73 replies to this topic

[Urbndwlr]

There have been MANY recent projects (mostly multifamily but some infill commercial as well) that have been rejected primarily over either neighborhood, zoning commission, or board of adjustment concern over "too much density".  Typically the logic includes "will cause too much traffic". 

 

This has frustrated me for many years as someone who cares about Fort Worth's future and believes higher density developments in infill and connected places should be allowed and encouraged, as they can be very beneficial to our city.  

 

What are the true underlying causes for this opposition? 

 

Is it lack of familiarity and education about higher density and how that can be really good?

Is this just a difference in visions of the future between those who prefer more dense, walkable places and those who prefer a lower density city/ districts?

Is it concern over multifamily buildings not being built to last?

 

What action should be taken in the short term, medium term to improve the status quo (this assumes you agree that the current situation is not optimal)?

 

[roverone]

I think there is another less spoken concern that relates to us not having very much higher density living, and that is that people still associate higher density with a more transient population, and less sense of ownership, and therefore more possibility of crime.  They disguise that with "traffic".

 

Of course it is not proper thinking, but I believe that thinking is a component of the opposition.

 

It doesn't help when it is not high quality construction and their is low confidence that it will be well maintained, improved even.  If someone is going to build something, and then let it wear down over time, and then be able to ask lower rents, and then attract more transient renters, I think this troubles people who are more familiar with suburban single-family living.

[Austin55]

Skip to 3:22:00 in the latest zoning meeting to get an idea of how it typically goes.

http://fortworthgov....p?publish_id=19

[Urbndwlr]

Skip to 3:22:00 in the latest zoning meeting to get an idea of how it typically goes.

http://fortworthgov....p?publish_id=19

How? it seem to launch "live" city TV.

[Austin55]

On the right side you can select the most recent Zoning meeting.

[johnfwd]

Something to think about is that opposition is usually generated when opponents believe they will get a fair hearing from the zoning commission and/or the city council, instead of not being heeded at all.  What I believe happens when a city turns a blind eye to opposition all or most of the time is that, eventually, opponents give up and don't bother to show up.  Because Fort Worth's governing bodies believe in "managed growth," they will be more receptive to the NIMBYs, etc.

[Urbndwlr]

Something to think about is that opposition is usually generated when opponents believe they will get a fair hearing from the zoning commission and/or the city council, instead of not being heeded at all.  What I believe happens when a city turns a blind eye to opposition all or most of the time is that, eventually, opponents give up and don't bother to show up.  Because Fort Worth's governing bodies believe in "managed growth," they will be more receptive to the NIMBYs, etc.

I do understand there are cases where the Zoning Commission or City Council votes against what the neighborhood reps or speakers ask for. 

And I know it is virtually impossible to make everyone happy. 

 

What I see on a regular basis is Neighborhood Associations led by individuals who know zero about urban planning and development, who often adhere to a 1960s era philosophy something like:

• the only desirable neighborhood design is one with single family, detached homes, that are totally sealed off from any commercial buildings,
• desirable commercial environments are ones (above all else) where parking convenience and availability is #1 priority. 
• Fort Worth streets should have the same traffic volumes as they did in the 1960s (when many NH reps learned to drive)  
• people who walk places (other than for exercise) are suspicious.  Many Neighborhood Association leaders (most I've met and talked to) appear to have never lived in an urban neighborhood where pedestrians are abundant so they don't really understand how it works. 
• Above all:  if it is something we don't fully understand, we're going to assume the worst, so we're going to oppose it. 

[JBB]

I agree with all of that.  Add in "density and public transportation bring in crime and vagrancy" and you can clear your bingo card.

[Austin55]

Or changing the neighborhood character. Even more progressive neighborhoods like Fairmount are afraid of losing what they are. 

