Uli Panel Gives Opinion On Houston Growth

[H-Town Man]

All cities have comparative strengths and weaknesses that factor into labor migration decisions. Our city and Dallas, have been the fastest-growing cities in the country in recent history, while cities such as San Francisco have been stagnant for want of places to physically house people.

Yeah, because we're surrounded by flat land and they're not.

I submit to you that we ought not discriminate on the grounds of an individual's preferences, and that the objective ought to be maintaining regional numerical population growth that tops nearly every other city in the country. It is not difficult to accomplish, as Texas cities demonstrate very effectively. The trick is to treat all comers with equality or undue penalty for being. Let there be no annointed class.

What the heck are you talking about? When did I "anoint" a certain class? I said that we should be trying to attract people who want to work in an urban center as well as people who like the suburban lifestyle. How is that discrimination?

Is a consolidated Manhattan greater than an unconsolidated Manhattan? Upon what criteria do you base your conclusions?

Read my post again. There are emergent properties that come about when a certain number of things are in a single place. Most people would find one Manhattan more exciting than five downtown Philadelphias.

Side note: Your desire to sound more intelligent than everyone else is causing you to sound silly.

[jgriff]

Read my post again. There are emergent properties that come about when a certain number of things are in a single place. Most people would find one Manhattan more exciting than five downtown Philadelphias.

Sure, Manhattan is more exciting than 5 philadelphias or 5 Houstons.

Do you think that "exciting" is the first thing people are looking for in a place to live? Imagine a working class family of 5 with 2 dogs and a cat that are looking for a place to live. I think "exciting" is not on the top of the list for them. They are probably looking for afforfable, safe, clean, family/church oriented with a big back yard and good schools.

You are probably looking for "exciting".

[H-Town Man]

Sure, Manhattan is more exciting than 5 philadelphias or 5 Houstons.

Do you think that "exciting" is the first thing people are looking for in a place to live? Imagine a working class family of 5 with 2 dogs and a cat that are looking for a place to live. I think "exciting" is not on the top of the list for them. They are probably looking for afforfable, safe, clean, family/church oriented with a big back yard and good schools.

You are probably looking for "exciting".

It never ceases to amaze me what people on this forum will read into something you write.

The point of everything I've written on this thread is that Houston should have something for as many types of people as possible. We should offer something for suburb-minded families like the one you describe (we seem to be doing very well at this). We should offer something for ambitious people in their twenties who are looking for excitement. And everything in between.

Next time jgriff, try understanding what someone is saying before typing off a response.

[jgriff]

It never ceases to amaze me what people on this forum will read into something you write.

The point of everything I've written on this thread is that Houston should have something for as many types of people as possible. We should offer something for suburb-minded families like the one you describe (we seem to be doing very well at this). We should offer something for ambitious people in their twenties who are looking for excitement. And everything in between.

Next time jgriff, try understanding what someone is saying before typing off a response.

Wow, sorry to offend. I didn't mean any offense. Not sure why you took it that way.

Are you not looking for "exciting"? I don't think I misunderstood that.

[H-Town Man]

Wow, sorry to offend. I didn't mean any offense. Not sure why you took it that way.

Are you not looking for "exciting"? I don't think I misunderstood that.

I'm not looking for anything, jgriff. I have my home. But there are people looking for an exciting place to live, and I think Houston should offer that if it has the capability. We have the third largest downtown in the country... with a little work, it could be the third most exciting. That would be a great boon to us as we try to attract companies outside the oil industry.

This doesn't mean we need to ignore the suburbs. The two can coexist.

[N Judah]

You have referred to this several times, but what exactly do you mean by "subsidized?" Aren't all forms of mass transit massively subsidized, even moreso than freeways? There are very few transit systems in the world that cover their operating costs (and none that I'm aware of that cover their capital cost) with farebox revenues.

I guess they thought that the development around rail lines would be worth it. I don't know. A few places have totally free mass transit.

Freeways are generally built entirely with gasoline taxes, which are essentially fees collected from the people who drive on them.

Supposedly it's about half paid for by gas taxes...the rest comes from the federal budget. Plus most of the initial startup costs were financed by the feds. Also, I hate to nitpick, but gas taxes are fees collected from anyone who uses gas -- not just anyone who drives on freeways.

[TheNiche]

That was just an example. There are other examples which you would know if you had lived in the area for any period of time. OF course, whether or not you choose to recognize Bridgelands as Katy is irrelevant, as anyone from the area would cite it as an example of development spurred by the expansion of I-10.

It was a poor example. According to the Bridgeland website, the entrance is 2.5 miles away from US 290 and 11 miles away from I-10.

