Future of the Suburbs

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Suburbs and nuclear warfare----odd combo.

[TheNiche]

Where would you park the dang thing? Looks like it would take up more space than a car, and I read that it takes less space to land than a normal helicopter, but how much is less space anyway? And would we be able to put them into 'parking garages, or would we just have acres of parking lots, even more than we do now?

The reason I suggested an autogyro and not other forms of ultralight aircraft is that they can operate with very short landing strips. They could be parked in a long multilevel parking garage with a landing strip on top. They aren't very bulky or wide, either, so not many special design requirements, and they could really be packed in tight.

I'm thinking that the METRO bus barn site between San Jacinto and McKee would be a good place for it.

[SpringTX]

The reason I suggested an autogyro and not other forms of ultralight aircraft is that they can operate with very short landing strips. They could be parked in a long multilevel parking garage with a landing strip on top. They aren't very bulky or wide, either, so not many special design requirements, and they could really be packed in tight.

I'm thinking that the METRO bus barn site between San Jacinto and McKee would be a good place for it.

I see a lot of advantages. And with the kind of technological refinement that happens when millions of any given thing is made, it can become twice as small, twice as sturdy, twice as easy to use, twice as safe, twice as cheap, etc. I just did a Google Video search on "autogyro".

[h2obuff]

With the new urbanism movment, what do y'all think is the future of the suburbs?

I know this is a very comprehensive topic, but wanted to know what some of your ideas on this were. Hopefully we can all add on to each other's ideas to come closer, but not necessarily, to some sort of conclusion.

Some factors I've thought about:

- gentrification in the city and new urbanism (not sure if i'm being redundant)

- people leaving the 'burbs and moving closer to the city center

- mass public transit (LRT, BRT)

- population growth

- which will lead to congested freeways

- which might lead to even more people, including middle class, to move closer to the city center

Of course, if what I believe might happen, and more people want to live closer in and the population grows, those houses and apartments they left in the 'burbs will be filled by the new population. But what if developers keep on building unnecessary residential or the city center continues to become even denser? What will become of those houses? My way of thinking may be off, because I believe most likely that the market will work itself out.

I think it'll be very interesting to see how this develops.

What do y'all see happening in the future?

I think the topic has gone of kilter a bit, but to reply to the original post:

I have been heavily studding so-called

[h2obuff]

In theory, a helicopter can launch straight up into the air. And this autogyro doesn't appear to be a whole lot bigger than an average SUV. I guess we'd have to convert driveways into helipads, whatever that would mean. Or maybe rooftops could be made into helipads. If you're building a new house, you can design whatever you need. There are some helipads downtown now - they're basically parking lots, I guess. And I'm imagining office buildings could convert their rooftops into helipads. This is not my area of expertise at all. But in theory, it can't be that hard. It's not like we're talking about airplanes that need long runways or anything.

This might work for a few dozen of these, but not for all commuters. You would have to rebuild all the parking garages to accept this new vehicle with its huge blade span. Also, since it would require a garage, you would have to have a system of landing at some point, and then transporting it to a

[TheNiche]

Some things I have seen:

[TheNiche]

This might work for a few dozen of these, but not for all commuters. You would have to rebuild all the parking garages to accept this new vehicle with its huge blade span. Also, since it would require a garage, you would have to have a system of landing at some point, and then transporting it to a

[h2obuff]

I think its worth asking the question as to whether back yards are truely confining. If people only use back yards when they have a choice between back yards and pocket parks in traditional suburban developments, might that be a matter of revealed preference? Might it also be that the developer only puts in a crummy swing set because they know that the pocket park isn't going to be extensively used or appreciated, regardless of how much money they dump into it? I've certainly driven through plenty of subdivisions with nice well-kept parks and recreation centers that are grossly underutilized.

So the question is: if you take back yards away, children could be viewed as merely being confined to public spaces for lack of better alternatives, right?

That is a simplistic answer to a very complex question, and unfortunately I do not think it can be summed up all that easily. Not that I know the correct way to summarize it, but there are way to many variables to sum it that neatly.

Agreed. See comment below.

