Walkable Us Cities

[webdude]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

This "walkable" business is not walking for the purpose of surviving. It is walking to appear hip and trendy. It is the Porsche 911 for the urban set. It should be called "strollability", as walking to actually ACCOMPLISH something is not part of the equation. Why else would Sugar Land Town Center meet the definition?

Then again, this is the entire knock on Houston in the first place. The fact that I can go to work, buy grocercies, shop Target and even buy a Rolex at the Galleria by a) walking, or walking one block to the bus stop, is not "walkability" if I do not live in a shiny condo with a flat roof, or if I must walk across a parking lot (horrors!) to get to my pharmacy. It is as rampant on this forum as it is at all of the "urban institutes". It is a form of "hipness", just as much as the designer label one wears. Walking to actually DO something is as much a fashion faux pas as wearing comfortable clothes.

Walkability can include doing something at the destination and be "strollable" on the way there. They don't have to be exclusive of each other.

It is a knock on Houston, but if they reduce walkablility down to being only about proximity, then they might as well do a density research, and they had already done plenty of those.

[webdude]

I wouldn't consider this a hip, pretty or trendy street, but I would consider it walkable when compared to feeder road sidewalks or across parking lots. I guess anything that has interesting street atmosphere would be considered walkable to me. Its not about being trendy or hip.

compared to

[houstonmacbro]

Yeah, that second picture just looks like a long stretch of nothing.

Another thing to remember is that in the summer no one really WANTS to walk in high heat and humidity.

[Jax]

But how many months are actually "too hot" for walking? Even in the hottest parts of summer, I don't find the evenings or the shade too bad. Of course nobody wants to walk in direct sunlight at noon in August in an environment similar to the last photo from Webdude while wearing long pants and a jacket (there is no shade). But if the streets are designed properly, I think they can be walkable in the summer, at least if you dress properly. In Webdude's first two photos, there is definitely some shade for pedestrians compared to the 3rd. I think downtown is the best environment for walkability because the large buildings provide some shade.

An important aspect of walkability, as I said before, is the environment between point A and point B. If that environment includes empty lots, parking lots, etc, whether or not you consider them beautiful (musicman) it's likely that there won't be much shade, and people will be less likely to walk. If the environment has buildings with awnings, trees, etc, it makes for a more pleasant walking environment.

[musicman]

the heat absorbed by concrete is amazing. i remember skating at 9 at night and still feeling the heat radiating from the concrete.

i guess i don't find walking in a crowd of people pleasant.

[RedScare]

the heat absorbed by concrete is amazing. i remember skating at 9 at night and still feeling the heat radiating from the concrete.

Not sure what this adds to the conversation, unless it is a sideways attempt at stating that walking is bad.

Those of us who walk more than the distance from the couch to the fridge recognize that it is not always the carefree stroll in the park. Most of us are not demanding Disneyland landscapes to make our walk interesting, either. I, for one, am merely suggesting that government remove restrictions that make walking or cycling harder, or even illegal. This will allow an organic growth of walkable environments. Suggesting that Houston is too large to walk is silly. Of course the entire city is too large! So is NY, LA and Chicago. However, all cities are an amalgamation of neighborhoods, each of which CAN be walkable by those who choose or have to walk.

This is not a debate about whether a majority of fat and lazy Houstonians may choose to walk. A lazy person will ALWAYS find an excuse not to walk. This is not about them. It is a debate on HOW to make it easier for walkers to do so. We do not need developers with $3 Billion projects to achieve walkability. We merely need sidewalks and building requirements that allow tolerable environments in which to walk.

Currently, we have too few of both.

[musicman]

Not sure what this adds to the conversation, unless it is a sideways attempt at stating that walking is bad.

nope, just that the houston environment does affect walkability. usually better in winter and worse in summer, even into the evenings.

concur that developers building mondo projects isn't the way to approve walkablility.

while sidewalks are cracked, i really don't have a hard time walking/biking most places. the occasional loose dog is my worst enemy

[Guest danax]

I know that beauty is subjective, but I think we can all agree that blank walls, empty lots, etc. are not beautiful. If we could replace all the empty lots in Houston with cactus men and quirky elderly couples, maybe more people would walk?

I do think that's why people want these "walkable" areas, not so much in order to feel hip or to feel like they're part of some hip scene straight out of some TV slice, or even because they don't have or don't want to have a car, but to see things around them that aren't depressing, and instead are colorful and full of interest.

I was in Stafford recently, granted it was along the freeway, but it's those same types of developments; huge parking lots surrounded by generic retailers with bland store fronts with a collective plastic signage at the main entrances that leaves the human soul silently screaming for relief. They're very functional our lives are so filled already with sameness that too much of it isn't healthy. That said; most people don't care one way or the other, and walkable places are designed to attract those that do. Not a better than thou statement, just the way I see it.