It'll likely have at least a 20-year buildout period, assuming they don't start expanding like The Woodlands did. The development of Bridgeland was predicated not upon the expansion of I-10 but primarily upon the construction of the Grand Parkway (a road paid for by user fees on land that is largely donated to HCTRA by private owners seeking to increase the value of the remainder of their land). This becomes immediately evident if you look at their long-range plans with respect to commercial development. Now that the expansion of US 290 has been delayed--and this is something that they had been really counting on--they are even more dependent upon HCTRA's plans. See for yourself:

http://bl.vismark.us/DTS/lots/maps/vicinity.asp

Maybe, but I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

Here's my five-point counter-argument: 1) it is bordered by Cypress Creek, 2) the bulk of it, and particularly those parts selling before US 290 or the Grand Parkway is completed, are going to be within Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, 3) one of two very large recreational lakes is called Cypress Lake, 4) Cypress Ranch High School is being built across Fry Road from the entrance to Bridgelands, and 5) ...finally...drum roll please... the mailing address of the visitor center is:

BRIDGELAND

16919 North Bridgeland Lake Parkway

Cypress, Texas 77433

And frankly, it barely even matters because if the original criterion was "development beyond Katy," the distance to the Bridgelands entrance is 23.4 miles, and the distance to downtown Katy (the actual Katy, after which "Katy" was named), is 27.2 miles.

Possibly true in zoned cities, but not here. Houston's most dense areas are its most affordable.

Perhaps, but the discussion is regarding growth and development patterns. The new-build (or replacement cost) is considerably higher than the market price of depreciated housing stock in such places as those, where few developers would dare to build new residential within any reasonable planning horizon.

That kind of density is also not very supportive of your arguments anyway, because as such urbanistas as Andres Duany have pointed out, it is typically shut off from the street, built to be auto-centric, and is surrounded primarily by other residential uses as well as by occasional strip centers set far back from the street.

Density can respond to the congestion problem. Are there denser cities than Houston with better commute times?

Density in and of itself is not a solution to anything, and southwest Houston (which you tried to cite above) is the perfect example.

As for city-by-city comparisons, the response will vary somewhat depending upon how you want to measure density, account for geographic barriers such as water (NYC, Boston, San Francisco, S. Florida, Chicago, Seattle), hills and mountains (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Austin), national parks, forests, swamps, etc. (Los Angeles, S. Florida, Salt Lake City), indian reservations (Phoenix), etc., and account for multiple CBDs in one--or effectively one--metro area (Dallas/Ft. Worth, Minneapolis/St. Paul, DC/Baltimore).

Generally speaking, measures of density are most valid for academic or policy purposes at the neighborhood level. For instance, promoting density at a regional level on the basis that it works at the neighborhood level would be a fallacy of composition.

I simply claimed that it is impossible to accurately predict the future. Can you prove otherwise?

I am not and do not claim to be a god. For instance, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bridgeland is closer to downtown Houston than is Katy, because the time-space continuum might be warped somewhere along the way to one and not the other, dramatically altering reality without affecting how we perceive and measure it. With that same disclaimer in mind, I can not claim to prove anything. However I am willing to make projections based upon solid economic theory supported by professional experience and empirical evidence, and to allow a reasonably slim margin for error.

I agree. Lack of car ownership should not be a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston.

It isn't. Stephen Fox, an architecture professor at Rice University, lives and works in Houston and does not own a car. He brags about it incessantly.

In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey, 9.5% of employees within the Houston MSA commuted in a vehicle other than a car, truck, or van. An additional 13.0% of employees carpooled. And only 3% of workers claimed that no vehicles were available to them, but that means that about two out of three pedestrians and transit riders are well off enough to have the option of using a car but choose of their own free volition not to use it (or anyone else's) for a commute.

Of course, METRO's jurisdiction doesn't cover the entire region, so if you just look at the City of Houston, a more valid Census geography for these purposes, you find that 11.0% don't commute in a car, truck, or van, that 14.6% carpool, and that 5.5% have no vehicle available to them.

The real issue IMO is that no group of persons ought to be subsidizing the lifestyle of any other group of persons. Now, I know that you're just going to refrain with the comments on subsidized freeways, and I'm just going to say once more that I agree with you on that, so lets just avoid that hassle. There is a tendency for policy debates like these to get polarized, so that if I don't like what you propose, then you automatically assume that I must be in favor of something in favor of those that have preferences opposite your own. That is not my position...I simply don't really care what you or anybody else wants, and I'd prefer that you and everybody else not really care what I want.

All of the options you prefer are dependent upon a massively subsidized freeway system. Please provide different examples of transit you prefer.

My preferences stand on the merits that I've described. All are subsidized, and as I keep on telling you, I wish to replace those subsidies with user fees.

What makes you think density stunts regional growth? Do you have specific examples?

