The Next Slum?

[moni]

One of the things that surprised me in my recent quick trip to Houston, was the fact that my friends who live in the Memorial area, are still happy with their neighbors. Their homes look great considering how old they are. One of the homes was built in 1962 and another in 1955 and they look so good. The entire area look very good and appears to have weathered the years very well. Sometimes neighborhoods do hold up nicely.

[RedScare]

I'd contend that homes presently being built generally exceed the quality of homes built in the past, especially with respect to poured slab foundations and energy efficiency. Hardie siding is also much better than alternatives from the past. But I'd also contend that much of what had been built in the past that remains and is admired was built for people that were pretty well-to-do in their day. Nobody compares housing that is built for poor people today and housing built for poor people 100 years ago, and the very worst of it just isn't around much anymore to witness. Also, while it may be tempting to believe that craftsmanship is lost to history, my personal experiences have taught me that nincompoop contractors are no recent innovation. The key words are always, "...if properly installed and maintained..."

As with most things, "it depends". Slab technology has improved. However, slabs themselves are a terrible foundation in clay soils, meaning the proliferation of slabs in the Houston area are worse than pier and beam, or even the old block and beam foundations. Pier and beam, when it is used, is superior to block and beam and slabs. Because they are more expensive, they are not used very often.

Likewise, new growth pine is nowhere near as good as old growth pine lumber. It is virtually impossible to get this grade of lumber anymore.

It is indisputable that engineered materials and most building techniques have improved dramatically. However, this has allowed homes and buildings to be engineered to closer tolerances. The result is that they are designed to have a shorter life than 100 years ago, when homes and buildings were over engineered. In recent years, coastal areas have begun to require wind load engineering that has increased the sturdiness of homes and buildings. However, this has little effect on the deterioration of the buildings over time. It merely means that they will not blow down as easily.

While it is certainly possible to design and build a home today that would outlast any built previously, building costs and price competition prevents that from happening in all but a few custom built homes. The net result is that most homes built today are of lesser quality than 100 years ago....depending on the criteria one uses.

[desirous]

Public infrastructure in the Houston area is typically financed with MUDs, and the worst part of the tax burden is always up-front. Older communities that have been built out, paid down the principle on their bonds, and presumably had their gross taxable value appreciate at least a tiny bit are able to very easily refinance and cover both the initial capital outlays from when the subdivision was developed and ongoing maintenance at a tax rate that is often less than half of what it had been as a new subdivision. The use of MUDs is a system that isn't unique to Texas, but we certainly use them more than anywhere else. And the Houston area uses it like no other major city in the country. If many subdivisions were depreciating quickly in gross taxable value around here, I'd be concerned that a number of them may not be able to refinance in the next several years in such a way as they can realize a cost savings, but even then, the amount demanded of homeowners likely wouldn't go up appreciably.

I agree regarding the use of MUDs. Speaking of which, how are working-class suburbs like north Houston and Acres Homes handling infrastructure issues? Not only are utilities of concern; roads are as well. Low-density development means future upkeep on a tremendous load of lane-miles per capita.

I'd contend that homes presently being built generally exceed the quality of homes built in the past, especially with respect to poured slab foundations and energy efficiency. Hardie siding is also much better than alternatives from the past. But I'd also contend that much of what had been built in the past that remains and is admired was built for people that were pretty well-to-do in their day. Nobody compares housing that is built for poor people today and housing built for poor people 100 years ago, and the very worst of it just isn't around much anymore to witness. Also, while it may be tempting to believe that craftsmanship is lost to history, my personal experiences have taught me that nincompoop contractors are no recent innovation. The key words are always, "...if properly installed and maintained..."

True, I agree for the most part. The question is, the large majority of newer subdivisions that are not engineered for durability -- what will come of them in the next 40, 50 years? Will Spring then be like what Aldine is now? My spider-sense sees an outer ring of expanding exurbs, with a middle ring of decaying suburbs growing outward, and an inner circle of rejuvenated urban neighborhoods taking over currently depressed areas. The wards filling up; the Heights boom jumping 610; etc.

[VicMan]

Will Spring then be like what Aldine is now?