[John T Roberts]

Fairmount is a little bit different situation.  It is legally protected by a City of Fort Worth Historic District and is also in a National Register Historic District.  From what I can remember, the boundaries on the edges were carved away by developers which created a jagged boundary line on 8th Ave., Magnolia, and Hemphill.  New development going in on an undesignated piece of property with a designated piece of property right next door can be problematic and incompatible.  Historic Districts were designed to protect the historic structures and to keep an area's character in place.

[JBB]

I totally agree with that.  I think neighborhoods like Fairmount being worried about what happens around them bring up legitimate concerns.  What I would say about much of the above is that you see this sort of opposition in neighborhoods bordering clearly defined commercial corridors or even more in the suburbs. 

[johnfwd]

I totally agree with that.  I think neighborhoods like Fairmount being worried about what happens around them bring up legitimate concerns.  What I would say about much of the above is that you see this sort of opposition in neighborhoods bordering clearly defined commercial corridors or even more in the suburbs. 

Yes, the borderline areas risk gradual commercial encroachment. It's always been up to city planners to decide whether zoning adjustments should be made whenever the characteristics of a neighborhood appear to be evolving one way or other.

 

I think the winning scenario in Fort Worth has been the total revival of an old neighborhood going to pot, like Linwood.  I didn't shed a tear when those old earthquake-damaged houses were bulldozed.  And some neighborhoods east of I-35 should be bulldozed for new development, as well (I know there's a separate thread on next area to be revitalized).  Low-income inhabitants being deprived of substandard housing, notwithstanding.  I think there should be no "assault on density" argument when it comes to mixed-used projects replacing run-down neighborhoods.

[Urbndwlr]

I think there will always be differences in visions for the future.  What concerns me is that it seems a large % of outspoken individuals (many viewed as speaking for their entire neighborhood b/c they are the most vocal & visible people) are not well informed enough.  IMO it is an information or education gap.  Not academic education but rather education about urban and city planning and realities of development. 

 

Agreed that it is concerning when Fairmount or other residential NHs such as Fairmount seek to effectively expand the density limitations to areas outside of their NH boundaries.  The Magnolia Hotel is an example.  I couldn't believe there was NH opposition over that based on density.  It is something like a 4-5 story building and IMO fit perfectly into the scale of Magnolia Ave.

 

So how do we as a community, improve the awareness/education level (on this topic) among Fort Worth citizens so that a far greater % of our population is at least generally familiar with how urban urban districts, walkable places, etc, can work well? 

[renamerusk]

 When a development is proposed within the interior and upon a section of a street that is within a district, of a district, it is understandable that a NH would and should have some concerns.

 

On the flip side, a street that forms a boundary of a district should not be of such concern for the district, except that for the seeing of appropriate buffering.  Streets like Hemphill,Magnolia, Rosedale, White Settlement, University, Lancaster are major arterial streets and are designated as commercial routes.

 

One particular instance was the uproar over developing along Montgomery; Montgomery serves as the primary connector to DA, and the C/EX District.  Under no circumstances should AHNH be allowed to control what is constructed along Montgomery between Lancaster and West Freeway.

 

There ought to be compromise, because potential projects should not be DOA.

[Austin55]

Agreed that it is concerning when Fairmount or other residential NHs such as Fairmount seek to effectively expand the density limitations to areas outside of their NH boundaries.  The Magnolia Hotel is an example.  I couldn't believe there was NH opposition over that based on density.  It is something like a 4-5 story building and IMO fit perfectly into the scale of Magnolia Ave.

 

The 701 Magnolia project is the latest to cause a riff.

[Urbndwlr]

 When a development is proposed within the interior and upon a section of a street that is within a district, of a district, it is understandable that a NH would and should have some concerns.

 

On the flip side, a street that forms a boundary of a district should not be of such concern for the district, except that for the seeing of appropriate buffering.  Streets like Hemphill,Magnolia, Rosedale, White Settlement, University, Lancaster are major arterial streets and are designated as commercial routes.

 

One particular instance was the uproar over developing along Montgomery; Montgomery serves as the primary connector to DA, and the C/EX District.  Under no circumstances should AHNH be allowed to control what is constructed along Montgomery between Lancaster and West Freeway.

