Subways: Are They Possible?

[arche_757]

I'll turn that question right back around at you.  How can you possibly look at a multi billion dollar project without considering cost?  LA is spending $40 billion to build 28 miles of subways.  Don't you think that its important to understand whether that's cost efficient?  Would you be ok with Houston spending $40 billion and only completing 10 miles of subway?  5 miles? 2 miles?  Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?

 

To be fair - LA must build for an earthquake zone and simply put projects are more expensive there due to the cost of living/wages etc being higher than in Houston.

 

Why would it cost $40 billion to build 10 or 5 miles of subway here, when it costs that much to build 28 miles in LA?

 

 

And yes, to a point money spent on large public projects should always be scrutinized extra... though building something that large will always be expensive.  And as a citizen of this area (Metro service area) I would be fine to pay extra money to access that system, and also happy to pay extra money to build a better transit system in Houston.  If that means higher taxes for a while, or more fees when purchasing certain things or renting cars or going to a game - then so be it.  I mean we added ridiculous fees to everything to build a useless stadium for an even more inept team owned by a billionaire, yet we can't build a transit system for our burgening city and metro area of 6.3 million?  Seems odd.

 

We may not need 100 miles of heavy rail now, but when out population tops 8 million we will!  Will we have it?  Nope.  We will follow LA's example and be so mired in traffic that we will have no choice but to spend $40 billion when it may have cost only $20 billion.

 

[Howard Huge]

I'll turn that question right back around at you. How can you possibly look at a multi billion dollar project without considering cost? LA is spending $40 billion to build 28 miles of subways. Don't you think that its important to understand whether that's cost efficient? Would you be ok with Houston spending $40 billion and only completing 10 miles of subway? 5 miles? 2 miles? Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?

So youre suggesting it could cost $40 billion to build 2 miles of subway in Houston, gotcha.

[Howard Huge]

To be fair - LA must build for an earthquake zone and simply put projects are more expensive there due to the cost of living/wages etc being higher than in Houston.

Why would it cost $40 billion to build 10 or 5 miles of subway here, when it costs that much to build 28 miles in LA?

And yes, to a point money spent on large public projects should always be scrutinized extra... though building something that large will always be expensive. And as a citizen of this area (Metro service area) I would be fine to pay extra money to access that system, and also happy to pay extra money to build a better transit system in Houston. If that means higher taxes for a while, or more fees when purchasing certain things or renting cars or going to a game - then so be it. I mean we added ridiculous fees to everything to build a useless stadium for an even more inept team owned by a billionaire, yet we can't build a transit system for our burgening city and metro area of 6.3 million? Seems odd.

We may not need 100 miles of heavy rail now, but when out population tops 8 million we will! Will we have it? Nope. We will follow LA's example and be so mired in traffic that we will have no choice but to spend $40 billion when it may have cost only $20 billion.

Gets it. ^

[IronTiger]

I'll turn that question right back around at you. How can you possibly look at a multi billion dollar project without considering cost? LA is spending $40 billion to build 28 miles of subways. Don't you think that its important to understand whether that's cost efficient? Would you be ok with Houston spending $40 billion and only completing 10 miles of subway? 5 miles? 2 miles? Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?

$40 billion is a tremendous amount of money. While it would go from the G.B. Airport to the east (old) part of Pearland (in equivalent Houston-terms), it would be equivalent in tax dollars for every resident (man/woman/child) of Harris County (not just Houston) giving $10,000 for a similar project.

I would not be championing a $40B subway system until two factors are taken into play:

- Was the system able to relieve traffic to a noticeable degree once built?

- Is the city able to solvent after x years?

[citykid09]

I'll turn that question right back around at you.  How can you possibly look at a multi billion dollar project without considering cost?  LA is spending $40 billion to build 28 miles of subways.  Don't you think that its important to understand whether that's cost efficient?  Would you be ok with Houston spending $40 billion and only completing 10 miles of subway?  5 miles? 2 miles?  Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?

 

The last time Houston stopped and thought "Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?," The city ended up dropping its heavy rail plans to use that money on more police and more roads. Now come on, I am all for safety but I can assure you that Houston would have been much better off had that heavy rail that Bob Lanier stopped had gotten built. You can give me every reason in the book why Houston should not have a heavy rail system, but at the end of the day it does not matter. There is no reason for the 6th largest city in North America not to have a heavy rail system.