The fastest growing and the most stagnant of the major metropolitan areas in the United States are those with the lowest housing costs. Low housing costs in the fastest growing metropolitan areas are influenced by a lack of political or geographic barriers to development and effective transportation systems increasingly financed by user fees. And while I am not prepared to make the claim that density in and of itself stunts growth, I will make the claim that policies promoting more density over less density do stunt growth, the reason being that the growth is relatively more expensive.

When you consider that 1) capital investments in real estate are fixed, while 2) labor is mobile, it is intuitive that capital investment will simply tend to go where there is a preexisting concentration of labor with lower barriers to entry, thereafter pulling firms and labor away from cities with higher barriers to entry with the promise of lower costs.

There's a lot of applicable data in this article, which was posted earlier today in a different thread by poster SamHouston.

[mojeaux131]

I agree. Lack of car ownership should not be a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston.

Excellent rebuttal.

I'm not looking for anything, jgriff. I have my home. But there are people looking for an exciting place to live, and I think Houston should offer that if it has the capability. We have the third largest downtown in the country... with a little work, it could be the third most exciting. That would be a great boon to us as we try to attract companies outside the oil industry.

This doesn't mean we need to ignore the suburbs. The two can coexist.

Exactly. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Side note: Your desire to sound more intelligent than everyone else is causing you to sound silly.

[TheNiche]

Yeah, because we're surrounded by flat land and they're not.

No, in the case of SF, it really and truely has to do with rampant NIMBYism (if not BANANAism). There's effectively no new construction in that city.

What the heck are you talking about? When did I "anoint" a certain class? I said that we should be trying to attract people who want to work in an urban center as well as people who like the suburban lifestyle. How is that discrimination?

Because targeting a said category of persons on the basis of consumer preference implies that disproportionate resources are committed to such persons as are committed to other categories of people. Some category of person is therefore disenfranchised. My position is that no category of person ought to be sought (by the government). Let people come and go freely. If such liberty of movement displeases some category of people, they themselves are welcome to excercise that liberty.

Read my post again. There are emergent properties that come about when a certain number of things are in a single place. Most people would find one Manhattan more exciting than five downtown Philadelphias.

I recognize the emergent properties and benefits of density in that form. I also recognize the benefit of such properties as they apply to employment subcenters, suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas of a metropolitan area. Insofar as public policy is concerned, it has been my position that the most effective way to foster a CBD or urban core in the long term is by allowing and providing for both urban and suburban growth in uninhibited form insofar as infrastructure costs are internalized those locating in various places.

Policy makers must be cautious of triggering unintended consequences, just as they must be cautious of providing disproportionate allocations of resources.

Side note: Your desire to sound more intelligent than everyone else is causing you to sound silly.

Then laugh.

[N Judah]

It was a poor example. According to the Bridgeland website, the entrance is 2.5 miles away from US 290 and 11 miles away from I-10.

I don't think the Grand Parkway would have the same appeal if not for the existence of I-10. But no matter, there is evidently a lot of Katy development you are not aware of along I-10.

And claiming that Bridgeland is dependent upon 290s expansion does nothing for the idea that development is not dependent upon freeway expansion.

That kind of density is also not very supportive of your arguments anyway, because as such urbanistas as Andres Duany have pointed out, it is typically shut off from the street, built to be auto-centric, and is surrounded primarily by other residential uses as well as by occasional strip centers set far back from the street.

You have claimed that sprawl is the only way to have the population numbers necessary to support a Houston-sized CBD in part due to the expense of density.

My argument is simply that it could be possible to achieve such numbers via density, and have cited a Houston-specific example of inexpensive density. I made no claim either way about the perceived quality of that density (just as you made no claim about the perceived quality of your sprawl), only that it exists and, in Houston at least, exists relatively inexpensively.

Generally speaking, measures of density are most valid for academic or policy purposes at the neighborhood level. For instance, promoting density at a regional level on the basis that it works at the neighborhood level would be a fallacy of composition.

It doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that to prove my point, I would only need to find a geographic area smaller than Houston+suburbs that has a CBD roughly the size of the one that we have now, and which has similar avg commute times. I think that would be enough to counteract the claim that sprawl is necessary to ensure the population numbers required to ensure a CBD of Houston's size.

Of course, METRO's jurisdiction doesn't cover the entire region, so if you just look at the City of Houston, a more valid Census geography for these purposes, you find that 11.0% don't commute in a car, truck, or van, that 14.6% carpool, and that 5.5% have no vehicle available to them.

That doesn't mean that not having a car isn't a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston. To be really convinced, I'd be interested in non-car-related commute times for Houston vis a vis other places.

That is not my position...I simply don't really care what you or anybody else wants, and I'd prefer that you and everybody else not really care what I want.

As I said before: If we're going to encourage one or the other, I choose the one I prefer the most (and you have done the same, whether or not you know what you're doing).

