Alexan Heights: Multifamily At 655 Yale St.

[s3mh]

If you'd like to make that claim, then my original post stands. That poster is crying about midrises in Houston while praising them in Portland and Paris.

 

Typical of those who live by ideology rather than reality.

 

BTW, you are wrong. Houston's estimated population is over 2.2 million. It's land area is 600 square miles. Density is 3666, more than Portland.

 

Houston is actually 672.  By your measure, that would mean 3,508.  Portland is 145 sq mi  with a population of 593,820 for a density of 4095.  You are still wrong.  And Portland is actually more dense because a large section of the NW side of the city is a park.

[barracuda]

What can I say? Everybody jokes about NIMBY but this almost literally there - just across the (non-existent) alley if TC doesn't find a way to claim the alley easement as well. Not what I expected when I bought my home here. Haven't seen any plans yet, but I expect the same dull max return for min investment mindset - let's kill everybody's goose & see if we can make off with the golden eggs before the area chokes in gridlock (sorry - had to throw that in for old post's sake).

Just to stir the pot a bit more:

As if my trip to the anti-Houston of Portland, Oregon last month wasn't bad enough, I got this sad news while vacationing in that hell-hole of communist liberal thought - Paris, France. Man, they have so many modes of cheap public transportation here it makes your head spin! Subways, buses, taxis, commuter rail, bicycle sharing, car sharing, high-speed bullet trains, shuttle buses, everything you can think of - I've never had so many choices for getting from one point to another. Oh, and lots of ground level retail.

 

I count at least six of those transportation options available in Houston. Your comments seem at odd with each other...we need density in order to justify more mass transit options, yet you oppose projects that increase density. 

[RedScare]

Houston is actually 672.  By your measure, that would mean 3,508.  Portland is 145 sq mi  with a population of 593,820 for a density of 4095.  You are still wrong.  And Portland is actually more dense because a large section of the NW side of the city is a park.

 

Read it and weep.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html

 

BTW, Houston has parks as well. We also have a massive airport of 10,000 acres in our city, as well as a 12,000 acre lake. You should check your figures closer. But, what is most amusing is your bragging that 4,000 per square mile is some sort of dense paradise.

[s3mh]

Density depends on how you look at it and you can pick and choose your facts. The same number of people that live in Portland basically live with Loop 610, which is smaller in area than Portland and thus denser. There are probably very dense areas of Portland that are denser than Houston, but its a smaller town and thus hard to compare on most levels.

 

When you use the same metric, Portland is more dense.  When you manipulate metrics by comparing apples to oranges (in your case, urban core of Houston compared to urban and suburban Portland), then you can find a way for Houston to be more dense than Portland.

 

But, if you are actually talking about "density" as being the concept of building up the urban core with increased population to minimize dependency of cars and promoting the convenience of being able to live, work, shop and play within the same area and without needed a car, then Portland is light years ahead of Houston.  Portland has built 11,000 downtown residential units since 1997.  Houston has just over 3,000 total and is paying developers $15,000 a unit to add a few hundred more.  When Portland redevelops brown fields, they do a 1.9 billion South Waterfront project, with 2,700 residential units.  In Houston, we do Walmarts and strip malls.

[Marksmu]

Read it and weep.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html

 

BTW, Houston has parks as well. We also have a massive airport of 10,000 acres in our city, as well as a 12,000 acre lake. You should check your figures closer. But, what is most amusing is your bragging that 4,000 per square mile is some sort of dense paradise.

 

DOH!  Accurate Facts are like Cryptonite to NIMBY's!

[samagon]

...comparing apples to oranges...

 

When Portland redevelops brown fields, they do a 1.9 billion South Waterfront project, with 2,700 residential units.  In Houston, we do Walmarts and strip malls.

 

argue against apples/oranges comparison, and then you compare a waterfront project to a walmart next to a train track.

 

ignoring the brownfield redevelopment that this thread was created for, a high density residential.

 

nicely done S3MH, nicely done.

