The Civic Architect

Redirect Your Browser!

2011-11-13T10:10:00.000-08:00

The Civic Architect Blog has moved! Direct your browser to the new Citizen Architect Blog. Note that any new posts will be made to the Citizen Architect Blog.

See you over there!

What If You Built a High Rise in Houston– and Nobody Complained?

2011-10-29T12:28:00.000-07:00

It’s all about the site – The Ashby High Rise and the BBVA-Compass Building

I can see a construction site from my office window. It’s for the BBVA-Compass building, a 22 story high rise going up at 2200 Post Oak Boulevard. The building is similar in height and even bigger than the Ashby High Rise. But nobody’s complaining about it. The BBVA-Compass building’s neighbors are other high-rises and strip centers. Post Oak Boulevard is a major thoroughfare that can easily accommodate more traffic. It’s in the heart of Uptown, which is home to our City’s third-tallest building (The Williams Tower.) Simply put, Post Oak Boulevard is the right place to build a 22 story tower.

The Ashby High Rise is a better building than the BBVA Compass Building. It’s certainly got better massing. The BBVA-Compass building is an articulated box, with a parking garage to one side. The Ashby High Rise has a series of carefully designed setbacks that add visual interest. The BBVA-Compass building has no street-façade to speak of. The Ashby High Rise offers a wide sidewalk, and shops at ground level.

Nonetheless, the Ashby High Rise is a point of contention citywide, and that’s thanks to its site at 1717 Bissonnet. The building will loom above single-family houses on quiet residential streets. Bissonnet is only two lanes at that location; Ashby Street is even narrower. They cannot accommodate more traffic. The shops at ground level will exist as an island; because there are few other stores in the area. The site at the corner of Bissonnet and Ashby could not be a worse place for a 23 story building.

They could solve these problems by choosing a different site for the Ashby High Rise. There’s a big, empty field on the northeast corner of Greenbriar and Highway 59; bisected by Lexington Street. At that location, the building would loom above a few small businesses and the highway. There are already tall buildings on the other side of Greenbriar, so it’s not a big stretch to add another. Access to Highway 59 would alleviate many of the traffic concerns. The neighborhood has a great restaurant scene, with Star Pizza, a 59 Diner, Freebird’s, and other eateries within blocks of each other. The site is close enough to 1717 Bissonnet that they could still go after the same clientele.

I should close by stating that I don’t know the owners of the site at Greenbriar and 59. I’m certainly not working for them. There might be more that meets the eye about that site. I’m just an architect, dreaming as architects do. But this could be a win-win-win for the developers, the neighbors, and the City at large. The developers can build their building. The neighbors can protect their homes. The City can grow in population and density Inside the Loop. The best part: it would put a residential high-rise on a site that seems to be screaming “build it here!”

An Alternative to a Really Bad Idea

2011-09-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought I'd heard it all, the USDA is considering allowing the use of food stamps to buy fast food. This is something we should all fight. There are much better ways to reach the same goals.

The argument in favor of food stamps at fast food restaurants is this: Many poor neighborhoods are "food deserts" - places where fresh produce and other healthy foods are not readily available. While they lack healthy foods, "food deserts" are often well-served by fast food chains. So if we allow food stamps to be used in fast food restaurants, the program has a better chance of reaching the people who need it.

It seems to make sense, but it’s fraught with dangers. If we allow food stamps to be used in fast food restaurants, it will cause all sorts of health problems among our nation's poor. (Remember, these are the people who are least likely to have access to quality health care). It’s also a bad idea from an urban standpoint. It’s a stop-gap measure that fails to address the bigger problem of food deserts.

Instead of allowing food stamps to be used in fast food restaurants, we could use tax credits to lure grocers to food deserts. The tax credits could help grocers make a profit in underserved neighborhoods, where they would lose money otherwise. To get the tax credits, they could have to open a store that’s a certain size, and in a neighborhood that’s been identified as a food desert. To keep the tax credits, they could have to continue to sell fresh produce, and accept food stamps.

It’s not without precedent. We already have New Market Tax Credits (NMTC), and those are sometimes used to build grocery stores. We have Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) that are used by developers to build low-income housing. The tax credits that I’m suggesting could be similar, but specifically designed to help grocery stores locate to food deserts.

We could pay for the grocery tax credits with money from the LIHTC program, along USD food stamp money. It’d help ensure that the poor can use food stamps in their own neighborhoods. Instead of just compensating for food deserts, this program would help solve food deserts.

A New Ballgame for Urban Blight in Texas

2011-08-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

Some of our biggest Super Neighborhood meetings in Braeburn are on the topic of urban blight. It’s the same in neighborhoods throughout Houston, and I would imagine in other cities throughout Texas. Neighbors are mad about urban blight, and we demand that something be done.

