the SAC and 11. Ed Taravela - Greater Houston Builders Association (GHBA) outlined next steps for the City in order 12. Casey Morgan - Greater Houston Builders Association (GHBA) to move the Urban Houston Framework 13. David Crossley - Houston Tomorrow plan for development forward. 14. Bob Collins - Houston Real Estate Council (HREC) 15. Bill Huntsinger - Houston Real Estate Council (HREC) 16. Joshua Sanders - Houstonians for Responsible Growth (HRG) 17. Amanda Timm - Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) 18. Clint Harbert - Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) 19. Kim Slaughter - Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) 20. Shon Link - Urban Land Institute (ULI) 21. Irma Sanchez - Westchase District
Urban Houston Framework | 114 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Kick Off Meeting: Overview
A Stakeholder Advisory Committee Process (SAC) was formed by the City of Hous- ton Planning Department. The purpose Prior to the SAC Kick Off meeting, the of the SAC is to provide input from a Consultant Team met with the City of spectrum of interests within Houston’s Houston and the Houston-Galveston community, including those with environ- Area Council to identify SAC members mental, development, community and and present the overall scope and goals transportation interests. for the Urban Houston Framework proj- ect. During the SAC Kick Off meeting, Purpose the City, H-GAC and Design Workshop received feedback from key stakehold- The purpose of the SAC Kick Off meet- ers on goals and concerns for the proj- ing was to present a preliminary project ect. There was also a review of analysis vision, introduce the Urban Centers materials on Urban Center concepts Photo Credit: Design Workshop concept, gather feedback on goals, iden- completed prior to the Kick Off. SAC Kick Off was held October 2012 in downtown Houston, Texas. tify challenges, and determine criteria of Large, Medium and Small Centers. The The Kick Off was held on Wednesday, SAC also helped formulate the project October 30th, 2012 from 3pm - 5pm at schedule and weigh in on upcoming 611 Walker Building, downtown Houston, next steps for creating Urban Centers in John B. Raia Conference Room #A603. Houston. The meeting session lasted approxi- mately 120 minutes. Regular meetings with the SAC through- out the project ensured transparency Activities included a presentation by and collaboration throughout the Urban the Consultant Team on the scope of Houston Framework creation process. the Urban Houston Framework project, The goal of the SAC Kick Off meeting expected outcomes, 2012-2013 sched- being held prior to the public Values ule of activities, and a group discussion Workshop focus groups was to ensure about Urban Center goals, challenges Photo Credit: Design Workshop the Urban Houston Framework process and criteria. reflected the thoughts and ideas of SAC Kick Off was held October 2012 in downtown Houston, Texas. Houston’s key stakeholders.
Urban Houston Framework | 115 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Kick Off Meeting: Key Findings
Centers
A Large Center caters to regional, Geographic Locations of Existing/ Defining Criteria of Centers Community Criteria refer to housing ty- national and international needs and Potential Centers The following page is a synopsis of pre- pologies, education and access to basic may consist of tall buildings and a street The Consultant Team also asked the requisite (required) and optional (recom- services such as food or health care. grid that allows for pedestrian activity, SAC to name areas in the city that might mended) criteria for Large Centers iden- retail activities and public transit access serve as examples of existing Centers. tified by the SAC during the Kick Off. Heritage and Attraction Criteria refer throughout. The SAC identified the Central Business to art, historic sites or other civic land- District as an example of an existing Generally, feedback received from the marks/facilities that create the meaning A Medium Center caters to citywide Large Center. The Medical Center was SAC fell into the following four catego- and value of a place. needs and has a mix of mid to high-rise cited as a potential Large Center. Rice ries (this applies to Large, Medium and buildings, shopping centers, housing Village and Greenspoint were defined Small): Economic Criteria refer to land uses and transportation options. as existing Medium Centers. The SAC and activities contributing to the overall named 19th Street in the Heights, Foun- 1. Community, economic viability of an area. A Small Center caters to community tain View, Kirby Montrose, Old Spanish 2. Heritage and Attraction, needs and may have low-rise build- Trail, Palm Center and Westheimer as 3. Economy, and Systems Criteria refer to both natural ings (such as single-family houses, potential Small Centers. 4. Systems. and man-made infrastructure required to small apartment complexes or locally meet commercial/residential demands owned businesses) and a street grid that such as transportation networks, parks primarily encourages transit by personal and open space connections or storm- automobile. Additionally, a Small Center water control. may encompass one neighborhood or multiple, smaller neighborhoods.
| 116 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Kick Off Meeting: Key Findings
CRITERIA COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ATTRACTION ECONOMY SYSTEMS
REQUIRED • Mixture of commercial land • Access to major freeway or PREREQUISITES uses that cater to regional, thoroughfare national and international needs • Multimodal transportation options that at minimum includes high-frequency bus routes, bikeways and shared parking structures • Walkable pedestrian environment
OPTIONAL • Civic/institutional land uses • Promotes 24-hour activity • Rail transit service CRITERIA (museums, performing arts centers, court houses, • Attracts and retains outside hospitals, City offices, dollars universities), access to City agencies • Active super neighborhood alliance, Management District or TIRZ
CRITERIA COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ATTRACTION ECONOMY SYSTEMS
REQUIRED • Industrial or manufacturing PREREQUISITES land uses • Medium financial impact (per capita pending annually) • Medium intensity of development (## people per square acre)
OPTIONAL • Retail land uses CRITERIA
Urban Houston Framework | 117 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Kick Off Meeting: Key Findings
CRITERIA COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ATTRACTION ECONOMY SYSTEMS
REQUIRED • Access to park land, open PREREQUISITES space and recreational facilities
• Walkable pedestrian environment
OPTIONAL • Active super neighborhood • Locally owned small • Walk to work trips CRITERIA alliance, Management District businesses or TIRZ
• Mixture of multi-family housing options (i.e. apartments, condominiums, townhouses) offered at a range of purchase/ rental rates
• Mixture of low to medium- density, single-family housing.
• Community focal point (such as community center, recreational complex or public park)
Urban Houston Framework | 118 Values Workshop: Overview
Purpose Outreach
The purpose of the Values Workshop Public outreach for the Values Work- Interested Public Workshop was to present a preliminary project shop included phone calls and e-mail The two-day Values Workshop con- vision, introduce the Urban Centers con- invitations to key stakeholders and focus cluded with an Interested Public meeting cept, gather feedback on goals, identify group members and advertisements on held Wednesday, December 5th from challenges, and determine Criteria of the City’s social media websites (Twitter 6:00 – 8:00 PM in the same room as Large, Medium and Small Centers. and Facebook). the focus groups. The purpose of this meeting was to reach out to the general Process Focus Groups public or those who could not attend Five focus groups were held. The pur- the daytime focus group meetings. This The Values Workshop was held on Tues- pose of these focus groups was to get meeting was open to all individuals day, December 4th and Wednesday, key stakeholders together to discuss top- interested in learning about the project December 5th, 2012 at the West Gray ics related to their professional experi- and offering feedback on goals and chal- Recreation Center located in Houston, ence or areas of expertise regarding the lenges. Texas. Each of the five meeting sessions creation of Urban Centers. The following lasted approximately 90 minutes. five focus groups for the Values Work- Members of the Interested Public were shop were identified by the Stakeholder also asked to provide feedback on Activities included a presentation by Advisory Committee: the required prerequisite and optional Photo Credit: Design Workshop the Consultant Team, group discussion criteria for Large, Medium and Small about Urban Center goals and challeng- 1. Realtors and Developers: Tues- Centers. es, a “brainstorming” activity in which day, December 4th; participants discussed Urban Centers 2. Policymakers and Agencies: Criteria, and a concluding mapping exer- Wednesday, December 5th; Figure 18: Focus Groups cise in which participants placed dots on 3. Engineers, Architects, Land- maps to signify locations of existing or scape Architects and Planners: potential Urban Centers in the city. Tuesday, December 4th; Urban Houston Framework 4. Housing Interests: Wednesday, Values Workshop Participants December 5th; and 1. Realtors and Developers 5. Special Districts (Management, 2. Policymakers and Agencies Historic, TIRZ, etc..): Wednesday, 3. Engineers, Architects, Landscape Architects and Planners December 5th. 4. Housing Interests 5. Special Districts (Management, Historic, TIRZ, etc..) 6. Interested Public
Urban Houston Framework | 119 Values Workshop: Key Findings
Large Centers
A Large Center caters to regional, Defining Criteria of Large Centers Community Criteria refer to housing ty- national and international needs and The following page is a synopsis of pre- pologies, education and access to basic may consist of tall buildings and a street requisite (required) and optional (recom- services such as food or health care. grid that allows for pedestrian activity, mended) criteria for Large Centers iden- retail activities and public transit access tified by stakeholders and the interested Heritage and Attraction Criteria refer throughout. public during a sticky note brainstorming to art, historic sites or other civic land- exercise conducted with each group dur- marks/facilities that create the meaning Geographic Locations of Existing/ ing the Values Workshop. and value of a place. Potential Large Centers After receiving feedback validating the Generally, feedback received from focus Economic Criteria refer to land uses Photo Credit: Design Workshop general definition for Large Centers, the group brainstorming exercises fell into and activities contributing to the overall Consultant Team asked participants to the following four categories: economic viability of an area. name areas in the city that might serve as examples of existing Centers. 1. Community, Systems Criteria refer to both natural 2. Heritage and Attraction, and man-made infrastructure required to The Special District Focus Group identi- 3. Economy, and meet commercial/residential demands fied the Central Business District as an 4. Systems. such as transportation networks, parks example of an existing Large Center. Focus Group & Interested Publicand Priorities open space connectionsfor or storm- The Medical Center and Uptown area Tier-1 Center Criteria water control. were also identified as existing Large Photo Credit: Design Workshop Centers. Greenspoint and Westchase systems were cited as potential Large Centers.
In addition to verbally discussing ex- community amples of Large Centers, a concluding map exercise was also conducted. Upon economy exiting, participants were provided dots that they could place on maps of the study area to signify locations of other cultural existing/potential Urban Centers (either Large, Medium or Small) near their com- 0 10 20 30 40 50 munities. Number of Responses
Figure 19: Values Workshop Meeting Results - Large Center Criteria
| 120 Values Workshop: Key Findings
CRITERIA COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ATTRACTION ECONOMY SYSTEMS
REQUIRED • Quality retail, dining and • Venues that accommodate • Mixture of commercial land • Access to park land, open PREREQUISITES shopping (includes access to cultural activities, events, uses that cater to regional, space and recreational healthy food by non-vehicular festivals, trade shows or national and international facilities transit) exhibits needs • Floodwater control/ • Educational opportunities for • Spaces that promote daytime • Low to high-wage stormwater management individuals of all ages and nighttime activities employment opportunities system • Established funding • Land uses that accommodate • Infrastructure capacity mechanism/management large-scale conventions, capable of meeting future entity meetings or conferences commercial/residential • Mixture of high-density, multi- (such as convention centers, demands family housing options (i.e. visitor centers or hotels) • Within service zone of a
Photo Credit: Design Workshop apartments, condominiums, • Attracts and retains outside police station, fire department townhouses) offered at a dollars (retail surplus leakage) and 24-hour emergency range of purchase/rental rates • High financial impact medical facility • Civic/institutional land uses • High intensity of development • Clear wayfinding and signage (museums, performing system that promotes arts centers, court houses, regional, national and hospitals, City offices, international destinations universities). • Access to major freeway or • Programmed public space thoroughfare (parks, courtyards and • Multimodal transportation plazas) options that at minimum • Subsidization or utilization include high-frequency bus of housing affordability routes, bikeways and shared programs and incentives parking structures
Photo Credit: Design Workshop • Walkable pedestrian environment that encourages internal circulation • Well-engineered ingress and egress
OPTIONAL • Access to City agencies • Historic buildings, structures • Entertainment venues • Underground utilities CRITERIA • Active super neighborhood or sites • Food stores • Walkable street grid alliance, Management District • Opportunities for publicly • Hotels • Close proximity to the Central or TIRZ accessible art • Spaces that promote 24-hour Business District • Vertical-mixed use buildings activity • Express bus/shuttle services that include residential uses. • High land values • Limited surface parking • Rail transit service • Public facilities that promote shared riding (carpools) or bike transit • Bikeways that link to regional systems
Urban Houston Framework | 121 Values Workshop: Key Findings
Medium Centers
A Medium Center caters to citywide In addition to verbally discussing ex- Community Criteria refer to housing ty- needs and has a mix of mid to high-rise amples of Medium Centers, a concluding pologies, education and access to basic buildings, shopping centers, housing map exercise was also conducted. Upon services such as food or health care. and transportation options. exiting, participants were provided sticky dots that they could place on maps of Heritage and Attraction Criteria refer Geographic Locations of Existing/ the study area to signify locations of to art, historic sites or other civic land- Potential Medium Centers other existing/potential Urban Centers marks/facilities that create the meaning After receiving feedback validating the (either Large, Medium or Small) near and value of a place. general definition for Medium Centers, their communities. the Consultant Team asked participants Economic Criteria refer to land uses to name areas in the city that might Defining Criteria of Medium and activities contributing to the overall serve as examples of existing Centers. Centers economic viability of an area. The Housing Interest and Policymakers The following page is a synopsis of pre- and Agencies Focus Groups identified requisite (required) and optional (recom- Systems Criteria refer to both natural Rice Village as an existing Medium mended) criteria for Medium Centers and man-made infrastructure required to Center. identified by stakeholders and interested meet commercial/residential demands public during a sticky note brainstorming such as transportation networks, parks exercise conducted with each group dur- and open space connections or storm- Greenspoint was also identified as an Focus Group & Interested Public Priorities for existing Medium Center by the Stake- ing the Values Workshop. water control. Tier-2 Center Criteria holder Advisory Committee, Policymak- ers and Agencies, and Special Districts Generally, feedback received from focus (management, historic, TIRZ, etc..) group brainstorming exercises fell into systems Focus Groups; meaning Greenspoint the following four categories: could potentially be either a Large or community Medium Center. 1. Community, 2. Heritage and Attraction, Other Medium Centers identified during 3. Economy, and economy the Values Workshop include the Mid- 4. Systems. town District, 2nd and 3rd Ward commu- cultural nities, the Energy Corridor, City Centre, Highland Village and Westchase District. 0 10 20 30 40 Number of Responses
Figure 20: Values Workshop Meeting Results - Medium Center Criteria
| 122 Values Workshop: Key Findings
CRITERIA COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ATTRACTION ECONOMY SYSTEMS
REQUIRED • Quality retail, dining and • Major civic or public • Mixture of commercial land • Access to major freeway or PREREQUISITES shopping (includes access destinations uses that cater to citywide thoroughfare to healthy food by personal needs • Access to park land, open vehicle) • Low to high-wage space and recreational • Educational opportunities for employment opportunities facilities individuals of all ages • Health care facilities • Floodwater control/ • Established funding • Industrial or manufacturing stormwater management mechanism/management land uses system entity • Medium financial impact • Sewer and water • Mixture of medium-density, • Medium intensity of infrastructure capacity multi-family housing development capable of meeting current options (i.e. apartments, commercial/residential condominiums, townhouses) demands offered at a range of • Multimodal transportation purchase/rental rates options that at a minimum • Mixture of medium-density, include close proximity to single-family housing medium-frequency bus routes, bikeways and shared parking opportunities
OPTIONAL • Access to high quality K-12 • Venues that accommodate • Raw land available within • Well planned connectivity CRITERIA schools cultural activities, events, boundary for future to nearby Large and Small • Job training or evening festivals, trade shows or development Centers professional development exhibits • Variety of dining options • Campus-like development programs • Historic buildings, structures • Mixed use • Complete streets • Religious institutions or or sites • Retail land uses • Express transit service places of worship • Opportunities for publicly • Visitor services • Managed parking structures • Established funding accessible art that promote multimodal mechanism/management transportation entity • Walkable street grid • Sewer and water infrastructure capacity capable of meeting future commercial/residential demands • No overhead utilities • Close proximity to the Central Business District • Safe bikeways
Urban Houston Framework | 123 Values Workshop: Key Findings
Small Centers
A Small Center caters to community lage, Hillcroft, King Harbor, Kingwood, Community Criteria refer to housing ty- needs and may have low-rise build- Kirby, Kirkwood, Long Point, Memorial pologies, education and access to basic ings (such as single-family houses, Drive, Navigation, Old Spanish Trail, services such as food or health care. small apartment complexes or locally Rice Village, River Oaks, The Heights, owned businesses) and a street grid that Washington Avenue and West Grey Heritage and Attraction Criteria refer primarily encourages transit by personal Street. to art, historic sites or other civic land- automobile. Additionally, a Small Center marks/facilities that create the meaning may encompass one neighborhood or In addition to verbally discussing ex- and value of a place. multiple, smaller neighborhoods. amples of Medium Centers, a concluding map exercise was also conducted. Upon Economic Criteria refer to land uses Geographic Locations of Existing/ exiting, participants were provided sticky and activities contributing to the overall Potential Small Centers dots that they could place on maps of economic viability of an area. After receiving feedback validating the the study area to signify locations of general definition for Small Centers, the other existing/potential Urban Centers Systems Criteria refer to both natural Consultant Team asked participants to (either Large, Medium or Small) near and man-made infrastructure required to name areas in the city that might serve their communities. meet commercial/residential demands as examples of existing Centers. such as transportation networks, parks Defining Criteria of Small Centers and open space connections or storm- Focus Group & Interested Public Priorities for The Housing Interests; Policymak- The following page is a synopsis of water control. ers and Agencies, and Engineers, prerequisite (required) and optional (rec- Tier-3 Center Criteria Architects, Landscape Architects and ommended) criteria for Small Centers Planners Focus Groups identified 19th identified by stakeholders and interested systems Street in the Heights and Westheimer as public during a sticky note brainstorm- existing Small Centers. Montrose was ing exercise conducted with each group community identified as an Small Center by Policy- during the Values Workshop. Generally, makers and Agencies and the Interested feedback received from focus group Public. brainstorming exercises fell into the fol- economy lowing four categories:
Several other Small Centers were identi- cultural fied during the Values Workshop include 1. Community, 2. Heritage and Attraction, the Palm Center, 4th Ward community, 0 10 20 30 Alameda Road, Avondale Street district, 3. Economy, and Number of Responses East End, Elgin and Dowling, Fountain 4. Systems. View, Greater East End, Highland Vil- Figure 21: Values Workshop Meeting Results - Small Center Criteria
| 124 Values Workshop: Key Findings
CRITERIA COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ATTRACTION ECONOMY SYSTEMS
REQUIRED • Quality retail, dining and • Historic buildings, structures • Mixture of commercial land • Collector streets that PREREQUISITES shopping or sites uses that cater to community serving as minor arterials or • Access to healthy food needs thoroughfares • Mixture of multi-family • Low intensity of development • Access to park land, open housing options (i.e. space and recreational apartments, condominiums, facilities townhouses) offered at a • Sewer and water range of purchase/rental rates infrastructure capacity • Mixture of low to medium- capable of meeting current density, single-family housing commercial/residential demands • Multimodal transportation options that at a minimum include close proximity to low-frequency bus routes and bikeways that tie into a larger regional network
OPTIONAL • Access to high quality K-12 • Venues that accommodate • Raw land available within • Walkable street grid CRITERIA schools cultural activities, events, boundary for future • Complete streets that • Educational opportunities for festivals, trade shows or development encourage walk-to-work trips individuals of all ages exhibits • Deed restrictions • Multimodal transportation • Job training or evening • Opportunities for publicly • Locally owned small options including bikeways professional development accessible art businesses and bus service programs • Full-service supermarket that • Civic uses includes healthy food options • Established funding and fresh produce mechanism/management • Does not include large entity office blocks or commercial • Deed restrictions business parks • Community focal point (such as community center, recreational complex or public park) • Access to health care facilities and neighborhood pharmacies
Urban Houston Framework | 125 Urban Houston Framework Website
Purpose makes Houston great, vote on strategies • CitizensNet Expanded public transportation options for improving Houston’s quality of life, • SAC constituents were tied not only to traffic reduction, but The purpose of the Urban Houston and pinpoint the locations of existing • H-GAC “Our Region” Corporate also viewed as opportunities to boost Framework website was to keep the pub- and future Urban Centers. Discussion Constituents tourism, reduce pollution, and connect lic up-to-date with information about the forums were provided for the following • Planning & Development Staff Urban Centers efficiently. In addition to planning process, and to generate new six topics: • Green Team Houston public transportation, comments also ideas by giving the public an opportunity • The Houston Chapter of the Ameri- mentioned the need for better pedestrian to discuss their own thoughts about how • Calling Houston Home: How can can Planning Association and bicycle infrastructure. to improve Houston while maintaining its we make Houston a more perma- • Super Neighborhoods unique character. nent home for our residents? Where • Civic Clubs Website participants also support the should we get started? idea of developing Urban Centers as Process • Urban Center Locations: Show Key Findings distinct destinations. Comments express us where existing and future Urban a desire to capitalize on Houston’s rich The website was launched on December Centers are located. Comments on the website reveal a num- history and cultural landmarks to draw 7th, 2012 and will remain active through • Visioning Houston’s Future: ber of recurring themes and concerns. tourists and residents from around the at least December 2013. As of May 20th, What is your vision for Centers in Transportation remains an important city to future Urban Centers. Attractive 2013, 188 users had participated in Houston? consideration for tomorrow’s Urban Cen- public spaces and public art are men- discussions on the website. • Making One Change: If you could ters. Comments frequently referenced tioned as important considerations in change one thing about Houston Houston’s growing traffic problem and developing unique Urban Centers that The goal of the Urban Houston Frame- what would it be? voiced their support for expanded public serve as citywide destinations for tour- work website was to keep the public • Diversifying Houston: How can transportation options and car sharing ists and residents alike. informed and engaged throughout the we make Houston an economically programs that reduce the number of planning process by providing an oppor- and globally competitive city to work vehicles on the road or parked for an tunity to voice their opinions at their own and live? extended period of time. convenience. The website also aimed to • Preserving Our Character: How gather feedback from interested mem- can Houston grow and expand, bers of the public that were unable to while protecting the character of attend the Values or Vision Workshops each of our neighborhoods? and those who wished to stay involved in the planning process. Outreach
Activities included the opportunity to Public outreach for the website included discuss a variety of topics with others an announcement at the Values and interested in the future of Houston’s Vision Workshops and e-mails to a Urban Centers, “second” other partici- number of interested stakeholders, pants’ ideas, share photos about what including: Figure 22: Urban Houston Framework Website | 126 Online Poll 1
Purpose The majority of respondents accessed The online poll asked respondents to the poll between January 7th and Janu- choose the top 5 characteristics they Urban Center Concurrent with each stakeholder ary 11th, 2013 following an e-mail sent would like to see in each of the pro- Characteristics meeting series, the Consultant Team through the City’s CitizenNet website. posed Urban Center sizes from a list launched an online poll. The purpose of of twenty-nine possible characteristics. 1. Reduced Setbacks the first online poll was to reach out to a Survey respondents were fairly evenly Respondents then rated the level of 2. Connectivity broader public to elicit feedback on the split between the three age groups “20 difficulty and importance of overcoming 3. Short Block Lengths most important criteria within an Urban to 39”, “40 to 59”, and “60 and older”. challenges associated with each of the 4. Increased Building Height Center and challenges to creating active The largest proportion of respondents selected characteristics. Respondents 5. Greater Number of Businesses 6. Civic Amenities Urban Centers in Houston. were between the ages of 40 to 59, also had the opportunity to suggest addi- but an almost equally large share were tional characteristics and challenges that 7. Population Density between the ages of 20 to 39. A slightly were not included in the list of options 8. Diversity of Housing Process 9. Higher Floor to Area Ratio smaller proportion were age 60 or older. provided. 10. Historic Structures/Landmarks The vast majority of respondents identi- The online poll was launched on De- 11. Increased Number of Jobs fied as “individuals” - only a small num- cember 10th, 2012 and remained active Outreach 12. Management Entity through January 30th, 2013. A total of ber of respondents identified as having a 13. Access from Major Roads 3,713 people visited the site and 2,125 “business” “government”, “institution”, or Public outreach for the website included 14. Access from Minor Roads visitors (57 percent) completed the poll. “nonprofit” affiliation. an announcement at the Values and 15. Park Once, But Do Many Things Vision Workshops and e-mails to a num- 16. Parks and Open Space ber of interested stakeholders, including: 17. Higher Density of Students Daily Visits By URL 18. Street Intersection Density 19. Reduced Street Width 1600 • CitizensNet • SAC constituents 20. Air Transportation 1400 • H-GAC “Our Region” Corporate 21. Automobile Transportation 1200 22. Bicycle Transportation Constituents 23. Bus Transportation 1000 • Planning & Development Staff 24. Rail Transportation 800 • Green Team Houston 25. Pedestrian Options 600 • The Houston Chapter of the Ameri- 26. Reduced Vacancy Rates
Daily Visit Count 400 can Planning Association 27. Quality Education • Super Neighborhoods 28. Security 200 • Civic Clubs 29. Residential Amenities 0
Figure 24: Top five Characteristics for 1/1/20131/3/20131/5/20131/7/20131/9/20131/11/20131/13/20131/15/20131/17/20131/19/20131/21/20131/23/20131/25/20131/27/20131/29/2013 12/10/201212/12/201212/14/201212/16/201212/18/201212/20/201212/22/201212/24/201212/26/201212/28/201212/30/2012 each Urban Center Size. Date
Figure 23: Daily Visit Counturbanhouston.metroquest.com for Online Poll 1. -----
Daily Visits and Data Urban Houston Framework | 127 1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600 Daily Count
400
200
0
1/1/20131/3/20131/5/20131/7/20131/9/20131/11/20131/13/20131/15/20131/17/20131/19/20131/21/20131/23/20131/25/20131/27/20131/29/2013 12/10/201212/12/201212/14/201212/16/201212/18/201212/20/201212/22/201212/24/201212/26/201212/28/201212/30/2012 Date
Date URL Visits WithData Percent December 10, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 24 5 21 December 11, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 23 10 43 December 12, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 18 5 28 December 13, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 17 2 12 December 14, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 5 1 20 December 15, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 1 0 0 December 16, 2012 ----- 0 0 0 December 17, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 8 0 0 December 18, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 7 3 43 December 19, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 13 5 38 December 20, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 17 8 47 December 21, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 8 2 25 December 22, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 1 0 0 December 23, 2012 ----- 0 0 0 December 24, 2012 ----- 0 0 0 December 25, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 1 0 0 December 26, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 4 0 0 December 27, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 12 8 67 December 28, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 5 3 60 December 29, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 3 2 67 December 30, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 2 0 0 December 31, 2012 urbanhouston.metroquest.com 2 1 50 Page 1 of 2 Aggregated Daily Traffic By URL for all visits to Project Houston Activity Centers Phase 1 between 12/10/2012 2/4/2013 12:00:00 AM and 1/30/2013 12:00:00 AM. Excludes IP addresses listed in the exclusions table. Online Poll 1 (Continued)
Key Findings
Urban Center Criteria Top Ranked Criteria: Medium Urban Center Challenges 7. Lack of connectivity between nodes The results of the first online poll reveal Centers The results of the first online poll reveal 8. Lack of policies and funding to the preferences of Houston residents Rankings submitted in the first online the most important challenges facing increase safety regarding the most important criteria for poll indicate the following characteristics tomorrow’s Urban Centers. Challenges 9. Lack of funding for education developing Urban Centers. The most fre- as being the most important to Medium were identified for each Urban Center 10. Lack of ability to change policies quently selected characteristics differed Centers: size, but several emerged as major with the Independent School District only slightly between the three Urban concerns for all three sizes. These chal- Center sizes. While security and con- 1. Connectivity lenges include: Survey respondents were also asked to nectivity ranked high for all three Urban 2. Greater Number of Businesses rank the level of difficulty in overcoming Centers, population density was unique 3. Security • Lack of funding to maintain existing challenges associated with each Urban only to Large Centers and parks and bik- 4. Civic Amenities infrastructure Center characteristic. Poll results indi- ability to Small Centers. 5. Quality Education • Poor pedestrian infrastructure cate that while people perceive all chal- 6. Diversity of Housing • Lack of policies and funding to lenges as relatively difficult to overcome, Top Ranked Criteria: Large 7. Rail Transportation increase safety “policies that require developers to bear Centers 8. Residential Amenities • Lack of connectivity between nodes the cost of infrastructure improvements Rankings submitted in the first online 9. Pedestrian Options (rail)” was ranked as slightly more dif- poll indicate the following characteristics 10. Automobile Transportation Top Ranked Challenges: Large ficult to address, and “poor pedestrian as being the most important to Large Centers infrastructure” as slightly easier. Centers: Top Ranked Criteria: Small Rankings submitted in the first online Figure 25: Large Center challenges Centers poll indicate the following challenges as ranked by level of difficulty and 1. Security Rankings submitted in the first online being the most important to address for importance. poll indicate the following characteristics 2. Population Density Large Centers: Large Center 3. Quality Education as being the most important to Small 4. Increase Number of Jobs Centers: 1. Lack of planning and fiscal support 5. Connectivity for mass transit 2 1 6. Greater Number of Businesses 1. Connectivity 2. Lack of focus on quality of life char- 7. Civic Amenities 2. Security 3 acteristics 4 8. Diversity of Housing 3. Quality Education 3. Lack of a multimodal approach to 5 9. Rail Transportation 4. Civic Amenities transportation (rail) 7 6 10. Pedestrian Options 5. Diversity of Housing 4. Poor pedestrian infrastructure 8 9 6. Residential Amenities 5. Lack of funding to maintain existing 7. Automobile Transportation infrastructure 10 8. Pedestrian Options 6. Policies that require developers Most Important 9. Bicycle Transportation to bear the cost of infrastructure Most Challenging 10. Parks and Open Space improvements (rail) | 128 Online Poll 1 (Continued)
Top Ranked Challenges: Medium Figure 26: Medium Center challenges Top Ranked Challenges: Small Figure 27: Small Center challenges Centers ranked by level of difficulty and Centers ranked by level of difficulty and Rankings submitted in the first online importance. Rankings submitted in the first online importance. poll indicate the following challenges as poll indicate the following challenges as being the most important to address for being the most important to address for Medium Center Small Center Medium Centers: Small Centers:
1. Lack of planning and fiscal support 1 1. Lack of a multimodal approach to 2 1 for mass transit 2 transportation (bike) 1 3 3 2 2. Policies that require developers 4 2. Lack of connectivity between nodes 3 5 4 4 to bear the cost of infrastructure 5 3. Lack of funding for education 5 6 7 6 6 improvements (rail) 7 4. Lack of funding to maintain existing 8 7 3. Lack of a multimodal approach to 9 8 infrastructure 8 9 transportation (rail) 10 5. Poor bicycle infrastructure 9 10 4. Lack of connectivity between nodes 10 6. Poor pedestrian infrastructure 5. Policies that require developers Most Important 7. Lack of ability to change policies Most Important to bear the cost of infrastructure with the Independent School District Most Challenging Most Challenging improvements (bike) 8. Lack of policies and funding to 6. Lack of funding to maintain existing increase safety infrastructure 9. Lack of funding for park program- 7. Poor bicycle infrastructure ming and maintenance 8. Poor pedestrian infrastructure 10. Poor sidewalk maintenance 9. Lack of policies and funding to increase safety Poll results indicate that people per- 10. Lack of a skilled and trained work- ceive “lack of a multimodal approach to force transportation (rail)” as the most difficult challenge to address and “lack of a Poll results for Medium Centers also skilled and trained workforce” as the indicate that people view all the chal- least difficult. lenges as significant roadblocks. How- ever, “lack of planning and fiscal support for mass transit” was ranked as the most difficult challenge to address and “poor pedestrian infrastructure” as the easiest.
