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

[woolie]

You're very much in the minority.

Not a bad place to be. I've often discovered most people are wrong.

[musicman]

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

yeah not enough concrete and metal buildings for your taste. Houston's own manufactured Grand Canyon.

[MidtownCoog]

QUOTE(woolie @ Tuesday, June 12th, 2007 @ 8:27am)

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

But have you actually lived like this before? Or is this your plan? I've lived like that in a large city and it's not for everybody. I grew tired of it.

Too bad you don't want kids, since the utopia you describe sounds a lot like Seasame Street. Sunny day and all.

[woolie]

yeah not enough concrete and metal buildings for your taste. Houston's own manufactured Grand Canyon.

Everytime you post that pic -- which, btw, I took because we were thinking about buying one -- I'll remind you that I do indeed like them. They're very cost-effective, space-efficient, and I like interiors even if some of the finishes could be higher quality.

But have you actually lived like this before? Or is this your plan? I've lived like that in a large city and it's not for everybody. I grew tired of it.

Too bad you don't want kids, since the utopia you describe sounds a lot like Seasame Street. Sunny day and all.

I've lived in inner-city Houston for about 6 years now, and most of that time I've used metro/bike/walk at least to get to work, even if I take the car for longer trips. I've traveled to other cities (that fit my 'vision') often. What I've found is that it's not some utopia. Rather it's more like the normal human condition. I think the american car-city is rather the exception to the rule. I don't care if other people have kids. I just don't care for them myself.

Every time I say Houston is not my ideal city, people on this forum like to remind me that I'm a mutant and should crawl back into my hole.

[TheNiche]

Not a bad place to be. I've often discovered most people are wrong.

I didn't say it was bad. You do what works for you and others will do what works for them.

I've lived in inner-city Houston for about 6 years now...

Inner-city Houston is more or less a suburb.

[musicman]

Every time I say Houston is not my ideal city

when you compare it to a trailer park, you will get a response

[woolie]

when you compare it to a trailer park, you will get a response

I did delete that post, no?

[MidtownCoog]

Inner-city Houston is more or less a suburb.

Agree, especially compared to fighting 7.5 million people for the train, subway and bus or paying a congestion charge fee for the pleasure of sitting in traffic.

[musicman]

I did delete that post, no?

just delving into the mutant's mind

[webdude]

But have you actually lived like this before? Or is this your plan? I've lived like that in a large city and it's not for everybody. I grew tired of it.

Too bad you don't want kids, since the utopia you describe sounds a lot like Seasame Street. Sunny day and all.

Sesame Street sounds kind of nice compared to lack of density and having to drive for every little thing.

[MidtownCoog]

They both have their perks.

[webdude]

You're very much in the minority.

That is not true, so many folks want to live in a walkable city with high (ppl) density. Just look at the population of other walkable popular cities, and that is despite the high cost. I would imagine the cost is lower, there would be even more people.

[MidtownCoog]

Which cities are "popular and walkable"?

[TheNiche]

That is not true, so many folks want to live in a walkable city with high (ppl) density. Just look at the population of other walkable popular cities, and that is despite the high cost. I would imagine the cost is lower, there would be even more people.

...and why do you think the cost is high?

There's more in play than just supply and demand.

[webdude]

Which cities are "popular and walkable"?

NY, SF, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Boston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Madison, San Diego. There should be more

[webdude]

...and why do you think the cost is high?

There's more in play than just supply and demand.

let's do one thing at a time.

Woolie said: 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 said: You're very much in the minority.

And I said, that's not true. Look at the the huge population in dense popular walkable cities that fits his description.

Not only do a lot of ppl want what he wants, They are willing to pay more, so how does that make him very much in the minority.

Turns out he isn't really very much in the minority, so you need to acknowledge that first.

[musicman]

NY, SF, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Boston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Madison, San Diego. There should be more.

according to the census bureau...looks like Houston has been a little more popular than New York and Chicago. the others aren't on the list.

10 U.S. Metro Areas With Highest Numerical Growth: April 1, 2000-July 1, 2006

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga. 890,211

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas 842,449

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas 824,547

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. 787,306

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. 771,314

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. 584,510

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. 495,154

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. 494,220

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, Fla. 455,869

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. 407,133

[webdude]

according to the census bureau...looks like Houston has been a little more popular than New York and Chicago. the others aren't on the list.

10 U.S. Metro Areas With Highest Numerical Growth: April 1, 2000-July 1, 2006

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga. 890,211

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas 842,449

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas 824,547

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. 787,306

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. 771,314

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. 584,510

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. 495,154

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. 494,220

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, Fla. 455,869

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. 407,133

Talking about popular and walkable dense cities as described by woolie.

Read above and previous posts please.

[ToryGattis]

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?

Yes. No substitutions, as far as I know, but they have more details here.

[TheNiche]

I just finished reading through a retort to Kotkin that was written by Stephen Klineberg. I admit that I'm cherry-picking quotes, but I don't want to post the entire essay on HAIF without permission and just want to get my jabs in:

Klineberg claims that "The resource-based industrial era which this city was so favorably positioned has receded into history, and with it the traditional "blue collar path" to financial security." I contend that we have the only growing manufacturing sector in a nation that is frought with manufacturing decline. Klineberg's comment would pertain well to the averag U.S. city, but has no basis as it pertains to Houston. Moreover, many of our blue collar positions are not for unskilled labor; the pay is better as a result.

Klineberg makes numerous references to the growing diversity of our city and to the idea that the younger generations are more diverse than ever before, but he frames it as a problem or a challenge for some reason. I'm not clear why. He claims that, "the young people in this region today are disproportionately non-Anglo and considerably less priviledged on average than the Anglo population, which is now moving rapidly into retirement," which seems to support nothing; he does not provide a comparison between races/ethnicities of the same age cohort, which might (but probably still wouldn't) have gotten at the crux of some argument or another.

