Houston, Why So Slow To Develop?

[Guest danax]

I was checking out the website for the architects Ziegler & Cooper, who designed the soon-to-be new cathedral in south downtown. There's an article by Scott Ziegler where he used this table from a Rice study from 2004. Although city limits can be a misleading statistic, it does give an indication of how huge and sparse we are and why it seems like places like Midtown are taking forever to get filled in.

City Limits SquareMiles ------------------People Per Acre

Houston -- 1,100 -------------------------------------1.7

Los Angeles 465 -------------------------------------9.7

Boston-------- 51 -------------------------------------17.2

Chicago ---- 228 -------------------------------------21

San Francisco 45 -------------------------------------23.5

New York City 368 --------------------------------------30

Paris-------- ---- 41 --------------------------------------91

[kjb434]

Also, if you look at areas within the loop experiencing densification, it's pretty spread out. No one area has been the focus of a surge of development. If say midtown was the only focus of development, I think things will be a lot different.

Also, Houston large boundaries will (in the distant future) make it a much larger city. The city is not really annexing land at the rates it used to prior to the eighties. The recent additions being Clear Lake City and Kingwood many years ago. With stagnant annexation and a growing population within the city limits, I see our density slowly rising.

[Casual Observer]

I thought the city limits for Houston was closer to 650 square miles. Is this 1100 square mile measurement derived from the entire metropolitan area instead perhaps? If so, are the numbers correct for the other cities as well?

I did some rough math (which means its probably wrong..) and:

640 acres = 1 square mile

650 square miles x 640 acres = 416,000 acres inside the City of Houston.

2,000,000 City of Houston residents / 416,000 acres = 4.8 People Per Acre

Sure that number is still half of Los Angeles, but still you have to ask how all the other numbers were calculated to begin with.

[bachanon]

can we assume that houston has more single family homes with yards and more retail with parking lots than these other cities?

these type of numbers stress to me the importance of "town centers" such as sugarland and the woodlands, and the future success of downtown/midtown/medical center/uptown as urban centers of activity connected by mass transit (not only buses). if/when we see success from the main street line and the next two extensions, if density patterns begin to emerge that denote more efficient land use, it is imperative that we not only connect more areas of activity but consider parallel or non-stop mass transit between the higher density centers.

those numbers are incredible.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Los Angeles and Houston should both have asterisks when compared to cities like Chicago, Boston and San Francisco. Both cities have a significant amount of land that is undeveloped (not even developed at low density but, for the most part, undeveloped). In Houston, it is roughly 22% and in Los Angeles (due to the mountainous areas seperating the Wilshire areas with the San Fernando Valley, it's about 13% or so (I could be wrong about this as it's been some years since I read about it).

In any case, Danax's point remains.

I would say that history has a great deal to do with these numbers, however. The simple truth is that if Houston had "boomed" at the same time as a Chicago or Boston, it would've been built out in the same manner, and it's land usage much tighter. However, since the majority of Houston's residential population came about after the advent of the automobile became an everyday convenience to most people following WWII, it's development patterns are less restricted.

The move to "densify" the inner regions of Houston will take years. Decades even. Just as it took several decades for cities like Chicago, NY, Boston and SF to reach their peak densities. The diffence here, though, is that Houston has to compete with the still prominent form of development, which is geared towards suburban minded residents who more value personal space than they do commute times whereas the older cities didn't not have this competition when they were developing 100-plus years ago.

I think once areas like the West End and Fourth Ward are finally built out, you'll see the rest of Midtown, the Warehouse District and even parts of the East End start to densify. It is already happening in Midtown and the Warehouse District, just not at the desired pace.

[bachanon]

it is perspective like this that makes HAIF so great. thanks great hizzy for a clearer picture on this subject. i truly enjoy your posts.

[MidtownCoog]

more perspective - London is also 1,100 square miles

[pineda]

group studying high capacity transit options in Houston

why the woodlands needs to study high capacity transit options

I think the location of the newest park-n-ride was to have been Kuykendahl and the Woodlands parkway, near the Sterling Ridge area of TW.

[kjb434]

One positive note, more people moved into the innerloop in the past couple of years than in the suburbs. Hard to believe, but the census data really has some weight.

Pineda there is also this website for the southeast segment of metro.

Both are planning studies to find the final alignment for rail.

The north hardy corridor is more comprehensive in considering rail, bus, and managed lane concepts. High capacity transit is not just rail, but bus and HOV lanes are considered too.

[Houston19514]

One positive note, more people moved into the innerloop in the past couple of years than in the suburbs.  Hard to believe, but the census data really has some weight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Color me skeptical... do you have a source for that?

[manuel]

more perspective - London is also 1,100 square miles

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that figure with water area factored? I've never seen that number before.. only the ~611 sq miles figure for Greater London and the 10, 500+ sq miles for metro London..with London city limits being a whopping ONE sq mile!

[kjb434]

I got it from a data analysis firm that was analyzing the census data from 2000 and released in 2002.

I was reading it at work in something from one of developer clients.

HGAC also has access for this data.

[texasboy]

if ziegler cooper is worried about such things as density and urban villages, why does he make these horrible condo towers that are gated in away from the rest of the street life? they kind of need to swallow their own medicine.

[Houston19514]

I got it from a data analysis firm that was analyzing the census data from 2000 and released in 2002.

I was reading it at work in something from one of developer clients.

HGAC also has access for this data.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you referring to growth strictly within the city limits of Houston... inside the loop versus outside the loop? That MIGHT be believable. If you are referring to inside the loop versus all of suburban metropolitan Houston, I'm not buying it.... certainly not without more supporting evidence than you've given us so far. A link please? I'm begging you for a link. ;-)

[N Judah]

It's possible he's referring to growth rates and not the # of people. That would make more sense. I, too, have trouble believing it, as much as I would like it to be true.

[GovernorAggie]

I think he is talking about growth rates, but I remember a Chronicle article that said something similar a while back.

[kjb434]

It's growth rates people.

The amount of people that moved into the loop versus the existing population is a greater percentage than that areas outside of the loop.

[Houston19514]

It's growth rates people.

The amount of people that moved into the loop versus the existing population is a greater percentage than that areas outside of the loop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would have helped matters a bit had you said that the first time. ;-) Nevertheless, I would still love to see some supporting links, or at least some numbers to back this up.

[Dobiestud]

Density growth in Houston will be an ongoing thing for decades to come. Houston is by far one of the youngest cities, its infrastructure is only recently taking shape, and as we have seen in the past 10 years, multi-level residential units are now the norm, basically bringing 3-4x the number of people per unit land as before. There is however alot of vacant and unused urban land which will give room for many years of in town density growth. As our density rises, so does the tax base, and transporation services have to be planned now to handle multiple units of population per acre of land in the not too distant future.

Urban sprawl will continue, theres really nothing to stop it. Cheap and level land, little if any regulations, and tens of thousands of available acres in any direction outside of Houston sure makes for affordable housing, considering not every family can afford $400k townhomes! Job centers are also less concentrated than before, and employers tend to prefer cheaper out of town locations in many instances. Houston is still in its infancy, 10 more years and we'll get a much better picture of the years to come.

[Casual Observer]

Urban sprawl will continue, theres really nothing to stop it.