Thoughts On The Suburbs

[MidtownCoog]

Again, I will point out that HISD has transfer and magnet programs.)

I have been hearing this for years. All it says to me is that HISD has thrown in the towel.

"Sure, most of our schools stink, but we do have a few good ones. If you care, you will send your kid there".

[Gary]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my search for a home I needed to keep several things in consideration. 4 bedrooms for a boy, a girl, my master, and my studio. Schools for my kids, Safe neighborhood, good HOA to protect my property value and decent restaurants.

As my search went on it became increasingly difficult to find anything under $120,000 that met this criteria. And were not talking about a bricked wall communities either.

We eventually settled in Cimmeron (Katy) for a home that sold for $130,000, Again this is not Cinco Ranch. My townhome in Town and Country, which I left out of neccessity was sold for $150,000. It was a three bedroom.

I say all of that to show that my limited homebuying in Houston has shown me that it's very difficult to get a good home in a good neighborhood for under 100k.

Of course I guess it's really relative.

[RedScare]

A lot of these posts are insightful, though much of it is slightly off topic. Clearly, all of the suburban families can't pack up and move inside the loop. The loop has somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 residents, whereas Harris County has 3.65 million.

The argument, if one is to be made, is that developers are the ones taking the path of least (or cheapest) resistance. They skip over miles of empty land to go to the next ring, forcing home buyers to jump out there with them. You got to live somewhere, and if all that is available is 30 miles out, that's where you buy.

So, the question becomes, can or should development be forced to fill in the empty spaces? Should land farther out subsidize the freeways that must be built/expanded to reach these homes? Should government, in the interest of alleviating sprawl and the attendant massive infrastructure needs that comes with it, nudge, or coerce building and buying closer in and coser together?

I believe, to some extent, it should. But, how far should it go? And what form should it take?

These are the questions I'd like to see debated on this thread, not whether I am cool for living inside the loop. Was I uncool for the 39 years that I didn't? (please don't answer that.)

[MidtownCoog]

So, the question becomes, can or should development be forced to fill in the empty spaces?

Communism is not the answer.

Somebody own that land, but then again, with the new court ruling, maybe communism is the answer.

[jghall00]

Perhaps that's somewhat true.  But you can staff a school with highly-qualified, well-paid teachers (ha!), and you can invest tons of money in the building and make sure it has all the latest, greatest amenities--you can do all that, but if your population is drawn primarily from low-income apartment complexes, and if most of your students' parents have little, if any, formal education, then you can't expect that the school itself will completely make up for those shortcomings.

I think that what's happened in HISD is that a lot of middle- and upper-class families have abandoned the neighborhood schools, even if they haven't abandoned the neighborhoods themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we'll go along way towards making the city more appealing to families if we improve the quality of urban education. I was looking a house near the museum district, asking price was 160,000. Nice house, needed some work, crappy school district, no deal.

I plan on going to law school next year. I enjoy having these discussions, because these are the types of issues I would like to work on on a daily basis. It would be nice to utilize the free-market to improve our quality of life and provide even more options for both families and individuals.

[jghall00]

A lot of these posts are insightful, though much of it is slightly off topic.  Clearly, all of the suburban families can't pack up and move inside the loop.  The loop has somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 residents, whereas Harris County has 3.65 million.

The argument, if one is to be made, is that developers are the ones taking the path of least (or cheapest) resistance.  They skip over miles of empty land to go to the next ring, forcing home buyers to jump out there with them.  You got to live somewhere, and if all that is available is 30 miles out, that's where you buy.

So, the question becomes, can or should development be forced to fill in the empty spaces?  Should land farther out subsidize the freeways that must be built/expanded to reach these homes?  Should government, in the interest of alleviating sprawl and the attendant massive infrastructure needs that comes with it, nudge, or coerce building and buying closer in and coser together?

I believe, to some extent, it should.  But, how far should it go?  And what form should it take?

These are the questions I'd like to see debated on this thread, not whether I am cool for living inside the loop.  Was I uncool for the 39 years that I didn't? (please don't answer that.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I hate to be the tax man cometh, but tollroads and higher gasoline taxes are one tool that can be used to encourage more efficient land use patterns. But, it's not cool to penalize people for trying to get into a decent school district, given the supposed value we place on public education. Gas tax tied to military expenditures in the middle east perhaps? Better reflection of the true cost of sprawling development for sure.

One thing is for sure, the obsession with freeways has got to stop. They tie up a lot of land, and carve neighborhoods like a butcher does meat. It would be nice to hear from people in the 'burbs what they would like to see done to provide transit options (including walking!), reduce air pollution and foster a greater sense of community.

When I drive through the suburbs that my influential wife wants to move to, I wish they had stores and shops within walking distance, access to transit, more public parks and other gathering spots, and greater diversity in housing styles. I really miss walking to the store for the Sunday paper or a jug of milk. It'd be nice to run daily errands on foot with the kids in tow. I'm sure they don't like being stuck in the car seats either.

