The Next Slum?

[Trae]

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.

You sure you seeing what I'm seeing? The retail seems to be in pretty good shape along Clay near Fry Road to Mason Road. Fry Road is actually a really strong retail market.

[musicman]

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

where else would the garage be located?

[Dan the Man]

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.

I was thinking about your earlier statement regarding future slums in Midtown & West End. Given the extremely convenient locations of both neighborhoods, one would think that they would experience continuous redevelopment in the upward direction only. However, I later came to the same conclusion - smaller pieces of property held by a larger number of individuals will make large scale redevelopment very difficult.

[desirous]

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

Small price to pay given the energy efficiency savings of partially shared climate control.

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

That statement makes no sense. Might as well fight water hyacinths by filling in all our lakes.

[memebag]

where else would the garage be located?

That's the best post in this thread.

I think a lot of people here have a very simplistic view of sprawl. It isn't a new thing, and it isn't linear. Cities sprawl in cycles, and they've probably been doing it as long as people have lived in cities. Cars and trains amp it up, but the principles are the same. Just about everything we think of as "urban" or "central" was seen as "way out in BFE" at some point. People who can afford to travel spread out in waves, and some of the places they spread to start sending out their own waves, some of which flow back toward the source of the original wave. "Slum" is just a point on a wave.

[TheNiche]

Small price to pay given the energy efficiency savings of partially shared climate control.

For those that have it, sure. How many have it?

My point, though, was not that there isn't an optimal solution, but that there is no perfect solution.

That statement makes no sense. Might as well fight water hyacinths by filling in all our lakes.

I fail to see the parallels in that analogy.

[jgriff]

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.

Wal-Mart is the number one amenity people in small towns are looking for.

[memebag]

Wal-Mart is the number one amenity people in small towns are looking for.

I haven't been in small towns lately, but back in the 80s this was definitely the case in Woodville. My grandparents usually drove into town on Saturday to do their shopping, but once Wal-mart popped up it became an all day event. They were so dazzled by the discounts (especially compared to locally owned businesses) that they wandered around the store for hours. It changed their lives.

[desirous]

For those that have it, sure. How many have it?

Everybody that has a ceiling instead of a roof. Hint hint. Not all of inner Houston is meant to be like the Heights. In any case, somebody not living in a densified development is someone contributing to sprawl.

I fail to see the parallels in that analogy.

You state uprooting Chinese tallow trees as a benefit of urban sprawl. Therefore, you replace the lack of native vegetation with an abundance of concrete. Bravo.

[Pumapayam]

Wal-Mart is the number one amenity people in small towns are looking for.

I am disgusted with that.

I missed the Wal-Mart of 1990, when it was on equal footing with Kmart and Target and not in everyone major intersection.

Wal-Mart (and Dollar Stores) is the reason China is booming!

[westguy]

I am disgusted with that.

I missed the Wal-Mart of 1990, when it was on equal footing with Kmart and Target and not in everyone major intersection.

Wal-Mart (and Dollar Stores) is the reason China is booming!

So is it a conspiracy? Chinese Tallows were planted here to poison the land, necessitating the construction of more exurban slums which demand more Wal-Marts. Then China has a place to sell all of its goods.

[TheNiche]

Not all of inner Houston is meant to be like the Heights. In any case, somebody not living in a densified development is someone contributing to sprawl.

Sprawl can be dense. The densest parts of Houston (west/southwest) are sprawl. Much of Pasadena is also very dense. I don't think it is fair to say that someone living in an apartment in League City is not contributing to sprawl. They most assuredly are.

But frankly, I think that the very notion of sprawl (especially as a bad thing) is oversimplified by the propaganda. It applies better to older cities on the east coast and upper midwest, but just about every square inch of metropolitan areas such as Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, or Phoenix are (or were at one time) suburbs. The central business districts are an exception and stopped defining them generations ago. Employment is scattered throughout these regions, and if someone lives in an apartment in League City and works at the AMICO building in South Shore Harbor, it would seem to me that they're making life decisions that could be viewed as environmentally responsible...certainly moreso than the person that is so adamant in opposition to sprawl that they live in a single-family home in the Heights and reverse-commute down the Gulf Freeway every day to their job in a sprawled and uncool place. The first example is of a socially and environmentally responsible pragmatist; the latter is of a smug energy-wasting douchebag hipster. The first embraces sprawl and makes the best of it. The latter is a hypocrite.

