McMansions in the suburbs make less sense with high energy prices

[Pumapayam]

Your plan is to get rid of every cheap place to live. You won't be happy until poor people all move away or die, will you?

My plan would be for people to take care of their homes and live in it. Not just let it decay into slums. All homes were nice at one point, it's the people and lack of care that made it sour. That is what scared off people off to the 'burbs to begin with.

[TexasVines]

My plan would be for people to take care of their homes and live in it. Not just let it decay into slums. All homes were nice at one point, it's the people and lack of care that made it sour. That is what scared off people off to the 'burbs to begin with.

you remind me of lil johnny edwards on the campaign trail when he said no person should have to live where there is crime and no person should have to live where there are poor schools

and I wondered where all the criminals would live and where all the people that don't give a damn about their neighborhood, their schools, or their children would live.....people move away from things like that because they can.....people don't like plans that force them to live by people that should be in jail and children that should be in some type of detention education program.....especially when those that like those plans are the same ones that generally do not like to put criminals in jail, let "heavy handed" governemnt invade the freedom of people to keep their property like a dump, or force parents to be accountable for their children and their childrens education

people only have 15 years or so of quality time with their children most prefer to not spend that time "waiting 10 years for the neighborhood and the schools to come up"......so they make choices to live in the place they feel is best for them and their family....even if those choices sometimes do not work out as planned

[TexasVines]

The people who claim they moved to the burbs for "better schools" need a reality check.

Many of the best schools in the Houston are located inside the Beltway and many Inside the Loop.

Public- HSPVA, Vanguard, Lamar, Bellaire, Health Professions, Criminal Justice, Memorial, Westside, and Stratford come to mind.

Prviate- St John's, Kinkaid, Episcopal, Awty, Emery-Wiener, Duchesne, St Thomas, Strake, St Agnes, etc...

not all people can afford private schools....not all students want, are qualified for, or fit the mission of a magnet school.....and are you really trying to say Westside and Stratford are not in the burbs....and it cost some change to live in the Memorial district as well.....not good examples

[crunchtastic]

and I wondered where all the criminals would live and where all the people that don't give a damn about their neighborhood, their schools, or their children would live.....people move away from things like that because they can.....people don't like plans that force them to live by people that should be in jail and children that should be in some type of detention education program.....

Finally, back around to the topic I thought we might discuss here. What do we do with 'the criminals' in the city, once the ominpresent crack shacks are torn down, and the yups move back in. What do we do with all those poor people when they no longer can stay contained in the urban core, or the older suburbs? Especially when people of means, with choice, can't reasonably move farther out into the country?

What then, with the expected population jump that won't be white people with money and choices? If you read too much dystopian sci fi, then you know the answer is that KBR, et al, will be providing power, water and police service to your gated community. I guess those of us in the 'city' will have to rely on RoboCop to come save us, or something.

[RedScare]

they make choices to live in the place they feel is best for them and their family....even if those choices sometimes do not work out as planned

I'll certainly agree with this statement. People should reread the title of the thread. It says "makes LESS sense". It does not say "makes NO sense". Most decisions to live in the suburbs were made with gasoline prices at or below $1.00 per gallon. Transportation costs were not a high priority at that time. As recently as early 2004, no one was thinking of expensive gas. Now that gas prices have more than tripled, the math has changed.

Same goes for electricity and natural gas. In 2001, electricity averaged 8 cent per kwh. Now, it is over 16 cents. Decisions to buy more house than was needed were based on cheap electricity. Now that electricity costs have doubled, that decision "makes LESS sense" than it did in 2001.

Decisions on where to live will now likely include considerations on fuel and electricity costs. As stated earlier, most of those decisions will likely be made in the form of transportation, not housing. A person who drove a 15 mpg Tahoe at $2 per gallon could simply trade for a RAV4 to get the equivalent of $2 gas right back. Maybe he won't consider it as manly, but his wallet will not know the difference.

Electricity use is tougher, but a simple thermostat dialing can have a big effect on the electric bill. And blowing off the dinner out once or twice a month can take care of the rest. In the end, people will adjust. But, Read the thread title again. It "makes LESS sense" now, not no sense.

Oh, and puma is not an inner looper. He is a galleria elitist, apparently with no logic skills. Know the difference.