I will make the claim that policies promoting more density over less density do stunt growth, the reason being that the growth is relatively more expensive.

When you consider that 1) capital investments in real estate are fixed, while 2) labor is mobile, it is intuitive that capital investment will simply tend to go where there is a preexisting concentration of labor with lower barriers to entry, thereafter pulling firms and labor away from cities with higher barriers to entry with the promise of lower costs.

These high barriers to entry are due to the fact that specific policies promoting density always involve zoning. That is not the case in Houston.

Insofar as public policy is concerned, it has been my position that the most effective way to foster a CBD or urban core in the long term is by allowing and providing for both urban and suburban growth in uninhibited form insofar as infrastructure costs are internalized those locating in various places.

What's weird is that I totally agree, but I (unlike you, perhaps? I don't know) simply don't see Houston as being an example of that.

[TheNiche]

I don't think the Grand Parkway would have the same appeal if not for the existence of I-10. But no matter, there is evidently a lot of Katy development you are not aware of along I-10.

And claiming that Bridgeland is dependent upon 290s expansion does nothing for the idea that development is not dependent upon freeway expansion.

I'm aware of plenty of Katy development along I-10. I'm not aware of anywhere near so much development "beyond Katy" along I-10. That was your claim; you were unable to support it.

Bridgeland will be dependent upon freeway expansion to remain viable. I never made any statement to the contrary. It is not dependent upon the reconstruction of I-10, and in fact is dependent upon transportation infrastructure paid for with user fees, just the way you like it.

You have claimed that sprawl is the only way to have the population numbers necessary to support a Houston-sized CBD in part due to the expense of density.

My argument is simply that it could be possible to achieve such numbers via density, and have cited a Houston-specific example of inexpensive density. I made no claim either way about the perceived quality of that density (just as you made no claim about the perceived quality of your sprawl), only that it exists and, in Houston at least, exists relatively inexpensively.

Any analysis of policy must be forward-looking. It is not possible to construct dense neighborhoods such as those--much less that would fit within your urban paradigm--at a capital cost less 30 years of built-in depreciation.

It doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that to prove my point, I would only need to find a geographic area smaller than Houston+suburbs that has a CBD roughly the size of the one that we have now, and which has similar avg commute times. I think that would be enough to counteract the claim that sprawl is necessary to ensure the population numbers required to ensure a CBD of Houston's size.

Yeah, you go ahead and do that. Have fun.

That doesn't mean that not having a car isn't a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston. To be really convinced, I'd be interested in non-car-related commute times for Houston vis a vis other places.

That data is unavailable through the U.S. Census Bureau's American Factfinder information portal. It would require a trip to Washington D.C. to obtain the appropriate cross-tabulations.

As I said before: If we're going to encourage one or the other, I choose the one I prefer the most (and you have done the same, whether or not you know what you're doing).

I favor lifestyle preference neutrality in public policy. Explain your position regarding your perception of my supposed mis-position.

These high barriers to entry are due to the fact that specific policies promoting density always involve zoning. That is not the case in Houston.

The barriers to entry are attributable to a number of causes, ranging from zoning to building codes to permitting and impact fees to historical protections to regional geography to perceived political risk from planning policies that lack transparency to insurance costs to unionization to environmental regs, and so on. Higher densities in various cities aren't always the result of policy, but it is evident that the relative scarcity of developable land (for whatever reason) forces higher-density developments, and that in such cities, home prices tend to be considerably higher (especially in apples-to-apples comparisons of housing products).

What's weird is that I totally agree, but I (unlike you, perhaps? I don't know) simply don't see Houston as being an example of that.

Houston is most definitely an imperfect example, but it probably is the closest one out of all the major cities in the United States. Gas taxes, toll roads, MUDs, no zoning within the City, its massive ETJ, or unincorporated areas, deed restrictions as neighborhood-level controls to which prospective residents have a choice and must agree to adhere to. That's Houston. It's not San Francisco.

[H-Town Man]

No, in the case of SF, it really and truely has to do with rampant NIMBYism (if not BANANAism). There's effectively no new construction in that city.

And nothing to do with the water that surrounds it on three sides, and the other cities that block it off to the south.

Because targeting a said category of persons on the basis of consumer preference implies that disproportionate resources are committed to such persons as are committed to other categories of people. Some category of person is therefore disenfranchised.

Attracting as many people as possible does not mean that anyone is "disenfranchised." When a city tries to attract, say, tech jobs, it is not disenfranchising all people who are not in tech. You are becoming the Al Sharpton of urban policy.

it has been my position....

whoop-dee-do

[Houston19514]

It doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that to prove my point, I would only need to find a geographic area smaller than Houston+suburbs that has a CBD roughly the size of the one that we have now, and which has similar avg commute times. I think that would be enough to counteract the claim that sprawl is necessary to ensure the population numbers required to ensure a CBD of Houston's size.

