Houston Is Next Great World City?

[KimberlySayWhat]

Sorry it's already posted, but I didn't see it.

This was on the Drudge Report:

http://american.com/archive/2008/march-apr...one-star-rising

[H-Town Man]

The article has somewhat of a tendentious slant in that the reason why Houston is poised to be the "next great world city" is that it has allowed so much leeway to the free market. The magazine is published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. So basically the message is, "See what happens when you allow the free market to operate? You become the next world city!"

Of course there is some truth to this, but there was a motive in picking Houston other than merely our attributes as a global city.

[houstonmacbro]

The article has somewhat of a tendentious slant in that the reason why Houston is poised to be the "next great world city" is that it has allowed so much leeway to the free market. The magazine is published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. So basically the message is, "See what happens when you allow the free market to operate? You become the next world city!"

Of course there is some truth to this, but there was a motive in picking Houston other than merely our attributes as a global city.

I would like to see Houston have more managed growth that really does a better job of focusing on mobility (car and mass transit options) and quality of life issues (pollution, green space, etc.). I think we do a pretty good job, but you know it can always be better.

[TheNiche]

The article has somewhat of a tendentious slant in that the reason why Houston is poised to be the "next great world city" is that it has allowed so much leeway to the free market. The magazine is published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. So basically the message is, "See what happens when you allow the free market to operate? You become the next world city!"

Of course there is some truth to this, but there was a motive in picking Houston other than merely our attributes as a global city.

I think that they're missing the greater picture. It's not Houston that'll be the next world city. It'll be the consolidated Houston/Austin/San Antonio megalopolis. (Dallas will get included later but for the time being will stand alone.)

As of today, the combined population of this megalopolis is 9.22 million people (about the size of one Chicago) and is growing by a quarter million people each year. The megalopolis accounts for fully 8.4% of total population growth in the United States and accounts for nearly 100,000 domestic in-migrants each year, outpacing any other metropolitan area and putting to shame cities such as NYC (-219,339), Los Angeles (-218,469), and Chicago (-57,285).

There's definitely a story to be told, but I don't think that Houston by itself is the subject. And even proponents of free markets need to be asking what government needs to do to efficiently facilitate this kind of growth. The answer, I think, is that we need a tremendous investment in infrastructure. We need to be allocating massive funding to TXDoT so that they can be acquiring ROW even today for highways that won't be built for another decade or so. We need express highways built to such standards as that speed limits can be raised in inter-urban rural areas, effectively bringing those cities closer together, becoming more integrated. We need thousands of acres of land set aside for a single mega-airport, and we need to be researching rapid transit systems that truely are rapid, but also discrete.

[Trae]

Why would you include SA and Austin? They are too far away. If you were to include any metros, it should be the I-35 corridor (SA, Austin, Killeen-Temple, Waco, and then DFW).

[musicman]

I would like to see Houston have more managed growth that really does a better job of focusing on mobility (car and mass transit options) and quality of life issues (pollution, green space, etc.). I think we do a pretty good job, but you know it can always be better.

managed growth tends to drive up prices of homes. would you like to pay more for a home? how do you propose to increase green space and decrease pollution? METRO can't serve the Houston area as it is now due to lack of funding. where is this funding coming from?

[wernicke]

The New Urbanist guru Andres Duany, whose city planning emphasizes cozy, walkable neighborhoods, seems horrified that Houstonians

[TheNiche]

Why would you include SA and Austin? They are too far away. If you were to include any metros, it should be the I-35 corridor (SA, Austin, Killeen-Temple, Waco, and then DFW).

Temple and Waco don't really matter. They're too small.

Dallas is the most isolated of the big four; the nearest major city is Austin, 195 miles to the south (the same distance from Houston to SA), but Austin is the smallest of the major Texas metros. It's 273 miles to San Antonio, as well, and depending upon the time of day that you happen to be traveling through Austin, it might feel more like 300+.

There are even a lot of construction firms that are active only in the Houston/Austin/San Antonio circuit but won't do Dallas. It's just further. It doesn't help that most everything of consequence is actually north of their 'Central' Business District.

[TexasVines]

http://american.com/archive/2008/march-apr...one-star-rising

I was born in Houston in 1969

went to Walnut Bend, Paul Revere, and R.E. Lee for freshman year then moved to SA

Houston has always been the greatest city on earth to me

glad to see Houston get the respect it deserves!