In terms of "Spring, Texas" addresses in Spring ISD, the demographics of the schools are changing:

High school

* Spring: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...720/school.aspx

Middle schools

* Dueitt: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...602/school.aspx

* Twin Creeks: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...044/school.aspx

Elementary schools:

* Anderson: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...601/school.aspx

* Burchett: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...788/school.aspx

* Hirsch: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...717/school.aspx

* Jenkins: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...715/school.aspx

* Salyers: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...662/school.aspx

* Smith: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...330/school.aspx

* Winship: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...713/school.aspx

Look at the free/reduced lunch rates - Notice how they are climbing.

As for the Klein ISD areas with "Spring, Texas" - they do not seem to have high numbers of free/lunch kids yet - some are changing slowly and some are stable:

High schools:

* Klein Collins: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...631/school.aspx

* Klein Oak: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...759/school.aspx

Middle schools:

* Hildebrandt: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...901/school.aspx

* Schindewolf: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...281/school.aspx

Elementary schools:

* Haude: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...900/school.aspx

* Krienhop: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...771/school.aspx

* Lemm: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...524/school.aspx

* Metzler: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...773/school.aspx

* Northampton: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...904/school.aspx

* Roth: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...007/school.aspx

As for the school in Conroe ISD with a Spring address:

* A. D. Ford Elementary School: http://www.schooldigger.com/go/TX/schools/...997/school.aspx

[TheNiche]

I agree regarding the use of MUDs. Speaking of which, how are working-class suburbs like north Houston and Acres Homes handling infrastructure issues? Not only are utilities of concern; roads are as well. Low-density development means future upkeep on a tremendous load of lane-miles per capita.

Areas within the City of Houston are maintained through the City of Houston. There are a few exceptions to this, including some In-City MUDs near Lake Houston and a couple off of 288, as well as much of Clear Lake City if I'm not mistaken. Most of the In-City MUDs are for new development for which the City has refused to pay for infrastructure; unfortunately, that means that residents of In-City MUDs get double-taxed.

Roads are supported by a tremendous number of entities, including MUDs, municipalities, counties, METRO, TXDoT, the FTA, and various legislatively-created 'special districts,' which may include TIRZs, Management Districts, or special road districts, both toll and non-toll. I'd agree that we really need to reform how transportation and related infrastructure is financed so as to pass as many costs through to users as possible...or at least to make it more transparent and accountable.

True, I agree for the most part. The question is, the large majority of newer subdivisions that are not engineered for durability -- what will come of them in the next 40, 50 years? Will Spring then be like what Aldine is now? My spider-sense sees an outer ring of expanding exurbs, with a middle ring of decaying suburbs growing outward, and an inner circle of rejuvenated urban neighborhoods taking over currently depressed areas. The wards filling up; the Heights boom jumping 610; etc.

Subdivisions not engineered for durability will decay. That is what has happened to crappy development in 1920, and that's what'll happen with crappy development in 2020. It is a continuous process.

There are no shortage of examples. Look at Magnolia Park. Look at Sunnyside. Look at Kashmere. Most of these went downhill, and not because of crappy apartments tainting everything, like on the southwest side, but because they were developed to be workforce housing from the start. There are dozens more like this inside the Beltway, and Spring and North Katy are already on the path. I think that the Aldine-->Spring example is a fair one.

I agree with your observation of the pattern, and I'll go so far as to forecast a far-flung future, one that I'll probably witness as I'm collecting social security at the ripe old age of 80. Midtown, Washington Avenue, East Downtown, Montrose. All will be slums, mostly a result of urban decay and the wrong kind of density. River Oaks will still be River Oaks, but it will once again stand alone, surrounded.

[TheNiche]

As with most things, "it depends". Slab technology has improved. However, slabs themselves are a terrible foundation in clay soils, meaning the proliferation of slabs in the Houston area are worse than pier and beam, or even the old block and beam foundations. Pier and beam, when it is used, is superior to block and beam and slabs. Because they are more expensive, they are not used very often.

Likewise, new growth pine is nowhere near as good as old growth pine lumber. It is virtually impossible to get this grade of lumber anymore.

It is indisputable that engineered materials and most building techniques have improved dramatically. However, this has allowed homes and buildings to be engineered to closer tolerances. The result is that they are designed to have a shorter life than 100 years ago, when homes and buildings were over engineered. In recent years, coastal areas have begun to require wind load engineering that has increased the sturdiness of homes and buildings. However, this has little effect on the deterioration of the buildings over time. It merely means that they will not blow down as easily.

