What's with all the suburb hate?

[IronTiger]

One of the things I've seen on HAIF is an animosity toward the suburbs (especially on the "How do we make Houston better" thread, despite the jest, I could see some dislike). Unfortunately, I can't really see where the hate is coming from. I can think of a few good reasons why inner-loopers may hate the suburbs and suburbanites:

1. Mostly rich white people.

2. Mostly McMansions.

3. Fine dining means (fill in chain restaurant)

4. They add traffic to the roads.

5. They think inner-loop Houston is crime-ridden and gross.

Personally, I think that suburbs are suburbs and the inner city is the inner city. Each has advantages and disadvantages but one isn't necessarily superior to the others. A sixth reason I can think of the "suburb hate" is that the suburbs were once real cities, real Texan towns a short distance away that lost their soul. Katy and Sugar Land are the prime examples of this. Katy, for instance, is named after the M-K-T railroad, nicknamed the Katy. In olden times, the railroad would chug through town on its way to Houston. Of course, in the 1990s that started to change. Katy started to grow like a virus with lots of mass-produced homes and today Katy is no more than a faceless suburb of which I-10 runs through. The MKT is still there, of course, but only as an industrial spur cut off by UP in 1997(?), cutting off before even Katy's city limits. Sugar Land is a second example: it once was a blue-collar town that manufactured, well, sugar! But now it only has the corporate headquarters of Imperial Sugar.

And finally, suburbs are good for Houston because they aren't sufficient enough to live on their own (The Woodlands is trying to avoid that) so they bring jobs and money into Houston. Conversely, look at Detroit, where the suburbs are doing far better than their inner-city counterpart.

You see where I'm going?...

[editor]

You see where I'm going?...

Yes. It looks like you're trying to stir up trouble.

It's enough to acknowledge that not everyone appreciates the environment where everyone else lives. It's just part of life.

This discussion has been brought up over and over again on HAIF. It's not unique to Houston. It happens everywhere. The solution, assuming it is even a problem, will not be found on HAIF.

[IronTiger]

Yes. It looks like you're trying to stir up trouble.

It's enough to acknowledge that not everyone appreciates the environment where everyone else lives. It's just part of life.

This discussion has been brought up over and over again on HAIF. It's not unique to Houston. It happens everywhere. The solution, assuming it is even a problem, will not be found on HAIF.

Despite a few other certain certain topics I have made, this was NOT made to call anybody out and was really an honest question.

But you are right, this will only lead to anger and posts designed to further destroy my reputation on HAIF. Maybe you should lock it before the regulars here tear it apart. I'd really appreciate that...

[Fringe]

I pretty much dismiss the suburb dissing on this site. It's just jealousy. 

[livincinco]

Despite a few other certain certain topics I have made, this was NOT made to call anybody out and was really an honest question.

But you are right, this will only lead to anger and posts designed to further destroy my reputation on HAIF. Maybe you should lock it before the regulars here tear it apart. I'd really appreciate that...

I think that it's just a general human intolerance for things that people don't understand. If I don't choose to live a particular lifestyle, then that lifestyle must be wrong. I find that Houston is pretty mild in terms of that kind of thought in comparison to other places that I've lived.

I find the whole discussion pretty entertaining actually.

[kylejack]

Personally, I think that suburbs are suburbs and the inner city is the inner city. Each has advantages and disadvantages but one isn't necessarily superior to the others.

I don't really put any thought to or care about which is superior. I hate one and I like the other because of various attributes.

[Subdude]

Forgive me for coming off like 'the Niche' but 'Define suburb!' Seriously, there is a huge range of areas that could be considered suburbs. To me suburbs like Sharpstown are quite different from large master planned communities in Pearland or Katy.

[AtticaFlinch]

Forgive me for coming off like 'the Niche' but 'Define suburb!' Seriously, there is a huge range of areas that could be considered suburbs. To me suburbs like Sharpstown are quite different from large master planned communities in Pearland or Katy.

I'd have to agree with this sentiment.

As an aside (and to IronTiger), don't you think it makes the most sense for people who post on a board ostensibly devoted to architecture in Houston that there'd be a bias against homogenized and poorly built houses flung far from the city?