I think you hit this nail right on the head. The tricky thing, though, is that integrating a commercial office component in any meaningful way into a new urban development in a suburban setting requires that the site be very well located (i.e. next to a freeway, ideally at a junction of two). Retail is less difficult to integrate into such a development, but even then, if the developer realizes that they can get premium rents for putting the retail along the feeder road with signage opportunities that are visible from the freeway, that's what they'll do. It's a simple matter of highest and best use. The result is that commercial uses end up being clustered in the most visible/accessible spots, and if there's any room left for residential, it has to be worked around the high-value commercial uses as opposed to being integrated with them. There are exceptions, of course, but they're relatively rare...and the scale of them is typically pretty small.

This is the old way of thinking. Yes, it does require the developer to control all the corners or frontage of an area. But with this control, a developer can force the commercial and office to its desired location, not to just where it "typically goes". When the developer control the land, he will get the same amount of money per foot per market capacity regardless of where he puts it as long as access and some visibility are not removed and/or hindered. It is all a matter of proper planning and forethought.

Sugar Land Town Square, for example, disappoints me because it is an island unto itself. It is a very overt simulation and will only ever appeal to a niche market as a residential option. The Woodlands Town Center is much better about larger-scale integration, but then they're a dictatorship of sorts, so there's not much that can be learned from it.

What do you mean by disctatorship and nothign can be learned from it? I would like to know before I respond to this.

[TheNiche]

What do you mean by disctatorship and nothign can be learned from it? I would like to know before I respond to this.

The Woodlands Operating Co., by virtue of The Woodlands' size, consolidated monopolistic ownership, and the fact that they are unincorporated, has been able to successfully enforce land use controls in much a similar way as a municipality could, except that they can do so unilaterally by way of deed restrictions and not have to put up with any sort of political backlash. Moreover, their intention is not only to develop a stand-alone site one time, but also to increase the overall value of their entire portfolio of real estate holdings.

It is essentially an experiment in the complete privatization of a municipal government, from inception to present.

[TheNiche]

That is a simplistic answer to a very complex question, and unfortunately I do not think it can be summed up all that easily. Not that I know the correct way to summarize it, but there are way to many variables to sum it that neatly.

What's complicated? Given options, people use their yards, thus revealing their preference. So why give them options that they aren't going to use if you can eliminate the options, cut costs, and undercut the competition by not selling people things that they don't need?

This is the old way of thinking. Yes, it does require the developer to control all the corners or frontage of an area. But with this control, a developer can force the commercial and office to its desired location, not to just where it "typically goes".

Even if a developer controls all of the corners or frontage of an area (which is hard enough to achieve), he still must compete with every other developer in his market area that controls every other corner and every bit of frontage. He cannot force office tenants to move into his building that has less accessibility and visibility than the one across the highway that does. He still faces a highly competitive market, and for his new urban scheme to work, he'll need land use controls or a big BIG chunk of land supported by a growing metro area as well as pockets that are deep enough to be able to wait out the long drawn-out buildout process.

When the developer control the land, he will get the same amount of money per foot per market capacity regardless of where he puts it as long as access and some visibility are not removed and/or hindered. It is all a matter of proper planning and forethought

Yes, this goes without saying. But the most visible and accessible places are the places where it "typically goes" (i.e. it can't be moved anywhere else without adversely affecting those characteristics). That's why it "typically goes" there.

[lockmat]

What's complicated? Given options, people use their yards, thus revealing their preference. So why give them options that they aren't going to use if you can eliminate the options, cut costs, and undercut the competition by not selling people things that they don't need?

I'm hoping I interpret this correctly and you mean what you say. But I don't think people really use their yards. Most kids don't even use their yards anymore. I mean how often do we see people in them unless their swimming or have a fourth of July bbq once a year? On the other hand, plenty of people go to parks for picnics and various activities all the time. The main reason I believe why is because there's actually a significant amount of open space, unlike most yards. I used to be outside all the time as a kid. We had to play tackle in the grass and touch in the street. On occaasion we would try and find a park with open space to play.

