Houston lures business and top workers with 'back to basics' approach

[TheNiche]

Interesting -- though I think that if increased land values on the fringe (and these increased land values you refer to only occur on the fringe) coupled with overall increased transportation costs actually makes the total cost of accessing outlying areas cheaper, then I must be seriously underestimating worker productivity if the half-hour saved somehow makes up for it all. I guess it's true that you shouldn't skip breakfast

Jesus christ, man! My brain is trying to articulate an answer from four scenarios of a three-dimensional spatial model with multiple overlapping radial rent gradients for four different housing types and three income cohorts. ...and its friggin' tough!

I postulate that the long-term effect of complete transportation privatization would be that any spot within the region becomes easier to access from another spot in terms of efficient routes, adequate capacity, and offset trip timing and conservation of extraneous trips such that the sum of the value of time saved, the savings from lower gasoline taxes, and possibly even gasoline and vehicular wear & tear, measured per average mile, outweigh the new tolls per average mile. This happens throughout the region, although the increasing marginal costs of adding incremental capacity in the inner city may result in somewhat higher average long run tolls there than in the far-flung suburbs.

The effect is more or less similar to the trend that we've got going at present, with many small- and mid-size employers (and even some big ones) going to suburban locations as a way of tapping an adequately-sized labor market at a lower effective cost, and the diversity of household types, mostly segregated by income, ensures the very same development patterns as are also occuring at present.

That more land becomes more easily accessible at a rate faster than it can be absorbed for new population growth results in a flatter more horizontal rent gradient which reflects the availability of a greater supply of developable land such that the average cost per square foot of land physically demanded at present for housing is lower, but that the actual price of all land, including that beyond the boundary of urbanization, reflects the present value of future potentials for use as housing even in a use that is presently agricultural/recreational and that is not sufficiently valuable to be developed as of yet but that is valued in excess of a typical tenant farmer's willingness to buy the land for perpetual use as a farm.

...my head hurts.

But having said that, I think a lot of what you qualify as "suburban" development will actually in practice look like a series of small towns, or at least clusters of development as people seek to live close to their jobs.

Well, if all roads were toll roads I suspect their priorities might change. I know mine would.

Again, the pattern that you describe works well for single-person households, but it completely breaks down in polycentric cities with many different kinds of households, including those with children zoned to schools with other children. In that case, you get a classic suburban growth model...you get Houston, frankly.

Or they could avoid the risk and simply charge more...

Until someone else takes a risk and makes an investment, sure. Traffic demand forecasting is complicated, but there are FAR more risky economic ventures than roads that get undertaken.

I agree. In fact, I think proximity to employment is the main determining factor when it comes to finding a place to live. I think it's a nice idea to think that people can simply move to the middle of nowhere to avoid paying a toll, but if it were that easy I'm sure most people would be in a small town somewhere telecommuting.

See the last paragraph of my explanation to your first comment. We aren't talking about the middle of nowhere. We're talking about a slow and steady process by which the physically-occupied boundary of urbanization shifts outward over time based upon household creation, with relatively few exceptions. Land prices on the other hand, driven by expectations, adjust immediately and continuously to conform to the present value of the land at any given moment.

I think it was successful at redirecting quite a bit of development from the city to the suburbs. If toll roads were truly creative in terms of development people would just buy up some cheap land in North Dakota, set up a toll road, and wait for the office buildings to pop up.

But there are big differences between economic growth in Houston and rural North Dakota. There's more to it than just infrastructure. Infrastructure is a limiting factor on the development of cities, but it does not by itself create growth. The growth of new cities before WW2 was founded primarily upon being a transload point where agricultural goods were transferred from relatively more expensive modes of transportation such as carts, railroads, small riverboats unsuitable for the high seas, or trucks, to relatively low-cost waterborne vessels. That's how Houston, Galveston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, and other cities got their start. Post-WW2, the service economy kicked in and the cost of transporting goods became relatively lower than the cost of transporting labor, which was increasingly mobile not only by the mile, but between cities. As the population quickly became more urban and sorted itself out, it became increasingly apparent that 1) the size of a city promotes its own growth because it can sustain amenities (like big league sports teams, opera, airports, etc.) that smaller cities cannot, 2) specialized labor such as engineering, oil & gas, advertising, finance, etc. tends to concentrate and snowball because it allows employers better access to those sorts of labor that would otherwise be more difficult to come by, and 3) people like warm weather. Rural North Dakota has none of those things. Houston increasingly has all of those things.

