More Congestion On Interstate-10

[por favor gracias]

Culberson didn't lobby so hard for those I-10 funds to make commute time shorter, or improve regional transportation at all.  His motive is money, and that's where the money was. 

 

This is why all the freeways are being built to nowhere, because developers have snatched up those lands. 

 

It's not about good regional transportation solutions, not about improving commute times, it's about money.

Exactly, and it sure is "convenient" for the oil companies.

[ig2ba]

Well, Katy isn't exactly "nowhere", even 10 years ago before construction began (and points along Katy Freeway). As for Culberson's motivation, do you actually have real proof that he wanted Katy Freeway to be widened solely for money, or is that just rhetoric? Furthermore, even if Culberson was in cahoots with the developers, that's hardly a unique situation. You think that palms weren't being greased when they built the rail down Main and other streets?

 

Proof? ____ that! Freeway construction is always corrupt. How can it not be? Rail projects are always squeaky clean.

 

Whenever the most logical explanation for unfavorable (to you) results is incompetence or on people having different preferences, you are usually wrong. It is corruption and evil intent!

[ig2ba]

Exactly, and it sure is "convenient" for the oil companies.

 

Convenient how? What are you alleging?

[por favor gracias]

Convenient how? What are you alleging?

It's "convenient" because they make millions of dollars every day from thousands of vehicles traveling millions of miles just in Houston. I'm "alleging" that they lobby politicians locally like they do at the national level. It's not rocket science.

[por favor gracias]

Proof? ____ that! Freeway construction is always corrupt. How can it not be? Rail projects are always squeaky clean.

 

Whenever the most logical explanation for unfavorable (to you) results is incompetence or on people having different preferences, you are usually wrong. It is corruption and evil intent!

No one is saying "that freeway construction is always corrupt," or that "rail projects are always squeaky clean."

 

Look in the mirror, man.

[nolaboy]

It's all corruption: developers, politicians, construction, concrete, and gullible people who think having a giant house in the middle of nowhere is the american dream. But the basis of all this is cheap gas, once that is gone then the idea of suburbia will collapse in Houston unless there are serious investments in rail.

What about the people that actually prefer and desire to have a brand new giant house in the middle of nowhere? If that's not what you desire then stay in your dense city and stay off the congested highways that you like to complain about. If you prefer a multifamily dwelling or a smaller plot of land and can afford the higher cost of living in the city, then I'm happy for you. But that's not at all my thing.

My solution was to build a big arse house on a big arse plot of land around Westpark Twy and 99, and found a job at the Beltway and Westpark. I have 0 problems with my 20-25min drive thru the morning and evening rush. Problem solved -- I hardly ever have to go near 610, which should make people like you happy.

I think there are alot of assumptions that everyone travels all the way to 610 or downtown from the outer suburbs but that's not necessarily the case. The satellite employment centers such as westchase, energy corridor, woodlands, etc actually help the cause of relieving congestion in the core. I know we all dream of having a solid urban core that we can all be proud of but cramming 6 million people worth of housing and employment centers inside the loop ( or the beltway for that matter) won't make life easier or quicker to access to things we want to do. So I think the argument for getting rid of congestion would be to encourage people to work in their nearby employment center instead of driving into or across town to a different center.

I used to live in downtown Chicago and at all times of the day it actually takes a lot longer to travel short distances (the majority of the city is really a 1x5mile grid) with the walking to/from train stations, or it can be costly (but quicker) to take a cab. Don't even try to drive because biking is quicker in a lot of cases. But I have no interest in biking in their cold winters or our humid summers - or even in nicer weather.for that matter.

Compare that to Houston, at most times of the day outside of rush hour (or major accidents), you can drive around a lot quicker door to door because most freeways are clear of congestion. And you can park right.next to the store or business that you are visiting. The exceptions are the westloop which I really have no desire to go to or through purely because of congestion.

In response to someone's comment about terminating freeways at 610 and using mass transit inside the loop....getting off the freeways to park at a park n ride, then getting on a train (possibly transferring to another train or bus) and walking to your destination still takes time. I know a lot of you don't share the same sentiment but I prefer my own space, my radio, the comfort of my car, the convenience of carrying all my crap in my car, and the option of loading it up with whatever the hell I want so I can take it all home to store in my huge arse house. I lived the city life and as faster of a pace life is, it still takes longer to go places and do things.

Regardless its all a matter of preference so to each their own.

[ig2ba]

Inaccessible? Almost Every darn Houston arterial street is like a freeway. You don't know Houston.

