Houston "The Great Unzoned City." (Dallas, Austin: real estate, 2014)

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Exactly. There is no balance. If Houston had a balance (unzoned city but incorporated/zoned suburbs) then I think it'd be about 10 years ahead from where it is now. Add in a proper rail system and it'd be a wrap. clear alpha dog for the South versus sharing/competing with DFW and ATL.



You're looking at this through strictly a Houston lense because there are several examples of suburban cities developing in the 60s (even before) to the 90s and they valued basic living things like sidewalks. All of SoCal was like this. Even many of the DFW burbs when they started to grow had sidewalks, and they just added more streetscape improvements as time went on. This compared to Houston where it is still the bare minimum unless you're in an MPC or incorporated city. The streetscape improvements aren't as urgent because there is too much unincorporated land to cover and these MUDs don't care either (but you better keep paying them).

It's one thing I've noticed when I was researching this before and that's there were suburban areas developing before much of Houston did, yet they built their city with more quality. Like did no one from Houston back then get on a plane and take notes from these places?

You do realize that sidewalks and streetscape are not really zoning features, right? Even if a city throws them into their zoning ordinance, they can and should exist separately as infrastructure standards and building code requirements.

Same with parking and landscape ordinances. Many cities throw them into their zoning code, but they aren't actually zoning items.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

You do realize that sidewalks and streetscape are not really zoning features, right? Even if a city throws them into their zoning ordinance, they can and should exist separately as infrastructure standards and building code requirements.

Same with parking and landscape ordinances. Many cities throw them into their zoning code, but they aren't actually zoning items.

You do realize your contradicting yourself here right? On one hand your saying it isnt zoning and on the other your saying cities do include them with their zoning but "they should be separate".You keep trying to be too technical with it but are tripping yourself up. My overall point is the same - incorporation and zoning is better for suburban areas.

Originally Posted by WRM20

I was looking at incorporation dates for DFW suburban areas, and most of them were incorporated decades ago, which meant Dallas and Ft Worth were surrounded by incorporated areas. In the Houston area, there were not nearly as many incorporated areas, other than to the East, where Pasadena, Deer Park, Baytown, etc incorporated before 1950. There were essentially no incorporated areas to the North and West, probably due to a lack of density. Once the ETJ laws were passed, Houston was able to expand pretty much at will, while preventing any other incorporations, which has been a policy forever.

The end result of this is that the suburbs of Dallas, especially, were built in incorporated areas, or were annexed pretty quickly, with some amount of zoning enforced.

Here's a map I found showing the incorporated cities in Dallas County. Far different than Harris County. https://www.randymajors.org/city-lim...13&labels=show

You are assuming those incorporated DFW burbs were at their current sizes when they become cities but they werent. They were tiny dots that did not begin annexation until the etj laws were passed. Residents there fought harder for more local control whereas many of the Houston area suburbs allowed the city to take over. Also Dallas was less aggressive with annexation and still is, even though it has ways to annex more land to its SE.

Spring is a prime example of a suburb which was not allowed to grow. It became a sizeable outpost area by the early 20th century. If Jersey Village was able to incorporate in the mid 50s with just 500 residents, why couldnt Spring when it was larger earlier?

Dfw definitely had more railroad towns but Houston was not lacking any. Whether it was the poor flood control back then that kept flooding towns away like Alief, the reservoir creating that destroyed others like Addicks, or just Houston annexing which removed the local feel some of these areas might have had, it is strange how Houston developed vs DFW. You see the same thing with Austin and San Antonio.

[oil capital]

There's been a lot of misinformation thrown out in this thread about Houston vs. DFW metro populations and growth rates, so I thought I would throw in some actual facts.

Houston Population
1980 2,905,353
1990 3,301,937
2000 4,177,646
2010 5,920,416
2020 7,122,240

Houston Growth Rates
1980-1990: 13.7
1990-2000: 26.5
2000-2010: 41.7
2010-2020: 20.3

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,216,887
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 145.14

DFW Population
1980: 2,974,805 (already larger than Houston metro, contrary to earlier posts)
1990: 3,885,415
2000: 5,221,801
2010: 6,426,214
2020: 7,637,387

DFW Growth Rates
1980-1990: 30.6
1990-2000: 34.4
2000-2010: 23.1
2010-2020: 18.8

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,662,582
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 156.74

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by oil capital

There's been a lot of misinformation thrown out in this thread about Houston vs. DFW metro populations and growth rates, so I thought I would throw in some actual facts.