It was never easy for the City to condemn a blighted building. Owners were protected by strong private property rights laws. It took years of negotiation; letters; inspections; court dates; hearings; and lawsuits before a blighted building could be condemned. Now, a Texas Supreme Court case, and a series of new Texas laws are going to make it even more difficult.

It’s really a new ballgame for urban blight in Texas. We need to adapt to it, or we risk losing our neighborhoods.

1: Recognize real urban blight, and know what our goals are. A low-rent apartment complex that’s fully occupied and meets code, isn’t blighted. Even when the property is blighted, it might be possible for it to be rehabilitated rather than condemned. Of course we should always be leery of ‘lipstick on pigs’ (cheap, cosmetic repairs to buildings that need much more.)

2: Keep calling the City to report blighted (“nuisance”) properties. Even if the City faces new hurdles to condemning blighted buildings, it can still issue fines and bring owners to hearings. If the owner faces enough of these hearings and fines, usually they either fix the problems, or sell at their own accord to someone who will.

3: Lobby private real-estate developers to tear down blighted buildings, like we lobby the City to do it. Under the new laws the City can’t force owners of blighted buildings to sell for anything other than public use. But private developers can still buy blighted buildings, demolish them, and build other things on those sites. That’s just standard real-estate practice.

4: Lobby for Local, State, and Federal incentives to help developers address urban blight. There are millions of dollars available every year for subsidized development. A lot of that money goes to new development on open land; when it could actually be used to help rehabilitate or redevelop blighted buildings. There are also programs that are specifically designed to help seniors and low-income families repair their homes. These programs could be used to help repair blighted houses in our neighborhoods.

Even before the new laws, my neighbors would get frustrated with the City for not working fast enough to condemn blighted buildings. Now it’s going to be even slower (if they can do it at all). It’s a new ballgame, and we need to adapt to it; or watch as urban blight kills our neighborhoods.

How Houston Could Get Two Shuttles, And Save the Astrodome

2011-08-26T19:23:00.000-07:00

Like most Houstonians, I’m angry that Houston did not get a Space Shuttle. We could debate the reasons. I think it was monument snobbery: the view that the Shuttles just have to be in our Nation’s signature cities, and that Houston simply won’t do. NASA’s official reason for denying us a Shuttle – that we allegedly don’t get enough international visitors – could be seen as a veiled admission of it. But instead of lamenting our loss, we should come together in search of another option.

What if Houston was home to a large monument and museum commemorating the Challenger and Columbia Shuttles? We’ve got the perfect building to use for it: the Astrodome. The Astrodome is big enough to house the museum, monument, and also replicas of the Shuttles. Imagine two Shuttles, suspended in the Dome – with glass walkways leading up to them so that visitors can peer in. None of the other Shuttle museums will have anything like it.

The replicas of the Challenger and Columbia could be accurate to the condition the Shuttles were in before they were lost. Visitors could see how technology advanced between 1986 and 2003. The Saturn 5 Rocket and other exhibits from the Johnson Space Center could also be relocated to the Astrodome. There could be an I-Max Theater, along with new exhibits and memorials commemorating the crews of the two lost Shuttle missions. One exhibit could be devoted to the Astrodome and all of the other Houston institutions that owe their names to our Space Program.

Houston has bigger ties to our National Space Program than any other City. It is ridiculous that we didn’t get a Shuttle. But we shouldn’t be bitter about it. We should look for another option. The Eighth Wonder of the World would be a fitting monument to the Challenger and Columbia Shuttles.

Crowdsourced Zoning - A Uniquely Houstonian Alternative to a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance

2011-07-29T18:47:00.000-07:00

Houston is the biggest city in the US to be without a comprehensive zoning ordinance. For the most part, it has been to our benefit. Other cities have to change their zoning ordinances to allow for mixed-use development. We’ve developed that way naturally. Other cities struggle with a lack of affordable housing. Not Houston. In fact, we were ranked the eleventh most successful city in the world by Atlantic Monthly Magazine, thanks in part to our low cost of living.

Of course there is a down-side to Houston’s lack of zoning. Ugly land-use battles. Developers run rough-shod over the concerns of neighbors. Neighbors rush to oppose unwanted development. City government denies building permits. Developers take the City to court.

Houstonians look at these fights and say “if we had zoning this wouldn’t happen," but we don’t need a comprehensive zoning ordinance to solve Houston’s ugly land-use battles. We could use “crowdsourced zoning.” Instead of putting land use controls in the hands of City government, we could create a system for development that encourages “crowdsourced placemaking” and “crowdsourcing planning”. The system would give average Houstonians a bigger say in what gets built in their neighborhoods, while making things more predictable for developers.

Houston already has elements of crowdsourced zoning in how it enforces deed restrictions. Nonetheless, crowdsourced zoning will require some adjustments on the part of developers, Houstonians, and City Government.

Developers must conquer their fear of NIMBYs, and Reach Out to Neighbors

“NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) protests are constantly in the back of developers’ minds in Houston. Will a bunch of irate neighbors come out at the last minute to derail a project? Will the City listen to the irate neighbors? Is this going to be another Ashby High Rise?