Running the highways to circle the city instead of cut through it will enhance it, but not kill it.

 

I know Houstonians. I've talked to many people who want their company to build a suburban campus like ExxonMobil is doing because they don't want to deal with downtown, I guess implying that the suburbs don't have traffic and only downtown does, that downtown is overrun with homeless, and that downtown has no advantages over some far-flung suburbs - none.

 

I sorta see where they're coming from but don't agree with them. It doesn't really matter though whether you or I think they are wrong or can prove it. It matters whether enough people share their perception and a company moving to the burbs can bring their workers with them when they move to the burbs. Downtown needs to remain an attractive place to business. Real high value businesses and restaurants and clubs. To do that, it needs to be accessible.

 

"Lower" Westheimer and Alabama are really poor as arterials. Richmond is the only decent one. Houston has no good N/S arterials between Spur 527 and 610. A little further out, there aren't really any other arterials that can move a lot of traffic.

 

Enhance how? Like the 98% of the Inner Loop which isn't adjacent to a freeway is suddenly going to open up to development once freeways are moved miles away? Sounds like more traffic on back streets to me. I wouldn't enjoy that.

[ig2ba]

What about the people that actually prefer and desire to have a brand new giant house in the middle of nowhere? If that's not you desire then stay in your dense city and stay off the congested highways that you like to complain about. If you prefer a multifamily dwelling or a smaller plot of land and can afford the higher cost of living in the city, then in happy for you. But that's not at all my thing. My solution was to build a big arse house on a big arse plot of land around Westpark Twy and 99, and found a job at the Beltway and Westpark.

...

 

What about the people who are concerned about the schools and couldn't care less about a huge house? I know a couple couples right now who like living inside the Loop and are applying for their kids to go to private schools. Given the limited number of such schools, there is a lot of competition to get in. If the kids don't get in, they will move to the suburbs, ones with excellent schools. It's not like they prefer Katy but are making sacrifices for their kids.

 

For at least the next few decades, I see this being a trend of people moving to the suburbs, some of them for no reason other than the schools. If we insist on ____ing with these people, they will find a new job in the Energy Corridor or The Woodlands, quit their job in downtown and the core will lose jobs.

[ig2ba]

No one is saying "that freeway construction is always corrupt," or that "rail projects are always squeaky clean."

 

Look in the mirror, man.

 

No one is alleging that "freeway construction is always corrupt", but some are always alleging that "freeway construction is corrupt". At the moment, you and Slick Vik are saying this. Without proof. Without relevance to the topic. Out of anger that things are happening which you don't like and that you can't explain. Like all conspiracy theories.

[ig2ba]

It's "convenient" because they make millions of dollars every day from thousands of vehicles traveling millions of miles just in Houston. I'm "alleging" that they lobby politicians locally like they do at the national level. It's not rocket science.

 

I see. So the economics of bribing politicians to support road projects throughout the country - and including projects that are nearly certain to be approved - is a good use of their money.

 

Do the companies collaborate on this? If so, how do they decide which companies have to spend and how much they should spend for each project? Is Chevron in control of bribing politicians in the Bay Area? And Exxon does it for Dallas? How do they allocate for states that have little to no oil production, like all the freeway projects in St. Louis or Florida or Washington, DC or North Carolina?

 

Also a bigger question, how much money do they spending on bribing people to drive to work every day? A new freeway is no good if there's no one to drive on it. I've never seen a paycheck for this, so I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where to apply for this money.

[por favor gracias]

No one is alleging that "freeway construction is always corrupt", but some are always alleging that "freeway construction is corrupt". At the moment, you and Slick Vik are saying this. Without proof. Without relevance to the topic. Out of anger that things are happening which you don't like and that you can't explain. Like all conspiracy theories.

 

Well, I don't have "proof" that O.J. killed Nicole...but he did.  I think it would be naive at that point to assume that there is no corruption between the industries Slick Vik pointed out (amongst others) and our local politicians. We all know they lobby them, and observation (and common sense) should dictate that they are getting more than their money's worth. How is that "not" a conspiracy?

 

I would appreciate it if you would stop acting like you know me by saying things like "I'm saying this out of anger" or that I "can't explain" what I'm talking about. I've BEEN angry about this for years...I didn't just come on HAIF twenty minutes ago and start thinking "how can I channel my anger towards the collusion between industry and government?" There absolutely was "relevance" to how I came about this topic. Read the whole thread...it's not like I went out on some limb.