 

Sometimes I look at cities in developed countries such as Australia which is a bit smaller then the State of Texas in population and wonder why are their cities so much more advanced then the cities in Texas. I mean I know that Texas is a State in the United States and money made in the State does not always stay within the State, but there is a big difference in the quality of amenities offered. You can say that those cities are much older that Houston and other Texas cities but I still don't buy that. What about all of the Asian and Middle Eastern cities that have sprouted up over the last few decades going from rural to super urban. They have been able to come up with money for amenities such as subways, why not Houston? A city in the WEALTHIEST country on earth! I guess that is why the United States will not be #1 in GDP in a Couple of years, we just don't look beyond tomorrow any more.

[Houston19514]

2.8% increase from 2010 to 2013, even taking people that leave into consideration. Even with the number of people leaving there are enough people for a positive migration plus if you include the births than the number is only jumping.

 

I've repeatedly shown you the net migration numbers, both domestic and international.  Yes, NYC has very minor net in-migration , but only because of international migration.  The reality, no matter how much you may dislike it, is that far more people choose to leave NYC metro for other US locations than vice versa and far more people choose to move TO Houston metro from other US destinations (including NYC) than vice versa.  The exact opposite of what you would have us believe.

 

(By the way, I'm curious where you got your 2013 population number for NYC, as the Census Bureau won't be releasing those numbers until some time in May.  But FWIW, the City of Houston grew by a higher percentage just through 2010.)

[Slick Vik]

I've repeatedly shown you the net migration numbers, both domestic and international. Yes, NYC has very minor net in-migration , but only because of international migration. The reality, no matter how much you may dislike it, is that far more people choose to leave NYC metro for other US locations than vice versa and far more people choose to move TO Houston metro from other US destinations (including NYC) than vice versa. The exact opposite of what you would have us believe.

(By the way, I'm curious where you got your 2013 population number for NYC, as the Census Bureau won't be releasing those numbers until some time in May. But FWIW, the City of Houston grew by a higher percentage just through 2010.)

1. You're disregarding international migration.

2. The houston population jump is a recent trend. How many years will it take houston to hit 8 million? And I'm talking about houston proper. If you want to compare metropolitan areas how long will it take houston to hit 23 million? I don't see the point of getting defensive if anyone says a criticism about houston.

[samagon]

The last time Houston stopped and thought "Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?," The city ended up dropping its heavy rail plans to use that money on more police and more roads. Now come on, I am all for safety but I can assure you that Houston would have been much better off had that heavy rail that Bob Lanier stopped had gotten built. You can give me every reason in the book why Houston should not have a heavy rail system, but at the end of the day it does not matter. There is no reason for the 6th largest city in North America not to have a heavy rail system.

 

Sometimes I look at cities in developed countries such as Australia which is a bit smaller then the State of Texas in population and wonder why are their cities so much more advanced then the cities in Texas. I mean I know that Texas is a State in the United States and money made in the State does not always stay within the State, but there is a big difference in the quality of amenities offered. You can say that those cities are much older that Houston and other Texas cities but I still don't buy that. What about all of the Asian and Middle Eastern cities that have sprouted up over the last few decades going from rural to super urban. They have been able to come up with money for amenities such as subways, why not Houston? A city in the WEALTHIEST country on earth! I guess that is why the United States will not be #1 in GDP in a Couple of years, we just don't look beyond tomorrow any more.

 

In Houston, at that time, Lanier made the right choice. 

 

Regarding the cost, I know I'd be fine paying $10,000 over a 10 year period, that's about $83 a month, I got that. And for the amount of rail infrastructure $40 billion would be able to build in Houston (considering we don't have to account for earthquakes so I'd guess more like 50-60 miles of rail, at least), I'd be able to offset about $100 worth of driving costs over a month. It would likely be a net gain for me. Let's do it. I'm ready.

[Houston19514]

1. You're disregarding international migration.

2. The houston population jump is a recent trend. How many years will it take houston to hit 8 million? And I'm talking about houston proper. If you want to compare metropolitan areas how long will it take houston to hit 23 million? I don't see the point of getting defensive if anyone says a criticism about houston.

 

1.  I'm disregarding international migration???  I specifically mentioned it.  (Even though it's not really relevant to the topic of whether people are, on balance, "leav[ing] "world class cities" like New York and Chicago every year and move to hick southern towns like Houston," as LivinCinco originally stated.)

 

2. As you well know, no one has suggested that Houston is about to overtake NYC in population at either a city or metro level.