Urban Houston Framework | 129 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting 2-4
Stakeholder Advisory Stakeholder Advisory Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting 2 Committee (SAC) Meeting 3 Committee (SAC) Meeting 4
Prior to the Values Workshop (see fol- The third Stakeholder Advisory Commit- The fourth Stakeholder Advisory Tools and expectations were further dis- lowing page for a summary), the second tee meeting (held January 10th, 2013) Committee meeting (held February cussed in this meeting. SAC members Stakeholder Advisory Committee meet- reviewed the outcomes from the first 13th, 2013) introduced the pilot project suggested that financial incentives will ing (held December 3rd, 2012) present- public workshop, the peer review, initial analysis and assumptions to gain feed- be the most effective, while non-financial ed the analysis of Urban Center char- Framework process alternatives, and back and sign-off prior to finishing the are secondary. Affordable housing was acteristics from the first SAC meeting Universal Improvement Tools and Devel- analysis. brought up as a challenge in Houston and concepts for the applicant process, oper Incentives. to keep the affordability from getting criteria and tools and expectations. There was some questioning of the pushed to the fringes, but not impossible The Consultant Team reviewed the tools assumptions used for the pilot project, to overcome. Other tools recommenda- Goal refinements were requested, such that other cities had used in their Urban in particular, the rental rates. But the tions included arts and culture and a as creating more public space, preserv- Centers. The SAC highlighted the fact sources for the information were veri- better way to promote this ideal. ing civic uses and protecting existing that it is difficult to find peer cities to fied. character. There was concern about how Houston because there is no zoning. existing, stable neighborhoods would be Some members stressed the importance protected from Urban Center develop- of first providing a general or compre- ment. hensive plan prior to defining Urban Centers. There was discussion of which criteria and what thresholds would be required The Urban Center process discussion for a place to become an Urban Center, had support for all of the three alterna- with an emphasis on magnitude of activ- tives (City-initiated, applicant-initiated ity density. and community-initiated) for different reasons: the different processes seem to correlate to different sizes of Centers.
Photo Credit: Design Workshop
| 130 Vision Workshop: Overview
Purpose
The purpose of the Urban Houston The Consultant Team then presented a The following Focus Groups participated Interested Public Workshop Framework Vision Workshop was to series of Scenario Options for criteria, in the Vision Workshop: The two-day Vision Workshop also in- build upon previous findings regarding expectations/tools, and processes - cluded an Interested Public meeting held Urban Center visions, goals and func- pausing for group discussions with meet- 1. Realtors and Developers: Wednes- on Wednesday, February 13th from 6:00 tions, review benchmarking analysis and ing attendees regarding various pros, day, February 13th; – 8:00pm at the Houston Garden Center. results from the first online poll and to cons and administrative requirements 2. Policy Makers and Agencies: Thurs- present proposed Framework scenario for each. In addition to verbal feedback, day, February 14th; The purpose of this meeting was to alternatives and toolboxes. participants were also asked to weigh in 3. Engineers, Architects, Landscape reach out to the general public or those on each of the Scenario Options through Architects and Planners: Wednes- who could not attend the focus group Meeting participants were asked to help a series of keypad polling questions. day, February 13th; meetings and to get input reflective of a narrow down a lengthy list of potential 4. Housing Interests: Thursday, Febru- broad range of perspectives. This meet- criteria, expectations/tools, and pro- Outreach ary 14th; and ing was open to all individuals interested cesses alternatives for creating Urban 5. Special Districts (Management, in learning about the project and offering Centers in Houston. The overall aim of Public outreach for the Vision Workshop Historic, TIRZ, etc..): Thursday, feedback on criteria, expectations/tools, the meeting was to gather input from Fo- included phone calls and e-mail invita- February 14th. and processes alternatives. cus Groups, Stakeholder Advisory Com- tions to key stakeholders and Focus mittee members and interested citizenry Group members, and advertisements on that could be analyzed by the Consultant the City’s social media websites (Twitter Team to determine a single, preferred and Facebook). Framework scenario for implementation. Focus Groups Process Five Focus Group meetings were conducted. The purpose of these focus Vision Workshop meetings were held on groups was to get key stakeholders Wednesday, February 13th and Thurs- together to discuss topics related to their day, February 14th, 2013 at the West professional experience or areas of ex- Gray Recreation Center and Houston pertise in relation to various potential cri- Garden Center. Each meeting session teria, expectations/tools, and processes lasted approximately 120 minutes. Each alternatives for creating Urban Centers meeting began with a brief introduction, in Houston. Stakeholders were identified review of the overall Urban Houston through previous meetings conducted Framework process (schedule, scope, with Stakeholder Advisory Committee time line) and previous findings from the members.
Values Workshop and first online poll. Photo Credit: Design Workshop
Urban Houston Framework | 131 Vision Workshop: Key Findings
Criteria Alternatives
How does an area gain access to the that the Prerequisites Only Scenario Vision Workshop participants provided old of points than the Large Center, and Universal Improvement Tools and De- was the least supported scenario of feedback on which Urban Centers the to become a Small Center an applicant veloper Incentives outlined in the Urban all possible options presented during Prerequisite plus Optional Scenario ap- must earn even fewer points. Houston Framework? The Consultant the Workshop. Twenty eight percent of plied to. Thirty eight percent of respon- Team formulated three criteria alterna- respondents felt the scenario did not ap- dents felt the scenario was most applica- Vision Workshop participants provided tives that could be used to determine ply to any Urban Center due to the fact ble to Medium Centers, however, there feedback on which Urban Centers the which Universal Improvement Tools and that the system would be “too black and was general agreement that it could also Point System Scenario applied to. Thirty Developer Incentives would be appropri- white” to ensure applicability to the vari- apply to Large or Small Centers. seven percent of respondents felt this ate for development, redevelopment, or ety of Centers found in Houston. Thirty scenario was most applicable to Medium infill projects in Large, Medium or Small five percent of respondents indicated Group discussions revealed more sup- and Small Centers. Group discussions Centers. At the Vision Workshop, meet- that the Prerequisites Only option could port for the Prerequisites plus Optional revealed that Workshop participants ing participants were asked to weigh in be applicable to Large Centers; how- Scenario than the Prerequisites Only were less supportive of the Point System on these three criteria alternatives. Key ever, it was recommended that appli- Scenario due to higher levels of per- Scenario for Large Centers because findings are discussed below. cants unable to meet all of the required ceived flexibility to applicants. Respon- they felt that there was merit in requir- prerequisites should be given an option dents emphasized that “the ability to ing certain expectations for walkable, Prerequisites Only Scenario to reapply under one of the more flexible make a choice is a hallmark of develop- urban building forms in Large Centers to Under the Prerequisites Only Scenario, Center designation scenarios. ment” so it would be imperative for the ensure “consistent coherence to build- Large, Medium or Small Center designa- preferred Framework scenario “to leave ing standards” that may not be as well tion is achieved by meeting a series of Prerequisites plus Optional as much control as possible in the hands encouraged by a point system. requirements. For example, to become a Scenario of the developers” ultimately building the Large Center a site must meet a select Under the Prerequisites plus Optional Urban Center. Overall, Workshop participants agreed group of criteria such as combined job Scenario, Large, Medium or Small Cen- the Point System scenario offers the and population density and close prox- ter designation is achieved by meeting Point System Scenario greatest flexibility of options for meeting imity to a freeway or major road. If the a combination of required and optional Under the Point System Scenario, enter requirements. Focus Group mem- site does not meet all of these required criteria. For example, to become a Small Large, Medium or Small Center desig- bers also noted support for this scenario prerequisites, the applicant would be Center an applicant must prove the nation is achieved by meeting varying due to the fact that it could include crite- unable to obtain Urban Center status project meets prerequisite criteria plus levels of point requirements. Like other ria such as security and walkability that and access the development incentive 2-3 optional criteria. Prerequisite criteria well-known rating systems, such as are difficult to require and/or measure Toolbox. could be job and population density and Leadership in Energy and Environmen- under the Prerequisite Only Scenario or proximity to a freeway while optional tal Design (LEED) or the Sustainable the Prerequisite plus Optional scenario. Vision Workshop participants provided criteria could be residential dwelling Sites Initiative (SITES), an applicant Several stakeholders indicated that this feedback on which Urban Centers they unit density, proximity to METRO bus or must achieve a minimum score of points scenario would be more difficult to ad- felt the Prerequisite Only Scenario ap- civic amenities within a ½-mile walking to become a Large Center under this minister causing added expense to the plied to. Keypad polling results indicated distance. scenario. To become a Medium Center, developer and the City. an applicant must meet a lower thresh- | 132 Vision Workshop: Key Findings
Tool and Expectation Alternatives
The Consultant Team formulated a The inclusion of Stormwater Treatment Engineers, Architects, Landscape Similar to realtors and developers, the series of Universal Improvement Tools Credits were cited as something devel- Architects and Planners Engineers, Architects, Landscape Archi- that could be offered to encourage more opers could market as being “green”; The Engineers, Architects, Landscape tects and Planners Focus Group voiced sustainable development practices. thereby being a good incentive for Architects and Planners Focus Group concerns regarding Tools involving Rules an applicant proposing a develop- encouraging private sector opt-in to the suggested that Universal Improve- street abandonment; citing that decreas- ment project (new construction, infill or Framework. ment Tools and Developer Incentives ing the overall connectivity of the City otherwise) must meet in order to gain ac- involving City assistance/fee waivers to could have long-term effects impossible cess to Developer Incentives, were also This focus group felt that a City-led in- encourage the construction of diverse to fully account for and predict, despite discussed. Vision Workshop participants frastructure plan for each Urban Center housing are good but it would ultimately rigorous case-by-case analysis. were asked to weigh in on each combi- would be very helpful for coordinating be a Houston-wide policy for affordable nation of Universal Improvement Tools better building practices with multiple housing on behalf of the City that would This group recommended that Univer- and Developer Incentives, voicing likes, landowners. Moreover, developers were positively impact the region’s housing sal Improvement Tools and Developer dislikes, improvements and concerns for very supportive of tools promoting LID; needs; not Urban Centers. In addition Incentives involving park land dedication each. Key findings are outlined below. citing that LID techniques are an “excel- to a citywide policy, additional require- be refined to require dedications that lent addition to the traditional develop- ments would need to be included in the are publicly accessible (not reserved for Realtors and Developers ment models used by developers in Framework to focus funding in certain residents of a private property only). In The Realtors and Developers Focus the City” that should be encouraged, Centers. general, the focus group encouraged Group suggested that Tools involving acknowledged and advertised more the Consultant Team to consider more City assistance/fee waivers to encour- often in Houston. Tax abatements were cited as an inef- creative, alternative Tools for park land age the construction of diverse housing fective tool for meeting the infrastructure dedication and aggregating open spaces be revised to extend beyond permitting Universal Improvement Tools and goals of Urban Centers. Instead, tax or increasing connectivity to parks. For fee waivers to include reduced impact Developer Incentives involving park rebates were preferred, but developer urban trail networks, it was recommend- fees per unit (park land dedication, for land dedication and street abandon- 380 Agreements would be ideal. ed that Tools be improved by adding example) as these would be more effec- ment were more controversial. Realtors parameters to ensure that connectivity tive. The realtors and developers voiced and developers felt that Tools involving This focus group largely supported LID is well maintained, trails are well lit and support for Tools providing utility infra- streets should be revised to include a inclusive Tools, however emphasized that developers are being required to structure tax abatements and greater caveat requiring strategic implementa- that the Preferred Framework Scenario address what is limiting access to trail involvement by the City in coordinating tion on a case-by-case basis in areas should not mandate LID requirements networks. stormwater facilities. where positives created by increasing because lack of financial feasibility could pedestrian access outweigh negative im- be exclusionary and potentially deter pact on through-traffic. This group also high density, walkable urban develop- suggested that Tools requiring park land ment. dedication be expanded to also require connectivity to park land or open space. Urban Houston Framework | 133 Vision Workshop: Key Findings
Policy Makers and Agencies are expected to contribute to in order to housing funds for land-banking (the (Tool currently includes parking facilities This group, while supportive of Universal meet Urban Center goals. purchasing of raw land with the intent owned by City or governmental agen- Improvement Tools and Developer In- to hold on to it until it is profitable to cies, only). centives that promote housing diversity, Similar to previous groups, the Housing sell. Not only are these acquired lands noted that how the City defines “afford- Interests Focus Group suggested that located outside of the TIRZ, they are not ability” would be of great long-term im- the most effective Tool for overcoming being utilized for affordable housing. portance, as the accommodation of low- these challenges would be the creation Thus participants supported the use of income groups as well as middle-income of a citywide, long-term housing pro- petition initiated TIRZ in conjunction with groups is integral to citywide housing gram that accommodates an expanded traditional City initiated TIRZ to better needs. Policy makers also emphasized range of income levels needing to be align projected revenues with housing that most affordable housing is tax credit met in addition to traditional definitions needs. Another Tool recommended by based, so Tools in the Preferred Frame- of what comprises affordable housing. the Housing Interests Focus Group for work Scenario should reflect this reality. the Preferred Framework Scenario was This focus group also discussed that in employer assisted housing. Washington Housing Interests order to meet housing goals, the City Courtyard, located in Houston, was cited The Housing Interests Focus Group may have to pre-pay future tax dollars in as a very successful mixed-income em- recommended Universal Improvement the form of subsidizing more strategic, ployer assisted housing benchmark. Tools and Developer Incentives that housing developments in order to get promote housing diversity but desired people to move back into the City. Special Districts additional Tools promoting the alignment The Special Districts Focus Group was of subsidies with citywide goals, prefer- One participant suggested using petition supportive of Universal Improvement ably in the form of a per door subsidy initiated a tax increment reinvestment Tools and Developer Incentives that guarantee. A major concern voiced by zone (TIRZ) in which 30% of funding promote housing diversity but were con- the Housing Interests Focus Group was is set aside for the implementation of cerned about Tools involving infrastruc- that all affordable housing may only be affordable housing projects within that ture tax abatements and how improve- directed to Urban Centers; excluding TIRZ’ boundaries. Considerable discus- ments would be coordinated to make neighborhoods in desperate need of sion followed this statement. sure they would be worthy of developers’ housing opportunities falling outside of investments. This group also supported Urban Center boundaries. It will be very Several meeting attendees validated the Tools promoting on site parking reduc- important for the City to clearly define participant’s concern about TIRZ’ inap- tions for shared parking initiatives, but “affordable” and a target mix of housing propriately spending money collected offered that Urban Center goals may be typologies and quantities developers and earmarked for affordable housing more effectively furthered if the Tool was noting that many TIRZ’ use affordable extended to include private development
| 134 Vision Workshop: Key Findings
Interested Public Interested Public meeting participants supported Universal Improvement Tools and Developer Incentives that involve City assistance/fee waivers to encour- age the construction of diverse housing. The only concern noted in regard to housing related tools was the displace- ment of lower income populations to the suburbs.
Tools involving tax abatements were also supported. Phoenix, Arizona was cited as a good benchmark for setting standards for holding developers to long-term, sustainable infrastructure alterations.
Park land dedication waivers were acknowledged as an appropriate Tool for Photo Credit: Design Workshop meeting Urban Center goals. One chal- lenge with park land dedication however is that large parcels used for low-density housing have not typically been offset by the City’s low $700 compensation fee.
Tools involving the creation of communi- ty-based vision and infrastructure plans for Urban Centers also received support, although Interested Public meeting par- ticipants emphasized concern over how often these vision plans would need to be changed/updated. Ideally, an Urban Center vision would evolve over time to be reflective of market realities. The
Preferred Framework Scenario should Photo Credit: Design Workshop accommodate this. Urban Houston Framework | 135 Vision Workshop: Key Findings
Process Alternatives
The Consultant Team formulated three parcel as Toolbox eligible for finite length eligible for a finite period of time (5 years as Toolbox eligible for a finite period of Process Alternatives that could be used of time (5 years recommended). recommended). time (5 years recommended). to determine how Urban Center bound- Keypad polling indicated that Focus aries are established, who initiates the Groups and members of the Interested Throughout the Vision Workshop meet- Several Focus Groups mentioned application and designation process, Public find the City Initiated Process ings, a reoccurring theme emerged. concern with the Consultant Team’s and how long Urban Center designations most applicable to Large Centers, Creating a “one-size-fits-all solution” in proposed 5-year eligibility period, rec- are valid. Vision Workshop participants although the Interested Public felt that Houston for opting into an Urban Center ommending this be extended to up to 20 were asked to weigh in on these Process for all Centers, the City Initiated Process is not recommended and largely viewed years in the Preferred Framework Sce- Alternatives. Key findings are discussed should include an option for applicant as unfeasible for encouraging private nario. The reasoning for meeting par- below. petition. sector buy-in to the program. There was ticipants’ concern was that development advocacy across meetings for a flexible projects sometimes require greater than City Initiated Process Community Initiated Process application process in which individual five years to get started, and upwards of In the City initiated Urban Center desig- In a community initiated Urban Center property owners unable to meet prereq- 10 years to be constructed. nation process, the Planning & Develop- designation process, a neighborhood uisite criteria for Large, Medium or Small ment, Housing & Community Develop- management district, tax increment rein- Centers have access to another avenue A potential revision suggested for the ment, Public Works & Engineering, and vestment zone (TIRZ), historic district or for opting in to the Framework - such Preferred Framework Scenario was to Parks & Recreation departments identify non-profit organization identifies an area as a larger community or management change the eligibility period definition areas eligible for Universal Improvement to be established as an Urban Center district led application process under to include that applicants have 5 years Tools and Developer Incentives. Using and approaches the City. After receiving a point system or prerequisites plus to commence construction in order to this process, the City would maintain a the community’s request, the City as- optional system. access the Toolbox (rather than 5 years comprehensive database that interested signs boundary lines (valid for up to five total Toolbox eligibility). While Peer applicants could access to determine years) to the Urban Center. Applicant Initiated Process Reviews indicated that most other cities whether or not a development project/ In an applicant initiated Urban Center implementing Urban Centers require land parcel is located within an Urban An applicant would then provide the designation process, a residential de- eligibility renewal every 5 years, the Pre- Center, and therefore Toolbox eligible. City with development plans and proof veloper, commercial property owner or ferred Framework Scenario should be the parcel of land to be accessing the company redeveloping a land parcel (or reflective of the real estate development To gain access to the Universal Improve- Toolbox exists within the Urban Center group of land parcels) starts the process and market realities of Houston. ment Tools and Developer Incentives, an boundaries. Once the City has reviewed by proving the proposed development applicant provides the City with devel- the applicant’s plans it would then issue project creates a new Urban Center that opment plans and proof a parcel exists a letter certifying the parcel as Toolbox should be eligible for Toolbox access or within Urban Center boundaries. Once by proposing a project in a pre-existing the City has reviewed the applicant’s Urban Center and providing the City with plans it would issue a letter certifying the development plans. Once the City has reviewed the applicant’s plans it would then issue a letter certifying the parcel | 136 Vision Workshop: Conclusions
Top Ranked Tools Top Tools: Small Centers Pilot Project analyses will also provide Keypad poll ranking from Focus Groups insight as to the validity of various Cen- Top Tools: Large Centers and members of the Interested Public ter criteria - such as walking distance, Keypad poll ranking from Focus Groups indicated the following tools will be most roadway proximity and density per and members of the Interested Public applicable to Small Centers. acre - for achieving both long-range and indicated the following tools will be most short-range goals of the Framework. applicable to Large Centers. • LID • Urban trail networks • Assistance/fee waivers for mixed • Urban Center infrastructure plan use/affordable housing • Urban Center vision plan • Utility infrastructure tax abatements • Build to property line allowance • Coordinated stormwater facilities • Stormwater treatment credit • Stormwater treatment credit • Promoting sustainable design • Urban Center infrastructure plan • Promoting sustainable design Figure 28: Vision Workshop keypad • Pedestrian realm improvement tax polling results showing Tool ranking abatement by Center Size shows the combined • Traffic impact analysis waiver findings for all three sizes of Urban • Downtown setbacks Center. • Urban Center traffic impact study Application of Key Findings to Pilot Top Tools: Medium Centers Projects Keypad poll ranking from Focus Groups The Consultant Team will apply all possi- and members of the Interested Public ble tools and expectations, in addition to indicated the following tools will be most those ranked highest by stakeholders, to applicable to Medium Centers. three Pilot Projects located in Houston. In applying revised tools to the follow- • LID ing three Pilot Projects the Consultant • Street abandonment Team will be able to explore and validate • Park land dedication which tools are most applicable to • Build to property line allowance Large, Medium and Small Centers and • On-site parking test whether these will produce desired • Parking benefit district outcomes identified by stakeholders for • Urban Center vision plan built environments. • Urban trail networks
Urban Houston Framework | 137 Vision Workshop: Top Ranked Tools by Center Size
Top Ranked Tools by Center Size 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Assistance/Fee Waivers for Mixed Use Housing Utility Infrastructure Tax Abatements City Coordinated Stormwater Facilities Stormwater Treatment Credit City Published Urban Center Infrastructure Plan Low Impact Development (LID) Street Abandonment Park Land Dedication Build To Property Line Allowance Onsite Parking Special Parking Area / Benefit District Urban Center Vision Plan Promoting Sustainable Design Pedestrian Realm Improvement Tax Abatement Traffic Impact Analysis Waiver Downtown Setbacks Urban Center Traffic Impact Study Urban Trail Networks
LARGE CENTERS MEDIUM CENTERS SMALL CENTERS NONE
Figure 28: Vision Workshop keypad polling results showing Tool ranking by Center Size
| 138 Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting 5-6
Stakeholder Advisory Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting 5 Committee (SAC) Meeting 6
The fifth Stakeholder Advisory Com- The sixth Stakeholder Advisory Commit- mittee meeting (held March 27th, 2013) tee Meeting (held April 11th, 2013) was reviewed the outcomes from the Vision an affordable housing discussion about Workshop and reviewed the Pilot Project which Universal Improvement Tools and analysis to date. Developer Incentives are most appropri- ate for the City of Houston. The three Pilot Project sites were reviewed with the SAC in order to gain The following Universal Improvement feedback and adjustments to be made Tools and Developer Incentives were prior to the Implementation Workshop. It reviewed: the Affordable Housing Tool, was suggested that park land dedication Mixed Use Tool and Infrastructure be taken into account for the West- Reimbursement Tool. A question arose chase model, and that the Montrose- on the effectiveness of reduced permit- Westheimer Pilot Project show a more ting fees and whether they are currently similar comparison than what exists on so burdensome as to deter develop- site today versus an 11-story multi-family ment. It was decided that this incentive building. might not really be effective. But a good Photo Credit: Design Workshop incentive would be to have an ombuds- Criteria were discussed and there was man to shepherd a development through concern about setting the correct thresh- the permitting process and/or inform a olds so as not to deter development and developer about the grants and financ- undermine the Framework goals. Urban ing that is available to build affordable Center boundaries will be very important housing. and very difficult to define in order for developers and land owners to be able The Mixed Use Tool, which required to determine whether they are in an a certain mix of uses in exchange for Urban Center. reduced impact fees, was determined as not appropriate for Houston at this point in time. But the City could still require an activated, transparent ground floor, even if it is not a commercial use.
Urban Houston Framework | 139 Implementation Workshop
The third round of stakeholder meetings cation and the displacement of long-term occurred over a two day time period on residents is a real side effect of increas- April 11th and 12th, 2013. The purpose ing land value. of this workshop was to present the Uni- versal Improvement Tools and Develop- The workshop facilitated much great er Incentives, and the results of the Pilot discussion about the appropriateness Project analysis to the general public. of certain Tools in Houston and the con- cerns of those who live in areas who will There were two meetings held at the border Urban Centers. West Gray Multi-Service Center - one at 2 PM and one at 6 PM. This was an effort to make the workshop accessible to people with varying schedules. Ap- proximately 40 people in total attended the workshops.
After presentation of the Pilot Projects, discussion included questions of why a developer would choose to develop using the Toolbox, when the return on investment was not that much greater than how they may be able to develop today. It became evident that Manage- ment Districts may have a greater role in initiating Urban Center projects. Partner- ships between the City and its various departments, METRO and Management Districts will be imperative to implement- ing a more urban form of development.
Many comments were about the size of the Toolbox and that as many Tools as can be included in it should be included. Attendees also cautioned against the negative effects of redevelopment to existing, stable neighborhoods. Gentrifi- Photo Credit: Design Workshop
| 140 Online Poll 2
The second online poll (active April 12th to April 26th, 2013) allowed the general public to provide feedback on tools and expectations.
Urban Houston Framework | 141 This page intentionally left blank.
| 142 B APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Are We Planning for Not applicable. Developers are Collaborate with local organizations to host an annual Not applicable. Builders looking for This workshop could focus One of the biggest challenges Sustainable unaware of workshop for construction professionals looking to assistance in executing on how the choice of mentioned during the Values Development? An sustainable building learn more about the future of sustainable building Leadership in Energy and materials contributes to Workshop is public education Evaluation of 30 practices. innovations. Focus on raising awareness within the Environmental Design sustainable design, about the advantages of Comprehensive Plans. professional construction community about green (LEED) and Built Green durability, health and redevelopment and better Authors: Philip R. buildings and building materials and how green Projects can get the efficiencies in any building building practices. Prioritizing Berke and Maria building practices use key resources such as water, answers they need. project. It could also feature funding towards educational Manta Conroy. APA land and construction materials much more efficiently Ensuring regular dialogues a "hands on" sampling of workshops will help raise public Journal, Winter 2000, than buildings that are built to code. with Houston's contractor new products in the awareness about Urban Centers, Volume 66, Number 1, community could help the marketplace, including items as well as advocate for green pp. 21-33. City identify challenges to manufactured locally. building and construction using new construction techniques. methods and technologies to create Urban Centers. Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Current regulations not Approximately 2 miles in radius, population of at least 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Allows different Criteria for No data available. The size, population, residential CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 encouraging dense 125,000 residents and 200,000 employees by 2035. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 different center types. and employment parameters for Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C development near per square mile. establishing Tier levels is of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise transit stations. consistent throughout the d.pdf majority of peer reviews. Austin's CAMPO 2035 is an example of how they designated Tiers through a comprehensive planning process. Also, the numbers used by CAMPO are aimed for 2035 goals for handling population projections. The Urban Houston Framework effort should also maybe identify a long-term date for when Urban Centers should be created by (i.e. are we really aiming for major progress by 2020, 2030, 2040 or 2050) as this may inform how decisions and implementation components are prioritized.