[Gary]

BTW, see ya at Lights in the Heights. I'll be walking.

Hey Red, i'll be down there as well so if you see me say hey. I'll by ya a beer.

[TheNiche]

I do think that's why people want these "walkable" areas, not so much in order to feel hip or to feel like they're part of some hip scene straight out of some TV slice, or even because they don't have or don't want to have a car, but to see things around them that aren't depressing, and instead are colorful and full of interest.

I was in Stafford recently, granted it was along the freeway, but it's those same types of developments; huge parking lots surrounded by generic retailers with bland store fronts with a collective plastic signage at the main entrances that leaves the human soul silently screaming for relief. They're very functional our lives are so filled already with sameness that too much of it isn't healthy. That said; most people don't care one way or the other, and walkable places are designed to attract those that do. Not a better than thou statement, just the way I see it.

Sounds like you're describing a group of people that merely yearn for the exotic. Kind of like a 'grass is always greener' mentality.

Take those street scenes in China as an example. To someone that actually lives there (i.e. not a tourist), it may be more vibrant than ever because 'luxury' retailers like KFC have moved in or because just a little ways from there, a new offramp has been completed from a new highway, bringing 'wealthy' people in cars to the neighborhood. And to a person from that perspective, a low-density environment in which nearly everybody can afford to own and use a car in an environment designed entirely with it in mind may seem like an obscene luxury, something exotic and completely foreign to them. It might just be appealing and exciting in the same sense that we see the neighborhood that they live in to be exotic.

[Guest danax]

Sounds like you're describing a group of people that merely yearn for the exotic. Kind of like a 'grass is always greener' mentality.

Take those street scenes in China as an example. To someone that actually lives there (i.e. not a tourist), it may be more vibrant than ever because 'luxury' retailers like KFC have moved in or because just a little ways from there, a new offramp has been completed from a new highway, bringing 'wealthy' people in cars to the neighborhood. And to a person from that perspective, a low-density environment in which nearly everybody can afford to own and use a car in an environment designed entirely with it in mind may seem like an obscene luxury, something exotic and completely foreign to them. It might just be appealing and exciting in the same sense that we see the neighborhood that they live in to be exotic.

Yes, I think you're right that people look for relief from what they're used to, and it is probably mostly very superficial. It becomes like a 3D version of going to the movies. A certain segment might like walking down that Chinese street, maybe have lunch, but not want to live there or even stay there, while another segment would like the experience of living there.

Then there's that thin segment that needs no external stimuli, and all scenes are entertaining.

[TheNiche]

Then there's that thin segment that needs no external stimuli, and all scenes are entertaining.

I've been told that we come in two flavors: 'high-as-a-kite' and the much less common 'just hard-wired that way'.

[Jax]

It might just be appealing and exciting in the same sense that we see the neighborhood that they live in to be exotic.

It might, but it also might not.

The people who have visited me here from more "pedestrian firendly" cities (NYC, Montreal, Toronto) have have usually had a bad impression of Houston because of the fact that it's so spread out and not pedestrian friendly. They always ask me why nobody is walking and why downtown is so empty. I usually tell them that you get used to it and Houston has just as many things to do as other cities, it just involves often driving. So far nobody has said that they prefer Houston's style to the walkable cities they know.

Same goes for grad students from other cities that are more walkable. Most of them dislike Houston for the very reason that it's not very walkable (most of them also don't have cars).

Maybe it's just what you're used to, although I'm from a city that is even less walkable than Houston, and I don't like that at all.

[musicman]

Maybe it's just what you're used to, although I'm from a city that is even less walkable than Houston, and I don't like that at all.

being entertained comes easier for some than others.

[TheNiche]

It might, but it also might not.

The people who have visited me here from more "pedestrian firendly" cities (NYC, Montreal, Toronto) have have usually had a bad impression of Houston because of the fact that it's so spread out and not pedestrian friendly. They always ask me why nobody is walking and why downtown is so empty. I usually tell them that you get used to it and Houston has just as many things to do as other cities, it just involves often driving. So far nobody has said that they prefer Houston's style to the walkable cities they know.

Same goes for grad students from other cities that are more walkable. Most of them dislike Houston for the very reason that it's not very walkable (most of them also don't have cars).

Maybe it's just what you're used to, although I'm from a city that is even less walkable than Houston, and I don't like that at all.