[IronTiger]

As an aside (and to IronTiger), don't you think it makes the most sense for people who post on a board ostensibly devoted to architecture in Houston that there'd be a bias against homogenized and poorly built houses flung far from the city?

Sure. But you have to keep in mind that the HAIF is much, much, more than architecture in Houston. The fact is the HAIF is more than a Houston architecture forum, it is about Houston as a whole, Houston's outer loop neighborhoods, Houston's suburbs and neighborhoods beyond Beltway 8, and far-flung cities that still rely on Houston as an anchor city for the region (College Station-Bryan!)

Furthermore, I still stand by the fact that places like Sugar Land and Katy were once real, individual cities that "lost their soul".

And to The Niche, Subdude, I define a suburb as being a small city that surrounds (or is surrounded by) a much larger city, but still has a "post office" name and semi-independent jurisdiction. In this way, places like Sugar Land, Katy, Cypress, and even places like West University Place are "suburbs" but places like Greenspoint, Sharpstown, etc. are not. A third category is places like The Woodlands, or in some cases, The Village of Tiki Island. Those are strange ones that aren't suburbs but get named as such "The Woodlands, TX".

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Forgive me for coming off like 'the Niche' but 'Define suburb!' Seriously, there is a huge range of areas that could be considered suburbs. To me suburbs like Sharpstown are quite different from large master planned communities in Pearland or Katy.

The only difference is time, really.

Sharpstown was the "large master planned community" of its day.

The inner-loop neighborhood I live in would have been "the burbs" when it was built in the 40's; it was surrounded by cow pastures. (Hell, some folks still keep horses today.)

River Oaks was considered "out in the country" when it was developed in the early part of the 20th century. Many couldn't understand why anyone would ever want to live so far from Houston.

A funny, but true, statement is that many suburban developers are building "tomorrow's slums today". It's all a cycle. Sometime in the future we'll hear complaints about the gentrification of Kingwood or the Woodlands, I'm sure.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Original Timmy Chan's

[sevfiv]

Houston, because of its vastness, definitely deserves a more thorough explanation when it comes to suburbs. I prefer to describe the outer cities just as that - Sugar Land, Katy, Conroe, whatever. Then nearby places would be exurbs, then suburbs. I technically live in a suburb but I'm not outside the beltway. Hell, my parents technically live in a suburb but they're inside the loop.

The bad sentiments seem to come from the situation of Person 1 working downtown and driving 30+ miles to live in a larger tract home in an area that used to be farmland. The same thing happened 60 years ago - like Timmy Chan mentioned - but it was only a fraction of the mileage out, though the tract homes were more modest and the architecture generally more appealing (in my opinion). It's all relative, of course.

I think it is tied down more to lifestyle choices than anything. All the rest of the backlash is probably a failure to understand or ignorance of the situation.

Me, I don't hate on the distance thing because I don't know the situation. Maybe they live and work out there. Maybe it is a compromise of distance between a couple with jobs in different places.

The things I don't care for are usually design and architecture related because that is a constant. To be fair, though, there are plenty of non-goofy named older neighborhoods out in the exurbs, too..

[Simbha]

I agree with the sentiment behind the OP. I'll say that I much prefer to live "in" the city than in the burbs, but that's just a personal preference - not animosity.

Furthermore, I still stand by the fact that places like Sugar Land and Katy were once real, individual cities that "lost their soul".

Personally, I would LOVE it if Houston were a city that demonstrated urban elements (walkability, culture, population density, etc) in its city center and maintained the feel of smaller towns of olden days (quiet main street, connected communities/persons, etc) in its burbs. I think that Old Town Spring has/had this feeling, and I love it. What I don't care for (but obviously a lot of people do) are master plan communities with homogeneous housing and big-box retailers.

[20thStDad]

Well, I hate the excessively wide roads and traffic lights that are way worse than inner city ones.

[Subdude]

Just because people "hate" the suburbs for architecture and design related reasons doesn't mean they hate people who live there. Look, there are perfectly valid reasons to choose to live in a suburb, such as better schools etc.