 

There ought to be compromise, because potential projects should not be DOA.

I think we need to rethink the concept of having to "buffer" single family residential homes from commercial uses.  It implies that residential and commercial uses should be separated, which is an outdated idea that leads to disconnected, more auto-dependent places.

 

100% agree with you about Montgomery Street.  Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association's "leadership" has demonstrated time and time again that they are irrational and are damaging to quality progress around the AH neighborhood.  Just try to build a textbook New Urbanism commercial building on the edges of AHNA.  You could expect a full-scale war from them.  They would spread deeply suspicious information about the developer's intention and claim the building requires a football field of parking (best case scenario).  The only reason Jonathan Morris was successful getting the Drover Hotel through them is because 1) he lives in the neighborhood and had direct access to residents, and 2) has a marketing background and is extremely good at communications with the public.  IMO that hotel case revealed the AHNA as foaming-at-the-mouth people opposed to virtually everything (PAVEs). 

 

I cant believe someone has an issue with the proposed development at Hemphill & Magnolia - please tell me its not "too tall".  It's THREE stories tall. 

[Doohickie]

Low-income inhabitants being deprived of substandard housing, notwithstanding.  I think there should be no "assault on density" argument when it comes to mixed-used projects replacing run-down neighborhoods.

This is the evil of gentrification in two sentences.

[renamerusk]

 

 When a development is proposed within the interior and upon a section of a street that is within a district, of a district, it is understandable that a NH would and should have some concerns....On the flip side, a street that forms a boundary of a district should not be of such concern for the district, except that for the seeing of appropriate buffering.....

 

I think we need to rethink the concept of having to "buffer" single family residential homes from commercial uses.  It implies that residential and commercial uses should be separated, which is an outdated idea that leads to disconnected, more auto-dependent places.

 

A buffer can be a natural vegetated linear space and one that is walkable and penetrable.  It might involve purchasing property which backs up to a street like Magnolia, Montgomery, etc.
 

[roverone]

I think it is unrealistic to not have at least some kind of gradual height guidelines as there is a transition from typical single family to other uses, and perhaps there is such a thing.

 

It is not all just about density: people get equally upset about a giant tall single family house going in right next door where there was formerly a single story house.

 

But as just mentioned, things like like linear parks with trees can restore the sense of privacy without blocking off access.

 

I'd be surprised if every homeowner doesn't have some kind of expectations and some kind of diagonal distance / height ratio that when exceeded would make them uncomfortable.

[Urbndwlr]

I agree that there can be an awkwardness created when a super tall building sits immediately next to a 1-2 story house.  The zoning ordinance does have provisions - think called transitional planes or something.  Basically a maximum slope from the existing lower building to the newer tall building. 

 

The "buffer yards" usually required are meaningless strips of vegetation and a wooden fence.  A solid barrier is required.

If you read the ordinance (I admit I've been so curious I've labored through the painful document over the years), you'll notice that it treats commercial properties like the wolf and single family residential like the innocent victim.  It does not appear to even contemplate that it is totally possible to have the two right next to each other and have a very graceful coexistence.  There are very few local examples of this, I'm sure in large part because it is forbidden in the ordinance to put them that close to each other, unless in a MU or form based code district. 

 

I think: what if this were my house?  True, I would NOT want my house to be next door to a suburban pad site.  Not sure a 10' strip of grass and pine fence would help much though.  I would, however, love to be next door to a commercial building with ground floor shop or office space, built right up to the sidewalk, with parking located behind the building.  

[Fort Worthology]

 

If you read the ordinance (I admit I've been so curious I've labored through the painful document over the years), you'll notice that it treats commercial properties like the wolf and single family residential like the innocent victim.  It does not appear to even contemplate that it is totally possible to have the two right next to each other and have a very graceful coexistence.  There are very few local examples of this, I'm sure in large part because it is forbidden in the ordinance to put them that close to each other, unless in a MU or form based code district. 