Urban Houston Framework | 144 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Current regulations not Approximately 1 mile in radius, population of 9,000 to 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Allows different Criteria for No data available. The size, population, residential CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 encouraging dense 75,000 residents and 9,000 to 40,000 employees. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 different center types. and employment parameters for Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C development near per square mile. establishing Tier levels is of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise transit stations. consistent throughout the d.pdf majority of peer reviews. Austin's CAMPO 2035 is an example of how they designated Tiers through a comprehensive planning process. Also, the numbers used by CAMPO are aimed for 2035 goals for handling population projections. The Urban Houston Framework effort should also maybe identify a long-term date for when Urban Centers should be created by (i.e. are we really aiming for major progress by 2020, 2030, 2040 or 2050) as this may inform how decisions and implementation components are prioritized.
Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Current regulations not Approximately 1/2 mile in radius, population of 2,000 to 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Allows different Criteria for No data available. The size, population, residential CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 encouraging dense 10,000 residents and 2,000 to 9,000 employees. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 different center types. and employment parameters for Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C development near per square mile. establishing Tier levels is of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise transit stations. consistent throughout the d.pdf majority of peer reviews. Austin's CAMPO 2035 is an example of how they designated Tiers through a comprehensive planning process. Also, the numbers used by CAMPO are aimed for 2035 goals for handling population projections. The Urban Houston Framework effort should also maybe identify a long-term date for when Urban Centers should be created by (i.e. are we really aiming for major progress by 2020, 2030, 2040 or 2050) as this may inform how decisions and implementation components are prioritized.
Urban Houston Framework | 145 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Protect environmental Minimize development in sensitive areas. 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Locations identified as No data available. Goals are almost identical to CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 resources. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 Centers are not required to what has been discussed by Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C per square mile. develop in any certain way. Urban Houston Framework of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise Rather the local jurisdictions stakeholders. Urban Centers are d.pdf are to encourage established through a case by development through their case review process that doesn’t own means and methods. rely on overly prescriptive development regulations.
Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Inconsistent Focusing and minimizing infrastructure costs. 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Locations identified as No data available. Goals are almost identical to CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 development practices 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 Centers are not required to what has been discussed by Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C and gaps in per square mile. develop in any certain way. Urban Houston Framework of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise infrastructure. Rather the local jurisdictions stakeholders. Urban Centers are d.pdf are to encourage established through a case by development through their case review process that doesn’t own means and methods. rely on overly prescriptive development regulations.
Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Protecting existing Creating areas with a unique sense of place. 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Locations identified as No data available. Goals are almost identical to CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 community character. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 Centers are not required to what has been discussed by Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C per square mile. develop in any certain way. Urban Houston Framework of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise Rather the local jurisdictions stakeholders. Urban Centers are d.pdf are to encourage established through a case by development through their case review process that doesn’t own means and methods. rely on overly prescriptive development regulations.
Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Creating live/work/play Locating businesses and civic amenities closer to 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Locations identified as No data available. Goals are almost identical to CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 environments. where people want to live. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 Centers are not required to what has been discussed by Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C per square mile. develop in any certain way. Urban Houston Framework of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise Rather the local jurisdictions stakeholders. Urban Centers are d.pdf are to encourage established through a case by development through their case review process that doesn’t own means and methods. rely on overly prescriptive development regulations.
Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Lack of housing Greater mix of Housing options. 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Locations identified as No data available. Goals are almost identical to CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 diversity, choice and 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 Centers are not required to what has been discussed by Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C access to quality per square mile. develop in any certain way. Urban Houston Framework of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise schools. Rather the local jurisdictions stakeholders. Urban Centers are d.pdf are to encourage established through a case by development through their case review process that doesn’t own means and methods. rely on overly prescriptive development regulations.
Urban Houston Framework | 146 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Austin, Texas - http://www.campotexas Lack of housing Encourage development within identified centers with 4,285 square miles in Metro Area; Minimize development in No data available. Minimize development in CAMPO Regional .org/pdfs/CAMPO%20 diversity, choice and specific residential density targets. 1,783,519 population. Density 3,263 sensitive areas; greater mix sensitive areas; greater mix of Growth Concept (part 2035%20Growth%20C access to quality per square mile. of housing options; minimize housing options; minimize of CAMPO 2035 Plan) oncept_07_516Revise schools. infrastructure costs; focus infrastructure costs; focus d.pdf infrastructure investment; infrastructure investment; amenities closer to where amenities closer to where people people want to live; creates want to live; creates unique unique sense of place. sense of place
Bellevue, Washington - http://www.psrc.org/as Current regulations not Increased density near center (8.0 FAR and 450 39.5 square miles; 122,363 Regulate the building See Success Stories from This criteria addresses issues Downtown Bellevue sets/3479/Bellevue_R encouraging dense height, scaling down further from the center. population; Density 3,827.4/square massing and building the Regional Growth with new development being Urban Center Puget GC_to_GMPB_01- development near mile; 6 miles east of Seattle. heights of newly constructed Centers Puget Sound massed appropriately for Sound Regional 2010.pdf transit stations. developments. Regional Council (August encouraging density in a central Council Growth 2003) at Center location and radiating to Management Policy http://www.psrc.org/assets/2 lower heights moving away from Board 27/toolkit.pdf. the central point so as to ensure January 14, 2010 buildings blend well with existing Presentation by Dan residential/commercial fabric. Stroh, Bellevue Planning Director Bellevue, Washington - http://www.psrc.org/as Current regulations not Buildings that are more than 50% residential are 39.5 square miles; 122,363 Incentivize dense, mixed See Success Stories from Like Houston, Bellevue is also Downtown Bellevue sets/3479/Bellevue_R encouraging dense allowed substantial extra height over office or retail population; Density 3,827.4/square use development. the Regional Growth attempting to increase it's Urban Center Puget GC_to_GMPB_01- development near only buildings. mile; 6 miles east of Seattle. Centers Puget Sound housing stock. Sound Regional 2010.pdf transit stations. Regional Council (August Council Growth 2003) at Management Policy http://www.psrc.org/assets/2 Board 27/toolkit.pdf. January 14, 2010 Presented by Dan Stroh, Bellevue Planning Director Broward County, http://www.broward.org Current regulations not Activity Centers shall be either the subject of an Area- 1,320 square miles; 1,780,172 Following the adoption of Following the adoption of Offers potential strategy for Florida - 2004 /PlanningAndRedevelo encouraging dense wide Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI), centers of population (2011). regional activity centers in regional activity centers in justifying Urban Center location Evaluation and pment/TransitHousing development near regional tourist activity, employment or education, or 2002, the planning council 2002, the planning council and designation process. Appraisal Report OrientedRedevelopme transit stations. provide direct access to existing or proposed airports, recommended criteria be recommended criteria be (EAR). nt/Documents/sec1.pdf ports and rail mass transportation facilities. added to ensure added to ensure boundaries follow logical boundaries follow logical limits (e.g. major roadways limits (e.g. major roadways and redevelopment parcels) and redevelopment parcels) and are not proposed in an and are not proposed in an effort solely to meet RAC effort solely to meet RAC criteria to capture and/or criteria to capture and/or relocate density or intensity relocate density or intensity to areas not meeting the to areas not meeting the intent of the RAC category. intent of the RAC category. When originally passed, the When originally passed, the County had not defined County had not defined criteria for how boundaries criteria for how boundaries should be delineated (only should be delineated (only required certain land uses required certain land uses be found within the be found within the boundary). boundary).
Urban Houston Framework | 147 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Broward County, http://www.broward.org Consistent, Policy assigning an explicit purpose and percentage of 1,320 square miles; 1,780,172 Control of employment and Following the adoption of Although this process could not Florida - 2004 /PlanningAndRedevelo measurable, land uses for each center (e.g. commercial, residential, population (2011), its county seat is residential densities as well regional activity centers in be tied to zoning in the City of Evaluation and pment/TransitHousing administrable, effective office, etc.) Fort Lauderdale, Florida. as land uses in each level of 2002, the planning council Houston, predefining Appraisal Report OrientedRedevelopme process for creating Urban Center. recommended criteria be percentages for (EAR). nt/Documents/sec1.pdf Urban Centers. added to ensure residential/employment densities boundaries follow logical could provide the City greater limits (e.g. major roadways control over infrastructure and redevelopment parcels) impacts and areas of cluster and are not proposed in an development. effort solely to meet RAC criteria to capture and/or relocate density or intensity to areas not meeting the intent of the RAC category. When originally passed, the County had not defined criteria for how boundaries should be delineated (only required certain land uses be found within the boundary).
Broward County, http://www.broward.org Consistent, Policy specifying geographic area no greater than XXX 1,320 square miles; 1,780,172 Imposes a boundary Following the adoption of Offers potential terminology for Florida - 2004 /PlanningAndRedevelo measurable, gross contiguous acres, unless within an approved population (2011). requirement and minimum regional activity centers in writing policy regarding Urban Evaluation and pment/TransitHousing administrable, effective redevelopment area. When 75% of area originally acreage for each level of 2002, the planning council Center boundary specifications Appraisal Report OrientedRedevelopme process for creating designated is developed/redeveloped consistent with Center designation. Allows recommended criteria be and incentivizing alignment with (EAR). nt/Documents/sec1.pdf Urban Centers. Centers policy an expansion of up to 100% may be for expansion of boundaries added to ensure Urban Center initiatives. proposed. as reward for compliance boundaries follow logical with policies and limits (e.g. major roadways development regulations. and redevelopment parcels) and are not proposed in an effort solely to meet RAC criteria to capture and/or relocate density or intensity to areas not meeting the intent of the RAC category. When originally passed, the County had not defined criteria for how boundaries should be delineated (only required certain land uses be found within the boundary).
Urban Houston Framework | 148 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) City of Alexandria, http://alexandriava.gov Land assembly and Supplement other sources of project funding by 15.4 square miles; population of A program aimed at Alexandria’s rental housing Market forces in Houston have Virginia - Housing /housing/info/default.a discontinuous providing low interest loans or grants to produce 144,301 (2011). reducing the speculative stock has been shrinking effectively made significant Opportunities Fund. spx?id=361#HOF ownership of parcels. housing units affordable to households with incomes at warehousing of over the past decade for amounts of land otherwise Parcel-by-parcel, or below 60% of the area’s median income. Funding undeveloped land, limiting people who are middle suitable for affordable housing inconsistent may be used to cover costs such as: feasibility available land for income or less. In 2000, development cost-prohibitive for redevelopment analysis; pre-development activities; housing development of affordable more than 18,000 units were such use. Creating a fund projects due to rising preservation; and development costs. The creation of a housing and making land considered affordable; In specifically allocated to providing land costs. Lack of funded Land Trust could help acquire undeveloped and costs prohibitively 2012, fewer than 6,000 units gap-financing for affordable available, raw land for under-developed land for use in the development of expensive for affordable can fit into the budgets of housing projects, funded in part affordable housing mixed-income, Moderately-Priced Dwelling Units housing. The City of people who make up to by fees assessed against market- initiatives. (MPDUs) and/or Affordable Housing Units (ADUs) Alexandria's Housing $63,660, which is rate projects in the City, could projects only. Potential Eligibility Criteria: Requests for Opportunity Fund provides 60 percent of the area’s help to effectively address the funding may be submitted to develop or preserve project gap-financing to median income. Real estate extent to which land costs make affordable housing within City limits only. Priority for support development and developers who have the overall TDC of a project federal HOME funding will be given to City-certified preservation of affordable completed development or infeasible for affordable housing. Community Housing Development Organizations (60% and below AMI) rental redevelopment projects in (CHDOs). Developers are expected to leverage and sales housing in the the City of Alexandria make funding from all available sources; assistance from the City, using a combination of cash contributions to the Fund will be provided only in the amount required to voluntary developer Housing Trust Fund (HTF), meet identified gaps in financing to produce or contributions, an which supports a variety preserve affordability. appropriation from the city's affordable housing General Fund, and an activities. During FY 2013 allocation of the City's $900,000 in Housing Trust federal HOME funds. Fund monies are projected Funding is made available be received from developers through an application for projects completed process to the Affordable during that period. Housing Advisory Currently, there are Committee approximately $25 million in contributions pledged through the development process. These funds are expected to be received in future years as projects are delivered.
City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Incentives that are Features that meet the energy and resource efficiency 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Promoting sustainable, good Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc attractive enough to goal include green roofs, improved building population (2011) bonuses and allowances for design is also a part of Houston's Development ument.php?document_ developers to promote performance rating, the use of non-polluting and/or buildings including features efforts regarding Urban Centers. Incentives. Section id=2194 'green' design renewable on-site energy sources, recycling and/or that help meet particular Bloomington's incentive 20.05.049 of practices. salvaging at least 50 percent of non-hazardous sustainability goals. Framework is a good example of Bloomington's Unified construction and demolition debris, or utilizing building incorporating LEED parameters Development materials and products sourced within a 500 mile into expectations for Ordinance. radius development.
Urban Houston Framework | 149 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Incentives that are Qualifying designs include the use of at least 25 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Promoting sustainable, good Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc attractive enough to percent permeable pavement, utilization of natural population (2011) bonuses and allowances for design is also a part of Houston's Development ument.php?document_ developers to promote vegetation and other techniques to convey and filter buildings including features efforts regarding Urban Centers. Incentives. Section id=2194 'green' design storm water, employ systems to recycle at least 50 that help meet particular Bloomington's incentive 20.05.049 of practices. percent of gray water and storm water, retention of 90 sustainability goals. Framework is a good example of Bloomington's Unified percent of area tree canopy, and/or conservation of incorporating LEED parameters Development land with a slope of 12 percent or greater. into expectations for Ordinance. development. City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Incentives that are At least 2 energy and resource efficiency projects, 1 19.9 square miles, 81,381 The growth policies plan No data available. Promoting sustainable, good Indiana - Sustainable ov/code/level2/TIT20U attractive enough to landscape and site design project, 1 public policy population (2011) recognizes sustainability as design is also a part of Houston's Development NDEOR_CH20.05DES developers to promote project, and 1 public transportation project. See URL a key component of efforts regarding Urban Centers. Incentives. Section T.html#TIT20UNDEOR 'green' design for definitions of project typologies and applicable nurturing a City's Bloomington's incentive 20.05.049 of _CH20.05DEST_20.05 practices. incentives. A development may utilize the level one environmental integrity. As a Framework is a good example of Bloomington's Unified .049GDGRDEINEN incentives detailed in subsection (b)(2) of this section if result, incentives are being incorporating LEED parameters Development the reviewing authority determines that the provided to encourage the into expectations for Ordinance. development meets all four goals listed in subsection use of sustainable development. (a), Sustainable Development Practices, of this section development practices through the incorporation of the following: (A) At least throughout the planning two sustainable development practices from Goal 1 as jurisdiction. Implementation specified in subsection (a)(1) above; and (B) At least of these practices will help one sustainable development practice from each of to make Houston a more Goals 2, 3 and 4 as specified in subsections (a)(2), sustainable community. (a)(3) and (a)(4) above. (2) Developments described in subsection (b)(1) above may utilize the following changes to development standards: (A) Side Building Setbacks. For residential districts, side building setbacks shall be reduced to six feet regardless of the number of stories. For nonresidential districts, side building setback requirements shall be reduced by twenty-five percent. (B) Rear Building Setbacks. For residential districts, rear building setbacks shall be decreased to twenty feet. For nonresidential districts, rear building setback requirements shall be reduced by twenty-five percent. (C) Density. For multifamily districts and nonresidential districts where multifamily uses are permitted, maximum residential density shall be increased by twenty-five percent.
Urban Houston Framework | 150 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Incentives that are A development may utilize the level two incentives 19.9 square miles, 81,381 The growth policies plan No data available. Promoting sustainable, good Indiana - Sustainable ov/code/level2/TIT20U attractive enough to detailed in subsection (c)(2) of this section if the population (2011) recognizes sustainability as design is also a part of Houston's Development NDEOR_CH20.05DES developers to promote reviewing authority determines that the development a key component of efforts regarding Urban Centers. Incentives. Section T.html#TIT20UNDEOR 'green' design meets all four goals listed in subsection (a), nurturing a City's Bloomington's incentive 20.05.049 of _CH20.05DEST_20.05 practices. Sustainable Development Practices, of this section environmental integrity. As a Framework is a good example of Bloomington's Unified .049GDGRDEINEN through the incorporation of the following: (A) At least result, incentives are being incorporating LEED parameters Development three sustainable development practices from Goal 1 provided to encourage the into expectations for Ordinance. as specified in subsection (a)(1) above; and (B) At use of sustainable development. least two sustainable development practices from each development practices of Goals 2, 3 and 4 as specified in subsections (a)(2), throughout the planning (a)(3) and (a)(4) above. (2) Developments described in jurisdiction. Implementation subsection (c)(1) above may utilize the following of these practices will help changes to development standards: (A) Side Building to make Houston a more Setbacks. For residential districts, side building sustainable community. setbacks shall be reduced to five feet regardless of the number of stories. For nonresidential districts, side building setback requirements shall be reduced by fifty percent. (B) Rear Building Setbacks. For residential districts, rear building setbacks shall be decreased to fifteen feet. For nonresidential districts, rear building setback requirements shall be reduced by fifty percent. (C) Density. For multifamily districts and nonresidential districts where multifamily uses are permitted, maximum residential density shall be increased by fifty percent.
Urban Houston Framework | 151 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Incentives that are (1) A development may utilize the level three incentives 19.9 square miles, 81,381 The growth policies plan No data available. Promoting sustainable, good Indiana - Sustainable ov/code/level2/TIT20U attractive enough to detailed in subsection (a)(2) of this section if the population (2011) recognizes sustainability as design is also a part of Houston's Development NDEOR_CH20.05DES developers to promote reviewing authority determines that the development a key component of efforts regarding Urban Centers. Incentives. Section T.html#TIT20UNDEOR 'green' design meets all four goals listed in subsection (a), nurturing a City's Bloomington's incentive 20.05.049 of _CH20.05DEST_20.05 practices. Sustainable Development Practices, of this section environmental integrity. As a Framework is a good example of Bloomington's Unified .049GDGRDEINEN through the incorporation of the following: (A) At least result, incentives are being incorporating LEED parameters Development four sustainable development practices from Goal 1 as provided to encourage the into expectations for Ordinance. specified in subsection (a)(1) above; and (B) At least use of sustainable development. two sustainable development practices from each of development practices Goals 2, 3 and 4 as specified in subsections (a)(2), throughout the planning (a)(3) and (a)(4) above. (C) An allocation of at least jurisdiction. Implementation fifteen percent of the total number of housing units of these practices will help located in the development as affordable housing. to make Houston a more Such housing units must be entered into an affordable sustainable community. housing program administered by the local, state or federal governments. (2) Developments described in subsection (d)(1) above may utilize the following changes to development standards: (A) Side Building Setbacks. For residential districts, side building setbacks shall be reduced to five feet regardless of the number of stories. For nonresidential districts, side building setback requirements shall be reduced by fifty percent. (B) Rear Building Setbacks. For residential districts, rear building setbacks shall be decreased to fifteen feet. For nonresidential districts, rear building setback requirements shall be reduced by fifty percent. (C) Density. For multifamily districts and nonresidential districts where multifamily uses are permitted, maximum residential density shall be increased by seventy-five percent. City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Consistent, Incentives are based on a three tiered system, with 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Incentives are based on a No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc measurable, bonuses accorded to the number of sustainable population (2011) three tiered system, with tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ administrable, effective practices included in the projects. All 3 levels are bonuses accorded to the accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 process for creating eligible for fee waivers of filing fees with the plan number of sustainable sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of Urban Centers. commission and/or board of zoning appeals, fees practices included in the the projects. Bloomington's Unified associated with right-of-way excavation permits, and projects. Development sewer hook-on fees. In addition, projects may be Ordinance. subject to less strict development standards City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Increase density of Side building setbacks decreased to 6 feet and rear 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc residential housing building setbacks decreased to 20 feet. population (2011). bonuses and allowances for tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ units. buildings including features accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 that help meet particular sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of sustainability goals. These the projects. Bloomington's Unified benefits are for developers, Development not individual residents. Ordinance.
Urban Houston Framework | 152 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Increase density of Side building setbacks decreased by 25%, rear 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc residential housing building setbacks decreased by 25%, and maximum population (2011). bonuses and allowances for tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ units. residential density increased by 25%. buildings including features accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 that help meet particular sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of sustainability goals. These the projects. Bloomington's Unified benefits are for developers, Development not individual residents. Ordinance. City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Increase density of Side building setbacks decreased to 5 feet and rear 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc residential housing building setbacks decreased to 15 feet. population (2011). bonuses and allowances for tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ units. buildings including features accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 that help meet particular sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of sustainability goals. These the projects. Bloomington's Unified benefits are for developers, Development not individual residents. Ordinance. City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Increase density of Side building setbacks decreased by 50%, rear 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc residential housing building setbacks decreased by 50%, and maximum population (2011). bonuses and allowances for tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ units. residential density increased by 50%. buildings including features accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 that help meet particular sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of sustainability goals. These the projects. Bloomington's Unified benefits are for developers, Development not individual residents. Ordinance. City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Increase density of Side building setbacks decreased to 5 feet and rear 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc residential housing building setbacks decreased to 15 feet. population (2011). bonuses and allowances for tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ units. buildings including features accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 that help meet particular sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of sustainability goals. These the projects. Bloomington's Unified benefits are for developers, Development not individual residents. Ordinance. City of Bloomington, http://bloomington.in.g Increase density of Side building setbacks decreased by 50%, rear 19.9 square miles, 81,381 Offer developers certain No data available. Incentives are based on a three Indiana - Sustainable ov/documents/viewDoc residential housing building setbacks decreased by 50%, and maximum population (2011). bonuses and allowances for tiered system, with bonuses Development ument.php?document_ units. residential density increased by 75%. buildings including features accorded to the number of Incentives. Section id=2194 that help meet particular sustainable practices included in 20.05.049 of sustainability goals. These the projects. Bloomington's Unified benefits are for developers, Development not individual residents. Ordinance. Hillsborough County, http://www.theplanning NIMBYism and Collaborate with local organizations to host an annual 1,266 square miles; 1,267,775 Increase city-wide political Hosting annual workshops One of the biggest challenges Florida - City County commission.org/Full% community push-back workshop discussing the pros of infill development and population (2011). support for development that address current issues mentioned during the Values Planning Commission 20Combined%20Repo regarding infill redevelopment. Focus on using this workshop as a and/or building interests and concerns with infill Workshop is public education ‐ Report on 2008/2009 rt.pdf development. platform to emphasize the importance of encouraging who plan, develop and development could help about the advantages of Workshops on Infill infill and development of vacant parcels in built-up market residential and communities and redevelopment and better Development areas where public facilities such as sewer systems, mixed use projects. Garner neighborhoods understand building practices. Prioritizing roads, schools, and recreation areas are already in support from the impacts of infill funding towards educational place. community/neighborhood development. workshops will help raise public interests who live near such awareness about Urban Centers, projects and are impacted. as well as advocate for green building and construction techniques
Urban Houston Framework | 153 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Kirkland, Washington - http://www.psrc.org/as Increase density of Minimum residential density of 50 units/acre and FAR 11.1 square mi; 48,787 population; Increase the City's housing Since Urban Center Like Kirkland, Houston Totem Lake Urban sets/3636/Kirkland_R residential housing of 1.0. Density 4,521.5/square mi; 8 miles stock. adoption in 2003 the City stakeholders have also Center Growth GC_to_GMPB_03- units. northeast of Seattle has seen improvements in expressed concerns regarding Management Policy 2010.pdf all targets it had set in lack of housing, affordable Board establishing Centers. In housing, diversity of housing and Puget Sound Regional 2007, Totem Lake Urban choice of housing. Heavily Council March 11, Center represented: 13% of incentivizing residential land 2010 Presentation. City acreage; 11% of uses could be an important population 36% of jobs; 31% component of the preferred of sales tax receipts; and Urban Houston Framework. had retained the largest employer –Evergreen Hospital (approx. 3,000 employees). Findings acknowledge that building height is the key incentive to successful centers in Kirkland.
Kirkland, Washington - http://www.psrc.org/as Lack of housing Minimum of 10% affordable housing in all residential 11.1 square mi; 48,787 population; Increase the City's Since Urban Center All of the Puget Sound region Totem Lake Urban sets/3636/Kirkland_R diversity, choice and projects. Density 4,521.5/square mi; 8 miles affordable housing stock. adoption in 2003 the City Centers have been successful. Center Growth GC_to_GMPB_03- access to quality northeast of Seattle has seen improvements in The Kirkland Totem Lake Urban Management Policy 2010.pdf schools. all targets it had set in Center offers a great Board establishing Centers. In spreadsheet that outlines the Puget Sound Regional 2007, Totem Lake Urban population per gross acre, Council March 11, Center represented: 13% of employment per gross acre, and 2010 Presentation. City acreage; 11% of housing units targets that clearly population 36% of jobs; 31% shows what they wanted to of sales tax receipts; and achieve. Neighborhood plans had retained the largest were viewed as quintessential to employer –Evergreen the process and success of Hospital (approx. 3,000 creating Center connectivity. employees). Findings This case study also includes acknowledge that building successful funding partnerships height is the key incentive between the City and developers to successful centers in to make community Kirkland. improvements happen.
Urban Houston Framework | 154 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Kirkland, Washington - http://www.psrc.org/as Lack of connectivity Dedication required with development when increased 11.1 square mi; 48,787 population; Address reduced Since Urban Center Offers flexibility for property Totem Lake Urban sets/3636/Kirkland_R and quality building height incentive is used. Density 4,521.5/square mi; 8 miles development potential due adoption in 2003 the City owner in floor plate size, reduced Center Growth GC_to_GMPB_03- infrastructure northeast of Seattle to new street grid and has seen improvements in impact fees, lot coverage and Management Policy 2010.pdf improvements. ensure road dedication and all targets it had set in non-conformance of existing Board improvement for new street establishing Centers. In development. Puget Sound Regional grid with future 2007, Totem Lake Urban Council March 11, development. Center represented: 13% of 2010 Presentation. City acreage; 11% of population 36% of jobs; 31% of sales tax receipts; and had retained the largest employer –Evergreen Hospital (approx. 3,000 employees). Findings acknowledge that building height is the key incentive to successful centers in Kirkland.
