The Houston Chronicle Newspaper

[jtmbin]

At the behest of some readers, including Martha Seng, AIA-Houston President, the Houston Chronicle is considering FINALLY hiring a columnist to serve as architecture/design critic. It's been embarassing and unfortunate that the country's fourth largest city has been without such a voice in its most read and most influential newspaper.

I'm told that the editors are considering the desire among its readers for such a column. If you believe that this city deserves/needs/ought to have this position created and filled, drop an email to the Chronicle. Write to James Campbell, the reader representative at readerrep@chron.com. Do it soon! Do it now!

[Talbot]

took your advice and sent an email.

[jtmbin]

Great, every email counts

[H-Town Man]

E-mail sent.

[Subdude]

Well it's about time. That's great news if is true. It's just unbelievable they've waited this long, but then again this is the Chronicle. Just as amazing is that they don't have a Spanish edition, just occasional stories in Spanish buried among the English. They're such an embarrasment - a small-town paper that somehow ended up stuck in a big city.

[jtmbin]

It's just the condition that results from having no competition. Why bother?

[H-Town Man]

From what I understand, the editor (Jeff Cohen) is trying pretty hard to make this a great newspaper. There've been a lot of changes and upgrades the last few years, such as the Bivins -> Sarnoff upgrade, of which I think we all approve. I get the feeling he's trying to improve everything he can, while at the same time keeping the paper profitable in difficult economic times (esp. for newspapers). The circulation is ticking up ever so slightly, which is about as good as can be expected. That said, there are things I do not love about the Chronicle. But I get the feeling that the people involved in this decision all would like an architectural critic, it's just the business side of it that is being debated.

[UrbanLandscape]

The Chronicle should shut down.

[SpaceCity]

The Chronicle should hire some real reporters first. The whole rag is embarrasing for the fourth largest city in America.

[H-Town Man]

Did anyone else read this? Honestly, I don't see why the Chronicle prints this stuff. I guess they're just trying to get an alternative voice. But really, how common is it for a "lecturer and writer on economic trends," when talking about paradigms for a city's future, to refer to another view by saying, "To hell with that crap"?

I can't imagine what Nancy was thinking as she listened to this.

Moneymakers: Joel Kotkin

Houston needs to look in the mirror

Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

Since the start of the millennium, Houston and other cities have been pumping millions of dollars into revitalizing their downtowns.

ADVERTISEMENT

The urbanists fueling much of this effort say folks will move into city centers as long as there are urban amenities to support them.

Joel Kotkin thinks that's a lot of hype.

Kotkin, a lecturer and writer on economic, political and social trends, believes the suburbs are where the action is and that a healthy urban core is only a small fraction of what makes a city thrive.

Kotkin is also an Irvine Fellow at the Los Angeles-based New America Foundation, a nonprofit public policy institute. His latest book, The City: A Global History, will be released early next year.

While he was in town this week lecturing to real estate groups, he shared his views on Houston's future with reporter Nancy Sarnoff.

Q: When discussing quality of life in Houston, words like heat, mosquitoes and traffic seem to permeate the conversation. How do we overcome this negative perception?

A: What is quality of life? Is it to most people what they can do in their neighborhood or back yard? Or is it having some magnificent edifice in the center of the city where they can go, "Oh my God, isn't that spectacular?"

Is the quality of life in Houston really bad? There are some things you can't do anything about. The climate is what it is. It's not like you don't pay attention to quality of life, but is quality of life defined by pouring billions of dollars into downtown so a bunch of yuppies can make believe they're in Manhattan?

Or is quality of life about hundreds of thousands and millions of people getting a house and having a decent quality of life and in many cases, for the immigrants, a quality of life that was unimaginable to their parents. Isn't that what America is about, or not?

Q: Some $300 million was spent on a 7.5-mile light rail system that runs from downtown to the Astrodome complex. Supporters said the train would help bring the city into the 21st century. Do you agree with that theory?

A: I think you are a 21st-century city. The cities that are built on transit are 20th-century cities. It's a good thing to have, but does a business move to Houston because it has a transit system? I hate to tell you your traffic's not that bad compared to a lot of cities.

