Uli Panel Gives Opinion On Houston Growth

[lockmat]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5524074.html

cherry-picked quotes...

Houston needs a regional growth plan to compete globally with cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and Dubai.

That was the warning

[memebag]

How surprising that a land use attorney would recommend a plan for the use of land.

[TheNiche]

So, they don't want zoning, but they do want regional land use controls. And they don't want to make housing less affordable because that'd slow down our growth, which they acknowledge that we like, but they do seem to want to implement policies that'd create supply constraints and higher property taxes.

There's a reason I didn't go to this event. I knew who the panelists were going to be (planners, lawyers, and politicians), so it was a foregone conclusion that they'd kiss ass and tell us to take both of two diverging approaches.

[ToryGattis]

Throwing in my two cents (blog post).

[N Judah]

Commuter rail from IAH to downtown is like a usable form of "civic pride" in my opinion. And the fact that 8% of jobs are DT now is almost meaningless considering that the act of putting in lrt/commuter rail itself will alter that number for the future.

[TheNiche]

Commuter rail from IAH to downtown is like a usable form of "civic pride" in my opinion. And the fact that 8% of jobs are DT now is almost meaningless considering that the act of putting in lrt/commuter rail itself will alter that number for the future.

I'm all in favor of doing things like hiring sculptors to put fixtures along downtown streets at costs of between $10k and $100k each. Paying up to a half a billion dollars for a marginally-useful sculpture would probably be overkill.

And the fact that 8% of jobs are DT now is almost meaningless considering that the act of putting in lrt/commuter rail itself will alter that number for the future.

Really? By how much, do you suspect? Or is it possible that you are completely ignorant of the underlying economic theory and empirical evidence within Houston and other comparable cities as it relates to employment location?

The expense and inconvenience associated with the CBD stunt its growth relative to suburban areas. Even if airport rail service were to make it marginally more attractive than it is at present, any uptick in long-term office absorption could not hope to rival the growth of suburban office space. And office space is just one kind of place of employment; and compared to cities like Austin, we use much less office space per capita.

And besides, is it really desirable to add more jobs to the CBD, given that that'd only mean that there'd be more traffic from all over the region trying to commute to and from the same point every day? Or is it better public policy to promote the polycentric city and shorter suburb-to-suburb commutes with bi-directional traffic during both morning and afternoon commutes, which also places a greater amount of inexpensive vacant land more accessible to employment, thereby keeping housing more affordable? That is of course, if we really must promote anything at all...

[Houston19514]

Commuter rail from IAH to downtown is like a usable form of "civic pride" in my opinion. And the fact that 8% of jobs are DT now is almost meaningless considering that the act of putting in lrt/commuter rail itself will alter that number for the future.

Good point. Not to mention that the line would run not just downtown, but also connect to the whole system. What percentage of Houston's jobs are in DT, TMC, Greenway, and Uptown combined?

[The Great Hizzy!]

I don't know the actual percentages in terms of just employment, but relative to each other, the ranking in terms of METRO ridership would be Downtown, TMC, Uptown and then Greenway. Granted, downtown's numbers are significantly higher than the other three, especially when you consider that downtown serves as more than just a destination. It's also a critical transfer point.

[N Judah]

I'm all in favor of doing things like hiring sculptors to put fixtures along downtown streets at costs of between $10k and $100k each. Paying up to a half a billion dollars for a marginally-useful sculpture would probably be overkill.

Really? By how much, do you suspect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

The expense and inconvenience associated with the CBD stunt its growth relative to suburban areas. Even if airport rail service were to make it marginally more attractive than it is at present, any uptick in long-term office absorption could not hope to rival the growth of suburban office space.

Really? By how much, do you suspect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

And besides, is it really desirable to add more jobs to the CBD, given that that'd only mean that there'd be more traffic from all over the region trying to commute to and from the same point every day? Or is it better public policy to promote the polycentric city and shorter suburb-to-suburb commutes with bi-directional traffic during both morning and afternoon commutes, which also places a greater amount of inexpensive vacant land more accessible to employment, thereby keeping housing more affordable? That is of course, if we really must promote anything at all...

I like adding more jobs to the CBD. The Katy Freeway project alone -- specifically designed to promote development out past Katy -- is $3b or so. That's worth quite a few rail lines, and whatever office space is or will be built out in Katy could easily be placed in the city along those rail lines, since we do not have zoning.

