Houston lures business and top workers with 'back to basics' approach

[lockmat]

i think you're missing the point of the article. Houston isn't changing, it is growing because the economics in our area are a boon for residents/ commerical interests because it is advantageous to be here. relatively, cost of living is cheap/land is cheap/housing is cheap/great jobs. Now you must remember that the article is for houston as a whole. does this mean that you'll be able to live in river oaks mansion? NO, but for your salary you will find somewhere nice to live and enjoy. we already have affordable housing which "creates a rich enviromnent for these four enablers to do their positive work" this isn't something that is new to houston, i'd call it a trait.

I think you're statement is true. But Houston is changing inside the loop though, isn't it? I mean, with all these condos/townhomes/high end apartments. It's getting to be less affordable inside the loop as far as housing goes. It's just seems like the salary of a middle income, suburban type family wouldn't be able to afford a home in the area I'm talking about; inside the loop, not Houston as a whole. I don't know...I guess "affordable housing" is just a relative term. What's affordable to some isn't affordable to others. Know what I mean?

[TheNiche]

Do y'all think Houston, especially the urban core, is moving towards or away from the idea of this statement?

Growth within the urban core is disproportionately comprised of transplants from the coasts. They're used to high housing prices and tend not to mind paying rents that most established Houstonians would consider ridiculous. This group of people also tend not to be very cognizant of the diversity of population cohorts or the spatial arrangement of jobs and households throughout the region. IMO, there is a tendency for them to believe that a nice inner-city environment (like from whence they came) would be worth somewhat higher region-wide housing costs or alternatively, less regional mobility; but that is easier for them to stomach than it is for established residents that are accustomed to a low-cost easy-access lifestyle.

Those that are established residents and that own homes (inside or outside of the urban core) tend to be inclined to support land use regulations throughout the region because they create a barrier to entry by way of which housing prices can be influenced in a distorted market, at the expense of future residents and existing renters.

On the other hand, poor inner-city residents tend to be divided. Some believe that zoning will protect their enclaves from gentrification; others believe that it will be used as a tool by which to force them out.

Are they being honest about their analysis of the city, or are they stretching the truth? So take it back, now!

Why not contact Tory and invite him to contribute to this thread?

[lockmat]

Why not contact Tory and invite him to contribute to this thread?

I googled his blog and found it. I didn't know his name went with that blog. I'll email him.

[MidtownCoog]

It's just seems like the salary of a middle income, suburban type family wouldn't be able to afford a home in the area I'm talking about; inside the loop, not Houston as a whole.

And that's part of your problem. You are too focused "inside the loop".

Not to mention the city center lacks what most "suburban type families" desire even if price is not object, house wise.

[lockmat]

And that's part of your problem. You are too focused "inside the loop".

Not to mention the city center lacks what most "suburban type families" desire even if price is not object, house wise.

Problem or not, that's where I want to focus my attention; an area that's big and diverse - an urban place. It's not like I'm focusing on a neighborhood like River Oaks, Montrose or Midtown. I think that's okay.

And when I was talking about Suburban type families, I was talking about their incomes, more than their place of residency. Maybe there are Suburban type families who live in the suburbs not because they want to, but because they have to, because of housing prices. It's not only high incomed single professionals or wealthy Bellaire type families who want to move back to the city. It's that they're the only ones who can afford to.

There must be families who live in an urban city in other places. Not all families desire the suburbs and what they offer.

[MidtownCoog]

Well if inside the loop is where you want to focus your attention then you are ignoring one of the points the author of the editorial was trying to make.

[TheNiche]

Problem or not, that's where I want to focus my attention; an area that's big and diverse - an urban place. It's not like I'm focusing on a neighborhood like River Oaks, Montrose or Midtown. I think that's okay.

And when I was talking about Suburban type families, I was talking about their incomes, more than their place of residency. Maybe there are Suburban type families who live in the suburbs not because they want to, but because they have to, because of housing prices. It's not only high incomed single professionals or wealthy Bellaire type families who want to move back to the city. It's that they're the only ones who can afford to.