[Vertigo58]

just keep saving you're money. that is the best thing you can do. don't worry about wife, kids, two bedroom home now. you're whole life can change tonight.

See, now your helping the brother!

Lockmart could be a new name for a retail chain. A storage place to lockmart up your prized posessions. LOL

Just help the brother!

[musicman]

See, now your helping the brother!

Lockmart could be a new name for a retail chain. A storage place to lockmart up your prized posessions. LOL

Just help the brother!

some need more guidance than others. it just hard for me to hear people say how much they worry about something in the future instead of enjoying today. i was like that as well, but learned a few lessons to clear up the fog of life.

[MidtownCoog]

Hou-Stoned (HP) interview to Kotkin:

And he must be talking about Old Man Kinkaid when he mentions "Boston by the Bayou

[musicman]

Hou-Stoned (HP) interview to Kotkin:

And he must be talking about Old Man Kinkaid when he mentions "Boston by the Bayou

[lockmat]

Hou-Stoned (HP) interview to Kotkin:

And he must be talking about Old Man Kinkaid when he mentions "Boston by the Bayou".

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/houstoned/20...angels.php#more

That was awesome.

[lockmat]

interesting article. i think the most memorable quote was "And let's face it, there's a lot of people in Houston who want to tell you about the art museum and the theater and I think that's fine, that's great. But that's not the most critical issue facing Houston." this is VERY true.

Yeah, I feel like education is a huge deal, just like he mentioned. I know way too many people from high school who didn't go to college and are just waiting talbes or something. Which, there's nothing wrong with that of course. I just don't know many people from my past who care more about just themselves, or issues bigger than what's going on in their lives. But I guess any city has those types. Just seems like we have more of them. Maybe I'm wrong. What's y'alls experience?

[musicman]

Yeah, I feel like education is a huge deal, just like he mentioned. I know way too many people from high school who didn't go to college and are just waiting talbes or something. Which, there's nothing wrong with that of course. I just don't know many people from my past who care more about just themselves, or issues bigger than what's going on in their lives. But I guess any city has those types. Just seems like we have more of them. Maybe I'm wrong. What's y'alls experience?

not going to college isn't an issue, it's graduating from high school. our numbers are too low which leads to problems finding a qualified workforce locally.

[TheNiche]

I just got back from a speech of Kotkin's. He accused his local detractors of not being able to read several times as he came to issues such as schools, parks, and environment.

Interestingly, he briefly covered the very same notion that I've been talking about on this thread, about how different households have vastly different preferences. He also validated one of my speculative comments on this thread by mentioning that empty nesters and retirees have a far greater propensity to move to the countryside if they move at all, and that a surprising number of them are aging in place. They are least likely to move into the city.

Also surprising, and possibly of interest to Woolie, is that he had data that indicated that residents of urban environments put off more greenhouse gasses than do suburban residents on account of that new mid- and high-rise construction is more material-intensive, they are relatively difficult to provide HVAC in vertical buildings, and because the high concentration of buildings, frequently with reflective glas facades, and relatively little tree cover, the urban heat island effect causes greater use of air conditioning.

[lockmat]

Is his report in pdf format somewhere?

[N Judah]

Until someone else takes a risk and makes an investment, sure. Traffic demand forecasting is complicated, but there are FAR more risky economic ventures than roads that get undertaken.

Probably, but I would still like to see the toll road that has had to adjust (lower) its congestion pricing based on new competition from private developers.

And at any rate when I imagine it intuitively I see toll roads (with EZ-Tag monitoring and almost perfect congestion pricing -- not hard to do) as being so ruthlessly efficient as to make any increase in revenue from volume not worth the cost of expansion. And any new competitive undertaking could -at best- hope to break even, unless they colluded with the other toll road operators.