[TheNiche]

Really? By how much, do you suspect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Pretty dramatically, and this is a trend that has been extensively studied by professionals and academics. The benefits of officing in the CBD are two-fold: 1) a firm is central to the labor pool of an entire metropolitan area, which helps in hiring highly specialized and dispersed labor, and 2) many firms place a value on being very near other firms. In the classical monocentric city of the 19th century, the first force was self-reinforcing and the second force was of extreme importance and the second force was critical because mass transit and foot traffic were the most efficient ways to get around. The automobile, the telephone, and the internet has all but killed the second force, and once bi-directional roads were built that were uni-directionally congested at any given time of the day, the first force was substantially weakened.

High land prices--and therefore high office rents--in the CBD relative to suburban office locations, coupled with pretty severe parking constraints, then make suburban locales far more appealing to the majority of firms with office locations. This is evidenced in empirical fact. Look at where construction is happening and has happened...and look beyond just the larger buildings.

Was this an adequate explanation? Or are you naive to the realities of the businesses that justify your urban playground?

I like adding more jobs to the CBD.

You like it. Is that what makes good public policy?

The Katy Freeway project alone -- specifically designed to promote development out past Katy -- is $3b or so. That's worth quite a few rail lines, and whatever office space is or will be built out in Katy could easily be placed in the city along those rail lines, since we do not have zoning.

The Katy Freeway construction has already been highly beneficial to employment in areas such as Westchase and the Energy Corridor; the effect thus far is pretty marginal even approaching Katy, much less "out past Katy." To say that it does not also help the CBD and other urban core employment subcenters would be short-sighted. As I said earlier, one of the major benefits to being in the CBD is being well-located relative to specialized and dispersed labor, a large chunk of which lives in greater West Houston.

There's another factor at play that doesn't bode well for commuter rail...and you even mentioned it. Without some form of regional zoning as a tool to force employment growth specifically at commuter rail stations and not elsewhere, commuter rail may result in a few notable developments, but those will be drops in the bucket at the regional level.

[N Judah]

High land prices--and therefore high office rents--in the CBD relative to suburban office locations, coupled with pretty severe parking constraints, then make suburban locales far more appealing to the majority of firms with office locations. This is evidenced in empirical fact. Look at where construction is happening and has happened...and look beyond just the larger buildings.

Most of that has to do with the multi-trillion-dollar freeway subsidies over the past 50 years. Without freeways, there are no suburban office locations. Construction always follows the subsidies.

Was this an adequate explanation? Or are you naive to the realities of the businesses that justify your urban playground?

Houston is hardly an urban playground. If it ever becomes such a thing you are, of course, always free to go back to wherever you came from at any time.

You like it. Is that what makes good public policy?

If we're going to encourage one or the other, I choose the one I prefer the most (and you have done the same, whether or not you know what you're doing).

The Katy Freeway construction has already been highly beneficial to employment in areas such as Westchase and the Energy Corridor; the effect thus far is pretty marginal even approaching Katy, much less "out past Katy."

I'm not sure you're aware of the development going on in and around Katy. At any rate, of course I'm glad Westchase and the Energy Corridor have benefitted from the construction on the Katy Frwy; but I'd rather such places succeed via the free market, without a $3b subsidy going right past their front door.

Without some form of regional zoning as a tool to force employment growth specifically at commuter rail stations and not elsewhere, commuter rail may result in a few notable developments, but those will be drops in the bucket at the regional level.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

[TheNiche]

Most of that has to do with the multi-trillion-dollar freeway subsidies over the past 50 years. Without freeways, there are no suburban office locations. Construction always follows the subsidies.

Without freeways, the Houston area would never have been able to support population growth to the point at which we'd be able to support the Central Business District that we have.

I agree that toll roads are a far preferable form of transporation finance because they get around some of the distributional consequences, but as ought to be evidenced by all the construction along the West Belt, they are hardly an impediment to urban sprawl, either.

Houston is hardly an urban playground. If it ever becomes such a thing you are, of course, always free to go back to wherever you came from at any time.

I was referring to the CBD, your urban playground...not all of Houston. And I say that because you seem to want it to grow, if only for the sake of your own entertainment or as a kind of centralization fetish that I can't understand.

If we're going to encourage one or the other, I choose the one I prefer the most (and you have done the same, whether or not you know what you're doing).