[RedScare]

"Gas tax tied to military expenditures in the middle east perhaps? Better reflection of the true cost of sprawling development for sure."

Oh man, I'd love to hear the bitchin' and hollerin' that would ensue if someone proposed that law.

[bachanon]

When I drive through the suburbs that my influential wife wants to move to, I wish they had stores and shops within walking distance, access to transit, more public parks and other gathering spots, and greater diversity in housing styles. I really miss walking to the store for the Sunday paper or a jug of milk. It'd be nice to run daily errands on foot with the kids in tow. I'm sure they don't like being stuck in the car seats either.

eastshore

this new neighborhood is walking distance from the woodlands town center.

[pineda]

One note on eastshore:

I didn't think it was designed with kids in mind.

The developer has mentioned that there will be no playgrounds on site.

It's mainly geared towards DINKS or weathy retirees, IMHO...

That being said, there are PLENTY of other neighborhoods within the woodlands area that would foot the bill nicely. Most neighborhoods there are designed with accompanying planned retail based on the needs of that particular community.

[bachanon]

that is true.

[Casual Observer]

..Clearly, all of the suburban families can't pack up and move inside the loop.

[Guest danax]

It's about time we discussed this topic. I think there's been a lot of pent-up thinking on this and we dabble in it throughout many different threads. Nothing like a burst of enthusiam to break out of the dulldrums.

Sort of like what happened to cities in the past 20 years or so. This urban attraction is something relatively recent. I remember when I was younger how inner cities were shunned and the suburbs ruled supreme. What happened?

I think it was a combination of 1) traffic getting worse, 2) artistic types setting up the first lofts in industrial settings then 3) after the trail had been blazed, the 30-something baby-boomers and gays in the 80s started buying older neighborhoods, then the DINKS, young singles and empty nesters joined in. While that was happening, their disposible income and eclectic tastes set off redevelopments and our urban scene changed into what we have today. The retail that we like intown, cool restaurants, clubs, shopping, along with museums, theater etc, all, to a large extent, cater to and are supported by people in the above mentioned groups with disposible income.

Which leads me to my point, the "inner loop" will always be a haven for mostly childless individuals. It was made by them, for them, and while everyone enjoys the amenties, is still supported by them. They feed off of each other, a symbiotic relationship. When they leave, die off, get replaced by families, so will the hip retail to a degree. The families might use some of these amenities but they really need the so-called suburban style, which caters mostly to them.

So, to keep the "inner-loop" developing as it is, do we need more childless people to fuel it? Everything runs in cycles so what will cause the next cycle to arise? In 30 years the baby boomers will be geriatric. Will there be enough disposible income to sustain the current wave of developments? Who will keep the ideas and money flowing? Will high rises be converted into cheaper housing for the less afluent? Will the population shift to more child-bearing new arrivals whose income and tastes demand big gulps and thrift shops over latte and theater? Will this time period be looked at as a burst of color and optimism that died in a relatively short time? It might slow down but I think the traffic situation will always make living close-in a costly affair. Who can say. Nothing stays the same and I'm glad to be alive in Houston right now.

[RedScare]

Go danax go!

Actually, I only wanted to make a point that this rebirth could last longer than you think.

The baby boom lasted from 1946 to 1964. The first baby boomers are 59, the youngest 41. Assuming they start retiring in big numbers at 62, the big rush doesn't start for 3 years! It would continue for decades after that. No one really knows what all these old folks with disposable income will do, but many will come to the city where the action is. It keeps you young.

So yes, this may well be a great time to live in the city. But we still need to figure out how to let everyone else enjoy it as well. Looking forward to everyone's ideas.

[MidtownCoog]

One thing is for sure, the obsession with freeways has got to stop.

Name one new freeway.

All we are doing it taking care of what we have.

[RedScare]

I-10 20 lanes, $2.3 Billion and rising.

I-45 Proposed similar treatment, similar cost.

290 Proposed similar treatment, slightly less cost.

Grand Parkway Dubious need, massive cost.

[MidtownCoog]

These are not "new" freeways.

And be lucky they are free, and not tolls.

[pineda]

Only Segment D of the Grand Parkway is built.

The other segments will be going through virgin territory.

Even though the idea of the Grand Parkway may be old, they (the remaining segments) are considered new projects, new toll road projects, to be even more precise.

[MidtownCoog]

new toll road projects, to be even more precise

Splitting hairs, but that was my point.

There are no new "Freeways" being build.

[pineda]

There are no new "Freeways" being build.

You got that right.

TxDOT has declared that no new roads will be built in the state of Texas unless they are Toll Roads.

[InnerLoopOnly]

10, 45, 290, etc., may not be new, but do they really need to be expanded to look like oceans of concrete? Mass transit down these corridors is the answer. I realize some people are going to live "out." If we could get mass transit out to these edge suburbs, we could encourage density there as well and stop the outward movement, and perhaps keep greenspace between the burbs and the city.