[houstonmacbro]

Me, I don't hate on the distance thing because I don't know the situation. Maybe they live and work out there. Maybe it is a compromise of distance between a couple with jobs in different places.

I live where I do (FM 1960 area) because it is 5 miles from where I work. If I lived in the city, I'd have a 40+ roundtrip commute and probably more expensive housing. I don't hate on inner-city dwellers, but I often get "Why do you live way out there!?!" from people "in the city."

It's weird, but I believe people should live wherever they want and not feel obligated to explain their choices.

Similarly, it's a matter of perspective I guess. Even though I live in North Houston, I wouldn't dream of living "further out" (say The Woodlands, North Spring, 290 or even Conroe) but I know people that do and it's no big deal to me.

[TheNiche]

don't you think it makes the most sense for people who post on a board ostensibly devoted to architecture in Houston that there'd be a bias against homogenized and poorly built houses flung far from the city?

As opposed to what, the homogenized and poorly built stylistically-derivative multifamily buildings or the enclaves of McMansions built from off-the-shelf prints that pock-mark the inner city?

It's pretty much never about architecture for the haters on this forum. My observations are that it's about history (which is actually kind of absurd in many instances because old architecture is so frequently mistaken as a proxy for good architecture), it's about environmentalism and the notion that others should feel compelled to live near where they work (which is also kind of absurd in a city where the majority of the jobs are beyond the areas commonly thought of as "urban"), and it's about mostly-young relatively well-educated tech-savvy people without children hating on lifestyles that they haven't (and aren't expected to have) given serious contemplation towards yet. And sometimes we see subcultural influences come up, where a person can't be secure in their identity as a member of a group (or their identity as an individual in the context of various types of other individuals) if they don't live in a place that the group and/or type of other person defines as being acceptable...even if that results in a hardship to them.

Edited February 7, 2010 by TheNiche

[Simbha]

I live where I do (FM 1960 area) because it is 5 miles from where I work. If I lived in the city, I'd have a 40+ roundtrip commute and probably more expensive housing. I don't hate on inner-city dwellers, but I often get "Why do you live way out there!?!" from people "in the city."

It's weird, but I believe people should live wherever they want and not feel obligated to explain their choices.

Similarly, it's a matter of perspective I guess. Even though I live in North Houston, I wouldn't dream of living "further out" (say The Woodlands, North Spring, 290 or even Conroe) but I know people that do and it's no big deal to me.

I work in Westchase and (now) live inside the loop. Admittedly, that's not as far as 1960 but I prefer to live closer to the inner city and travel against the traffic jams. I used to live in Meyerland, which I thought was closer to my office (and may be as the crow flies), but now I just hop on 59 and take the Westpark Tollway over to the office; now my commute's actually shorter due to the convenience of that tollway. I may be one of only 20 people in the city that can use the Westpark Tollway 'optimally'. Plus, my wife is in a long-term grad program at UH now, so this is more convenient for her.

That's NOT to say that, if my family/work situation were any different, I'd not live in the suburbs. But, in my case, this would require getting a different spouse; this one has stated with absolute certainty that she will not live in what is now the suburbs of Houston.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Simbha

[Simbha]

Sure. But you have to keep in mind that the HAIF is much, much, more than architecture in Houston. The fact is the HAIF is more than a Houston architecture forum, it is about Houston as a whole, Houston's outer loop neighborhoods, Houston's suburbs and neighborhoods beyond Beltway 8, and far-flung cities that still rely on Houston as an anchor city for the region (College Station-Bryan!)

Furthermore, I still stand by the fact that places like Sugar Land and Katy were once real, individual cities that "lost their soul".

And to The Niche, Subdude, I define a suburb as being a small city that surrounds (or is surrounded by) a much larger city, but still has a "post office" name and semi-independent jurisdiction. In this way, places like Sugar Land, Katy, Cypress, and even places like West University Place are "suburbs" but places like Greenspoint, Sharpstown, etc. are not. A third category is places like The Woodlands, or in some cases, The Village of Tiki Island. Those are strange ones that aren't suburbs but get named as such "The Woodlands, TX".