[H-Town Man]

There's definitely a story to be told, but I don't think that Houston by itself is the subject. And even proponents of free markets need to be asking what government needs to do to efficiently facilitate this kind of growth. The answer, I think, is that we need a tremendous investment in infrastructure. We need to be allocating massive funding to TXDoT so that they can be acquiring ROW even today for highways that won't be built for another decade or so. We need express highways built to such standards as that speed limits can be raised in inter-urban rural areas, effectively bringing those cities closer together, becoming more integrated. We need thousands of acres of land set aside for a single mega-airport, and we need to be researching rapid transit systems that truely are rapid, but also discrete.

We need to take steps to preserve beautiful landscape and recreation areas in counties between here and Austin/SA so that they don't get swallowed up by the giant, low-density, slovenly blob that is urban Texas.

No one in any of these cities is going to drive an hour and a half for a single mega-airport in the middle.

[Jax]

managed growth tends to drive up prices of homes. would you like to pay more for a home?

Would you like to live in the middle of a big ghetto in order to pay less for a home? Of course not! That's why there can be a happy medium between quality of life and cost. You can increase the quality of life and try to plan things better without going overboard and building another San Francisco priced city.

So maybe I'm exaggerating about the ghetto thing, but my point is that you can't say managed growth is bad, because the opposite of managed grown is bad too. It's not as simple as black and white. There has to be balance.

More desirable places are generally more expensive, but we don't want to make Houston less desirable just to keep costs down.

[TJones]

Need a moderator to COMBINE threads please. KimberlySayWhat? has the same thread.

BTW, Texasvines, good way to come out of the shoot. Good thread, WELCOME to Haif !!!

[musicman]

Would you like to live in the middle of a big ghetto in order to pay less for a home? Of course not! That's why there can be a happy medium between quality of life and cost. You can increase the quality of life and try to plan things better without going overboard and building another San Francisco priced city.

So maybe I'm exaggerating about the ghetto thing, but my point is that you can't say managed growth is bad because the opposite of managed grown is bad too. It's not as simple as black and white. There has to be balance.

More desirable places are generally more expensive, but we don't want to make Houston less desirable just to keep costs down.

yes you are exaggerating. I'm not the one who has a problem walking on a street with an empty lot or a parking lot on it. That isn't balance to me. sounds like something a therapist could address and it would cost the taxpayers nothing. oh wait you probably want socialized med too since you're from canada

[The Great Hizzy!]

Putting the buildings close together, limiting driveways and replacing lawns with public greenspaces don't automatically eliminate the potential for ghettos. New York is filled with them. So is Chicago. So is New York. So is Boston.

Economics and human social interactions are often better instigators of so-called ghettos than the amount of acreage surrounding a singular dwelling or whether someone takes a car or public tranist to work, the store or the next U2 Concert.

[TheNiche]

We need to take steps to preserve beautiful landscape and recreation areas in counties between here and Austin/SA so that they don't get swallowed up by the giant, low-density, slovenly blob that is urban Texas.

No, screw that. People move to Texas in such numbers not because of its urban fugliness but because they're rational consumers that know a good deal when they see it. Sprawl, lots of privately-owned land, etc., are part of that. If localities or private individuals want to get into parks because consumers (or at least smaller constituencies) demand it, that's A-OK by me. But the State has a different set of constituents and IMO they need to focus upon just accomodating the growth that's coming rather than shaping it.

I mean hell, if Texas is going to make ridiculous expenditures like these, its symptomatic that we will have changed to the kind of place that doesn't grow as quickly, anyway, which would make this discussion moot.

No one in any of these cities is going to drive an hour and a half for a single mega-airport in the middle.

I didn't suggest that anybody drive. Think of a perfectly straight pair of parallel tunnels connecting between each of the Central Business Districts with maglev or TGV technology on the tunnels' roadbeds and with air being constantly vacuumed out of the tunnel so as to reduce the drag on vehicles in motion. This is the kind of thing that breaches world speed records as a matter of regular operations. People drive to their respective downtown, park, ride a train for 15 minutes, and are at a single sprawling airport with more destinations than just about any other airport in the world, probably.

Urban economics is all about space/time. Reduce the space or time between several large cities and you enhance trade. The same applies to a few close-by cities as it does for the globe. But between close-by cities you build a highway or high-speed rail; between a region and the globe, airports are the appropriate tool. We have a big and growing airport but Austin and SA are far more limited (and even we would stand to benefit from better service to more destinations). It wouldn't hurt, either, to shut down most commercial traffic at existing airports near cities...those things are big polluters. Take it back to mostly general aviation, air cargo, etc., and use the Alliance business model.