When it comes down to it, environmental responsibility is probably best served by policy that doesn't get in the way of dense development. As to where that density happens to be or the form that it takes, I really don't care all that much. Let developers put it where they think people will demand it.

You state uprooting Chinese tallow trees as a benefit of urban sprawl. Therefore, you replace the lack of native vegetation with an abundance of concrete. Bravo.

Hmmm...

Replace...lack of...vegetation with...concrete. OK. Good. Let's do it.

[N Judah]

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.

And all of those places will probably be a slum in 30 years, according to the article.

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.

Well, those cities were mentioned specifically by the author. So on another thread is where the opportunity and where your attention probably belongs.

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.

Maybe. Has that happened more often or less often than with a HOA, in Houston's case, do you think?

Wal-Mart is the number one amenity people in small towns are looking for.

According to whom? And which small towns are these?

[N Judah]

Sprawl can be dense. The densest parts of Houston (west/southwest) are sprawl. Much of Pasadena is also very dense. I don't think it is fair to say that someone living in an apartment in League City is not contributing to sprawl. They most assuredly are.

Anyway, the point of the article is that the suburbs that can densify the best and create the "core city"/downtown atmosphere are the most likely to survive.

certainly moreso than the person that is so adamant in opposition to sprawl that they live in a single-family home in the Heights and reverse-commute down the Gulf Freeway every day to their job in a sprawled and uncool place. The first example is of a socially and environmentally responsible pragmatist; the latter is of a smug energy-wasting douchebag hipster. The first embraces sprawl and makes the best of it. The latter is a hypocrite.

So are there more of the first and less of the second? And can you prove it? And otherwise, what is your point?

When it comes down to it, environmental responsibility is probably best served by policy that doesn't get in the way of dense development. As to where that density happens to be or the form that it takes, I really don't care all that much. Let developers put it where they think people will demand it.

When it comes down to it, Manhattan uses less energy per person than any place in the US...

[TheNiche]

And all of those places will probably be a slum in 30 years, according to the article.

Well, those cities were mentioned specifically by the author. So on another thread is where the opportunity and where your attention probably belongs.

Considering that Boomer households have yet to hit retirement age, I suspect otherwise. Some will age in place, but more will move. Of those that move, many will seek a bucholic setting within an hour or so of a major city and with a small town nearby that has a grocery store, a hospital, and at least a basic retail infrastructure. An excellent example would be the area near Kerrville. This trend will be compounded by the rise of Gen X into top management, and they will take a very pragmatic view of telecommuting that has been ignored by older folks that aren't as comfortable with the technology. As telecommuting becomes more mainstream, employees will also have a higher tendency to locate in rural areas. If the 20th century was a suburban century, I suspect that the 21st will be the century of the ranchette. ...at least, that is what I expect for Texas and most of the Sunbelt. In places that are slow-growth, unpleasant, and more regulated, like the northeast and upper midwest, I somehow don't expect for any kind of transformative change to take effect.

If my hypothesis is in conflict with the article, I can live with that. I like independent thinking, don't you? Or do you just dislike opposition to your wistful ways of thinking?

Maybe. Has that happened more often or less often than with a HOA, in Houston's case, do you think?

It is hard to answer your question for lack of comparable data. As it pertains to townhomes, there just isn't much older supply that a developer would yet qualify financially as a teardown opportunity. If you look at subdivisions, the older ones in the areas where redevelopment is most active typically have neither an HOA or deed restrictions. Basically, where redevelopment of owner-occupied housing stock is concerned, there are a few examples of condos being sold out by way of a majority/supermajority vote in the HOA and there are examples of where single-family homes have been bought on a one-off basis. Working a condo HOA is tricky and fairly uncommon, but assembling lots can be risky and hit-or-miss.

Property Commerce encountered some difficulty in working through lot assemblage over on Sawyer and I-10. There's actually a redevelopment site at the northeast corner of Holcombe and 288 being marketed for sale right now with a partial assemblage of lots in the rear that is ultimately less useful and more of a burden than it is an asset.