There must be families who live in an urban city in other places. Not all families desire the suburbs and what they offer.

Any family that wanted to could easily afford to live somewhere inside the loop--it's just that the vast majority probably wouldn't find the mix of prices, amenities, safety, schools, and other factors, that they would like. All locational decisions are prone to tradeoffs. Can't have your cake and eat it too. And there are certainly more people that want to live within the desirable parts of the inner loop than can physically live there at present; that is why prices are so high. It is a means of rationing finite resources efficiently to those that want it the most. ...and when prices rise high enough, that justifies developers spending money on densification so that more people can live there.

[lockmat]

Well if inside the loop is where you want to focus your attention then you are ignoring one of the points the author of the editorial was trying to make.

Ooops. I'll go back and read it.

But tell me what it is then.

See, I view this forum as a place for discussion. A place that will hopefully help me understand things better. Not just a place to be told something. I'll go read more by myself if I want that. I appreciate it when people explain things. And if I have a different point of view, or even if I'm just plain wrong, I like to have that person explain their point of view to me or tell me why I might be wrong, so I can learn and hopefully get a more holistic view of the topic at hand.

Help a brother out

Any family that wanted to could easily afford to live somewhere inside the loop--it's just that the vast majority probably wouldn't find the mix of prices, amenities, safety, schools, and other factors, that they would like. All locational decisions are prone to tradeoffs. Can't have your cake and eat it too. And there are certainly more people that want to live within the desirable parts of the inner loop than can physically live there at present; that is why prices are so high. It is a means of rationing finite resources efficiently to those that want it the most.

Yeah, I figured they can find somewhere to live. But that's just it. Would that somewhere provide, or will or can that somewhere someday be a place that a middle income family live and have all those things? Who said only high incomed people inside the city or the middle income suburbanites have a right to those things?

It seems like inside the loop is either one or the other. Not much in between. Or am I wrong?

...and when prices rise high enough, that justifies developers spending money on densification so that more people can live there.

Do you mean more middle income people?

See, I'm just wondering when it's gonna level off. Is that what you're talking about? Or no?

[MidtownCoog]

I guess this is where we agree. I don't see much affordable housing "inside the loop" for "middle income famalies".

And where there is, you'll be missing something else, no doubt. It's like Kool-aid, no sugar. Peanut butter, no jelly. Ham, no burger.

[TheNiche]

Yeah, I figured they can find somewhere to live. But that's just it. Would that somewhere provide, or will or can that somewhere someday be a place that a middle income family live and have all those things? Who said only high incomed people inside the city or the middle income suburbanites have a right to those things?

It seems like inside the loop is either one or the other. Not much in between. Or am I wrong?

Do you mean more middle income people?

See, I'm just wondering when it's gonna level off. Is that what you're talking about? Or no?

No, the inner loop is very diverse except that there aren't many middle-income families. There are plenty of middle-income households. But when children come along, priorities change. Suddenly yards become important, as does safety, and the quality of schools (which is a function of those attending said schools).

There are plenty of places inside the loop that satisfy several of those priorities at once, but few such areas have the right mix for most middle-income families. So they go where the priorities can be optimally fulfilled. I'm not sure that there is a solution to this problem, but then I'm not sure that it actually is a problem to begin with. How do you see it as a problem?

[moni]

I can't imagine wanting Houston to be anything else. The sheer size of the city makes it unique. When you consider that other cities must build up because of the limited land available. You could place Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, St. Louis and San Francisco inside Houston easily. We may become the world's largest city but who cares about that at this point. The thing is, opportunity is here, more manufacturing jobs than any other city in the U.S., and that is saying something. I never once thought, "this area reminds me of key west", or this area reminds me of New York", the truth is, Houston reminds me of Houston and no where else can compete.

[lockmat]

No, the inner loop is very diverse except that there aren't many middle-income families. There are plenty of middle-income households. But when children come along, priorities change. Suddenly yards become important, as does safety, and the quality of schools (which is a function of those attending said schools).

