SpringTX

I would...but I'm not sure they let folks with the last name Jones into places like that any more. It causes too much one-upmanship with the neighbors. You'd have to change your last name. We've seen a couple black professionals post on this forum that they're not always made to feel welcome in predominantly white communities. For example, a black family who lives in Champions recently posted that when other residents see a black face, they start talking about how the neighborhood is going downhill. I've seen community parties where some whites were avoiding the few blacks in the room, and even whispering racist comments about them. I've heard black friends living in white neighborhoods tell me similar unfortunate stories.

If you earn $35K to $50K, you're probably not the type that would be relocating to another state for an IT job in a corporation looking to hire people from out-of-state. Or, if you are in that category, then you're entry-level and fresh out of college, so you probably don't have any kids and don't mind renting for at least a few more years. $250K down? That changes everything. I'm guessing that isn't from personal savings. I'm guessing that is from cashing out of a property that appreciated in another "bubble" market in inner Houston or elsewhere, in which case you're essentially just "hopping from bubble to bubble". For those of us who don't have $250K in "bubble-generated" equity, we would qualify for about a $350K home if we had a $100K annual salary, according to the online mortgage calculators I just fiddled with. With $250K down, you can probably get at least a starter home in northern California. This sounded awfully low to me (10% to 25% of the population in the area owning homes), so I looked around for some data. I found data from the US Census Bureau showing that the home ownership rate for the US as a whole was 69% in 2006 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr306/q306tab5.html). Then I looked up the home ownership rate for San Mateo County it was 61% in 2000 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06081.html). For Santa Clara, it said 60% (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06085.html). And for San Francisco County, it said 35% (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html). I presume we're looking at different measurements or different definitions or something.

Does the Cypress Creek Flood Coalition count as an action group?

You could always rent. Or spend 40% of yours and your spouse's salary every month on a 50-year mortgage for a modest townhouse in an area bordering a ghetto and located nearly 2 hours drive away from work. The average household income in The Woodlands is just over $100K. That qualifies you for absolutely nothing in northern California. You can't find a starter home on that salary. It's funny that similar jobs in northern California don't seem to pay much more than jobs in Houston. There may be more of them in SV. But is $15K more in salary going to qualify you for a home that costs $400K more? Unless you're one of the few who were lucky enough to buy in California before the boom, there's no way anyone but the very-rich could ever move there today. If your income is close to that of what the President of the United States makes (over $300K/year salary), then you can move there and look for a decent home in a middle-class neighborhood. If not, then you're locked out of the whole northern California area.

I just read Crossley's articles on that Livable Houston Magazine website (www.livablehouston.com) such as "A garden city future", "It's about Houston's urbanity", "Thirty Percent", "Houston's Urban System", and "We must build urban villages". While this guy is thoughtful and meticulate and has a vision, I think his new-urbanist dream for the future of Houston is completely unrealistic on a large scale like he describes in "A garden city future". I think his philosophy is, at best, compatible with revitalizing downtowns and creating new-urbanist developments in the suburbs like The Woodlands Town Center/Market Street/East Shore. But his vision doesn't address the other half of our society, which is the middle-class, who raise children, chase job opportunties, seek to minimize commuting times, and seek maximum land and housing space on a limited budget. This segment of society is burdened with the most critical of tasks: nurturing our future. But this whole demographic is absent from his vision, and he concedes this. His vision is incomplete. He moans about lost trees, but then wants everyone to live in what could best be described as a giant Greenwich Village. He berates our world designed around cars, but then admits that he's personally part of the problem. He describes himself as being more "moral" than most people in his distaste for automobiles, but then admits he can't adhere to his own "morals". He wants a future Houston designed around mass transit, but doesn't talk about how alternative forms of transportation comprise only a miniscule proportion of traffic in even the most progressive and chic cities that he apparently so badly wants us to emulate. How is his vision responsible planning for the Houston region or for our society as a whole? If he's going to develop a compelling vision for the future landscape of the Houston metro area, he's going to need to address transportation, technological, economic, and human factors as well as just aesthetic and environmental factors. If he would have posted any of those articles on HAIF as new threads, he would have received a number of very valid and challenging objections to his trendy and incomplete visions. What I love about HAIF is watching the Picasso, pie-in-the-sky urban planning dreamers (like I used to be) get smacked in the face by people from the construction, development, and transportation sectors.