To protect themselves, developers often play their cards close to the vest. But for crowdsourced zoning to work, they need to take the opposite approach. A dialogue should be opened with the neighbors. And for best results, the dialogue should start at the point where developers would normally conduct a zoning study.

Neighbors must go from NIMBY to BTIMBY

My biggest complaint about neighborhood groups in Houston (including my own), is that we aren’t more proactive about development. We sit around and do nothing, until a developer proposes something we don’t like. Then we mobilize and try to kill the project. It’s classic NIMBYism, and even though it’s not always our fault, it needs to be reversed.

Instead of “Not In My Back Yard,” we should say “Build This In My Back Yard.” We need to decide how we want our neighborhoods developed, and we need to express those ideas in a consistent way. We need to do our own, grass roots urban planning. [i] Our plans will help developers understand our concerns. Their decisions can then be informed by what’s best for the neighborhood. We can help attract the right kind of development to our area, while preventing unwanted development.

City Government has to play a different Role

Even though they won’t have the job of enforcing a comprehensive zoning ordinance, City government plays a huge role in this. They’ll create templates for neighborhood planning efforts, meet with civic leaders, and hold workshops to help neighborhoods create their urban plans. They’ll keep a rolodex of neighborhood contacts, and provide it to developers. They ‘ll also provide developers with clear, concise lists of the many rules that Houston already has to regulate development. For the more contentious types of development – high rises, hazardous occupancies, and large residential developments – City government may conduct public hearings. In short, City government will act as go-between for neighborhoods and developers.

The pitfalls are actually benefits

Some claim that crowdsourced zoning will make it impossible for developers to build in Houston. They assume that if you give neighbors the chance to fight development, they will. But Houstonians already have the chance to oppose many types of development – and usually they don’t. In fact, crowdsourced zoning will make it easier to predict which projects will face protests. If developers follow neighborhood urban plans, they should be able to avoid NIMBY protests.

Developers may have difficulty finding neighborhoods that will accept the most undesirable forms of development – landfills and halfway houses, for example. But Houston needs an open, honest discussion of where to put these things – and average Houstonians need to be involved. There are appropriate sites in our City for unwanted, but necessary development.

Such a discussion might be included in a comprehensive zoning ordinance. But a comprehensive zoning ordinance also includes a lot of other bureaucracy. New York’s zoning ordinance is 3,000 pages long. Crowdsourced zoning could solve Houston’s ugly land-use battles, without going to such lengths. And besides, we’d have something uniquely Houstonian.

[i] The size of the urban plans might vary. They should be larger than a single subdivision, because individual subdivisions already usually have urban plans. They could be the size of a Super Neighborhood, or a Management District, or even a City Council District.

Silos: Expensive, and Devastating to Families

2011-07-09T16:22:00.000-07:00

I usually don’t write about national issues on my blog. But the more I work in the Super Neighborhood, the more I run into a fundamental flaw with government in the US: they have been much too slow to break down “silos”.

A “silo” is when one team doesn’t cooperate with other teams to reach common goals. Children’s Protective Services may rescue children from unsafe homes. But if they don’t also link families with programs that can help them foster a safe environment – they won’t be as effective.

Silos are expensive because they lead to redundancies. Children’s Protective Services may create their own programs to foster a safe environment for children – without realizing that there are established programs through other branches of government, and non-profits. All CPS really needed to do was link families with those programs.

Silos can also be devastating to families. Last month, Children’s Protective Services in Harris County found Prince and Charlomane Leonard living with their six children in a storage building. The building was small, but it was safe and structurally sound. It lacked running water, but it had electricity, a fridge, and air conditioning. The children were well cared for, and the family was hoping to move to a more suitable house when they could afford to to so. Nonetheless, CPS took the children from their parents. If CPS weren’t in a silo, they might have made a few calls, and helped the Leonards find a more suitable house. They would have saved a lot of money in legal and foster care costs; and it would have been much better for the Leonards and their kids. But it fell to community activist Quanell X to do it, and it only happened after the kids were taken away.

I usually don’t write about partisan politics either. But you can’t discuss national issues without them. Deficits are out of control at the state and federal level. Austin, and Washington are deadlocked on how to deal with it. Democrats want to raise taxes because they fear cutting social services. Republicans want to cut social services because they fear raising taxes. We might not have to make this choice if we break down silos and address the redundancies they cause. And when you consider the damage that governmental silos can do to families - it should be a no-brainer. Just ask Prince and Charlomane Leonard.

How to Spend $350 Million

2011-05-21T09:46:00.000-07:00

Forget Roads; Forget Commuter Rail – Let’s Spend it On Buses!

Tx DOT (The Texas Department of Transportation) awarded $350 million to the construction of the next phase of the Grand Parkway. David Crossley, President of Houston Tomorrow, suggested commuter rail be built along US 290, and challenged Houstonians to come up with other ways to spend the money. There will be a hearing on the plan where we can voice our opinions.

