Comments on: Comment of the Day: Where Should Those Little Lots Go?

By: movocelot

movocelot — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:11:28 +0000

I live in an unincorporated area where homeowners have ¾+ acres. We have wells/septic and worry about being incorporated by the city. Generally, the Bad (for us): taxes; the Good: subdividing or building apartments!! Woo-hoo!
I think all of us should be concerned with a protocol to keep outlaying areas green as they become “urban” because Green just doesn’t happen on its own in this man-made world…
Just today I drove Beltway 8 and realized that along the north-northwest and the east, the trees, shade and open-spaces make the driving-experience so much nicer. Where’s Mrs. Lanier’s vision to plant trees and flowering perennials?

By: Amy Wells

Amy Wells — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:16:45 +0000

Heights residents should take note. For instance, 807 Beverly has been replatted to 21 lots. Don’t think the surrounding new home owners in their one million dollar homes are going to appreciate that.

By: finness

finness — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:34:13 +0000

The problem remains one of scale. How much lot will be left when it is built? Will there be any trees left? Any permiable soil? What will all this do to air quality, flooding, shade/tree canopy and overall livability of a neighborhood? If we are entering an era where people are being encourage to walk and ride bikes and do either of those things to hook up to public transit, how much concrete jungle do we want? Is being like New York, where trees are in parks, really our goal?

By: Errol

Errol — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:45:13 +0000

Didn’t the horse already leave the station on this back in 1997? That’s when they changed Chapter 42 to allow lots as small as 1400 square feet in the ’suburban’ area. As far as I understand, the new proposal doesn’t change that minimum, it just allows the lots to be narrower.