I may be going out on a limb here, but individuals' friends typically share a fair number of traits, especially where socioeconomic background, cultural influences, and generational classification are concerned. So gauging your friends' reactions is probably not the most valid test of what counts for exotic or appealing to someone from a vastly different urban environment--like Beijing. And don't forget, after all, that even a city as urbane as New York has post-WW2 suburbs. We aren't exactly talking about an alien environment.

I've heard mixed reviews from NYC and Boston transplants, personally. Some of them are so attached to the way of life from whence they came that they'll rent ridiculously expensive midrise and highrise apartments (which don't seem so badly priced to them) and go out of their way to resist change. Others end up in our furthest suburbs and take up back yard gardening, making a concerted attempt to enjoy something they never could've pulled off in NYC.

[Jax]

Regardless of my specific examples of my friends, my point was that a city which is built 100% for cars is never going to be very exciting and appealing to people from dense urban areas. But a city that offers both vibrant pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, as well as car/gardening friendly neighborhoods might be. The key is to offer the urban experience to those who want it, but offer the more affordable suburban option as well. I think that might be what you are getting at, and I think a lot of cities actually already do this. Houston is definitely doing a good job with the suburban lifestyle, and with a little bit of work, maybe we can have it both ways?

Not that another example will mean anything to you, but one of the friends I'm talking about is from Taipei and she is missing it very much. I don't think she considers Houston exotic or exciting, although I've been trying to show her and her husband that it's not as bad as they think. I think they like Houston a bit better after I took them out for a bubble tea on Westheimer.

[TheNiche]

Regardless of my specific examples of my friends, my point was that a city which is built 100% for cars is never going to be very exciting and appealing to people from dense urban areas. But a city that offers both vibrant pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, and car/gardening friendly neighborhoods might be. The key is to offer the urban experience to those who want it, but offer the more affordable suburban option as well. I think a lot of cities actually already do this.

I don't think we've established that. What I think we can probably agree on is the middle-ground notion of different strokes for different folks.

You're right that there are many cities that already provide a variety of urban environments. But there are only a few ways to bring that about; one of them is to have a substantial economic history dating back to before WW2; another is to have geographic impediments to movement; another is by government decree; a fourth is market demand. NYC is characterized by the first two, a city like Denver is characterized by the latter two, and Houston is characterized only the last.

Each of the example cities afford an array of urban environments to the residents, albeit in different proportions and at different costs. IMO, we are the superior city because our costs of living are the lowest and because we largely do not interfere with personal preference.

[Jax]

I can agree with most of that.

Houston's downside is that the city is a bit out of balance and vastly favors the suburban preference over the urban one. Although you can argue that this is because of demand, I believe there are some issues with codes and variances that make it more difficult for a developer to build an urban/walkable development as opposed to a suburban (strip center, big box) development. And aren't there a lot of influential people here in Houston with ties to the oil industry, which relies on profits from gasoline? I don't think the Houston's style is purely the result of market demand.

The market will really come into play once HP, West Ave, etc. are open. If they prove to be more popular than a traditional strip center (which I believe they will be), we'll see many more urban/walkable developments in the future. If they prove to be no more popular than the average strip center, then urban development will most likely cease.

[TheNiche]

I can agree with most of that.

Houston's downside is that the city is a bit out of balance and vastly favors the suburban preference over the urban one. Although you can argue that this is because of demand, I believe there are some issues with codes and variances that make it more difficult for a developer to build an urban/walkable development as opposed to a suburban (strip center, big box) development. And aren't there a lot of influential people here in Houston with ties to the oil industry, which relies on profits from gasoline? I don't think the Houston's style is purely the result of market demand.

There are some codes and variances that make urban development difficult. You'll get no argument from me about that, or lack of support when it comes to reworking them.

But I have a very hard time buying the argument that local energy concerns are influencing planning policy at a local level. Heck, if they want to sell gasoline, the best policy to advocate is to allocate funds away from highway improvements, thus inducing greater congestion and reducing average mpg at a regional level. It goes against theory, but if experience is any indicator, congestion does not reduce the total amount of suburban development (although within a region, it may influence the cardinal direction of growth). In fact, congestion does a really good job at causing firms to relocate to suburban office buildings, closer to educated labor, where transit is often completely unavailable.

I know its counterintuitive, but I think that there is a very compelling argument that the best way to foster the long-term viability of appealing urban environments in a region is to encourage the development of the urban core and of suburbs in a regulatory environment that is equally amenable to both, and with excellent highways that are complimented by transit.

The market will really come into play once HP, West Ave, etc. are open. If they prove to be more popular than a traditional strip center (which I believe they will be), we'll see many more urban/walkable developments in the future. If they prove to be no more popular than the average strip center, then urban development will most likely cease.