While it is certainly possible to design and build a home today that would outlast any built previously, building costs and price competition prevents that from happening in all but a few custom built homes. The net result is that most homes built today are of lesser quality than 100 years ago....depending on the criteria one uses.

I'm relying on personal experience when I say that older homes are a mixed bag, depending entirely on craftsmanship. I've got one built in 1920 of fir lumber, solid as can be. Termites won't touch it. Its addition, built in 1950, could never have passed code today and was built of yellow pine. Had it been better maintained, I might've gotten away with letting it stand intact. But the roof absolutely had to be taken off. And the foundation will have to be chiped out and repoured, this time with reinforcing steel.

With this in mind, consider that the worst examples of poor craftsmanship from bygone eras no longer exist or have been fixed by way of a significant capital improvement. But I just don't buy the over-engineering argument. I'll bet that there are as many that were over-engineered back then as there were that were totally botched.

[RedScare]

Hence my statement that "it depends". Many examples of over-engineering can be found in old buildings. Likewise, many buildings of more recent vintage can be found that clearly will not stand the test of time. There is no set answer.

[TheNiche]

Hence my statement that "it depends". Many examples of over-engineering can be found in old buildings. Likewise, many buildings of more recent vintage can be found that clearly will not stand the test of time. There is no set answer.

Fair enough. I'm on board with that.

[RedScare]

We agree!

Now about your critique of my comedic skills.....

[missmsry]

Could someone explain what North Katy is? I owned a home off N. Fry road in the late 1980s and although it wasn't an expensive home, I didn't consider it a future slum. It's all in the maintenance. I now live in an 80-year-old home in Montrose, and considering the quality of workmanship, this house is much easier to maintain.

[KatieDidIt]

One of the things that surprised me in my recent quick trip to Houston, was the fact that my friends who live in the Memorial area, are still happy with their neighbors. Their homes look great considering how old they are. One of the homes was built in 1962 and another in 1955 and they look so good. The entire area look very good and appears to have weathered the years very well. Sometimes neighborhoods do hold up nicely.

Well, people really like the area and have money to keep the homes up. The school district has kept people here and they are willing to "deal" with older homes, rather than leaving for the "outer ring" or this "exburb" business.

[Pumapayam]

Say what? $150,000 house subdivisions are slums??

At that price point, yes, suburban decay all the way.

Twenty years ago, Houston was a donut. Now, it looks more like a target. Most mid-age "suburbs" between 610 and BW8 have trended downward, and even some areas outside the Beltway are reasonably ghetto.

20 years from now, Telfair will be ghetto.

[MidtownCoog]

What about the future Metal Townhome and Perry Townhome, et. al slums?

Some of these don't even have homeowner associations.

[Pumapayam]

What about the future Metal Townhome and Perry Townhome, et. al slums?

Some of these don't even have homeowner associations.

True, but they replaced crack shacks, so regardless of how they turn out, it is much better than what was there before.

Suburbs killed farmland and trees.

[memebag]

At that price point, yes, suburban decay all the way.

The houses in Westbury cost around $150,000. I don't see much "suburban decay" there. We must be using different definitions of slums.

[Pumapayam]

The Atlantic published a piece last month on the rising number of subdivision-slums. Read it here.

Great article, thanx for sharing njvisitor, just read it all the way though.

Reminded me of some good points that Suburban Nation discussed, especially with the sprawl epidemic.

The houses in Westbury cost around $150,000. I don't see much "suburban decay" there. We must be using different definitions of slums.

Westbury is full of mostly older homes. I saw a few over on the HWY 90/Main end that were new for $130K, not impressed.

And for the most part, with Dollar Stores and Ace Cash Checks etc in each corner, it screams ghetto.

[VicMan]

Westbury is full of mostly older homes. I saw a few over on the HWY 90/Main end that were new for $130K, not impressed.

And for the most part, with Dollar Stores and Ace Cash Checks etc in each corner, it screams ghetto.

I think the subdivision itself is fine, but the surroundings are slummish - This explains how the apartments on the SW side are slums: http://www.firehouse68.com/district.aspx

[Pumapayam]

I think the subdivision itself is fine, but the surroundings are slummish - This explains how the apartments on the SW side are slums: http://www.firehouse68.com/district.aspx

I will agree with both, the neighborhoods, the ones that still have owners that care and tend to their homes, look great. But then you have renters, who park cars in the grass and such. Make the place look like @ss.