 

With respect, it is a waste of time to attempt to have a meaningful conversation with anyone who is either ignorant enough to think, or dishonest enough to make the claim, that Houston's population jump is a "recent trend".

 

Houston Urbanized Area Population:

 

1940:  471,000

1950:  701,000   48.8% growth

1960:  1,140,000  62.6% growth

1970:  1,678,000  47.2% growth

1980:  2,757,000  64.3% growth

1990:  3,088,000  12% growth

2000:  4,063,000  31.6% growth

2010:  5,382,000  32.5% growth

 

 

City of Houston Population:

 

1900:  44,633

1910:  78,800    76.6% growth

1920:  138,276  75.5% growth

1930:  292,352  111.4% growth

1940:  384,514  31.5% growth

1950:  596,163  55% growth

1960:  938,219  57.4% growth

1970:  1,232,802  31.4% growth

1980:  1,595,138  29.4% growth

1990:  1,630,553  2.2% growth

2000:  1,980,578  21.5% growth

2010:  2,099,451  6% growth

2012:  2,160,821  2.9% growth (in 2.25 years)

 

 

Buh bye

 

[arche_757]

^Give it a rest on the off topic migration/population growth stuff!  Move that to a different topic.

[arche_757]

$40 billion is a tremendous amount of money. While it would go from the G.B. Airport to the east (old) part of Pearland (in equivalent Houston-terms), it would be equivalent in tax dollars for every resident (man/woman/child) of Harris County (not just Houston) giving $10,000 for a similar project.

I would not be championing a $40B subway system until two factors are taken into play:

- Was the system able to relieve traffic to a noticeable degree once built?

- Is the city able to solvent after x years?

 

Absolutely!  It would be foolish to build anything that would put the city in such a hole as to have financial difficulties.  That's part of the point in starting to build more rail NOW and not in the future when inner loop/inner beltway properties have jumped so high that the cost to aquire the land/r.o.w. to build stations and rail lines is counter productive.

 

METRO ought to take the approach of slowly aquiring land/r.o.w. where they can now in anticipation of future transit needs (perhaps they are?).

 

- Here is something I think a lot of people miss in regards to mass transit...  It doesn't "free up" "end" congestion on city highways.  It helps give people an alternative means of travel.  Houston will always have bad traffic.  NYC has the most comprehensive system in the country and look at how bad the traffic is.  Its a mess.  Imagine for a second if NYC had only 5% of the transit that they have now, and added more freeways - traffic would still be terrible.

 

Houston will need transit options in the future because of the projected population growth.  We're also growing more dense every year - maybe its a creep or crawl towards any real number of density, but its still a movement that direction.  There is no way to turn Kirby or Westheimer into a freeway.  So the alternative is to build acceptable transit in its place.  Subways or grade level LRT or other will eventually need to be built.  First I think we can get some Rapid Bus lines up and running as a sort of stop-gap.

 

[Slick Vik]

1. I'm disregarding international migration??? I specifically mentioned it. (Even though it's not really relevant to the topic of whether people are, on balance, "leav[ing] "world class cities" like New York and Chicago every year and move to hick southern towns like Houston," as LivinCinco originally stated.)

2. As you well know, no one has suggested that Houston is about to overtake NYC in population at either a city or metro level.

With respect, it is a waste of time to attempt to have a meaningful conversation with anyone who is either ignorant enough to think, or dishonest enough to make the claim, that Houston's population jump is a "recent trend".

Houston Urbanized Area Population:

1940: 471,000

1950: 701,000 48.8% growth

1960: 1,140,000 62.6% growth

1970: 1,678,000 47.2% growth

1980: 2,757,000 64.3% growth

1990: 3,088,000 12% growth

2000: 4,063,000 31.6% growth

2010: 5,382,000 32.5% growth

City of Houston Population:

1900: 44,633

1910: 78,800 76.6% growth

1920: 138,276 75.5% growth

1930: 292,352 111.4% growth

1940: 384,514 31.5% growth

1950: 596,163 55% growth

1960: 938,219 57.4% growth

1970: 1,232,802 31.4% growth

1980: 1,595,138 29.4% growth

1990: 1,630,553 2.2% growth

2000: 1,980,578 21.5% growth

2010: 2,099,451 6% growth

2012: 2,160,821 2.9% growth (in 2.25 years)

Buh bye

My initial point was how many hundreds of thousands of people move to New York each year. You made it about houston and decorated numbers in a way that made houston look better, because you are Houston's defender of any criticism, because you get offended that people call houston a hick town. I wouldn't call it a hick town, but I wouldn't call it a town without a significant number of hicks either. As far as the population, does houston have 223,000 people moving in? Or even the 128,000 you gave? If New York was so terrible people would be moving out and not in at all, but despite the people leaving it still holds so much value in people's minds people still move in in vast droves. This is nothing to discredit houston which is growing, but getting in a pissing contest with NYC is pointless because it's like comparing a jv to a pro sports team, two levels of cities.