You say that as if it will be an easy task. I hope you will undertake it. The problem for this undertaking is that there are very few CBD's roughly the size of Houston's... LA, maybe Atlanta, maybe Seattle. That's pretty close to the entire list. Now among those, only Seattle might have a smaller geographic area and I'm guessing they probably have longer avg commute times.

[TheNiche]

And nothing to do with the water that surrounds it on three sides, and the other cities that block it off to the south.

San Francisco has lots of problems. Foremost is NIMBYism, as evidenced by the fact that it is possible to develop in Oakland, which is subject to effectively the same constraints, but not in SF.

Attracting as many people as possible does not mean that anyone is "disenfranchised." When a city tries to attract, say, tech jobs, it is not disenfranchising all people who are not in tech. You are becoming the Al Sharpton of urban policy.

Here we go again, with cities trying to attract this or that.

I don't want to try to attract people, I don't want to try to keep people out. I don't want to try to incentivize the entry of any particular kinds of people. I want for there to be policies set up so as to ensure limited or no barriers to entry for those persons willing to pay for the costs of their lifestyle. I don't care what their preferences are, I don't care whether they move here, and I don't care if others move out.

If Al Sharpton is color-blind, then I suppose I'm becoming the Al Sharpton of urban policy. I don't believe he is.

[N Judah]

I'm aware of plenty of Katy development along I-10. I'm not aware of anywhere near so much development "beyond Katy" along I-10. That was your claim; you were unable to support it.

When development occurs beyond Katy, it will be due entirely to the expansion of I-10, which is not yet fully complete to the best of my knowledge. Right now the boom is happening in Katy, and is due to the expansion of I-10.

Bridgeland will be dependent upon freeway expansion to remain viable. I never made any statement to the contrary. It is not dependent upon the reconstruction of I-10, and in fact is dependent upon transportation infrastructure paid for with user fees, just the way you like it.

I hope you're not referring to the gas tax. 290 is not a toll road, and neither is Hwy 99. Any person living in Bridgelands who wants to commute in the direction of town will have to at some point either take 290 or the recently expanded I-10.

That data is unavailable through the U.S. Census Bureau's American Factfinder information portal. It would require a trip to Washington D.C. to obtain the appropriate cross-tabulations.

I guess so. At any rate, I don't think the experiences of one Rice professor disprove the notion that it is difficult to live and work in Houston without a car.

I favor lifestyle preference neutrality in public policy. Explain your position regarding your perception of my supposed mis-position.

The solutions you tout for Houston's commute-time transit woes are dependent upon an existing infrastructure, geared towards the private automobile, based on billions of dollars of subsidy. It's easy to claim "preference neutrality" now that there has been 50 years of extreme bias in your favor. This is disingenuous at the very least.

The barriers to entry are attributable to a number of causes, ranging from zoning to building codes to permitting and impact fees to historical protections to regional geography to perceived political risk from planning policies that lack transparency to insurance costs to unionization to environmental regs, and so on. Higher densities in various cities aren't always the result of policy, but it is evident that the relative scarcity of developable land (for whatever reason) forces higher-density developments, and that in such cities, home prices tend to be considerably higher (especially in apples-to-apples comparisons of housing products).

But we really don't have any of those problems in Houston, do we?

Houston is most definitely an imperfect example, but it probably is the closest one out of all the major cities in the United States. Gas taxes, toll roads, MUDs, no zoning within the City, its massive ETJ, or unincorporated areas, deed restrictions as neighborhood-level controls to which prospective residents have a choice and must agree to adhere to.

I see what you're saying. I just think it could be better.

That's Houston. It's not San Francisco.

There are lots of places that Houston is not. Unfortunately, simply comparing it to someplace you don't prefer isn't enough when it comes to creating a truly great city that can accommodate anyone who wants to live there.

[N Judah]

You say that as if it will be an easy task. I hope you will undertake it. The problem for this undertaking is that there are very few CBD's roughly the size of Houston's... LA, maybe Atlanta, maybe Seattle. That's pretty close to the entire list. Now among those, only Seattle might have a smaller geographic area and I'm guessing they probably have longer avg commute times.

Not really...Houston is one of the largest cities in terms of size, so that takes care of geography. So I just need to find any city with a CBD roughly the size of Houston's. I might as well give up the "commute times" thing since, if anything, willingness to spend lots of time in traffic to get to an enticing CBD disproves the idea that workers will eschew the CBD in favor of the suburbs if the cost of getting there is too much.

Attracting as many people as possible does not mean that anyone is "disenfranchised." When a city tries to attract, say, tech jobs, it is not disenfranchising all people who are not in tech.

I think you're right...city living is not a zero-sum game.