Here’s my idea: Build a series of new Transit Centers and Neighborhood Transit Centers; to serve new express bus routes that connect Houstonians to Uptown, the Texas Medical Center, and other commercial centers. We already have plenty of buses going downtown, but if you work Utpown or somewhere else, you’re out of luck. We should fix that.

The new Transit Centers could be modeled on the Downtown Transit Center, and built at Greenway Plaza, the Memorial City Mall, Greenspoint, and other major commercial centers. The flagship in the effort could be a big new Transit Center attached to The Galleria, with escalators leading up to the Mall.

Neighborhood Transit Centers could be built in dense residential neighborhoods and minor commercial centers. Bigger than a bus stop, and smaller than the Transit Centers I talked about above – Neighborhood Transit Centers would all have bike racks, a Metro Police kiosk, and (depending on need) an attached public parking garage. Ideally they should be on major street corners in the middle of neighborhoods; with easy access for the buses and for everyone who lives there. [i] And of course wherever we build a Neighborhood Transit Center, there should be a simultaneous effort to enhance walkability and bikeability by upgrading surrounding sidewalks and streets; and linking to hike and bike trails.

We could add suburban Park & Ride facilities, too. These are distinct from Neighborhood Transit Centers, by the way. Neighborhood Transit Centers are for denser neighborhoods, concentrate more on riders who arrive on foot or bicycle, and integrate more into existing neighborhoods.

These additional Park & Rides, and the new Transit Centers and Neighborhood Transit Centers would be intended to serve a network of fast, express bus routes that connect Houston’s employment and residential centers. For a preview of the buses, you can look at the new Quickline Buses running along Bellaire Boulevard.

This is no small goal. It’d cost at least $350 million to do it right. But the benefits for our City would far outweigh anything we could get from the Grand Parkway.

[i] The double benefit could be to help rehabilitate housing. The Neighborhood Transit Centers could replace portions of the City’s worst apartment complexes. City Hall could encourage developers to rehabilitate surrounding complexes using Section 42 tax credits.

Another volley in the Zoning Debate

2011-04-23T09:36:00.000-07:00

UH Law Professor John Mixon had a very well written article in the Spring edition of Cite Magazine: "Zoning Around," Cite 85, pp. 30-35. Mixon makes some good points in his article. But government power also helps poor and middle class neighborhoods. And a comprehensive zoning ordinance is not the only answer to Houston’s ugly land-use battles.

Middle-class Eastwood had their councilman’s help when they fought the Magnolia Glen Homeless Shelter. Sharpstown had the City and State’s help in their fight against the Carnival Night Club. Inwood Forest had help from the Mayor to prevent development on an old golf course. Sunnyside is one of Houston’s poorest neighborhoods. City Council actually wrote a special ordinance to help in their fight against a concrete-crushing plant.

We could fix the bad parts of the “Houston Way” with education, communication, and grass-roots urban planning. The City could educate developers and neighborhoods. Developers could be more sensitive to neighborhoods. Neighborhoods could decide what they want ahead of time, and communicate in a consistent way. This is already starting to happen. A comprehensive zoning ordinance would only get in the way of it.

A rebuttal to James Altucher

2011-03-27T08:11:00.000-07:00

James Altucher, director of Formula Financial and author of The Altucher Confidential, thinks it's a bad idea to own a house. Each of Altucher's points can, (and should) be rebutted.

A) Cash Gone - True you have to pay interest and other fees on a mortgage, and that cash is gone. But it's even worse for renting. Before I bought my home, I rented various apartments for 14 years. Over those 14 years, I paid a total of $100,000 in rent. If those had been mortgage payments, instead of rent checks, I might have built a few thousand dollars in equity. But they were rent checks, and all of that money's gone.

B) Closing costs - This is the one area where the Altucher has a good point. Closing costs can be onerous - which is why many people advise that if you'll be in a house for less than 5 years, you should rent. (The closing costs are more than the equity you would build over 5 years.)

C) Maintenance - OK, it sounds nice to live in an apartment or condo, where theoretically everything's taken care of. But you can't always trust a landlord to fix things right and in a timely fashion. The bathroom vent fan stops working - you call the office - they come by and remove the vent, leaving a gaping hole in your bathroom. Weeks, then months go by, and despite your phone calls, the hole is still there. This happened to me in one of the apartments I rented. It's the old mantra "if you want something done right, do it yourself."

D) Taxes - You CAN, in fact, deduct mortgage interest from your federal income taxes. It's not a myth. I do it every year. Furthermore, landlords pay local property taxes, and they pass those taxes on to tenants as part of their rent.