Well shoot, if public policy ought to serve each individual voter, then I propose that we give everyone fitting my particular circumstances a billion dollars. Screw everyone else.

That'd be fantastic policy!

I'm not sure you're aware of the development going on in and around Katy.

I'm not sure you know where Katy is.

At any rate, of course I'm glad Westchase and the Energy Corridor have benefitted from the construction on the Katy Frwy; but I'd rather such places succeed via the free market, without a $3b subsidy going right past their front door.

As I stated above, I'd prefer it if all existing and new projects were tolled, too. The outcomes would more or less be the same, however.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

This topic is closely related to my professional and academic background. I think that it is you that do not have a clear understanding of the subject matter. I think you ought to read this. It was co-written by my old Urban Economics professor at UH. It'll bring you up to speed, from the 19th century to the 21st century.

[H-Town Man]

Anyone who has to support their argument by declaring that they know more than the other person is not doing a very good job.

Downtowns will continue to remain viable because people like them. Imagine if Manhattan were chopped up into twenty equal size parts and dispersed across the Tri-State area. Would as many people want to live/work/play in New York?

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[TheNiche]

Downtowns will continue to remain viable because people like them.

Who said that downtowns were not viable?

Imagine if Manhattan were chopped up into twenty equal size parts and dispersed across the Tri-State area. Would as many people want to live/work/play in New York?

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Why do so many people try to use Manhattan as a comparison for Houston!?

[N Judah]

Without freeways, the Houston area would never have been able to support population growth to the point at which we'd be able to support the Central Business District that we have.

Really? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

I was referring to the CBD, your urban playground...not all of Houston. And I say that because you seem to want it to grow, if only for the sake of your own entertainment or as a kind of centralization fetish that I can't understand.

There's a lot you don't understand, mostly having to do with your own obsession with freeways as the solution to transit woes. If you love LA so much, just go ahead and move there already. Sheesh.

Well shoot, if public policy ought to serve each individual voter, then I propose that we give everyone fitting my particular circumstances a billion dollars. Screw everyone else.

That seems to be your position on almost everything so far. You only think you're being facetious...

I'm not sure you know where Katy is.

Unlike you, I grew up in Houston. How could I not know where Katy is?

Next time you are not sure about something, feel free to ask!

This topic is closely related to my professional and academic background. I think that it is you that do not have a clear understanding of the subject matter. I think you ought to read this. It was co-written by my old Urban Economics professor at UH. It'll bring you up to speed, from the 19th century to the 21st century.

I'm well aware of the rise in freeway-building and its impact on the cost of goods. With a multi-trillion dollar subsidy, I'd expect nothing less. If economic growth has come from gains related to reduced transportation costs, a la Wal Mart or Costco, I'd agree that it's time to leave that type of growth to the third world and find some new way to pump up our economy.

[bachanon]

The expense and inconvenience associated with the CBD stunt its growth relative to suburban areas. Even if airport rail service were to make it marginally more attractive than it is at present, any uptick in long-term office absorption could not hope to rival the growth of suburban office space. And office space is just one kind of place of employment; and compared to cities like Austin, we use much less office space per capita.

And besides, is it really desirable to add more jobs to the CBD, given that that'd only mean that there'd be more traffic from all over the region trying to commute to and from the same point every day? Or is it better public policy to promote the polycentric city and shorter suburb-to-suburb commutes with bi-directional traffic during both morning and afternoon commutes, which also places a greater amount of inexpensive vacant land more accessible to employment, thereby keeping housing more affordable? That is of course, if we really must promote anything at all...

hence the growth in office space in the woodlands, sugarland, galleria, energy corridor and west belt. it is becoming more desirable to live inside the loop and reverse commute for some.

as much i liked the idea of the red line and am happy we have it, i'm disappointed that the land prices are such that residential for median income folks isn't sprouting around the stations. i'm sure there are other factors at play here. it IS easy to dream of all the "urban" centers connected by clean, efficient people movers.

i did so love my sci-fi.

i think you guys (niche and judah) have a legitimate debate going on. please make your points without personal attacks. thanks.

[TheNiche]

Really? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Read the paper.

There's a lot you don't understand, mostly having to do with your own obsession with freeways as the solution to transit woes. If you love LA so much, just go ahead and move there already. Sheesh.