[s3mh]

Read it and weep.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html

 

BTW, Houston has parks as well. We also have a massive airport of 10,000 acres in our city, as well as a 12,000 acre lake. You should check your figures closer. But, what is most amusing is your bragging that 4,000 per square mile is some sort of dense paradise.

 

Read what and weep?  I originally cited census figures that showed Portland was more dense.  I also have shown that Portland has built 11,000 residential units downtown since 1997 where Houston only has just over 3,000 total.  You have obviously never set foot in Portland and have to cherry pick statistics to try to make the laughable argument that Houston is more dense than Portland.  Lets look at neighborhoods:

 

Houston:

 

Upper Kirby:  4,841

Midtown:  3871

 

Portland equivalent:

 

NW District:  8600 (and they even have an evil historic district!)

[mako]

I count at least six of those transportation options available in Houston. Your comments seem at odd with each other...we need density in order to justify more mass transit options, yet you oppose projects that increase density.

Fair enough. Seems like from the last dozen or so postings Houston is already at a density on par if not exceeding that of Portland, Oregon - maybe it's time we caught up in the public transportation arena before we squeezed in even more density?

Guess I should have elaborated more on the transit modes. Not only do they exist here (Paris), but they are fully integrated - you always have multiple options to get from point A to point B quickly & efficiently. When my wife & I want to go somewhere here the question isn't can we do it, but what seems to be the best way? You can fly into the airport take a train or shuttle or taxi into town, hop on the subway or bus or grab a bicycle of the rack to travel the neighborhood cheaply & efficiently? Why can' t we do this in Houston? I'm not knocking Houston, I'm truly wondering why we can't get some world class transportation options going in one of the biggest cities in the USA.

Unfortunately these apartments are a perfect example of the type of thought process that holds us back. The TIA that TC did for the 1st project showed that the nearest major intersection is already rated F, the worst level possible so no traffic remediation is required. Does this really make any sense? If the traffic flow in the area is already failing maybe there should be a ban on future development that adds any extra traffic flow. That would get the politicians & developers working on real solutions.

I am not anti-development, I am anti-irresponsible development.

[RedScare]

s3mh still keeps using the wrong numbers. Houston's area is 599.5 square miles, not the 672 figure he pulled out of his ass. Population as of July 2012 was 2.146 million. It is likely 2.25 million today. 2,250,000 divided by 599.5 is 3753. That is within 6% of Portland's density, and Houston does so over an area 4 times larger. However, like I said before, only s3mh would actually call 4,000 people per square mile dense. What is truly scary is that Portland has enacted draconian laws in an effort to become denser, and it has resulted in only 6% more density than non-zoned Houston?

 

Anyone else would be embarrassed at that level of ineffectiveness. Even the Heights has a higher density than that.

[RedScare]

Remember that lame crack that a huge part of Portland is a parl...as if Houston doesn't have any? Check out this chart of "parkland per person"...

 

 

Now, consider that Portland is barely ahead of Houston, even though it has only one fourth the population. What does that mean? Well, it means that in spite of the attempt at bragging on Portland, Houston has 4 TIMES the parkland that Portland has!

 

Talk about your quality of life!

[s3mh]

s3mh still keeps using the wrong numbers. Houston's area is 599.5 square miles, not the 672 figure he pulled out of his ass. Population as of July 2012 was 2.146 million. It is likely 2.25 million today. 2,250,000 divided by 599.5 is 3753. That is within 6% of Portland's density, and Houston does so over an area 4 times larger. However, like I said before, only s3mh would actually call 4,000 people per square mile dense. What is truly scary is that Portland has enacted draconian laws in an effort to become denser, and it has resulted in only 6% more density than non-zoned Houston?

 

Anyone else would be embarrassed at that level of ineffectiveness. Even the Heights has a higher density than that.

 

So, you previously wrote:

 

"Further, the entire Portland metro area comprises a population of 2,289,000 within an area of 6,684 square miles. Houston, on the other hand, squeezes its entire city population of 2.25 million into only 600 square miles, making Houston 11 times as dense as Portland. In other words, as far as density and walkability goes, Houston has it all over Portland. Living in Portland is like living in a rural town. No wonder people love it so. It is small and quaint."