Can't say that I agree with your definition, IronTiger. I certainly wouldn't classify West U (or, presumably as you would, Bellaire) as 'suburb'. But, I guess that's just my own bias.

[AtticaFlinch]

As opposed to what, the homogenized and poorly built stylistically-derivative multifamily buildings or the enclaves of McMansions built from off-the-shelf prints that pock-mark the inner city?

Pock-mark is the operative word here. If homogeneity is a pimple inside 610, it's a rash at best or small-pox at worst outside the beltway and farther beyond 6/1960. Most housing stock built after a certain time period lacks (for lack of a better word) character. I'd put that time period around the mid-70s to mid-80s, though perhaps you can pinpoint a date with far greater accuracy than I. Not coincidentally, that's also about the same time suburbs went from being inspired by the Levittown model with higher density and gridded streets to the master planned communities a la Friendswood or the Woodlands. Examples of the Levittown model in Houston are in great abundance here and easily include areas like Bellaire and Sharpstown, and frankly, I have no problems with that type of 'burb. I recognize the architecture doesn't break any new ground in those 'burbs either, but there's at least the pretension of distinctiveness that the cookie-cutter homes in Copperfield cannot come close to replicating. For all the design improvements in the newer type 'burbs, when your next door neighbor's house is an exact replica of your own, prehaps with a different color coat of paint but identical nonetheless, homogeneity reigns. And it sucks.

It's pretty much never about architecture for the haters on this forum. My observations are that it's about history (which is actually kind of absurd in many instances because old architecture is so frequently mistaken as a proxy for good architecture), it's about environmentalism and the notion that others should feel compelled to live near where they work (which is also kind of absurd in a city where the majority of the jobs are beyond the areas commonly thought of as "urban"), and it's about mostly-young relatively well-educated tech-savvy people without children hating on lifestyles that they haven't (and aren't expected to have) given serious contemplation towards yet. And sometimes we see subcultural influences come up, where a person can't be secure in their identity as a member of a group (or their identity as an individual in the context of various types of other individuals) if they don't live in a place that the group and/or type of other person defines as being acceptable...even if that results in a hardship to them.

I'd say your observations that it's actually about history are right on. I oversimplified my point-of-view in an effort to condense it into one sentence. I also didn't take the time to clarify my opinion regarding the various types of suburbs/exurbs/outlying communities. I'm one of those young(er) people who currently live in the loop for reasons closer to the ones you just highlighted, though probably not for much longer. With an expanding family and a need for a space larger than the two-bedroom condo in which I currently live, I pretty much don't have a choice but to move out to the 'burbs. It's just more sensible economically. I work in the 'burbs, so I may as well live in the 'burbs. Even still, I refuse to live in a house that looks like this:

That's in Richmod, btw... another outlying city that's turned into a series of master-planned communities.

[TheNiche]

Pock-mark is the operative word here. If homogeneity is a pimple inside 610, it's a rash at best or small-pox at worst outside the beltway and farther beyond 6/1960. Most housing stock built after a certain time period lacks (for lack of a better word) character. I'd put that time period around the mid-70s to mid-80s, though perhaps you can pinpoint a date with far greater accuracy than I. Not coincidentally, that's also about the same time suburbs went from being inspired by the Levittown model with higher density and gridded streets to the master planned communities a la Friendswood or the Woodlands. Examples of the Levittown model in Houston are in great abundance here and easily include areas like Bellaire and Sharpstown, and frankly, I have no problems with that type of 'burb. I recognize the architecture doesn't break any new ground in those 'burbs either, but there's at least the pretension of distinctiveness that the cookie-cutter homes in Copperfield cannot come close to replicating. For all the design improvements in the newer type 'burbs, when your next door neighbor's house is an exact replica of your own, prehaps with a different color coat of paint but identical nonetheless, homogeneity reigns. And it sucks.