According to whom? And which small towns are these?

This is typically the case among people that actually live in or around small towns. Since such places tend to have disproportionately many low-income households, this is to be expected. They like having a huge selection at reasonable prices in a quality-controlled environment. There is griping in some quarters, but for most, it beats the alternative by a long-shot. See below.

Stuff White People Like: Knowing What's Best for Poor People

[TheNiche]

Anyway, the point of the article is that the suburbs that can densify the best and create the "core city"/downtown atmosphere are the most likely to survive.

If history is any measure, that a neighborhood or community has a nice atmosphere is a poor predictive measure of future slumminess. Atmosphere is not a barrier to the infiltration of poor people. Atmosphere is only a symptom of prevailing consumer tastes; when it falls out of favor, I suspect that atmosphere actually does more harm than good in making a place look dated and out-of-style, thereby quickening the transition to slum.

When it comes down to protecting the prosperity of a community (in demographic terms), exclusionary zoning is probably the best route. Keep out apartments and single-family on small lots, require minimum numbers of bedrooms, enforce an occupancy limit for dwelling units, and do all these things over a land area sufficiently large that it will remain desirable even if the surrounding area goes slummy. This isn't an approach I favor, but it is the only one I know to work in practice.

So are there more of the first and less of the second? And can you prove it? And otherwise, what is your point?

I'd say that throughout the entirety of the Houston region, there are probably more pragmatists than douchebag hipsters. Apartments near Willowbrook don't typically get leased to very many people working in the urban core, for instance...they get leased by people working near Willowbrook. And there is a tremendous amount of that kind of housing throughout our region.

Now, can I prove that one is more wasteful than the other...well no, because I'm not willing to compile all the information to argue with you. But intuitively, which of these commutes do you think is more energy efficient? And comparing someone that lives in an apartment complex with 15 to 20 units per acre (1 dwelling per aprox. 2,500 square feet of land) to someone that lives on a 5,000-square-foot lot, which is more wasteful in terms of land use...especially when you take into consideration that single-family lots require a larger paved area for neighborhood streets (which isn't factored in to lot size)?

The answer is obvious. If you want to be environmentally responsible and aren't employed in the urban core, then don't live in the urban core. Otherwise, you just end up wasting a lot of fuel, land, time, and more of your own money to be near the amenities you like. How is that different from when someone has a kid and wants a large lot and a safe school in the suburbs?

My point was that a pragmatic environmentalist can further his cause and embrace sprawl as a lifestyle at the same time.

When it comes down to it, Manhattan uses less energy per person than any place in the US...

Yeah...ok. Show me the numbers. Explain the methodology.

[N Judah]

If my hypothesis is in conflict with the article, I can live with that. I like independent thinking, don't you? Or do you just dislike opposition to your wistful ways of thinking?

No, wistful would be describing the 21st century as the "century of the ranchette." This isn't the 19th century (or a 1950s suburban Los Angeles facsimile thereof, I am sorry to say).

I understand that your hypothesis is in conflict with the article. However, willingly ignoring specific examples -mentioned by the article that forms the basis of the conversation- that contradict your hypothesis doesn't help anything. If you really think Bastrop is in better shape then Redmond as far as future vitality, I would just refer you back to the article.

It is hard to answer your question for lack of comparable data. As it pertains to townhomes, there just isn't much older supply that a developer would yet qualify financially as a teardown opportunity.

I wonder if a lot of the townhomes being built in the Inner Loop would have even been constructed had those areas been better protected by a HOA.

This is typically the case among people that actually live in or around small towns. Since such places tend to have disproportionately many low-income households, this is to be expected. They like having a huge selection at reasonable prices in a quality-controlled environment. There is griping in some quarters, but for most, it beats the alternative by a long-shot. See below.

Stuff White People Like: Knowing What's Best for Poor People

Any suburb that emulates that kind of environment will have a hard time differentiating itself from others. I see anyplace dependent on big-box retailing to avoid slum-dom as being in big trouble. Your N. Fry example is rife with big-box retailing. The examples cited in the article, like Redmond, have big-box retailers but Redmond (and Evanston) also have what could be described as a legitimate city core.