[TheNiche]

When development occurs beyond Katy, it will be due entirely to the expansion of I-10, which is not yet fully complete to the best of my knowledge. Right now the boom is happening in Katy, and is due to the expansion of I-10.

"The" boom is happening in Houston. Katy is participating in light of I-10. Cypress is participating in spite of US 290. Interestingly, residential and commercial growth has been more moderate up towards Kingwood, along US 59, in spite of the fact that the area has a very wide and relatively uncongested freeway.

Clearly, freeway capacity and congestion is not the only factor influencing growth; therefore your unqualified statement that the boom happening in Katy is due to the expansion of I-10 is at best inadequate and at worst misleading.

I hope you're not referring to the gas tax. 290 is not a toll road, and neither is Hwy 99. Any person living in Bridgelands who wants to commute in the direction of town will have to at some point either take 290 or the recently expanded I-10.

I'm not. The gas tax is an imperfect user fee, and its imperfections are such that I would prefer a new approach, such as tolling all state-funded roads to make up for its abolishment.

A person living in Bridgeland and wants to commute in the direction of town will utilize the US 290 corridor, whether they're using the free main lanes or the future HCTRA toll road along Hempstead Highway. You missed my point, however. The development of Bridgeland is dependent upon the future construction of the Grand Parkway and the Hempstead toll road. Without those, the development of the Bridgelands and other nearby communities will be stalled.

I guess so. At any rate, I don't think the experiences of one Rice professor disprove the notion that it is difficult to live and work in Houston without a car.

I didn't say that it wasn't difficult. I said that it was clearly possible, citing both statistical and anecdotal evidence, with the anecdote even coming from someone with preferences similar to your own. Frankly, if you want to get into this, I'm going to argue that the transit infrastructure that he utilizes is severely underpriced and that in order to promote an equitible and efficient regional transportation infrastructure, the one percent sales tax charged to the METRO service area will have to go away, and he'll have to pay an arm and a leg in addition to his great inconvenience in order to maintain the lifestyle of his preference.

The solutions you tout for Houston's commute-time transit woes are dependent upon an existing infrastructure, geared towards the private automobile, based on billions of dollars of subsidy. It's easy to claim "preference neutrality" now that there has been 50 years of extreme bias in your favor. This is disingenuous at the very least.

Houston is not a VCR. It doesn't have a rewind button. What's here is here, and the present is our starting point.

But we really don't have any of those problems in Houston, do we?

We do, as do all major cities, without exception. We have the least, however.

I see what you're saying. I just think it could be better.

As do I.

There are lots of places that Houston is not. Unfortunately, simply comparing it to someplace you don't prefer isn't enough when it comes to creating a truly great city that can accommodate anyone who wants to live there.

Ummm...

If someone already wants to live here, what would be the necessity of accomodating them?

[N Judah]

Clearly, freeway capacity and congestion is not the only factor influencing growth; therefore your unqualified statement that the boom happening in Katy is due to the expansion of I-10 is at best inadequate and at worst misleading.

It is not the only factor, but it is the most important factor. The Katy boom followed the I-10 expansion (or prospect thereof), and -again- I would like to reiterate that this is the type of thing only noticeable if you had any idea what it was like before.

A person living in Bridgeland and wants to commute in the direction of town will utilize the US 290 corridor, whether they're using the free main lanes or the future HCTRA toll road along Hempstead Highway. You missed my point, however. The development of Bridgeland is dependent upon the future construction of the Grand Parkway and the Hempstead toll road. Without those, the development of the Bridgelands and other nearby communities will be stalled.

I'm not disagreeing that development would be stalled without freeways (or the prospect of additional freeways).

I didn't say that it wasn't difficult. I said that it was clearly possible, citing both statistical and anecdotal evidence, with the anecdote even coming from someone with preferences similar to your own.

Anything's possible. The question is whether or not living car-free is a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston.

Frankly, if you want to get into this, I'm going to argue that the transit infrastructure that he utilizes is severely underpriced and that in order to promote an equitible and efficient regional transportation infrastructure, the one percent sales tax charged to the METRO service area will have to go away, and he'll have to pay an arm and a leg in addition to his great inconvenience in order to maintain the lifestyle of his preference.

And I would argue that in order to promote an equitable transportation infrastructure, the same amount of $ put into freeway subsidies in Houston should be put into his transit infrastructure. After that happens, I will agree with you completely.

Houston is not a VCR. It doesn't have a rewind button. What's here is here, and the present is our starting point.

It's not as good as it could be. Where did we go wrong? Understanding history of public policy is fundamental to answering that question.

If someone already wants to live here, what would be the necessity of accomodating them?