[Jax]

Think of a perfectly straight pair of parallel tunnels connecting between each of the Central Business Districts with maglev or TGV technology on the tunnels' roadbeds and with air being constantly vacuumed out of the tunnel so as to reduce the drag on vehicles in motion. This is the kind of thing that breaches world speed records as a matter of regular operations. People drive to their respective downtown, park, ride a train for 15 minutes, and are at a single sprawling airport with more destinations than just about any other airport in the world, probably.

I think that's a pretty good idea, Niche! I'd love to see the downtowns of Dallas, Houston, SA, and Austin connected with a similar type of rail transit some day too. I can dream, can't it?

[N Judah]

I think there is an hour and a half of prairie between Houston and Austin that needs to be filled first before it can be considered a "megalopolis."

[H-Town Man]

No, screw that. People move to Texas in such numbers not because of its urban fugliness but because they're rational consumers that know a good deal when they see it. Sprawl, lots of privately-owned land, etc., are part of that. If localities or private individuals want to get into parks because consumers (or at least smaller constituencies) demand it, that's A-OK by me. But the State has a different set of constituents and IMO they need to focus upon just accomodating the growth that's coming rather than shaping it.

I mean hell, if Texas is going to make ridiculous expenditures like these, its symptomatic that we will have changed to the kind of place that doesn't grow as quickly, anyway, which would make this discussion moot.

Beware of essentializing. You'd be surprised how many urban Texans enjoy our state's rural beauty, although you clearly are not one of them. Campgrounds near Houston get plenty of use, and a rise in population means that the state (and not localities or private individuals) must work to keep up with the demand for parks.

I didn't suggest that anybody drive. Think of a perfectly straight pair of parallel tunnels connecting between each of the Central Business Districts with maglev or TGV technology on the tunnels' roadbeds and with air being constantly vacuumed out of the tunnel so as to reduce the drag on vehicles in motion. This is the kind of thing that breaches world speed records as a matter of regular operations. People drive to their respective downtown, park, ride a train for 15 minutes, and are at a single sprawling airport with more destinations than just about any other airport in the world, probably.

So everyone in Houston, Austin, and SA, when they want to fly somewhere, will get into some sort of tunnel that will whisk them 80 miles away to the giant airport in Columbus? Are you just joking or being serious?

[TheNiche]

I think there is an hour and a half of prairie between Houston and Austin that needs to be filled first before it can be considered a "megalopolis."

But that's exactly my point is that we need to be working towards cutting the amount of time that it takes to traverse distance. Bastrop and Brookshire are only 96 miles apart. Up the speed limit to 85mph with most people going 5 or 10mph over, and its closer to an hour of praire, hills, and forest. That makes commuting either between cities or from out in the countryside into the city far more viable for many people.

[TheNiche]

Beware of essentializing. You'd be surprised how many urban Texans enjoy our state's rural beauty, although you clearly are not one of them. Campgrounds near Houston get plenty of use, and a rise in population means that the state (and not localities or private individuals) must work to keep up with the demand for parks.

I'm one of them. One of my favorite things to do is just to hop in my car and drive, avoiding interstates like the plague, finding little-used out-of-the-way gravel roads that take me in loops to no particular place at all.

I also use state parks more than anybody else I know. That doesn't mean that I approve of their financing mechanism (the same as for all the highways I travel).

If people want rural beauty, there's no shortage of it. Just get off the main highway is all.

So everyone in Houston, Austin, and SA, when they want to fly somewhere, will get into some sort of tunnel that will whisk them 80 miles away to the giant airport in Columbus? Are you just joking or being serious?

Serious. Oh, and I figured Schulenberg or Weimar.

[memebag]

I think there is an hour and a half of prairie between Houston and Austin that needs to be filled first before it can be considered a "megalopolis."

In the mid 1980s I used to drive through Smithville on my way to and from Austin. They had signs at the city limits that read "Welcome to Smithville: Heart of the Megalopolis!" It was funny as hell, but at least someone considered it a megalopolis 20 years ago.

[crunchtastic]

In the mid 1980s I used to drive through Smithville on my way to and from Austin. They had signs at the city limits that read "Welcome to Smithville: Heart of the Megalopolis!" It was funny as hell, but at least someone considered it a megalopolis 20 years ago.

well, could we go a little east and welcome the golden triangle into the megalopolis?