Based upon statistics from HISD, he concludes that the region has a problem educating the neediest kids, which he makes clear are brown-skinned. He says that it is a "striking" fact that "88% of all the children in our city's public schools are black or Latino". Forgive me for not being 'stricken'. If he's trying to say that there are lots of kids from poor households in HISD or that there is poor academic performance (which he actually makes absolutely no mention of), I wish that he'd just do that...citing skin color isn't getting him anywhere with me.

The way he talks in some places, he seems to have misinterpreted Kotkin and is trying to publicly disagree with him by advocating better education...which is in effect supportive of Kotkin. I found it very strange. Klineberg tries to compare education in the 21st century to dredging the ship channel in the 20th century...but his comparison is counter-productive because labor is mobile and industrial capital is fixed. The benefits or costs derived from the performance of Houston's educational issues are as closely linked with rural east Texas, the coastal population centers of the U.S., or even foreign countries, as it is with its own schools; it is a national/global issue.

Klineberg tries to agree with Kotkin that Richard Florida's theories and recommendations are essentially elitist, but he goes on in the same paragraph to suggest that "quality of urban life matters tremendously, not only just to the elites, but to all levels of talent that we are seeking to attract," which begs the question as to what "quality of urban life" is, what gives rise to it, what sustains it, and whether it needs to be subsidized to cater to some niche market that are insufficient in number to bring it about on their own by way of market forces. It seems to me to be an acknowledgement that some elite class should be pandered to.

Klineberg proceeds in his final two paragraphs to paint a dark picture of an overpopulated sprawling mess; he asks "if that happens, can anyone doubt that the prospects for sustained economic prosperity in the region as a whole will deteriorate along with quality of life?" I'd respond by saying that population growth is a validation of quality of life, and furthermore that growth creates growth; if that necessitates a new infrastructure, that is OK. Growth pays for its own infrastructure. Meanwhile, agglomeration economies will allow many new options to be opened up for all residents of the region, all from market forces, without subsidies becoming necessary.

[TheNiche]

And I said, that's not true. Look at the the huge population in dense popular walkable cities that fits his description.

Not only do a lot of ppl want what he wants, They are willing to pay more, so how does that make him very much in the minority.

Turns out he isn't really very much in the minority, so you need to acknowledge that first.

No, he really is in the minority. Check out census data for various regions. Suburban populations in the largest regions vastly outnumber urban populations, and most people will at some point in their lives have children. It is called 'revealed preference,' and it is really easy to observe.

[webdude]

No, he really is in the minority. Check out census data for various regions. Suburban populations in the largest regions vastly outnumber urban populations, and most people will at some point in their lives have children. It is called 'revealed preference,' and it is really easy to observe.

Yeah, but I was taking more about wants. If not for costs, more folks would want what he wants too. I am one of those revealed preferences, but its not really a preference but rather cost practicality, and I think woolie is in the same situation too. If not for costs, I do want to live in a denser city.

[musicman]

Talking about popular and walkable dense cities as described by woolie.

Read above and previous posts please.

just pointing out that they aren't as popular as one may think.

[MidtownCoog]

just pointing out that they aren't as popular as one may think.

And not everybody there walks, either. Case in point, San Francisco is running out of parking spaces.

So if everybody walks everywhere, why do they even need cars?

[musicman]

I think woolie is in the same situation too. If not for costs, I do want to live in a denser city.

yall should move in together.

[Guest danax]

No, he really is in the minority. Check out census data for various regions. Suburban populations in the largest regions vastly outnumber urban populations, and most people will at some point in their lives have children. It is called 'revealed preference,' and it is really easy to observe.

No question there are far more people causing the suburban expansion (sprawl) than there are "creative class" causing urban redevelopment, it's just that the inner-city changes are more radical; single family bulldozed for townhomes, kind of like the caterpillar becoming the butterfly, while the suburbs just silently march on, simply multiplying, like the mole becoming the tumor . Of course I'm joking. The burbs are the meat and potatoes of our metro stew, good or bad, while the inner-loop redevelopment is the dessert.

[webdude]

yall should move in together.

To afford to live in the dense city that was as described, we would need more than one roommate.

I would prefer to work hard and move to a dense city I really want when I have enough money.

[musicman]

To afford to live in the dense city that was as described, we would need more than one roommate.

Calling Lockmat!

[webdude]

Calling Lockmat!

I would prefer to live with just family, but I wouldn't mind if my family has own separate area. Would be great if with separate entry.

What are woolie and lockmat's preferred cities anyway? No point if it is different from mine.

[TheNiche]

Yeah, but I was taking more about wants. If not for costs, more folks would want what he wants too. I am one of those revealed preferences, but its not really a preference but rather cost practicality, and I think woolie is in the same situation too. If not for costs, I do want to live in a denser city.

Frankly, I think that if it weren't for costs or other tradeoffs in some form or another, I'd expect a greater number of people would retreat to the countryside or to waterfront than live in a dense walkable city center. But the reality of the situation, as I've pointed out throughout the thread is that there is no attainable ultimate ideal. Everyone is limited by practicalities, even the uber wealthy. Everyone must make tradeoffs.

Houston, lacking geographical or political constraints on growth, and not being encumbered by a great deal of infrastructure from technologically-obsolete economies, provides an excellent testing ground for revealed preference because everyone just kind of winds up where they want to be. If I recall, for every 22 new households in our region, only one is inside the loop. You suggest that there are many people that get priced out of a place that they'd rather live? Sure. So what? I'd like to live in River Oaks, so I am as much a vicitm as yourself. How do you suggest we ration off finite resources in a way that would negate this so-called problem???