 

In less than a few hours, Houston has gone from being 11 times as dense as Portland to being less dense than Portland, but admirably only 6% less density.  How embarrassing for you. 

 

And you completely ignore what density really means, which is not surprising as it does not fit in with your narrative that Houston is better than Portland when it comes to urban density.  You completely ignore the fact that Portland has density where it matters.  Downtown Portland has at least four times the number of housing units as Houston (and climbing).  Portland's main urban neighborhood the NW district has about twice the density as similar neighborhoods in Houston.  What zoning did for Portland was create density by restricting density in the suburban areas where density isn't needed and encouraging it in the urban areas where it is needed (and by supporting it with pedestrian friendly retail, bike access and public transportation).  Houston's density is spread out with blotches of big garden style complexes and random high rises thrown up wherever developers want.  No connection to public transportation.  No connection to walkable retail.  Only benefit goes to the developers who get bigger profit margins for doing less with the land.

[livincinco]

Fair enough. Seems like from the last dozen or so postings Houston is already at a density on par if not exceeding that of Portland, Oregon - maybe it's time we caught up in the public transportation arena before we squeezed in even more density?

Guess I should have elaborated more on the transit modes. Not only do they exist here (Paris), but they are fully integrated - you always have multiple options to get from point A to point B quickly & efficiently. When my wife & I want to go somewhere here the question isn't can we do it, but what seems to be the best way? You can fly into the airport take a train or shuttle or taxi into town, hop on the subway or bus or grab a bicycle of the rack to travel the neighborhood cheaply & efficiently? Why can' t we do this in Houston? I'm not knocking Houston, I'm truly wondering why we can't get some world class transportation options going in one of the biggest cities in the USA.

Unfortunately these apartments are a perfect example of the type of thought process that holds us back. The TIA that TC did for the 1st project showed that the nearest major intersection is already rated F, the worst level possible so no traffic remediation is required. Does this really make any sense? If the traffic flow in the area is already failing maybe there should be a ban on future development that adds any extra traffic flow. That would get the politicians & developers working on real solutions.

I am not anti-development, I am anti-irresponsible development.

I think that the question of Portland vs Houston development and transit is an interesting one, because it really is two diametrically different approaches, but it should really be moved off to another thread.

What I think is really interesting about the conversation is that both cities have grown and prospered, but have done so in extremely different ways.

I don't think that Paris is really a good comparison for a number of different reasons.

[RedScare]

  How embarrassing for you. 

 

Why would I be embarrassed? I live and thrive exactly where I want to be. I don't pine for Portland...too cold. I'm happy. You can even tell, as I brag on my hometown. You however, seem miserable, as you are stuck in Houston. All you can do is dog on Houston, for otherwise, you'd have to admit that Houston owns you. You'd have to admit that Portland's draconian approach to density has driven housing costs to a level that you cannot afford (or perhaps your education level does not permit you to afford it). Either way, you are stuck here, while I choose to live here.

 

What's that saying? Sucks to be you?

[JJxvi]

I'll print up some visualization maps for you guys.

[JJxvi]

From lightest color to darkest are following density by census tract.

1) 0-4999

2)5000-9999

3)10000-14999

4)15000-19999

5)20000-24999

6)25000+

 

It seems the urban core of Portland is denser than the urban core of Houston, southwest Houston is the densest area between the two cities, and Portland appears to be slightly more "uniformly dense" than Houston.

 

[s3mh]

Why would I be embarrassed? I live and thrive exactly where I want to be. I don't pine for Portland...too cold. I'm happy. You can even tell, as I brag on my hometown. You however, seem miserable, as you are stuck in Houston. All you can do is dog on Houston, for otherwise, you'd have to admit that Houston owns you. You'd have to admit that Portland's draconian approach to density has driven housing costs to a level that you cannot afford (or perhaps your education level does not permit you to afford it). Either way, you are stuck here, while I choose to live here.

 

What's that saying? Sucks to be you?

 

I don't want to live in Portland.  You never see the sun.  But, I am not so close minded that I cannot see that Portland has done some very good things that could be a great benefit to Houston. 