Developers do not doubt the popularity of such places. That has been proven time and time again throughout the country. The hard part is making the financials work. Those kinds of projects are just inherently more expensive, and the more expensive they are, the more limited is the market for them.

[musicman]

Houston's downside is that the city is a bit out of balance and vastly favors the suburban preference over the urban one.

looks like the study silences the "vastly favors" hypothesis.

[Trae]

looks like the study silences the "vastly favors" hypothesis.

Not really. #21 is nothing to brag about. Top 15 on up, then yeah.

[houstonmacbro]

Not really. #21 is nothing to brag about. Top 15 on up, then yeah.

I think Top 10 would be something to brag about.

21 just makes us sound wretched.

[N Judah]

I agree. It probably would have been better if we weren't on the study at all.

I think Houston would be the perfect lab to try new forms of urban planning, but no one seems to be willing to take the risk. In the same way that the Chinese government designated an area of Shanghai (I think it was) to be a free-trade zone, I think Houston should take a chunk of land surrounding, say, a LRT stop and try some zoning or at least something new.

[RedScare]

I think Houston would be the perfect lab to try new forms of urban planning...

...take a chunk of land surrounding, say, a LRT stop and try some zoning or at least something new.

Trying to figure out what about zoning is "new".

[Trae]

Yeah that would work well, especially for the East side (around the Southeast Line).

[TheNiche]

Yeah that would work well, especially for the East side (around the Southeast Line).

Why?

[RedScare]

Because the East Side has not experienced the joy of having it's decrepit (some extremists may call it historic) buildings and residences bulldozed in favor of bright and shiny buildings. This could help reclaim the East Side for the bright and shiny people.

You're not against bright and shiny people, are you, Niche?

Well....

Are you?

[Trae]

No, because of the Dynamo Stadium and already new development going in. There are abandoned buildings on the East Side I believe (near the light rail lines) that could be converted into lofts and such.

I personally don't like it when buildings are torn down (like what was torn down for MainPlace). I would rather MainPlace be built on a surface lot, and the buildings that were turn down totally restored into something new.

[N Judah]

Trying to figure out what about zoning is "new".

Form-based zoning, perhaps? Who knows? Maybe some new way of doing things that hasn't been invented yet.

Zoning is just a collection of policies relating to the geography of a particular area. There must be some new concoction out there that hasn't been attempted/implemented yet, that would be perfect for Houston to try out.

[TheNiche]

Because the East Side has not experienced the joy of having it's decrepit (some extremists may call it historic) buildings and residences bulldozed in favor of bright and shiny buildings. This could help reclaim the East Side for the bright and shiny people.

You're not against bright and shiny people, are you, Niche?

Well....

Are you?

As a property owner looking to cash in on flagrant consumerism, I welcome bright and shiny people at every opportunity. In fact, I'm so ardent a supporter of the shiny that I hereby propose that the southeast line be realigned to terminate in Eastwood, right near one of my holdings--but not right out front because I wouldn't want to encourage street traffic of the "un-shiny" sort. Perhaps a block over. Screw the property owners on the other side; I'm more in need of profit than whoever those persons may be...they're probably less shiny than me anyway. Do not doubt my need, how could you possibly expect me to be happy...and I'm entitled to happiness, after all...how am I to afford a penthouse condominium in BLVD Place if the government won't provide me the resources? And hey, by them giving me money to buy a unit at BLVD Place, they're making that development all that much more likely. Two birds with one stone--clever, eh? ...but no, no, no, that's not what I meant. I'm not that clever. I'm going to need special treatment if you ever expect me to pull my weight.

And then the east alignment can be shifted to a different commercial thoroughfare, where I have commercial property. It can terminate twelve feet west of that property's driveway, effectively blocking access to the parcel on the hard corner next door. Then I can buy that parcel and expand my holdings at a much reduced cost. And I like Trae's zoning idea. It should be implemented where I own property and only there. Then, once I've acquired the two contiguous properties and restored access to the one that lost it, I can replat, combine them, increase the universe of possibilities of what can be put there, get a zoning variance, and with the guarantee that I'll never have neighbors catering to the "un-shiny" ever again, can position the property to be highly desirable to a developer that will put high-density residential on the site. That's a value-add opportunity! It'll make me millions, and that's in the interest of society because, as the key politicians already know, I'm just a really nice guy.

Never mind the demolition of historical buildings that were way too small to be able to accomodate many residents in some sort of a loft conversion. It's all towards the goal of neighborhood revitalization and transit-oriented development, after all, and we all want that...well except for the "un-shiny" and nobody cares about them...my god, most of them don't even speak "Shinglish".