Thoughts On The Suburbs

[Casual Observer]

I love how you all keep referencing neighborhoods like River Oaks. Can any of you actually afford River Oaks? How about anything along the Westheimer corridor. I'm sorry, but I only get about 150k to spend on a house? I just don't make enough money to spend anymore.

Ideally, I would be content to just live inside the belt (in reference to the southwest side). I refuse however, to purchase somewhere like Sharpstown and pray that it will convert like Westbury & Myerland has.

So I guess when I'm 40, when myself and my wife are both finally upper management, then maybe I can finally move over to Briargrove Park, or even better - Briargrove. I still won't be inside the loop, but at least I'll be close.

For all you that wonder why what little land that isn't developed inside the loop hasn't been developed - I can tell you that it sure isn't lack of knowing that its there. Its because the owners want three to four times what its worth. How is a developer supposed to build homes for 150k to 250k when the land sells at a price that supports only a 400k to 600k home?

Until you can answer that, I'll be in Sugar Land.

[VicMan]

"I love how you all keep referencing neighborhoods like River Oaks. Can any of you actually afford River Oaks? How about anything along the Westheimer corridor. I'm sorry, but I only get about 150k to spend on a house? I just don't make enough money to spend anymore."

I was referring to the elementary school itself, not to the neighborhood; Any gifted and talented student in HISD can transfer into that school. And siblings of G/T kids are also allowed to attend River Oaks.

"I'm sorry, but I only get about 150k to spend on a house? I just don't make enough money to spend anymore. "

Are there any one story houses in Bellaire spacious enough that cost 150k or less?

EDIT: The Chronicle's Realtor listing is turning up nothing so far...

[pineda]

I'm so glad I don't live in Westbury anymore!

It wasn't that great 30 years ago, and it hasn't improved.

No special architectural gems there, and Westbury High, NO WAY!

Westbury Square was the coolest thing there, and it is LONG GONE.

When you listen to the 10:00 news and you can recognize a majority of the streets named in the daily crime sprees in the Houston area as being from the Westbury area of town, that is NOT a good feeling. I'm surprised there's not burglar bars on every window and door there...

[VicMan]

Yea... the search engine cited houses for Westbury, Sharpstown, and Bellaire West..

[jm1fd]

Are there any one story houses in Bellaire spacious enough that cost 150k or less?

EDIT: The Chronicle's Realtor listing is turning up nothing so far...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try har.com much better search capabilities.

PS I don't think you're going to find anything in Bellaire for under 150k unless its half a vacant lot, bordering the railroad tracks.

[VicMan]

I looked for >150K for Braeswood but I managed to get Westwood (just outside 610) instead...

* 4025 WOODSHIRE

Zoned to Shearn Elementary (which only has 200 people), Pershing Middle (good middle school) and Westbury (?!)

* 4013 MCDERMED

Same schools

* 4025 MCDERMED

Same schools, again

* 9730 BASSOON

Same elementary and middle schools, but this house is zoned to Bellaire, which is a good high school

* 10301 OBOE

Same schools as the McDermed houses and the Woodshire house (sigh).

[Casual Observer]

Well, in all technicality, Westbury is outside the loop.

What you have to do is draw a line right down the middle of the inner-loop. Use I-45 north & US-288south as a guide. Now, everything to the west inside the loop is going to be over 200k starting out, and everything to the east is going to be 200K going down.

I'm sorry to say that the east side only works for some people, and unfortunately, I'm not one of them. I don't work on that side of town, I'd be a minority in 9 out of 10 neighborhoods. I don't speak Spanish, which is an unspoken must in some areas & neighborhoods, and I don't have any friends or family over there.

So I'm stuck looking on the north or west side. I don't care for the north side because it feels seperated from the city. I feel that way about the east side too coincidentally. I happen to spend alot of time somewhere between I-10 and US-59 here on the southwest side. So starting from downtown and working my way out here's what I've found:

Downtown - 300k Lofts

Midtown - 300k townhomes

Museum District - 400k brickups

Rice Village - 400k brick bungalows

West U - 300k wooden ranch style

Southside Place 300k wooden ranch style

Bellaire - 300k wooden ranch style

Braes Heights - 300k townhomes / brick ranch

okay...so lets head back up to Westheimer:

Afton Oaks - 300k woodframes

River Oaks - no comment

Montrose - 250k bungalows / 300k brick ranch / 350k brick ups

West Gray - 250k nothing but townhomes & bungalows

Rice Military - 200k townhomes / 250k brick ranch

Hell, I'll cross I-10..