 

This is very true - something I tried to do for my whole run of writing in FW was to at least show people there are other ways of doing things since FW in many cases has very few surviving or good examples of this sort of thing. When one looks outside of the Metroplex one can find *massive* varieties of blending different types of uses in close proximity.

 

(This obviously isn't the norm in a lot of places but I've always loved this funky little arrangement up here.)

 

[johnfwd]

 

 

If you read the ordinance (I admit I've been so curious I've labored through the painful document over the years), you'll notice that it treats commercial properties like the wolf and single family residential like the innocent victim.  It does not appear to even contemplate that it is totally possible to have the two right next to each other and have a very graceful coexistence.  There are very few local examples of this, I'm sure in large part because it is forbidden in the ordinance to put them that close to each other, unless in a MU or form based code district. 

 

This is very true - something I tried to do for my whole run of writing in FW was to at least show people there are other ways of doing things since FW in many cases has very few surviving or good examples of this sort of thing. When one looks outside of the Metroplex one can find *massive* varieties of blending different types of uses in close proximity.

 

(This obviously isn't the norm in a lot of places but I've always loved this funky little arrangement up here.)

 

 

Never been there, but interesting to visit.  I take it this is a combination restaurant and residence.  Is this common in Portland?  Don't they have zoning laws that prohibit a restaurant or other commercial retail in a predominantly residential neighborhood, which is what this appears to be?  I like economic growth but I don't think I would like to see this kind of blending as a norm in Fort Worth neighborhoods.

[rriojas71]

 

 

 

If you read the ordinance (I admit I've been so curious I've labored through the painful document over the years), you'll notice that it treats commercial properties like the wolf and single family residential like the innocent victim.  It does not appear to even contemplate that it is totally possible to have the two right next to each other and have a very graceful coexistence.  There are very few local examples of this, I'm sure in large part because it is forbidden in the ordinance to put them that close to each other, unless in a MU or form based code district. 

 

This is very true - something I tried to do for my whole run of writing in FW was to at least show people there are other ways of doing things since FW in many cases has very few surviving or good examples of this sort of thing. When one looks outside of the Metroplex one can find *massive* varieties of blending different types of uses in close proximity.

 

(This obviously isn't the norm in a lot of places but I've always loved this funky little arrangement up here.)

 

 

Never been there, but interesting to visit.  I take it this is a combination restaurant and residence.  Is this common in Portland?  Don't they have zoning laws that prohibit a restaurant or other commercial retail in a predominantly residential neighborhood, which is what this appears to be?  I like economic growth but I don't think I would like to see this kind of blending as a norm in Fort Worth neighborhoods.

 

This is very common in SF.  Several of the Victorian houses in or near commercial areas look exactly like this, maybe it is a West Coast thing.  However, I lived in Seattle too but don't recall seeing something like this very often.

[Fort Worthology]

Never been there, but interesting to visit.  I take it this is a combination restaurant and residence.  Is this common in Portland?  Don't they have zoning laws that prohibit a restaurant or other commercial retail in a predominantly residential neighborhood, which is what this appears to be?  I like economic growth but I don't think I would like to see this kind of blending as a norm in Fort Worth neighborhoods.

 

 

Out of curiosity - why? Whether this particular form or just this mixing of residential and commercial.

 

Nobody would be saying this needs to happen every block but what's the problem with this proximity of use interspersed occasionally? It's not *that* far off from existing historic commercial buildings already in the middle of neighborhoods like Fairmount (whether they are used for that purpose or not in the present day, they were at one point, even if today's residents would fight their existence).

 

This particular arrangement is not common but it happens sometimes - there are other examples of it on this particular street. Portland zoning has a mixture of residential, commercial, mixed-use, neighborhood commercial, etc. that is woven together. This street passes through multiple residential areas that are mostly but not entirely residential, but itself features a blend of historic single-family homes, mixed-use structures, small commercial buildings, etc.