Because I don't like LA. Their regulatory environment is rather draconian and convoluted.

That seems to be your position on almost everything so far. You only think you're being facetious...

As I've already said multiple times, I like converting all roads to toll roads with market pricing. And if that were possible, I'd also prefer charging market-rate tolls on mass transit.

Unlike you, I grew up in Houston. How could I not know where Katy is?

Either you do not know where Katy is or you severely overestimate the amount of commercial development taking place beyond it. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt when you made an implausible statement earlier.

If you have specific examples and can prove that development beyond Katy was the exclusive intent of the 'powers that be' in addition to identifying those 'powers', I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'd ask that you stop questioning the orifice from whence my messages are transmitted.

I'm well aware of the rise in freeway-building and its impact on the cost of goods. With a multi-trillion dollar subsidy, I'd expect nothing less. If economic growth has come from gains related to reduced transportation costs, a la Wal Mart or Costco, I'd agree that it's time to leave that type of growth to the third world and find some new way to pump up our economy.

I suggest that you read the paper. This discussion is about the movement of labor, not goods. Please keep it on topic.

[N Judah]

Either you do not know where Katy is or you severely overestimate the amount of commercial development taking place beyond it.

I have lived in Katy for 6 years, which is probably longer than you've lived in Houston. Development follows subsidies. Without the Katy freeway expansion, there is no Katy expansion. Without the Katy Freeway existing, Katy would not have as great a population.

If you have specific examples and can prove that development beyond Katy was the exclusive intent of the 'powers that be' in addition to identifying those 'powers', I'm all ears.

I never made that claim.

Otherwise, I'd ask that you stop questioning the orifice from whence my messages are transmitted.

Well you're the one that brought THAT up. To be honest, it's much better for everyone if you keep your temper tantrums to yourself, or at least let it simmer a bit before you post anything offensive or obnoxious. If you could manage that, this board will be a more civil place. If you think that is too much to expect, just say so.

I suggest that you read the paper. This discussion is about the movement of labor, not goods. Please keep it on topic.

The paper's not that amazing and actually most of it is about the cost of transporting goods.

This discussion is about a panel that wanted a regional growth plan for Houston. You seem to disagree with the idea that any sort of growth plan is needed at all, and openly disparaged the idea of the event itself (which you did not attend), so please take your own advice. At any rate I'll wait for a moderator (not you) to tell me to keep it on topic, but thanks for the input.

[jgriff]

I'm all in favor of doing things like hiring sculptors to put fixtures along downtown streets at costs of between $10k and $100k each. Paying up to a half a billion dollars for a marginally-useful sculpture would probably be overkill.

Really? By how much, do you suspect? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

The expense and inconvenience associated with the CBD stunt its growth relative to suburban areas. Even if airport rail service were to make it marginally more attractive than it is at present, any uptick in long-term office absorption could not hope to rival the growth of suburban office space. And office space is just one kind of place of employment; and compared to cities like Austin, we use much less office space per capita.

And besides, is it really desirable to add more jobs to the CBD, given that that'd only mean that there'd be more traffic from all over the region trying to commute to and from the same point every day? Or is it better public policy to promote the polycentric city and shorter suburb-to-suburb commutes with bi-directional traffic during both morning and afternoon commutes, which also places a greater amount of inexpensive vacant land more accessible to employment, thereby keeping housing more affordable? That is of course, if we really must promote anything at all...

This has got to be one of the best posts I've seen in a while Niche. Why should I have to ride a train into downtown to get to work? Just build my office out here where I and most of the people in my industry live. There is no compelling reason for promoting the downtown area other than for some people's ego trip that are jealous of New York or Chicago. It would be a disaster for me if my company moved downtown. I would start looking for another job right away. I don't need to deal with a commute into downtown every morning.

My company followed this path, we moved from the Galleria out to the West Belt to get away from high land prices and long commutes.

[H-Town Man]

Who said that downtowns were not viable?

You implied that they were a thing of the nineteenth century, and that it wasn't "desirable" to add more jobs to them (but then said we shouldn't promote anything, oddly enough).

Why do so many people try to use Manhattan as a comparison for Houston!?

I didn't compare Manhattan to Houston. Reread.

[TheNiche]

I have lived in Katy for 6 years, which is probably longer than you've lived in Houston.

That is precisely how long I've lived in Houston.