[TheNiche]

Could someone explain what North Katy is? I owned a home off N. Fry road in the late 1980s and although it wasn't an expensive home, I didn't consider it a future slum. It's all in the maintenance. I now live in an 80-year-old home in Montrose, and considering the quality of workmanship, this house is much easier to maintain.

That part of Katy ISD which is north of Interstate 10 and east of the City of Katy. Generally feeds to Morton Ranch High School. I was driving through there on Clay Road earlier this month to try and get around a freeway closure on I-10, and a lot of the retail has already gone downhill. That's a really a bad sign.

[TheNiche]

I think the subdivision itself is fine, but the surroundings are slummish - This explains how the apartments on the SW side are slums: http://www.firehouse68.com/district.aspx

Why is Yosemite Sam their mascot?

True, but they replaced crack shacks, so regardless of how they turn out, it is much better than what was there before.

Suburbs killed farmland and trees.

And densification reduces the urban canopy and contributes to the urban heat island effect.

Suburbs often require that hundreds of acres of Chinese Tallow be uprooted. That is also good, as it combats an invasive species.

[Pumapayam]

And densification reduces the urban canopy and contributes to the urban heat island effect.

Suburbs often require that hundreds of acres of Chinese Tallow be uprooted. That is also good, as it combats an invasive species.

As ugly as they are, if a Chinese Tallow tree is growing in the middle of no where and providing a home to wildlife, I am all for it.

Removing them is great too, since they are aweful on the foundation of you home, but I just hate those teeny tiny trees that new suburban neighborhoods plant.

They really need to try to build around some of the more native trees that a mature and provide shade.

[TheNiche]

As ugly as they are, if a Chinese Tallow tree is growing in the middle of no where and providing a home to wildlife, I am all for it.

Removing them is great too, since they are aweful on the foundation of you home, but I just hate those teeny tiny trees that new suburban neighborhoods plant.

They really need to try to build around some of the more native trees that a mature and provide shade.

Chinese Tallow produces a toxin that poisons the soil and prevents the growth of any competing plant life, thereby producing vast forests of a botanical monoculture. So it chokes off traditional wildlife habitat and food sources and is itself completely inedible. There is no up-side. Paving over this kind of a forest and planting seedlings of native trees is far preferable from an environmental standpoint.

Building around mature native trees invariably results in many of those being eliminated to accomodate infrastructure, building footprints, and fill dirt generated in compliance with flood control regulation. It is exceptionally difficult to save mature native trees except at tremendous cost in terms of development density. And I would think that you of all people would prefer higher density development as would reduce the need to develop further from urban cores in accomodating larger populations.

[VicMan]

Why is Yosemite Sam their mascot?

I have no idea - I think Warner Brothers doesn't mind this use of its characters as it is free publicity.

I wonder if any fire stations have any other colorful mascots...

[sarahiki]

And densification reduces the urban canopy and contributes to the urban heat island effect.

That really depends on what is torn down & what replaces it. Some urban development includes landscaping. If some kind of ... dare I suggest... planning were incorporated, you could have densification along with shady pedestrian walkways, parks, fountains, etc.

[TheNiche]

That really depends on what is torn down & what replaces it. Some urban development includes landscaping. If some kind of ... dare I suggest... planning were incorporated, you could have densification along with shady pedestrian walkways, parks, fountains, etc.

When you're tearing down old homes that had small footprints and trees scattered randomly in front and back yards and replacing them with townhomes that have a little patio in back and one driveway after another in front, there just isn't much room for trees at all. You can get around this in developments that have a larger land area and a greater number of units by using common driveways, but even then, having trees regularly spaced along the street was not part of the original landscaping for the prior land use, so the mature ones are mostly destroyed and new ones must be planted in order to have what you're describing. In the mean time, the urban canopy is damaged. Even when the new plantings grow into mature trees, having them only on the perimeter tends to reduce the total number of trees, and the fact that the new buildings are taller than the trees means that the urban heat island effect is still very much of an issue.