Houston Population
1980 2,905,353
1990 3,301,937
2000 4,177,646
2010 5,920,416
2020 7,122,240

Houston Growth Rates
1980-1990: 13.7
1990-2000: 26.5
2000-2010: 41.7
2010-2020: 20.3

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,216,887
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 145.14

DFW Population
1980: 2,974,805 (already larger than Houston metro, contrary to earlier posts)
1990: 3,885,415
2000: 5,221,801
2010: 6,426,214
2020: 7,637,387

DFW Growth Rates
1980-1990: 30.6
1990-2000: 34.4
2000-2010: 23.1
2010-2020: 18.8

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,662,582
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 156.74

The disputed comment was DFW surpassed Houston's population "generations" ago which makes it sound like 100 years ago. If you believe a generation is approximately 20 years then we could say the comment is factual...2 generations ago. Anyway we all agree DFW's growth had nothing to do with zoning....more about economy diversification.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by oil capital

There's been a lot of misinformation thrown out in this thread about Houston vs. DFW metro populations and growth rates, so I thought I would throw in some actual facts.

Houston Population
1980 2,905,353
1990 3,301,937
2000 4,177,646
2010 5,920,416
2020 7,122,240

Houston Growth Rates
1980-1990: 13.7
1990-2000: 26.5
2000-2010: 41.7
2010-2020: 20.3

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,216,887
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 145.14

DFW Population
1980: 2,974,805 (already larger than Houston metro, contrary to earlier posts)
1990: 3,885,415
2000: 5,221,801
2010: 6,426,214
2020: 7,637,387

DFW Growth Rates
1980-1990: 30.6
1990-2000: 34.4
2000-2010: 23.1
2010-2020: 18.8

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,662,582
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 156.74

The part of this that sticks out to me is that overall Houston has grown faster than DFW over the last two decades. The region's added 3 million people over that timeframe.

The 1980-2000 period is really where DFW separated itself.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

You do realize your contradicting yourself here right? On one hand your saying it isnt zoning and on the other your saying cities do include them with their zoning but "they should be separate".You keep trying to be too technical with it but are tripping yourself up. My overall point is the same - incorporation and zoning is better for suburban areas.



You are assuming those incorporated DFW burbs were at their current sizes when they become cities but they werent. They were tiny dots that did not begin annexation until the etj laws were passed. Residents there fought harder for more local control whereas many of the Houston area suburbs allowed the city to take over. Also Dallas was less aggressive with annexation and still is, even though it has ways to annex more land to its SE.

Spring is a prime example of a suburb which was not allowed to grow. It became a sizeable outpost area by the early 20th century. If Jersey Village was able to incorporate in the mid 50s with just 500 residents, why couldnt Spring when it was larger earlier?

Dfw definitely had more railroad towns but Houston was not lacking any. Whether it was the poor flood control back then that kept flooding towns away like Alief, the reservoir creating that destroyed others like Addicks, or just Houston annexing which removed the local feel some of these areas might have had, it is strange how Houston developed vs DFW. You see the same thing with Austin and San Antonio.

No, sorry, not seeing the "contradicted myself" part. Zoning, at least the traditional version (known as "Euclidean" in the profession to acknowledge the Supreme Court case allowing it) is the designation of allowed land uses and densities, and often building height. Regulations regarding sidewalks, landscaping, parking, setbacks, etc. can be included in zoning ordinances, but that does not make them "zoning" in any way, shape, or form, regardless of whether they're placed within a zoning ordinance or not. Do you not understand that? Houston regulates all those things without zoning, and much of it applies in the unincorporated ETJ as well.

There's nothing special about suburbs from a regulatory perspective. I suspect you (and many others) think "suburbs" mean a special "protected" environment for single family owner-occupied homes, which are somehow owed preferential and deferential treatment by government through land use regulations. There's just no reasonable basis for that. Single family homes aren't owed special protections in either central cities or suburbs.