Development follows subsidies. Without the Katy freeway expansion, there is no Katy expansion. Without the Katy Freeway existing, Katy would not have as great a population.

Development follows infrastructure. The financing mechanism utilitzed to install infrastructure is grossly inadequate as well as inequitable--we agree on that.

Without the population of Katy to draw from, the size of downtown Houston would not be justifiable. The surest way to ensure the growth of downtown is to ensure the growth of the region, and to the extent that the region grows beyond a geographic area from which downtown can draw upon for labor, then the secondary priority is to ensure job growth within the region, on account of that suburban firms will utilize services from downtown providers.

I never made that claim.

See post #9.

Well you're the one that brought THAT up. To be honest, it's much better for everyone if you keep your temper tantrums to yourself, or at least let it simmer a bit before you post anything offensive or obnoxious. If you could manage that, this board will be a more civil place. If you think that is too much to expect, just say so.

You are correct. I tend to have lapses in civility when someone makes such a glaring error as yours. Until checking, I did not recall even that I'd said that, and even thought that you had started it in post #9.

The error has been corrected and I appologize for not having criticized you as I do now.

The paper's not that amazing and actually most of it is about the cost of transporting goods.

This discussion is about a panel that wanted a regional growth plan for Houston. You seem to disagree with the idea that any sort of growth plan is needed at all, and openly disparaged the idea of the event itself (which you did not attend), so please take your own advice. At any rate I'll wait for a moderator (not you) to tell me to keep it on topic, but thanks for the input.

The paper shouldn't be that amazing. It should be pretty simple and straightforward. Much of it is indeed about good transport, but that is only relevent insofar as it illustrates why the archetypal 19th century monocentric city was what it was, and how that changed as technology progressed so as to explain how the form of cities changed into the 21st century. Additionally, discussions related to the cost-based proximity of labor to any given employment subcenter ought to have caught your eye because downtown cannot esacpe that reality.

This gets back to what I said at the outset of this post. Without Katy or other major suburban areas supported by freeway access to the urban core, downtown Houston would be materially hurt. And since you've expressed an interest in ensuring the growth, development, and vitality of downtown, I figured that that might be of interest to you, given your apparent centrality fetish. The underlying idea is that the urban and suburban growth interests are inherently connected and mutually beneficial. There's essentially nothing within the realm of reason that can be done to cause downtown employment to consistently grow the downtown employment at a more rapid rate than suburban employment in such a way as would make downtown more dominant within the context of the region, but downtown can be grown in size if the suburbs are permitted to do the same. And it doesn't have to do with subsidy or force. It has to do with infrastructure.

[TheNiche]

You implied that they were a thing of the nineteenth century, and that it wasn't "desirable" to add more jobs to them (but then said we shouldn't promote anything, oddly enough).

From a public policy standpoint, is it desirable to add more jobs to the CBD? And by that I mean adding jobs at a rate above which the private sector otherwise would.

I didn't compare Manhattan to Houston. Reread.

You said:

Downtowns will continue to remain viable because people like them. Imagine if Manhattan were chopped up into twenty equal size parts and dispersed across the Tri-State area. Would as many people want to live/work/play in New York?

In order to conceptualize your example, a person must utilize Manhattan in its current form as a comparison.

[H-Town Man]

From a public policy standpoint, is it desirable to add more jobs to the CBD? And by that I mean adding jobs at a rate above which the private sector otherwise would.

I think that as far as road construction, one should not be promoted over the other. But as far as building a transit network, centralizing the network in downtown allows the city to attract businesses whose workers enjoy commuting by transit and easy access to airports. There is a type of worker who enjoys working in an urban center rather than in a suburban node, and the city should try to attract him.

In order to conceptualize your example, a person must utilize Manhattan in its current form as a comparison.

The example does not require one to directly compare Houston and Manhattan. It simply makes the point that when there is a conglomeration of things in one place, there are certain emergent properties that would not have existed if those same resources were dispersed. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[TheNiche]

There is a type of worker who enjoys working in an urban center rather than in a suburban node, and the city should try to attract him.

All cities have comparative strengths and weaknesses that factor into labor migration decisions. Our city and Dallas, have been the fastest-growing cities in the country in recent history, while cities such as San Francisco have been stagnant for want of places to physically house people. We have key comparative advantages that we can maintain and leverage, and weaknesses that are utterly impossible to overcome, regardless of the resources committed.