[cla]

Finally, back around to the topic I thought we might discuss here. What do we do with 'the criminals' in the city, once the ominpresent crack shacks are torn down, and the yups move back in. What do we do with all those poor people when they no longer can stay contained in the urban core, or the older suburbs? Especially when people of means, with choice, can't reasonably move farther out into the country?

What then, with the expected population jump that won't be white people with money and choices? If you read too much dystopian sci fi, then you know the answer is that KBR, et al, will be providing power, water and police service to your gated community. I guess those of us in the 'city' will have to rely on RoboCop to come save us, or something.

Maybe not a reply, but I am reminded of something I learned some 25 years back in environmental psychology...

A community must sink to its lowest level before it can be resurrected. I think the same thing is happening to America in general. We talk about the decline of morality, etc. About the farce that is our government and election process. When I look at the "sissification" of america - the extreme liberalism that requires us to be pc all of the time, the lack of true leadership in our government (I want a damn president that basically says "f you" when it needs to be said - america has lost its balls and the whole world knows it). So when I see what has happened to our election process (get real - the media controls who gets to be the demo and repub nominee) to the point where we no longer vote for a viable candidate but rather for the lesser of two evils and when I see all of the other things wrong with us today, I remember that lesson in college. And at this point, I do believe that we are on our way to bottom of the curve and it is inevitable and even necessary that we get there, so that we can rise to the top again. (of course when we get there, the next step is downward) :-)

[dbigtex56]

Maybe not a reply, but I am reminded of something I learned some 25 years back in environmental psychology...

A community must sink to its lowest level before it can be resurrected.

How does one determine what "its lowest level" might be? For example, the neighborhood in which I live wasn't as well maintained 20 years ago as it is today. It has been resurrected, yet it could have sunk considerably lower. "Its lowest level" would be nothing short of post-apocalyptic destruction, wouldn't it?

This statement follows the same fatuous logic as "How come my keys are always in the very last place I look?". (Because you've found them! Why would you keep looking?) Communities can always be improved; does that mean we're all at our lowest levels?

[editor]

I just went through the end of this thread and cleaned out a bunch of threadjacks and personal attacks.

If you can't keep it on topic, don't post. I'm tired of following the usual suspects around HAIF cleaning up their messes. What's wrong with you people? Man up, Nancy. If you can't discuss something in a civilized manner, then don't post.

You got a problem with that? PM me.

[MidtownCoog]

Editor, I say your subtitle "the math doesn't work anymore" got everyone worked up. The math works "less", but it's still working.

I love the last quote of the article:

[Pumapayam]

People only have 15 years or so of quality time with their children most prefer to not spend that time "waiting 10 years for the neighborhood and the schools to come up"......so they make choices to live in the place they feel is best for them and their family....even if those choices sometimes do not work out as planned

That is another reason why people abandon their inner city homes. There is no solution because too many people want what's best, and they want it immediately. Your reasoning is VERY valid, but the future results will repeat themselves for the next generation to deal with, and less arable land will still be the end result.

Sharpstown again, is a good example, in the 60's it was nice, new, and family friendly. Now that the kids are raised and out of the house, the first round of families are gone, and decay sets in and the reputation of Sharpstown is not anywhere near the acclaim as it once was. And it is not just because it is a neighborhood built far away, it's because it was a master planned community that was poorly developed AND poorly maintained. Once the developers are done building, they move on to the next best thing and the neigborhood is at the mercy of the owners and the HOA.

What's to say Bridgeland is not the next Sharpstown. Same pattern in my eyes, just farther away from Houston.

[westguy76]

That is another reason why people abandon their inner city homes. There is no solution because too many people want what's best, and they want it immediately. Your reasoning is VERY valid, but the future results will repeat themselves for the next generation to deal with, and less arable land will still be the end result.

Sharpstown again, is a good example, in the 60's it was nice, new, and family friendly. Now that the kids are raised and out of the house, the first round of families are gone, and decay sets in and the reputation of Sharpstown is not anywhere near the acclaim as it once was. And it is not just because it is a neighborhood built far away, it's because it was a master planned community that was poorly developed AND poorly maintained. Once the developers are done building, they move on to the next best thing and the neigborhood is at the mercy of the owners and the HOA.

What's to say Bridgeland is not the next Sharpstown. Same pattern in my eyes, just farther away from Houston.