However if we keep along our current path we are only going to enocourage the endless sprawl that sole reliance on the automobile requires. I am not opposed to the car. People need the personal choice the car allows for. However, if we can densify our development people won't need the car for all of their activities.

[jghall00]

Name one new freeway.

All we are doing it taking care of what we have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what reference to "new" freeways you're referring to. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction, in case I missed something?

I believe the Katy freeway project added capacity in the mainlanes and feeder roads, as did the 59 expansion in Sugarland. Unfortunately for commuters, neither will likely prove to be a long-term solution.

I don't think the suburbs are designed for families anymore then the inner-loop was designed for gays, singles, and empty-nesters. As far as I know, much of the inner-loop was once considered suburban. I read somewhere that West U. incorporated because it was considered too far out to be annexed! As I stated before, better schools and more affordable housing would likely result in the inner-loop having more appeal to families then it does currently. When my wife says she wants a house, she doesn't say she wants one in the suburbs, she just wants one in a decent neighborhood.

This shouldn't be suburbs vs city, it should be how can we improve the quality of life for everyone? Good schools for everyone, good transportation for everyone, and good communities for everyone.

[RedScare]

Coog, I knew where you were going with this, but I bit anyway. As far as splitting hairs goes, if the entire 6 lane freeway is ripped up and carted away to be recycled, the dirt is regraded, all new storm water pipes are installed, and a new layer of concrete 14 lanes wide is laid down, what part of this freeway is not new?

Only a small portion of original ROW is old.

How's that for semantics?

[bachanon]

10, 45, 290, etc., may not be new, but do they really need to be expanded to look like oceans of concrete?  Mass transit down these corridors is the answer.  I realize some people are going to live "out."  If we could get mass transit out to these edge suburbs, we could encourage density there as well and stop the outward movement, and perhaps keep greenspace between the burbs and the city. 

However if we keep along our current path we are only going to enocourage the endless sprawl that sole reliance on the automobile requires.  I am not opposed to the car.  People need the personal choice the car allows for.  However, if we can densify our development people won't need the car for all of their activities.

ditto that...

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/HABlog.../1105169634.php

[MidtownCoog]

OK, Mr. 35 miles from downtown.

[2112]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This kind'a reminds me of the "wolf-brand chili" commercial for some reason.

[Casual Observer]

10, 45, 290, etc., may not be new, but do they really need to be expanded to look like oceans of concrete? Mass transit down these corridors is the answer.

[RedScare]

$80 a month on gas? Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you are fudging your gas numbers?

There is a saying - "You can save time. You can save money. But you can't save both time and money." It has its place in this debate. People make their choices based on convenience and price. That includes transportation. I agree that a lot of people will not flood the rail cars as long as gasoline is relatively cheap, at $2.20 a gallon. But, what about at $3.00 per gallon? Well, some people getting 18 mpg and driving 36 miles each way will say $12.00 a day is too much. Many won't.

$4.00? Now, you're at $80 per work week. Lots of people will jam the rails then. And rail becomes a cheap alternative to cars. When do we hit $4 gas? A couple of years ago, most people would have said at least 20 years. With oil at $61 a barrell, some are saying within 2 years.

When's the best time to address the looming problem? Given the time it takes to design and build these systems, many say the sooner the better. CO wants to see the $4 gas first. One thing's for sure, if the transportation options are better and faster, more commuters will use them.

[Casual Observer]

No fudge here folks. I drive a 2005 Acura Integra TSX. Its a 200hp, 4 cylinder that gets about 26 miles to the gallon city. I drive about 40 miles a day, 4 days a week, which means I only fill up about once every two weeks, sometimes more if I travel on the weekend.

But just talking commute gas - I spend about 25 bucks every other week to top the tank. So I'm actually being generous when I say 80 buck a month, when I'm usually lower. I might be at 80 bucks once I count weekend activities.

Here's something else to look at, I watched a guy put $65.00 in his escalade one day. I asked him, and he told me that he fills up twice a week most weeks.

My point is that trains aren't the solution as mentioned earlier. Better fuel conservation is. Europeans have been paying 5-6 dollars a gallon for years, and thus you don't see Hummers & Escalades over there, but instead you see smart cars & mini's. Our dummies will eventually learn their lessons themselves. Until then, wasting my tax dollars on building more meaningless rail (e.g.:METRO Light-rail) is not in my best interest.

[kjb434]

Please remember that gas price isn't directly tied to oil price.

May seem weird, but it's true.

[RedScare]

Hey, good for you on the gas mileage. As to Europe, they actually have BOTH. Fuel efficient vehicles, and great mass transit.

Most of us here want the same. We know there are no magic transit bullets, but in Houston, oftentimes there are no options, period.

In the Heights, I have 3 bus routes that will get me to downtown. Once there, I have the Preston rail station in front of my office, plus numerous more bus routes. The buses are clean and on time. I have no complaints.

But, the only way to see my brother in the Woodlands, or my parents in Spring, is to drive. Those who can't afford the thousand dollar a month auto bill need options. Rail is one. Bus is one. But we need them all.