E) You're Trapped - You can't just up and decide to leave one day, because you have to sell the house. Renting isn't the panacea Altucher would have you believe - if you break your lease to leave early, it can be costly. But the real question is: is it really that bad to be locked into a house? If the neighborhood is stable and safe, and you have friends there, why are you so eager to leave? Do you really want to uproot your children and put them in a new school every few years?
(And I wonder if Altucher actually studied history before he gave his rant about how big corporations fomented the "myth of homeownership" as a way to keep workers from moving. The 19th century industrial town was built around renting. Factory owners built houses, and rented those houses out to workers as a way to take back their wages.)

F) Ugly - As in, ugly investment. Maybe houses are really ugly investments. But a house is much more than just an investment. It's a home. It is a reflection your personality and lifestyle choices. It's yours to personalize. Whether that means painting it your favorite color, or covering it in beer cans - you can't do that to a rental.

The decision to buy versus rent is a matter of personal choice. I think Altucher got caught up in the financial aspects of it (he is a financial expert after all) - but there's a lot more to the decision. It's up to each of us to educate ourselves, and make our own decisions.

Why Am I the Only Person Who’s Bothered by This?

2011-03-26T07:32:00.000-07:00

Private Universities have a State Granted Exemption to Houston’s Drainage Fee.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker is now saying that churches and schools should be exempt from the City’s new drainage fees. What nobody’s talking about, is that private universities are already exempt from the drainage fee under state law. We will all have to pay $5 a month (more if we own businesses), but Rice University, the Baylor College of Medicine, the University of St. Thomas, and Houston Baptist University won’t have to pay a cent!

These are wealthy universities. Rice has an endowment of over $4 billion; the Baylor College of Medicine has almost $1.5 billion in endowment. HBU has $85 million. The University of St. Thomas has over $50 million in endowment, and it gets the backing of the Catholic Church. None of us has that kind of money, but we’ll have to pay the drainage fee and they won’t.

Endowments aren’t the whole story. Rice’s campus is 300 acres. HBU has 100 acres. The University of St. Thomas covers 19 city blocks. The Baylor College of Medicine covers a sizable portion of the Texas Medical Center. These are big pieces of land. They get rain. They use the City’s storm sewers and other infrastructure – but they won’t have to pay for it.

Remember, these are private universities. They don’t receive direct tax subsidies. They’re not like public universities or schools, where paying the drainage fee would amount to double taxation (Negligible amounts of double taxation, perhaps, but double taxation nonetheless.)

This strikes me as terribly unfair. We really should eliminate the private university exemption. If that doesn’t happen, then maybe City Hall could convince the leaders of these institutions to voluntarily pay the fees. I’m shocked that nobody else seems to be as bothered by it as I am.

Confusion on Both Sides

2011-03-13T13:17:00.001-07:00

Why there are such bad fights over Low Income Housing in Houston

Last year, when a developer from North Carolina tried to build Tax Credit housing in Katy, I wrote about the need to use tax credits to fix existing housing rather than build new. It’s something I stand by, and we’re starting to see some movement in using tax credits to fix bad apartments here in Braeburn. But they’re at it again out in Katy. This time the company is from Indiana, but their proposal is basically the same as the one last year.

It can be really confusing for neighbors to understand what developers are doing. There are many different programs and types of housing for the poor. Usually termed "affordable housing," this can include:

- Public housing, which is owned and run by local governments with federal and sometimes state subsidies.

- Slums, which are privately owned and don’t benefit from tax subsidies or oversight, other than local building codes. These actually represent most of the affordable housing here in Houston.

- Tax Credit housing, (also known as “Low Income Housing.”) built by private developers using tax credits authorized by the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) from 1986. (This is also sometimes known as “Section 42 Housing.”) Basically, developers get breaks on their taxes if they set aside a certain number of apartments at below market rates, expressly for people making less than the area median income.

(You’ll notice I didn’t include “Section 8 housing”. Section 8 is a federal voucher program that fills the gap between local market rents, and what poor people can afford. It’s not actually a type of housing.)

Developers are confused too. When we neighbors fight their proposals, they get frustrated and call us names. But Houstonians aren’t racists. We don’t hate poor people. Our “NIMBYism” comes from the fact that we’ve borne the brunt of bad development for the past 40 years.

The problem started in the 1970s. Lots of people got very rich in that decade, developing apartments in Houston’s suburbs. Neighborhoods were fundamentally changed - at first for the better. Young professionals moved into the apartments, enjoying tennis courts, swimming pools, gyms, even night clubs and movie theaters. Crime rates remained steady. Real estate prices in neighborhoods near apartments actually went up in the 1970s.

Then came the oil-bust of the 1980s. Houston’s economy was hit especially hard. The apartment bubble of the 1970s, burst. One-by-one, apartment complexes fell into foreclosure and started to deteriorate. The deterioration continued through the 1980s and 1990s. Crime rates spiraled higher at apartments. Living conditions for tenants got worse. Property values stagnated around apartments.