You seem to be ignoring the demographic shift for the decline of Sharpstown. People didn't just move out because there was something newer down the road.

Also Sharpstown was always affordable housing compared to the housing that is being built in the nicer communities.

[HeightsGuy]

I wonder if every exburber is participating in your economic recession?

That is a great point and a key piece missing in Houston's experience in regards to the topic in the article. As long as Houston stays above the national average in all the economic indicators we'll be fine. People will continue to live where they live and will deal with high gas prices. However, I personally feel more comfortable from a purely economic standpoint that I live inside the loop. New housing continues seemingly unabated in Shady Acres and the people keep pouring in. If gas prices remain and/or if we see a slowdown I think it will continue as more people with the means will want to move closer.

The Chron with HAR's help published a visual a few weeks ago that showed the percentage drop in home sales in the area. I'd be interested to see if they could also overlay that with the percentage drop in values. Again, from a purely investment standpoint and my opinion, I think if gas prices remain high we'll start to see a shift in average prices where the closer-in communities will remain neutral to ahead and the farther out you go from the city core will be neutral to lower.

I'd like to hear the other side of this. If the other shoe fell off and Houston catches up (down?) with the rest of the Nation, do you feel comfortable that your home and more importantly the suburb you live in could make it through unscathed?

[cottonmather0]

I'll certainly agree with this statement. People should reread the title of the thread. It says "makes LESS sense". It does not say "makes NO sense". Most decisions to live in the suburbs were made with gasoline prices at or below $1.00 per gallon. Transportation costs were not a high priority at that time. As recently as early 2004, no one was thinking of expensive gas. Now that gas prices have more than tripled, the math has changed.

Same goes for electricity and natural gas. In 2001, electricity averaged 8 cent per kwh. Now, it is over 16 cents. Decisions to buy more house than was needed were based on cheap electricity. Now that electricity costs have doubled, that decision "makes LESS sense" than it did in 2001.

Decisions on where to live will now likely include considerations on fuel and electricity costs. As stated earlier, most of those decisions will likely be made in the form of transportation, not housing. A person who drove a 15 mpg Tahoe at $2 per gallon could simply trade for a RAV4 to get the equivalent of $2 gas right back. Maybe he won't consider it as manly, but his wallet will not know the difference.

Electricity use is tougher, but a simple thermostat dialing can have a big effect on the electric bill. And blowing off the dinner out once or twice a month can take care of the rest. In the end, people will adjust. But, Read the thread title again. It "makes LESS sense" now, not no sense.

Oh, and puma is not an inner looper. He is a galleria elitist, apparently with no logic skills. Know the difference.

Red, you and I tend to be on different sides of a lot of issues but this is the best post in this whole thread.

Economically speaking, people make these choices based on assumptions about all of the individual costs and benefits and the classical economist argument* is that housing costs between "average" homes in the suburbs and inner cities is equal when you control for transportation expenditures (ie, home prices theoretically decrease with distance from work by the amount of fuel consumed to get there).

It's generally human nature to assume that the present will continue into the future, so suburbs were developed, roads expanded, and SUV's purchased on the assumption of continued cheap gasoline, and large houses with large air conditioning needs were built with the assumption of continued cheap electricity. Most people in the suburbs - especially those who commute more than a couple of miles each day - assumed that energy costs would stay constant relative to their real incomes and made a decision to buy their house wherever they did. Now those costs are changing and the decision making process has changed, too. It doesn't mean that suburbs are now illuminated as the stupid decision that they were all along, it just means that some people will come to a different decision than they would have had energy prices not changed.

That's all there is to this story. Everything else about the other costs and benefits in the suburbs versus inner city hasn't changed, so why dredge them back up for the umpteenth time?

* Full Disclosure - I took a class from this professor my sophomore year of college and, for what it's worth, it was one of the more illuminating classes in all of my four years.

[cottonmather0]

That is another reason why people abandon their inner city homes. There is no solution because too many people want what's best, and they want it immediately. Your reasoning is VERY valid, but the future results will repeat themselves for the next generation to deal with, and less arable land will still be the end result.

