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

[H-Town Man]

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.

I agree about the Blueprint meetings. There have been polls though done by Stephen Klineberg that show that something like 80% of Houstonians favor better planning of new development.

[TheNiche]

I agree about the Blueprint meetings. There have been polls though done by Stephen Klineberg that show that something like 80% of Houstonians favor better planning of new development.

Klineberg's surveys are far better, but even then, they only offer excessively general answers. So people favor better planning. What does that mean? Who gets to be the planner? What jurisdictions are planned? What infrastructure is off limits or influenced by other entities? What is the planning philosophy? Is there any social engineering going on or are there checks and balances to prevent that kind of thing?

Even try to scratch the surface with questions like those and that 80% figure falls apart. The only way you'll ever see that kind of approval rating again is if the planning body only very slightly tweaks the status quo, for instance with signage requirements or something relatively benign like that. Zoning commissions in many cities are notorious for that way of doing things.

[H-Town Man]

That's true, and the question certainly leaves out any of the possible negatives of planning that Tory so often warns about. The term 'planning' has a nice ring to it. Southwest Houston looks messy and chaotic, so let's plan it. Great. But would as many people want planning if it meant that their costs of living were going to go up? Haven't many such people already left for the nicer, more expensive cities (Austin or Portland)?

But I don't think the results can be ignored either. 80% is a whopping figure. Also the election of people like Mayor White, who ran in part on a quality of life campaign, and Peter Brown, who ran almost purely on quality of life, represent voter mandates. People in Houston want these problems to be addressed. How and to what extent is less certain.

[musicman]

Haven't many such people already left for the nicer, more expensive cities (Austin or Portland)?

from this article, it looks as if the upper class has the option, but the middle and lower are being forced to move.

[lockmat]

"Houston Panelists Explore Ways to Keep City on Positive Track"

http://www.cpnonline.com/cpn/property_type...t_id=1003605798

[musicman]

"Houston Panelists Explore Ways to Keep City on Positive Track"

http://www.cpnonline.com/cpn/property_type...t_id=1003605798

[lockmat]

I'm really glad this kind of general discussion of where our city is and can go is taking place. Here's another one from the chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4935073.html

A social reckoning looms. Reclaiming the central city as the place of choice for middle class families and the "creative class" should be our first priority.

And how are we supposed to make this happen? As he said elsewhere in his writings, there's not some invisible hand guiding developers.

With all this synergistic talk going on in the papers and forums like this, how do we get the movers and shakers to actually start thinking differently? How do we get that developer to stop making cookie cutter neighborhoods? Or home builders to stop making architectually thoughtless designs? Mere talk and op-eds will not get the job done, although it does get the discussion going. But how long will it be until talk comes to fruition and bad planning or bad architecture is in the minority and looked down upon as the norm?

---------

Interesting response by crossley to the article:

Just for the record, two points:

1. I do not argue for a "focus on the 're-urbanization' of the central city." I'm a little pressed to imagine what that means. The City of Houston was developed for 110 years as a well connected urban and suburban place, with some of the best planning in the nation. It emerged over that time as transit-oriented development, with an extensive streetcar system. To the extent that the original, pre-1950s part of the city can be revitalized - including its suburbs, which include Montrose, the Heights, and many others that are close in and built in a highly connected grid that is walkable and drivable and capable of being served by high-capacity transit as it once was - then, sure I'm for that. But that's just part of the city and part of the region.

The notion that "suburb" means some place that's far from the original city is an old one that makes discussion go off in meaningless directions. Suburbs occur where they occur, which is at the edges of urban places. Houston as a city and a region has very large numbers of urban or urbanizing centers all over the map. Neighborhoods that are largely residential that occur around these places are suburbs. So the early parts of The Woodlands once looked like suburbs of the Houston core, but no longer look like that. They are now clearly suburbs of The Woodlands urban center. That is happening in Sugar Land and Pearland and within dozens of previously all-suburban places everywhere in the region.

The vision of the Houston Central Business District as the center of a number of concentric suburban rings simply obscures the real, rich polycentric nature of Houston. The single-center vision encourages endless expansion of ring roads that use up land and produce most of the environmental, social, and economic problems we all worry about. The day we can begin to see our region as a vast geographic place with multiple centers - hundreds of them - organized into collaborative economic clusters that form sustainable networks of access, mobility, and green infrastructure we will begin to move toward a high quality of life and prosperity for all of us.

2. I do not agree that I'm speaking from some ideological position except one that is shared by nearly all Houstonians. The work of Blueprint Houston and many others to discover and express the vision, values, and goals of Houston's citizens has given us a clear direction for the future. I support and talk about those values every day. The people who live here have given us their dreams, and it is the responsibility of all civic leaders to listen to those dreams and work toward them. As it happens, I find myself in agreement with the citizens' vision for the future.

-----

And what do you guys think of Browns idea to enforce zoning just along the new rail lines? I don't know, but I think I kind of like it. Sway me.

[bachanon]

"houston, a region of urban villages" where have i heard that before.