To get the pure population growth you desire, we should be willing to do whatever we can to accommodate as many people as possible. If a person gets a job here that they want, but opt not to take it due to lifestyle considerations (to the point where we are driving out certain types of businesses), then I think we are missing out as a city. Needless to say I am the last person who thinks we should kowtow to anyone and everyone, but if it happens enough we should at least think about it.

[TheNiche]

It is not the only factor, but it is the most important factor. The Katy boom followed the I-10 expansion (or prospect thereof), and -again- I would like to reiterate that this is the type of thing only noticeable if you had any idea what it was like before.

Regardless of the infrastructure, if regional employment stops growing, Katy stops growing, and when regional employment ramps up, Katy does well. Freeways are not the most important factor.

As for whether or not I have any idea what it was like before...well I'm going to venture the guess that six years ago, there was a whole lot more prairie and fewer homes and businesses. Lots fewer. Tell me, oh wise and all-knowing...nay, only-knowing one, am I correct?

Seriously N Judah, you need to put Katy in perspective here. Katy has been booming and that doesn't make it special. Actually, construction has dropped off lately, reflecting another driver of growth, which had been lax mortgage underwriting. This had been a national event and its effects also were not confined to Katy. I'm intimately familiar with League City for instance, and its a whole other place than it had been when I first moved up to Houston, much less from back when I used to visit grandparents in that area. The same is true of Pearland, Sugar Land, Cypress, Spring, and a massive swath of The Woodlands. Pretty much all of the developable shore along Lake Conroe has been gobbled up in their "boom", and speaking to the Realtors marketing subdivisions up there, they're managing to make sales to people that commute daily to downtown Houston and the Texas Medical Center, an indicator perhaps that traffic congestion and distance traveled are secondary or tertiary to many people's prefered lifestyle.

Anything's possible. The question is whether or not living car-free is a barrier to being able to live and work in Houston.

No. Public policy has allocated subsidies for transit users disproportionately in excess of what has been allocated to highway users. In relative terms, public policy favors transit users at the expense of those that commute in private vehicles.

And I would argue that in order to promote an equitable transportation infrastructure, the same amount of $ put into freeway subsidies in Houston should be put into his transit infrastructure. After that happens, I will agree with you completely.

I would agree. We ought to allocate zero funds to new highways and transit, and all further transportation projects ought to be self-supporting, paid for with user fees. Additionally, all existing projects ought to become tolled in order to cover operating and maintenance expenses.

It's not as good as it could be. Where did we go wrong? Understanding history of public policy is fundamental to answering that question.

The history is understood. Misallocations of capital investment in the past cannot be reversed. Nor can the developmental impacts simply be relocated. We must go forward utilizing all the resources at our disposal, including those that in hindsight weren't very good ideas. ...well, except of course for those assets that do more harm than good, such as the light rail. That would likely be torn up so as to enhance mobility.

To get the pure population growth you desire, we should be willing to do whatever we can to accommodate as many people as possible. If a person gets a job here that they want, but opt not to take it due to lifestyle considerations (to the point where we are driving out certain types of businesses), then I think we are missing out as a city. Needless to say I am the last person who thinks we should kowtow to anyone and everyone, but if it happens enough we should at least think about it.

I don't desire pure population growth. We shouldn't do whatever we can to accomodate as many people as possible because in doing so, we'd bankrupt ourselves and actually drive local businesses out of our city; just because an infrastructure exists doesn't mean that people will use it.

If a person opts not to take a job in Houston due to a lifestyle consideration, that is OK by me insofar as government was not actively impeding that lifestyle, for instance by disproportionately taxing it or enacting policies aimed specifically at discouraging it. And for the record, I don't consider a lifestyle discouraged if the government very simply isn't addressing it...then it is being ignored, as it damned well should be. If there are no artificial barriers to entry, and they opt not to live here because paying their own way in the pursuit of happiness is more expensive here than elsewhere, then they ought to live elsewhere and be happy.

[KinkaidAlum]

Niche, what are you talking about?

San Fran, Manhattan, and Boston are hardly closed to developers. Development is taking place rapidly in all of these cities right now on a scale that is equal to or greater than Central Houston (downtown, uptown, tmc, greenway, allen pkwy, midtown, etc...).

Now, the only people that get shut out of development in those towns are the small players because costs are much higher and buildable tracts are much smaller. Even then, there are plenty of flippers in these towns but they focus on rehabs rather than tear downs like in Central Houston. In my opinion, I am grateful for that!

[TheNiche]

San Fran, Manhattan, and Boston are hardly closed to developers. Development is taking place rapidly in all of these cities right now on a scale that is equal to or greater than Central Houston (downtown, uptown, tmc, greenway, allen pkwy, midtown, etc...).

Equal or greater to central Houston doesn't really impress me. If it were 'equal to the totality of Houston,' that would impress me.

In my opinion, I am grateful for that!

You don't sound very confident of your own opinion.