Urban Houston Framework | 155 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not 1) At least 30% of the total residential units shall be 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Ensure developers are No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla encouraging dense priced affordable to households at or below 140% of population (2011), 1,315.5/square meeting a variety of Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- development near the AMI, and no less than 20% of the total units shall mi population density. sustainability principles that Land Use Element element.pdf transit stations. be priced affordable to households at or below 80% of helps the area meet it's (Ord. No. 09-29, the AMI for a period of no less than 30 years, pursuant goals for Centers. adopted May 2009). to a deed restriction; 2) The site shall have a land use designation of Low- Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, Office/Residential, or Business and Office (Estate, Low Density or High Density land use designations shall not be eligible); 3) The site shall front a major roadway and be located within ¼ mile radius of transit service, which is defined as a transit station or bus stop with at least one route that provides 20 minute peak-hour headways or better during weekdays; 4) The location of the site shall be consistent with the guidelines for urban form; 5) The site is located within ½ mile radius of activity nodes with neighborhood retail establishments; 6) The property is located within ½ mile radius of public recreational open space or a public school, unless 15% of the site is set aside for recreational open space facilities. Recreational facilities are defined as play areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, and other active outdoor facilities. 7) Existing and planned public services and facilities, including water and sewer facilities, shall be adequate to serve the maximum development allowed on the proposed site; and 8) The development shall obtain a certification rating from LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or a similar organization accredited by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGB); and A maximum of 25% of the proposed building structure may be used for business and office uses if mixed-use development is found to be compatible with
Urban Houston Framework | 156 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not 1) the developer is a not-for-profit affordable housing 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Ensure developers are No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla encouraging dense provider, a government/public sponsored affordable population (2011), 1,315.5/square meeting a variety of Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- development near housing provider and 2) all the conditions for the 30% mi population density. sustainability principles that Land Use Element element.pdf transit stations. Density Bonus for Affordable/Workforce Multifamily helps the area meet it's (Ord. No. 09-29, Infill housing are satisfied. A government/public goals for Centers. adopted May 2009). sponsored affordable housing provider is defined as a private developer or organization that has been awarded public funding or is participating in a public housing program to develop affordable/workforce housing, and/or a private developer or organization that has received approval to develop affordable/workforce housing on a County or publicly owned site either through donation of the land, a lease, or other form of legal agreement. Density Bonus programs of 30% or higher shall only take effect upon the adoption of an ordinance for the “Multifamily Infill Housing Zoning Overlay.” Upon the adoption of the aforementioned zoning overlay, approval of any density bonus of 30% or higher shall require a zoning boundary change through a resolution. Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not Uses in Urban Centers may include retail trade, 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Ensure Regional and No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla encouraging dense business, professional and financial services, population (2011), 1,315.5/square Metropolitan Centers Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- development near restaurants, hotels, institutional, recreational, cultural mi population density. accommodate a Land Use Element element.pdf transit stations. and entertainment uses, moderate to high density concentration and variety of (Ord. No. 09-29, residential uses, and well planned public spaces. uses and activities which adopted May 2009). Incorporation of residential uses is encouraged, and will attract large numbers of may be approved, in all centers, except where both residents and visitors incompatible with airport or heavy industrial activities. while Community-scale Residential uses may be required in areas of the Urban Centers will be County and along rapid transit lines where there exists planned and designed to much more commercial development than residential serve a more localized development, and creation of employment community. opportunities will be emphasized in areas of the County and along rapid transit lines where there is much more residential development than employment opportunity. Emphasis in design and development of all centers and all of their individual components shall be to create active pedestrian environments through high-quality design of public spaces as well as private buildings; human scale appointments, activities and amenities at street level; and connectivity of places through creation of a system of pedestrian linkages. Existing public water bodies shall also be incorporated by design into the public spaces
Urban Houston Framework | 157 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not Urban Centers shall be developed in an urban form 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Ensure high level of urban No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla encouraging dense with a street system having open, accessible and population (2011), 1,315.5/square design and the creation of Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- development near continuous qualities of the surrounding grid system, mi population density. quality infrastructure Land Use Element element.pdf transit stations. with variation, to create community focal points and improvements. (Ord. No. 09-29, termination of vistas. The street system should have adopted May 2009). frequent connections with surrounding streets and create blocks sized and shaped I-48 to facilitate incremental building over time, buildings fronting on streets and pedestrian pathways, and squares, parks and plazas defined by the buildings around them. The street system shall be planned and designed to create public space that knits the site into the surrounding urban fabric, connecting streets and creating rational, efficient pedestrian linkages. Streets shall be designed for pedestrian mobility, interest, safety and comfort as well as vehicular mobility. The size of blocks and network of streets and pedestrian access ways shall be designed so that walking routes through the center and between destinations in the center are direct, and distances are short. Emphasis shall be placed on sidewalks, with width and street-edge landscaping increased where necessary to accommodate pedestrian volumes or to enhance safety or comfort of pedestrians on sidewalks along any high-speed roadways. Crosswalks will be provided, and all multi- lane roadways shall be fitted with protected pedestrian refuges in the center median at all significant pedestrian crossings. In addition, streets shall be provided with desirable street furniture including benches, light fixtures and bus shelters. Open spaces such as public squares and greens shall be established in urban centers to provide visual orientation and a focus of social activity. They should be located next to public streets, residential areas, and commercial uses, and should be established in these places during development and redevelopment of streets and large parcels, particularly parcels 10 acres or larger. The percentage of site area for public open spaces, including squares, greens and pedestrian promenades, shall be a minimum of 15 percent of gross development area. This public area provided outdoor, at grade will be counted toward satisfaction of requirements for other common open space. Some or all of this required open space may be provided off-site but elsewhere within the subject urban center to the extent that it would better serve the quality and functionality of the center.
Urban Houston Framework | 158 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not Regional activity centers FAR greater than 4.0 in the 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Create Centers that have a No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla encouraging dense core, not less than 2.0 in the edge with max densities population (2011), 1,315.5/square dense core that decreases Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- development near (DU per acre) of 500. Metropolitan Urban centers FAR mi population density. in height/intensity towards Land Use Element element.pdf transit stations. greater than 3.0 in the core, not less than .75 in the Center edges. (Ord. No. 09-29, edge and maximum densities (DU per acre) of 200. adopted May 2009). Community Urban Centers FAR greater than 1.5 in the core and not less than 0.5 in the edge with max densities (DU per acre) of 125. Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Consistent, The area developed as an urban center shall extend to 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Establish boundary/extent of No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla measurable, a one-mile radius around the core or central transit population (2011), 1,315.5/square various sizes of Urban Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- administrable, effective station of a Regional Urban Center designated on the mi population density. Centers. Land Use Element element.pdf process for creating LUP map. (Ord. No. 09-29, Urban Centers. adopted May 2009). Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Consistent, "Designated Metropolitan Urban Centers shall extend 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Establish boundary/extent of No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla measurable, not less than one-quarter mile walking distance from population (2011), 1,315.5/square various sizes of Urban Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- administrable, effective the core of the center or central transit stop(s) and may mi population density. Centers. Land Use Element element.pdf process for creating extend up to one-half mile from such core or transit (Ord. No. 09-29, Urban Centers. stops along major roads and pedestrian linkages." adopted May 2009). Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Consistent, Community Centers shall have a radius of 700 to 1,800 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Establish boundary/extent of No data available. Potential policy wording. Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla measurable, feet but may be extended to a radius of one-half mile population (2011), 1,315.5/square various sizes of Urban Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- administrable, effective where recommended in a professional area plan for the mi population density. Centers. Land Use Element element.pdf process for creating center, consistent with the guidelines herein, which (Ord. No. 09-29, Urban Centers. plan is approved by the Board of County adopted May 2009). Commissioners after an advertised public hearing. Urban Center development shall not extend beyond the UDB Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Workforce Housing. Through the Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning program, a 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Lessen the financial burden No data available. Like Houston, Miami-Dade Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla density bonus of up to 25% may be allowed for projects population (2011), 1,315.5/square on developers for including County needed a progressive Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- that set aside residential units for workforce housing. mi population density. workforce housing. Close development management Land Use Element element.pdf Miami-Dade County does not recognize workforce the gap between workforce strategy that tackled problems (Ord. No. 09-29, housing as being a category distinct from affordable housing supply and associated with exponential adopted May 2009). housing for working families of varying household workforce housing demand. population growth. Miami is also incomes. The Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning program Also intended to increase trying to incentivize defines workforce as households with incomes the variety and supply of concentration and intensification between 65 and 140% of the County's median income. housing that is affordable to of development around centers Workforce housing is defined as housing that is workforce populations. of activity, development of well affordable to natural persons or families whose total designed communities containing household income is at or below 140 percent of the a variety of uses, housing types area median income (AMI). and public services, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, versus sprawl.
Urban Houston Framework | 159 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Affordable Housing. 17% Density Bonus for Affordable Housing: A density 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Lessen the financial burden No data available. Like Houston, Miami-Dade Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla bonus up to 17% above the maximum land use population (2011), 1,315.5/square on developers for including County needed a progressive Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- designation may be approved if it is certified that that mi population density. affordable housing. Close development management Land Use Element element.pdf no less than 30% of the units in the development, the gap between workforce strategy that tackled problems (Ord. No. 09-29, excepting accessory dwelling units, will be priced housing supply and associated with exponential adopted May 2009). affordable to low and very-low income households workforce housing demand. population growth. Miami is also (households at or below 80% of the Area Median Also intended to increase trying to incentivize Income [AMI]). The various income limit categories are: the variety and supply of concentration and intensification Extremely Low: At or below 30% of the AMI. Very Low: housing that is affordable to of development around centers 30.01 to 50% of the AMI. Low: 50.01% to 80% of the workforce populations. of activity, development of well AMI. Moderate: 80.01% to 140% of the AMI1. designed communities containing a variety of uses, housing types and public services, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, versus sprawl.
Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Affordable/Workforce A density bonus of up to 30% above the maximum 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Lessen the financial burden No data available. Like Houston, Miami-Dade Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla Multifamily Infill allowable density may be approved for projects that are population (2011), 1,315.5/square on developers for including County needed a progressive Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- Housing. located in close proximity to transit service and provide mi population density. affordable/workforce infill development management Land Use Element element.pdf a mix of market rate, workforce and affordable housing housing. Close the gap strategy that tackled problems (Ord. No. 09-29, opportunities. There is a whole list of conditions between workforce housing associated with exponential adopted May 2009). (expectations) that must be met for the 30% density supply and workforce population growth. Miami is also bonus to be awarded. See URL link. housing demand. Also trying to incentivize intended to increase the concentration and intensification variety and supply of of development around centers housing that is affordable to of activity, development of well workforce populations. designed communities containing a variety of uses, housing types and public services, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, versus sprawl.
Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Not-for-Profit or A density bonus of up to 60% above the maximum 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Super bonus for non-for- No data available. Like Houston, Miami-Dade Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla Government/Public allowable density may be permitted. A population (2011), 1,315.5/square profit or public sponsored County needed a progressive Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- Sponsored Affordable government/public sponsored affordable housing mi population density. affordable housing development management Land Use Element element.pdf Housing Provision provider is defined as a private developer or developments. strategy that tackled problems (Ord. No. 09-29, organization that has been awarded public funding or associated with exponential adopted May 2009). is participating in a public housing program to develop population growth. Miami is also affordable/workforce housing, and/or a private trying to incentivize developer or organization that has received approval to concentration and intensification develop affordable/workforce housing on a County or of development around centers publicly owned site either through donation of the land, of activity, development of well a lease, or other form of legal agreement. Density designed communities containing Bonus programs of 30% or higher shall only take effect a variety of uses, housing types upon the adoption of an ordinance for the “Multifamily and public services, renewal and Infill Housing Zoning Overlay.” Upon the adoption of rehabilitation of blighted areas, the aforementioned zoning overlay, approval of any and contiguous urban expansion density bonus of 30% or higher shall require a zoning when warranted, versus sprawl. boundary change through a resolution. See expectations tab for additional requirements.
Urban Houston Framework | 160 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Shared parking to Reductions from standard parking requirements shall 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Less the financial burden on No data available. There were many comments Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla reduce development be authorized where there is a complementary mix of population (2011), 1,315.5/square developers and ensure the made by Urban Houston Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- costs. uses on proximate development sites, and near transit mi population density. creation of Centers. stakeholders regarding the need Land Use Element element.pdf stations. Parking areas should occur predominantly in for greater shared parking (Ord. No. 09-29, mid-block, block rear and on-street locations, and not facilities and incentives. adopted May 2009). between the street and main building entrances. Page 46 - 60. Parking structures should incorporate other uses at street level such as shops, galleries, offices and public uses. Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Ground level retail Buildings and their landscapes shall be built to the 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Ensure high level of urban No data available. there were many comments Florida - gov/business/cdmp/pla opportunities sidewalk edge in a manner that frames the adjacent population (2011), 1,315.5/square design and the creation of made by Urban Houston Comprehensive Plan n/cdmp-land-use- uninterrupted by utility street to create a public space in the street corridor that mi population density. quality infrastructure stakeholders regarding the need Land Use Element element.pdf poles, parking is comfortable and interesting, as well as safe for improvements. for more regulations ensuring (Ord. No. 09-29, garages, etc. pedestrians. Architectural elements at street level shall pedestrian safety and consistent adopted May 2009). have a human scale, abundant windows and doors, development practices. Page 46 - 60. and design variations at short intervals to create interest for the passing pedestrian. Continuous blank walls at street level are prohibited. In areas of significant pedestrian activity, weather protection should be provided by awnings, canopies, arcades and colonnades Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Prevent flooding and For all land uses except for single-family or duplex, 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Set high standards for No data available. A potential tool for promoting Florida - Regulatory gov/business/library/re manage stormwater. tree requirements for private property shall be based population (2011), 1,315.5/square sustainability and landscape sustainable, good design. and Economic ports/standard- on sixteen (16) trees per net acre of lot area and, in mi population density. design. Resources Department urban.pdf addition to the placement on the lot, may be placed in Development Services greens, squares, plazas and Division: Article medians within the Urban Center. XXXIII(K) Standard Urban Centers District Regulations (amended through October 2, 2012).
Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Convoluted design Include a very simple table that has major roadway, 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Create a one-page synopsis No data available. Streamlining permitting and site Florida - Regulatory gov/business/library/re standards. minor roadway, main street, service road and population (2011), 1,315.5/square that is easy for developers plan approval processes. and Economic ports/standard- pedestrian passage build-to-line requirements for each mi population density. to locate on the City website Resources Department urban.pdf level of urban center (Tier-1 (Large, Tier-2 (Medium), and for City administrators Development Services Tier-3 (Small). and applicants to read. Division: Article XXXIII(K) Standard Urban Centers District Regulations (amended through October 2, 2012).
Urban Houston Framework | 161 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not Specifications regarding building frontages, built-to- 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Clearly show on one page No data available. Streamlining permitting and site Florida - Regulatory gov/business/library/re encouraging dense lines, interior side/rear setbacks, on site parking and population (2011), 1,315.5/square expectations for each type plan approval processes. and Economic ports/standard- development near access points mi population density. of development intensity Resources Department urban.pdf transit stations. exactly what the City is Development Services looking for in terms of Division: Article setbacks, build-to-lines, XXXIII(K) Standard ingress and egress and Urban Centers District internal parking structures Regulations (amended built into new development through October 2, projects. 2012).
Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Current regulations not Include a simple table conveying size (square feet) and 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Make Urban Center No data available. Streamlining permitting and site Florida - Regulatory gov/business/library/re encouraging dense frontage (feet) for residential uses. population (2011), 1,315.5/square regulations user friendly. plan approval processes. and Economic ports/standard- development near mi population density. Resources Department urban.pdf transit stations. Development Services Division: Article XXXIII(K) Standard Urban Centers District Regulations (amended through October 2, 2012).
Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade. Consistent, Urban Center levels are determined based on distance 2,431.18 square mi, 2,554,766 Make Urban Center No data available. Streamlining permitting and site Florida - Regulatory gov/business/library/re measurable, from the central part of the city (versus size, function, population (2011), 1,315.5/square regulations user friendly. plan approval processes. and Economic ports/standard- administrable, effective or goal). Three scales of centers are planned: mi population density Resources Department urban.pdf process for creating Regional, the largest, notably the downtown Miami Development Services Urban Centers. central business district; Metropolitan Centers such as Division: Article the evolving Dadeland area; and Community Centers XXXIII(K) Standard which will serve localized areas Urban Centers District Regulations (amended through October 2, 2012).
Urban Houston Framework | 162 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Michigan Legislative http://www.legislature. Land assembly and Counter speculative warehousing of undeveloped land, Not applicable. This tool involves state In 2004, enabled by the Market forces in Houston have Website - Land Bank mi.gov/(S(g3ji0145o3r discontinuous limiting available land for development of affordable legislation providing the Land Bank Fast Track Act effectively made significant Fast Track Act, Public drl550bvkzfiv))/mileg.a ownership of parcels. housing and making land costs prohibitively expensive necessary authority to and an intergovernmental amounts of land, which would Act (PA) 258, 2003. spx?page=getObject& Parcel-by-parcel, for affordable housing. Example: A direct land-banking counties, cities, and agreement between the otherwise be suitable for objectName=mcl-258- inconsistent program using a jurisdiction's funds to secure title to localities in Michigan to state’s land bank authority affordable housing development, 2003-1 redevelopment undeveloped, underdeveloped, and blighted and adopt fast-track ordinances and the Treasurer of cost-prohibitive for such use. projects due to rising distressed properties before they are acquired and and related procedures to Genesee County, The Adopting expedited procedures land costs. Lack of assembled by land speculators. facilitate the acquisition Genesee County Land to facilitate the City's acquisition available, raw land for through purchase, Reutilization Council of blighted, distressed, affordable housing condemnation or exercise of (GCLRC) evolved into the undeveloped and initiatives. tax liens of distressed Genesee County Land Bank underdeveloped properties properties for assembly and Authority (GCLBA). That through purchase, later reuse for community present-day public entity is condemnation, and tax-lien and economic revitalization independently governed by foreclosures, favorable purchase purposes a board of directors prices by land speculators could consisting of the County help to effectively address the Treasurer and residents of extent to which land costs make the City of Flint and the overall TDC of a project Genesee County. With its infeasible for affordable housing. own set of by-laws and a full- time staff, the land bank acquires tax foreclosures and determines the best use for these properties, in keeping with the long-term vision for the community. During the five-year period 2004 through 2008, GCLBA returned 1,500 properties to some form of productive reuse.
Urban Houston Framework | 163 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Missing Missing Land assembly and Counter speculative warehousing of undeveloped land, 71 square miles, 2.5 million To assure the provision of Delivery of 137 units of The City's willingness to discontinuous limiting available land for development of affordable population. affordable housing in the affordable rental and contribute outright, or sell at a ownership of parcels. housing and making land costs prohibitively expensive Cobble Hill neighborhood, moderately priced bargain price or on otherwise Parcel-by-parcel, for affordable housing. Example: Partnerships between the New York City homeownership units, favorable terms and conditions, inconsistent the City and non-profit housing developers through Department of Housing sold including 95 workforce properties the City owns for the redevelopment which the City contributes to the private developer, as housing rental units purpose of developing MPDUs, projects due to rising undeveloped/underdeveloped land it owns to help surplus property, land affordable to the following ADUs or some combination land costs. Lack of bring down Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) comprising approximately household income ranges: thereof, alone or with market-rate available, raw land for and Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) project Total 50% of the project site, and 39 units affordable at 80%or housing in a mixed-income affordable housing Development Costs (TDCs). rezoned it from less of AMI; 10 units project, can overcome the high initiatives. manufacturing to residential; affordable at 120% or less market price of land in the developer purchased of AMI; and 46 units neighborhoods where land costs the adjoining site from a affordable to households make affordable housing private land-owner to earning 160% or less of AMI prohibitively expensive to rent or complete the project site. In . 100% of AMI equals sell. addition to the City's support $80,200. Additionally, the in the land assemblage, the project offered 42 project also utilized 9% homeownership units LIHTCs allocated by the ranging in price from City and taxable bonds $399,000 to $935,000 in a issued by the City's Housing neighborhood with market- Development Corporation (a rate sales prices for co-op quasi-public agency). units in the $800,000 range and townhomes ranging from $1.4 million to $4
Urban Houston Framework | 164 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Missing Missing Flexible parking An automatic waiver from parking requirements for The maximum development Interject greater flexibility in Conventional standards Both the limited availability of requirements that projects meeting Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit program includes: 6,000 DUs, 1,700 administering parking would require 130 to 190 land for the development of encourage dense, (MPDU)/Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) minimum (28%) affordable to moderate, low, requirements. Lower-income parking spaces for such a affordable housing and urban building forms. requirements (including selected mixed-income and very low-income households. households are less likely to building, but it was prohibitively high land costs have Deductions in parking projects) that demonstrate that a lesser parking Non-profit developers will build own cars because of the constructed with only 85 been identified as two challenges requirements for sites standard will meet the needs of prospective residents 1,445 of the ADUs on 16 acres of high costs of vehicle parking spaces, due to to the production of affordable adjacent to transit and protect surrounding properties from undue parking land contributed by the master ownership, operation, and proximity to high-quality housing in the City. Limiting the stations. impacts. developer. The remaining 255 maintenance. Consequently, public transit services, the amount of land that must be affordable units will be included in traditional parking provision of two car share devoted to parking and the privately developed projects, 4.4 requirements for market-rate parking spaces in the proportion of TDC (Total million sq. ft. of office/life projects, where two vehicles building, and the fact that Development Costs) of a project science/biotechnology commercial for a two-bedroom the building provides that must be devoted to non- space, a new UCSF research apartment may be required, affordable housing, with revenue-generating uses, such campus with 2.65 million sq. ft. of may result in more parking tenants who are less likely as parking, will increase the space on 43 acres of land donated capacity than is needed to own a car. Reduced affordability of the resultant by the master developer and the where lower-income parking supply freed up project City, a state-of-the art UCSF households, which tend to space in the project for a hospital complex serving children, be much more reliant on childcare center and more women, cancer patients, 500,000 public transportation, are ground-level retail stores. sq. ft. of retail space, a 500-room the targeted tenants. Just seventeen (17) avoided hotel, 41 acres of new public open Reduced parking spaces allowed the project space, plus 8 acres of open space requirements that better to generate $132,000 in within the UCSF campus, a new 500- match the needs of lower- additional annual revenues student public school, a new public income households may (300 square feet per space library and new fire and police result in both lower at $25.80 per square foot in stations and other community construction costs (because rent), making housing more facilities. The master developer will the unnecessary parking affordable. Two car share construct more than $700 million in spaces do not have to be vehicles are available to public infrastructure in Mission Bay, constructed or maintained) residents, giving them to be financed through special and higher revenues to the access to a car without the assessments and increased extent that what would costs of ownership—a property taxes generated by the otherwise have been particularly important benefit development. Upon completion, the dedicated parking spaces for low-income households. right-of-way and utility may instead become improvements will be accepted for revenue-generating retail, operation and maintenance by the commercial or residential City. The Redevelopment Agency space (in the case where will operate the park system, funded usable space is constructed by annual assessments against on top of above-grade private property in the parking). redevelopment areas. Mission Bay is served by transit by Muni’s new 3rd Street Light Rail system, bus lines and the regional-serving Caltrain.
Urban Houston Framework | 165 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Missing Missing Flexible parking Partnerships between a jurisdiction and developer to 13.2 square miles; 60,858 Interject greater flexibility in This project will more than In an extremely auto-dependent requirements that create public parking facilities on top of which the population (2010). Downtown administering parking triple the parking capacity of city like Houston, being able to encourage dense, developer's project can be built, providing parking Bethesda is a quasi-urban, mixed- requirements. With its large the current surface lots it will accommodate passenger urban building forms. solution for the community's residents and visitors and density, mixed-use enclave of number of marquee replace, will adding vehicles is critical to the Deductions in parking for the project. Example: A public-private partnership almost 200 restaurants and bars, 75 restaurants and high-end significantly to Downtown marketability of residential, retail, requirements for sites (PPP) between Montgomery County, MD, and a three- home fashion retailers, numerous retail offerings, Downtown Bethesda's retail offerings and commercial projects. adjacent to transit party, private-sector development joint venture to boutiques and spas, plus high-end Bethesda has a well- and to its population of Innovative public-private stations. redevelop two surface parking lots providing a total of mid and high-rise residential and recognized reputation as a permanent residents. partnerships such as this could 270 surface, metered parking spaces (97 short-term small-lot single-family detached dining and shopping be applicable in the future and 173 long-term) serving Downtown Bethesda, into a housing (with a median value of destination in the development and redevelopment premier, gateway, mixed-use project featuring 250 over $725,000), accommodating Washington-Metro Area. of new mixed-use centers in the residential units and 40,000 square feet of street retail over 61,000 residents, plus a Downtown Bethesda's City to be constructed above a public parking garage that significant component of commercial greatest growth over the will accommodate approximately 950 cars. office space, all served by the past two decades has been Bethesda Metro Station on the in the West End, starting Washington Metropolitan Transit with the initial development Authority (WMATA) Red Line, and of Bethesda Row, which located just a few miles north of the was augmented recently by north-western boundary of the the addition of the mixed- District of Columbia. use Bethesda Lane project. The redevelopment of Lot 31 will interject additional retail and residential offerings while providing substantially greater parking capacity to meet the area's increasing demand.
Missing Missing Lack of education in Educate communities and housing developers about Not applicable. Make community leaders Devising strategies for (i) Low-Income Housing Tax Credits developing the opportunities to finance affordable housing using and local affordable housing informing and educating (LIHTC) equity as a financing communities about Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs). After developers more aware of distressed communities and tool for affordable housing does availability of Low- conducting fairly exhaustive research, I have been the availability of Low- those lacking high-quality not appear to have produced Income Housing Tax unable to find a municipal jurisdiction that undertakes Income Housing Tax Credits affordable housing and (ii) affordable housing of a quality on Credits (LIHTC) and this type of education program. While LIHTC training is (LIHTCs) as well as other attracting regional and a par with other, LIHTC-financed Texas' Qualified available for those who seek it (generally for a price), affordable housing financing national affordable housing projects throughout the country. Allocation Plan (QAP). little effort is made at the governmental level to techniques as a means of developers to the City could, Similarly, the City has not promote affordable housing tools generally improving the affordable over time, improve the attracted the attention of high- housing stock in their overall affordable housing profile LIHTC developers, communities. stock in the City. although the recent entrance into the market of St. Louis-based McCormack Barron Salazar is an encouraging sign.
Urban Houston Framework | 166 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Oregon Metro - http://library.oregonme Adoption of a A policy mandating that Affordable Dwelling Units 250,000 acres; 1.5 million To promote five principles As of the 2011 Urban For a variety of economic, Affordable Housing tro.gov/files/appendix_ comprehensive (ADUs) are spread equally and/or adequately population (2006). comprising the definition of Growth Management finance, market, and Technical Advisory bfairshare.pdf affordable housing throughout all geographic locations within the City of “equitable distribution”: (1) a Functional Plan Compliance sociographic reasons, the Committee: Appendix policy for the city. Houston. “Fair share” is defined as an equitable diverse range of housing Report (March 2012), based production of ADUs does not B. Affordable Housing distribution of a diverse range of affordable housing types is available within the on the Functional Plan in occur without government Production Goals (Fair throughout the region. Determination of fair share shall region and within cities and effect as of December 12, requirement, subsidies, and/or Share) of the Regional be based upon an analysis of factual information counties inside the urban 2010, of the 28 jurisdictions encouragement, and when it Affordable Housing concerning: the existing housing stock; regional and growth boundary; (2) within Metro required to does occur generally occurs in Strategy, June 2000. sub regional demand, supply, and cost of housing and sufficient and affordable report their UGMFP more-distressed communities. Accepted by the buildable lands; and the income levels and housing housing opportunities are compliance, 27 had adopted Such a policy would mandate Oregon Metro Council needs of all current and future residents, including available to households of ordinances and regulations that every community provide its July 2000. elderly people, people with disabilities, families with all income levels that live or in compliance Title 7 of the fair share of affordable housing, children, single heads of households, and racial and have a member working in UGMFP, promoting Housing rather than continuing to allow ethnic minorities. each jurisdiction and sub Choice and mandating a concentrations of low-income region; (3) an appropriate "fair share" approach to housing in overly-impacted balance of jobs and housing meeting regional housing communities. exists within sub regions; (4) needs. the current and future need for and supply of affordable housing in the region is addressed in the distribution; and (5) concentrations of poverty are minimized. Pinal County, Arizona - http://www.pinalcounty Consistent, Classifications based on: Acreage, Types of land use, 5,374 square miles; 382,992 Pinal County's vision No data available. Each embedded zone within the We Create Our Future az.gov/Departments/Pl measurable, Three classifications resulted. population (2011). stresses the importance of Center has different criteria. Pinal County anningDevelopment/C administrable, effective Low Intensity – 100 acres, office, commercial, tourism sense of community. The This could be something to Comprehensive Plan omprehensivePlanUpd process for creating and hospitality uses, as well as medium to high density primary purpose of this consider as we move forward. (Adopted November ate/Documents/Pinal% Urban Centers. residential. Mid Intensity – 500 acres, with mix of guideline manual is to Can there be sub-Centers within 2009). 20County%20Compre clustered professional office, commercial, tourism and influence the general centers or different variations hensive%20Plan.pdf hospitality uses, medical and medium to high density character of new projects embedded? residential. High Intensity – 1,000 or more acres, mix of within designated activity professional office, business parks, and industrial uses, centers in an effort to create campus-like setting, high and medium residential. a strong sense of community
Urban Houston Framework | 167 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Puget Sound Regional http://www.psrc.org/as Consistent, Classifications based on: Types of existing Not applicable. Create a region composed See Success Stories from Well established Center policy Council, Washington - sets/229/growthcenter measurable, development Capacity of existing infrastructure Role of diverse economically and the Regional Growth that has been adopted and Central Puget Sound s.pdf administrable, effective each area would play in accommodating future environmentally healthy Centers revised to better ensure the Regional Growth process for creating development Transportation service that would be communities framed by Puget Sound Regional success of Urban Centers. Centers 2002 Urban Centers. provided in support of that future role Six open space and connected Council (August 2003) at classifications resulted. by a high-quality, efficient http://www.psrc.org/assets/2 Regional center, Metropolitan centers, Sub regional transportation system. This 27/toolkit.pdf. centers, Activity clusters, Pedestrian pockets, Small report focusses on how the towns. region has responded to the key goal of focusing development in urban growth areas, and attracting an increased portion of regional jobs and housing growth that occurs within urban areas into regional growth centers.
Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Current regulations not Require a certain percentage of all development to be 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Over the past six decades, No data available. Reductions in greenhouse gas Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/tysons/ encouraging dense located within 1/2 mile of a Metro transit station. Washington D.C. Metropolitan Tyson’s Corner has emissions from the transportation Use Task Force development near Statistical Area 5,564.6 square developed as an area sector will be Transforming Tysons: transit stations. miles; 5,703,948 population. dominated by office space achieved by reducing vehicle Vision and Area Wide and retail shopping. With miles traveled. Focusing Recommendations, the planned extension of the development near Metro September, 2008 Washington METRO Silver stations and the dedicated right (Revised October, Line identifying 4 stations in of way circulator, and 2008). Tyson’s, a Land Use Task constructing walkable, Force was create and bikeable, mixed use tasked with creating a developments will reduce VMT. development plan for the Aggressive TDM programs, area. Tyson’s plan focuses including parking management, on how to turn an area are critical to achieving VMT dominated by the vehicle in reduction goals. to a livable/walkable area with more residential and less congestion.
Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Current regulations not Require a 4 jobs per each household. 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Provide a dramatic increase No data available. A potential approach for Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/tysons/ encouraging dense Washington D.C. Metropolitan in housing for different requirement jobs and housing Use Task Force development near Statistical Area 5,564.6 square income levels, especially density. Transforming Tysons: transit stations. miles; 5,703,948 population. within walking distance of Vision and Area Wide Metrorail. Recommendations, September, 2008 (Revised October, 2008)
Urban Houston Framework | 168 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of incentives that All buildings approved in 2013 or thereafter shall be 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. More compact development No data available. Potential policy wording. Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/tysons/ encourage 'green' certified at least LEED-silver or equivalent. Prior to Washington D.C. Metropolitan uses less energy Use Task Force building techniques. 2013 all new buildings shall achieve LEED basic Statistical Area 5,564.6 square consumption than low Transforming Tysons: certification or equivalent. miles; 5,703,948 population. density, suburban style Vision and Area Wide development. For residential Recommendations, housing, the energy September, 2008 consumption rates decrease (Revised October, on a per capita basis as the 2008). density increases. Green building design, as encouraged through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program reduces operating costs which is a measure of energy consumption. By requiring LEED certified buildings, or the equivalent certification, the carbon footprint can be further Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of mobility, Require all new projects contribute to a transportation 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Promote multimodal No data available. Multimodal transportation was Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/tysons/ walkability and system that includes circulator routes, community Washington D.C. Metropolitan transportation and improved mentioned by all Focus Groups. Use Task Force accessibility. shuttles, feeder bus service, and improved pedestrian Statistical Area 5,564.6 square connectivity. Transforming Tysons: and bicycle routes and connections. miles; 5,703,948 population. Vision and Area Wide Recommendations, September, 2008 (Revised October, 2008). Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of connectivity. Revise policies to ensure all new projects increase all 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Create better connections No data available. As the grid of streets becomes Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/tysons/ non-auto trips. In addition to increasing transit mode Washington D.C. Metropolitan and provide a safer refined and detail is added, Use Task Force share and decreasing vehicle use by making travel Statistical Area 5,564.6 square environment for bikes and careful thought could be given to Transforming Tysons: within the City as well as travel to and from the City miles; 5,703,948 population. pedestrians. how pedestrians and bicycles will Vision and Area Wide more attractive, Center circulators should work as a be integrated into the street grid, Recommendations, pedestrian accelerator, making walking more and how connections will be September, 2008 convenient and easy. made to transit. In general, the (Revised October, pedestrian and bicycle network 2008). should be more extensive closer to the transit stations, with alleys and dedicated bike and pedestrian paths mid-block. Bicycle racks and other storage facilities should be located near transit stations wherever possible.
Urban Houston Framework | 169 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of 'complete Revise policies to ensure roadway projects aim at 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Promote the following No data available. Potential policy wording. Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/tysons/ streets'. having complete streets that are context sensitive. Washington D.C. Metropolitan "Great Streets" principles: Use Task Force Statistical Area 5,564.6 square Create streets that are Transforming Tysons: miles; 5,703,948 population. memorable and magical; Vision and Area Wide Help make community; Recommendations, Engaging to the eye, and September, 2008 artful; (Revised October, Supportive of social contact 2008). and participation; Are physically comfortable and safe; and Exhibit quality design, construction, and maintenance.
Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of funding. Establish strategy for funding public infrastructure. 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Over the past six decades, No data available. Potential policy wording. Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/dpz/tysonscorner Ideas include: tax increment financing, improvement Washington D.C. Metropolitan Tyson’s Corner has Use Task Force /finalreports/transformi districts, PPPs, pro-rata contributions by land owners, Statistical Area 5,564.6 square developed as an area Transforming Tysons: ng-tysons.pdf land exchanges, and/or parking fees. miles; 5,703,948 population. dominated by office space Vision and Area Wide and retail shopping. With Recommendations, the planned extension of the September, 2008 Washington METRO Silver (Revised October, Line identifying 4 stations in 2008). Tyson’s, a Land Use Task Force was create and tasked with creating a development plan for the area. Tyson’s plan focuses on how to turn an area dominated by the vehicle in to a livable/walkable area with more residential and less congestion.
Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of development Agreements made with owners of property to be 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Over the past six decades, No data available. Potential policy wording. Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/dpz/tysonscorner incentives in Chapter exempt from taxation on a portion of the value of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Tyson’s Corner has Use Task Force /finalreports/transformi 42. real property or of tangible personal property, or both. Statistical Area 5,564.6 square developed as an area Transforming Tysons: ng-tysons.pdf The duration of an agreement may be for a period of miles; 5,703,948 population. dominated by office space Vision and Area Wide time determined appropriate by the City Council and and retail shopping. With Recommendations, County based on the economic life of the the planned extension of the September, 2008 improvements and consistent with the provisions of this Washington METRO Silver (Revised October, policy, but in no case for more than ten years in Line identifying 4 stations in 2008). accordance with state law. Special terms and Tyson’s, a Land Use Task conditions may be set in the agreement governing each Force was create and specific tax abatement. tasked with creating a development plan for the area. Tyson’s plan focuses on how to turn an area dominated by the vehicle in to a livable/walkable area with more residential and less congestion.
Urban Houston Framework | 170 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Lack of policy Partner with local transportation agencies to ensure 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Over the past six decades, No data available. Potential policy wording. Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/dpz/tysonscorner alignment and that guidelines are in line with Urban Center visions. Washington D.C. Metropolitan Tyson’s Corner has Use Task Force /finalreports/transformi interdepartmental Statistical Area 5,564.6 square developed as an area Transforming Tysons: ng-tysons.pdf coordination. miles; 5,703,948 population. dominated by office space Vision and Area Wide and retail shopping. With Recommendations, the planned extension of the September, 2008 Washington METRO Silver (Revised October, Line identifying 4 stations in 2008). Tyson’s, a Land Use Task Force was create and tasked with creating a development plan for the area. Tyson’s plan focuses on how to turn an area dominated by the vehicle in to a livable/walkable area with more residential and less congestion. Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Encourage Mixed Use FARs for different uses are additive, not cumulative for 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. This distinction creates No data available. This is an interesting model for Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/dpz/tysonscorner Development the development as a whole. The highest FAR will be Washington D.C. Metropolitan incentives for housing Houston to study. The additive Use Task Force /finalreports/transformi allowed in areas within 1/8 mile of a Metro station – a Statistical Area 5,564.6 square development and reflects approach to FAR incentives Transforming Tysons: ng-tysons.pdf distance roughly equivalent to one city block or a three miles; 5,703,948 population. the goal of improving the provides more flexibility. Vision and Area Wide minute walk – and will be 6.0 before any bonus current imbalance of Throughout the Values Recommendations, densities. Densities then decrease at distances of 1/4, residents and jobs. Areas Workshop and SAC meetings we September, 2008 1/3, and 1/2 mile from each station. Within 400 and beyond these distances, as have heard that FAR bonuses (Revised October, 600 feet of a circulator route, densities will be 2.5 and well as areas adjacent to the have been unsuccessful in 2008). 1.5 FAR, respectively. In most areas the FAR for residential communities promoting sustainable building residential uses will be higher than that for non- outside the City, will have practices and incentivizing residential uses. densities consistent with the affordable housing. Perhaps existing standards. creating an additive FAR bonus Additionally, projects with framework is a better alternative? buildings expected to receive LEED Silver, LEED Gold or LEED Platinum certification receive additional Floor Area Ratio bonuses
Urban Houston Framework | 171 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Tysons Corner, http://www.fairfaxcount Suburban sprawl Reduce the number of car trips and increase the 4.9 square miles; 19,627 population. Over the past six decades, No data available. Outreach with area stakeholders Virginia - Tysons Land y.gov/dpz/tysonscorner created traffic efficient use of all transportation resources. The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Tyson’s Corner has to reduce trips during peak Use Task Force /finalreports/transformi congestion issues and expected outcome of applying TDM strategies is an Statistical Area 5,564.6 square developed as an area hours. Transforming Tysons: ng-tysons.pdf lengthy commuter increase in transit ridership and a reduction in auto miles; 5,703,948 population. dominated by office space Vision and Area Wide times. trips. A broad, systematic program and retail shopping. With Recommendations, of TDM strategies will be critical to ensure maximum the planned extension of the September, 2008 exposure throughout the region. In the areas closest to Washington METRO Silver (Revised October, Metrorail, TDM strategies can be expected to decrease Line identifying 4 stations in 2008). vehicle trips by 10 percent on a daily basis. Potential Tyson’s, a Land Use Task TDM strategies include: transit coordinators; Force was create and carpool/vanpool incentives; transit subsidy flex-work tasked with creating a arrangements; guaranteed ride home; and parking development plan for the management. A large component of TDM will be the area. Tyson’s plan focuses promotion of the programs to the various stakeholders. on how to turn an area Areas closest to the Metrorail stations should have dominated by the vehicle in higher transportation demand management to a livable/walkable area requirements. For example, within ¼ mile of the with more residential and stations, development should be required to reduce less congestion. single occupancy vehicle trips by a certain percentage.
Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Current regulations not Inclusion of a rail station (or bus station) as a defining 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Prohibit development that Requiring that public transit Multimodal transportation was Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p encouraging dense attribute of all Centers. population (2012) fails to incorporate public stations are included as mentioned by all Focus Groups. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity development near transportation. focal points of all new Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w transit stations. Centers will be important for Communities and eb.pdf reaching regional and City- Economic Growth wide goals for multi modal Discussion Paper transit. It will also promote 2009. the integration of public transport planning from the inception of Center projects.
Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Current regulations not Apply maximum rather than minimum parking 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Discourage the use of No data available. Multimodal transportation was Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p encouraging dense standards in Centers located along rail corridors. population (2012) personal automobile trips in mentioned by all Focus Groups. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity development near Centers having rail transit Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w transit stations. available. Communities and eb.pdf Economic Growth Discussion Paper 2009. Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Current regulations not Locate trip-generating land uses near high frequency 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Encourage multimodal No data available. Multimodal transportation was Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p encouraging dense public transport. population (2012) transportation. mentioned by all Focus Groups. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity development near Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w transit stations. Communities and eb.pdf Economic Growth Discussion Paper 2009.
Urban Houston Framework | 172 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Support local Provide services, employment and activities that are 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Ensure local, universal Drafted in 2009, the Activity The Center planning rhetoric Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p communities. appropriate and accessible to the community a Center population (2012) accessibility to goods and Centers discussion paper from Australia emphasizes the Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity supports. services. resulted in the creation of a importance of local communities Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w State Planning Policy throughout the Center design Communities and eb.pdf Centers for various regions and designation process. Economic Growth throughout Australia, Discussion Paper including Perth and Peel 2009 (which is also included in Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Encourage efficient Be integrated with and encourage the efficient 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Increase usage of No data available. Aligns with Houston's core goals Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p transportation operation of the city’s transport network, with particular population (2012) multimodal transportation for Centers. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity networks. emphasis on promoting public transport, walking and options. Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w cycling and reducing the number and length of trips. Communities and eb.pdf Economic Growth Discussion Paper 2009. Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Promote sustainable, Be designed on transit oriented development 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Encourage sustainable No data available. Aligns with Houston's core goals Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p good design. principles. population (2012) building practices. for Centers. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w Communities and eb.pdf Economic Growth Discussion Paper 2009. Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Create live/work/play Provide opportunities for places to live through higher- 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Creating live/work No data available. Aligns with Houston's core goals Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p opportunities. density housing (with the exception of industrial population (2012) opportunities and for Centers. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity centers) and the development of social and cultural preserving/enhancing the Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w networks. cultural fabric of a city. Communities and eb.pdf Economic Growth Discussion Paper 2009. Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Cluster economic Encourage the concentration of economic activity and 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Cluster No data available. Aligns with Houston's core goals Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p activities. cultivation of business synergies in centers. population (2012) commercial/industrial/retail for Centers. Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity activities to minimize impact Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w on infrastructure, conserve Communities and eb.pdf resources and create Economic Growth interactive business Discussion Paper districts. 2009. Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Enhance 'sense of Support the development of local identity and a sense 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Emphasize the importance No data available. Offers an additional Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p place'. of place. population (2012) of cultural connectivity and goal/expectation not yet included Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity community networks in the in/refined in the Urban Houston Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w success of a Center. Framework. Need to consider Communities and eb.pdf including and expanding on this. Economic Growth Discussion Paper 2009.
Urban Houston Framework | 173 Peer Review
Source Peer URL Challenge/Goal Description Area Demographics Purpose/Intent Impact Relevance to Houston Reviewed (Internet hyperlink to Identified (Supporting text further describing the criteria, (Size in acreage or square miles, (of Criteria, Expectation, (of Criteria, Expectation, (how peer reviewed item relates (The document, plan the document, plan or (Issues and expectation, tool or process under review) population, etc.) Tool or Process reviewed) Tool or Process reviewed) to UHF) or City policy City policy reviewed) opportunities brought reviewed) up by Focus Groups, SAC, Interested Public, etc.) Western Australian http://www.planning.wa Create a sizeable Activity center plans will be required to include a 1,021,478 square mi, 2,410,600 Ensure a compact and No data available. Planning for Urban Centers Planning Commission - .gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/p economic impact and measure of the intensity of activity (planned population population (2012) walkable urban form and to offers additional opportunities to Planning Activity lanning_policy_activity increase the City's tax and jobs/gross ha). support additional expand the role of economic Centers for _centres_com_eco2_w base. growth and infrastructure impact assessments as decision Communities and eb.pdf such as public transport and making tools (especially for Economic Growth demonstrate a diverse land development projects involving Discussion Paper use mix. major retail uses). 2009.
Urban Houston Framework | 174 This page intentionally left blank.
| 175 C APPENDIX C: PROCESS Process Alternatives: Applicant Initiated
During the Framework process, alter- The challenges associated with this nate visions of the process to become process are: an Urban Center were put on the table, including a City Initiated Process, a • It is not conducive to long-range, Voluntary Area Initiated Process, and citywide planning an Applicant Initiated Process. The two • It could result in parcel-by-parcel, processes shown here - Applicant and status quo development challenges Voluntary Area Initiated Processes - are • That the City is in a responsive role those that were deemed as not appropri- in steering development, versus an ate for Houston, but could be appropri- anticipatory role ate in other areas in the region. The City • Developers are responsible for Initiated process is discussed in full on mapping criteria, which in turn in- page 78. creases time and money costs
The Applicant Initiated process is cur- rently available in Houston through the use of Chapter 42 variance process. The difference seen here is that a variance would not be needed in order for an applicant to apply to become an Urban Center. An Applicant is defined as a residential developer, commercial developer, property owner or real estate corporation.
The benefits of this process are:
• It is entirely voluntary and reliant upon private market forces • It is the simplest application process of the three alternatives (City Initi- ated, Community Initiated and Appli- cant Initiated) • That developers will likely favor this option
Urban Houston Framework | 177 Process Alternatives: Voluntary Area Initiated
The Voluntary Area Initiated process is gathering signatures so it fits into • It is available to any group interest- The challenges associated with this one where residential and commercial already established operating pro- ed in reaching out to property own- process are: property owners, Management Districts, cedures for these entities ers to gather signatures required for Redevelopment Authorities, Historic • It emphasizes empowerment of Center designation • That nebulous boundaries could Districts, non-profit organizations and community groups slow down the application process Community Development Corporations • That increased dialogue with com- • The City is in responsive role in would be able to initiate the process for munity organizations could help the steering development (versus antici- their area to become an Urban Center. City more easily identify gaps in patory) infrastructure in services throughout • That this process could result in During the Framework process, it was Houston high amounts of applications being decided that a City Initiated process • It encourages sustainable develop- submitted to the City would be more appropriate for Large ment practices in all areas of the and Medium Centers. The concern City (versus only in pre-established for The Applicant and Voluntary Area Centers) Initiated processes for Small Centers is that development may negatively effect existing stable neighborhoods and Small Centers in particular. The City Initiated process will allow the City to determine whether a Small Center can become an Urban Center, taking into account all of the outlying factors in the area. There- fore, at least for the immediate future, the Voluntary Area Initiated process will not be used in Houston, but this could be used in other areas within the region.
The benefits of this process are:
• It creates an immediate partnership for implementation Community Initiated Process • It grants the City more leeway in coordinating planning and develop- Voluntary Area Initiated Process ment efforts residential property owners commercial property owners • Management districts/ TIRZ’s management district or redevelopment authority already have protocol in place for historic district non-profit organization 2 community development corporation Urban Houston Framework | 178
Figure 17: Community Initiated Urban Center Classification Approval Process Phase Phase Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 1a 2a City certifies Applicant City issues Applicant Applicant Interested Community area as Urban proposes certification gains access uses Toolbox party notifies Organization Center development letter to Urban Center to develop in all property completes for five years project valid for five Toolbox accordance with owners within checklist pre-existing years Tier-1 (Large), 200’ to certify area as Urban Center Tier-2 (Medium) of parcel Urban Center and approaches or Tier-3 (Small) attempting to City with Guidelines redevelop using - - OR - - development Urban Center plans and Toolbox Phase 2b completed checklist for gaining - - OR - - City access to Urban encourages Center Toolbox Phase 1b area to complete Interested checklist party gathers to certify as required Urban Center signatures from all property owners within 200’ of parcel attempting to redevelop approving Urban Center designation and access to Urban Center Toolbox Urban Houston Framework | 71 D APPENDIX D: CRITERIA Criteria
GOAL ADDRESSED? CRITERIA (METRIC)? DEFINITION (INTENT)? POTENTIAL DATA SOURCE(S)? SUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE? Address local and Dwelling Unit Density (Multi- Determines balance/variety of housing. City of Houston; U.S. Decennial Census Yes regional housing Family) and American Community Survey (ACS) initiatives. Homeownership data Address local and Dwelling Unit Density (Single- Determines balance/variety of housing. City of Houston; U.S. Decennial Census Yes regional housing Family) and American Community Survey (ACS) initiatives. Homeownership data Address local and Food Amenities within 0.25 Measures food/grocery amenities (such as City of Houston Yes regional housing mile Walking Distance supermarkets, grocery stores, farmers markets) initiatives. within 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) walking distance. Address local and Housing Starts The number of new houses that are being built City of Houston; U.S. Census Bureau New No regional housing within the United States. The real estate sector Residential Construction Report initiatives. is often one the first impacted by impending economic instability, making housing starts a highly reliable economic indicator. Address local and Housing Type A measure of housing type diversity (i.e. City of Houston Yes regional housing percent Single-Family versus Multi-Family, initiatives. Duplex, Apartments; etc..). Address local and Housing Value Measures the cost of housing in dollar amount. City of Houston; U.S. Decennial Census Maybe regional housing and American Community Survey (ACS) initiatives. Homeownership data Address local and Infill Development Potential Measures acreage of vacant, undeveloped City of Houston Yes regional housing or underdeveloped land available for future initiatives. development. Address local and Median Household Income Measures income of householder and all U.S. Census Bureau N/A regional housing other individuals 15 years old and over in the initiatives. household, whether they are related to the householder or not. Address local and Percent Multifamily Dwelling Measures level of housing choice in close City of Houston Yes regional housing Units within X mile(s) of proximity to schools. initiatives. educational institution(s) or # educational institutions within X miles of parcel Address local and Percent Single-family Measures level of housing choice in close City of Houston Yes regional housing Dwelling Units within X proximity to schools. initiatives. mile(s) of educational institution(s) or # educational institutions within X miles of parcel
Urban Houston Framework | 180 Criteria
GOAL ADDRESSED? CRITERIA (METRIC)? DEFINITION (INTENT)? POTENTIAL DATA SOURCE(S)? SUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE? Address local and Residential Density Measures households per acre. City of Houston; U.S. Decennial Census Yes regional housing and American Community Survey (ACS) initiatives. Homeownership data Address local and Residential Dwelling Unit Determines capacity for residential infill City of Houston; U.S. Census Bureau Yes regional housing Vacancy Rate development/potential to accommodate Housing Vacancies and Homeownership initiatives. population growth (new residents relocating Survey (CPS/HVS) to Houston) or migrating populations (existing residents moving to new locations within the City). Address local and Transit-Oriented Residential Measures the proximity of public transit to City of Houston No regional housing Density housing as an indicator of the likelihood for initiatives. residents to use public transit. Having public transit stops within short walking distances from housing encourages residents of a neighborhood to use public transportation thus reducing vehicular energy use and emissions. The Transit-Oriented Residential Density measures the average walking distance in feet from all residents of a neighborhood to the closest public transit stop. A travel distance of ¼ mile (1,320 feet) is typically considered walkable. (Number of Housing Units per Acre). Address local and Transportation Cost Measure of affordability. No sufficient data available N/A regional housing initiatives. Contribute high-quality Parks and Open Space Measure of recreational/fitness opportunities. No sufficient data available N/A infrastructure. Acreage Park land is defined as minimum of 0.5 contiguous acres inside the Loop 610 or 1.0 contiguous acres outside the Loop 610. Park definitions vary (i.e. Neighborhood Park, Linear Parks, Natural Areas) and size ranges anywhere from 0.5 - 150+ acres of contiguous land. Includes parks, green space, trails, and open space. Contribute high-quality Walk Score Average Measure of “pedestrian friendliness” using http://www.walkscore.com/ N/A infrastructure. intersection density and average block length. Encourage economic Average Residential/ Determines the intensity of residential, City of Houston No viability and diversity. Commercial/Office Floor commercial and office uses. Area Ratio (FAR)
Urban Houston Framework | 181 Criteria
GOAL ADDRESSED? CRITERIA (METRIC)? DEFINITION (INTENT)? POTENTIAL DATA SOURCE(S)? SUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE? Encourage economic Civic Amenities within 0.25 Measures civic amenities within 0.25 mile City of Houston Yes viability and diversity. mile Walking Distance (1,320 feet) walking distance. Encourage economic Civic Amenity Density Measures density of civic uses. City of Houston Yes viability and diversity. Encourage economic Cultural Amenities within 0.25 Measures cultural amenities within 0.25 mile City of Houston Yes viability and diversity. mile Walking Distance (1,320 feet) walking distance. Encourage economic Employment Density Measures employment (jobs) per acre. City of Houston; U.S. Census American Yes viability and diversity. Community Survey (ACS); U.S. Census Labor Force Statistics Data Encourage economic Facilities within 0.25 mile Measure proximity to facilities. Facilities is City of Houston Yes viability and diversity. (1,320 feet) Walking Distance defined as ______. Encourage economic Jobs/Housing Ratio Determines the ratio of jobs to housing dwelling City of Houston; U.S. Census American Yes viability and diversity. units. Community Survey (ACS); U.S. Census Labor Force Statistics Data Encourage economic Other User Densities Measures density of other users. Others Users City of Houston; U.S. Census Bureau No viability and diversity. is defined as ______. Encourage economic Population Density Measure persons per acre. City of Houston; U.S. Decennial Census Yes viability and diversity. and American Community Survey (ACS) Homeownership data Encourage economic Recreational Amenities within Measures recreational amenities (such as City of Houston No viability and diversity. 0.25 mile Walking Distance gyms, sports stadiums, recreational complexes) within 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) walking distance. Encourage economic Retail/Commercial Amenities Measures retail/commercial amenities within City of Houston Yes viability and diversity. within 0.25 mile Walking 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) walking distance. Distance Encourage economic Walk Score Average Measures mixture of uses based on http://www.walkscore.com/ N/A viability and diversity. neighborhood service/amenity category. Amenities included in calculation include: grocery stores, restaurants, shopping, coffee, banks, parks, schools, book stores and entertainment. Enhance Community Educational Amenities within Measures accessibility to educational City of Houston Yes stability, accessibility 0.25 mile Walking Distance institutions within 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) walking and equity. distance.
Urban Houston Framework | 182 Criteria
GOAL ADDRESSED? CRITERIA (METRIC)? DEFINITION (INTENT)? POTENTIAL DATA SOURCE(S)? SUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE? Enhance Community Funding Mechanism or Other Determines which areas have a funding City of Houston May be stability, accessibility Management Entity mechanism or other management entity. and equity. Enhance Community Historical Site/Structure Identifies important historical amenities. No sufficient data available N/A stability, accessibility Density and equity. Promote sustainable, Impervious/Pervious Cover Measure of heat island effect impact. City of Houston; Google Earth 2011 No healthy design. Ratio Satellite Imagery
Promote sustainable, Number LEED certified Measures sustainability through identifying No sufficient data available N/A healthy design. projects number of LEED certified projects. Promote sustainable, Percent Tree Canopy Cover Measure of heat island effect impact. City of Houston tree inventory? N/A healthy design. Promote sustainable, Vehicular Greenhouse Gas Measure of atmospheric gases contributing to No sufficient data available N/A healthy design. Emission the greenhouse effect. Support multimodal Average Block Size Measure of walkability and connectivity. City of Houston No transportation and increased connectivity. Support multimodal Average Grid Density of Measures the length of streets per acre for City of Houston Maybe transportation and Roadways, Bikeways and vehicular roadways, bicycles pathways and increased connectivity. Sidewalks pedestrian sidewalks. Support multimodal Bike Score Measures whether a location is good for http://www.bikescore.com/ N/A transportation and biking on a scale from 0 - 100 based on four increased connectivity. equally weighted components: bike lanes, hills, destinations and road connectivity, bike commuting mode share.“ Support multimodal Bikeway Proximity Measures proximity to bikeways based on 0.50 City of Houston Yes transportation and mile (2,640 feet) distance. increased connectivity. Support multimodal Freeway or Grand Parkway Measure of connectivity. City of Houston, METRO Yes transportation and Density increased connectivity. Support multimodal Freeway or Major Measure of connectivity. City of Houston, METRO Yes transportation and Thoroughfare Density increased connectivity.
Urban Houston Framework | 183 Criteria
GOAL ADDRESSED? CRITERIA (METRIC)? DEFINITION (INTENT)? POTENTIAL DATA SOURCE(S)? SUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE? Support multimodal Inland Port Proximity Measure of freight activity. City of Houston, METRO No transportation and increased connectivity. Support multimodal Land Use Composition Measures percentage of land use composition. City of Houston Yes transportation and Land use composition is defined as increased connectivity. ______. Support multimodal Major Collector Density Measure of connectivity. City of Houston, METRO Yes transportation and increased connectivity. Support multimodal METRO Bus Routes Measures proximity to METRO Bus Routes City of Houston, METRO Yes transportation and based on 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) walking increased connectivity. distance. Support multimodal METRO Rail Station Measures proximity to METRO Rail Service City of Houston, METRO Yes transportation and Proximity Routes based on 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) walking increased connectivity. distance. Support multimodal Port Proximity Measure of industrial/manufacturing intensity. City of Houston, METRO No transportation and increased connectivity. Support multimodal Transit Score Calculates a “transit friendliness” score for http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j No transportation and a specific point by summing the relative &q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd increased connectivity. “usefulness” of nearby routes. Usefulness is =1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=h defined as the distance to the nearest stop on ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdot% the route, the frequency of the route, and type 2Flib%2Fdot%2Fdocuments%2Fdpol of route. icy%2Ftransitscore%2Ftransitscorem ethod.doc&ei=ubr9UPiQCaji2gXq54C IAw&usg=AFQjCNHnPlPyqEVWTw8- anCLTF9KxVCDJw&sig2=03itm9y6i21- b3QVQGgq6g&bvm=bv.41248874,d.b2I Support multimodal Walk Score Average Measures “pedestrian friendliness” using http://blog.walkscore.com/wp-content/ No transportation and intersection density and average block length. uploads/2010/12/WalkScoreMethodology. increased connectivity. pdf
Urban Houston Framework | 184 This page intentionally left blank.