And, ONCE AGAIN, I have never stated that there's no benefits to incorporation. For many places, it may be the better scenario. There's no reason to include zoning as a benefit of incorporation, however.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

No, sorry, not seeing the "contradicted myself" part. Zoning, at least the traditional version (known as "Euclidean" in the profession to acknowledge the Supreme Court case allowing it) is the designation of allowed land uses and densities, and often building height. Regulations regarding sidewalks, landscaping, parking, setbacks, etc. can be included in zoning ordinances, but that does not make them "zoning" in any way, shape, or form, regardless of whether they're placed within a zoning ordinance or not. Do you not understand that? Houston regulates all those things without zoning, and much of it applies in the unincorporated ETJ as well.

There's nothing special about suburbs from a regulatory perspective. I suspect you (and many others) think "suburbs" mean a special "protected" environment for single family owner-occupied homes, which are somehow owed preferential and deferential treatment by government through land use regulations. There's just no reasonable basis for that. Single family homes aren't owed special protections in either central cities or suburbs.

And, ONCE AGAIN, I have never stated that there's no benefits to incorporation. For many places, it may be the better scenario. There's no reason to include zoning as a benefit of incorporation, however.

In Texas, and excluding the ETJ thing, there is no zoning without incorporation. Counties can regulate septic systems, and that's about it.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by oil capital

There's been a lot of misinformation thrown out in this thread about Houston vs. DFW metro populations and growth rates, so I thought I would throw in some actual facts.

Houston Population
1980 2,905,353
1990 3,301,937
2000 4,177,646
2010 5,920,416
2020 7,122,240

Houston Growth Rates
1980-1990: 13.7
1990-2000: 26.5
2000-2010: 41.7
2010-2020: 20.3

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,216,887
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 145.14

DFW Population
1980: 2,974,805 (already larger than Houston metro, contrary to earlier posts)
1990: 3,885,415
2000: 5,221,801
2010: 6,426,214
2020: 7,637,387

DFW Growth Rates
1980-1990: 30.6
1990-2000: 34.4
2000-2010: 23.1
2010-2020: 18.8

Cumulative Growth - 1980-2020: 4,662,582
Cumulative Growth Rate - 1980-2020: 156.74

Thanks for the facts, can you let us know what your source is? Not saying they are bogus or anything just curious.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Thanks for the facts, can you let us know what your source is? Not saying they are bogus or anything just curious.

Here's an article from the late eighties that reports the Dallas area had passed up Houston referencing the 1980 census. I did not have to get past any paywalls to read this story so I think everybody will have access to what the NY Times says are the facts!

"The Dallas area edged past its rival Houston in the Census Bureau's latest population estimates for the nation's 281 metropolitan areas, but New York continued to lead the list by a wide margin.

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area moved up from ninth to eighth place on the list of the nation's largest urban areas, with a population of 3,655,300 as of July 1, 1986, up from 3,535,800 in 1985.

At the same time, Houston slipped back one notch, despite an estimated population growth from 3,605,500 to 3,634,300.

Overall, the Dallas area grew 24.7 percent since the 1980 national head count, while Houston gained 17.7 percent over the six-year period."

Yes, I replied to my own post. I'm that talented.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/24/u...an-census.html

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Here's an article from the late eighties that reports the Dallas area had passed up Houston referencing the 1980 census. I did not have to get past any paywalls to read this story so I think everybody will have access to what the NY Times says are the facts!

"The Dallas area edged past its rival Houston in the Census Bureau's latest population estimates for the nation's 281 metropolitan areas, but New York continued to lead the list by a wide margin.

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area moved up from ninth to eighth place on the list of the nation's largest urban areas, with a population of 3,655,300 as of July 1, 1986, up from 3,535,800 in 1985.

At the same time, Houston slipped back one notch, despite an estimated population growth from 3,605,500 to 3,634,300.

Overall, the Dallas area grew 24.7 percent since the 1980 national head count, while Houston gained 17.7 percent over the six-year period."

Yes, I replied to my own post. I'm that talented.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/24/u...an-census.html

Yes, the stats I posted above show DFW having a larger population than Houston metro in 1980. 1980 was also the first decadal census in which Dallas and Fort Worth were combined in to one metro area.