I just want to go off on a slight tangent here and say that "small can be beautiful". Houston shouldn't sacrifice anything in a quest to race up higher in the rankings of the nation's largest cities. Let me ask a question. If Houston were forced to either replace itself with either Austin or Mexico City tomorrow, which would you choose? Mexico City is a heck of a lot larger. Clean air, uncongested roads, plenty of trees and parks, high incomes, low crime - all these things are just as important as sheer size. To borrow an example from high schools in the Houston suburbs, Spring ISD did everything in its power to grow Westfield High School to 5,000 students to reach 5A status for high school sports...and in the process wrecked the school from overcrowding.

First of all, while it may be true that Greenwood Forest and Ponderosa Forest are predominantly caucasian now, it may not be like that in 10 years. If the percentage of caucasian has been steadily dropping in recent years (and I don't know that it has for sure), that would indicate that it would most likely continue to drop, barring other factors. Second of all, a neighborhood can be 80% caucasian...but can at the same time also be 50% black in its school-age children, or be 55% black in its school age children who attend public schools. If all the white residents are retirees, and all the black residents are families with young children, that can easily happen. I was surprised to learn that there were that many childless households who wanted to live 20 miles from downtown in 3000 sq ft/4 BR homes. GF and PF aren't just original residents - they're attracting a whole new crowd of owners who don't have kids and who don't plan to have kids any time soon. When I think of the traditional suburbs, I think of young "breeder" families. And it's this niche market of suburban childless households that is maintaining some semblance of property value in GF and PF. If it weren't for this demographic, prices in those areas would probably be in a freefall. That's exactly true. I was figuring that homes in PF and GF were worth 20% less because of the schools, but it may be higher.

I probably should have been more clear in my original question. When I asked which ones are the "best", I meant the best in terms of traditional socioeconomic factors: highest income level of residents highest level of education of residents highest property values best long-term real estate investment lowest level of crime highest-rated public schools etc. The idea was to generate a list of potential communities for upper-middle-class minority families to look into when they're thinking of buying a home.

A lot has changed in such a short period of time. Westfield was 11% white last year, and I bet it's even less this year. Most of the drop happened within a decade. In some parts of the country, schools haven't significantly changed their racial composition in a century, let alone a decade.

If you're saying the tipping point is 50% white, I can buy that. (My estimate was 66%.) But I think Westfield is so far from 50% that they'd have to bulldoze a dozen apartment complexes just to get anywhere near that. I'd be interested in learning more about Jersey Village has worked. I didn't realize any suburb that was that integrated could maintain such diversity for such a long period of time.

Your real estate predictions for the 1960 area make sense to me. I would just mention that the Champions-related stuff (zoned to Klein High School) are doing a lot better than the neighborhoods zoned to Klein Forest and Westfield. But the latter are, as you say, are starting to resemble middle-class black neighborhoods. Middle-class black residents can live in an area with predominanly black and minority residents where they are accepted and feel comfortable, but they can also live in large, well-built homes with swimming pools on tree-lined residential streets patrolled by constables. The problem you point out is that the real estate values in those areas are going to be flat for many, many years. And I would also point out that the quality of the education in the schools themselves has been on a downhill slide for a long time, or at least many would argue that. If I were a middle-class black family, I would seriously consider looking farther north. Even though there are a lot more white faces there, the better education and stronger real estate investments are going to enable greater choices for your family down the line. If you're looking to live in a place for the next 10 years, you want to aim for something that will be good 10 years from now.

Well it's nowhere near that simple, because the bubble is a different size in different places, and it doesn't "burst" per se, because most people simply can't sell their homes for $100K less than what they paid for them, so it's sort of a slow "fizzle" in terms of real (inflation-adjusted) growth as it plays out over a number of years. But the short answer is "yes". The housing "bubble" of wild speculation and skyrocketing prices that swept Europe first and has now swept America has finally come to an end.

But only if the demand falls off. Would an overabundance of supply be much of a problem if we continue to have this relentless demand for housing in Houston?

Some people may not like to hear this message, because it's a sad message, but it's real, and I don't apologize for telling the truth, because TAK asked for the inside scoop. And because he has a real estate investment potentially riding on the answer. If I had made things sound rosy, it wouldn't have rung true. As for me personally, I'm one of the most racially-tolerant white people on the planet, which is perhaps not surprisingly why I feel comfortable, even passionate, talking about this subject, whereas so many others do not. Not that it matters one bit, because it's the ideas I'm expressing - not what I personally feel or how I act. This trend I described crosses all races. It affects blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims alike. And you can see it in countries all around the world. My description shouldn't surprise anyone. Luckily, things get better in this country with every passing generation. It boils down to what your goals are. If you want to be part of a community of national and international professionals (mostly white, but also Asian, Mexican nationals, European nationals, etc.), you may need to shed some cultural habits and preferences. Or not. I'm not going to start on a Bill Cosby style rant, but if that's what you want, that's how you would be best suited to approach it. And if you don't want to assimilate into a community like this, then this advice doesn't apply to you, of course. It's your life. If your culture and traditional family identity are more important than income, education, career, etc., then you already have your answer and you don't need anyone else telling you what they think is right.