[N Judah]

If history is any measure, that a neighborhood or community has a nice atmosphere is a poor predictive measure of future slumminess. Atmosphere is not a barrier to the infiltration of poor people. Atmosphere is only a symptom of prevailing consumer tastes; when it falls out of favor, I suspect that atmosphere actually does more harm than good in making a place look dated and out-of-style, thereby quickening the transition to slum.

When it comes down to protecting the prosperity of a community (in demographic terms), exclusionary zoning is probably the best route. Keep out apartments and single-family on small lots, require minimum numbers of bedrooms, enforce an occupancy limit for dwelling units, and do all these things over a land area sufficiently large that it will remain desirable even if the surrounding area goes slummy. This isn't an approach I favor, but it is the only one I know to work in practice.

Likewise, I could say that exclusionary zoning is a poor predictive measure of future sluminess. Ultimately the only way to protect the economic prosperity of a community is through...economic prosperity.

However, I still think that suburbanites who have the option would probably prefer a downtown Redmond "atmosphere" than a big-box North Fry. Being an attractive location attracts prosperous people, hasn't that always been the case?

The answer is obvious. If you want to be environmentally responsible and aren't employed in the urban core, then don't live in the urban core. Otherwise, you just end up wasting a lot of fuel, land, time, and more of your own money to be near the amenities you like. How is that different from when someone has a kid and wants a large lot and a safe school in the suburbs?

I understand that you think a person is a hypocrite for living in the Heights and making the commute out to the suburbs. Do you feel the same way about a person who lives in the suburbs and commutes downtown?

My point was that a pragmatic environmentalist can further his cause and embrace sprawl as a lifestyle at the same time.

Ultimately, the most environmentally responsible commute is the shortest. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. However, do you think people in denser areas have shorter and/or more environmentally-friendly commutes?

Yeah...ok. Show me the numbers. Explain the methodology.

According to this article, if NYC were a state it would rank 51st in per-capita energy consumption.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-26...-MANHATTAN.html

[TheNiche]

Likewise, I could say that exclusionary zoning is a poor predictive measure of future sluminess. Ultimately the only way to protect the economic prosperity of a community is through...economic prosperity.

Nope. Edge cities such as Greenspoint and Westchase have a tremendous level of business activity and still abut lots of crappy apartments. And back in the 70's and early 80's, downtown Houston was bustling but surrounded on all sides by low-rent slums.

Note that I specified prosperity as a demographic measure. That is of critical importance because that's how slums are ultimately going to be defined.

However, I still think that suburbanites who have the option would probably prefer a Woodlands Town Center-style "atmosphere" than a big-box North Fry. Being an attractive location attracts prosperous people, hasn't that always been the case?

The Woodlands Town Center probably has staying power (and I could be wrong at that), but it is exceptionally unique in the scheme of things. Places like that can't just be replicated anywhere on that scale. Generally speaking, much of The Woodlands is a bad proxy for anywhere else...some parts of it more than others.

But its atmosphere (or, say, that of Sugar Land Town Square or CityCentre) is a fad. Give it 20 years and it'll look very dated. Give it 70 and people will decry the day that the aesthetic was marred by renovation that took place 40 years beforehand.

I understand that you think a person is a hypocrite for living in the Heights and making the commute out to the suburbs. Do you feel the same way about a person who lives in the suburbs and commutes downtown?

Only if the person in the person in the Heights claims to be some kind of a sprawl-hating environmentalist. Then they're a pretentious hypocrite douchebag. I don't see too many suburban-dwelling downtown-commuting people that also claim to be sprawl-hating environmentalists. Most of them want something, they pay for it, and they get it. That's what I do, even if my list of wants is different.

Ultimately, the most environmentally responsible commute is the shortest. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. However, do you think people in denser areas have shorter and/or more environmentally-friendly commutes?

Depends on the individual circumstances and also upon how you're defining "areas" and how you're going to measure density within those geographies. Also depends on infrastructure available. I can think of all kinds of situations in which shorter is not necessarily better.

In the grand scheme, I suspect that there's probably a pretty strong correlation between density and distance travelled, this whether the area is a metropolitan area or a subdivision or apartment complex. In any event, I think that the question is too oversimplified to be meaningful.