There are plenty of places inside the loop that satisfy several of those priorities at once, but few such areas have the right mix for most middle-income families. So they go where the priorities can be optimally fulfilled. I'm not sure that there is a solution to this problem, but then I'm not sure that it actually is a problem to begin with. How do you see it as a problem?

It may not be a problem. Maybe I'm just thinking of this only from my personal point of view. I'd like to live in an urban area as a single. But when or if I get married and have kids, my desire to live in the city won't change.

And I quite possibly might be in the minority. But if as a whole our nation is seeing a trend of moving back to the city, I don't see myself as the only one with this struggle. And if urban areas are a place where lots of young professionals like to live too, isn't there a good chance they might want to stay there too when they get married and have kids as well? Maybe they won't. It's my guess that most people in general, including those who live in an urban area don't care about the environment, public transportation, and the difference a more dense style of living offers; they just like the lifestyle. But I have a feeling that when I get married and/or have kids, that I'll fight the urge to want the things a suburban lifestyle brings. I believe those same qualities the 'burbs bring can also belong to the urban area, even if they take different forms.

[TheNiche]

It may not be a problem. Maybe I'm just thinking of this only from my personal point of view. I'd like to live in an urban area as a single. But when or if I get married and have kids, my desire to live in the city won't change.

And I quite possibly might be in the minority. But if as a whole our nation is seeing a trend of moving back to the city, I don't see myself as the only one with this struggle. And if urban areas are a place where lots of young professionals like to live too, isn't there a good chance they might want to stay there too when they get married and have kids as well? Maybe they won't. It's my guess that most people in general, including those who live in an urban area don't care about the environment, public transportation, and the difference a more dense style of living offers; they just like the lifestyle. But I have a feeling that when I get married and/or have kids, that I'll fight the urge to want the things a suburban lifestyle brings. I believe those same qualities the 'burbs bring can also belong to the urban area, even if they take different forms.

The nation as a whole is seeing a trend of inner-city regentrification, but it would be innaccurate to say that there is a trend of "moving back to the city," when the vast majority of new housing construction is taking place in suburban areas.

Some young couples contemplating children may try to stay in the city, but they will have to make tradeoffs. If they are not very wealthy, then they may have to live in an apartment instead of a house, forego home ownership, and accept public schools as they are. Alternatively, they may put themselves under greater financial stress in order to give their kid a yard and private schools, even if it ends up creating a savings problem later in life. Ultimately, they'll find a way to do what they want to do in most cases; but they can't escape the concept of tradeoffs in one form or another.

[lockmat]

The nation as a whole is seeing a trend of inner-city regentrification, but it would be innaccurate to say that there is a trend of "moving back to the city," when the vast majority of new housing construction is taking place in suburban areas.

So the people who lived in the cities before are staying there, but just getting an upgrade in housing and more ammenities?

And your comments lead me to conclude that even though Houston is becoming more urban and dense that, it's not people who once preferred the suburban life that are changing their minds and filling in all these spaces in the new highrises and more dense townhomes, but the...who?

The entire world is growing in population. Is it possible that the number of suburban homes being built can remain constant, but the number of residences in the city are slightly going up as well? The world isn't a pie chart, right?

Ultimately, they'll find a way to do what they want to do in most cases; but they can't escape the concept of tradeoffs in one form or another.

Guess I'll come to that same crossroads.

[MidtownCoog]

Lockmart, aim high, young man!

Don't settle for being "middle income" and you won't have to worry about it. You can do it!

[lockmat]

Lockmart, aim high, young man!

Don't settle for being "middle income" and you won't have to worry about it. You can do it!

You have a point.

But I'm still tryin to figure out what lockmaRt is a spinoff of.

[MidtownCoog]

Niche will be the first to tell you I can't type.

But if you can't figure that typo out, then I see a tent and a van down by the San Jacinto river in your future.