[arche_757]

The Mods need to seperate things here into two different topics.

[Tower26]

I think it is possible but there are some factors : flooding , crime , and accessibility i.e. handicap and maintainance also revenue . 

[citykid09]

If Atlanta can build a MultiModal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) for over a billion dollars and get funding from the federal government for it, why can Houston get funding for heavy rail or its previously planned Houston Intermodal Transit Center?

[arche_757]

^I thought that project in Atlanta was no more?

[Houston19514]

^  Let's not be lettin' some inconvenient facts get in the way of some good ol' hatin' on Houston.

[Slick Vik]

^ Let's not be lettin' some inconvenient facts get in the way of some good ol' hatin' on Houston.

Do 223,000 people move to houston in a year? Have they ever? I'll give you credit for net migration numbers but the numbers are all about how you want to manipulate them. I'm not hating on houston I've lived here since I was 5 save for college and study abroad. But I can criticize honestly too unlike many here.

[arche_757]

Look, comparing NYC to Houston is silly.  New York is an amalgamation of cities (called boroughs) and did not become the "great" city that it is today overnight.  In fact it took centuries and to think otherwise is fallacy.  It was also founded in the mid-1600s by the Dutch, grew in importance under the Union Jack and kind of became the US's finacial capital after the Panic of 1819 (though I could be exaggerating that events importance - thought prior to that event Philadelphia was a sort of commerical capital for the country) and the complition of the Eire Canal.  Add in the "joining" of New York City and Brooklyn (two seperate towns in their own right until 1898!) and the fact that NYC was the immigration hub for the exodous of Serf Class Europeans in the 1850s-1900s and OF COURSE its not only bigger, but also more important.

 

Houston, which is MUCH younger still needs to do a lot of maturing and the realization that while we do need to work on any number of issues (major and minor) in this city, we can't just do so over night.  The implementation of a transit system here is a major point to address.  We have the start, perhaps not the "backbone" but a piece of the puzzle.  What needs to happen is people need to realize two things:  1) Rapid Transit doesn't "end" freeway congestion, it helps give people a different means to move around.  2) Houston WILL HAVE TO HAVE more than it does.  In fact in 20 or 30 years we will need Light Rail, Commuter Rail and probably heavy rail to far off  places like Brenham/College Station/Wharton/Victoria etc. where we WILL have people who commute to work from.  Sounds crazy but it will happen.  Already does in the east, so it will eventually happen here when property becomes so expensive there is no where for some people to go but far, far away and hope there's a system in place that will allow connectivity.  Maybe it will take 50 years, but it will happen eventually.

 

if that makes any sense?

[Montrose1100]

I've come to the realization that if we can't even fix the roads in the nice neighborhoods, how the hell will we ever build an efficient rail system? Underground in certain areas is going to be the best option. Not disrupting our choked, pot-holed roads, and not towering above them creating shadows and blocking potential sunlight for trees on the street.

[livincinco]

Look, comparing NYC to Houston is silly.  New York is an amalgamation of cities (called boroughs) and did not become the "great" city that it is today overnight.  In fact it took centuries and to think otherwise is fallacy.  It was also founded in the mid-1600s by the Dutch, grew in importance under the Union Jack and kind of became the US's finacial capital after the Panic of 1819 (though I could be exaggerating that events importance - thought prior to that event Philadelphia was a sort of commerical capital for the country) and the complition of the Eire Canal.  Add in the "joining" of New York City and Brooklyn (two seperate towns in their own right until 1898!) and the fact that NYC was the immigration hub for the exodous of Serf Class Europeans in the 1850s-1900s and OF COURSE its not only bigger, but also more important.