According to this article, if NYC were a state it would rank 51st in per-capita energy consumption. By "any place" I meant any state.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-26...-MANHATTAN.html

I told you to give me data, to explain the methodology. This is a news article. It is utterly worthless to me.

Try again.

[swtsig]

The Spring ISD area is certainly adhering to TheNiche's predictions...

spring ISD has long been home t osome very questionable neighborhoods.... it's definitely not a recent trend.

[VicMan]

spring ISD has long been home t osome very questionable neighborhoods.... it's definitely not a recent trend.

Those neighborhoods became questionable in the 1990s and 2000s - and now the questionable neighborhoods are moving north.

See the schooldigger stats for free lunch.

[N Judah]

Nope. Edge cities such as Greenspoint and Westchase have a tremendous level of business activity and still abut lots of crappy apartments. And back in the 70's and early 80's, downtown Houston was bustling but surrounded on all sides by low-rent slums.

Well, then the Greenspoint/Westchase model might work in the case of suburbs simply seeking to avoid out-and-out slumminess. Have a concentrated core of business, maintain the tax base, and hope everything works out.

Note that I specified prosperity as a demographic measure. That is of critical importance because that's how slums are ultimately going to be defined.

That's not a bad definition. To that end, Redmond WA and Evanston IL are better role models than N. Fry or Bastrop or whatever small town has to beg for a big-box retailer.

The Woodlands Town Center probably has staying power (and I could be wrong at that), but it is exceptionally unique in the scheme of things. Places like that can't just be replicated anywhere on that scale. Generally speaking, much of The Woodlands is a bad proxy for anywhere else...some parts of it more than others.

Not really. You are correct that it is unique, but only in the sense that it, itself, is a replica (almost a borderline parody) of what the developers thought a "small town" downtown should look like. There are many city neighborhoods (not in Houston) that have done a much better job of creating that sort of "city core" atmosphere. These are the neighborhoods which urbanistas seek to inhabit -- and replicating these sorts of environments are where the money's at in the future, if the author of the article is correct (and I think he is). Woodlands Town Center is, like everything else up there, pretty much overdone and -having said that- better done elsewhere, first.

But its atmosphere (or, say, that of Sugar Land Town Square or CityCentre) is a fad. Give it 20 years and it'll look very dated. Give it 70 and people will decry the day that the aesthetic was marred by renovation that took place 40 years beforehand.

That would be specific to Sugar Land Town Square or whatever you're talking about. Walkable, pedestrian-friendly atmospheres are not a fad. In fact, according to the article linked to at the beginning of the thread, successfully creating such places will mean the difference between viability and slumminess. The article mentions specific examples.

The problem is that Woodlands and Sugar land's town squares were (as far as I can tell) developed basically with a details-oriented shopping-mall aesthetic which is actually completely different from what you will find in small town downtowns, city neighborhoods, or the viable downtowns of the examples mentioned in the article.

Only if the person in the person in the Heights claims to be some kind of a sprawl-hating environmentalist. Then they're a pretentious hypocrite douchebag. I don't see too many suburban-dwelling downtown-commuting people that also claim to be sprawl-hating environmentalists. Most of them want something, they pay for it, and they get it. That's what I do, even if my list of wants is different.

I guess you're right -- suburbanites don't care about the environment. However, many of them prefer the suburban lifestyle, but only as a compromise because they're still dependent on a dense core of jobs at the city center. That's a similar sort of hypocrisy -- that of a self-absorbed a--hole who expects to be coddled and subsidized every step of the way.

To make it more clear: sprawl-hating "hipsters" who reverse commute are hypocrites, by your definition (and I don't disagree, insofar as much as such people even really exist). Then in that case, so are suburban-dwelling self-absorbed density-haters who are dependent (for jobs) upon the density they seek to avoid.

Depends on the individual circumstances and also upon how you're defining "areas" and how you're going to measure density within those geographies. Also depends on infrastructure available. I can think of all kinds of situations in which shorter is not necessarily better.

What are some of those situations? 85% of the trips in NYC are by bike, walking, or transit. Doesn't get much more environmentally friendly than that.

In the grand scheme, I suspect that there's probably a pretty strong correlation between density and distance travelled, this whether the area is a metropolitan area or a subdivision or apartment complex. In any event, I think that the question is too oversimplified to be meaningful.