But there are big differences between economic growth in Houston and rural North Dakota. There's more to it than just infrastructure. Infrastructure is a limiting factor on the development of cities, but it does not by itself create growth.

I think infrastructure limits development of cities only when cities run out of other options. I don't see Houston as missing out on anything if it didn't have the Sam Houston Tollway. We could have just built upwards and/or tolled existing freeways.

At any rate, it's nice to talk about these things if only to keep the thread alive. Now that it's back and kicking I guess I'll stop instigating

[TheNiche]

Probably, but I would still like to see the toll road that has had to adjust (lower) its congestion pricing based on new competition from private developers.

And at any rate when I imagine it intuitively I see toll roads (with EZ-Tag monitoring and almost perfect congestion pricing -- not hard to do) as being so ruthlessly efficient as to make any increase in revenue from volume not worth the cost of expansion. And any new competitive undertaking could -at best- hope to break even, unless they colluded with the other toll road operators.

I'd like to see it too, but it would take privatization of an entire system of freeways and surface streets to result in a transparent market with reasonably obtainable empirical data that would be useful for folks like us.

Even with congestion pricing, by which I mean that pricing would float depending upon the level of traffic as one might expect in a competitive market, there would still be a socially-optimal level of congestion. What you describe is the case only if there is a monopoly or a cartel acting as a monopoly, for instance if a single freeway going to some otherwise isolated part of town were completely privatized without limits on toll prices. Otherwise, roads competing for users (think of Richmond vs. Westheimer) would be competing to lower their prices to undercut one another and draw more users. When there are a sufficient number of users and one of the road owners determines that an expansion could allow for an significant increase in throughput by reducing prices slightly so as to undercut the other road, they will invest in the improvements.

I think infrastructure limits development of cities only when cities run out of other options. I don't see Houston as missing out on anything if it didn't have the Sam Houston Tollway. We could have just built upwards and/or tolled existing freeways.

The vast number of users of the Sam might disagree with you. That it is able to not only pay for itself but provide seed capital for others is pretty telling. If anything, our toll roads need to be drastically expanded to handle such massive movements of suburban traffic that have been induced by their presence. ...and frankly it isn't just as easy to build up as it is to build out. Vertical development costs a great deal more, and the bang for the buck just isn't there for most people. If you can't make the greatest numbers of people happy, then they won't live here.

[lockmat]

Kotkins full report:

http://www.houston.org/events/kotkin/index.asp

[N Judah]

WHO IS THIS JOEL KOTKIN AND WHY DOES HE HATE HOUSTON ?!?!?!?!?

Just kidding. Great article, I think he is right about pretty much everything. As an aside, this comment by Kotkin jumped out at me:

"[san Francisco has] The highest concentration of inherited wealth in America of any major city."

Poof! And like *that* -- it's official -- San Francisco is no longer cool.

[TheNiche]

"[san Francisco has] The highest concentration of inherited wealth in America of any major city."

Poof! And like *that* -- it's official -- San Francisco is no longer cool.

Haha, yeah! No kidding. He said that at the event I was at yesterday, too. ...and suddenly California's unique views on economic and regulatory policy became explicable. They're a bunch of soft-handed yuppies whose capitalist parents created the greatness to which they attach themselves, like parasites, thereafter bemoaning the very source of their wealth and livelihood.

[lockmat]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4922886.html

What do yall think about this op-ed piece?

I have followed with interest over the past couple of weeks the "point/counterpoint" essays from Joel Kotkin and David Crossley and others on the appropriate Houston development model for the 21st century, and I must say, "This is where I came in." We have been having this debate for at least the 40 years that I have lived here. Now it seems a good time to recognize some of the truths about our city's organic culture and its obvious success, as well as some cautions about how not to mess it up:

[musicman]

What do yall think about this op-ed piece?

rehash of the original article.

[lockmat]

Has this one been posted on here already too? I don't remember it. It's a couple days old. It's pretty good I thought.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4915292.html

[MidtownCoog]

There was a counter opinion to the Tony Gattis piece. I can't find it but it was on Father's Day.