Timbergrove - 250k bungalows

Lazybrook - 200k brick ranch

West Heights - 200k victorians

East Heights - 300k victorians

Okay, so there you have it. I've just toured the western hemisphere of the inner-loop and found nothing for 150k. Even if one of you short-sighted inner-loopers could find me something for 150k, do you really think it could compare to what I'm closing on out in the suburbs?

Not all of us work inside the loop - I work outside the loop.

Not all of us have friends & family inside the loop - I have neither.

Not all of us have ethnic ties inside the loop - My ethnic ties lie on Bellaire blvd.

..and last of all:

Not all of us can fit inside the inner-loop.

Besides, theres more urban density outside the loop on the southwest side. So, I'll see you there.

[VicMan]

"Not all of us work inside the loop - I work outside the loop. "

Aha! Therefore it makes a lot of sense for you to be Sugar Land!

I really made that post citing the good schools and all up there to upset the stereotypes presented by another poster..

And yea, I ended up finding some houses that are close.. but after reading the "working outside of 610" bit I realized that moving to Westwood would make no sense whatsoever.

[MidtownCoog]

Don't think evey home in the burb is $200 or less.

They go a lot higher than that.

[Casual Observer]

Some go retardedly high..

:fishing for idiots: What idiot would pay 400k for a home in Lakemont?

[pineda]

lakemont

[Casual Observer]

I stand corrected, its the neighborhood just east of Lakemont.

[TxDave]

I am far from a fan of the suburbs, but what it really seems to come down to is the cost of housing and the quality of schools. I really can't argue against those points.

If I were buying a house, I don't know whether or not I could even afford inner-loop prices. Plus, if I had kids, I would be very concerned about the quality of the schools that they would attend.

I think the real challenge is to make inner cities more diverse (families and "less affluent") and suburbs less bland (more diversity/density).

[midtown_resident]

There seems to be an epedemic of "broad stroke generalisms" in this thread.

Inner Loop vs. Suburb locations for raising a family are irrelevant if the parents are not interested in participating in their child's upbringing. We live in midtown with a young child who doesn't have the advantage of a street full of friends. However, our child does indeed have a very well structured social environment, as we get together with many of the kids/parents from his school on the weekends at venues like memorial park, hermann park, the zoo, children's museum, hmns and so on. With all of these venues within 10 minutes easy drive, it gives us the opportunity to spend more time with him and his friends.

Parenting, whether inside the loop or outside, is a full-time career - and those who think that simple location alone is a determining factor are lost. We have many friends who are happy in sugar land or pearland raising their families. We're doing the same in midtown. Likewise, we have friends raising their families in rural Arkansas and Oklahoma doing JUST fine...just like our friends who live in Brooklyn and Upper East Side Manhattan.

We chose to live and raise our kid where we are, simply because it's close to amenities where we'd like to spend our weekends and downtime. We enjoy goiing to Hermann, even in the sweltering heat!

Perhaps we'll learn otherwise over time...but isn't that what it's all about?

[MidtownCoog]

Westbury in the city core?

Hardly

And how long is that drive to 610 or 59?

[MidtownCoog]

How long does it take to get downtown from Westbury during rush hour?

[MidtownCoog]

You mean you don't work downtown?

I thought everbody in the entire city works downtown ;-)

j/k

[jghall00]

Let me start off by saying this is a very interesting discusson, and too many of you to mention by name have raised some important points. I hope I can contribute something with my perspective.

I'm 27 African-American male, w/ two young children. My wife and I live in a condo inside the loop, near the galleria, and we've been tackling the issues many of you have discussed. I commute to the Woodlands for work, but as a New Yorker, I find it hard to give up on what little urbanity is present here in Houston. However, when you have children, your priorities definitely change. Mainly, your kids become your TOP priority. That being said, there is a dearth of affordable, family friendly housing inside the loop.

Many of the neighborhoods inside the loop would be perfectly suitable for raising a family if they were 1) well maintained and 2) zoned for better schools. Part and parcel of the problem is the system of zoning a neighborhood to specific schools. This tends to inflate the prices of houses in a favorable location, as parents compete to get their kids into the best possible school. The end result is that families get priced out of neighborhoods with decent schools. So, it should not come as a complete suprise that so many people move to the suburbs. The housing is newer, larger, and more inexpensive than the housing inside the loop. Even more importantly, nearly anyone can get their kid into a decent school.