[musicman]

And what do you guys think of Browns idea to enforce zoning just along the new rail lines? I don't know, but I think I kind of like it. Sway me.

i'm sure you wouldn't like it because prices of new structures would only go up.

[lockmat]

i'm sure you wouldn't like it because prices of new structures would only go up.

Yeah, that's what I was kind of thinkin

[TheNiche]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4935073.html

In a series of in-depth articles by leading experts on cities, the Chronicle has engaged the public about choices and directions for the future. Thus far, the debate seems polarized, probably confusing to many citizens, with the "Suburbanists" (Tory Gattis and Joel Kotkin) pitted against the "Urbanists" (generally represented by David Crossley). -Peter Brown

^Brown is framing the debate improperly. Gattis and Kotkin each recognize that urban environments appeal to some people, but their position is to allow each individual household to choose how and where it wants to live without systematic government intervention one way or the other. Crossley wants the government to tell people where they can or cannot live, and he wants the government to endorse and enforce his development philosophy. This isn't urbanist vs. suburbanist. This is part of a debate that is rooted in the founding of our country. It is about strong government versus weak government. It is about property rights. It is about economic and social freedom.

And although I will concede that there are advantages to strong government, even to dictatorship, it is my absolute belief that the government will never be as good a judge of my happiness as I am, and furthermore that their pitiful attempts at attempting to maximize the social benefit tend to simultaneously remove the incentives for individuals to provide for themselves as well as provide opportunities for individuals granted powers over others to engage in bureaucratic waste and massive corruption. That is my position.

Where is the beauty

[RedScare]

The Heights and Southampton were developed as suburbs of Houston. They are not urban. Furthermore, they were developed at a time when population growth was not as rapid, so that they had an evolving character contained within a relatively small geographic area (especially noticable in the Heights).

Really?

Houston population 1900 - 44,683

Houston population 1910 - 78,800 Increase 76.4%

Houston population 1920 - 138,276 Increase 75.5%

Houston population 1930 - 292,352 Increase 111.4%

Houston population 1940 - 384,514 Increase of ONLY 31.5%

Houston population 1950 - 596,163 Increase 55.5%

Houston population 1960 - 938,219 Increase 57.3%

Nearly doubling the population every 10 years for 30 years is not a pedestrian pace.

As for Mr. Brown, he is correct that this is a Battle of the Ideologues. Problem is, he is just another of them. In fact, he is worse, because he is an elected official who has done no more to improve Houston, than the battling op ed authors that he criticizes.

[TheNiche]

Really?

Houston population 1900 - 44,683

Houston population 1910 - 78,800 Increase 76.4%

Houston population 1920 - 138,276 Increase 75.5%

Houston population 1930 - 292,352 Increase 111.4%

Houston population 1940 - 384,514 Increase of ONLY 31.5%

Houston population 1950 - 596,163 Increase 55.5%

Houston population 1960 - 938,219 Increase 57.3%

Nearly doubling the population every 10 years for 30 years is not a pedestrian pace.

I figured someone might make an error like that. But where development patterns are concerned, the numerical growth is more important than percentage growth. For instance, from 1950 to 1960, the population increased by 342,056, a 57.3% increase. But between 1900 and 1910, although the population grew by 76.4% (i.e. faster by one measure), that only amounted to 34,117 people, about one tenth of the population increase of my first example. Population growth has been geometric, so the pattern of development has changed to accomodate that.

[lockmat]

Problem is, he is just another of them. In fact, he is worse, because he is an elected official who has done no more to improve Houston, than the battling op ed authors that he criticizes.

At the bottom of the piece it says he's an at-large council memeber. What is that exactly?

And he's an architect and an urban planner. I wonder what school he studied at and what type of philosophy they taught? I also wonder if most urban planning schools teach along the lines of urbanism? I'd imagine suburbanism is a dirty word in those circles. They should incorporate government history and economics in their studies if they already don't.

[RedScare]

I figured someone might make an error like that. But where development patterns are concerned, the numerical growth is more important than percentage growth. For instance, from 1950 to 1960, the population increased by 342,056, a 57.3% increase. But between 1900 and 1910, although the population grew by 76.4% (i.e. faster by one measure), that only amounted to 34,117 people, about one tenth of the population increase of my first example. Population growth has been geometric, so the pattern of development has changed to accomodate that.

I figured you would come back with that, and you are wrong. The infrastructure needs and construction workers needed are proportional, just as the increase in population is. By your suggestion, Houston in 1900 could have more easily handled a Katrina evacuation of 50,000 than Houston handled 150,000 in 2005.

[musicman]

At the bottom of the piece it says he's an at-large council memeber. What is that exactly?

houston has 9 district councilmembers and 5 at large ones. at large represent the city as a whole.

[TheNiche]

I figured you would come back with that, and you are wrong. The infrastructure needs and construction workers needed are proportional, just as the increase in population is. By your suggestion, Houston in 1900 could have more easily handled a Katrina evacuation of 50,000 than Houston handled 150,000 in 2005.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I'm talking about the spatial geography of housing construction. Key variables are the numbers of new residents per discrete period, average household sizes in each period, and the amount and physical arrangement of developable land in each period.