It more or less said Tony and Kotkin don't get it.

Can anyone find it? It's worth a read.

[RedScare]

Crossley Op Ed

After reading Tory & Kotkin versus Crossley & Florida for the last few weeks, I don't believe ANY of them really get it. Every one of them has a preconceived notion of how things should be, and they look around the country for something that matches it, then claim that the reason it works so well is because that city followed their idea. If a city is too expensive, or if it is a failing city, they claim it is because they did not follow their idea.

I think that, like virtually everything else, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I also think that many of the "success stories" did not come about because they implemented any of the ideas that these "experts" espouse, but rather because of several things, or even by accident. The best plan is to make the locals happy. If the locals are happy, others will enjoy moving here. And, if they don't, who cares....because the locals are already happy.

[H-Town Man]

Here's the story, as far as I can tell.

David Crossley, Peter Brown, & co. have been making waves the past few years in their effort to change the nature of development in Houston. Blueprint Houston is the leading aspect of this movement. Certain people in the community are becoming concerned that Blueprint Houston and the effort to increase Houston's quality of life could be the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge, that leads to zoning (cue scary music). They've seen how the city's longtime resistance to rail collapsed in 2003, and they fear that zoning could be next.

Enter Tory Gattis, an independent blogger whose genuine love for Houston seems only to be exceeded by his love for free market economics. As the planning (or "smart growth") movement has gained ground in Houston, he has devoted his blog to warning readers of the pitfalls of where it might lead. Zoning and commuter rail are the big dangers, and every week, readers see stories and statistics of what has gone wrong in cities that have adopted these things.

At the center of the whole thing is the big question of Houston's image. Both sides seem to agree that Houston's image is not so great in the rest of the country. For Crossley & Co., this is owing to deep faults in how we build and get around. Change Houston's development and transportation methods, and the image of the city will improve.

For Gattis, the poor image is based on a mixture of things we cannot control (like heat and humidity), and simple lack of knowledge about Houston in the outside world. We don't need to change the way we are, we just need to do a better job of showing people what makes us so great. If we can communicate to people that we are a city where outsiders are accepted, where anyone can get ahead, and where the government doesn't meddle in business, then people will come and the city will prosper.

Undergirding the policy war is the theory war. Crossley points to urban policy guru Richard Florida's theory of "The Creative Class" as evidence that Houston must attract people who want to live in a planned, beautiful city, or else it will never catch on to The New Economy, and will eventually be a stagnant, blue-collar town that the world has passed by. Gattis, meanwhile, has espoused the ideas of urban policy guru Joel Kotkin, Florida's archrival in the field, who argues that cities can best serve their interests by sticking to the basics of keeping cost of living low and letting business do its thing, and that they needn't tailor themselves to suit the needs of a small, elitist "creative class."

[RedScare]

Add in Tory's obsession with "branding"...coming up with cute names and slogans that will instantly change everyone's perception of Houston...and you have nailed it.

Good synopsis, HT.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Interesting analysis, HT.

[MidtownCoog]

I do think the entire "creative class" argument is a bit tired.

The entire concept reeks of the dot-com bust.

[Houston19514]

I do think the entire "creative class" argument is a bit tired.

The entire concept reeks of the dot-com bust.

That, and the evidence supporting it is pretty scant.

[KinkaidAlum]

That's a great synposis.

What I don't quite get is why we can't be both?

Why can't we be a pro-business town that also cares about air quality, public parks, transportation issues, and solid public educational systems?

Just because some people envision transforming Buffalo Bayou into a showpiece doesn't mean they also want to introduce a state income tax.

Just because Trees for Houston or the Park People want to increase greenspace before it's too late doesn't mean they want strict building regulations.

Just because some folks want the local plants to clean up their act doesn't mean they want them to shut down.

It's this all or nothing game that is ruining this country. This ideological battle between David and Tory is really no better than the one carried out by the Dems and Repubs. In the end, all we are left with is a bunch of blowhards arguing while NOTHING gets done.

Give me the days of true leaders in this city back when people built huge business fortunes but also gave back by cooperating to create the Medical Center, build the ship channel, and donate things to the public ala the Menil.