[bachanon]

i know i sound like a broken record, but..........is affordable (i don't mean government assisted) housing impossible with high land prices and no subsidy or public money? couldn't you go higher, less frills?

i'm clueless to the economics of these things.

if an investor or group wanted to promote family living in and around downtown for those making under 40k, couldn't two & three bedroom apartments in a midrise be feasible for less profit, yet enough to be a moderately good investment? 1200 square feet for 800 a month?

i know that "reduced" profit is not the american way. but say i wanted to bring families into the core of houston, not just rich families. families of maids, mechanics and plumbers; court reporters, waiters, medical staffers and cab drivers. what direction would an investment group or investor take. is this even conceivable?

[TheNiche]

i know i sound like a broken record, but..........is affordable (i don't mean government assisted) housing impossible with high land prices and no subsidy or public money? couldn't you go higher, less frills?

i'm clueless to the economics of these things.

if an investor or group wanted to promote family living in and around downtown for those making under 40k, couldn't two & three bedroom apartments in a midrise be feasible for less profit, yet enough to be a moderately good investment? 1200 square feet for 800 a month?

i know that "reduced" profit is not the american way. but say i wanted to bring families into the core of houston, not just rich families. families of maids, mechanics and plumbers; court reporters, waiters, medical staffers and cab drivers. what direction would an investment group or investor take. is this even conceivable?

Short answer: no. There are a lot of things that make $0.66 per square foot market rents on new two- and three-bedrooms impossible, even with boring old garden-style construction (with the possible exception of Concord communities, which were discussed briefly in this thread).

With midrises, which I'm going to define as four-to-six-story structures framed in lumber, the lower floors and foundation have to be reinforced to handle additional weight from above, so each additional floor is obtained at an incrementally higher marginal cost. This is the big supply constraint. The next most pressing is developing structured parking, and the City of Houston requires one space for every bedroom (which, for the record, I think is a load of crap). There are other miscellaneous issues, among them elevators, issues relating to fire safety, and sometimes HVAC, and all of them cause the incremental marginal cost of each additional floor to increase.

If the midrise is developed on suburban land, it is difficult to pass on the costs to prospective tenants because garden style complexes with the same or better amenities can undercut you left and right. If the midrise is developed in an urban area, where the density is appropriate in consideration of the need to spread land prices amongst a greater number of units, cutting quality is almost always a really bad idea. The frills that you were talking about skimping on actually take up a relatively low percentage of the total budget on an infill midrise project, so they are included (by competent developers) because it is an affordable way to give their already-expensive project on expensive land a competitive edge.

Frankly, I often wonder whether it is actually developers or their lenders that are more picky about returns on investment. It sometimes seems as though developers' motto is, "If you can get the money, you can build it, and they will come at some point."

[KinkaidAlum]

Equal or greater to central Houston doesn't really impress me. If it were 'equal to the totality of Houston,' that would impress me.

So, you want to compare development in all of Houston, which contains 618 square miles, with Manhattan (23.7 sq miles), San Fran (46.7 sq miles) and Boston (48.4 sq miles)?

You don't sound very confident of your own opinion.

And that's a bad thing? A bite of humble pie would be good for you.

[TheNiche]

So, you want to compare development in all of Houston, which contains 618 square miles, with Manhattan (23.7 sq miles), San Fran (46.7 sq miles) and Boston (48.4 sq miles)?

I prefer to compare metropolitan areas wherever possible, as they better reflect the effects of public policy within a geography that encompasses the preponderance of economic activity supporting an urban core.

And that's a bad thing? A bite of humble pie would be good for you.

I prefer lemon merengue.

[N Judah]

If a person opts not to take a job in Houston due to a lifestyle consideration, that is OK by me insofar as government was not actively impeding that lifestyle, for instance by disproportionately taxing it or enacting policies aimed specifically at discouraging it.

Well, it's not OK by me. And I'm tired of subsidizing the freeway hounds -- time to even things out a bit and overcome Houston's bloat and the tools who support it. Things have snowballed way too far in one direction.

[TheNiche]

And I'm tired of subsidizing the freeway hounds -- time to even things out a bit and overcome Houston's bloat and the tools who support it. Things have snowballed way too far in one direction.

I'm tired of people wanting other people to pay for transportation that those people don't use.

[CDeb]

I'm tired of people wanting other people to pay for transportation that those people don't use.

I.E. "subsidize" it.

[N Judah]

I'm tired of people wanting other people to pay for transportation that those people don't use.

I'm glad to hear you're coming around to the enlightened point of view. Now get rid of the gas tax, or shut the heck up !!!

[TheNiche]

I'm glad to hear you're coming around to the enlightened point of view.

What do you mean "coming around"? I take it that you haven't been reading all of my responses, because I've repeated this sentiment three or four times now in this thread alone.