Sharpstown again, is a good example, in the 60's it was nice, new, and family friendly. Now that the kids are raised and out of the house, the first round of families are gone, and decay sets in and the reputation of Sharpstown is not anywhere near the acclaim as it once was. And it is not just because it is a neighborhood built far away, it's because it was a master planned community that was poorly developed AND poorly maintained. Once the developers are done building, they move on to the next best thing and the neigborhood is at the mercy of the owners and the HOA.

What's to say Bridgeland is not the next Sharpstown. Same pattern in my eyes, just farther away from Houston.

Puma, what would you do if someone developed a suburb and named it, "Utopia"?

What you are describing here is inherent to human nature and all of history. There used to be mansions up and down south Main Street in Houston and they were considered to be "out in the country" because that's where the rich people could build their big new houses on virgin land away from the common folk. Then it was River Oaks. Then it was the Galleria. Then it was Memorial. Then it was Cinco Ranch. Etc etc etc. In every cycle, the rich people build, then move further out, and the poor (and immigrants) follow in behind them.

Most of the real death and destruction in Pompeii was on rich people's estates as they had moved further out of town and closer to the mountain as the city grew and became more crowded. Suburban development is as constant as human nature and cities just get bigger and sprawl more simply because there are more people overall.

[KatieDidIt]

That is a great point and a key piece missing in Houston's experience in regards to the topic in the article. As long as Houston stays above the national average in all the economic indicators we'll be fine. People will continue to live where they live and will deal with high gas prices. However, I personally feel more comfortable from a purely economic standpoint that I live inside the loop. New housing continues seemingly unabated in Shady Acres and the people keep pouring in. If gas prices remain and/or if we see a slowdown I think it will continue as more people with the means will want to move closer.

The Chron with HAR's help published a visual a few weeks ago that showed the percentage drop in home sales in the area. I'd be interested to see if they could also overlay that with the percentage drop in values. Again, from a purely investment standpoint and my opinion, I think if gas prices remain high we'll start to see a shift in average prices where the closer-in communities will remain neutral to ahead and the farther out you go from the city core will be neutral to lower.

I'd like to hear the other side of this. If the other shoe fell off and Houston catches up (down?) with the rest of the Nation, do you feel comfortable that your home and more importantly the suburb you live in could make it through unscathed?

Well, I certainly agree that all this is personal choice. And there are really those that have to live in exurbs because of housing costs and truley believe it has more benifits for them. Currently, I notice we have 1000 more a month in our pockets after moving back into Houston. For a family, that is a lot of money.

However, as one of the few posters on here that has gone from city to exurb and back to city again, I have a different view. And I do believe that where we currently live would certainly fair an economic storm far better than our old exurb neighborhood, where houses currently sit for sale for well over 6 months.

This house would probably loose some value in a downturn, but it would be more of an adjustment than a loss. The neighborhood wouldn't slide and the houses wouldn't get abandoned like exurbs all around the country. Also, we could easily sell it if needed. It's a location situation. Yes, where we are is a burbish area of Houston, however compaired to an exurb it's downright urban.

[musicman]

Well, I certainly agree that all this is personal choice. And there are really those that have to live in exurbs because of housing costs and truley believe it has more benifits for them. Currently, I notice we have 1000 more a month in our pockets after moving back into Houston. For a family, that is a lot of money.

don't you live near the beltway?

[KatieDidIt]

don't you live near the beltway?

Yeah, a mile west of the Beltway and Memorial.

[MidtownCoog]

Where exactly are Houston's exburbs?

Conroe? Tomball? 50 miles out is Galveston and they got here first.

[musicman]

Yeah, a mile west of the Beltway and Memorial.

you went from one burb to another.

[Pumapayam]

Where exactly are Houston's exburbs?

Conroe? Tomball? 50 miles out is Galveston and they got here first.

My definition. An area where the residential development to farm land ratio is noticeable. If there is more farmland, or if farmland is being converted to residential developments, that is an exburb/exurb. Pretty much lots of one/two story structures only, and no urban core nearby.

Beltway 8/Memorial area, is a suburb in todays definition, but probably in the 1970's was an exburb/exurb

[KatieDidIt]

you went from one burb to another.

I disagree to that.

We went from a geographically isolated exurb dwelling with a commute to the Energy Corridor to a Houston-burb in the Energy Corridor.