[H-Town Man]

That's a good point, Kinkaid, though a lot of people would say that those days are still here. We have a strong philanthropic community, and the city is improving in some of these areas, albeit slowly.

I think Gattis (and if he wants to jump in, he's more than welcome) would say that quality of life is important and people are working to improve it, but we can't expect huge change overnight. The worry is that we will take measures that are too drastic in this effort to improve our image (he talks often about our "inferiority complex"), and this will upset the fine balance of conditions that has allowed us to prosper so greatly. He often cites Portland, the poster child of the smart-growth movement, which has seen its cost of living soar and its growth become stifled since passing drastic planning and anti-sprawl measures in the 90's.

Crossley's answer to that would probably be that he's not trying to push Houston to be something different, but instead to give Houstonians the type of city they already want. Large percentages of people in this town, in workshops done by Blueprint Houston and polls done by other parties, have said they want more and better planning, more rapid transit, and livable urban villages where they can walk to work, shop, and eat. The public sector needs to do what's necessary to bring this about.

Which brings us back to zoning. Crossley says he is not in favor of zoning, although I'm a bit skeptical of that. For Gattis, an increase of government involvement in planning pretty much means zoning, or something like it, and is not a good thing. Let the market decide whether there will be urban villages - if people really want it, then developers will offer it and it will happen. No need to force something on people that they don't want.

There's also the issue of increased public investment in things like parks and efforts to improve air quality, preserve historic buildings, and control signage (all of which have strong popular support in Houston now), but Gattis seems wary of doing anything too aggressive in these areas.

[TheNiche]

Crossley's answer to that would probably be that he's not trying to push Houston to be something different, but instead to give Houstonians the type of city they already want. Large percentages of people in this town, in workshops done by Blueprint Houston and polls done by other parties, have said they want more and better planning, more rapid transit, and livable urban villages where they can walk to work, shop, and eat. The public sector needs to do what's necessary to bring this about.

Which brings us back to zoning. Crossley says he is not in favor of zoning, although I'm a bit skeptical of that. For Gattis, an increase of government involvement in planning pretty much means zoning, or something like it, and is not a good thing. Let the market decide whether there will be urban villages - if people really want it, then developers will offer it and it will happen. No need to force something on people that they don't want.

There's also the issue of increased public investment in things like parks and efforts to improve air quality, preserve historic buildings, and control signage (all of which have strong popular support in Houston now), but Gattis seems wary of doing anything too aggressive in these areas.

Crossley doesn't want zoning, but that's only because zoning policies 1) apply only to cities, and the barriers to development that they represent actually increase sprawl beyond the municipal boundary, and 2) because the seperation of uses that often occur under traditional zoning is counter to his agenda. Tory doesn't want zoning for obvious reasons, including those that turn off Crossley to zoning.

What Crossley does want is some form of growth or use controls at the regional level so as to contain density to the inner city, and ensure that what is presently rural remains either rural or allocated to very large lot communities with a lesser impact on the environment. Of course, this is an ideal case. He knows (I think) that it'll never actually come about, and it seems that he is supporting more winnable battles, such as in the area of transportation, as well as those matters that you had mentioned as having more support.

As for the Blueprint meetings, I was there, and they were a crock of ****. Their attendence was not comprised of anything approximating a representative body of the populous of the areas that they claim to represent. You may as well ask a group of sign-weilding political protestors about their stance on a variety of issues and see how diverse the range of thought is, then publicly claim that this is somehow representative of a body of people other than those that are similar to those sampled.

[TheNiche]

What I don't quite get is why we can't be both?

Finite resources and mutually exclusive proposals.

In most situations, we just can't have it both ways. The arguments that come to the surface in media and that seem to frame discussions are from the far extremes, so it does get posed as an all/nothing, but the real debate in most circumstances, especially where resource allocation is concerned, should be over "to what extent".

[musicman]

As for the Blueprint meetings, I was there, and they were a crock of ****. Their attendence was not comprised of anything approximating a representative body of the populous of the areas that they claim to represent.

I'd have to agree 100%.