[lockmat]

Niche will be the first to tell you I can't type.

But if you can't figure that typo out, then I see a tent and a van down by the San Jacinto river in your future.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that there was something witty behind it. Guess I won't do that next time.

And I guess shooting for above middle income is out of the picture. Might as well start moving my stuff into the van now. Do you think the city would at least let me live near Buffalo Bayou on the east side?

[musicman]

But if you can't figure that typo out, then I see a tent and a van down by the San Jacinto river in your future.

LOL

[TheNiche]

So the people who lived in the cities before are staying there, but just getting an upgrade in housing and more ammenities?

And your comments lead me to conclude that even though Houston is becoming more urban and dense that, it's not people who once preferred the suburban life that are changing their minds and filling in all these spaces in the new highrises and more dense townhomes, but the...who?

Not necessarily. The inner city is a highly-transient area. People come and go more quickly; such is the way of the world when kids aren't involved and people are doing the college/single life/DINK thing. And those folks that have lived there for a long time tend to either become priced out because rents get too high or property taxes go up, or they sell out because the property is worth more than the level of value that they place on it and because they can take that money and more fully optimize their locational choices elsewhere.

Midrises and highrises are especially prone to have residents that have relocated from the northeastern corridor between Washington DC and Boston; well-off college students and recent grads tend to gravitate to midrises; empty-nesters and retirees take what they can afford.

The entire world is growing in population. Is it possible that the number of suburban homes being built can remain constant, but the number of residences in the city are slightly going up as well? The world isn't a pie chart, right?

I can't speak to global trends; different things are going on in the context of different places. In the United States, at least, suburban growth is still the dominant form. Again--different cities, different stories. ...but in Houston at least, there has never before in the recorded history of our city been a time when the ratio of new single-family housing construction to new multi-family housing construction has been so lopsided in favor of single-family.

[musicman]

Problem or not, that's where I want to focus my attention; an area that's big and diverse - an urban place. It's not like I'm focusing on a neighborhood like River Oaks, Montrose or Midtown. I think that's okay.

And when I was talking about Suburban type families, I was talking about their incomes, more than their place of residency. Maybe there are Suburban type families who live in the suburbs not because they want to, but because they have to, because of housing prices. It's not only high incomed single professionals or wealthy Bellaire type families who want to move back to the city. It's that they're the only ones who can afford to.

There must be families who live in an urban city in other places. Not all families desire the suburbs and what they offer.

i think it would help if you go re-read Tory's article...with an open mind. he's not presenting any "new" information, just simply stating that Houston (AS A WHOLE) has a lot to offer with respect to housing, jobs, opportunities,etc. you can't pin it down to one area. tory's article and the initial post involve Houston as a whole, not inner loop. he was saying that because of our well maintained freeway system, everyone has access to amenities that they might not have access to if transportation wasn't as available. just doing the basics well is what is attractive.

as for moving "back to the city" i think you'd be surprised at who is actually moving back. the majority sure aren't families.

[lockmat]

you can't pin it down to one area.

You're right.

[ToryGattis]

Tory here. Lockmat asked me to read the thread and answer some questions. And thanks everybody for the kind words on the op-ed.

I'm really not sure of the exact questions asked, but after reading the thread, some comments came to mind.

First, I want to clarify that neither Joel nor I are against parks or education. There was a little misinterpretation at the launch event. We are, of course, very strongly for improved education. Parks are important too, but not a "top priority to lure the creative class" - they just naturally get developed by a city as it gets wealthier. If your infrastructure, education or road systems are falling apart, great parks aren't going to do you any good. Houston has 16.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, which compares very nicely with the 10 per 1,000 rule of thumb by planners. More would certainly be nice, but it is clearly not in the handful of absolute top priorities for the city, like transportation, crime, air pollution, and education.