Urban Houston Framework | 185 E APPENDIX E: TOOLBOX This page intentionally left blank. Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives Urban Houston Framework Universal Improvement Tools Tuesday, April 30, 2013 Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Universal Urban Center Plan(s) (includes Traffic Development does not need to complete a Traffic Impact Development must meet the intent and base METRO There arree currently no vision plans in existence for urban centers. The intent oof these plans thatt developers Improvement Tool Impact Analysis and Preventative AAnalysis if located on a Major Thoroughfare or Major Collector expectations outlined by an Urban Center Plan. H-GAC must meeet the will need to be substantiated with a specific manual of requirements so as to create a predictable 1 and if there is a minimum density of jobs and dwelling units per HCDD and transsparent process by which developments are approved. Street Abandonment Plans) acre (as defined by an Urban Center Plan). P&D Developers will build where they know the PWE An exammple of an instance in which the City, private developer, community, orr other organization created a plan infrastructure required to support their project Potential tool citeed by stakeholders – offer credit for existing ReBuild Houston for Urbann Center may be reviewed at this location: exists. Parks are an important part of pedestrian opportunities. http://wwww.capitolriverfront.org/_files/docs/caprivudfp13web.pdf). infrastructure which may or may not be available
in a specific area. With additional density, added AAllowable street closures are pre-determined so that it is clear to Currentlyy the City, management entities or private developers can create a Transportation Plans for areas in park space is needed to serve new residents. developers owning property on both sides of the right-of-way Houston.. Development or Redevelopment projects must complete Transportation Impact Analysis (TIAs) to Promoting sustainable, healthy design and wwhich areas in Urban Centers there could be abanddoned right- show thaat proposed designs will not produce more Peak Hourly Trips (PHT) thhan the area’s Transportation Plan better construction practices through Urban of-way in. allows. Iff so the applicant is required to either amend the Plan or submit a sepparate Transportattion Impact Center Plans will help guide occurrences of Analysis (TIA). This tool would speed up the approval process for developers. more dense urban development throughout the Determining abandonment would entail studying areas to
city. Encourages management entities within the determine which strategic places in which abandonment would Current rrules allow for individual properties in Major Activity Centers to be exeempt from TIA requirements if the Urban Centers to provide a Transportation Plan not negatively imppact traffic patterns, surrounding communities, MAC hass conducted and received approval for an overall TIA and the proposeed development is consistent with for Traffic Analysis will help support multimodal nor planning objectives. that TIA. transportation and increased connectivity by
holistically considere ing the traffic impacts of Once these areas are determined, air rights exceeding 20' development and/or redevelopment projects. above the street level may be abandoned in the right-of-way Traffic AAnalysis in Major Activity Centers The Cityy Engineer, together with the Planning and Development Department, may cooperate with management (ROW) and the developer would not be required to pay for the districts, development authorities or other public or private organizations to prepare a transportation plan within When a governing entity completes a Traffic abandoned right-of-way. Impact Analysis prior to development, investors a Major AActivity Center. While the City may provide oversight, the preparation of the plan is not the have additional assurance that their project can responsiibbility of the City. be built in a timeline that protects their investments. Transpoortation Plan and Traffic Analysis a. Thee horizon year projections can be used to generate trips for the Major Activity Center study area. A Small parcels created by roadway grids of 250’ Traaffic Impact Analysis can be prepared using this transsportation plan identifying impacts and mitigation or less may not be desirable for developers. meeaasures. A plan can be included for how mitigation measures are impleemented and these can be Small roadway grids have been cited by incoorporated into transportation plans and capital improvement programss within a Major Activity Center. stakeholders as creating challenges to the b. It mmay be necessary for the Transportation Plan and Traffic Analysis to bbe updated once every five years. construction of more dense, mixed use building c. Anyy proposed development within the Transportation Plan and Traffic Annalysis Study Area that will typologies. Abandoning certain streets allows for prooduce the same or less PHT than a use described in the Transportatioon Plan shall be exempt from the possibility of denser development and the preeparing a TIA. preservation of pedestrian connectivity and d. Anyy proposed development within the Transportation Plan and Traffic Annalysis Study Area that will walkability in certain areas. This will encourage prooduce more PHT that described in the Transportation Plan shall be reqquired to amend the Plan or economic viability and diversity and create larger subbmit a separate stand-alone TIA. parcels that support denser development. Developmments within a Major Activity Center without a Transportation Plan and associated Trafffic Analysis Laying out a plan will give developers an idea of Ordinarillyy require a TIA will still require a TIIA in order to determine the impacts of the development and what the area could yield when fully redeveloped mitigationn measures, if any, required. Developments within a Major Activity Ceenter always have the option of with compatible dense, mixed-use building preparingg a separate TIA specifically for their development. Current regulationns allow for a Major Activity Center forms. This will also help to support multimodal to complleete an overall traffic plan that can be used for future development. transportation and increased connectivity by encouraging development along the major The Infraastructure Design Manual Chapter 15: Traffic and Signal Design Requuirements reviews design corridors where transportation improvements considerraations regarding traffic impacts on dwelling unit density and connectivvity, but besides the H-GAC can benefit the most users. Livable CCenters Plans and Mobility Plans, there aren’t plans specific to centers. Moreover, Capital Improvement Plan fundding allocations are based on needs and conditions assessments across the City. Therre is no Traffic and transportation improvements can be guaranteee that H-GAC Livable Center Plan and Mobility Plan recommendationns receive priority for funding planned and implemented where they will benefit becausee the CIP is designed to address the worst-first, and to a lesser degreee, consider future growth. the most users; creating solutions based on area HPARD’ss 21 Park Sector Plans may provide guidance in maintaining current aacres of parkland/1,000 people. trends, not just addressing changes brought on Appropriiaate benchmarks have not yet been determined and may vary by Centter type. by a singular development. This removes the current requirement that a Traffic Impact Analysis be completed for all developments outside the Central Business District area if they generate more than 100 trips during the peak hour.
1
Urban Houston Framework | 188 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Universal High Quality/Capacity Transit METRO Improvement Tool H-GAC 2 HCDD P&D PWE
Universal Developer Participation Contract A DPC is an existing tool that allows developers to be The developer updates utility infrastructure P&D http://doocuments.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/procedures/developer_participation_contract_ Improvement Tool (DPC) Utility Infrastructure Upgrade reimbursed for a portion of the cost of upgrading infrastructure. systems as specified within a Developer PWE dpc/resoource_documents/dpc_manual_2011.pdf 3 There are three types of DPCs covered in Code of Ordinances, Participation Contract. 100 perccent of the Eligible Over Sizing Costs for the Main, 70 percent of the balance of Eligible Construction Reimbursement Chapter 47 Article IV beginning with Section 47-161. Costs forr the Main, (100 percent of the Eligible Design Costs, Interest on the rreimbursement cost as calculated Allowing for upgrades to systems earlier than above att the interest rate described in Article I of this Contract for the period of time between the Developer's might be possible if the City had to finance the 30-70 DPCs loan disbbursement and payment by the City. improvement will provide the capacity needed to Intended for reimbursement of new water and wastewater accommodate denser, urban forms of infrastructure construction only. Housing is not associated Greater ccoordination with City reviewers reggarding utilities research conductedd (as required per Houston’s development. with these type projects and there is no provision for Infrastruccture Design Manual) will help encoourage increased opportunities for public/private partnerships in reimbursement oof storm sewer costs. The cap on implemeennting alternate solutions and utility upgrades in key areas. City staff iss available to assist any applicant The City currently has a program in place reimbursement is limited to $1,000,000 but only includes with reseearch of existing utilities if the applicant is unable to discern the information from the web-based maps through use of Developer Participation Contracts construction costs. and inveenntories. Utilizes existing financing models to better accomplish desired goals and reduce perception of to offset developer costs for water and sanitary financial risk to developers. sewer infrastructure. Any oversizing/additional 50-50 DPCs capacity is covered by the City. Intended for reimbursement of new water and wastewater infrastructure construction only. Housing is not associated with these type projects and there is no provision for reimbursement oof storm sewer costs. The cap on reimbursement is limited to $50,000 and includes construction and engineering costs.
Universal Parking Benefit District The City coordinates with stakeholders in the area, installs Amar will get back to us. METRO Americaan Planning Association Press--The High Cost of Free Parking 4 Improvement Tool PBD’s are defined geographic areas, typically in meters and distributes funds back to the district according to the HCDD downtown areas or along commercial corridors agreement with the stakeholders. P&D Reformiinng Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth – Toolbox/Handbook: Parking Bestt Practices & in which a majority of the revenue generated PWE Strategiees for Supporting Transit Oriented Development in the San Franccisco Bay Area from on-street parking facilities within the district is returned to the district to finance Driving UUrban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices neighborhood improvements. The primary goal A publiccation of the Governor’s Office of Smart Growth of a PBD is to effectively manage parking supply and demand so that parking is convenient and Code off Ordinances Chapter 26: easy for motorists. PBDs typically employ a Parking AArticle XI (amended 3.6.2013) defines parking benefit districts as areaas designated by City Council number of parking management techniques to (typicallyy in the Central Business District or along major commmercial/ transit coorridors) in which rrevenue manage parking supply and demand. By generateed from parking facilities may be used to finance improvements. All moonies generated through parking implementing a PBD, the parking will be meters aare used to offset the City’s financial contributions to signage, enforcement, maintenance, etc. managed more effectively and a majority of the Revenuees in excess of City costs go to advisory committee recommended proojects—such as landscaping, revenue is reinvested back into projects parking sstudies and pedestrian realm improvements—or deposited into the City’s parking management special determined by the community. Additional revenue fund. Currently Washington Avenue is the only parking benefit district within City limits. consideration should be paid to surrounding development and ensure that shared parking assumptions are convenient to all participants. Amar will give us feedback on that.
Universal Special Parking Area The developer provides parking off-site, METRO 5 Improvement Tool provided that it is within an eighth of a mile HCDD walking distance of the main entrance to the P&D development. PWE
2
Urban Houston Framework | 189 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Universal Reduced Park Requirement The potential use of reduced acreage for park dedication. The developer must provide basic amenities PARD Ch. 42-2252 6 Improvement Tool Pocket parks are allowed in areas that are like benches, signage and trash cans. HCDD Parks Diirrector may approve the dedication of less than one half acre of property in the urban arrea or one acre considered denser and well served by other P&D of properrty in the suburban area if the proposed park is a pocket park the need for which is identified in the parks in lieu of larger parks. PWE Parks Maaster Plan, is adjacent to an existing park or other public space, provides access to a park, or otherwise presentss an opportunity to enhance the City parks system consistent with the Parks Master Plan.
Universal Stormwater Facilities Privately or publicly held stormwater facilities are oversized and Developer reserves capacity in regional HCFCD The Cityy of Houston is undertaking a study of regional stormwater mitigation ooptions. Chapter 13 currently 7 Improvement Tool Supporting privately or publicly created and the additional cost is recouped by selling capacity to developers. stormwater detention facility within certain HCDD requires of the PWE Infrastructure Design Manual currently requires Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans maintained stormwater detention facility that proximity to site and, when applicable, P&D (SWP3) aand Best Management Practices (BMPs). serves multiple developments will help integrates the site’s storm water detention PWE contribute to high-quality infrastructure. Creating facilities with recreational spaces and trail HPRD Current rregulations allow this opportunity for developers if they can bring the ffacility location forward. denser development through use of connectivity. Stormwaater detention capacity must be in place prior to development. As part of the City’s long range planning offsite/regional stormwater mitigation may also efforts, PPWE currently addresses this issue for Capital Improvement Projects. PWE does not speculate on land lead to better return on investments given the acquisitioon to support “possible” future development. potential for high land prices in highly demanded Urban Centers. Houston’’s Parks and Recreation Department’s 2008 Master Plan Update recoommends specific amounts of acreage in each Council District to be acquuired for the additional park facilitiess. Future Urban Center plans should inncorporate these findings as the foundation for filling gaps in detentionn infrastructure. According to HPARD, approximately 3,616 acres of land of the following park typologies neeeds to be acquired in order to meet 20220 population demands.
Commmunity Parks Neiighborhood Parks Lineear Park/Greenwaays In-PPark Trails Connnecting Trails
Universal Stormwater Treatment Credits Receive credits that could then be traded or sold between The developer goes above and beyond local HCFCD Stormwaater Pollution Prevention Procedures are currently required by Chapter 13 of the Infrastrructure Design Improvement Tool Encouraging stormwater filtration methods in adjacent properties (within the wattershed) for treating and state standard requirements for cleaning HCDD Manual. SWP3 contents must include, at a minimum, the following: 8 stormwater within the public rights-of-way provided the use does and reuse of stormwater, and participates in a P&D 1. Sitee or Project Descrription and/or - - landscape buffer zones through stormwater credits can rewards efforts to incorporate Low not interfere with pedestrian clear zone and is outside the bike joint maintenance agreement. PWE 2. Besst Management Practices (BMPs) Developer Incentive Impact Development (LID) and to manage and vehicle travel ways. 3. Struuctural Control Practices stormwater at the source. Allowing an Urban 4. Perrmanent Storm Water Controls Center to bank quality credits which could then 5. Othher Controls be traded or sold between adjacent properties 6. Connsistency with Approved State and Local Plans could be a potential strategy for contributing to 7. Maaiintenance high-quality infrastructure and for encouraging 8. Inssppections of Contrrols (written documentation of inspections of controlsrequired) the cleaning and reuse of stormwater. 9. Nonn-Storm Water Discharges
Chapter 14 also requires applicants to prove: commpliance with all standards contained in the Infrastructure Design Mannual, Adeequacy of service availability for: (1) Water, (2) Wastewater, (3) Storm sewer or storm water detention, andd Other design standards of the Department of Public Works and Engineering
Universal Low Impact Development (LID) Identify areas of common ground in achieving sustainable urban Developers use LID techniques such as HCFCD PWE connsiders LID techniques for its infrastructure projects and where it makes economic sense from a 9 Improvement Tool Sustainable development practices are developments in partnership with private sector developers. pervious paving, rainwater cisterns, bioswales, HCDD cost/benneefit standpoint. Houston’s Infrastructure Design Manual Chapter 13 Stormwater Quality Design integrated into public developments such as rain gardens, etc. P&D Requiremments specify design criteria, inspection and maintenance requiremennts for bio retention, infiltration roads, parks, public facilities, and the Green Encourage better development practices by demonstrating Low PWE trenchess, porous pavement, vegetative swales, roof surfaces and rain barrels, but these criteria only apply to Building Resource Center. If proven successful Impact Development (LID) principles in City projects. new devveelopment on undeveloped parcels of five acres or larger (regardless oof amount of land that will actually under the be disturrbed), and significant redevelopment (defined as changes of one acreor more to the impervious surface There is an approved list of acceptable BMPs. in existennce) on five acre or larger developed parcels. Harris County’s Low Impact Development & Green Exemplifying what works and doesn’t work in Infrastruccture Design Criteria for Storm Water Management ddo not require connventional development projects Houston and agreeing upon a list of acceptable to follow LID requirements. Requirements only apply to new development or re-development projects choosing Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help to incorpporate LID for the purpose of satisfying current HCPID-AED and/or HCCFCD requirementts for detention, contribute to high-quality infrastructure and infrastruccture, and stormwater quality to receive Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) of promote responsible and sustainable design in Municipaal Utility District (MUD) reimbursements for LID and green infrastructure (GI) elements. Houston. Harrris County Low Impact Development & Green Infrastructure Design CCriteria for Storm Water Maannagement Cityy of Houston, Harris County and Harris County Flood Control District Storm Water Management Hanndbook for Construction Activities
3
Urban Houston Framework | 190 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Universal Celebrating Sustainable Development Sustainable projects are celebrated through an awards program Development meets minimum standards for HCDD Examplee: Green Office Challenge 10 Improvement Tool Practices and press releases by agencies throughout the region. SITES, LEED, or other comparable third-party P&D ULI Housston - Development of Distinction Awards Additional marketing of sustainable projects will validation performance rating systems. PWE US Greeen Building Council provide an incentive for developers to include HCFCD Americann Planning Association sustainable design elements. Americann Society of Landscape Architects
Developer Incentive Affordable Housing Flow Chart The project is assigned a city-approved flow chart indicating The developer may be required to provide a HUD There arree currently no minimum affordable housing requirements within Houston. Current process for permitting 11 Addressing local and regional housing initiatives wwhich department and which person within each department is certain percentage of affordable housing units HCDD reviews mmust be completed within 30 days (Current permitting review period iss 11 calendar days for non-single is a key goal for Urban Centers cited by assigned to development in Urban Centers. Then, a at a variety of price points. P&D family reessidential. Total time to permit is based on the quality of the submittal aand the number of resubmittals stakeholders. Ensuring a smooth and timely representative(s) is assigned by each relative department that PWE which is in the control of the applicant). progression through building permit/plat review facilitates the perrmitting/plat review process and discusses a processes will be important to ensuring Urban variety of options available for successfully achieving mixed- Centers successfully become live/work/play use, affordable or workforce housing. environments. Encouraging the development of mixed use, affordable and workforce housing options will allow a range of income groups and ages to live in Urban Centers.
Reduced impact fees per unit have been noted by Focus Groups as a tool for promoting mixed- use. Creating a TIRZ for Large and Medium Urban Centers was noted as a tool for bettering economic growth, population growth and housing supply. Impact fees are only assessed for the contemplated uses in a building, so the cost of service is covered. Permit fees and impact fees are set by City Ordinance and cannot be reduced or waived. Developer Incentive Entitlement Grant Gap Financing for The Communityy Development Bllock Grant (CDBG) Program The developer may be required to provide a HCDD 12 Housing Finances a variety of activities including housing, public facilities certain percentage of affordable housing units P&D There are four HUD entitlement grants and improvements, public services, and economic development at a variety of price points. PWE administered by HCDD that finance annual assistance activities. These activities support the low- and objectives associated with HUD activities, moderate-income neighborhoods and residents. including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Investment The HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Partnerships (HOME) Program, the Emergency Promotes public/private partnerships as a vehicle for expanding Solutions Grant (ESG) and Housing the stock of affordable housing, both single and mulltifamily, for Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). the homeowner and rental markets. HOME Program funds support homebuyer assistance and single and multifamily Of note, ESG and HOPWA are primarily development/rehabilitation/repair activities. supportive service grants awarded through a competitive process to social service agencies. Houston Housing Authority However, two of the grants, CDBG and HOME The Houston Housing Authority (HHA) receives federal funding may be utilized as a form of gap financing for to provide qualityy affordable housing options in Houston. The affordable housing. HCDD’s Multifamily Housing HHA is the local administrator of the federal Low-Rent Public Program activities are funded at various times Housing Program and the Housing Choice Voucher Program throughout the year through a Request for (HCV) (formerly Section 8), as well as other homeownership, Proposal (RFP) process. and self- sufficiency programs for low- and extremely low- income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. The Financing projects that contribute to housing agency’s programs provide more than 19,000 units of affordable supplies in Urban Centers should be a priority in housing and serve more than 55,000 Houstonians. submitting grant applications (regardless of whether grant applications are submitted by the Harris County Housing Authority Housing Authority, Housing and Community While the Harris County Housing Authority (HCHA) serves Development Department, etc.). For example, areas outside the City limits of Houston, it is an important Urban Centers will be the targets for most of the resource for areaa residents. In FY 2011, HCHA proposed to following grant applications. serve 3,715 families in the Section 8 HCV, 8 families in the Section 8 Mod Rehab, 75 families in the HUD-VASH (Veterans AAffairs Supportive Housing), and 72 households in Single Room Occupancy. 4
Urban Houston Framework | 191 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Developer Incentive Local Tax, Bond, and Development Several tax incentives are available for Urban Centers and Local Initiatives Existingg Programs Incentives for Community funding resources would need to be prioritized accordingly. Support Corporation 380 Agreeements 13 (LISC) of Greater Enterprisse Zones Development Tax Abatement Ordinance Houston Historic SSite Tax Exemption In addition to federal entitlement grants, HCDD Provides abatement of property tax for up to 10 years for Industriaal Districts uses other sources of funds for community owners of businesses that make new capital investments and Corporation for Tax Abattements development activities. HCDD’s programs work commitments to job creation. Supportive Housing cooperatively with other tax-related incentives http://wwww.houstontx.gov/ecodev/index.html that facilitate economic growth through Chapter 380 of the State of Texas Local Government Code affordable housing, business development, and AAllows Texas cities to make loans or grants of funds to HCDD Examplee: Downtown Living Initiative - 380 Agreement job creation. developers or investors as well as provide certain staff and P&D The purppose of the Downtown Living Initiative Chapter 380 Program (Program) is to promote economic services, at minimum or no charge, to help stimulate economic PWE developmment and stimulate business and commercial activity in the target area by providing economic and other development. As an example, this is Downtown’s new 380 developmment incentives foor certain new multifamily residential mixed-use developments. Program that incentives new multifamily residential mixed-use The Proggram incorporates financial and other benefits to assist in the development of mixed use residential developments. developmment. Applicants have to meet program requirement which included design guidelines. http://dowwntownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2012-08-30/DLI__Final_Application_Materials.pdf Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) and the TIRZ AAffordable Housing Set-Aside Dedicates tax increment revenues to infrastructure developments in designated TIRZs and provides set-aside revenues dedicated to affordable housing development.
Private Activity BBonds and Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Through Houston Housing Finance Corporation, local bond financing of single family and multifamily developments is available to partners in the private sector. The primary purpose of these programs is to encourage the development of affordable housing using below-market financing and taxx exempt incentives.
Developer Participation Contract (70-30 DPCs) Principally for watter and wastewater infrastructure construction in new residential subdivisions. The Department of Public Works and Engineering is principally responsible for reimbursements involving water and wastewater funds. If applied for, some developers may receive funds from the Department of Housing and Community Development for Storm Sewer infrastructure construction on affordable housing development. The cap on reimbursements for these type projects is $1,000,000 and includes construction and engineering costs.
5
Urban Houston Framework | 192 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Developer Incentive State-Funded Bond Programs for State of Texas Bond Program Texas State Affordable 14 Community Development AAs an issuer for thhe Texas Private Activity Bond program, the Housing Corporation In addition to local and federal grants, HCDD Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) uses other sources of funds for community issues tax-exempt and taxable multifamily mortgage revenue Texas Association of development activities. HCDD’s programs work bonds to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, or development Affordable Housing cooperatively with other tax-related incentives of affordable renttal housing units. Approximately $447 million is Providers that facilitate economic growth through available statewide. HCDD does not directly participate in affordable housing, business development, and selection or awarrd of the State multifamily mortgage revenue Texas Association of job creation bonds, but may provide gap financing to proposals through its Local Housing Finance HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Community Agencies Development Bloock Grant, or local revenue programs. TDHCA administers the program as a “first-come, first-served” program throughout the year. As with other housing programs, HCDD affordability perioods, rent limits, and income limits will apply to P&D recipients receiving State bond funds. Additional information is PWE available online.
Tax-Exempt Bonds, TSAHC – The Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC) 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization that was created by the Texas Legislature in 1994 to serve as a self-sustaining, statewide affordable housing provider. TSAHC’s multifamily tax-exempt bond issuance program was established in 2001 and has since provided more than $600 million in financing to help build or preserve affordable housing in Texas. As one of only two authorized statewide issuers of housing bonds, TSAHC receives 10% of the statewide volume cap for multifamily private activity bonds and has unlimited authority to issue 501c3 bonds for rental housing projects. Developers may submit proposals at any time.
Developer Incentive Federal Tax Incentives for Raza Development Fund Raza Development 15 Community Development RDF pre-developpment loans, acquisition loans for vacant land or Fund In addition to local and federal grants, HCDD improved lots, and construction/rehabilitation financing for multi- uses other sources of funds for community and single-family units. Additional info is available online. HUD development activities. HCDD’s programs work cooperatively with other tax-related incentives Section 202 – HUD Enterprise Community that facilitate economic growth through Provides capital advances to finance the construction, Partners affordable housing, business development, and rehabilitation or acquisition with or without rehabilitation of job creation. structures that will serve as supportive housing for very low- Local Initiatives income elderly persons, including the frail elderly, and provides Support Corporation rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable. (National Office)
Section 811 HCDD Through the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with P&D Disabilities program, HUD provides funding to develop and PWE subsidize rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities.
6
Urban Houston Framework | 193 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How will this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rational for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Developer Incentive Other Federal Incentives for New Market Tax Credits Texas Department of Community Development – US Provides tax incentives for businesses that make commitments Housing and 16 to investments and job creation. New Market Tax Credits are Community Affairs Department of Housing & Urban administered by Community Development Finance Institutions Development (HUD) (CDFIs) or banks that have applied to administer NMTCs Community In addition to local grants, HCDD uses other locally. Development Finance sources of funds for community development Institutions activities. HCDD’s programs work cooperatively State of Texas Housing Tax Credit Program with other tax-related incentives that facilitate The Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program was established by the National Parks Service economic growth through affordable housing, Tax Reform Act of 1986. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue business development, and job creation Code of 1986 is the federal law that governs the HTC program. HCDD The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs P&D (TDHCA) is the state allocating agency, receiving approximately $45 million annually for distribution among 13 service regions. For state FY 2013 (September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013) Region 6, which includes the City of Houston, will have $9,232,747 available for competitive award. HCDD does not directly participate in selection or award of the HTC awards, but does provide support through gap financing from its HOME Investment Partnerships, Community Development Block Grant, or local revenue programs, to leverage equity earned through the syndication process associated with Housing Tax Credit program. TDHCA administers the program through a competitive application cycle between January and July of each year. An application for State of Texas Housing Tax Credits does not guarantee support or award of funds by HCDD; however, proposals that meet the multifamily policy priorities may be considered and all are encouraged to submit an application. Additional information is available online: http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/description.htm
Historic Preservation Tax Credit The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program encourages private sector investment in the rehabilitation and re-use of historic buildings. A 20% income tax credit is available for the rehabilitation of historic, income-producing buildings that are determined by the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, to be “certified historic structures.” Additional information is available online.
Developer Incentive Off-Street Parking 20% reduction of parking requirement (in line with the TOD The developer provides an active and METRO COH offers a formula to present a shared parking alternative to the required parking in Chapter 26, Article VIII, 17 Providing public parking in dense Urban Centers reduction currently in place). If there is a SPA, that trumps this transparent ground floor. While retail is the HCDD Division 2, Section 26-499 but it does not include residential land uses. The COH manages shared parking that can be shared, reducing the requirement to tools. preferred ground floor use, other acceptable P&D garages in the Central Business District but has not yet offered such a program outside the Central Business provide onsite parking for each project will help uses include public building spaces such as PWE District. Section 26-503 allows a 20% reduced parking space requirement for transit-oriented developments if developers and encourage an active and lobbies, common building amenities, fitness in addition to minimum number of bicycle spaces required the applicant provides enough bicycle parking transparent ground floor and mixed use facilities, open office space, live/work space, spaces to qualify for a five percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces. This tool will expand the development within close proximity of a public day care centers, etc. number of parking benefit districts and special parking areas. parking amenity without creating a shortage of parking that might impact neighboring properties Code of Ordinances Chapter 26-503: and existing stable residential communities. The total number of parking spaces required by this article for a use classification shall be reduced by 20 percent if: The building complies with the optional performance standards provided in article IV of chapter 42 of this Code; In addition to the minimum number of bicycle spaces required by section 26-496 of this Code, the applicant provides enough bicycle parking spaces to qualify for a five percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces under section 26-497 of this Code; The reduction in the number of required parking spaces is not for a class 2 use classification under section 26-492 of this Code, except for a hotel or motel; and The applicant does not receive an additional reduction in the total number of required parking spaces as provided for by section 26-497 or 26-498 of this Code
7
Urban Houston Framework | 194 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today?