The most difficult challenge is that we only have so many large developable parcels in Houston's urban core. These represent the greatest opportunity for increasing the urban canopy through new landscaping, and since many of them were former industrial or retail properties, mature trees that have to be cut down are less common. Single family lots have fewer potential uses because of fractured ownership, so the only options are tree-unfriendly Townhomes and McMansions...but single-family is the predominant land use even in Houston's urban core, which were streetcar suburbs to begin with. The fact that this represents such a large portion of our densification opportunity but also harbors the bulk of our urban canopy is the crux of the problem. Densification in these areas necessarily kills trees.

Resorting to historical preservation and tree cutting bans places a limit on urban densities in areas that are most able to support them, such as Houston's urban core. But the additional households being created in our burgeoning region will locate somewhere; if not the inner city, then further out, less convenient to places they like to work and play.

It's a shame that there is no single viable set of planning policy that can solve our environmental issues. Unintended consequences cannot be avoided. No magic bullet. No utopia. That's the truth of it.

[sarahiki]

When you're tearing down old homes that had small footprints and trees scattered randomly in front and back yards and replacing them with townhomes that have a little patio in back and one driveway after another in front, there just isn't much room for trees at all. You can get around this in developments that have a larger land area and a greater number of units by using common driveways, but even then, having trees regularly spaced along the street was not part of the original landscaping for the prior land use, so the mature ones are mostly destroyed and new ones must be planted in order to have what you're describing. In the mean time, the urban canopy is damaged. Even when the new plantings grow into mature trees, having them only on the perimeter tends to reduce the total number of trees, and the fact that the new buildings are taller than the trees means that the urban heat island effect is still very much of an issue.

The most difficult challenge is that we only have so many large developable parcels in Houston's urban core. These represent the greatest opportunity for increasing the urban canopy through new landscaping, and since many of them were former industrial or retail properties, mature trees that have to be cut down are less common. Single family lots have fewer potential uses because of fractured ownership, so the only options are tree-unfriendly Townhomes and McMansions...but single-family is the predominant land use even in Houston's urban core, which were streetcar suburbs to begin with. The fact that this represents such a large portion of our densification opportunity but also harbors the bulk of our urban canopy is the crux of the problem. Densification in these areas necessarily kills trees.

Resorting to historical preservation and tree cutting bans places a limit on urban densities in areas that are most able to support them, such as Houston's urban core. But the additional households being created in our burgeoning region will locate somewhere; if not the inner city, then further out, less convenient to places they like to work and play.

It's a shame that there is no single viable set of planning policy that can solve our environmental issues. Unintended consequences cannot be avoided. No magic bullet. No utopia. That's the truth of it.

I agree with your point, for the most part. But I do think that the benefit of densification outweighs the loss of trees, in many cases. I do hate to see *nice* single-family homes being torn down in favor of townhouses, and some neighborhoods really can't support densification. I'm thinking of areas off of Washington, with narrow streets that are now so packed with the cars of the densified residents that I don't think an ambulance could get through if needed. There, single-family bungalows fit the bill nicely, and their replacement did more harm than destroying trees (though it did that, as well). But as you said, industrial areas, or extra-large lots (as in the third ward, for example) can support densification. In the third ward, I would never enjoy seeing lovely homes demolished, but I am happy to see abandoned mansions-turned-crackhouses (or whatever was going on in there... the one I observed had a lot of unsavory traffic, that's all I know) turned into townhouses. Improvement however you look at it. And there are enough trees from the surrounding homes and parks that the loss of urban canopy is negligable.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree. I would also point out that in Houston trees grow pretty fast. Simple rules requiring them to be planted with new homes, including townhomes, would do a lot.

[TheNiche]

I agree with your point, for the most part. But I do think that the benefit of densification outweighs the loss of trees, in many cases. I do hate to see *nice* single-family homes being torn down in favor of townhouses, and some neighborhoods really can't support densification. I'm thinking of areas off of Washington, with narrow streets that are now so packed with the cars of the densified residents that I don't think an ambulance could get through if needed. There, single-family bungalows fit the bill nicely, and their replacement did more harm than destroying trees (though it did that, as well). But as you said, industrial areas, or extra-large lots (as in the third ward, for example) can support densification. In the third ward, I would never enjoy seeing lovely homes demolished, but I am happy to see abandoned mansions-turned-crackhouses (or whatever was going on in there... the one I observed had a lot of unsavory traffic, that's all I know) turned into townhouses. Improvement however you look at it. And there are enough trees from the surrounding homes and parks that the loss of urban canopy is negligable.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree. I would also point out that in Houston trees grow pretty fast. Simple rules requiring them to be planted with new homes, including townhomes, would do a lot.