The inner loop boom is not being driven by families because of the schools, which are simply not up to the standards required by many upper middle class professional and middle class families. The suburbs have better schools and newer, larger homes at lower prices. That said, in lightly regulated Houston, the townhome and condo builders have been able to build many, many units below the "sweet spot" price of $225K, which allows fresh college grads to buy them - either single engineer or business types that can be making up to $70K to start, or two-income couples in their 20s. Builders have told me that when they get above that price, demand falls off dramatically, because then you're looking for older empty nest professionals that want to move into the city, and there simply aren't that many of them. Most are quite comfortable in whatever house, suburb, neighborhood, and church they raised their kids in.

There's a bigger picture reason for the new urban core renewals in many cities. The fundamental change is that people have gone from getting married and starting a family in their early 20s to now getting married in their late 20s or early to mid 30s. That means there's now a full decade where they're making a good income without kids, and they want to buy (rather than rent) in the city core where the other singles are. So they buy these townhomes and condos, then move to the suburbs once they're married and ready to have kids. Go back a decade or two, and 20-somethings were just fine with renting an apartment a few years before getting married and moving out to the burbs.

As far as the "highest standard of living in the world" quote in the op-ed: I actually do believe it based on the stats I've seen, but I softened it because many people find it unbelievable. We only had good data for the major metros in America, and Houston came out on top. I believe that #1 position would carry to the rest of the world, but the hard data isn't there to back it up in terms of comparable cost of living stats. There are very few places in the world with higher average incomes than America, and as far as I can tell, all of them have a much higher cost of living to go with it: Luxembourg, Norway, Monaco, Switzerland, London, Tokyo, etc.

Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there are additional questions. I will try to monitor this thread for a while, but if something else comes up and I don't respond, just contact me at my blog www.HoustonStrategies.com and I'll get back over here and check it out.

[musicman]

Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there are additional questions. I will try to monitor this thread for a while, but if something else comes up and I don't respond, just contact me at my blog www.HoustonStrategies.com and I'll get back over here and check it out.

i think lockmat was the one who was confused.

[TheNiche]

As far as the "highest standard of living in the world" quote in the op-ed: I actually do believe it based on the stats I've seen, but I softened it because many people find it unbelievable. We only had good data for the major metros in America, and Houston came out on top. I believe that #1 position would carry to the rest of the world, but the hard data isn't there to back it up in terms of comparable cost of living stats. There are very few places in the world with higher average incomes than America, and as far as I can tell, all of them have a much higher cost of living to go with it: Luxembourg, Norway, Monaco, Switzerland, London, Tokyo, etc.

Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there are additional questions. I will try to monitor this thread for a while, but if something else comes up and I don't respond, just contact me at my blog www.HoustonStrategies.com and I'll get back over here and check it out.

I'd be interested in how the "cost of living" measurement that you use is calculated. It is my suspicion that most economists calculate it by determining what is a typical basket of goods for a consumer within each individual city, and that the result is that attempts at comparison between cities are essentially invalidated because comparing Houston to NYC would be like comparing apples to oranges. I also suspect that it would work even more in our favor.

For instance, if the average consumer living in the NYC metro area pays $2,000/mo. to rent a small apartment and $200/mo. for transit and cab fees, and has to endure commutes that are both long (worst in the nation, on average) and prone to bad weather, but the average consumer in Houston is paying $1,200/mo. to cover mortgage and expenses for a decent house and $500/mo. for vehicular transportation to work that is typically less time consuming and not very much subject to weather, then there is not only a net savings of $300 on factors related to household location, but there are substantial benefits in terms of home equity accrual, having a larger home, and other factors.

Perhaps what I'm trying to get at is a measure of the economic quality of life, but it just seems as though HH income minus cost of living isn't a sufficient measure. Incidentally, I know someone who is being interviewed for a bigshot position in NYC, and she is holding out for a salary that is about double what she gets at present for an enjoyable high-profile job that would be the keystone of her career, basically to counter not only the cost of living, but the nonpecuniary hardships that would come with having to live in Manhattan. I also work with someone who accepted a job in Manhattan last year for a substantial raise, but ended up arranging to perpetually telecommute from Houston because he couldn't stand the NYC lifestyle or the cost of living. ...gotta wonder whether anyone has done a survey to the effect of what level of compensation is necessary to convince people to work in Manhattan.