[Slick Vik]

Yeah, a city with proportionally worse traffic than other cities of similar size.

How are they "nutjobs"? Frankly, people like you and David should be applauding the fact that it means that there'll be less demolition for right of way.

Remember the "Inner Loop echo chamber" statement above?

The original argument was speculative anyway. Besides, if you believe the "other side" is corrupt and evil while your side is Honest and True, then you're deluding yourself (this goes for any political orientation)

We are not going to get involved in this discussion again.

 

1. Ranked #1 place to live in the world year after year.

 

2. Because they have a sick fetish with adding more lanes, horizontally or vertically.

 

3. I'm not deluding myself, but one side has vast political support while the other has enemies due to outside interests.

 

4. This country lives off cheap gas. Period.

[por favor gracias]

I see. So the economics of bribing politicians to support road projects throughout the country - and including projects that are nearly certain to be approved - is a good use of their money.

 

Do the companies collaborate on this? If so, how do they decide which companies have to spend and how much they should spend for each project? Is Chevron in control of bribing politicians in the Bay Area? And Exxon does it for Dallas? How do they allocate for states that have little to no oil production, like all the freeway projects in St. Louis or Florida or Washington, DC or North Carolina?

 

Also a bigger question, how much money do they spending on bribing people to drive to work every day? A new freeway is no good if there's no one to drive on it. I've never seen a paycheck for this, so I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where to apply for this money.

Yes...investing a fraction into what you're making is "a good use of their money"...at least to them it is. Here is a recent list of some of the O & G companies' contributions on the national level:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

 

As you can see, they are getting quite a return on their investment.

 

Companies don't have to "go in together." They might, I certainly don't "know"...I'm sure these things are done on an individual basis. I don't know why you are asking ME these questions. It's obvious what our road/transportation policies are and where the money is both coming from and going to. All it takes is for a few people from a few companies to bribe a few people at the right positions of government or other industry to get something like the Katy Freeway built. I usually find that following the money makes the most sense.

 

Also, why would any of these companies have to "bribe people to drive to work?" They already know they have hundreds of thousands of locals driving to and from wherever the developers build. If anyone's bribing the people, it's the developers. They are practically giving away huge houses in the middle of nowhere for prices that are a fraction per square foot of what we would pay for in the city. I'm inclined to think that's why Exxon bought that land in what is now Greenspoint, Kingwood, Clear Lake, etc....knowing that it will yield them guaranteed use of their product through the foreseeable future. Today, that's seen as a "good business decision."

 

Do you find it interesting that our freeways never have any potholes...but the moment you get on most of the streets, it's like we're driving on the moon? I do. It's also interesting to me that they have repaved Westheimer (which didn't have one pothole outside the loop) twice now in the last 10 years or so. Regardless of my 100 or so personal requests (and I know for a fact many others as well) to 311 to repave all of Richmond Avenue between the Dairy Ashford area and midtown during that entire time frame...the only "work" they did on Richmond (mostly between Hillcroft and Fondren) has already worn down to basically what it was like before. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of other examples of this kind of negligence all over town...and that leads me to believe there is also collusion with the construction industry and the auto parts/repair/dealership industry...anyone who has a stake in the game is suspect in my eyes...even car washes. Do I know who or which ones? Of course not, but I'll ask you why do you think that our "solutions" to filling potholes consist of 1) blocking off traffic for  several weeks or months at a time, then 2) filling pothole with "temporary" rock/gravel mixture, then 3) opening it up for people drive on that crap for a few more weeks or months and THEN 4) "working on it for real"...often times leaving the "finished product" in worse shape than the original one? Do you really think they are "incompetent?" If so, that's fine...but I would say you are being naive, and I'd be willing to bet that they know exactly what they're doing. These practices make a lot of money for the industries I mentioned that they wouldn't be making if they built things right (like we all know they can) in the first place. Our entire economy is based on consuming damn near ANYTHING...and especially knowing the speed of obtaining/sharing information and the modern business motto "make money at damn near any cost," it would be ill-advised to ignore that.

 

All I'm saying is that "something" doesn't smell right...and after my 35 years of experience with people on this planet, I'm betting on greed over incompetence. "Incompetence" is one of the oldest excuses in the book...largely because it can't be "proven" either way.

[Slick Vik]

Well, I guess that's better than "DERP". Notice how your example is the most expensive city in North America. Houston, on the other hand, has the highest COL-adjusted after tax income in the United States, well, probably in the world actually. Vancouver is actually one of the poorest cities in Canada in terms of median family income. Its family income is not even as high as Houston's per capita, and that's before accounting for their out of control housing costs.

