State of the City

[roadrunner]

This WSJ interview with a Harvard economist references Houston multiple times. Nothing new or groundbreaking, but it is definitely one of the more objective view I've seen of Houston put up against global boomtowns, Chicago, NYC, etc. Bascially the whole "if you make less than 50k or more than 100k, NYC and San Fran are great places to live. If you make 60k, Houston and Dallas are great places to live. Overall, I thought a very good interview.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216764460..._1593_middlebox

[musicman]

There's been a segment of urban developers who have been enthusiastic about the model in Europe for quite some time [because] it's much more environmentally sensitive. But there are bad aspects as well.

While there certainly seem to be some smart things done in Europe, it's a mistake to think they've got it right and we've got it wrong. There are many good things that came out of giving Americans the opportunity to live in big houses on the edge of urban areas.

If you think about the lifestyle of ordinary Americans living on the fringe of Houston or Dallas, for example, compared to what their lifestyle would be in an older European city -- living in a walk-up apartment there compared to a 2,500-square-foot house here they bought for $130,000 with a 24-minute commute -- it's extraordinary in the low-cost areas of this country what a $60,000 family income gets you.

There's a reason Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are our four fastest-growing areas. They offer an astonishingly high standard of living for ordinary Americans.

New York City is a great place to be really rich and not a terrible place to be really poor, but it's a pretty hard place to live on $60,000 a year. You don't experience anywhere near the basic standard of living you would in Houston on the same income.

houston housing prices are definitely a boon.