On the flip side, the housing is less distinctive (read: McMansion), and there appears to be a lack of culture, diversity, and public spaces. I'm also disregarding the impacts of sprawl (air pollution, increased oil dependence, etc.) I can't really blame anyone for choosing to live in the suburbs, but I think we can do a better job of mitigating the negative impacts from social standpoint. It's a very difficult situation. We want to do what's best for ourselves and our families, but when we all act on our own self-interest, some negative impacts result.

I think if we try to understand each other's perspective, find common ground, and make a decision to work together, we can address some of the problems we've identified. That being said, the suburbs aren't going away. What can we do to make them better?

I'll start off:

Slightly smaller lots w/ more and larger public parks - Hopefully, this would enable people to come together, and kids could easily find other kids to play with. Lower property taxes and maintenance for individual homeowners

Fewer cul-de sacs and more grids - Would make it easier to visit friends and neighbors by walking, by providing a more direct path...and you could take a different route if you felt like it.

Greater variety in housing design - To appeal to a wider variety of tastes, and you wouldn't have to leave the neighborhood if you wanted a different type of home.

Better connections between subdivisions - To make it easier for everyone, especially children, to visit friends and neighbors in other communities

Greater variety in pricing and housing types - So you wouldn't have to leave the neighborhood when you get a raise, or when the kids move out. Allows a great level of interaction between people with disparate backgrounds.

[2112]

I know this will come off as mean spirited and condesending to some so I appologize for that ahead of time.

I have been reading this forum for a while and feel I should chime in now.

[MidtownCoog]

This regular dismissal of outer-loopers will only divide all of us.

Agree. We don't want to end up like the freaks in Austin.

"Keep Austin wiered, and all that jazz".

[jghall00]

I agree with most of what you are saying.  My only problem with your post is this: the essentially arbitrary decree of

[kjb434]

Good point 2112 about the inner loop.

The majority of the inner loop is nothing different than outer Beltway sprawl. Only a portion of the inner loop is different and more dense.

Many of the lots being platted in the suburburbs are from 7-8 thousand square feet or 0.15 acres. The houses are literally about 5 feet from next in many of the new subdivisions. Many of the homes in the Braeswood areas in the loop and on the east side have larger lots or more room than these out in the burbs.

The big difference the streets may not be in a grid.

Also, many people complain about developers in the loop destroying these old homes and builing three or four townhomes on the lot. At the same time these people want more mid-rises and high-rises and dense urban development. Either townhomes or dense urban development will require the removal of these homes. Is the developer suppose to go to the poorer areas and buyout where the opposistion isn't as strong?

Just like to throw that out there for you guys.

In the end, does this discussion really matter. Outside of the government mandating where you can or can't live, people are going to choose to live in the burbs or closer in to the city based on their own criteria. You can't force people to live where you want them to. And zoning won't be able to solve this. Zoning doesn't stall sprawl any less than lack of zoning (i.e. Metroplex). Zoning won't even force urbanity either. You can't zone the urban areas on edges of the city (such as westchase) for dense residential if there isn't a demand. The land will just stay vacant. You don't see dense urban development forming in the suburbs of Dallas with zoning. Near downtown Dallas there is dense development, but who says that couldn't have happend without zonning since there must be some demand.

I'm not picking on Dallas, it's just an example for comparison. We just have different methods to development and neither are necessary better.

I really agree with danax's post above

[pineda]

(From David Crossley of the Gulf Coast Institute newsletter this month:)

URBANISM

Banker says smart growth makes economic sense

Rising real estate prices lead to urban development

Anthony Santomero, a regional head of the Federal Reserve Banks, sees this as a time of opportunity for Smart Growth, according to Reuters. Because of rising property values, Santomero says,

[jghall00]

A very thoughtful response, jghall00.  Some of your ideas for improving the 'burbs are similar--if not identical--to those of the New Urbanists.  Personally, I'm not 100% in support of everything they stand for--just covering my ass, because I know the NUs have been attacked in this forum before--but I think many of their ideals are worthy of consideration.

I think the idea of having too much variety in housing prices and types makes people nervous.  Even in master-planned communities, subdivisions tend to be segregated by income.  There might be pockets of starter homes, pockets of "move-up" homes, pockets of luxury homes, etc.  But, generally speaking, there's very little mixture of housing types and prices.  Perhaps it's sad, but I guess it stems from people worrying about their property values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Torchlight,

I'd be interested in hearing some of your ideas. I'm familiar with some New Urbanism tenets, but I'm not a diehard soldier of the movement or anything. I'm more free-market then anything, but I think our current market is a bit out of whack

People definitely have every reason to want to protect their property values. I don't blame them not one bit, as I would be concerned too. In this particular instance, I think the fear is misfounded.

