No description available.

No description available.

Houston is the only major city in North America without zoning. The growth of Houston illustrates a traditional free market philosophy in which land use zoning is seen as a violation to private property and personal liberty. This dissertation explores how the lack of zoning has an impact on land use and urban form in Houston. It is based on a theoretical framework derived from economics and public policy theories for institutional analyses of land development controls. The dissertation uses cluster analysis integrating socioeconomic factors from census data to select three case study neighborhoods, and then applies GIS to analyze their urban form spatial characteristics with spatial data from Houston Planning Department. It also uses qualitative methods such as archives and documentations for the three neighborhoods. The study investigates the change of urban form in three case study neighborhoods over two decades. It also explores how local land use policies made by both the local government and non-governmental sectors shape urban form in Houston. The study results show that despite the city’s lack of zoning, local land use regulatory policies made by the municipality have significant influence on urban development. Additionally, civic and private organizations such as super neighborhoods and homeowner associations fill the gaps left by the lack of land use zoning. These two aspects contribute to land use planning and urban form of the city. Houston presents a contradiction of limited government intervention and public investments and subsidies. Land use controls by private contract and by government legislative intervention are not mutually exclusive or immutable. The study finds that it is difficult to achieve mixed race and income neighborhoods, even without zoning. Equity goals are not met in market approaches. Deed restrictions might be better at facilitating property sales and maintenance than at improving community welfare and governance. From the theoretical perspective, the study argues that a spectrum of market solutions and planning approaches at the ends are more relevant than the bipolarity view. Equity goals are not met in market approaches. For welfare and rights, public planning intervention is necessary. The market might provide physical land use diversity, but it fails to support socioeconomic diversity.

Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references.

Due to their location on the urban fringe, many historically agricultural counties face development pressure from a spreading urban core. These local communities must contend with often conflicting objectives of providing economic development opportunities while at the same time protecting their county's natural resources. Land conservation policies incentivize landowners to keep land identified as critical environmental resources in their natural state. In this project, we analyze property-level administrative data to evaluate whether land conservation policies and neighbor land use patterns affect the probability of land parcel development. We find some evidence of the contagion effect and that the county's acknowledgment of Priority Conservation areas impacts development motivation. / Master of Science / Communities on the "urban fringe," the transitional area where the town meets the county, are experiencing strong pressures to develop. The population has moved from the city center towards the suburbs for quieter, safer neighborhoods, better schools, and more outdoor amenities. Localities manage this growth while protecting their resources, such as natural land, by implementing conservation policies/preservation guidelines. In this project, we utilize data from Powhatan County to evaluate whether local conservation efforts and land use patterns affect the probability of land development. This is an important topic as local officials work to manage land resources where the development of the county's most valuable land would be difficult, if possible, to reverse.

The aim of urban land readjustment is to produce newbuilding land and to reorganise urban areas. The method used isdesigned to consolidate a group of adjoining land parcels fortheir unified planning and subdivision in an area with afragmented or an otherwise inappropriate property and ownershipstructure. The procedure can be considered either as a methodfor urban land development (by landowners) or as a tool forplanning implementation (by society). Different countries havereached different solutions depending on, for example, theplanning system already in existence and the attitude towardsthe responsibilities of the private and the public sectors inproducing urban land. The urban land readjustment procedure is very closely linkedto detailed local planning and other land use planning. Theprocedure is justified not only on the basis of cost andefficiency but also on the basis of its fair treatment oflandowners, improvements in plan quality, savings to thecommunity, and environmental benefits. In the readjustmentprocedure the land value changes can be fairly and equallydistributed among landowners. The procedure will therefore alsohelp to prevent planning speculation. As property boundariescan be disregarded when preparing the plan, the number ofpotential plan solutions will essentially be increased andfinally the quality of the plan itself improved. At the sametime the existing social structure can also be maintained. Theprocesses needed are, however, often very demanding andcomplicated and require those involved to display considerableexpertise. The decision-makers should also be familiar with theoperating mechanisms and options so that implementation of theprocedure is not jeopardised through ignorance. In 1997 a new Real Property Formation Act came into force inFinland which defined the Finnish urban land readjustmentprocedure. The strengths of the new procedure lie in itswell-defined structure and organisation, but it also has itsweaknesses. Although the aim of the procedure is to achievebetter detailed local plans, planners often do not know inpractice if the readjustment procedure can be carried out, dueto the extensive legal provisions. It seems, therefore, thatthe existing regulations are ineffective in meeting the needsof urban land readjustment, and further improvements areurgently required. Failure to take such measures will place injeopardy the future use of the procedure. By amending thestatutes and the proceedings the use of the urban landreadjustment procedure might become a familiar activity whendeveloping the urban structure in areas with fragmentedownership. <b>Keywords</b>: Land development, joint development, landmanagement, land use planning, plan implementation, propertyacquisition, cadastral procedure, law and economics.

<p>The aim of urban land readjustment is to produce newbuilding land and to reorganise urban areas. The method used isdesigned to consolidate a group of adjoining land parcels fortheir unified planning and subdivision in an area with afragmented or an otherwise inappropriate property and ownershipstructure. The procedure can be considered either as a methodfor urban land development (by landowners) or as a tool forplanning implementation (by society). Different countries havereached different solutions depending on, for example, theplanning system already in existence and the attitude towardsthe responsibilities of the private and the public sectors inproducing urban land.</p><p>The urban land readjustment procedure is very closely linkedto detailed local planning and other land use planning. Theprocedure is justified not only on the basis of cost andefficiency but also on the basis of its fair treatment oflandowners, improvements in plan quality, savings to thecommunity, and environmental benefits. In the readjustmentprocedure the land value changes can be fairly and equallydistributed among landowners. The procedure will therefore alsohelp to prevent planning speculation. As property boundariescan be disregarded when preparing the plan, the number ofpotential plan solutions will essentially be increased andfinally the quality of the plan itself improved. At the sametime the existing social structure can also be maintained. Theprocesses needed are, however, often very demanding andcomplicated and require those involved to display considerableexpertise. The decision-makers should also be familiar with theoperating mechanisms and options so that implementation of theprocedure is not jeopardised through ignorance.</p><p>In 1997 a new Real Property Formation Act came into force inFinland which defined the Finnish urban land readjustmentprocedure. The strengths of the new procedure lie in itswell-defined structure and organisation, but it also has itsweaknesses. Although the aim of the procedure is to achievebetter detailed local plans, planners often do not know inpractice if the readjustment procedure can be carried out, dueto the extensive legal provisions. It seems, therefore, thatthe existing regulations are ineffective in meeting the needsof urban land readjustment, and further improvements areurgently required. Failure to take such measures will place injeopardy the future use of the procedure. By amending thestatutes and the proceedings the use of the urban landreadjustment procedure might become a familiar activity whendeveloping the urban structure in areas with fragmentedownership.</p><p><b>Keywords</b>: Land development, joint development, landmanagement, land use planning, plan implementation, propertyacquisition, cadastral procedure, law and economics.</p>

Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 133-138).

Thesis (M.P.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.P.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print.