It is a good thing to have. It's part of your infrastructure, like your airport and your port. But this idea that, "Oh, we'll be a world-class city." This endless

[yaga]

I don't think it was that bad. In fact, I agree what with most of what he said.

[N8TIV]

I liked that article.

[SpaceCity]

So your downtown isn't "real" unless its Manhattan?

I do agree with some things he said, but overall I'm a believer in growing UP in the city, not OUT to the suburbs.

[bachanon]

awesome interview. it would be great to hear more. this guy is on target about our self image as a city.

houston has the ingenuity and the gusto to reverse this trend (suburban being where the quality of life is). REAL family housing near the city core that's affordable will make all the difference. the near north side and the east side (of downtown) could be our answer. let the empty nesters and the young professionals have downtown; let the hipsters and artists have midtown; families will only want to visit these places anyway. being close to the amenities (stadiums, theatres, restaurants) with "floorspace" (3-2) and safety is what is needed. schools and retail will follow.

good design, conscious investors can make it happen.

[H-Town Man]

Sorry, but the idea that learning from the advantages of other cities is "trying to be like somebody else" is just bizarre. It's the kind of idea you'd expect to hear from someone who is funded by the power interests who want things to be the way they've been. I'm not calling for complete change, of course, but if I take a trip to Chicago and say, "Wow, how nice it is to travel down highways that don't have billboards" and then come home and say "We should get rid of some of these billboards in Houston," am I trying to be like Chicago? Or if I enjoy the public parks they have in every neighborhood, and the fact that if someone wants to, they can choose to live in a pedestrian friendly environment, am I trying to be like Chicago if I think we should have pedestrian friendly environments in Houston?

Of course not! This is the way cities grow and develop. They don't turn their heads in and say "I will only do something that I thought of myself." And if you don't believe me, do you think that places like the Heights and Hermann Park were homegrown creations? Or modern skyscrapers - were those invented in Houston? Or the pan-Mediterranean architecture of Rice University? No. Those things were all created elsewhere, and brought here by people who wanted Houston to have the best of what other places have. Just like all the fantastic planning of Chicago and Washington D.C. was based on Paris. If we refused to change or adopt any idea that wasn't our own, we'd reach a dead end.

But even if you don't agree with me on any of this, the fact of the matter is that there are people here who want to live in an urban environment, who want to have good mass transit, who want more parks and who want a great downtown, so to say that it's not a "Houston" thing is really kind of ridiculous - if people in Houston want it, then it's a Houston thing.

[westguy]

He makes some interesting points, but like many people, he comes from a viewpoint that his city (Los Angeles) is the of what a city should be. I don't see Los Angeles as a mature, self-aware city like he does. It's grown, but its fractured - and this had led to some secession movements within parts of it. And our commutes aren't as bad as theirs, however our population is only a fraction of that city's.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

H-Town Man, I think what you said is correct about Houston. Hopefully, we could think of new stuff on our own and then other cities will follow.

[2112]

Although he hits it home with Houston being itself and capitalizing on its own identity, he is over simplistic in his complete disregard towards a denser, transit-oriented, and cultural city. You can embrace both sides of his ideas: a quality of life in both the suburbs AND the core, with urban amenities in both. I remember visiting Hoboken New Jersey and realizing that, even though this was essential a New York City suburb, it was nevertheless as urbane as Greenwich Village, with as much residential and transit and entertainment crammed into a small area. Hell, in Houston, as far as transit, having a great local network of rail combined with a good commuter network, would tie both sides together. I mean, everyway you look at it, you have to conclude that both are essential; city dwellers can visit Houston

[SpaceCity]

Since skyscrapers weren't invented in Houston, nor were roads, we were obviously trying to "be like someone else."

Let's tear them all down and just go back to log cabins and the horses that we began with. Then we can be real to our Houston roots.

[tomv]

I thought the most interesting thing he said was that no families would want to live downtown as long as there are homeless people panhandling. Is this true? Can anything be done about this?

[MidtownCoog]

Sounds fine to me. And I agree with this:

but then you have to ask the question, was the money that was spent there, could that have been spent in a bunch of neighborhoods in Latino and Asian neighborhoods that just happen not to be near where developers are speculating?