According to BusinessWeek, the housing bubble in the U.S. has finally burst, and will take as long as 15 years to recover in some places. In the article, see how they single out "Houston and Dallas" as completely missing the bust (because we missed the boom). I'm not sure if the mini-boom inside the loop would see a bust, since Houston's economy is still booming and housing is in great demand. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16358239/ In a related article, BusinessWeek lists the cities where the housing market is expected to decline the most: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, Miami, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, and DC. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/10/re...=msnbc_downturn And in another related article, BusinessWeek lists the "top affordable suburbs". Their one for New York City is West Nyack. They say: "the neighborhood has a median home price of $605,700 (vs. New York City's $963,700)". Hahahaha. Their one for Boston is Sharon, Massachusetts with a median price of $493,900. Sugarland ($248,400) was their pick for Houston.

Assuming the income level and homeownership status and number of parents in the household are the same... There are 2 types of friends that my kids have. A ) The first are "close" friends, where the friends come stay at our house for extended periods of time: sleepovers, etc. We know the other parents and they know us. We approve of their family. They approve of us. B ) The second type are "casual" friends. These are friends that they see at school, at camp, at activities, at parties, etc. They could be a friend-of-a-friend. Our families have probably never met each other. The kids have probably been to our house once or twice at most. And there are 2 types of kids racially. 1 ) The first type is what I call "strong race identifier". These kids have both parents of the same (non-white) race: black, hispanic, or asian. There's a definite racial identity at home. Maybe even a foreign language in the home. If they're black, the parents favor jazz over country music, favor basketball over tennis, etc. If they're Hispanic, they favor the Roman Catholic church over the Methodist church, etc. 2 ) The second type are what I call "mixed-race". These kids have parents of different races. There is no strong single racial or cultural identity in the home, and no pressure to conform to any. The kids talk and act and dress like mainstream (white) Americans and have random cultural tastes. I might also include in group "2" those families who are foreign nationals and highly-educated professionals seeking to embrace a new culture in America. Here's how the average white middle-class homeowner family is going to react: A1 (close friends with "strong race identifier" blacks, asians, or hispanics) - Rarely A2 (close friends with "mixed-race" kids) - Often B1 (casual friends with "strong race identifier" kids) - Sometimes B2 (casual friends with "mixed-race" kids) - Very often

An "El" (elevated) like Chicago? Interesting idea. We don't often see that kind of setup. I wonder what the cost would be.

Cities often build metro lines by reclaiming old railroad lines that have fallen into disuse or limited use. And even though the old tracks are there, it still costs them umpteen millions of dollars to do it. And, if there are no old railroad tracks, it costs them bazillions of dollars per mile. When something like this happens, cities usually connect downtown with some suburban hub, for commuters primarily. And to take people downtown to sporting events, etc. For example, they've talked about running the metro along Hardy Road to Spring, out 249 to Tomball, out I-10 to Katy, etc. And it's also a big selling point that, with any metro lines they build, they connect to one another, so they have a combined effect. Granted, there's a few places of interest along 1960: the NW Medical Center, Willowbrook Mall, Chili's restaurant, etc. But nothing compared to linking downtown, the Medical Center, the Galleria, the stadiums, etc. There would just never be any voting tax base to support a project like rail on 1960, let alone numbers (# of people moved per day, etc.) to justify it. There would be so little support, that you'd almost have better luck trying to get 1960 converted into a pedestrian-only zone.

Happy Holidays everyone. Let me just say that I think this is an awesome mental exercise and a great attempt to provide a workable solution to a very tragic situation. But this data shows exactly what I suspected. 25% white? Almost 60% receiving free lunches (economically disadvantaged)? Would new middle-class families with kids move into those neighborhoods? Would parents in those neighborhoods take their kids out of private school and put them in public school? Would the new public schools be likely to earn high TEA ratings that real estate agents could tout? I don't think any of these would happen. I think the only time we would see re-gentrification is when space is in high demand, like inside the loop. My guess is that the sociologist's "tipping point" is at least 2/3 white for the Houston suburbs.