I submit to you that we ought not discriminate on the grounds of an individual's preferences, and that the objective ought to be maintaining regional numerical population growth that tops nearly every other city in the country. It is not difficult to accomplish, as Texas cities demonstrate very effectively. The trick is to treat all comers with equality or undue penalty for being. Let there be no annointed class.

The example does not require one to directly compare Houston and Manhattan. It simply makes the point that when there is a conglomeration of things in one place, there are certain emergent properties that would not have existed if those same resources were dispersed. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Is a consolidated Manhattan greater than an unconsolidated Manhattan? Upon what criteria do you base your conclusions?

[lockmat]

All cities have comparative strengths and weaknesses that factor into labor migration decisions. Our city and Dallas, have been the fastest-growing cities in the country in recent history, while cities such as San Francisco have been stagnant for want of places to physically house people. We have key comparative advantages that we can maintain and leverage, and weaknesses that are utterly impossible to overcome, regardless of the resources committed.

I submit to you that we ought not discriminate on the grounds of an individual's preferences, and that the objective ought to be maintaining regional numerical population growth that tops nearly every other city in the country. It is not difficult to accomplish, as Texas cities demonstrate very effectively. The trick is to treat all comers with equality or undue penalty for being. Let there be no annointed class.

I don't know. Is San Francisco even trying to grow, along w/ other cities? Aren't some cities anti-growth, or are there just anti-growth residents?

[TheNiche]

I don't know. Is San Francisco even trying to grow, along w/ other cities? Aren't some cities anti-growth, or are there just anti-growth residents?

San Francisco is an extreme example; people there are opposed to anything and everything. The effect is that they crowd out the poor members of their labor pool, causing ridiculous price inflation and creating a kind of class of educated poor. LA is somewhat similar, but one where many aren't actually opposed to growth in principle, but almost ubiquitously with respect to most individual developable sites. NIMBYism wins the day there. As a developer, you just have to accept that the neighborhood gets to choose what kind of countertops you'll be installing (assuming they let you build).

Places like NYC, Chicago, and Boston are held back because even though they don't completely shut off developers, they're still unfriendly and on top of that have unions. Unions make costs go up, the costs get passed on to the consumer, and consumers move to Texas and other lower-cost cities.

Portland is still growing because it has a solid foothold on the particular niche of people that H-Town suggested that we target. My position on that is that we can't compete effectively on their level because we're already a big established sprawling ugly city in a geographically uninteresting place, but that we do have competitive strengths that we can exploit, and that the best way to do that in all too many cases is to do little or nothing at all, as we have historically with great success.

[N Judah]

That is precisely how long I've lived in Houston.

I apologize, in that case -- I can't reasonably expect you to know what Katy was like before you even moved to the region. Suffice it to say that the freeway expansion (and prior to that, the simple prospect thereof) caused much growth in the region, which continues to this day, the latest example of which is the Bridgelands project.

Without the population of Katy to draw from, the size of downtown Houston would not be justifiable. The surest way to ensure the growth of downtown is to ensure the growth of the region, and to the extent that the region grows beyond a geographic area from which downtown can draw upon for labor, then the secondary priority is to ensure job growth within the region, on account of that suburban firms will utilize services from downtown providers.

The same population with a larger density could easily grow a similar downtown (or one that is arguably better). The phrase "growth of the region" only need refer to population growth, not geographical. Downtown Houston is dependent on Katy only as a function of the style of freeway-oriented growth prevalent in Houston, the direct result of billions of dollars of subsidy.

See post #9.

It's delusional think the Katy Freeway was only intended to be utilized by the existing population. Anybody who believes that freeways are not designed to accommodate growth along its corridors is either naive or disingenuous.

You are correct. I tend to have lapses in civility when someone makes such a glaring error as yours. Until checking, I did not recall even that I'd said that, and even thought that you had started it in post #9.

My only supposed "error" was in pointing out that it is, in fact, difficult to predict the future.

The paper shouldn't be that amazing. It should be pretty simple and straightforward.

Well, when you tout it as being able to bring people from the 19th century to the 21st, you're talking it up quite a bit. I've read some of Glaeser's papers and one of his books, and I didn't mind reading this one either.