Plus, we have scattered big parks around Houston, but here in Albuquerque there are many small parks in the neighborhoods. People aren't gonna go to the big parks miles away as often. Given the opportunity to have one a quarter mile away, I bet they'd choose the park more often than they do now.

[TheNiche]

I don't think people really use their yards. Most kids don't even use their yards anymore. I mean how often do we see people in them unless their swimming or have a fourth of July bbq once a year? On the other hand, plenty of people go to parks for picnics and various activities all the time. The main reason I believe why is because there's actually a significant amount of open space, unlike most yards. I used to be outside all the time as a kid. We had to play tackle in the grass and touch in the street. On occaasion we would try and find a park with open space to play.

Plus, we have scattered big parks around Houston, but here in Albuquerque there are many small parks in the neighborhoods. People aren't gonna go to the big parks miles away as often. Given the opportunity to have one a quarter mile away, I bet they'd choose the park more often than they do now.

We don't see a lot of front yard usage, but that might have more to do with the use of back yards than with lack of activity. Parents tend to prefer that kids play in back yards because it is 1) safer, 2) more private, and 3) the mess that kids leave behind doesn't need to be so quickly tended to. Back yards are a more laid back space. Front yards can often be tagged by the HOA for violations. So it becomes pretty clear which side is going to get more use, and why you don't see much activity.

Having said that, try driving through a typical single-family subdivision, even a gated community, one summer afternoon. Then drive through Montrose. You'll see a difference in the number (and type) of people that are out and about. In Montrose, the fact that there are so many different kinds of people creates a sense of mysteriousness, but also an element of fear from the unknown. In the gated community, there is less reason for paranoia because everybody who lives there is of the same socioeconomic class...but there's less excitement too.

Parks are also kind of a funny issue because they come in two forms: public and private. Private parks, usually gated and sometimes patrolled by private security guards, are exclusive to the residents of that community...but those residents also can usually afford yards, so they don't add a whole lot of value. Public parks, if placed in proximity to neighborhoods with yards, often actually bring the value of the subdivision DOWN because they disproportionately attract people without yards, who are of a different socioeconomic class, are strangers to the neighborhood, and who have no incentive to clean up after themselves because they don't live around there.

[Scharpe St Guy]

I will throw my hat (opinions) into the ring here:

Like Niche I too would love to have a few acres and a good fence between me and my neighbor. Am I anti-social no not at all but I also wish to retain my privacy not just visually but also via sound. In town living is great however when the city does not enforce laws governing noise then it can also be a pain. My neighborhood is pretty good however every now and then a young punk in a lowered Buick or Cadillac with windows down and base pumping slowly cruises down the road so that everyone knows that he and his crew exist. Each time I hear it in any neighborhood I think that they are darn lucky they live in the USA because in other countries giving them a good spanking, whipping, jail time, or ... would be allowed. Of course the Police can't do anything as they are mostly reactionary and fill out the reports after the crime has been committed not before or during.

I believe that with the Baby Boomers retiring the innerloop of Houston is going to flourish greatly with the desire for a short commute, easy access to airports/transportation alternatives, the Arts, Sports, Museums, etc.... Not to mention if you live inside the loop anywhere you go during the morning and evening is reverse traffic pretty much.

Suburbs outside of the beltway are iffy to me as they are cookie cutter homes being stamped into the dirt with limited elevations and/or styles. I believe these areas will become the new high crime ghetto areas due to the cheap construction and closeness of the homes to each other.

My .02c,

Scharpe St Guy

[lockmat]

We don't see a lot of front yard usage, but that might have more to do with the use of back yards than with lack of activity. Parents tend to prefer that kids play in back yards because it is 1) safer, 2) more private, and 3) the mess that kids leave behind doesn't need to be so quickly tended to. Back yards are a more laid back space. Front yards can often be tagged by the HOA for violations. So it becomes pretty clear which side is going to get more use, and why you don't see much activity.

Parks are also kind of a funny issue because they come in two forms: public and private. Private parks, usually gated and sometimes patrolled by private security guards, are exclusive to the residents of that community...but those residents also can usually afford yards, so they don't add a whole lot of value. Public parks, if placed in proximity to neighborhoods with yards, often actually bring the value of the subdivision DOWN because they disproportionately attract people without yards, who are of a different socioeconomic class, are strangers to the neighborhood, and who have no incentive to clean up after themselves because they don't live around there.