I'd also be interested in any demographic cross-tabulations indicating trends among college-educated 20- and 30-somethings regarding marriage and childbirth that you might have access to. I hear a lot about the trends that you were talking about, but coming up with hard numbers is not easy.

[woolie]

My own aesthetic tastes run towards traditional-urban, european-style cities. I am willing to make the net-income and convenience sacrifices to live in one. I feel it's more than repaid by the accessibility of things that I consider important to my quality of life. A diverse, organic urban fabric. Mixed-use. Less reliance on big box stores. Multiple transportation modalities. I prefer to live and walk in a world populated by people instead of cars. I think there's a quote, "what fascinates people is people." I care about the quality of the built environment... I feel that a place that's been occupied for hundreds of years isn't old, rather it's a continuously optimized solution, an urban organism fully adapted to its context.

ps. I don't ever want kids. So many things don't ever enter into tradeoff compromises.

[musicman]

My own aesthetic tastes run towards traditional-urban, european-style cities. I am willing to make the net-income and convenience sacrifices to live in one. I feel it's more than repaid by the accessibility of things that I consider important to my quality of life. A diverse, organic urban fabric. Mixed-use. Less reliance on big box stores. Multiple transportation modalities. I prefer to live and walk in a world populated by people instead of cars. I think there's a quote, "what fascinates people is people." I care about the quality of the built environment... I feel that a place that's been occupied for hundreds of years isn't old, rather it's a continuously optimized solution, an urban organism fully adapted to its context.

ps. I don't ever want kids. So many things don't ever enter into tradeoff compromises.

wow this is sure a BIG switcheroo from the post you put here after 8am. something like "the inner loop of houston is like a trailer park"

[woolie]

wow this is sure a BIG switcheroo from the post you put here after 8am. something like "the inner loop of houston is like a trailer park"

I'm often angry when I first wake up.... It was poorly written and ranty so I changed it. Although I do feel that way about large parts of the CBD, midtown, and other inner city areas where the quality of the urban space is really lacking, even if you factor in income disparities.

[ToryGattis]

I'd be interested in how the "cost of living" measurement that you use is calculated.

I'd also be interested in any demographic cross-tabulations indicating trends among college-educated 20- and 30-somethings regarding marriage and childbirth that you might have access to. I hear a lot about the trends that you were talking about, but coming up with hard numbers is not easy.

The cost of living numbers come from ACCRA, which is the standard used by companies when moving their people around or recruiting. They create a "lifestyle standard" for a typical middle manager, then calculate what it costs to live that lifestyle in each city. Like all systems, they make some assumptions, but it's the best available estimate.

I don't have the hard data on marriage, but I have seen articles over the years with the average age of marriage, and it always moves up.

[TheNiche]

The cost of living numbers come from ACCRA, which is the standard used by companies when moving their people around or recruiting. They create a "lifestyle standard" for a typical middle manager, then calculate what it costs to live that lifestyle in each city. Like all systems, they make some assumptions, but it's the best available estimate.

So they identify a single basket of consumption items that would apply to a typical middle manager's household and then determine how much that one basket would cost in each different city? No substitution?

My own aesthetic tastes run towards traditional-urban, european-style cities. I am willing to make the net-income and convenience sacrifices to live in one. I feel it's more than repaid by the accessibility of things that I consider important to my quality of life. A diverse, organic urban fabric. Mixed-use. Less reliance on big box stores. Multiple transportation modalities. I prefer to live and walk in a world populated by people instead of cars. I think there's a quote, "what fascinates people is people." I care about the quality of the built environment... I feel that a place that's been occupied for hundreds of years isn't old, rather it's a continuously optimized solution, an urban organism fully adapted to its context.

ps. I don't ever want kids. So many things don't ever enter into tradeoff compromises.

You're very much in the minority.