Tropical Storm Allison flooded some apartments in 2001. More apartments were damaged during Hurricane Ike in 2008. The credit crisis made it impossible for landlords to fix their properties, so properties went from economically depressed, to completely derelict.

Now, whenever someone proposes affordable housing, we Houstonians immediately think “derelict property.” Of course it's not right to think this way. Low income housing can contribute to our neighborhoods if it is well-designed and well managed; and if it takes the place of slums or derelict property. But it's a hard-sell because of history. I just hope we can move past the confusion, and developers and neighbors can start working together to get the right investment, in the right locations.

Architects need to Tread Lightly on "BIM" - But Defiinitely Go There.

2011-02-26T08:25:00.000-08:00

This is unique to my Civic Architect Blog in that it doesn’t directly affect neighborhoods. It is more related to my profession as an architect, and the kind of software that we’re starting to use: “Building Information Modelling” (or “BIM”). This came about because a friend of mine, a civic-minded engineer, co-authored “Visualize, Simulate, Fabricate” in Cite Magazine 87.

I’m not a member of the “BIM sucks” school of architects. BIM is more attuned than CAD to how architects should think – in 3 dimensions. BIM links design, visualization, and documentation. It promises to be hugely beneficial to the profession, and besides, it’s fun to use. But there are very real risks and concerns that firms must be aware of, before they dive head first into BIM.

BIM won’t automatically detail everything correctly. Architects still need to review and redline their drawings. In fact, picking up redlines becomes more difficult because you can’t just change a detail to make it right, and coordinate the plans and elevations later. Details, plans, and elevations are interrelated, so it is painfully obvious if something’s not coordinated.
Until BIM becomes the industry wide standard, firms will face a learning curve on it. New employees may not know BIM when they start with the firm. It’s a bad idea to throw someone who doesn’t know BIM into a huge, complex, half-finished project in BIM. It’s not fair to the employee or the others on the team; and more importantly it puts the project at risk. This has to be taken into account in project-staffing decisions.
It is of utmost importance to find the right person to manage a firm’s BIM software. BIM software is incredibly complex, and it needs to be set up properly or it won’t work. Small firms need to contract-out with skilled BIM managers. Mid-sized firms need to make sure they always have someone on staff who really knows what they’re doing. Large firms need to establish BIM departments, with two or three people who know the software in-and-out.
BIM is not a panacea. I keep asking “so, will BIM generate boilerplate specifications based on what I put in my model?” The answer I keep getting is ‘ummm, no.’ This is a huge part of the contract documents for a project, that BIM doesn’t do. Firms will still need to put together binders of cut-sheets, and write their project manuals in a word-processor.

Of course there are many virtues to BIM. I don’t think anyone denies those. Firms absolutely should move towards BIM, but I’m getting tired of articles like “Visualize, Simulate, Fabricate” that extol the virtues of BIM, without acknowledging the risks.

In closing I will apologize to my neighbors and friends who aren’t architects, but read this blog. This post is full of shop talk. I’ll make up for it later – I promise.

Budgets and Magnets - My Letter to HISD Board Member Mike Lunceford

2011-01-26T21:23:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Lunceford:

In my capacity as Braeburn Super Neighborhood President, I attended both the Budget Conversation and the Magnet Discussion at Bellaire High School. I will, of course, write to my State Legislator and Senator to ask them not to cut school funding. But frankly I have much more faith in HISD than I do in anyone up in Austin. That’s why I’m writing to you first.

Allow me to reiterate what I said at the Magnet Discussion. School budgets are not a zero-sum game. Investment in schools pays off in increased property values around those schools. Increased property values mean more tax revenue for those schools. It might be tempting to slash budgets now. We may have no choice. But if it’s done in such a way that kills schools, it will actually mean less revenue in the long run.

According to the Budget Conversation, magnet funding is only 1% of HISD’s budget. Slashing magnets won’t solve HISD’s budget problems; and could in fact cost more money in the long run. It would be smarter to redouble cuts elsewhere in the budget, and increase funding to the magnets instead of cutting it.

Where should HISD cut? How could HISD raise more money? Maybe HISD could after alumni and parent donations, like private schools do. (There is a vast, untapped pool of HISD grads, parents, and concerned Houstonians who can help.) There are surely other, better ideas. Now is the time for creativity, and doing more with less. Our President summed it up best in his State of the Union Address: “we need to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world.”

Thank you for your consideration, and I am very happy that you were at the Magnet Discussion at Bellaire High School.

Kindest regards,

The Civic Architect

“Housing First” Goes to Los Angeles

2011-01-23T08:34:00.000-08:00

A few months ago I wrote about the benefits of the “Housing First” concept for providing homeless services. The idea is that housing should be the first step in turning lives around. A stable apartment becomes an anchor that allows the homeless to treat addiction or mental illness, gain skills, and eventually find jobs. Now the method is being used in Los Angeles . The LA program is just for Veterans, but it’s a good place to start. And the numbers show that it’s working, despite critics.