[H-Town Man]

I thought the most interesting thing he said was that no families would want to live downtown as long as there are homeless people panhandling.  Is this true?  Can anything be done about this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Homeless people are there because nobody else is. Ask somebody who used to go shopping on Main St. in the 60's whether they were panhandled 498 times. The answer will be, "No." People thought Enron Field wouldn't be successful because that was where all the homeless camped out. But when it was built, they just quietly left and went somewhere else. It's like crime. If a street is deserted, there's a good chance of getting robbed. But if a street is thronged with people, the chances are much less.

[bachanon]

Although he hits it home with Houston being itself and capitalizing on its own identity, he is over simplistic in his complete disregard towards a denser, transit-oriented, and cultural city.

i don't believe he's against a good urban core. i think he's taking an objective look at people's behavior and commenting on it.

his comments provide insight on what could become a new kind of urban core not seen in other metropolitan areas. (see my last comment).

[barracuda]

I agree with the author on most points. I think Houston's diversity and low cost of living are what make this a great city.

However, I don't agree with his comments on the mass transit system. Granted, some people feel we need mass transit to make this a "world class city", and that's not a good reason for building something. But as I see it, one of the biggest problems facing Houston is traffic. People who move out to the suburbs may have the nice yard and friendly neighbors, but they spend two or three hours a day commuting. That lowers the quality of life, and hence the value of living in Houston.

Having a vibrant urban core with attractive parks, and a great mass transit system, will not only improve the quality of life for those of us that live here, but it will also make Houston more attractive to businesses and people who might consider moving here.

[MontroseNeighborhoodCafe]

I have done a lot of research on Houston's past. I found this article while researching.

[ricco67]

Makes it for a tough read, don't you think?

Ricco

[YakuzaIce]

^If anyone wants I'll type it out if that's what you mean, I have nothing better to do.

[ssullivan]

Interesting article (although hard to read). I never knew there was a mall project like that on Main St. Whatever happened with this project? What is in that location now? I can't seem to remember which buildings are referred to in the article.

By the way, the article is actually from the Post, not the Chronicle as the heading on this thread says.

[Guest danax]

I agree with his views on " The Rail". It will never be something to get people out of their cars in any quanity large enough to make a difference. Do they really expect people to give up the driveway to parking space, personally programmed environment and convenience of a car and ride the rail? They've had their Metro in LA for 10 years and has it helped traffic? I think it is a feel-good project that, save for a few "oddballs" here and there, will only be a glorified bus serving the same people who already take the bus. At least it replaces some of the diesel smoke-spewing buses. And once this current bulge of baby-boomers who enjoy the urbanity of the inner-city exist only in sociology textbooks, will the demographics support all of these residences currently being built intown? Will Starbucks be closing down in record numbers and become thrift shops in say, 2035?

[ssullivan]

And once this current bulge of baby-boomers who enjoy the urbanity of the inner-city exist only in sociology textbooks, will the demographics support all of these residences currently being built intown? Will Starbucks be closing down in record numbers and become thrift shops in say, 2035?

Actually, many of the people moving to Midtown and Downtown are the children of the baby boomers. It's not just empty nesters moving there.

As for your comments on the light rail system, it has helped congestion. Maybe not on the freeways, but along the Main St. corridor and in the Medical Center, it has improved the situation. There are far fewer buses in that corridor, and many people living in the area have abandoned their cars for some trips. I'm one of them. It takes me just as long, and costs more money, to drive downtown, find a parking place, and pay for it, as it does to take MetroRail, with a short transfer on the 4 Beechnut bus to connect to/from the TMC Transit Center. Most people in the inner city don't use the freeways to get to downtown because many times they're impractical. We're often forced to use surface streets to get around. And the rail line competes very effectively with driving in that situation.

Yes, the light rail hasn't done anything to solve traffic in the suburbs and areas outside 610 yet. And once the system has been expanded to places like Greenspoint/IAH, and out Westpark (which will be primarily a commuter, park and ride route), it may not take mass numbers of people out of their cars off the freeways. But as the city grows, every new rider who gets on the rail system for his/her commute is a person not in a car on a freeway. It may not make congestion better, but it certainly provides a method to prevent it from getting worse.