 

These are some of the neighboring blocks around this pub.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: for the deeply nerdy amongst us, this is the zoning map for this particular area of the city:

 

[JBB]

Stop trying to New York our Fort Worth!

[johnfwd]

As I understand the concept of urban management, zoning laws and subdivision regulations are enforced primarily to preserve property values.  A commercial establishment being proposed adjunct to a predominantly residential neighborhood is an illustrative example.  Issues of more traffic and greater crime potential, even an adverse effect on the aesthetic quality of the environs, are tangential to the main argument:  This may affect property values in a negative way.  And the NIMBY's are afraid of commercial encroachment that, if not stopped, will eventually ruin a neighborhood.

 

I don't care much for having a retail business right inside a residential neighborhood, as illustrative in some of the photos posted above.  A zoning law enforcement policy that lets a commercial establishment in the middle of a residential neighborhood is a risky proposition.  If one business is allowed, it tends to weaken enforcement.  Which may make it more difficult for the city to deny the next business's proposed project in that particular neighborhood or even in other residential areas.

 

If you allow a restaurant to locate in a predominately residential neighborhood, what's to stop an auto repair shop from locating there, as well?  In other thread, I complained that the people living next door to me are surreptitiously operating an auto repair shop. Four or five autos at a time, one even tried to block my driveway.   I called code compliance, but the investigator was told by them they're repairing cars for their relatives.  Sure! Right!  No self-regulation in my neighborhood, no HOA and the NA doesn't really care.

 

I realize a city planning department and zoning commission make distinctions as to types of businesses allowed in an area.  A zoning classification may allow a medical office but not a car wash.  I think that's splitting hairs, but that's my opinion,  It certainly makes urban growth a tough thing to manage. 

[txbornviking]

 

Never been there, but interesting to visit.  I take it this is a combination restaurant and residence.  Is this common in Portland?  Don't they have zoning laws that prohibit a restaurant or other commercial retail in a predominantly residential neighborhood, which is what this appears to be?  I like economic growth but I don't think I would like to see this kind of blending as a norm in Fort Worth neighborhoods.

 

 

Out of curiosity - why? Whether this particular form or just this mixing of residential and commercial.

 

Nobody would be saying this needs to happen every block but what's the problem with this proximity of use interspersed occasionally? It's not *that* far off from existing historic commercial buildings already in the middle of neighborhoods like Fairmount (whether they are used for that purpose or not in the present day, they were at one point, even if today's residents would fight their existence).

 

This particular arrangement is not common but it happens sometimes - there are other examples of it on this particular street. Portland zoning has a mixture of residential, commercial, mixed-use, neighborhood commercial, etc. that is woven together. This street passes through multiple residential areas that are mostly but not entirely residential, but itself features a blend of historic single-family homes, mixed-use structures, small commercial buildings, etc.

 

These are some of the neighboring blocks around this pub.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: for the deeply nerdy amongst us, this is the zoning map for this particular area of the city:

 

 

 

Looks like a wonderful neighborhood to call home and I really appreciate you sharing the zoning map.

 

I used to live in New Orleans and having bars and restaurants and small shops interspersed throughout various neighborhoods is quite common there too. They also have quite a few successful commercial retail corridors that connect various neighborhoods (think something the length of Camp Bowie but with the scale of Magnolia), all of which are things, that IMO, our city is all the poorer for not having and not actively encouraging.

[Jeriat]

Stop trying to New York our Fort Worth!

 

I swear, I get more and more annoyed by that saying every single day, even when I don't actually hear it. 

Just as bad as "Don't Dallas my Fort Worth." 

[renamerusk]

Yeah, the saying is more confusing than it is enlightening for me. . 

[rriojas71]

Stop trying to New York our Fort Worth!

No need to worry... Fort Worth has many many many... many years before it would even slightly resemble about 10 blocks of New York.  It would probably begin after we received some sort of Public Light Rail and that reality is so far off that I think it really is a moot point to think FW would ever accomplish a goal of resembling NY.   We need to strive for much more manageable things to resemble... like Austin.  We could probably accomplish something like that in about 30-40 years.