Older commercial and industrial properties may represent the best opportunity to add to the net urban canopy, but such sites are limited in number and have already been picked over pretty thoroughly in those areas that are desireable enough that higher home prices/rents can offset the costs of demolition, environmental remediation, and the higher hard costs per square foot associated with higher levels of density.

I am of the opinion that we ought to take density wherever households demand it, and that policies that actively discourage high-density development (in urban or suburban areas) or the preservation of suburban neighborhoods in transitioning urban areas ought to be avoided altogether.

[Pumapayam]

In the third ward, I would never enjoy seeing lovely homes demolished, but I am happy to see abandoned mansions-turned-crackhouses (or whatever was going on in there... the one I observed had a lot of unsavory traffic, that's all I know) turned into townhouses. Improvement however you look at it. And there are enough trees from the surrounding homes and parks that the loss of urban canopy is negligable.

The main problem with those 3 to 4 story townhomes with the garage on the first floor is two fold.

1. They usually have short driveways that connect to the main street, pretty much eliminating what used to be curbside parking.
   
2. Larger lots getted turned into crappy mini gated communities that are isolated from each other, and really don't match the block next door, as well as having a fake alley streets. Alleys are supposed to connect to the main grid from both sides to allow trash/recycle service vehicles and easy access in and out. Right now, they are just cramped.
   

[N Judah]

I can think of plenty of subdivisions scattered randomly throughout the exurbs that have access to the same amenities as a small town (if you define small towns as those similar to Bastrop, La Grange, Brenham, or Conroe). Strip centers and big box stores are easy to come by.

Well, our conception of "small town" amenities must be vastly different. I don't think of accessibility of strip centers and/or big box stores as a defining characteristic of a small town.

But then, I wouldn't consider any of these to be edge cities. Edge cities are better exemplified by Greenway Plaza, Uptown, the Texas Medical Center, Greenspoint, the Energy Corridor, Memorial City, or The Woodlands Town Center. They're attached to a metropolitan area by the hip and offer employment and services such as far surpass any small town.

Well, with the exception of Woodlands Town Center, none of those places you mentioned are traditionally thought of as "edge cities."

Anyway, the article specifically mentions Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan as places which will hold their value. These are the types of places I was thinking of. As the article notes, they have the "city core" of small towns but are still in close proximity to job centers via rail or transit.

What about the future Metal Townhome and Perry Townhome, et. al slums?

Some of these don't even have homeowner associations.

I think they have the advantage of location. They can be torn down and densified more easily as long as they don't have homeowner associations to hinder the process.

[TheNiche]

Well, our conception of "small town" amenities must be vastly different. I don't think of accessibility of strip centers and/or big box stores as a defining characteristic of a small town.

Drive to Conroe. It's all about strip centers and big boxes. Ditto Bastrop. La Grange isn't tied to any one metropolitan area, and its retail and employment offerings reflect that...but it is a small town.

Well, with the exception of Woodlands Town Center, none of those places you mentioned are traditionally thought of as "edge cities."

Anyway, the article specifically mentions Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan as places which will hold their value. These are the types of places I was thinking of. As the article notes, they have the "city core" of small towns but are still in close proximity to job centers via rail or transit.

I'm in the right, according to Joel Garreau, the guy who brought the term into the planning lexicon by writing Edge City: Life on a New Frontier in 1991. I bought a copy several years back. Glancing through the chapter about Texas, I spot references to the "Galleria area" (Uptown), the "Texas Medical Center", and the "West Houston Energy Corridor".

The Galleria area is discussed extensively and is described as "one of the largest Edge Cities in the country." The Energy Corridor is described as "one of the quintessential Boomer Edge Cities."

I'm not specifically familiar with Redmond, WA, Evanston, IL, or Birmingham, MI, so I'd prefer not to comment on their status. The Sunbelt is where the opportunity and my attention is.

They can be torn down and densified more easily as long as they don't have homeowner associations to hinder the process.

Not necessarily. If townhomes have to be bought on a one-off basis during block-busting, it makes it very difficult for a developer to get everybody on board. With an HOA, bylaws may at least allow for some percentage of votes in favor of a buy-out to override dissenters.