I know we can't keep every front and back yard on watch to see what the actual activity is, but in my opinion, I would be surprised if the back yard had much more activity than the front. You're right about the safety concerns of course and the other two points are legitimate.

Something I noticed when in Paris was that people were just relaxing in the parks too. Probably b/c they were very accessible. I know it'd be hard to do that in Houston w/ the heat and mosquitoes, but I think more well placed public parks would bring more of that, including a better feel of community. Eh, just what I'm thinkin.

And I didn't even really know there were private parks. Maybe I just didn't think of parks in gated communities as private, which of course they are.

[musicman]

I'm hoping I interpret this correctly and you mean what you say. But I don't think people really use their yards. Most kids don't even use their yards anymore. I mean how often do we see people in them unless their swimming or have a fourth of July bbq once a year?

People in Albuquerque don't use them because many just have cacti surrounding their homes which would be a hazard to children. We don't have that problem here. I use my yard regularly as do my neighbors.

[musicman]

I know we can't keep every front and back yard on watch to see what the actual activity is, but in my opinion, I would be surprised if the back yard had much more activity than the front.

Something I noticed when in Paris was that people were just relaxing in the parks too. Probably b/c they were very accessible. I know it'd be hard to do that in Houston w/ the heat and mosquitoes, but I think more well placed public parks would bring more of that, including a better feel of community. Eh, just what I'm thinkin.

And I didn't even really know there were private parks. Maybe I just didn't think of parks in gated communities as private, which of course they are.

Whether the front or back yard has more activity can be dependant on size. I know i've seen front yards so small that you can barely cut it with a lawn mower much less do anything on it.. But the homeowner may NOT want a yard to maintain. My parents have an acre. We used to ride motorcycles, play baseball, etc frequently. Now most parents would probably prefer that the kids stay around the house just for safety's sake.

Paris is a different situation because cities are more dense in Europe therefore land is more of a commodity. For many public parks are the only place residents can experience nature because land ownership is expensive.

Yes there are private parks even in Houston. I can think of one near the museum.

[lockmat]

People in Albuquerque don't use them because many just have cacti surrounding their homes which would be a hazard to children. We don't have that problem here. I use my yard regularly as do my neighbors.

You're kidding, right? Some people do have rocks as their yard but most people have grass.

You may be the exception to using your yard. I never see people in their front yards, not anywhere. And if people use their backyards, they probably don't even leave the porch most of the time.

I really hope the cactis remark was a joke.

[ricco67]

Nope, it's a fact. I've been to that region.

watering your lawn there is quite expensive an what lilttle lawn you have you have stickers to watch out for as well as Scorpions and snakes.

[lockmat]

Nope, it's a fact. I've been to that region.

watering your lawn there is quite expensive an what lilttle lawn you have you have stickers to watch out for as well as Scorpions and snakes.

I'm living here. I simply don't believe that's the case.

[musicman]

You're kidding, right? Some people do have rocks as their yard but most people have grass.

You may be the exception to using your yard. I never see people in their front yards, not anywhere. And if people use their backyards, they probably don't even leave the porch most of the time.

I really hope the cactis remark was a joke.

My relatives and friends who live there have cacti and rocks. you can walk around but basically no playing would be possible. Most are in the vicinity of Sandia Peak. Now that i think about it...one doesn't have cacti however there are quite a few natural obstacles in their yard as well. The ones I know there have properties that are more arrid. There may be some yards with grass but there is also frequent water rationing. NM has had water supply problems for years and the govt is spending millions to help conservation efforts. Watering lawns would seen foolish.

Lockmat saying "I never see people in their front yards, not anywhere" is not a reasonable statement. That would imply you've NEVER seen anyone cut their yard, do landscaping work in their yards, see children play in their yards? It is just not believable.

I'm living here. I simply don't believe that's the case.

Sounds like what you believe and the truth are two different things.