 

I could afford to live in Portland because I would get paid better in Portland.  The myth of Houston's cost of living is that Houstonians generally make less than people in areas considered to have a high cost of living.  And Portland's real estate is expensive because there is real value that is protected.  People are willing to pay more to be in a walkable neighborhood close to downtown.  And people value knowing that some idiot developer isn't going to drop a highrise in their back yard and will pay more for living in an area that is well planned. 

[RedScare]

Despite your continued claims of Portland density, it doesn't seem to have a good reputation for such. It is almost...dare I say it...Houstonian in its density scale.

 

 

Population density matters for Portland, because more people on a given block lead to more customers, which leads to more variety in local services, which leads to a convenient lifestyle on foot or on transit, which leads to building a city.  Portland has only a few neighborhoods where this dynamic has progressed, and therefore many residents find the need to use bicycles to reach daily destinations (2-mile radius).

 

 

http://buildthecity.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/portlandias-low-population-density/

 

Oh, and in case you don't read national publications, Houston had the highest net salary compared to cost of living in the US.

[s3mh]

From lightest color to darkest are following density by census tract.

1) 0-4999

2)5000-9999

3)10000-14999

4)15000-19999

5)20000-24999

6)25000+

 

It seems the urban core of Portland is denser than the urban core of Houston, southwest Houston is the densest area between the two cities, and Portland appears to be slightly more "uniformly dense" than Houston.

 

 

Link?  Where did they get the density on the north side of downtown?

[JJxvi]

I generated them with the following tools.

 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

[JJxvi]

My guess is that for some reason some people are lumped into census tract 2101. The homeless perhaps?

[JJxvi]

Oh, its probably the jail facilities north of downtown.

[livincinco]

Portland's real estate is expensive because there is real value that is protected. People are willing to pay more to be in a walkable neighborhood close to downtown. And people value knowing that some idiot developer isn't going to drop a highrise in their back yard and will pay more for living in an area that is well planned.

I don't think that it's really that clear cut. Portland's high real estate prices are more likely to be a by-product of the urban growth boundaries that were applied many years ago. Since that kind of boundary creates scarcity of land when population growth is occurring, it will drive up land values. Houston has not put a constraint on the available land which has caused the metro to grow larger in size as the population has grown causing prices to say low.

That's not meant to condone one way or the other, it's just meant to convey that the prices in both places are just an illustration of the impact of controls on supply when demand is high.

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=277

[Ross]

I don't want to live in Portland.  You never see the sun.  But, I am not so close minded that I cannot see that Portland has done some very good things that could be a great benefit to Houston. 

 

I could afford to live in Portland because I would get paid better in Portland.  The myth of Houston's cost of living is that Houstonians generally make less than people in areas considered to have a high cost of living.  And Portland's real estate is expensive because there is real value that is protected.  People are willing to pay more to be in a walkable neighborhood close to downtown.  And people value knowing that some idiot developer isn't going to drop a highrise in their back yard and will pay more for living in an area that is well planned. 

 

Portland, as far as I can tell from the descriptions I've read, and the summaries of development policies, looks like a horrifically bad place to live, unless you think having government telling how to live your life is a good idea. Portland wrote rules at one point that rezoned single family areas to multi-family, and were so strict that if your single family house burned down, you would have to replace it with a seven unit apartment building. Walkability is overrated, I'll keep driving, thank you.

 

Links with some background on how Portland tried to destroy single family housing and Oregon's overly restrictive land use policies (Hey, Mr. Farmer, you can't build that new house on your farm, you don't make enough from farming to justify the destruction of our pastoral views) http://ti.org/vaupdate26.html http://www.ti.org/vaupdate62.html

[RedScare]

Portland, as far as I can tell from the descriptions I've read, and the summaries of development policies, looks like a horrifically bad place to live, unless you think having government telling how to live your life is a good idea. Portland wrote rules at one point that rezoned single family areas to multi-family, and were so strict that if your single family house burned down, you would have to replace it with a seven unit apartment building. Walkability is overrated, I'll keep driving, thank you.