I don't think any question is too oversimplified for this thread. Are people in the Heights who reverse commute without exception all just a bunch of hipster "douchebags" ? Oh, of course.

I told you to give me data, to explain the methodology. This is a news article. It is utterly worthless to me.

Hey, if you have a problem with the article, take it up with the New Yorker. Cited statistics in widely-read fact-checked journals are about as good as it gets around here...unless you want me to resort to the old "In the grand scheme, I suspect..." thing.

[TheNiche]

Well, then the Greenspoint/Westchase model might work in the case of suburbs simply seeking to avoid out-and-out slumminess. Have a concentrated core of business, maintain the tax base, and hope everything works out.

That's not a bad definition. To that end, Redmond WA and Evanston IL are better role models than N. Fry or Bastrop or whatever small town has to beg for a big-box retailer.

Not really. You are correct that it is unique, but only in the sense that it, itself, is a replica (almost a borderline parody) of what the developers thought a "small town" downtown should look like. There are many city neighborhoods (not in Houston) that have done a much better job of creating that sort of "city core" atmosphere. These are the neighborhoods which urbanistas seek to inhabit -- and replicating these sorts of environments are where the money's at in the future, if the author of the article is correct (and I think he is). Woodlands Town Center is, like everything else up there, pretty much overdone and -having said that- better done elsewhere, first.

That would be specific to Sugar Land Town Square or whatever you're talking about. Walkable, pedestrian-friendly atmospheres are not a fad. In fact, according to the article linked to at the beginning of the thread, successfully creating such places will mean the difference between viability and slumminess. The article mentions specific examples.

The problem is that Woodlands and Sugar land's town squares were (as far as I can tell) developed basically with a details-oriented shopping-mall aesthetic which is actually completely different from what you will find in small town downtowns, city neighborhoods, or the viable downtowns of the examples mentioned in the article.

I'm going to try and boil my response down a bit. Too many tangents going on here, and I'm too impatient to handle all these details.

First of all, I dispute many of the opinions presented in the article, even those that are presented as fact. In a historical context, consumer tastes have shifted pretty regularly and dramatically subsequent to the industrial revolution. There isn't a doubt in my mind that consumer tastes will continue to shift, and bearing that in mind, any kind of argument that atmosphere is going to stave off sluminess just doesn't hold water in my book. Now, if you want to modify your argument so as to say that urban cores and edge cities will hold their value on the basis of access to amenities, that's something I can buy into; I'd warn that the amenities and the value that consumers attach to them may change somewhat over time, but a neighborhood surrounded by slums can itselt avoid slumminess on the basis of critical mass of amenities. Again, I cite downtown Houston in the 70's and early 80's as an example.

The very fact that there is retail in a development (urban, suburan, or exurban) is an insufficient amenity. The very fact that there is housing mixed in is insufficient. The fact that it was built to have a nice atmosphere is insufficient. In fact, that these three are combined in places like Domain in Austin or La Canterra in San Antonio could ultimately turn out to be really really bad if even one element in the whole development becomes undesirable, thereby poisoning the well. Resisting blight has less to do with the fact that different land uses exist, are mixed, or look nice. They must bring something special to the table. And I'm also not talking about having a bunch of corporate headquarters nearby. I'm talking about parks, museums, government facilities, convention facilities, theaters, stadia, etc. This (and a privately-controlled governing body) is why The Woodlands Town Center gets high marks for slum prevention as far as I'm concerned. If anything could anchor a suburban or exurban area, I'd think that that would be it. But most of the development of 'lifestyle centers' is all about faux. They are malls that capitalize on a fad atmosphere and these places will not be able to resist slumminess.

I guess you're right -- suburbanites don't care about the environment. However, many of them prefer the suburban lifestyle, but only as a compromise because they're still dependent on a dense core of jobs at the city center. That's a similar sort of hypocrisy -- that of a self-absorbed a--hole who expects to be coddled and subsidized every step of the way.

To make it more clear: sprawl-hating "hipsters" who reverse commute are hypocrites, by your definition (and I don't disagree, insofar as much as such people even really exist). Then in that case, so are suburban-dwelling self-absorbed density-haters who are dependent (for jobs) upon the density they seek to avoid.