There used to be one on the Katy freeway around Gessner, inbound, that said "Beaumont, Just 2 hours 'till Dinner!"

Serious. Oh, and I figured Schulenberg or Weimar.

yum. That's sausage country. And the mega-airport bars would all sell really fresh Shiner.

[TheNiche]

well, could we go a little east and welcome the golden triangle into the megalopolis?

No, nobody cares about them. They only think we should. Same story as Temple and Waco.

[N Judah]

But that's exactly my point is that we need to be working towards cutting the amount of time that it takes to traverse distance. Bastrop and Brookshire are only 96 miles apart. Up the speed limit to 85mph with most people going 5 or 10mph over, and its closer to an hour of praire, hills, and forest. That makes commuting either between cities or from out in the countryside into the city far more viable for many people.

I think anyone who wants to work in Austin, but not live in Austin, can just sit in traffic for 30 minutes like a normal person instead of taking a 30 minute maglev commute in from some small town. For starters, it is probably cheaper (unless the maglev is subsidized somehow).

It almost sounds like we'd be shortening (and probably paying for it with taxes or some incentives/subsidies) a commute for the purposes of encouraging enough rural development to consider it a "metropolis" since most people would agree that such a "metropolis" does not exist now. As a result, we would then have the good fortune of being able to subsidize some giant airport in the middle of nowhere.

[TheNiche]

I think anyone who wants to work in Austin, but not live in Austin, can just sit in traffic for 30 minutes like a normal person instead of taking a 30 minute maglev commute in from some small town. For starters, it is probably cheaper (unless the maglev is subsidized somehow).

It almost sounds like we'd be shortening (and probably paying for it with taxes or some incentives/subsidies) a commute for the purposes of encouraging enough rural development to consider it a "metropolis" since most people would agree that such a "metropolis" does not exist now. As a result, we would then have the good fortune of being able to subsidize some giant airport in the middle of nowhere.

Woah, now. I'm not talking about providing high speed rail or maglev or whatever to small towns or even suburbs. Then you have all kinds of problems with having to decelerate, stop, board, and accelerate again. Even if intermediate stops accounted for a fair percentage of total ridership, the diminished average speed would detract from the route's viability as a commuting alternative. Screw that. What I would like to see in the space betwixt our cities are toll roads with very high speed limits and few access points. These are appropriate for rural and exurban areas.

I'm willing to subsidize airports at state and local levels, but not from federal. Boasting the world's largest, safest, highest-volume, least congested, most efficient major airport with lots of room to grow and which has 9+ million people within an hour's ride-and-drive would be a tremendous economic development tool. I'd suggest a method of financing whereby ride-and-drive times are assigned to each taxable parcel of land within the megalopolis (easier to do with GIS software than you'd think), and a schedule is set whereby the closer your property is to the airport in terms of time, the higher the tax rate. In that way, it acts kind of like a PID or MUD.

[H-Town Man]

If people want rural beauty, there's no shortage of it. Just get off the main highway is all.

Well, that's the thing. Some of the most beautiful countryside in the state is right in the middle of this "megalopolis." I'd hate to see it get overrun by low-density sprawl, although I am not normally a big hater of sprawl. Right now the TTC's are the biggest threat.

[TheNiche]

Well, that's the thing. Some of the most beautiful countryside in the state is right in the middle of this "megalopolis." I'd hate to see it get overrun by low-density sprawl, although I am not normally a big hater of sprawl. Right now the TTC's are the biggest threat.

There's plenty of beautiful land in this state. I've been there, driven, hiked, and kayaked it. More people ought to have that opportunity. But it is not an opportunity exclusive to this particular stretch of land.

The TTC isn't a threat. The plan sucks and everybody knows it.

[wernicke]

This thread got hijacked by fantasy... are people seriously arguing about negative-pressure tunnels connecting Houston-SA-Austin?

[TheNiche]

This thread got hijacked by fantasy... are people seriously arguing about negative-pressure tunnels connecting Houston-SA-Austin?

In spite of rumors to the contrary, I can assure you that I am a homo sapien, native to the planet Earth. If that is sufficient to qualify me as "people", then yes, people are seriously arguing about negative-pressure tunnels connecting Houston-SA-Austin.

[Trae]

In spite of rumors to the contrary, I can assure you that I am a homo sapien, native to the planet Earth. If that is sufficient to qualify me as "people", then yes, people are seriously arguing about negative-pressure tunnels connecting Houston-SA-Austin.

Niche...you're a weird guy...