Wilchester would have been an exurb in the 70's, but as the city has grown west, it's just another urban burb like Briargrove or Tanglewood or West U. Yes its a burb, but it's a whole different animal from a master planned community. I think any single family neighborhood within Houston is technically a burb. And like most families in Houston, it's not like I'm going to live in a Loft in midtown with two boys and two border collies, that would involve another long commute for my spouse.

It is Houston and it is close to work. And sticking to the orginal topic of this thread, living far away from an economic core (whatever your's may be) isn't making as much sense anymore.

[musicman]

I disagree to that.

We went from a geographically isolated exurb dwelling with a commute to the Energy Corridor to a Houston-burb in the Energy Corridor.

Wilchester would have been an exurb in the 70's, but as the city has grown west, it's just another urban burb like Briargrove or Tanglewood or West U. Yes its a burb, but it's a whole different animal from a master planned community.

So you use burb three times and disagree?

It is Houston and it is close to work.

Concur 100%. This is the crux of the entire argument many have been making. Just because someone lives in the burbs doesn't mean they have to drive far to work and are wasting resources. Houston has many suburban work centers that make living in the suburbs convenient and economical.

[KatieDidIt]

So you use burb three times and disagree?

I disagreed with your statement of "moving burb to burb." I went from exurb to burb.

6 miles round trip to any retail (usually a grocery store and dry cleaner only strip mall) is an exurb.

1 mile to everything needed is a burb.

[sevfiv]

Concur 100%. This is the crux of the entire argument many have been making. Just because someone lives in the burbs doesn't mean they have to drive far to work and are wasting resources. Houston has many suburban work centers that make living in the suburbs convenient and economical.

Exactly - it's the commuters (to work, wherever) that have been and continue to use a lot more energy (of all sorts) to get where they're going. Now it just costs a load more.

[Pumapayam]

Just because someone lives in the burbs doesn't mean they have to drive far to work and are wasting resources.

There is a wonderful home in Bridgeland waiting for you with your name on it, care to do an experiment and drive to and from your current job, or how about finding a new one close by to your new home in Bridgeland? Cracker Barrel is hiring around Hockley.

I disagreed with your statement of "moving burb to burb." I went from exurb to burb.

6 miles round trip to any retail (usually a grocery store and dry cleaner only strip mall) is an exurb.

1 mile to everything needed is a burb.

You nailed it, it may not seem like much, but it adds up. . . fast.

[musicman]

Exactly - it's the commuters (to work, wherever) that have been and continue to use a lot more energy (of all sorts) to get where they're going. Now it just costs a load more.

Correct and if they move closer to their work, i.e. the suburbs, how does that make less sense?

[TheNiche]

It sounds, then, like suburbs are sustainable and that exurbs are not...but that as exurbs morph into suburbs, they become sustainable. So is there a problem?

[sevfiv]

Correct and if they move closer to their work, i.e. the suburbs, how does that make less sense?

It doesn't. Unless the person/family is spending every other moment outside the home far away.

There are the arguments/opinions about the culture and "interestingness" of the exurbs, but that has nothing to do with spending exorbitant amounts of money on gasoline (or electricity if it's a large home).

[musicman]

There are the arguments/opinions about the culture and "interestingness" of the exurbs, but that has nothing to do with spending exorbitant amounts of money on gasoline (or electricity if it's a large home).

you can say that again, two separate issues.

[Pumapayam]

Exactly - it's the commuters (to work, wherever) that have been and continue to use a lot more energy (of all sorts) to get where they're going. Now it just costs a load more.

Your options for "reasonably" close work are fewer the further away you go. If you live near or within density, you have much more variety.

This does not apply to the people who plan the location of their home along with their dental office, salon, coffee house etc; that they manage or own as someone mentioned earlier. That is a rare case and does not apply to the focus of what the article targets.

Some people live above there work, or work at home, obviously they would be not be a good example either.

If you say the Energy Corridor has plenty of good paying jobs is out in the suburbs and living in Katy is not an issue, that is limiting to those with that career. There are plenty of people in Katy that travel to the medical center or downtown.

For everyone else that already has a place to live, does not want to move again, and puts a resume out there for what ever line of work you are in, you depend on a variety of available work "reasonably" close to home.

My last three jobs have been around I-45 S and Telephone, 59 S and BW8, and 290 and Gessner, and me living in nearby the city center his had a minimal impact on my driving time and driving distance.