Much of it is indeed about good transport, but that is only relevent insofar as it illustrates why the archetypal 19th century monocentric city was what it was, and how that changed as technology progressed so as to explain how the form of cities changed into the 21st century. Additionally, discussions related to the cost-based proximity of labor to any given employment subcenter ought to have caught your eye because downtown cannot esacpe that reality.

According to that paper, people with more human capital tend to live in denser areas. If this is their preference, then I would hope Houston would be willing to accommodate such people. I understand your desire to have an ever-growing pool of illegal migrant workers around to do manual labor, but as someone who grew up in Houston I have -at the very least- an emotional investment in seeting Houston continue to attract educated workers also. If densification helps snag them, then I am all for it.

There's essentially nothing within the realm of reason that can be done to cause downtown employment to consistently grow the downtown employment at a more rapid rate than suburban employment in such a way as would make downtown more dominant within the context of the region, but downtown can be grown in size if the suburbs are permitted to do the same.

It is not outside the realm of reason to think that employment in the core can grow at a faster clip. If even a fraction of the amount of $ put into Houston freeways over the past 50 years were taken and put into mass transit in the core, it could easily attract workers and employers seeking to avoid spending too much time in congestion.

And it doesn't have to do with subsidy or force. It has to do with infrastructure.

Infrastructure = subsidy.

[TheNiche]

I apologize, in that case -- I can't reasonably expect you to know what Katy was like before you even moved to the region. Suffice it to say that the freeway expansion (and prior to that, the simple prospect thereof) caused much growth in the region, which continues to this day, the latest example of which is the Bridgelands project.

Um...Bridgelands isn't Katy. Katy is Katy. See City of Katy website. When you talk about development beyond Katy, it really needs to be beyond the City of Katy for me to recognize that as truth. Otherwise, its either naive or disingenuous.

Bridgelands is the Cypress area, and will only penetrate the northernmost part of Katy ISD and the easternmost part of Waller ISD many years from now. ...and even given school district naming, I don't think that very many living in Bridgelands are going to describe themselves as living in Waller or Katy.

The same population with a larger density could easily grow a similar downtown (or one that is arguably better). The phrase "growth of the region" only need refer to population growth, not geographical. Downtown Houston is dependent on Katy only as a function of the style of freeway-oriented growth prevalent in Houston, the direct result of billions of dollars of subsidy.

That is an unrealistic expectation. Higher density leads to higher home prices, and the affordability of Houston is its primary comparative advantage over other cities.

Downtown Houston is dependent upon anything within a reasonable commute time of it, including both households and businesses.

It's delusional think the Katy Freeway was only intended to be utilized by the existing population. Anybody who believes that freeways are not designed to accommodate growth along its corridors is either naive or disingenuous.

Anybody that would design a freeway (or any form of transportation infrastructure) without taking into account the reality that the infrastructure will generate growth around it is either naive or disingenuous.

Having said that, only the original population was voting for the politicians that backed the Katy Freeway reconstruction. Future residents don't get a vote. Also, as an existing resident of the inner loop, I used the Katy Freeway to do a reverse commute for several years. I most certainly was not alone. Most mornings, I found it more congested outbound than inbound. If it'd been the slightest bit more congested, I'd have moved to the suburbs to be closer to work, depriving the urban core of my retail expenditures.

Feel free to provide specific examples correcting my "error."

You claimed that commuter rail serving downtown would cause the percentage of regional employment located there to increase. This is false. Read post #6.

According to that paper, people with more human capital tend to live in denser areas. If this is their preference, then I would hope Houston would be willing to accommodate such people. I understand your desire to have an ever-growing pool of illegal migrant workers around to do manual labor, but as someone who grew up in Houston I have -at the very least- an emotional investment in seeting Houston continue to attract educated workers also. If densification helps snag them, then I am all for it.

It is my hope that Houston rejects the notion that some kinds of people are more welcome to our region than others, as it has in the past. Classism disgusts me.

It is not outside the realm of reason to think that employment in the core can grow at a faster clip. If even a fraction of the amount of $ put into Houston freeways over the past 50 years were taken and put into mass transit in the core, it could easily attract workers and employers seeking to avoid spending too much time in congestion.

If we never built freeways and still adhered to the streetcar model of Houston in the 1920's, Houston would be a profoundly-congested and very expensive little town with most of its employment in the CBD. If that's something that you consider as desirable, then I'm pretty much done debating you. The same goes if you think that we'd have been better off with a freeway plan on par with Austin's.