What are some of those situations? 85% of the trips in NYC are by bike, walking, or transit. Doesn't get much more environmentally friendly than that.

I don't think any question is too oversimplified for this thread. Are people in the Heights who reverse commute without exception all just a bunch of hipster "douchebags" ? Oh, of course.

Hey, if you have a problem with the article, take it up with the New Yorker. Cited statistics in widely-read fact-checked journals are about as good as it gets around here...unless you want me to resort to the old "In the grand scheme, I suspect..." thing.

Are suburbanites dependent upon jobs at the city center? Only about 6% of regional employment is located in downtown Houston. You're completely missing what I was getting at. The monocentric model of urban growth is dead. DEAD. It does not exist, it will not come back.

The majority of employment is suburban. People that work in the suburbs and live in the suburbs aren't necessarily being environmentally irresponsible. As I was trying to explain earlier, it is entirely plausible that a pragmatic environmentalist can embrace sprawl. You're totally and completely missing the crux of my argument.

Douchebag hypocrites exist everywhere. Urban, suburban, exurban, rural...you can't escape them. I never said anything to the effect of that douchebaggery was the sole domain of any one population. And I'm intent on making fun of every subset of the douchebag population...and defending the rest from hasty generalization on your part. The people that I won't make fun of are people that are selfish, materialistic, and honest with themselves and others...if they want good schools, move to the far-flung suburbs, make a horrendous commute to the urban core, are wasteful of energy, and are shameless, good for them. And if they work in Baytown and commute from their townhome in Rice Military, also being wasteful, but just really like living in that location...and are shameless...then good for them, too. But the moment that the one or the other starts complaining about energy waste and pollution, I'm going to poke well-deserved fun at them.

Now as far as NYC goes, a newspaper article just won't cut it...especially one that cites data without citing a source. I don't care how reputable the paper/magazine or the journalist is. They cite data informally and try to tell a story. They're in the entertainment industry. If you want to have a meaningful discussion of this issue, it needs to be treated more academically. What is the data? What was the methodology? Are the conclusions valid and reliable? This same advice goes for the density discussion as it pertains to geographies and different ways of measuring density. Specify.

EDIT: So much for trying to be concise.

[N Judah]

If anything could anchor a suburban or exurban area, I'd think that that would be it. But most of the development of 'lifestyle centers' is all about faux. They are malls that capitalize on a fad atmosphere and these places will not be able to resist slumminess.

I'm not talking about lifestyle centers. If your concept of an "urban core" environment/atmosphere is a suburban-style "lifestyle center" then we are at a fundamental disagreement, in the sense that what you describe is the antithesis of what I am describing.

Assuming that you are not bringing up "lifestyle centers" as a straw man, I'll refer you again to the specific examples cited in the article.

The majority of employment is suburban. People that work in the suburbs and live in the suburbs aren't necessarily being environmentally irresponsible. As I was trying to explain earlier, it is entirely plausible that a pragmatic environmentalist can embrace sprawl. You're totally and completely missing the crux of my argument.

Your "argument" consisted of saying that people with long commutes are not really environmentalists. You then proceeded to label and generalize. When pressed, you then attempted to convey that people with short commutes (NYC biking/walking/transit commutes and the like, to say nothing of the sprawl-to-sprawl vehicular commutes you idealize) are probably not environmentalists either. So in the end, anyone who commutes anywhere, for any reason at all, is not an environmentalist. I just thought this was an interesting angle and wanted to see where you would take it -- that's all.

Now as far as NYC goes, a newspaper article just won't cut it...especially one that cites data without citing a source. I don't care how reputable the paper/magazine or the journalist is. They cite data informally and try to tell a story.

I guess you're right! I should just cite some random blog or something, like you did when I pressed you for more info on your "Wal Mart is the #1 amenity small towns demand" stat. Like I said, if you have a problem with the journalistic integrity of the New Yorker, give them a call and ask for a cite yourself. Failing that, this might not be the thread for you since the original article in question is from The Atlantic (a similar publication with similar standards).

[TheNiche]

You're accusing me of setting up straw men!?