[RedScare]

And, I am talking about economies of scale. The Houston area currently has 5.5 million people. It has a well developed infrastructure. It has over 200,000 workers in its construction industry. It is far easier to expand the housing stock by 15% over 10 years than it is to nearly double it, regardless of the original size. This is such a well grounded concept, that you look foolish for even suggesting it. In fact, the Houston population was 1.6 million in 1980. The oil bust caused a loss of population. The housing stock did not disappear. It remained. It is even easier to accomodate the population increase by filling up the empty homes, as opposed to doubling the size of a town every 10 years for 30 years where only swamp previously existed.

If you consider the advancements in building tools and materials, as well as machinery for building infrastructure, your insistence that 15% growth today is harder than 75% to 111% growth in the early 1900s becomes even more ridiculous. But, then, you might have to admit typing before thinking then, wouldn't you?

[TheNiche]

And, I am talking about economies of scale. The Houston area currently has 5.5 million people. It has a well developed infrastructure. It has over 200,000 workers in its construction industry. It is far easier to expand the housing stock by 15% over 10 years than it is to nearly double it, regardless of the original size. This is such a well grounded concept, that you look foolish for even suggesting it. In fact, the Houston population was 1.6 million in 1980. The oil bust caused a loss of population. The housing stock did not disappear. It remained. It is even easier to accomodate the population increase by filling up the empty homes, as opposed to doubling the size of a town every 10 years for 30 years where only swamp previously existed.

If you consider the advancements in building tools and materials, as well as machinery for building infrastructure, your insistence that 15% growth today is harder than 75% to 111% growth in the early 1900s becomes even more ridiculous. But, then, you might have to admit typing before thinking then, wouldn't you?

OK, I know what you're getting at now, but it isn't very much related to what I'm talking about.

[KinkaidAlum]

OK, I know what you're getting at now, but it isn't very much related to what I'm talking about.

How is it not related other than it shoots your theory down?

[TheNiche]

How is it not related other than it shoots your theory down?

My claim was that, "they were developed at a time when population growth was not as rapid, so that they had an evolving character contained within a relatively small geographic area (especially noticable in the Heights)." In terms of the absolute number of homes built in any given year in Houston (a function almost entirely of the number of new residents per period and average household size), the slow-growth development pattern of places like the Heights is to be expected. Its really simple.

And today, in large part because of the factors that Red mentioned, among other underlying supply and demand factors, Heights-like development is impossible. I'm really not sure what is so difficult to understand.

[KinkaidAlum]

My claim was that, "they were developed at a time when population growth was not as rapid, so that they had an evolving character contained within a relatively small geographic area (especially noticable in the Heights)." In terms of the absolute number of homes built in any given year in Houston (a function almost entirely of the number of new residents per period and average household size), the slow-growth development pattern of places like the Heights is to be expected. Its really simple.

And today, in large part because of the factors that Red mentioned, among other underlying supply and demand factors, Heights-like development is impossible. I'm really not sure what is so difficult to understand.

As Red pointed out, population growth was explosive when the Heights and Southampton were being built out.

And, I have no idea what "they had an evolving character contained within a relatively small geographic area" is even supposed to mean. At the time, the Heights was "out there" and the geographic area would have been described as any and everything but "small."

[TheNiche]

As Red pointed out, population growth was explosive when the Heights and Southampton were being built out.

And, I have no idea what "they had an evolving character contained within a relatively small geographic area" is even supposed to mean. At the time, the Heights was "out there" and the geographic area would have been described as any and everything but "small."

Yeah, my point is kind of that at the time, you're right that that's how it was considered, but it is perceived of much differently in a present-day context. Peter Brown falls right into that trap.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yeah, my point is kind of that at the time, you're right that that's how it was considered, but it is perceived of much differently in a present-day context. Peter Brown falls right into that trap.

That's not a trap, that's context.

[TheNiche]

That's not a trap, that's context.

"Trap" is a figure of speech.

[lockmat]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4949829.html

[H-Town Man]

He warns that the worst development danger is the monoculture housing subdivisions that mark the city's periphery. Building hundreds of houses with similar styles and prices that appeal to young parents inevitably causes blight when the style

[musicman]

I thought this was an excellent point from the Chronicle editorial.

reminds me of the monoculture housing that is being built inner loop. blocks of the same townhome after townhome.

[MidtownCoog]

I thought this was an excellent point from the Chronicle editorial.

Not really. Look at the existing housing stock in the inner city. Talk about out of fashion.

Why do you think we see so many teardowns?

This is not limited to the burbs.

[H-Town Man]

Not really. Look at the existing housing stock in the inner city. Talk about out of fashion.

Why do you think we see so many teardowns?

This is not limited to the burbs.

Not sure how that defeats Duany's point. He didn't say that all inner city housing was ideal, he simply said that there is a problem with the monoculture housing in the suburbs. There may be pockets of homogeneity inside the loop, but none as vast as what we're seeing on the periphery.

What are you referring to as being "out of fashion"?