 

They have natural and man-made growth boundaries that Houston does not have and most cities in the world don't have.

 

They are continuing to create new or expand 3 freeways at the moment. They of course expanded the limited access road in Stanley Park in recent years. No word of any freeways being torn down there, unlike the Houston proposal.

 

Oh, and even there, two freeways are closer to the middle of downtown than the closest freeway (North Loop) would be in the Houston proposal. So somehow, the proposal is even more extreme than the extreme example we can find. Niiiiice. Let's do that.

 

#1 place to live year after year after year. I have about 100 relatives there and not a single one has moved for 3 generations. That says something. People think it's worth living there. Also a viaduct was torn down recently. There are no freeways in vancouver proper.

[livincinco]

Inner loopers are so entertaining when they get all worked up.  They're only 7% of the total population of the metro area, but they are so convinced that they're the most important 7% that it's really quite touching.  Any suggestion that money spent to benefit the other 93% might be "in the public interest" is completely unacceptable.  The 93% are barbarians and savages and are so completely stuck in the dark ages that they...still use cars!

 

We appreciate the efforts of the 7% to continue to civilize us heathens that live out in the wilds.  We look forward to the day that we fully embrace and understand that money spent on highway projects is dispensed by tainted and corrupt politicians, while money spent on mass transit is dispensed by dedicated public servants who donate their salaries to widows and orphans.

 

I look forward to the day that I receive my enlightenment.

[Slick Vik]

I see. So the economics of bribing politicians to support road projects throughout the country - and including projects that are nearly certain to be approved - is a good use of their money.

 

Do the companies collaborate on this? If so, how do they decide which companies have to spend and how much they should spend for each project? Is Chevron in control of bribing politicians in the Bay Area? And Exxon does it for Dallas? How do they allocate for states that have little to no oil production, like all the freeway projects in St. Louis or Florida or Washington, DC or North Carolina?

 

Also a bigger question, how much money do they spending on bribing people to drive to work every day? A new freeway is no good if there's no one to drive on it. I've never seen a paycheck for this, so I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where to apply for this money.

 

You're very naive if you believe what you're saying. Houston is an oil and gas capital, and has highway after highway yet politicians fight off mass transit. Gee, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

[Slick Vik]

What about the people who are concerned about the schools and couldn't care less about a huge house? I know a couple couples right now who like living inside the Loop and are applying for their kids to go to private schools. Given the limited number of such schools, there is a lot of competition to get in. If the kids don't get in, they will move to the suburbs, ones with excellent schools. It's not like they prefer Katy but are making sacrifices for their kids.

 

For at least the next few decades, I see this being a trend of people moving to the suburbs, some of them for no reason other than the schools. If we insist on ____ing with these people, they will find a new job in the Energy Corridor or The Woodlands, quit their job in downtown and the core will lose jobs.

 

That's bogus. If enough people move to a certain area the schools get better as well.

[Slick Vik]

I know Houstonians. I've talked to many people who want their company to build a suburban campus like ExxonMobil is doing because they don't want to deal with downtown, I guess implying that the suburbs don't have traffic and only downtown does, that downtown is overrun with homeless, and that downtown has no advantages over some far-flung suburbs - none.

 

I sorta see where they're coming from but don't agree with them. It doesn't really matter though whether you or I think they are wrong or can prove it. It matters whether enough people share their perception and a company moving to the burbs can bring their workers with them when they move to the burbs. Downtown needs to remain an attractive place to business. Real high value businesses and restaurants and clubs. To do that, it needs to be accessible.

 

"Lower" Westheimer and Alabama are really poor as arterials. Richmond is the only decent one. Houston has no good N/S arterials between Spur 527 and 610. A little further out, there aren't really any other arterials that can move a lot of traffic.

 

Enhance how? Like the 98% of the Inner Loop which isn't adjacent to a freeway is suddenly going to open up to development once freeways are moved miles away? Sounds like more traffic on back streets to me. I wouldn't enjoy that.

 

I know houstonians too. I think there's a generational gap. People under 30 don't want to move out of the city. Even if their jobs are way outside of the core they'd rather reverse commute and stay in the city. The suburbs are dreary and dull, basically dead men walking where the men are cookie cutter neighborhoods.