[JBB]

I know. It sucks when the sarcasm font does not do the job.

[Jeriat]

 

Stop trying to New York our Fort Worth!

No need to worry... Fort Worth has many many many... many years before it would even slightly resemble about 10 blocks of New York.  It would probably begin after we received some sort of Public Light Rail and that reality is so far off that I think it really is a moot point to think FW would ever accomplish a goal of resembling NY.   We need to strive for much more manageable things to resemble... like Austin.  We could probably accomplish something like that in about 30-40 years.

 

 

I was in Austin this past weekend.

What I felt is that, outside of downtown of course, Austin felt just like Fort Worth in many ways... it even felt smaller while I was riding through a few neighborhoods.

[Austin55]

An affordable project in Linwood was just denied a zoning change in City Council. Density and traffic were cited concerns.

https://www.google.c...e240403521.html

[Volare]

...  Not academic education but rather education about urban and city planning and realities of development. ...

 

If we look at the City Council, we see exactly one person with this type of education. There's little doubt how we ended up where we are now.

[rriojas71]

An affordable project in Linwood was just denied a zoning change in City Council. Density and traffic were cited concerns.

https://www.google.c...e240403521.html

I almost wanted to laugh when they said White Settlement Road will be opened by the end of the year, but I digress.  I think if this was a high end development then we wouldn't even be discussing this.  It would have passed with little to no resistance.

 

I do agree with building Park Tower which I am all for, although I'm not a huge fan of the design, but let's be honest he is just trying to say that an affordable housing project would be better "across the river".  I don't think it would have an economic impact on the Northside like he is claiming.  If it did it would be very minimal because technically it is not in the Northside but it is near the extreme SW corner.

[renamerusk]

Where might had been the location of this project?

[txbornviking]

thinking roughly on the value and benefits of density today I looked up a few stray numbers as "comparison"

 

Paris - 54,000(!) people per square mile

London - 15,000 people per square mile

Barcelona - 11,000 people per square mile

Helsinki - 8500 people per square mile

Berlin - 6500 people per square mile

 

Considering Ft. Worth has about 900k folks, were Ft Worth to have the same population over a similar density it would essentially be a circle who's diameter would be defined by

 

Paris -  Stockyards to JPS & FW Zoo to Texas Wesleyan 

London -  Meacham to Berry St & Gateway Park to Uncle Julios (I30/Camp Bowie)

Barcelona - Meacham to Berry St  & Gateway Park to Ridglea Country Club

Helsinki - Meacham to La Gran Plaza & Gateway Park to Ridglea Country Club

Berlin -  Meacham to I-20 & Gateway to Margie's Italian (or basically all of ft worth boundaries currently inside 82)

[Urbndwlr]

 

An affordable project in Linwood was just denied a zoning change in City Council. Density and traffic were cited concerns.

https://www.google.c...e240403521.html

I almost wanted to laugh when they said White Settlement Road will be opened by the end of the year, but I digress.  I think if this was a high end development then we wouldn't even be discussing this.  It would have passed with little to no resistance.

 

I do agree with building Park Tower which I am all for, although I'm not a huge fan of the design, but let's be honest he is just trying to say that an affordable housing project would be better "across the river".  I don't think it would have an economic impact on the Northside like he is claiming.  If it did it would be very minimal because technically it is not in the Northside but it is near the extreme SW corner.

 

I thought the same thing.  I recently heard from two friends more familiar with this proposed apartment development that the design was a big sticking point. 

As with so many neighborhood meetings, there are a variety of reasons for people's concerns (and they always say "parking" and "traffic" - both of which are red herrings). 

 

I was told this one had some major design flaws that the developer refused to change, and therefore the developer walked the deal rather than acquiesce and redesign.  I did see that rendering and thought the design was aesthetically pretty bad.  This could be a consequence of ever higher land prices.  If the land is so expensive, developers might aim to cut design costs, limiting the firms who will work with them and limiting their ability to revise plans. 