Developer Incentive Pedestrian Realm Improvement Large Urban Centers HCDD The Cityy expanded the width requirement to 5 feet within the last 5 years and afforded the implementation of 6 18 Reduced building setbacks and parking P&D feet on TTransit Corridor and “A” Streets. No changes in width requirements aree proposed. reductions for Large, Medium and Small Urban PWE Centers in exchange for a development project 18’-20’ Building Setback from proposed back-of-curb along 18’-20’ Pedestrian Realm w/ 8’ sidewalk Downtowwn Living Initiative Chapter 380 Program providing improvements to pedestrian Major Thoroughfare and Major Collector Streets and clear zone along Major E. Grounnd Floor Uses environments and building forms along streets 12’-15’ Building Setback from proposed back-of-curb along Thoroughfares/Collector Streets 1. A Streets. Ground floors facing A streets should contain active uses. While retail is the preferred that includes parking behind or screened from Local and Minor Collector & Local Street 12’-15’ Pedestrian Realm w/ 6’ sidewalk ground floor use, other acceptable uses include public building spacees such as lobbies, common public view. No Parking Requirements or parking managed by Special and clear zone along Local/Minor building amenities, fitness facilities, open office space, live/work spacce, day care centers, etc. Parking Area Collectors/Streets Regardless of inittial use, all ground floors facing A streets should be configured such that they may Improving pedestrian environments helps Pedestrian access corridor at least every accommodate rettail in the future. support multimodal transportation by ensuring 600’ 22. B Streets. While ground floors facing B streets should also containactive uses to the greatest extent public safety and by increasing connectivity near Maximum uninterrupted block face of no possible, they may contain other uses, such as residential and office. Uses such as building services, street grids. Connecting properties and more than 450’ sstorage, and structured parking should be avoided to the greatest exttent possible along B streets.
destinations using wide sidewalks along major Intersecting streets are placed at intervals thoroughfares will encourage walking as an of 500 to 600’ and no greater than 800’ Institutee of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), Designing Walkabllee Urban Thoroughfares Standards: alternative to private automobile trips. apart any single stretch C-5 Urbaan Center Zones include: 70% of building frontage within 10’ of As an area grows denser and includes additional . 221.5’ wide pedestrian realm (1.5’ vegetated edge, 7’ furniture/tree well zone, 10’ sidewalk throughway, pedestrian realm transit services, walkability becomes a critical 33’ building frontage transition zone) Public entrance adjacent to pedestrian element of pedestrian accessibility. Encouraging C-6 Urbaan Core Zones include: realm developers to provide parking behind the . 119.5’ wide pedestrian realm (1.5’ vegetated edge, 6’ furniture/tree well zone, 9’ sidewalk throughway, 3’ Publicly accessible and walkable parks or building, not between the right-of-way and front bbuilding frontage transition zone) plazas, when adjacent to and connected entrance to buildings will help to promote to the pedestrian realm and when not sustainable, healthy design, universal LEED foor Neighborhoodd Development Rating System (2009) Neighborhood Pattern and Design Credit 1 otherwise used for vehicular parking or accessibility to building entrances and better Walkabllee Streets: traffic, may be considered part of the construction practices. New sideewalks, whether adjacent to streets or not, must be at least 10 feet wide on retail or mixed-use blocks. pedestrian realm for the above
Screened parking garages adjacent to the Upper KKirby Livable Centers Study Final Report (2010): street Sidewalkks with landscaping sufficiently wide enough (approximately 20 feet) too give it a main street feel, No on-site parking or driveways between allowing outdoor spaces and amenities for the retail/mixed-uuse needs and providing a buffer from the traffic. building façade and pedestrian realm unless distance is greater than 25’ LEED foor Neighborhoodd Development Rating System (2009) Neighborhood Pattern and Design Credit 1 Minimum of 3’ vegetative buffer between Walkabllee Streets: pedestrian realm and any surface parking Sidewalkk Intrusions—At-grade crossings with driveways account for no more than 10% of the length of No doors swinging into the pedestrian sidewalkkss within the project realm 30% of façade surface less than 8’ above LEED forr Neighborhood Development Rating System (2009) Neighborhood PPattern and Design Credit 1 the ground be transparent Waalkable Streets Door, window, or other opening at least every 20’ where the building is within 10 feet of the pedestrian realm Softscape planting area limited to 20% Softscape at least 2’ back from any on- street parking Street furniture (benches, bicycle parking, etc.) Public/Civic Art or Cultural/Heritage Attractions Publicly accessible and walkable parks or plazas LID or other sustainable infrastructure practices LEED Building
8
Urban Houston Framework | 195 Universal Improvement Tools & Developer Incentives
Universal Improvement Potential Tool Expectations of Development Partnerships, Overview Tools for Development Community - - or - - Community Roles, and Changes from Current Code/Policcies Developer Responsibilities Incentive
Does the approach benefit What is the reasoning behind establishing What are the incentives for the developer? What must the developer do? Are there key How willll this differ from current policy? What resources exist that clarify rar tional for starting values? # everyone generally this tool for Urban Centers? Which size of partnerships needed (regardless of development activity center could benefit from this tool? for implementation of practices) or does it incent this tool/expectation? an individual to go above What are their roles and beyond standard and responsibilities? practices currently in effect today? Medium Urbaan Centers
15’-20’ Building Setback from proposed back-of-curb along 15’-20’ Pedestrian Realm w/ 8’ sidewalk Major Thoroughfare and Major Collector Streets and clear zone along Major 12’-15’ Building Setback from proposed back-of-curb along Thoroughfares/Collector Streets Local and Minor Collector & Local Street 12’-15’ Pedestrian Realm w/ 6’ sidewalk Parking may be managed by a Special Parking Area (if and clear zone along Local/Minor one exists) oor the total number of parking spaces required Collectors/Streets for a use shhall be reduced by 20 percent if: (1) The * PLUS ALL REQUIREMENTS INDICATED IN building complies with optionaal performance standards ORANGE ABOVE * provided in article IV of Chapter 42; (2) In addiition to minimum number of bicycle spaces required by section 26-496 the applicant provides enough bicycle parking spaces to quualify for a 5% percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces under section 26-4997; and (3) the applicant does not receive an additional reduction in the total number of required parking spaces Small Urban Centers
15’ Building Setback from proposed back-of-curb along 15’ Pedestrian Realm w/ 6’ sidewalk and Major Thoroughfare and Major Collector Streets clear zone along Major 12’ Building Setback from proposed back-of-curb along Thoroughfares/Collector Streets Local and Minor Collector & Local Street 12’ Pedestrian Realm w/ 6’ sidewalk and Total number of parking spaces required shall be reduced clear zone along Local/ Minor by 20 percent if (1) The building complies with the optional Collectors/Streets performance standards provided in article IV of Chapter * PLUS ALL REQUIREMENTS INDICATED IN 42; (2) In addition to the minimum number of bicycle ORANGE ABOVE * spaces required by section 266-496 the applicant provides enough bicycle parking spaces to qualify for a 5 percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces under section 26-497; (3) The reduction in the number of required parking spaces is not for a class 2 use classification under section 26-492 except for a hotel or motel; and (4) The applicant does not receive an additional reduction in the total number of required parking spaces as provided for by section 26- 497 or 26-498.
Developer Incentive Urban Trail Networks XXX% reduction in permitting fees or impact per unit fees when Developers must provide a 12’ wide by 7.5’ high PARD Code of OOrdinances Chapter 42 determines the amount of land required to bee dedicated or fees in lieu of 19 Reduced fees may attract potential developers developing along multi-use trail networks that allow for well lit, visible, well signed connection to nearby HCDD dedicatioon to be paid. If the developer elects to pay a fee in lieu of dedication, the parks director calculates the to areas that have a base walkability to alternative transportation modes (bicycling and walking). trrails and bicycle connections to nearby routes P&D fee by mmultiplying the number of dwelling units in the development by the thenn-current fee ($700 per dwelling sustain/promote urban development. This could that is publicly accessible, not just by the PWE unit). Upp to a maximum of 100 percent of the total requirement credit may be ggiven for each acrre or portion of help support multimodal transportation, and residents of the development. park landd provided as a greenbelt along a creek bed or around the perimeter oof the development generating the increased connectivity and walkable areas. dedicatioon requirement, including improvements to a hike or bike trail that meeet city standards. Appropriate This connection would be use-restricted but benchmaarks have not yet been determined and may vary by Center type. privately owned; the owner of the development would be responsible for maintaining this public H-GGAC Fourth Ward Livable Centers Study: Final Report (2010): 6’ wide pervious pathway recommended connection. for AAllen Parkway Trail. Thee Ensemble/HCC Livable Centers Study Final Report (2010): 10’ multi-use trail recommended for Hollman Street. Ammerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AAASHTO) Design Guidelines: 10’ minnimum width recommended for multi-use trails; however, where heavyy use is anticipated, a 12 to 14- fooott width is recommended. Cityy of Colorado Springs Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Standardds: Tier 1 trails—hard primary surrfface with soft shoulders to accommodate all users. Tier 1 trails 12' wide hard surface with 2' - 4' soft shooulder, with landscape buffer between hard and soft trail. Tier 2 trails—12' standard, but without landdscape buffer. Tier 3 trails—primarily gravel or natural surface, with a 4' - 6' trail width.
9
Urban Houston Framework | 196 This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX F: PILOT PROJECTS This page intentionally left blank.
| 199 Pilot Projects: Introduction
Purpose
The Pilot Project analysis was intended Reduced setback and parking require- to test the validity of selected tools on ments were tested on each Pilot Project sites of different sizes within the City and and had varying results on each. For see how those tools affected the site instance, a Parking Benefits District or both physically and financially. These Special Parking Area would be ben- Pilot Projects were chosen by the City eficial in the larger Centers, but would Planning Department and represent not be appropriate for Small Centers. sites within a potential Large, Medium Reduced setbacks add value for the and Small Center. development; the question is if the tool is incentive enough for developers. Due to the lack of zoning in Houston, Other tools that were not tested include there is little that the City can do to 380 Agreements to offset the cost of require certain types of development infrastructure, park land dedication fee within Urban Centers, and ultimately, reduction and stormwater facilities. At many things that are desirable in Urban the time of this Study, the City can- Centers are possible under today’s sys- not guarantee that these are tools that tem. The City thus can only encourage could move forward in the future, but the and make desirable development easier analysis speaks to the potential effects if to do. Many of the suggested tools are they were to be used. policies that could be done under current rules, but the purpose of the Framework The Process, Toolbox and Conclusions is to propose ways to make it easier and are explained for each Pilot Project, encourage more dense types of devel- and a graphic representation of what opment within Urban Centers. The tools could be developed today versus what are there to offset the cost of developing a Toolbox development could look like in a more desirable manner and have are provided. The pro formas are also some, although not significant, impact provided for more detail on the assump- on the pro forma. tions, units, etc..
Urban Houston Framework | 200 Pilot Projects: Grayfield Site
Introduction Process ties that occur in the Toolbox Scenario could potentially elevate the Westchase The 102.2 acre grayfield in Westchase Market-rate assumptions were deter- both the financial returns of the project, District area from a Medium Center to a was chosen as a pilot project so as to mined based on reports from CobbFend- as well as the physical layout. In the Large Center. explore the Toolbox on a larger site. It ley. These assumptions were vetted with case of the grayfield site, the Toolbox is located on the southeast corner of the SAC. The base case was designed scenario was assumed to have a sig- CobbFendley ran pro formas on the Beltway 8 and Westheimer in the heart based on what could feasibly be built nificant corporate headquarters locate base case and Toolbox scenario to of the Westchase Management District. today without variances under today’s on the site. This theoretical situation compare how each scenario performed market conditions. would spur multifamily, office and retail financially. In its present-day condition, Seagler development to occur on a much faster Road and Meadowglen Lane bisect the Next, some of the tools from the Toolbox time frame than would normally happen. property, and the first phase of a mul- were tested to see how they affected The employment and residential densi- tifamily apartment complex is centrally located at the intersection of the two streets. An office tower and a bank are located on the northern boundary along Westheimer Road and offices comprise the southern border off of Richmond Street. Surrounding the property are office towers, a large Marriott hotel and multifamily apartment complexes. Major transit lines are located on Westheimer Grayfield Project Road and Richmond Street.
The challenge with this pilot project is that Westchase has many jobs but is lacking a denser residential and em- ployment in a more pedestrian-friendly, 102.2 acres urban form. What?
Where? SE corner of Westheimer Road and Beltway 8 Westchase Management District
Why? Undeveloped property of this size is uncommon – opportunity to explore how toolbox works on large site
| 201 Pilot Projects: Grayfield Site
Toolbox
The tools that were applied to this pilot project include reduced setbacks in ex- change for a pedestrian realm, parking reductions, which would be managed by a Special Parking Area.
The Toolbox Scenario design also reintroduced an urban street grid onto the site, in order to increase pedestrian circulation and accessibility. The street grid was then connected to the existing neighborhood fabric to the east.
Other Tools, such as the reduced park land dedication fee and stormwater treatment credits were not tested, because preliminary analysis showed that the financial gains were negligible on a site of this size. However, 380 agreements for new infrastructure may have significantly offset the cost of Photo Credit: Design Workshop The previously developed site is characterized by large open spaces and wide roads. infrastructure by up to 90% ($18 million), but this would depend on the negotiated agreement with the City. At the time of the analysis however, it was not certain whether this would be a tool that the City would use for Urban Centers in the future.
Photo Credit: Google Earth Westchase is characterized by multifamily apartment buildings. Urban Houston Framework | 202 Pilot Projects: Grayfield Site
What could be developed today... Land Use 3% 6% Additional Phases of Office Use throughout Site Multifamily Residential Commercial Hotel Garage Parking Multifamily 47% Mid-Rise Hotel 44% Office Parkland Note: Park land dedication would be handled via fee-in- lieu.
Beltway 8
| 203 Pilot Projects: Grayfield Site
What could be developed using the Toolbox... Parkland serving nearby Multifamily, Commercial and Additional connector streets Office Uses High Density High Density Office with Multifamily Residential Ground Floor Commercial along internal roadways Commercial along Screened Major Corridors Garage Parking
Seagler
Beltway 8
Urban Houston Framework | 204 Pilot Projects: Grayfield Site
Conclusions
• Without the Toolbox, this site would likely become characterized by large surface parking lots and office towers that lack an inviting pedes- trian realm.
• The Toolbox Scenario would po- tentially require a major corporate developer to invest in a series of development projects that would be built out over a period of 10-20 or more years. Otherwise, a develop- ment of this size and density would not be feasible in today’s market.
• In order to maximize walkability and transit use on site, connectiv- ity would need to be improved by the reintroduction of the street grid. Along with the reintroduction of a connected street grid, reduced block lengths help to ensure the Figure 29: Plan view: Before Case Figure 30: Plan view: Toolbox Scenario success of residential, commercial and office uses on site. Grayfield Pilot Project • Although this did not factor into the Pro Forma Summary pro forma, Universal Improvement • Other tools that were not tested 1. Cost to Develop Tools such as partnerships between in the pro forma, such as 380 Base Scenario: $1.00 billion Toolbox Scenario: $1.02 billion METRO and the City would need to agreements could help to offset a 2. Return on Cost (8% is ideal1) developer’s infrastructure cost and be explored so as to adjust services Base Scenario: 9.95% to accommodate the higher density significantly affect the bottom line. Toolbox Scenario: 10.23% residential, office and commercial 3. Property + Sales Tax (at build out) uses. Base Scenario: $6.6 million/year Toolbox Scenario: $7.7 million/year
1. CobbFendley ...... | 205. . Pilot Projects: Grayfield Site
Pro Formas: Base Case and Toolbox Scenario
Urban Houston Framework | 206 Pilot Projects: Redevelopment Site
Introduction Process
The 3.7 acre redevelopment site in Mon- Market-rate assumptions were deter- the SAC, the model was rebuilt to be a trose was chosen as a pilot project so mined based on reports from CobbFend- Next, some of the tools from the Toolbox closer comparison of what could be built as to explore the Toolbox in an already ley. These assumptions were vetted with were tested to see how they affected today so this Study could spotlight where densely developed part of the City. It is the SAC. The base case was designed both the financial returns of the project, gaps are in the recently revised Chapter located on the southwest corner of Mon- based on what could feasibly be built as well as the physical layout. In the 42 ordinance. trose Boulevard and Westheimer Road today without variances under today’s case of the redevelopment site, the in the Montrose Management District. market conditions. The recently revised Consultant Team assessed what could CobbFendley ran pro formas on the The Montrose area could potentially be Chapter 42 parking and setback reduc- be built today given current market base case and Toolbox scenario to a Medium Center due to the characteris- tions were taken into consideration for conditions. This created a similar physi- compare how each scenario performed tics described below. the base case, allowing for reduced set- cal layout to the base case. An 11-story financially. backs on Westheimer Road due to the model was tested, which is not shown Currently the site is home to a drive- presence of retail along that corridor. in this Study. After discussions with through fast food franchise and an aging shopping center. The surround- ing context is commercial, multi- and single-family residential land uses, with two major thoroughfares on the north and eastern borders. This block is within
1.5 miles of The Museum District, the Central Business District University of St. Thomas, Downtown and the Texas Medical Center. There are also historic single-family homes located in the adjacent neighborhood. Less than Redevelopment Project What? 3.7 acres 1.5 miles away is Buffalo Bayou Park to the north. This site is culturally rich and Where? SW corner of conveniently located next to employment University of St. Thomas Montrose and centers. Westheimer Montrose This property would be located inside Management District Museum District the larger context of a Medium Center. What makes the area a potential Urban Why? Area is one of the Texas Southern University Center are the following characteristics: most densely access to transit, including METRO’s developed parts of Rice University 81 and 82 bus routes; the mix of land City uses; and the proximity to employment centers. | 207 Pilot Projects: Redevelopment Site
Toolbox
The tools that were applied to this pilot project include reduced setbacks in ex- change for a pedestrian realm, parking reductions, which would be managed by a Special Parking Area.
In the Toolbox Scenario, there are reduced setbacks on all four streets instead of only Westheimer Road. Pres- ently reduced setbacks are allowed on Westheimer Road if there is a commer- cial use on the first floor. The reduction of setbacks and decreased parking requirement for retail and multi-family residential allowed for more units in a similar footprint.
Other Tools, such as the reduced park land dedication fee and stormwater treatment credits were not tested, be- cause preliminary analysis showed that Photo Credit: Design Workshop An aging shopping center and heavily-traveled thoroughfares make up the present-day character of the site. the financial gains were negligible.
Photo Courtesy of Flickr Photo Courtesy of Flickr Montrose has a distinctive character, making it a desirable place to live. Heavy traffic travels through the Montrose area because of it’s proximity to Downtown. Urban Houston Framework | 208 Pilot Projects: Redevelopment Site
What could be developed today... Garage Parking Corner Plazas and Ground Level Medium Density Wide, Pedestrian- Commercial Multifamily Residential Friendly Sidewalks (on Westheimer)
Lovett (115’ ROW) ROW) (95’ (95’ Yoakum (95’ ROW) (95’ Montrose
Westheimer (75’ ROW) North
| 209 Pilot Projects: Redevelopment Site
What could be developed using the Toolbox... Screened Corner Plazas Garage and Wide, Ground Level Parking Pedestrian- Commercial Friendly Sidewalks
Medium Density Multifamily Residential
Urban Houston Framework | 210 Pilot Projects: Redevelopment Site
Conclusions
• The site’s close proximity to nearby employment centers offers an opportunity to maximize existing METRO transit services.
• Medium density multi-family resi- dential with ground floor commercial could lead to increased commercial and retail services available for sur- rounding communities.
• Any scenario for this site should be tailored to what the market can realistically absorb.
• Without the Toolbox, something similar could be built today, but there is a denser yield with reduced setbacks on all of the streets as shown in the Toolbox Scenario. The question is whether a slightly denser Plan view: Before Case Plan view: Toolbox Scenario yield is enough to entice a devel- oper to build using the Toolbox. Further exploration of the best and Redevelopment Pilot Project most appropriate incentives will be Pro Forma Summary required. 1. Cost to Develop Base Scenario: $39 million Toolbox Scenario: $59 million 2. Return on Cost (8% is ideal1) Base Scenario: 6.84% Toolbox Scenario: 7.79% 3. Property + Sales Tax (at build out) Base Scenario: $279,000/year +++ Scenario: $474,000/year
1. CobbFendley ...... | 211 Pilot Projects: Redevelopment Site
Pro Formas: Base Case and Toolbox Scenario
Urban Houston Framework | 212 Pilot Projects: Catalyst Site
Introduction Process
The 8.4 acre property is made of three Market-rate assumptions were deter- Next, some of the tools from the Toolbox CobbFendley ran pro formas on the smaller parcels in south Houston. It is mined based on reports from CobbFend- were tested to see how they affected base case and Toolbox scenario to located in the Greater Third Ward under ley. These assumptions were vetted with both the financial returns of the project, compare how each scenario performed the jurisdiction of the Greater Southeast the SAC. The base case was designed as well as the physical layout. In the financially. Management District. based on what could feasibly be built case of the catalyst site, the Consultant today without variances under today’s Team assessed what could be built The site is home to a bank, clinic and market conditions. today given current market conditions. several other aging strip center retail businesses. One-third of the site is vacant. The area has a mix of hous- ing types, including single- and multi- family. University of Houston and Texas Southern University are approximately a mile north of the site. Nearby neighbor- hood-scale amenities include a library, YMCA, post office, clinics and the Palms Shopping Center. The potential for this site to become an Urban Center lies in adjacencies to neighborhood amenities, two light rail stations on Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, Brays Bayou and MacGregor Park. Eventually, this site could transition into a live/work/play area for those who work at Hobby Airport, the universities and the Texas Medical Center.
| 213 Pilot Projects: Catalyst Site
Toolbox
The tools that were applied to this pilot project include reduced setbacks in exchange for a pedestrian realm and parking reductions due to the proximity to transit and the assumption that there would be a reduced need for parking for student housing.
Although the pro forma was run only on the triangular-shaped parcel between Cullen-Griggs and Old Spanish Trail, the physical model shows development occurring on the east side of Cullen Boulevard. Because this is a catalyst site, this kind of redevelopment will likely spark other development in nearby areas. This physical model was shown in part to illustrate the fact that a pedes- trian realm should be built on both sides of the street in order to create a truly urban feel. One-third of the site is vacant - the parcel along Old Spanish Trail. Single family borders the site to the north but is lacking pedestrian connectivity due to the wide thoroughfare.
Photo Courtesy of Flickr Photo Courtesy of Flickr Aging buildings can be found in the area. The area has many vacant parcels waiting to be redeveloped.
Urban Houston Framework | 214 Pilot Projects: Catalyst Site Land Use What could be developed today...
Commercial 8% 16% Hotel Multifamily Single-Family Office 100% Parkland 76%
Land Use
Commercial 8% 16% Hotel Multifamily Single-Family Office 100% Parkland 76%
| 215 Pilot Projects: Catalyst Site
What could be developed using the Toolbox...
Single-Family Townhomes Low Density Student Housing Additional internal Circulation routes
Surface Ground Level Parking Commercial
Urban Houston Framework | 216 Pilot Projects: Catalyst Site Developed Today With Toolbox Conclusions
• The Toolbox Scenario development is unlikely to occur without subsi- dies or some other form of funding assistance and/or public/private partnerships.
• This Catalyst project may work in conjunction with the Palm Center re- development to start a trend of new development in the area, as land values increase.
• Ideally each land use and archi- tectural typology could be tailored Plan view: Before Case Plan view: Toolbox Scenario to surrounding context and needs Land Use of nearby single- and multi-family residential communities. Commercial 8% 16% Hotel • This site offers an opportunity to ex- • Structured parking is a limiting Multifamily plore building products that contrib- factor for Small Centers. If a site’s Catalyst Pilot Project ute to creating and attracting small land value does not support the Single-Family businesses into the area, such as construction of a parking garage, Pro Forma Summary Urban Houston Framework Office 1. Cost to Develop incubator spaces or live-work units. then a denser development may not Implementation Workshop100% Parkland Base Scenario:76% $18 million Aprilbe 11th possible | Houston, due Texas to parking require- Toolbox Scenario: $39 million • Gentrification is a concern in ments. Parking reduction tools 2. Return on Cost (8% is ideal1) smaller neighborhoods that are ripe should be flexible enough to allow Base Scenario: 7.71% Toolbox Scenario: 4.03% for redevelopment. Further studies for greatly reduced parking in Small 3. Property + Sales Tax (at build out) must be done to study how stable Centers (less than the reduction Base Scenario: $318,000/year neighborhoods can be protected currently allowed in Chapter 26). Toolbox Scenario: $201,000/year from the negative effects of redevel- opment. 1. CobbFendley ......
| 217 Pilot Projects: Catalyst Site
Pro Formas: Base Case and Toolbox Scenario
Urban Houston Framework | 218 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g
sources of equity and debt financing with the goals of the UHF, so that such financing sources To: Houston Urban Framework may be better utilized to provide “gap financing” to make affordable housing development in the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (“SAC”) Urban Centers financially feasible. This quantification of opportunity costs should, in turn, assist in the creation of incentives necessary to encourage the private sector to deliver affordable Through: Design Workshop housing opportunities in the Urban Centers, including monetary incentives that go well beyond the scope of the UHF project. From: Peter Smirniotopoulos, Founder & Principal petersgroup consulting In order to provide as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as is possible of residential developments affordable to divergent income strata, the methodology of the Pilot Project Date: 01 May 2013 Financial Model dictated that a standardized, multi-family model be developed and utilized to quantify the impact that different rent structures have on the three housing scenarios described RE: Urban Houston Framework Revised Pilot Project Financial Model in Section 1., below. Accordingly, the decision was made that a hypothetical site would be applied to the Montrose and Westheimer Pilot Project Area, inasmuch as it places the In connection with and in preparation for the Pilot Projects Site Tour, SAC meeting, and Vision th th Hypothetical Project much closer to some of the densest employment centers, and at a much Workshop Focus Groups and public meeting held February 12 through 14 in Houston (such greater distance from various suburban locations where housing and other property sectors are activities being collectively referred to as the “Vision Workshop”), petersgroup consulting growing rapidly in response to the employment growth enjoyed by the greater Houston area. (hereinafter “petersgroup”) developed for Design Workshop (DWS), in collaboration with the Design Workshop Urban Houston Framework Team (hereinafter, the “DWS Team”), a financial However, in deciding to include the Affordable Family Housing Examples into this memo, there analysis model to test a hypothetical development project in the Montrose and Westheimer Pilot Project Area defined below. In connection with the development of the Pilot Project Financial has been a recognition among the DWS Team, and City of Houston Planning Department and Model, petersgroup prepared a memorandum dated February, 13, 2013, to the Stakeholders’ HCD staff (collectively, “City Staff”), that the types of housing being delivered by the market in Advisory Committee (the “SAC”) regarding the Urban Houston Framework (“UHF”) Pilot Project locations such as the Montrose and Westheimer Pilot Project Area will serve only one segment Financial Model, which memorandum was distributed by DWS to the SAC members at the SAC of existing and future lower and moderate-income households in the City, primarily single and meeting held on that date, along with Attachment I referenced therein and distributed dual wage-earner couples heading households with a maximum size of four (i.e. HH = 4), th electronically after that meeting to all SAC members (collectively, the February 13 Memo). recognizing there are substantial restrictions on households of four that may legally occupy a
th two-bedroom unit. This memorandum constitutes an update of the February 13 Memo, based upon input received from SAC members regarding that memo and its accompanying financial analysis, following the Highly amenitized multifamily rental and condominium buildings comprised substantially or SAC meeting held on February 13th. This input included extensive consultation with the City of Houston Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) during the intervening exclusively of one-bedroom (1BR) and two-bedroom (2BR) dwelling units (DUs)—which is the period between that SAC meeting and the date of this memo. Among the substantive changes predominant housing typology being delivered by the private sector in areas identified as Urban made to the Pilot Project Financial Model, examples of affordable housing projects that have Centers— do not serve the needs of lower and moderate-income households with more than been successfully financed as the result of HCD’s participation as a financing partner in such three members (i.e. HH = >3). Accordingly, while the Pilot Project Financial Model Mixed- projects have been added to this memo. Revisions to this memo necessary to incorporate such Income and 100% Affordable Housing Scenarios, described in greater detail below, may serve affordable housing project financings into this analysis have been guided substantially by HCD’s lower and moderate-wage workers employed in the Montrose and Westheimer Pilot Project experience with affordable housing projects in the City of Houston, reflecting actual examples of Area (particularly those who are severely transportation-burdened), these scenarios will not how affordable family housing may be integrated into the City’s communities (hereinafter referred to as the “Affordable Family Housing Examples,” the fact that one such example serve HH >3, for whom HCD has determined there to be an acute need within the City of involves seniors housing notwithstanding). Houston.