 

Links with some background on how Portland tried to destroy single family housing and Oregon's overly restrictive land use policies (Hey, Mr. Farmer, you can't build that new house on your farm, you don't make enough from farming to justify the destruction of our pastoral views) http://ti.org/vaupdate26.html http://www.ti.org/vaupdate62.html

 

Every time I read another of s3mh's density posts, or his support of Portland's neighborhood killing density rules, I shake my head that this is the same guy who rushes to other threads that support not being able to renovate or densify the Heights. This guy is so schizophrenic it makes my head hurt.

[SilverJK]

Portland is known to be stuck in the 90s... there is even a tv show (documentary series called Portlandia) about it...   Houston is a modern city.  Get with the program buddy   = ]

[JJxvi]

Just put a bird on it.

[s3mh]

Portland, as far as I can tell from the descriptions I've read, and the summaries of development policies, looks like a horrifically bad place to live, unless you think having government telling how to live your life is a good idea. Portland wrote rules at one point that rezoned single family areas to multi-family, and were so strict that if your single family house burned down, you would have to replace it with a seven unit apartment building. Walkability is overrated, I'll keep driving, thank you.

 

Links with some background on how Portland tried to destroy single family housing and Oregon's overly restrictive land use policies (Hey, Mr. Farmer, you can't build that new house on your farm, you don't make enough from farming to justify the destruction of our pastoral views) http://ti.org/vaupdate26.html http://www.ti.org/vaupdate62.html

For each alleged travesty your little internet think tank can come up with about Portland, there are two dozen real travesties happening in Houston every day.  Highrises in the back yards of single family houses.  Big box suburban stores subsidized in wealthy urban areas. 

 

But you fail to see the difference between Portland and Houston and how Houston can learn from Portland.  In Portland, density was encouraged and managed well.  If the density in Portland was so awful, no one would be paying the huge premium needed to buy/rent near the city.  As your little internet posts indicate, there is affordable housing in the suburbs and across the border in Vancouver WA.  Density created value that people are very willing to pay to have.  The rules encouraged more building close to Portland, not less.  And the density created a lifestyle that is very desirable.

 

In Houston, density is coming just because the cheap land is running out very quickly.  The question then is whether you are just going to sit there and hope that everything comes out alright (like the City did when there was densification in the Gulfton area during the last major boom--didn't turn out so well) or whether you are going to manage the density to minimize the externalities and maximize the benefits.  Failure to do the latter runs the potential risk of repeating Gulfton. 

[JJxvi]

Hate to break it to you but I -10 and Yale ain't highland village or river oaks.

[Ross]

For each alleged travesty your little internet think tank can come up with about Portland, there are two dozen real travesties happening in Houston every day.  Highrises in the back yards of single family houses.  Big box suburban stores subsidized in wealthy urban areas. 

 

But you fail to see the difference between Portland and Houston and how Houston can learn from Portland.  In Portland, density was encouraged and managed well.  If the density in Portland was so awful, no one would be paying the huge premium needed to buy/rent near the city.  As your little internet posts indicate, there is affordable housing in the suburbs and across the border in Vancouver WA.  Density created value that people are very willing to pay to have.  The rules encouraged more building close to Portland, not less.  And the density created a lifestyle that is very desirable.

 

In Houston, density is coming just because the cheap land is running out very quickly.  The question then is whether you are just going to sit there and hope that everything comes out alright (like the City did when there was densification in the Gulfton area during the last major boom--didn't turn out so well) or whether you are going to manage the density to minimize the externalities and maximize the benefits.  Failure to do the latter runs the potential risk of repeating Gulfton. 

 

No, the rules in Portland specifically discouraged building near Portland, since that was outside the urban growth boundaries that are a uniquely horrific  piece of Oregon law, and require lot sizes of 40 acres or more. How would you like to have to replace your fire damaged single family home with an apartment building?

 

Who says the Portland lifestyle is desirable? Not me. I think it's awful.

 

I see nothing wrong with the Gulfton area. It provides affordable housing to people who need it.

[august948]

Rush hour traffic in central Portland sucks as well. So much for public transit making things better.