I did some more searching. It looks like there's a boatload of research on population density and how it relates to crime and other factors. A quick glance shows some studies finding a correlation, others not. It's definitely a topic that could provide for a long debate of its own. Definitely an interesting question, though.

I read that 90% of the land in South Texas (Rio Grande Valley) was converted to agricultural use. And pretty much all that took place within the last century. So that makes sense with what you're saying. So that I don't have to spend forever trying to look it up, do you know the ratio of agricultural to residential land in the US? Are we talking 2-to-1? 4-to-1? 10-to-1? Ballpark figure would be fine. I'd like to get crime, suicide, fertility, and morbidity rates per census tract and cross it with population density, and eliminate the income variable as you say. I can't believe no one in history has done this yet. Surely we can't be the first ones to ask this seemingly simple question: do high-density environments mess people up more?

Where's the data on this?

I can't comment on Hong Kong. We can compare suicide rates of various countries, but the data I found from the WHO on Wikipedia appeared to be incomplete and outdated. Not to mention that it's certainly heavily influenced by factors like unemployment, religion, etc. I can't find morbidity rates by country, and that's certainly affected by income, health care, etc. And crime rates would be affected by all these same factors, as well as policing levels. Not to mention that you've got to question some of the reporting from some of these countries in some of these areas. I did find data on fertility rates by country, however (links below). And I compared them with population densities (based on total square kilometers of land, not "habitable" land). And while fertility rate is most likely affected by income, religion, etc., I still see a trend. It looks to me like the fertility rate decreases as population density increases. Hong Kong has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. In fact, the 3 lowest fertility rates in the world (Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau) also happen to be 3 of the TOP 4 countries in population density. And the top 3 countries by fertility rate (Niger, Mali, and Somalia) come in at positions #206, #207, and #198 respectively in population density, out of 230 countries, or in the bottom 15%. I haven't merged the tables to test for a statistically significant correlation between the factors, however. Are people healthier or happier in low-density areas? Is it better to raise kids in low-density areas (suburbs) rather than high-density areas? Fertility rate ranked by country: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2127rank.html Population density ranked by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density

("Did you know Bridgeland has less density (number of houses per set amount of land) than any new development in town - this means that more land is set aside for open space, parks, recreation, etc. Also, the street layout to me is truly remarkable and invigorating. On the thoroughfares, no houses back up to it, leaving a huge row of ugly fences everywhere. Also, on the collector streets, houses are only one side of the street, and often on neither side, putting all of the houses in smaller groupings (of 20-40 lots) helping to make much more of the community feel that many (including yourself) often talk about.") Excellent information, h2obuff, especially about Bridgeland. I didn't realize it was being planned that well. It definitely sounds like "The Woodlands but without all the trees". If I worked at HP/Compaq or thereabouts, I'd be first in line to buy in Bridgeland. Master-planned communities retain near absolute control over development within their boundaries, and with the wild and dangerous real estate game of Texas, that's the kind of protection other communities would kill for.

Excellent information, h2obuff, especially about Bridgeland. I didn't realize it was being planned that well. It definitely sounds like "The Woodlands but without all the trees". If I worked at HP/Compaq or thereabouts, I'd be first in line to buy in Bridgeland. Master-planned communities retain near absolute control over development within their boundaries, and with the wild and dangerous real estate game of Texas, that's the kind of protection other communities would kill for. While I think that global population growth is one of the largest issues facing our man-made and natural environments, I think PureAuteur's recommendation of "stop the economic growth, control the population, and keep cities at a moderate, functional size" is a pipe dream. At the rate humanity's population is growing, in another couple hundred years, you'll probably be able to drive from coast and coast and see residential development in every habitable area along the way. And it's getting like this all over the world now. There may not be any more rain forest in another couple hundred years. And most exotic mammals will only be in zoos by that time. The problem isn't communities like Bridgeland. The real problem is the population growth. In fact, I think Bridgeland is the best response to the problem: creating lower-density, ecologically-friendly, sane communities with that precious and shrinking commodity called land. If we could control population globally (like they've been doing in China), that would be the answer to saving our planet. But while the western world has slowed their birth rates, we're just importing people from the rest of the world where the birth rates are still high. And it doesn't help that some governments and religions tend to encourage high birth rates in self-interest. Let's hope that the third world follows the western world's trend of declining population rates over the next century or we're all in for a world of hurt, no pun intended.