I didn't cite the blog because it backed me up (or jgriff, actually, who made that statement). I cited it because it has a relevent supplimental opinion that dovetails with my own.

If you think I'm going to quit discussing this topic on the basis that it isn't professionally written, you're wrong. The topic was broached informally, but can be formally attacked.

[Scott08]

Didn't know this morning when I woke up that I'd be a pretentitious douchebag hypocrite, but looks like I was for the last 13 years. I've lived in the Heights since 1986 but spent a good part of that reverse commuting to various suburban locations (all with the same company.) From the end of 1995 until about a month ago, I was driving 29 miles each way to Spring. Working 7:00 to 4:00 usually and driving pretty fuel efficient cars, I never worried much about it. We've now moved our offices to the Greenway Plaza area and my commute is now less than 7 miles. Most of my co-workers are hating it because they live in Spring, but I'm now the quintessential uppity innerlooper. My motto, environmental issues aside, has always been live where you want to live, work where you have to.

[20thStDad]

Damn straight to living where you want. My stupid office decided to move from the galleria to near Pearland a month after I bought in the Heights. Not my damn fault, and no way I'm going to move to that crapland. Not that I consider myself an environmentalist by any means...I would say I'm "environmentally responsible" in general, and in other cases where convenient for me. But other times I don't care. I'll create all the greenhouse gases I want while burning wood in the smoker to cook up a nice piece of beef or pork.

I guess that was off topic. On topic, I think places that inherently suck will still suck with a nice coat of paint on them, for example all the new crappy shopping centers being built in Pearland (clearly I'm not bitter about my job being shipped down there). But, people will move there because it is affordable and they don't care as much about the great things a real city offers. And 20 years down the road, if there isn't a good plan to keep it looking nice, clean, and "current", it will become a slum until someone else comes in and gives it a new paint job.

[sidegate]

Damn straight to living where you want. My stupid office decided to move from the galleria to near Pearland a month after I bought in the Heights. Not my damn fault, and no way I'm going to move to that crapland. Not that I consider myself an environmentalist by any means...I would say I'm "environmentally responsible" in general, and in other cases where convenient for me. But other times I don't care. I'll create all the greenhouse gases I want while burning wood in the smoker to cook up a nice piece of beef or pork.

I guess that was off topic. On topic, I think places that inherently suck will still suck with a nice coat of paint on them, for example all the new crappy shopping centers being built in Pearland (clearly I'm not bitter about my job being shipped down there). But, people will move there because it is affordable and they don't care as much about the great things a real city offers. And 20 years down the road, if there isn't a good plan to keep it looking nice, clean, and "current", it will become a slum until someone else comes in and gives it a new paint job.

Towns in England and Wales used not to be able to acquire the title of City unless they had a cathedral (City of York, etc). Seems like as a good rule of thumb as any to me

[crunchtastic]

Towns in England and Wales used not to be able to acquire the title of City unless they had a cathedral (City of York, etc). Seems like as a good rule of thumb as any to me

What's that noise? I think I hear Sugarland breaking ground on their new cathedral. To be surrounded by a mixed-use development called Cathedral Centre. And a giant wall. Perhaps a moat. Could be overkill, but everyone just loves a water feature!

[RedScare]

Didn't know this morning when I woke up that I'd be a pretentitious douchebag hypocrite, but looks like I was for the last 13 years. I've lived in the Heights since 1986 but spent a good part of that reverse commuting to various suburban locations (all with the same company.) From the end of 1995 until about a month ago, I was driving 29 miles each way to Spring. Working 7:00 to 4:00 usually and driving pretty fuel efficient cars, I never worried much about it. We've now moved our offices to the Greenway Plaza area and my commute is now less than 7 miles. Most of my co-workers are hating it because they live in Spring, but I'm now the quintessential uppity innerlooper. My motto, environmental issues aside, has always been live where you want to live, work where you have to.

Don't feel bad, Scott and 20thStreet. I joined the ranks of the Heights douchebag hypocrites last month when I accepted a position in Conroe. It is not so bad. To keep my hipster bona fides, I will simply up my donation to Feed The Children, place an Obama sign in my yard and only listen to NPR during my commute. I think that should do it....oh, and adopt another homeless dog from the SPCA.