 

Houston, which is MUCH younger still needs to do a lot of maturing and the realization that while we do need to work on any number of issues (major and minor) in this city, we can't just do so over night.  The implementation of a transit system here is a major point to address.  We have the start, perhaps not the "backbone" but a piece of the puzzle.  What needs to happen is people need to realize two things:  1) Rapid Transit doesn't "end" freeway congestion, it helps give people a different means to move around.  2) Houston WILL HAVE TO HAVE more than it does.  In fact in 20 or 30 years we will need Light Rail, Commuter Rail and probably heavy rail to far off  places like Brenham/College Station/Wharton/Victoria etc. where we WILL have people who commute to work from.  Sounds crazy but it will happen.  Already does in the east, so it will eventually happen here when property becomes so expensive there is no where for some people to go but far, far away and hope there's a system in place that will allow connectivity.  Maybe it will take 50 years, but it will happen eventually.

 

if that makes any sense?

 

Agreed that comparison to New York is pointless.  NYC has very different challenges that are not applicable to other cities and conversely, solutions that are implemented for New York are not necessarily relevant to the rest of the country.  New York City passed the current population of the City of Houston in the 1880's.  However, it's also relevant that NYC's population stagnated during the post WWII period and that its 2010 census population was only about 300k people higher than its 1950 population (a net increase of about 5% in 60 years).  As a result, the transportation solutions that were put in place pre-1950 are still very relevant today.  (Even the 2nd Avenue subway which is currently under construction was planned in the 1920s).  By comparison, CoH had a population of 596k in 1950 and was 2.1 million in the 2010 - an over 350% increase in the same time period, but even with that growth, Houston is less than 25% of the population of NYC.

 

I'm not so sure that I agree with the second part of your comment though.  CoH is currently 1/4 of the population of NYC on twice the land.  Even in 50 years, it won't be close to the population or the density of NYC. If we assume that the population of CoH doubles in the next 50 years and the geographical size of the city remains the same, then the density of CoH becomes about 7,000/sq mile which is comparable to current population densities of cities like Oakland, Minneapolis, and Seattle.  That's still only about 1/4 of the density of current day New York.

 

Subways are great for moving large number of people on specific routes and there may be a very limited number of locations that require that in 50 years, but the majority of our needs, even in 50 years, are still most likely to require us to move smaller number of people to a number of different areas.

[arche_757]

I thought we were supposed to double?  Besides, think back... 1960 to today (roughly) that's 50 years.  Imagine the changes in this country since that time.  Peak Oil/Energy will happen eventually... perhaps the "peak" won't be when we reach the end of our supply, but rather when events external or internal cause prices to skyrocket and force the hand of many metro's to adopt better transit planning.  Maybe I'm being too far thinking?

 

And to your point, yes Houston probably won't be the density of NYC in 2050, but if its the density of Seattle (and we are what 2+ million larger already) then that's huge!  We won't need the City of Tomall (for example) to have its own subway/light rail, but it will likely need a connection point somewhere along the way to the overall system of the metro.

 

And my point wasn't so much about density as it was about cost of land.  There will come a time when Houston's not quite as affordable as it is/was.  That will force some people to perhaps shift their idea of a "suburb" much further afield.  Maybe never to a Victoria (I grant you that was extreme example) but probably to Huntsville, Brenham and maybe even Beaumont at some point.  Houston isn't hampered by much in the way of growth boundaries except the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets and bays, but there is a distance away from any of the urban cores people would be willing to live - in a purely suburban environment (like Cypress say for instance or the no-mans-land between Sugar Land and Katy) - and an actual "working" town.

 

Also, we have little idea about what 20 years will bring us.  We may witness in the next decade (God Forbid) a massive hurricane that so shapes the direction of Galveston County (and other bay counties) that those people are FORCED to reimagine where they will need to live, and live safely out of harms way.  So that may see a rapid shift away from southern suburbs and towards the core or more northern suburbs.  Point being - maybe we won't be as spread out as some think at that time?

 

Time will tell.

[IronTiger]

Houston is not "urbanizing" in the way that it should, specifically the inner loop. Rather than getting mid-sized towers, we are seeing townhomes poison neighborhoods and not even much in the way of mid-rises. Why are builders attempting to add towers in places like Museum District, as opposed to Midtown, for instance?

[arche_757]

Because the Museum District is a more diserable address for someone who has 400,000+ to spend on a 1,200 sq ft condominium on the 25th floor.

 

I disagree, Houston is urbanizing the way it ought to, but it is unfortunately so spread out we are seeing places like City Center crop up 18 miles from Downtown when in another city that development MAY have happened in a place like Midtown.

 

The Townhomes may not be the best solution, but they are a solution - a sort of modern Row House.  Its a typology that's taken firm hold here and if that means older neighborhoods that used to be run down (that were originally pretty nice to begin with) will get more attention and grow up into working neighborhoods (over many years) then that is the course it must take.