I've noticed many areas that were once suburban tend to take a turn downhill after a few decades. I'm no sociologist or urban planner, but I'm speculating that many of these neighborhoods are designed for young families, and that people leave them once the kids are out of the house. For whatever reason, the people that then move in don't seem to invest as much in the neighorhood, which causes other owners with the means to leave, and it's a spiral down from there.

It seems to me that one of the things that needs to happen to preserve property values long-term is that there needs to be continuous investment in the neighborhood. The housing stock needs to be replenished and maintained. Perhaps more importantly, the sense of community needs to be maintained. Peer pressure is a powerful motivator. No one wants to be the bad neighbor who brings the neighborhood down. With rapid turnover from empty nesters leaving, there's probably little sense of continuity or history. People probably view the neighborhood as a pitstop on the way to something better.

If there was more diversity in housing, perhaps one would be able to upgrade, without breaking all ties to the neighborhood. Even River Oaks has a ton of re-investment taking place. I pass through there all the time, and everwhere I turn, I see new houses going up. From what I've seen, in the 'burbs, you don't do a teardown and put up something nicer, you switch neighborhoods completely.

I don't think having lower priced homes in the same community will damage property values. No one would put a 250,000 house next to a 110,000, but you can place them a few blocks apart. Then maybe when the person in the 110,000 wants to upgrade, they can move a few blocks over, and keep their friends and neighbors. And the people who want to buy the 110,000 houses will say hey, I live in a nice neighborhood; it must be one, because the houses a few blocks away cost more then twice as much. Those with expensive homes will have a ready made market for their house, from people in the neighborhood looking to upgrade. And grandma who is on fixed income can live down the street in the more inexpensive home.

I apologize if I'm not making sense, if anyone cares to better inform my opinion, I'm open to suggestion.

[2112]

It's simply supply and demand. What's available inside the loop versus outside. Why are more homes being sold outside the loop?

1) As mentioned, "inside the loop" to many means 250K+ with no children around. The affordable areas inside the loop (at risk of soundling like a broken record, my neighborhood has 1200-1500 sq ft homes for 80-100K. This would be a typical affordable neighborhood inside the loop that most "people" (white, black, hispanic) wouldn't consider unless it was all that they could afford). Schools, perceptions of crime (some of the suburbs are becoming much worse and will continue to decline, not improve), and to whites, being a minority and raising children that are in the minority in a neighborhood are the main reasons that a neighborhood such as mine is not a "viable" option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect, I missed the part were an $80-000 to $100,000 home was considered poverty, that most "wouldnt consider unless it was all that they could afford". A $100,000 home is very much middle class, at least between the belt and the loop. Maybe, in the loop, a home in that range is trully a shack. But maybe it's my perspective from being raised in the Rio Grande Valley, where a shack in the barrio was litterally, a shack. I guess the definitions have changed and I didnt notice. But, I am pretty certain that a home in the $100,000 range is not low-end at all. It's no Memorial or River Oaks. I wonder what someone from River Oaks would consider low-end? $500,000? Who knows.

[jghall00]

I really agree with danax's post above

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, women do really have a lot of influence

[kjb434]

Many master planned communities already mix the house prices together.

All time i see signs that say "from the 100s to mid 400s". If that's not mixed don't know what it is. Champions (built in the 70s and 80s) has a mixed range of house from 100s to over 1 million.

Fairfield, Woodlans, Kingwood, and many of the larger developments have the mixed prices.

Many of the smaller developments (200 acres or less) have more continuity in house prices.

Even in the beltway and in the loop, old developments have mixed prices. The River Oaks area has houses from 4 million or higher down to mid 300s.

[2112]

Is it me? Or has anyone noticed people buying homes that they really cannot afford. Say, most people in my field make between $40,000 and $120,000, tops. Most never see above $90,000 at the top of thier careers, at least during this time-frame. Yet, I see a lot of people buying or building $300,000 homes. That just doesnt add up. Some have two incomes in thier household, but what happens when one of them looses thier job, which is a normal occurance in engineering and technology. It just seems that people dont seem to understand the difference between living, and living for your mortgage.

[jghall00]

Is it me?

[Gary]

I agree with most of what you are saying.  My only problem with your post is this: the essentially arbitrary decree of