[lockmat]

Lockmat saying "I never see people in their front yards, not anywhere" is not a reasonable statement. That would imply you've NEVER seen anyone cut their yard, do landscaping work in their yards, see children play in their yards? It is just not believable.

Sounds like what you believe and the truth are two different things.

C'mon man. It's called hyperbole.

[musicman]

C'mon man. It's called hyperbole.

Well the resulting effect sure didn't add anything to the post you started except to give you less credibility.

[ricco67]

Well, having stayed there for a week, the only landscaping I saw involved pulling out weeds from a yard of rock that whom the person I was staying with had. Looking around (it was june), basically the same thing was being done. Just getting weeds from native flower/cacti beds.

I was told about the occasional scorpion or snake, and I believe that because when I was staying briefly at a friend's in Mineral Wells, I was rudely stopped in my tracks by a rattle snake while walking to the bathroom late one night.

Nothing wakes you up from a drowsy walk to the potty like hearing a rattle and your mind goes "uh, that's not normal."

[westguy76]

Suburbs outside of the beltway are iffy to me as they are cookie cutter homes being stamped into the dirt with limited elevations and/or styles. I believe these areas will become the new high crime ghetto areas due to the cheap construction and closeness of the homes to each other.

My .02c,

Scharpe St Guy

This is a bit of a wide statement, sure there are areas like this, but this is not the enviroment where I chose to live and I live outside Highway 6. In fact this seems to describe a lot of the area between the beltway and the loop. As I saw the market when I have shopped neighborhoods in the past, if you were spending anything less than say 145,000 in the current market in the "burbs" outside the beltway for new construction, your neighborhood may be in danger of the kind of decline you were talking about. It's hard to quantify why, but this was my opinion. Of course there are exceptions but this is what I found looking for the standard of living I expected.

[ricco67]

From what I have seen, we may be facing an interesting twist on the "white flight" in Houston.

I believe in about 10-15 years, Houston will be urbanized, but those with a higher income bracket that prefer the comforts and activities offered in a city.

The 'burbs (Sugar land, Pear land, Clear lake) will also be occupied by those with a higher income.

The areas in between (like say 610 and BW8) would be those of a more more modest income or "support" class of people. by "support" I mean those in the service industry or those that help maintain an infrastructure economy for those who are a bit more affluent.

the only thing I can't quite figure out is what's going to happen along the east end near the ship channel and refineries. I'm not sure if it's going to stay the way it currently is or not. That particular part of the city is still going strong and the odds of people putting homes in the area remain slim, much less those with in the upper income bracket.

[TheNiche]

I was told about the occasional scorpion or snake, and I believe that because when I was staying briefly at a friend's in Mineral Wells, I was rudely stopped in my tracks by a rattle snake while walking to the bathroom late one night.

Nothing wakes you up from a drowsy walk to the potty like hearing a rattle and your mind goes "uh, that's not normal."

Yeah, that happens from time to time, even here in southeast Texas.

You're lucky you didn't get bit. I was in Phoenix for several days a couple years back and watched their local news. Some woman got bit by a rattler that was beside her washing machine. I've also heard of people who have gotten bit an the ass from a snake in the toilet bowl.

But then, I've always found news from the desert cities to be odd. In south central New Mexico, one time, I was watching the local news, which did a story on condom durability and found that the ones in truck stops were the best. And after that, they had a guy on who was complaining about a crime and pronounced Albuquerque like All-boo-car-key...not really fast, but with each sylable pronounced very slowly and deliberately. Weird.

[TheNiche]

From what I have seen, we may be facing an interesting twist on the "white flight" in Houston.

I believe in about 10-15 years, Houston will be urbanized, but those with a higher income bracket that prefer the comforts and activities offered in a city.

The 'burbs (Sugar land, Pear land, Clear lake) will also be occupied by those with a higher income.

The areas in between (like say 610 and BW8) would be those of a more more modest income or "support" class of people. by "support" I mean those in the service industry or those that help maintain an infrastructure economy for those who are a bit more affluent.

the only thing I can't quite figure out is what's going to happen along the east end near the ship channel and refineries. I'm not sure if it's going to stay the way it currently is or not. That particular part of the city is still going strong and the odds of people putting homes in the area remain slim, much less those with in the upper income bracket.