 

And also, we ARE seeing a lot of mid rises around town in the form of 5-8 floor "high end" apartments.  These may in the coming years be transformed (in places) to condominiums if the demand is high enough?  Who knows?  I would like to see more small mid rises proposed around - namely in Midtown, but I guess that's just out of the question until more residential comes to Downtown (which it is).  Once that area starts to really urbanize as a 24/7 environment then you will see Midtown get more high density developments.

 

That and people in Houston LOVE yards.  Never over estimate that people young or old like to have at least a little plot of grass below their feet.

[Naviguessor]

Without ZONING...there is no SHOULD.  There may be WANTING or WISHING...but no SHOULD.  Whole other discussion outside of this topic. 

[IronTiger]

The Townhomes may not be the best solution, but they are a solution - a sort of modern Row House.  Its a typology that's taken firm hold here and if that means older neighborhoods that used to be run down (that were originally pretty nice to begin with) will get more attention and grow up into working neighborhoods (over many years) then that is the course it must take.

 

That and people in Houston LOVE yards.  Never over estimate that people young or old like to have at least a little plot of grass below their feet.

Townhomes don't leave a lot of lawn space, and even it is, it's oftentimes not yours (though sadly some of the Inner Loop houses don't have much more lawn space than some suburban sites), nor are townhomes a "starter" density. Some 200 miles northwest of where YOU are, there's these things, a 1970s invention of developers in south College Station to emulate East Coast-style townhomes. While they certainly look run down (and dated, and all that--even back in the 1990s), they aren't exactly improving density in that area.

[arche_757]

Well, I guess we should go back to simply having nothing or rundown single family homes (emphasis on run down) in those lots in Midtown or Washington Ave or Rice Military?  I mean - its either midrises or highrises since townhomes aren't really worth the trouble apparently?

 

And I'm only 145 miles from Welsh Ave.

[IronTiger]

Well, I guess we should go back to simply having nothing or rundown single family homes (emphasis on run down) in those lots in Midtown or Washington Ave or Rice Military? I mean - its either midrises or highrises since townhomes aren't really worth the trouble apparently?

And I'm only 145 miles from Welsh Ave.

Not really what I said. The townhomes are sprouting up everywhere (not "close to major arterials" or whatever), and from what I see at Swamplot, there's lots of decent-looking single family homes that could be quite nice given the proper maintenance.

[arche_757]

Yes, but to counter that point about townhomes not really adding density...

 

single family home: occupied by 1 family

same property with 6 townhomes on it: occupied by 6 families

Yes a Midrise would have more residents (assuming a 4-6 floor building would have upwards of 20 families), but they also need parking and in Houston you have little access to the transit you need for something like that in most places- Midtown or the Museum District not withstanding.  And developers willing to spend that kind of money on a mid rise can simply build 40-60 townhomes and make more money off of those being sold than off of a midrise with rentals or condos.

 

Honestly what surprises me more - is that there aren't more developments with townhomes that have rooftop terraces?  Or apartments for that matter.  Granted I realize a lot of places utilize the roofs for a/c units but still... There is a townhome complex 4 floors with a terrace that presumably had great views of the city off of Hazard or Dunlavy.  Always thought those were cool.

[livincinco]

Yes, but to counter that point about townhomes not really adding density...

 

single family home: occupied by 1 family

same property with 6 townhomes on it: occupied by 6 families

Yes a Midrise would have more residents (assuming a 4-6 floor building would have upwards of 20 families), but they also need parking and in Houston you have little access to the transit you need for something like that in most places- Midtown or the Museum District not withstanding.  And developers willing to spend that kind of money on a mid rise can simply build 40-60 townhomes and make more money off of those being sold than off of a midrise with rentals or condos.

 

Honestly what surprises me more - is that there aren't more developments with townhomes that have rooftop terraces?  Or apartments for that matter.  Granted I realize a lot of places utilize the roofs for a/c units but still... There is a townhome complex 4 floors with a terrace that presumably had great views of the city off of Hazard or Dunlavy.  Always thought those were cool.

 

I agree with you that townhomes add density, however I'm not sure that gentrification does.  There's quite a few older apartment complexes that are getting torn down with upscale apartments/townhomes going up.  I don't think that it's a stretch to assume that those older apartments held a lot more people (families) and that many of them are being driven outside the loop due to increased rent.