The underlying purpose of the Pilot Project Financial Model described in detail below, and as This Pilot Project Financial Model is described in greater detail in the following sections: further detailed in the attached, revised financial analysis provided with this memo (the “Revised 1. Pilot Project Financial Model. petersgroup has revised somewhat its original financial Attachment I”), is to quantify the opportunity costs attendant the creation of affordable housing, analysis model, which new financial analysis is provided as an Excel file in .pdf format either in a stand-alone development or as a component of a mixed-income development, close for ease of distribution (Revised Attachment I to this memo), establishing a Baseline to the center of the Study Area. In the case of the 100% Affordable Housing Scenario described Development Budget and Cash-Flow Analysis for the hypothetical, multifamily rental below, as well as the Affordable Family Housing Examples provided in Attachment 2, an project described in Section 2., below (hereinafter respectively referred to as the “Base additional goal of this analysis is to help identify and better align public, non-profit, and private
Page 1 of 8 Page 2 of 8
Urban Houston Framework | 219 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g
Case Scenario” and the “Hypothetical Project”). However, such revisions have not of the UHF Final Report, to explore either a theoretical or an actual family affordable impacted materially the conclusions initially reached in the February 13th Memo. housing rental project in the West Chase Pilot Project Area, which has considerable, existing resources as well as a significant component of mature, market-rate family The Hypothetical Project is on a hypothetical site (the “Subject Site”) in the Montrose housing at a broad range of densities (from single-family detached homes to various and Westheimer Pilot Project Area, which is one of three Pilot Project Areas described in grades of multi-family rental housing). Section 3, below, as designated by the government of the City of Houston (hereinafter respectively referred to as the “Pilot Project Areas” and the “City”). The Pilot Project As mentioned above, in order to provide as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as Model is based on a set of assumptions developed by petersgroup in collaboration with is possible of residential developments that are affordable to divergent income strata, the the DWS Team. These assumptions are provided in detail in the “Assumptions” tab of methodology of the Pilot Project Financial Model dictated that a standardized, multi- Revised Attachment I, and described in Section 4., below, (and are hereinafter referred family model be developed and utilized to quantify the impact that different rent to as the “Financial Assumptions”). structures have on the three housing scenarios described in Section 1., above. Accordingly, the decision was made that a hypothetical site would be applied to the In addition to the Base Case Scenario, the Pilot Project Model also includes a “100% Montrose and Westheimer Pilot Project Area, inasmuch as it places the Hypothetical Affordable Housing Scenario,” a “Mixed-Income Housing Scenario,” and a “Suburban, Project much closer to some of highest employment densities within the Study Area, and Market-Rate Scenario,” to which the Base Case Scenario is compared (see the at a much greater distance from various suburban locations where housing and other “Summary” section of Revised Attachment I) for purposes of highlighting the potential property sectors have been growing rapidly in response to the employment growth economic impacts of affordable housing delivery in the Urban Houston Framework Study enjoyed by the greater Houston area. Area (hereinafter, the “Study Area”), and which additional scenarios are described more- fully in Sections 5., 6., and 7., respectively, below. 4. Financial Assumptions. petersgroup has collaborated with DWS Team members CobbFendley and Walter P. Moore—which have the necessary local knowledge, 2. Hypothetical Project. The “Hypothetical Project” is a 200 unit multifamily complex, the experience, and access to relevant and current data and data bases—in populating the specific housing typology and building composition of which are described in the Financial Assumptions, described below, with the most-currently available, relevant data. “Assumptions” section of Revised Attachment I. The Unit Sizes and Unit Configuration of the Hypothetical Project are as follows: The Financial Assumptions upon which the Pilot Project Model was built include but are not limited to the following: a. 1 BR, 650 sq.ft., 120 DUs (60% of the project total) b. 2 BR, 950 sq.ft., 80 DUs (40% of the project total) a. Land Purchase/Acquisition Costs for two sites (Subject Site and Suburban Site) b. Land Yield, on a DU/acre basis 3. Subject Site. The “Subject Site” is a hypothetical site in the Montrose and Westheimer c. Subject Site Land area based on assumption b., above, and other assumptions Pilot Project Area, which area was selected from the three Pilot Project areas designated d. Housing typology/construction type by the City as part of DWS’s Houston Urban Framework undertaking: e. Parking requirements by unit type (i.e. number of bedrooms, aka “BRs”) f. Project composition by unit type/size (provided, above, in Section 2.) a. OST/Griggs Street and Cullen Street g. Estimates for essential components of Total Development Cost, including b. Montrose and Westheimer i. civil engineering, horizontal development, and off-site costs c. West Chase District ii. soft costs, including permitting and other fees iii. Hard Construction Costs (“HCC”) The size of the Hypothetical Site was determined based on the Financial Assumptions h. Projected market rents for the Subject Site and Suburban sub-markets underpinning the Pilot Project Model and does not necessarily reflect any particular site i. Definitions of non-market households by income strata or percentage of AMI in the Pilot Project Area. j. An Estimated Operating Expense amount by DU/month
It should be noted that the actual Pilot Project Site in the Montrose and Westheimer Pilot 5. 100% Affordable Housing Scenario. Except where the Financial Assumptions, such as Project Area was rejected for the Pilot Project Financing Model because the existing site assumption g.iii. in Section 4., above, warranted modification to the Project Program for is too small to test a 200-unit apartment project. Even at the density of development the Base Case Scenario, the Project Program for the 100% Affordable Housing Scenario used in the Assumptions, the Hypothetical Site is three acres (3.0 ac.). Although the is the same as for the Base Case Scenario. This is not the case, however, for the West Chase Pilot Project Site could easily accommodate the Hypothetical Project, its Affordable Family Housing Examples described in Section 8., below, and in Attachment location provides less of a contrast with a suburban location, for purposes of developing 2, where the Project Program mirrors more closelythe unit compositions and sizes with and testing a Suburban, Market-Rate Scenario. However, as explained in “Section 8. which HCD has experience in working with affordable housing and market-rate Affordable Family Housing Examples,” below, the West Chase District Pilot Project developers in other Houston communities, and which unit compositions and sizes are a could afford an opportunity in the future for City Staff, in applying the recommendations better fit for meeting housing needs in the City identified by HCD as determined by HCD
Page 3 of 8 Page 4 of 8
Urban Houston Framework | 220 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g
Staff. In the 100% Affordable Housing Scenario in the Pilot Project Financial Model 10. City of Houston Department of Housing and Community Development (Revised Attachment 1), all of the rents are based on the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) paid reimbursements for storm sewer infrastructure improvement related to affordable to landlords that accept Tenant-Based Rental Vouchers (“rental vouchers”) issued by the housing development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to income-eligible 11. Federal New Markets Tax Credits (“NMTCs”), administered by the U.S. Treasury households through the Houston Housing Authority. Households issued rental vouchers Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the “CDFI pay 30% of their household income in monthly rent, which should include an allowance Fund”) for utilities, irrespective of the amount of the FMR for the unit that HUD pays the 12. Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”), administered in Texas by landlord. To account for the allowance for utilities, FMRs are calculated at only twenty- the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) as the state’s five percent (25%) of household income, allowing the additional five percent (5%) of the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program allowable housing cost to be applied to monthly utilities expenses. 13. Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits (“FHPCs”), administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, through the National Parks Service (“NPS”) It should be noted that, in order to respect the methodological integrity of the Pilot 14. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) 202 Program, Project Financial Model, the 100% Affordable Housing Scenario does not take into providing federal subsidies for qualifying seniors’ supportive housing projects account a variety of additional City of Houston, State of Texas, and federal 15. HUD 811 Program, providing federal subsidies for qualifying supportive housing funding sources commonly used to provide “gap financing” to make affordable projects for disabled persons housing finanically feasible. This intentional omission is due, in large measure, to the 16. Federal Private Activity Bonds (Sec. 142 of the Internal Revenue Code), fact that such sources are limited in availability and amount on an annual basis. administered in Texas by TDHCA as the Texas Private Activity Bond program 17. Tax Exempt Bonds under Section 501(c)(3) and Sec. 141 of the Internal Financing for successful affordable housing projects is, by its very nature, Revenue Code, administered by the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation idiosyncratic, relying upon multiple sources beyond primary sources of equity (TSAHC) as the Texas Tax-Exempt Bond Program and debt financing. In other words, every proposed affordable housing project is financially unfeasible unless and until that last source of financing is secured that makes These potential sources of primary or gap financing for affordable housing development it financially feasible. However, to demonstrate how such sources may be used to create are described in greater detail in the City of Houston Toolbox for Housing and a “financing stack” to provide gap financing in the successful development of affordable Community Development prepared by HCD Staff (hereinafter the “HCD Toolbox”) and housing in the City, the Affordable Family Housing Examples provided by HCD Staff will be incorporated into the Urban Houston Framework Final Report being prepared by demonstrate the variety of financing sources utilized on projects with which HCD has the DWS Team. In addition to the foregoing sources, there are myriad governmental, been involved in other geographic communities in the City. institutional, non-profit, and foundation sources that may also be available to financially support specific types of affordable housing projects, some of which are also identified in One of the benefits of the 100% Affordable Housing Scenario, when viewed in the HCD Toolbox. combination with the Affordable Family Housing Examples, is to identify the potential financing gaps in hopes that the City of Houston, the State of Texas, and other potential sources—public, non-profit, and private, respectively—might become better aligned 6. Mixed-Income Housing Scenario. The Mixed-Income Housing Scenario is a 60/40 mix with the goals of the Urban Houston Framework. In this regard, below is a listing of market-rate and affordable units, comprised as follows: provided by HCD Staff, by way of example only, of potential sources of primary and gap financing for affordable housing in the City of Houston,: a. 60% of the total units (i.e. 120 DUs) is priced at market for that sub-market; and 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program b. the remaining 40% of the total (i.e. 80 DUs) are assumed to be developed using 2. HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program an allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits to the project by the 3. Houston Housing Authority (HHA) programs (primarily through HUD) Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) under the state’s 4. Harris County Housing Authority (HCHA) programs (also through HUD) Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program, and are affordable to households earning 5. City of Houston Tax Abatement Ordinance 50% of area gross median income or “AMI” in accordance with sub-subsection 6. Chapter 380 of the State of Texas Local Government Code (c)(1)(A)(i) of Sec. 11.9. Competitive HTC Selection Criteria, of the State of 7. City of Houston Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) and the TIRZ Affordable Housing Set-Aside Texas 2013 Final Qualified Allocation Plan). Applicability of the relevant 8. Houston Housing Finance Corporation’s Private Activity Bonds and Mortgage provisions of the TDHCA’s 2013 Final Qualified Allocation Plan (the “Final QAP”) Revenue Bond Program used in the Pilot Project Financing Model have been assumed without regard to 9. City of Houston Department of Public Works and Engineering Developer the de-concentration rules set forth in Sec. 11.3 thereof; without regard to the Participation Contracts (70-30 DPCs) Applicant and Development request and award limitations set forth in Sec. 11.4 thereof; and without regard to the various set-aside provisions in the Final QAP.
Page 5 of 8 Page 6 of 8
Urban Houston Framework | 221 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g petersgroup c o n s u l t i n g
The Mixed-Income Scenario has been designed primarily to demonstrate how (15%) are income-eligible (hereinafter referred to as “ADUs” or “affordable dwelling LIHTC equity can be leveraged to provide some of the support subsidy units”). Based upon its assessment of housing needs in the City of Houston, HCD necessary to incorporate income-eligible units into what would otherwise be a Staff has proposed the following composition and unit sizes for the Affordable Family Housing Model, although these unit sizes may need to be refined at a later date, market-rate project. based upon a more fine-grained analysis of market data for this sub-market, The above breakdown of units is evenly allocated across the two unit types (i.e. 1BR and inasmuch as 85% of these units will need to be marketed to and absorbed by market-rate tenants, whose market and cost preference will drive unit sizes and 2BR, units, respectively). It should be noted that due to requiring that 40% of the units in amenities: the Mixed-Income Scenario be affordable to households earning 50% of Area Median Income, there is an almost $810,000 difference between the projected gross rents in the i. 1 BR, 720 sq.ft., 80 DUs (40% of the project total); 12 ADUs Base Case Scenario and the Mixed-Income Scenario, which differential is only partially ii. 2 BR, 1,020 sq.ft., 80 DUs (40% of the project total); 12 ADUs off-set by the application of LIHTC equity in the Development Budget for the latter iii. 3 BR, 1,200 sq. ft., 40 DUs (20% of the project total); 6 ADUs project. c. Financing Sources and Amounts Supporting the Alternative Affordable Housing Model. Attachment 2 provides four (4) separate examples of financing 7. Suburban, Market-Rate Scenario. The Suburban, Market-Rate Scenario is identical to structures in which the City and HCD have played an integral role in the the Base Case Scenario, only it is applied to a theoretical site in an outlying, suburban production of affordable housing opportunities. jurisdiction (in this case, The Woodlands), where development pressures have not escalated land acquisition costs to make them comparable to the Pilot Project Area, and where new development is generally much quicker and substantially easier to be approved and permitted. The Assumptions for the Suburban, Market-Rate Scenario are modified accordingly, including a lower density of development and the use of surface parking instead of the more-expensive structured parking commonly used on in-fill sites in competitive residential sub-markets inside the inner-ring beltway (I-610).
8. Affordable Family Housing Examples. In addition to endeavoring to quantify the costs for incentivizes to encourage the private sector to deliver housing affordable to income- eligible households of primarily one to three persons (and, in limited circumstances, four- person households comprised of two adults and two very young children allowed to share a bedroom under HUD occupancy standards), HCD Staff felt strongly that this memo should also reflect existing opportunities to incentivize the private sector to produce more affordable family housing in those Urban Centers where such housing is more market-appropriate. In deference to HCD’s expertise in the development and financing of affordable family housing in the City of Houston, a list of Affordable Family Housing financing structures have been provided in Attachment 2. Additionally, for the purpose of laying the groundwork now for City Staff to apply some of the relevant affordable housing recommendations of the UHF Final Report to a hypothetical or actual affordable family housing project, the following project parameters were devised by the DWS Team, in collaboration with HCD and Planning Department Staff. a. Hypothetical Location for an Affordable Family Housing Model. An Affordable Family Housing Model could be proposed as a modification to the West Chase District Pilot Project analysis already completed by the DWS Team in connection with the completion of the UHF Final Report. That Pilot Project contemplates a substantial component of multifamily rental housing, and the West Chase area has been identified as providing substantial, existing amenities supporting family housing. b. Proposed Affordable Family Housing Model Programs. Continuing the Hypothetical Project program described in Section 2., above, an Affordable Family Housing Model could be structured as a mixed-income, market-driven project of 200 total dwelling units (“DUs”), of which 170 DUs (85%) are market-rate and 30 DUs
Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8
Urban Houston Framework | 222 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
Summary Sheet petersgroup consulting Pilot Project Financial Model Revised Attachment 1 to Memorandum to the UHF Stakeholders Advisory Committee dated 01 May 2013
Financial Scenarios Mkt-Rate TDC Ann. Gross Rents Ann. NOI NOI after Debt Srvc. NOI after ROE Income > DSCR Valuation Value Loss % Value Loss Base Case Scenario 100%$ 32,895,776 $ 3,264,000 $ 2,070,240 $ 336,925 $ 7,967 $ 6,374 $ 29,574,857 N/A N/A Mixed-Income Scenario 60% $ 2,455,680 $ 1,285,555 $ (476,020) $ (476,020) $ (916,414) $ 18,365,074 $ 11,209,783 37.90% 100% Affordable Scenario 0%$ 26,536,465 $ 2,008,800 $ 1,047,480 $ (685,835) $ (951,200) $ (1,119,164) $ 14,964,000 $ 14,610,857 49.40% Suburban Scenario 100%$ 25,153,621 $ 2,450,400 $ 1,580,856 $ 255,484 $ 3,947 $ 3,158 $ 22,583,657 $ 6,991,200 23.64%
Financial Scenarios Mkt-Rate Valuation Value Loss % Value Loss Base Case Scenario 100% $ 29,574,857 N/A N/A Mixed-Income Scenario 60%$ 18,365,074 $ 11,209,783 37.90% 100% Affordable Scenario 0%$ 14,964,000 $ 14,610,857 49.40% Suburban Scenario 100%$ 22,583,657 $ 6,991,200 23.64%
Urban Houston Framework | 223 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
Suburban Assumptions Sheet 2/4 Assumptions Sheet 1/4 Base Case Scenario Land Purchase Price/sq. ft. $ 40.00 $ 5.00 Annual Debt Service Cost Assumptions Mo'ly/Ann. P + i Mo'ly/Ann. P + i Assumptions i (mo'ly int. rate) 0.5417% ($144,442.92) ($110,447.69) 0.5417% Land Yield (DU/acre) 80 32 See Box, right 40-yr amortization 480 $ (1,733,315) $ (1,325,372) 480 Factor for O/S & Circulation 1.200 1.750 P (principal loan amt) $ 24,671,832 $ 18,865,216 Required Land Area (acres) 3.0 10.9 Required Land Area (sq. ft.) 130,680 476,438 Projected Market Rents Price/sq.ft. Mathematical Rents Mathematical Ren Price/sq.ft. Housing Typology 4-story, elev. 3-story garden 1BR $ 1.60 $ 1,040.00 $ 840.00 $ 1.20 Construction Type Wood frame Wood frame 2BR $ 1.48 $ 1,406.00 $ 1,092.50 $ 1.15 3BR $ 1.25 $ 1,812.50 $ 1,260.00 $ 1.05 Parking Requirements Average Rent 1BR 159.6 1.33 1.25 125 2BR 133 1.66 1.75 157.5 Weighted-Average Rent 3BR 0 2 2.25 22.5 292 305 Affordable Rents 50% AMI Nominal Rents Cost/Parking Stall/Space $ 11,500 $ 4,500 1BR $ 26,500 $ 552.08 $ 550.00
Project Configuration 2BR $ 29,800 $ 620.83 $ 620.00 1BR 60% 120 100 50% 3BR $ 33,100 $ 689.58 $ 690.00 2BR 40% 80 90 45% 3BR 0% 0 10 5% 80% AMI Nominal Rents 100% 200 200 100% Unit Configurations 1BR $ 42,800 $ 891.67 $ 890.00 1BR 650 700 2BR $ 48,150 $ 1,003.13 $ 1,000.00 2BR 950 950 3BR $ 53,500 $ 1,114.58 $ 1,115.00 3BR 1,450 1,200 Average Unit Size TBP TBP Weighted-Average Unit Size TBP TBP 120% AMI Nominal Rents 1BR $ 51,360 $ 1,070.00 $ 1,050.00 NRSF by Unit Type 2BR $ 57,780 $ 1,203.75 $ 1,200.00 1BR 78,000 70,000 3BR $ 64,200 $ 1,337.50 $ 1,335.00 2BR 76,000 85,500 3BR 0 12,000 TOTAL NRSF 154,000 167,500 2013 FMRs 1BR $ 765.00 Core Factor 1.25 1.25 2BR $ 945.00
Building Gross Square Feet 192,500 209,375 3BR $ 1,290.00 HCC per Sq. Ft. $ 85.00 $ 67.50 Civil-Utilities-Infrastructure/acre $ 100,000 $ 115,000 LIHTC Rents (50% of AMI/TDHCA 2013 QAP) Nominal Rents 1BR $ 26,500 $ 552.08 $ 550.00 Line Items Assumptions Base Case uburban Scenario Cost Differential 2BR $ 29,800 $ 620.83 $ 620.00 Land $ 5,227,200 $ 2,382,188 $ 2,845,013 Soft Costs 20% $ 3,945,020 $ 3,101,063 $ 843,958 3BR $ 33,100 $ 689.58 $ 690.00 Horizontal Costs $ 300,000 $ 1,257,813 $ (957,813) Parking (Garage or Surface) $ 3,362,600 $ 1,372,500 $ 1,990,100 Estimated Op. Expenses/DU Total Dus Vertical Const. Costs $ 16,362,500 $ 14,132,813 $ 2,229,688 HCC before Cap i $ 19,725,100 $ 15,505,313 $ 4,219,788 DU/mo $ 400.00 $ 80,000.00 Cap. Int. 7.50% $ 739,691 $ 581,449 $ 158,242 Mo/ann 12 $ 960,000.00 Dev. Fee 15% $ 2,958,765 $ 2,325,797 $ 632,968 Total Development Costs (TDC) $ 32,895,776 $ 25,153,621 $ 7,109,187
Financing Costs % of TDC Base Case Suburban 1st DOT 75% $ 24,671,832 $ 18,865,216 Investor Eq. 20% $ 6,579,155 $ 5,030,724 Dev. Equity 5% $ 1,644,789 $ 1,257,681 $ 32,895,776 $ 25,153,621 Urban Houston Framework | 224 Assumptions Sheet 3/4 Yield and Open Space Calculations Base Case Suburban Yield Reqts. 2.5 6.3 % for O/S+C 0.200 0.75 O/S+Circ (ac.) 0.5 4.69
Yeild Comparability Analysis Camden Travis St. Site Area Calculation Boundary NIC in parcel 245 125 645 125 158,025 15,625 43,560 43,560 Site Area 3.627754821 0.358700643 3.269054178 TTL DUs Site (ac.) Yield (DU/ac.) 253 3.27 77.39241573
Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
Assumptions Sheet 3/4 Calculation of Annual Return on Equity Yield and Open Space Calculations Base Case Total Dev. Costs$ 32,895,776 $ 18,865,216 Base Case Suburban Equity as % of TDC 20.0000%$ 5,030,724 Yield Reqts. 2.5 6.3 Equity Calculation $ 6,579,155 $ 5,030,724 % for O/S+C 0.200 0.75 Annual Return on Equity 5.0000% 5.0000% O/S+Circ (ac.) 0.5 4.69
Yeild Comparability Analysis Camden Travis St. Site Area Calculation Boundary NIC in parcel 245 125 645 125 158,025 15,625 43,560 43,560 Site Area 3.627754821 0.358700643 3.269054178 TTL DUs Site (ac.) Yield (DU/ac.) 253 3.27 77.39241573
Urban Houston Framework | 225
Calculation of Annual Return on Equity Base Case Total Dev. Costs$ 32,895,776 $ 18,865,216 Equity as % of TDC 20.0000%$ 5,030,724 Equity Calculation $ 6,579,155 $ 5,030,724 Annual Return on Equity 5.0000% 5.0000% Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
Ann. Equity Return Calc. $ 328,958 $ 251,536 Base Case: Assumptions Sheet 4/4 Cash-Flow Analysis 1st DOT Interest Calcuation Principal Amt$ 24,671,832 Mo'ly Annual Total Gross Ann Interst only 6.5000% Unit Type Rent Rent Dus Rent Ann. Int. $ 1,603,669 1BR $ 1,100.00 $13,200 120$ 1,584,000 Mo'ly Int. $ 133,639 2BR $ 1,750.00 $21,000 80$ 1,680,000 3BR $ 2,100.00 $25,200 0 $ ‐ TOTAL 200$ 3,264,000
Gross Rents $3,264,000 Vacancy Factor 4.00% Gross Rents Less Vacancy Factor $3,133,440 HUD Metro2013 FMRs Houston-Baytow_Sugar Land, TX Adjusted Gross Rents $3,133,440 Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR LESS: Op. Reserves 5% $163,200 636$ 636$ $ 765 $ 945 $ 1,290 $ 1,595 Adj. Gross Rents Less Reserves $2,970,240 NON‐RENT INCOME: $25/DU/mo $60,000 Adj. Rent & Non‐Rent Income $3,030,240 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HUD Metro FMR Area LESS: Operating Expenses Inc. Limit 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person DU/ann $4,800 0 $960,000 Cap Rate Valuation FY2013 $46,400 $53,000 $59,600 $66,200 $71,500 $76,800 Net Operating Income (before debt srvc) $2,070,240 7.00%$ 29,574,857 60% $27,840 $31,800 $35,760 $39,720 $42,900 $46,080 LESS: Debt Service on 1st DoT ‐$1,733,315 50% $23,200 $26,500 $29,800 $33,100 $35,750 $38,400 Rate Principal Amt. 6.5000%$ 24,671,832 NOI after Debt Service $336,925 LESS: Return on Equity $328,958 Rate Investor Equity 5.00% 6,579,155 Amt. Remaining for Distribution $7,967 1.25:1 DSCR Amt. $6,374
Urban Houston Framework | 226 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
Suburban Scenario: 100% Affordable Scenario: Cash-Flow Analysis Cash-Flow Analysis 1/2
Mo'ly Annual Total Gross Ann HUD Tenant‐Based Annual Total Gross Ann Unit Type Rent Rent Dus Rent Unit Type Rental Certificate Rent Dus Rent 1BR $ 875.00 $10,500 100$ 1,050,000 1BR $ 765.00 $9,180 120$ 1,101,600 2BR $ 1,130.00 $13,560 90$ 1,220,400 2BR $ 945.00 $11,340 80$ 907,200 3BR $ 1,500.00 $18,000 10$ 180,000 3BR $ 1,290.00 $15,480 0 $ ‐ Base Case diff. TOTAL 200$ 2,450,400 TOTAL 200$ 2,008,800 $ 1,255,200
Gross Rents $2,450,400 Gross Rents $2,008,800 720000 Vacancy Factor 10.00% Vacancy Factor 6.00% Gross Rents Less Vacancy Factor $1,807,920 Gross Rents Less Vacancy Factor $2,303,376 Adjusted Gross Rents $1,807,920 Adjusted Gross Rents $2,303,376 LESS: Op. Reserves 5% $100,440 LESS: Op. Reserves 5% $122,520 Adj. Gross Rents Less Reserves $1,707,480 Adj. Gross Rents Less Reserves $2,180,856 NON‐RENT INCOME (Laundry) $25/DU/mo $60,000 NON‐RENT INCOME: $50/DU/mo $120,000 Adj. Rent & Non‐Rent Income $1,767,480 Adj. Rent & Non‐Rent Income $2,300,856 LESS: Operating Expenses LESS: Operating Expenses DU/ann $3,600 $720,000 Cap Rate Valuation DU/ann $3,600 200 $720,000 Cap Rate Valuation Net Operating Income (before debt srvc) $1,047,480 7.00%$ 14,964,000 Net Operating Income (before debt srvc) $1,580,856 7.00%$ 22,583,657 LESS: Debt Service on 1st DoT ‐$1,733,315 LESS: Debt Service on 1st DoT ‐$1,325,372 Rate Principal Amt. Rate Principal Amt. 6.5000%$ 24,671,832 6.5000%$ 18,865,216 NOI before Return on Equity ‐$685,835 NOI after Debt Service $255,484 LESS: Return on Equity $265,365 LESS: Return on Equity $251,536 Rate Investor Equity Rate Investor Equity 5.00% 6,579,155 5.00% 5,030,724 Amt. Remaining for Distribution ‐$951,200 DSCR 1.25:1 Amt. Remaining for Distribution $3,947 1.25:1 DSCR Amt. ‐$1,119,164 $ (2,166,644) 1.25:1 DSCR Amt. $3,158
Urban Houston Framework | 227 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
100% Affordable Scenario: Mixed-Income Scenario: Cash-Flow Analysis 2/2 Cash-Flow Analysis 1/2
Mo'ly Annual Total Gross Ann Unit Types Rent Rent Dus Rent Mkt‐Rate 1BR $ 1,100.00 $13,200 72$ 950,400 2BR $ 1,650.00 $19,800 48$ 950,400 3BR $ 1,800.00 $21,600 0 $ ‐ SUBTOTAL 120$ 1,900,800 LIHTC 1BR $ 550.00 $6,600 48$ 316,800 2BR $ 620.00 $7,440 32$ 238,080 Building Gross Square Feet 192,500 209,375 3BR $ 690.00 $8,280 0 $ ‐ HCC per Sq. Ft. $ 67.50 $ 67.50 Civil‐Utilities‐Infrastructure/acre $ 100,000.00 $ 115,000.00 SUBTOTAL 80$ 554,880 Base Case diff. TOTAL 200$ 2,455,680 $ 808,320 Line Items Assumptions Base Case Suburban Scenario Cost Differential Land $ 5,227,200 $ 2,382,188 $ 2,845,013 Soft Costs 20%$ 3,945,020 $ 3,101,063 $ 843,958 Horizontal Costs $ 300,000 $ 1,257,813 $ (957,813) Gross Rents $2,455,680 Parking (Garage or Surface)$ 3,362,600 $ 1,372,500 $ 1,990,100 Vacancy Factor 6.00% Vertical Const. Costs $ 12,993,750 $ 14,132,813 $ (1,139,063) Gross Rents Less Vacancy Factor $2,308,339 HCC before Cap i $ 16,656,350 $ 15,505,313 $ 1,151,038 Adjusted Gross Rents $2,308,339 Cap. Int. 8.50%$ 707,895 $ 581,449 $ 126,446 LESS: Op. Reserves 5% $122,784 Dev. Fee 18%$ 2,998,143 $ 2,325,797 $ 672,346 Adj. Gross Rents Less Reserves $2,185,555 NON‐RENT INCOME: $25/DU/mo $60,000 Total Dev. Costs (TDC) $ 26,536,465 $ 25,153,621 $ 4,008,641 Adj. Rent & Non‐Rent Income $2,245,555 LESS: Operating Expenses Financing Costs % of TDC Base Case Suburban Scenario DU/ann $4,800 0 $960,000 Cap Rate Valuation 1st DOT 75% $ 19,902,349 $ 18,865,216 Net Operating Income (before debt srvc) $1,285,555 7.00%$ 18,365,074 Investor Eq. 20% $ 5,307,293 $ 5,030,724 LESS: Debt Service on 1st DoT ‐$1,761,575 Dev. Equity 5% $ 1,326,823 $ 1,257,681 Rate Principal Amt. $ 26,536,465 $ 25,153,621 6.5000%$ 24,671,832 NOI after Debt Service ‐$476,020 LESS: Return on LIHTC Equity $0 Rate Investor Equity 0.00% 5,035,681 Amt. Remaining for Distribution ‐$476,020 DSCR 1.25:1 1.25:1 DSCR Amt. ‐$916,414 ‐$2,201,969
Urban Houston Framework | 228 Pilot Projects: Affordable Housing Analysis
Mixed-Income Scenario: Cash-Flow Analysis 2/2
Building Gross Square Feet 192,500 209,375 HCC per Sq. Ft. $ 85.00 $ 67.50 Civil‐Utilities‐Infrastructure/acre $ 100,000.00 $ 115,000.00
Line Items Assumptions Base Case Suburban Scenario Cost Differential Land $ 5,227,200 $ 2,382,188 $ 2,845,013 Soft Costs 20%$ 3,945,020 $ 3,101,063 $ 843,958 Horizontal Costs $ 300,000 $ 1,257,813 $ (957,813) Parking (Garage or Surface)$ 3,362,600 $ 1,372,500 $ 1,990,100 Vertical Const. Costs $ 16,362,500 $ 14,132,813 $ 2,229,688 HCC before Cap i $ 19,725,100 $ 15,505,313 $ 4,219,788 Cap. Int. 7.50%$ 739,691 $ 581,449 $ 158,242 Dev. Fee 15%$ 2,958,765 $ 2,325,797 $ 632,968 Total Dev. Costs (TDC) $ 32,895,776 $ 25,153,621 $ 7,109,187
Financing Costs % of TDC Base Case Suburban Scenario 1st DOT 76.22% $ 25,074,086 $ 19,172,797 LIHTC Equity 15.31% $5,035,681 $ ‐ Investor Eq. 0.00% $ ‐ $ ‐ Dev. Equity 8.47% $ 2,786,010 $ 2,130,311 100.00% $ 32,895,776 $ 21,303,108
Project TDC $32,895,776
LIHTC Equity Calculation Project TDC LESS: Land Cost $27,668,576 DUs (% Inc‐Eligible) 40% LIHTC Basis $11,067,431 9% PV 70% LIHTC Amt. $7,747,201 LIHTC Pricing $0.65 LIHTC Equity $5,035,681 Remaining Balance to be financed $27,860,095
Annual Debt Service Cost Assumptions Mo'ly/Ann. P + i i (mo'ly int. rate) 0.5417% ($146,797.94) 40‐yr amortization 480 $ (1,761,575) P (principal loan amt) $ 25,074,086 Urban Houston Framework | 229 Urban Houston Framework | 230