As I pointed out in my original post, the “Housing First” model is not only a better way to provide services to the homeless; it could be hugely beneficial for neighborhoods. Rather than taking the homeless in for a few hours and then releasing them back onto the streets; “Housing First” will provide them with long-term homes along with intensive treatment and counseling. Neighbors can expect fewer problems related to the homeless.

Houston’s charities haven’t quite gotten to this level yet. Christian rapper Tre9 (whose real name is Bobby Herring) runs the Feed A Friend ministries in downtown Houston. The effort is all about food and outreach. They don’t do housing. The Beacon provides similar services on a larger scale – but they also do not provide housing. The Housing Corporation of Houston has the right idea about housing, but they don’t provide the breadth of services that the others do. (They also generally build in poor neighborhoods, and they don’t always reach out to those neighborhoods, but that’s a different story).

There is certainly a need for more housing for the homeless in Houston. Star of Hope’s downtown shelter regularly has people sleeping on the floor in their cafeteria. And housing is integral to the rebuilding of lives. If they can do it in Los Angeles; there’s no reason we can’t do it here in Houston. Hopefully we’ll see Houston’s first “housing first” project soon.

Urban Science – Maybe we can Start Getting it Right

2010-12-19T19:14:00.000-08:00

There was a line at the beginning of the movie Pi:

“1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.”

The New York Times carried an article about the work of Theoretical Physicist Geoffrey West – who pointed out the mathematical patterns at work in cities. West turned those patterns into a set of equations – a study that he calls Urban Science.

Urban Science is not Urban Theory. Urban Theory is an agglomeration of social theories that relate to cities. Urban Science uses mathematics to find the underlying forces that shape cities. It could become a hugely important field of study. These are the forces that we work with (or against) when we’re trying to improve cities and neighborhoods. We may use the tools and lessons we’ve learned from Urban Theory , but if we don’t understand the underlying forces, we’re shooting in the dark.

If there’s any doubt that we’ve been shooting in the dark: one has only to look at utopias gone terribly wrong. Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. Pruitt-Igoe in Saint Louis. These projects were based on cutting edge social theories of their time. But they were built without an understanding of the forces behind the problems they were meant to fix. As a result they became urban nightmares. One can’t help but wonder – will the New Urbanism suffer the same fate? It, too, was based in Urban Theory rather than Urban Science.

As an architect I may be the last one you’d expect to follow Geoffrey West. According to the New York Times, he has “little patience for the unconstrained speculations of architects.” But I’ve worked with neighborhoods. People know when there’s something wrong in their neighborhood – but they usually can’t put their fingers on why. Urban Science can give us answers. More importantly, once we’ve analyzed the underlying forces that shape cities – we can fix urban problems and know that we’re getting it right.

Down With HOAs – Long Live Civic Associations

2010-12-04T21:21:00.001-08:00

Homeowners Associations need to be taken down a notch in Texas. As a Civic Association officer, I might be the last one you’d expect to say it, but I am a homeowner, too. And I’m as angry as the next guy at some of the things HOAs do. A woman in Northwest Houston bought her home at auction, only to face eviction when it was found that the Stone Creek Homeowners Association had wrongly foreclosed on the house. And we all know the story of Weinonah Blevins: the 80 year old widow who lost her home because she missed $800 in HOA fees; and wound up fighting a two-year legal battle to get it back.

Texas Law § 204.004 lumps them together, but in practice Homeowners Associations and Civic Associations are two totally different things. HOAs are often in newer suburbs. Civic Associations tend to be in older developments. HOAs have mandatory fees and membership, and they can levy fines and foreclose on your house if you don’t pay. Civic Association fees and membership are often voluntary, and we usually do not have the power to levy fines or foreclose on your house. HOAs often govern with an iron-fist, dictating things like the color of your garage doors. Civic Associations typically take a much more laissez-faire approach. HOAs hire professional services to maintain streets or even pick up trash. Civic Associations rely on the City or County to do these things – which they’re supposed to do anyway.

The HOA Reform Coalition held a rally in Houston, Texas. You can read their platform here. The Texas Homeowners for HOA Reform also has a set of goals. If they got their wishes, HOAs would start to look and act a lot like Civic Associations. That would be to everyone’s benefit, and I support both of them.

A Follow Up on Crime in the Urban Discourse

2010-12-01T18:48:00.000-08:00

A few months ago, I wrote about how crime concerns have been lost in the urban discourse. Urbanists aren’t studying crime and neighborhood safety the way they’re studying things like transit, walkability, and sustainability.

Relocation.com published a study that shows just how important neighborhood safety is. They surveyed about 1,500 people. Over half (55%) said that a neighborhood’s safety rating was extremely important in choosing where to live. A whopping 92% put neighborhood safety in the top two concerns; the next closest in this category was proximity to shopping, at 60%.