[renamerusk]

 

.......... friends more familiar with this proposed apartment development that the design was a big sticking point.....

As with so many neighborhood meetings, there are a variety of reasons for people's concerns (and they always say "parking" and "traffic" - both of which are red herrings). 

 

.... I did see that rendering and thought the design was aesthetically pretty bad. ....

 

 

If it is the case that there were flaws of scale and aesthetics, then it might be more a legitimate reason to refuse it other than the "parking and traffic" line which is indeed somewhat of a red herring especially in this vicinity.

 

As the map illustrates, this general vicinity is designated for one of Fort Worth's urban villages and urban develop would likely expand beyond the borders of the West Seventh Urban Village (WSUV) and to wit, where or how near was the project to the WSUV and wouldn't it actually be an attempt to fulfill the goals of the Urban Village Movement?

 

https://fortworthtex.../urbanvillages/

[cjyoung]

 

Stop trying to New York our Fort Worth!

 

I swear, I get more and more annoyed by that saying every single day, even when I don't actually hear it. 

Just as bad as "Don't Dallas my Fort Worth." 

 

It's not a New York thing. There are examples of this type of mix in many cities around America. Many less populated and less dense than Fort Worth.

[Urbndwlr]

Are accessory dwelling units (ADUs) allowed on single family residential lots in Fort Worth?

I think I've heard "it depends".  If true, what does it depend on? 

 

Can they be rented out? 

If not, can it be a guest/mother-in-law unit (not rented out but a space with bedroom, bathroom, maybe tiny kitchen)?

Separate building but only office/workspace? 

 

These seem to be potentially good compromises between often opposed objectives of neighborhood preservation and providing more well-located, affordable residential supply. 

[roverone]

I don't think non-grandfathered situations allow something that is considered a "kitchen" in a habitable accessory building.  You can have a bar, and a full bath, and al of the other kinds of things you might find in a pool house.

 

I think utility services are supposed to go to the main house first.

 

I think the Single Family part of the zoning is taken very seriously.

 

I'm not an expert, and I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I think that is the way it is at the moment.

 

It does seem as though this would be an easy way to increase density.

[Austin55]

Linwood NIMBYs and City Council still opposing this...

 

https://www.star-tel...e245017625.html

[Jeriat]

Linwood NIMBYs and City Council still opposing this...

 

https://www.star-tel...e245017625.html

 

Paywall. 

[rriojas71]

 

Linwood NIMBYs and City Council still opposing this...

 

https://www.star-tel...e245017625.html

 

Paywall. 

 

Not missing much... it is just the same talking point.  People who moved to the area because it was in the middle of everything now don't want more people to move in because there is going to be too many people now.  Same old hypocritical argument of wanting to live in an urban environment as long as it's not "too urban" if you catch my drift.

[txbornviking]

shocker not shocker our wise and sage city council denied the zoning change request for the case in linwood last night 

[Jeriat]

shocker not shocker our wise and sage city council denied the zoning change request for the case in linwood last night 

 

I was at the meeting last night, (thought it was about transit, but I guess I missed it?) and I'm not surprised... 

"Flooding and traffic" were brought up. I don't live in that area, but I guess that could be a legit concern. But idk.

[johnfwd]

Because it's the Linwood area, flooding is a staple complaint.  Traffic?  What do they think is going on along West Seventh Street, horses and carriages?

 

Anyone got a cat in a bag they can lend me?

[Austin55]

Parts of Linwood do flood pretty bad during especially heavy rains.

[johnfwd]

I don't hang around Linwood during heavy rainstorms so I'll take your word for it.  Hope I wasn't sounding too sarcastic in my prior post.  What I meant was that the flooding complaint is easy to make for Linwood, especially on account of the 1949 flood.  Incidentally, my family was among those who had to vacate Linwood during the '49 flood.