[Slick Vik]

Also, why would any of these companies have to "bribe people to drive to work?" They already know they have hundreds of thousands of locals driving to and from wherever the developers build. If anyone's bribing the people, it's the developers. They are practically giving away huge houses in the middle of nowhere for prices that are a fraction per square foot of what we would pay for in the city. I'm inclined to think that's why Exxon bought that land in what is now Greenspoint, Kingwood, Clear Lake, etc....knowing that it will yield them guaranteed use of their product through the foreseeable future. Today, that's seen as a "good business decision."

 

This is the story of Houston suburbs in a nutshell.

[nolaboy]

What about the people who are concerned about the schools and couldn't care less about a huge house? I know a couple couples right now who like living inside the Loop and are applying for their kids to go to private schools. Given the limited number of such schools, there is a lot of competition to get in. If the kids don't get in, they will move to the suburbs, ones with excellent schools. It's not like they prefer Katy but are making sacrifices for their kids.

 

For at least the next few decades, I see this being a trend of people moving to the suburbs, some of them for no reason other than the schools. If we insist on ____ing with these people, they will find a new job in the Energy Corridor or The Woodlands, quit their job in downtown and the core will lose jobs.

 

I'm not saying that its a bad idea to live in the loop. I'm just saying that its not for me or other people that feel the same way I do. Everybody has their own preferences, and the loop and the suburbs both have their advantages and disadvantages. Its up to the individual and their own values/beliefs/lifestyles for which is better for them. And I agree that some move to the suburbs not because they want to, but because they have to. We all have our own circumstances.

 

I just can't stand the mentality that alot of people on this forum/thread have that the inner loop is the only and best way to live and that everything else shall cease to exist. First off, thats is practially impossible in this city given the lack of growth boundaries, so I don't know why its a topic of discussion to begin with. Regardless, I'm happy to live where I do, and I live here because I chose to over any of the other options that I could have taken if I wanted to. And us suburbanites definitely could not exist without a thriving an successful core, so we definitely want it to grow and prosper, as we too are proud of this city.

[ig2ba]

Well, I don't have "proof" that O.J. killed Nicole...but he did. Look, two pigeons blowing each other is a "conspiracy." I think it would be naive at that point to assume that there is no corruption between the industries Slick Vik pointed out (amongst others) and our local politicians. We all know they lobby them, and observation (and common sense) should dictate that they are getting more than their money's worth. How is that "not" a conspiracy?

 

I would appreciate it if you would stop acting like you know me by saying things like "I'm saying this out of anger" or that I "can't explain" what I'm talking about. I've BEEN angry about this for years...I didn't just come on HAIF twenty minutes ago and start thinking "how can I channel my anger towards the collusion between industry and government?" There absolutely was "relevance" to how I came about this topic. Read the whole thread...it's not like I went out on some limb.

 

Who is asserting that there's no corruption in road construction? What has been alleged is that there is enough corruption to fundamentally change how we move about the country and how we build our cities, and somehow the same pattern shows up throughout the world, so the same type of conspiracy is everywhere, repeated with essentially the same result. What are the odds of that?

 

There's the economics of it too. If housing costs in a more compact city will be double that of the way that Houston currently is (400,000 vs. 200,000), then an extra $1100/month mortgage payment exceeds the, let's say, less than $500 month in transportation costs. How is it again that people need to be bribed to drive on freeways to their suburban homes?

[livincinco]

I'm not saying that its a bad idea to live in the loop. I'm just saying that its not for me or other people that feel the same way I do. Everybody has their own preferences, and the loop and the suburbs both have their advantages and disadvantages. Its up to the individual and their own values/beliefs/lifestyles for which is better for them. And I agree that some move to the suburbs not because they want to, but because they have to. We all have our own circumstances.

 

I just can't stand the mentality that alot of people on this forum/thread have that the inner loop is the only and best way to live and that everything else shall cease to exist. First off, thats is practially impossible in this city given the lack of growth boundaries, so I don't know why its a topic of discussion to begin with. Regardless, I'm happy to live where I do, and I live here because I chose to over any of the other options that I could have taken if I wanted to. And us suburbanites definitely could not exist without a thriving an successful core, so we definitely want it to grow and prosper, as we too are proud of this city.

 

You'll be much happier once you accept that they are our benevolent overlords.  It's kind of like the British rule of India, they are here to civilize us and to provide us with appropriate morals.  Once they are fully convinced that we have adopted the appropriate lifestyle, then they will give us the opportunity to make decisions for ourselves...as long as they match the decisions that they would have made.

