McMansions in the suburbs make less sense with high energy prices

[Pumapayam]

This website has an interesting map showing annual houshold gasoline expenditures by area. Select 'Houston' for region and then select the 'Additional: Gas Costs Impacts' link. Backs up with data the common sense position that exburb residents are paying much more for transportation and are thus going to be much more affected by rising gasoline costs.

Link

The 'as a % of income' maps are interesting too...

I approximated the location of Bridgeland and Fall Creek.

Bridgeland is SO affordable will take 48% of the median families income earned to cover the cost of housing and transportation. Sign me up!

Fall Creek is a mixed bag, as the location area covers in and out of the 48% area.

Again, those families that live above median household income of $44,761 will likely not buy a $300K+ home, but there are plenty of surrounding homes, and likely some in those developments that hover closer to $150K for them to buy into.

[musicman]

not sure a website promoting urban sustainability is going to be unbiased. there are several factors that are completely ignored.

[brerrabbit]

This website has an interesting map showing annual houshold gasoline expenditures by area. Select 'Houston' for region and then select the 'Additional: Gas Costs Impacts' link. Backs up with data the common sense position that exburb residents are paying much more for transportation and are thus going to be much more affected by rising gasoline costs.

Link

The 'as a % of income' maps are interesting too...

While looking at things like this is no doubt interesting, isn't it really just logical? If you assume some point in the center of Houston is the place everyone travels to every day and start drawing circles out from there based on miles and number of work days in a month you then estimate what monthly transportation costs are based on how far you live from the center point. What I have conceeded in this entire discussion is we are looking and talking about totals and averages, and I like all the other dissenters in the discussion have pointed out to no avail the fact that while most inner loopers think all outer loopers are wrong for their life style decisions and in general misguided in their beliefs, we are not without some reason and intelligence. In my case I utilize public transportation to get to the central business district every day and my company gives me $100 a month to utilize public transportation. This means with the exception of my daily round trip from my house to the park and ride of six miles my commute cost is zero. Figuring 22 trips a month into town then I drive 132 miles a month, at the study's average mpg of 20.3 and gas cost of 3.94 a gallon then my total cost of transportation to work $25.62 a month. Since my wife works in Pearland and usually fills up once a week at most (and sometimes less) then the linked study is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to me.

Again I realize I am one person but I also realize that I work with a lot of relatively intelligent people and can report that at least 20 of my coworkers in my immediate area avail themselves to the Park and Ride system as well with similar results. As gas prices rise, we as individual consumers do what we have to do. I have run the numbers and can assure you that in no scenario I can conceive given my current circumstances can I find an advantage to moving any closer to the city or my job. I have worked in downtown Houston for 21 of my 26 years in a professional job and during the vast majority of that time I have used public transportation. I may be the exception but as gas prices go up I am being joined by lots of other folks.

[sevfiv]

It's not surprising that on Houston's outer edges, new houses are as hard to sell as used SUVs.

The exception? It's the Prius of new developments: Discovery at Spring Trails, in Montgomery County just north of Spring. Discovery's developer, Land Tejas, calls it "Houston's first solar-powered hybrid community."

Atop the standard Discovery roof, a 1-kilowatt solar panel will generate 15 percent to 20 percent of a household's electricity. And the super-insulated, energy-efficient houses won't need much power to begin with: According to the developer, they'll consume 40 percent to 50 percent less than their competitors on the market.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/ar...ay/5893942.html

[livincinco]

Actually, while I may have thrown that last part in for humor, it is not as far off the mark as you might think. White flight was a variant of this theme. Numerous other examples could be given. And, it is an important factor, as it completely destroys attempts at economic formulas for housing choice, in that people tend to use irrational thought in place of economic reasoning to decide where to live. Other, not so diabolical reasons exist as well. It may be that the "coolness" factor of inner city living makes singles and other slaves to fashion spend far more on housing inside the loop than they otherwise would. An irrational belief that the suburbs are "close to nature" might make one move further into the exurbs than reasonable.

But, the point of the article remains the same. Rising gas prices force reality to invade the fantasy of suburban living. The fact is, few people put pen to paper and REALLY add up the cost of housing, regardless where they choose to live. The current crisis is evidence of this. But, a 50% rise in the cost of gas is forcing people to do so, perhaps for the first time.

I think that this whole discussion is flawed in the assumption that there will be no adjustment on the side of business (or to the market in general) to the strain that higher fuel costs cause to their employees. All of these calculations assume that companies will not take reasonable measures like the following:

- increased flexibility in telecommuting

- smaller regional offices

- alternative hour arrangements such as a 4/40 workweek.

- increased corporate-sponsored park & ride and rideshare opportunites.

Any combination of these type of programs reduce the burden of increased energy costs to suburban dwellers significantly.