I think that a lot of the areas just inside the beltway, but near the 610 Loop will do pretty well. Even a bit further into the Inner Belt area, there will be places that get better. I'd be more concerned about the stuff between the Belt and 1960. Of course, there are always plenty of exceptions. Houston isn't defined radially, after all, even if our transportation systems are.

I wouldn't count on a whole lot of high-income development around the ship channel, but it does happen from time to time. Parts of Pasadena aren't bad at all, and there is construction in Deer Park and western La Porte. The closer to Galveston Bay, the higher the value of the new construction. I think that as Seabrook gets built out, and given that Clear Lake already is, old La Porte is going to really get going. Give it ten years and watch.

HGAC goes so far as to forecast significant residential growth inside of 225 and I-10 around the ship channel. That's where I draw the line. I declare BS.

[ricco67]

Yeah, I was a complete moron when it came to handling the snake, I just got a broom and shoo'ed it out the door with the owners watching!

yeah, the stories from there are wierd and they have a whole different set of problems to worry about as far as lawn care and household pests.

Then again, people new to the area freak out pretty badly to the roaches and mosquitos here.

[h2obuff]

What's complicated? Given options, people use their yards, thus revealing their preference. So why give them options that they aren't going to use if you can eliminate the options, cut costs, and undercut the competition by not selling people things that they don't need?

Even if a developer controls all of the corners or frontage of an area (which is hard enough to achieve), he still must compete with every other developer in his market area that controls every other corner and every bit of frontage. He cannot force office tenants to move into his building that has less accessibility and visibility than the one across the highway that does. He still faces a highly competitive market, and for his new urban scheme to work, he'll need land use controls or a big BIG chunk of land supported by a growing metro area as well as pockets that are deep enough to be able to wait out the long drawn-out buildout process.

Yes, this goes without saying. But the most visible and accessible places are the places where it "typically goes" (i.e. it can't be moved anywhere else without adversely affecting those characteristics). That's why it "typically goes" there.

And the new breed of developers do have deep pockets, they do have the land to control this and all they need are the proper planning tools. Also, you can not force tenants, but you can entice them, and as much as "visibility" appears important to most tenants, the error of there thinking is that visibility is everything. There is salesmanship and logic involved, not just the "typical" that is the old way of thinking and those that continue to think "typically" will not survive or be as successful as those that think outside the box.

[TheNiche]

And the new breed of developers do have deep pockets...

And what do you base this conclusion upon? Show me data.

...they do have the land to control this...

Who is they? Where is this land?

...all they need are the proper planning tools.

Yep, that's why they hire professional architects, land planners, and consultants.

Also, you can not force tenants, but you can entice them...

This much is true...you can always grant concessions on the lease or engage in active marketing approaches. But that gets expensive and/or risky very quickly. How do you reconcile this?

...as much as "visibility" appears important to most tenants, the error of there thinking is that visibility is everything.

Visibility and access are what get the prospective tenants to your doorstep so that you have the ability to make your case. Visibility is nothing more than a passive form of advertising. Case in point: there are several apartment complexes that have been built in prominent positions adjacent to large noisy freeways even though people have to live and sleep there. My initial reaction was "well that's stupid," but I was wrong. In fact, they lease up pretty quickly and get respectable rents. The same applies to commercial properties, except that visibility and access are even more critical with office, retail, and hotels.

I've granted you that there is a niche market for this kind of thing, but it is really very difficult to tap into. Implementation on a meaningful scale has a number of prerequisites that aren't common in the Houston market, and I've already explained exactly what they are.

There is salesmanship and logic involved, not just the "typical" that is the old way of thinking and those that continue to think "typically" will not survive or be as successful as those that think outside the box.

Salesmanship is good, but that's true regardless of the design of the product. It can be engaged in by anybody willing to spend the time and money on a good broker (or to do it themselves, if able).

As for logic...I challenge you to explain the logic of your position rather than just throwing the word out there as though it is self-evident. Of course, that challenge is extended to the rest of your conclusions as well. I'll buy what you're selling, but only if you can explain the advantages.