 

[ig2ba]

I know houstonians too. I think there's a generational gap. People under 30 don't want to move out of the city. Even if their jobs are way outside of the core they'd rather reverse commute and stay in the city. The suburbs are dreary and dull, basically dead men walking where the men are cookie cutter neighborhoods.

 

For the first time in a while, I agree with everything in your post. However, I would add that it matters less what people under 30 want when a company decides whether to "pull an Exxon". They just don't have the pull and are more expendable if they decide to quit.

 

Will this change in 15+ years? Maybe ... but it's also possible that the people who are 30 now will suddenly find themselves with kids, wanting a media room to chill in to escape their screaming kids (if only for a few minutes), unable to tolerate the nighttime noises from the nearby bar scene, less confident in their abilities to physically fend off a crazy homeless person if need be since they are getting less fit by the decade, and hey, I suddenly discovered that I really like to golf...

 

Only time will tell.

[august948]

That's bogus. If enough people move to a certain area the schools get better as well.

Hahahaha....is that what you think makes schools better? People moving into an area? Almost universally increased populaton causes overall school quality to decrease over time. The only tlme schools get better with increased population is when a higher income and better educated demographic moves in to a poorly performing area.

[august948]

I know houstonians too. I think there's a generational gap. People under 30 don't want to move out of the city. Even if their jobs are way outside of the core they'd rather reverse commute and stay in the city. The suburbs are dreary and dull, basically dead men walking where the men are cookie cutter neighborhoods.

That's funny. Every time I visit one of our far flung suburbs, the vast majority of the people I see are young couples with children.

[august948]

I know houstonians too. I think there's a generational gap. People under 30 don't want to move out of the city. Even if their jobs are way outside of the core they'd rather reverse commute and stay in the city. The suburbs are dreary and dull, basically dead men walking where the men are cookie cutter neighborhoods.

You seriously overestimate the influence of your generation and seriously underestimate their willingness to move where economics dictate.

[ig2ba]

That's bogus. If enough people move to a certain area the schools get better as well.

 

When making an investment of several hundred thousand dollars (your house) or in something that's priceless (your child), most people have pretty low risk tolerance and go with established neighborhoods or suburbs. The chance that the area doesn't turn around is just too high. Several things can make this happen:

• Your child is a few years older than the average yuppie child in the area. So the elementary school improves when they are in middle school. The middle school improves when your child enters high school, etc.
• The area being gentrified never reaches a critical mass of yuppies. It could be because it borders a really bad area, that the gentrified area just isn't big enough to support its own schools (3 elementaries, 2 middles, 1 high). Parents see the writing on the wall and send their kids to private. Snowball effect. I think this will be the case in Oak Forest.
• The local, regional, or global economy tank. Gentrifying stops or reverses almost everywhere. You're stuck with a $600,000 mortgage on a house worth $500,000. The schools never get quite as good as you think they will. Now you have to send your kid to private and are also stuck in your house.

My risk tolerance for these sorts of things is completely different from 10 years ago.

[ig2ba]

That's funny. Every time I visit one of our far flung suburbs, the vast majority of the people I see are young couples with children.

 

Right, but we're talking about preferences. Maybe a lot of those young people would prefer to live nearer to downtown but can't afford to? Maybe?

 

I also noticed that nearly everyone living in River Oaks, WestU, Memorial, or the nice parts of Bellaire are over 40. That or they did several international assignments, hoarded cash, then came back and bought an expensive house in the loop.

[ig2ba]

Hahahaha....is that what you think makes schools better? People moving into an area? Almost universally increased populaton causes overall school quality to decrease over time. The only tlme schools get better with increased population is when a higher income and better educated demographic moves in to a poorly performing area.

 

I think he was referring to that - gentrification. Even still, I struggle to come up with a lot of examples where gentrification improved schools to the point where they are now considered "good" or anywhere near commensurate with the median value of the new houses of the newcomers.

 

Would anyone say that the houses of the Museum District are good? Of Midtown? EaDo? Montrose? Rice Military? Are the schools in the Heights even good compared to Katy, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land? There are isolated cases I'm aware of, but not enough to change a whole elementary-middle-high school path.

[august948]

Right, but we're talking about preferences. Maybe a lot of those young people would prefer to live nearer to downtown but can't afford to? Maybe?

I also noticed that nearly everyone living in River Oaks, WestU, Memorial, or the nice parts of Bellaire are over 40. That or they did several international assignments, hoarded cash, then came back and bought an expensive house in the loop.

Preferences are subservient to economics. Particularly in the case of young parents just getting started in the world.