Mass transit very frequently results in longer total trip times than would be the case utilizing private automobiles. The exceptions to that, such as Park & Ride and carpooling in HOV lanes, are transit options I tend to prefer, on account of that they are efficient, flexible, and cost-effective. Light rail (as has been implemented by METRO) and especially busses on surface streets are also considerably slower than a private vehicle on the same or parallel streets, but I still cut the local bus routes a break because they are so relatively inexpensive compared to the alternative on a fixed-guideway.

The sad reality (for you) is that the denser a development is, the higher the cost per unit, holding all other factors constant. If you want to cram a bunch of people in close proximity to downtown and make it so that they have little choice but to ride expensive transit to their place of employment, regional growth gets stunted. There's just no getting around that. And if you think that it's OK because we'd have more of some kinds of people and less of other kinds of people...well I roll my eyes at you, sir.

Infrastructure = subsidy.

Not necessarily. You would (seem to) prefer that the users of infrastructure pay for infrastructure. On this, as I keep on telling you, we are in agreement.

[N Judah]

Um...Bridgelands isn't Katy. Katy is Katy. See City of Katy website. When you talk about development beyond Katy, it really needs to be beyond the City of Katy for me to recognize that as truth. Otherwise, its either naive or disingenuous.

That was just an example. There are other examples which you would know if you had lived in the area for any period of time. OF course, whether or not you choose to recognize Bridgelands as Katy is irrelevant, as anyone from the area would cite it as an example of development spurred by the expansion of I-10.

I don't think that very many living in Bridgelands are going to describe themselves as living in Waller or Katy.

Maybe, but I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

That is an unrealistic expectation. Higher density leads to higher home prices, and the affordability of Houston is its primary comparative advantage over other cities.

Possibly true in zoned cities, but not here. Houston's most dense areas are its most affordable.

Downtown Houston is dependent upon anything within a reasonable commute time of it, including both households and businesses.

Density can respond to the congestion problem. Are there denser cities than Houston with better commute times?

You claimed that commuter rail serving downtown would cause the percentage of regional employment located there to increase. This is false. Read post #6.

I simply claimed that it is impossible to accurately predict the future. Can you prove otherwise?

It is my hope that Houston rejects the notion that some kinds of people are more welcome to our region than others, as it has in the past. Classism disgusts me.

I agree. Lack of car ownership should not be a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston.

If we never built freeways and still adhered to the streetcar model of Houston in the 1920's, Houston would be a profoundly-congested and very expensive little town with most of its employment in the CBD. If that's something that you consider as desirable, then I'm pretty much done debating you. The same goes if you think that we'd have been better off with a freeway plan on par with Austin's.

I don't think I made either claim.

Mass transit very frequently results in longer total trip times than would be the case utilizing private automobiles. The exceptions to that, such as Park & Ride and carpooling in HOV lanes, are transit options I tend to prefer, on account of that they are efficient, flexible, and cost-effective. Light rail (as has been implemented by METRO) and especially busses on surface streets are also considerably slower than a private vehicle on the same or parallel streets, but I still cut the local bus routes a break because they are so relatively inexpensive compared to the alternative on a fixed-guideway.

All of the options you prefer are dependent upon a massively subsidized freeway system. Please provide different examples of transit you prefer.

The sad reality (for you) is that the denser a development is, the higher the cost per unit, holding all other factors constant. If you want to cram a bunch of people in close proximity to downtown and make it so that they have little choice but to ride expensive transit to their place of employment, regional growth gets stunted. There's just no getting around that. And if you think that it's OK because we'd have more of some kinds of people and less of other kinds of people...well I roll my eyes at you, sir.

What makes you think density stunts regional growth? Do you have specific examples?

[CDeb]

All of the options you prefer are dependent upon a massively subsidized freeway system.

Not to be contrarian, but more interested in discussion:

You have referred to this several times, but what exactly do you mean by "subsidized?" Aren't all forms of mass transit massively subsidized, even moreso than freeways? There are very few transit systems in the world that cover their operating costs (and none that I'm aware of that cover their capital cost) with farebox revenues.

Freeways are generally built entirely with gasoline taxes, which are essentially fees collected from the people who drive on them. Of course, I imagine a freeway is somewhat "subsidized" from that standpoint in that it probably takes more $$ to build and maintain than is collected from the taxes on the gasoline burned on it.