As I’ve said before, it’s not enough for a neighborhood to be safe; it has to feel safe. 75% of respondents said that they would use a neighborhood’s general appearance to judge how safe it is. 75% of respondents also said that they would use word of mouth to judge how safe a neighborhood is. In other words, actual crime rates aren’t as important as the perception of crime.

I should thank Chronicle writer Nancy Sarnoff for bringing up this study in her blog. But she, too, wrote about house sizes rather than neighborhood safety. Let me once again call on my fellow architects and urbanists to revisit “Defensible Space” and the writings of Jane Jacobs. Let’s give neighborhood safety and crime their fair place in our discussions about cities.

Debunking the Myths about Proposition 1

2010-10-18T20:22:00.000-07:00

If you live in Houston, you’ve probably heard about Proposition 1 – a piece of Municipal legislation on the November 8 ballot that would create a dedicated fund for the repair of Houston’s infrastructure. I moved here in 1998, and I’ve yet to see a more desperately needed piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, a groundswell of opposition has formed to Proposition 1, and they’re hard at work spreading misinformation about it. As a supporter, I feel it is my duty to correct them.

Myth # 1: Proposition 1 is just about drainage. Actually, Proposition 1 is about ALL infrastructure under the City’s control. That includes storm sewers, and ROADS. Our City is riddled with pot holes that do severe damage to vehicles.

I’ll pause and let the first myth sink in, because it really is the most important – and the one everyone overlooks (including four members of City Council). Whenever you drive over a pot hole or have to replace the shocks in your car, think about Proposition 1 and how nice it’d be if we could FIX HOUSTON’S ROADS.

Myth # 2: Proposition 1 is a tax. In fact, Proposition 1 is an assessment on impervious cover. You might own ten acres on the outskirts of Houston, but you’ll only pay for the part that’s paved over. The reason for this is that impervious cover contributes to flooding, and also requires curb-cuts for road access to your property.

Myth # 3: We already pay a tax for the Harris County Flood Control District; we shouldn’t have to pay an assessment for the same thing. Harris County Flood Control handles big, regional stormwater detention and drainage facilities. But those big facilities are fed by a network of smaller, City owned storm sewers, open ditches and culverts. The City does an abysmal job at maintaining these facilities – and usually their excuse is that they don’t have the money. Proposition 1 would take away that excuse.

Myth # 4: Proposition 1 will place undue burden on the poor. The fees are estimated at only $5 per month for an average house. Most of us spend more on coffee in a week. For commercial properties, it’s $92 per acre of impervious cover per month – less than the cost of printing up flyers for advertisement. Bear in mind that most small businesses are on far less than an acre of land.

Myth #5: The Mayor is behind Proposition 1. Actually Proposition 1 was spearheaded by City Councilman Stephen Costello and a non-profit group called Renew Houston. Our Mayor supports Proposition 1, but it wasn’t her idea.

Myth #6: Renew Houston is just a bunch of engineers who want money. It's true that Renew Houston was formed by engineers, but that's because engineers can see the full extent of the problem. Engineers understand the flood control and transportation needs of our City.

I don’t work for Renew Houston or Stephen Costello’s office. I am not being paid at all for writing this. I actually wish Proposition 1 weren’t necessary. But we can’t rely on the general fund to pay for road and drainage repairs. It's too easy for City Hall to raid the general fund for other things. We need a special fund that they can only use for roads and drainage, and that's exactly what Proposition 1 will provide.

The Condo Complex Loophole: What it is, and why it needs to be closed.

2010-10-02T17:51:00.000-07:00

People don’t realize it, but some of the worst “apartments” in Houston are actually condominiums. The infamous Candlelight Trails complex was condominiums; and there are countless others across the City.

If you’re familiar with how the City enforces its codes, this should come as no surprise. An apartment complex is a single property. If the property has code violations or other problems, there’s only one owner to go after. And go after them Houston has. They've used a combination of sticks and carrots to change apartment complexes. They've got a long way to go, but the improvements are starting to be seen.

In a condo complex, each unit is a separate property, and may have a separate owner. If there are problems, each of those owners has to be contacted. They all must agree on any repairs to be made. And if the complex needs to be condemned - as was the case at the Candlelight Trails - the City needs to sue each of the owners individually. It’s much more time consuming for the City, and expensive for the taxpayer.

I call it the Condo Complex Loophole, and slum lords use it to their advantage. They buy a controlling portion of a condo complex, and then rent them out to unsuspecting tenants. It’s a devilish way of avoiding City enforcement, and it can really hurt innocent owners. At the Candlelight Trails, a widowed mother of three was hit with $200,000 in legal fees - because of a Dallas based slum lord who took advantage of the Condo Complex Loophole.

Hopefully the City will do something to close the Condo Complex Loophole. It's hard to tell what they can do - they can't outlaw condominiums or sue owners without contacting them. But the Condo Complex Loophole protects slum lords. It’s unfair to neighbors, it’s unfair to tenants, and it’s unfair to honest owners.