West U, Bellaire, Rice Military, and significant portions of Montrose can now be characterized as I did earlier. Perhaps "pock-marked" wasn't the right word. Parts of the inner loop have been so completely transformed that "localized rash" might be applicable. West U, in particular, would be unrecognizable to someone who lived there even 15 years ago. And anywhere that there's been a reasonably large tract, homogeneity has run amok (horrifying case in point, the old Markle Steel site).

As for homogeneity of the ages, I'd submit to you that whenever at any point in our history there's been a compelling reason to build new housing for people of few means, poorly-built homogeneity reins supreme. Only, you don't see much evidence of that before WW2 because so much has already been knocked down; we mostly just see evidence of the former upper-middle and upper classes and are thereby led to believe that they had better taste back then. Then you get into post-war structures, and I'd have to say that the worst offenders are the Levitown-like subdivisions. That was an era where poorly-built homogeneity was taken to a whole new level; there was now mass production, they started building on slabs that are all too often un-reinforced, they started to frame out houses with yellow pine instead of hardwoods, and building codes hadn't yet caught up. By the late 1960's, population growth rates were starting to decline and most cities were large enough that an influx of poor people merely took the older subdivisions and the middle- or upper-classes took on the mantle of buyers of new homes. This was the beginning of white flight. Higher interest rates persisted for a good long while, too, so that was part of the calculus. Once again, most of the new for-sale housing stock from an era reflected the buying power of people with means (and to the extent that it did not, witness the vast cluster of forgettable condos near the Astrodome). Mass production stayed with us though, because urban populations were large enough to support it; and that'll never go away for as long as a reasonably large tract can be developed, pretty much anywhere in or out of the city. Then, in the mid- and late-1990's as interest rates continued to decline and the political and regulatory environment shifted towards being friendly to home buyers, people of few means once again were able to buy crappy new homes. It started as a trickle, and ended with...Copperfield. I wish that I could say that we won't witness that again any time soon, but I don't think that anybody in politics is serious about de-incentivizing the purchase of crappy houses.

But the one common thread in all of this historical context is that housing built for poor people sucks. It always has. When you get right down to it, the lack of mass production, the postage-stamp-sized lots, and the existence of street grids makes Eastwood comparable to the new West U in many respects. Each neighborhood was built (or re-built, respectively) over a matter of decades, each features mostly custom homes that are exemplary of only a handful of different styles, and Eastwood has deed restrictions to keep out businesses while West U has zoning. They're the same neighborhoods from different eras.

And bear in mind that Eastwood was the first "master planned community". Although the limited size of the market precluded a development at the scale of The Woodlands, that was the idea behind it. I'd think it fair to say that Eastwood is to The Woodlands as Magnolia Park is to Copperfield. And The Woodlands and Copperfield have very little in common beyond that they happen to have been developed during the same period of time.

[JLWM8609]

Given the discussion about outlying towns changing their identity from distinct communities outside of Houston to now being suburbs of Houston, a Chronicle article today about the Stewart and Stevenson plant in Sealy referred to Sealy as suburban Houston. Interesting that the point 1/4th of the way to San Antonio is now considered a suburb, or else the writer didn't know how to use the word "rural" to describe the area.

[N Judah]

Is it possible that there is a better economic model of increasing tax revenue than public debt financing of freeways and the suburban lifestyle?

Edited February 14, 2010 by N Judah

[Hanuman]

homogeneity is a pimple inside 610, it's a rash at best or small-pox at worst outside the beltway and farther beyond 6/1960. Most housing stock built after a certain time period lacks (for lack of a better word) character.

Even still, I refuse to live in a house that looks like this:

That's in Richmod, btw... another outlying city that's turned into a series of master-planned communities.

I have this one for sale! Lots of personality, and charming neighborhood. Plenty of room for a pool. Buy this week, and get a free room of furniture from Mattress Mac !!!

[AtticaFlinch]

I have this one for sale! Lots of personality, and charming neighborhood. Plenty of room for a pool. Buy this week, and get a free room of furniture from Mattress Mac !!!

I'm all about it, and throwing in that free room of furniture from Gallery makes it even more tempting, but something tells me the free room will be the bathroom and the furniture will all have a faint smokey odor.

Besides that, something tells me my wife wouldn't care for the house too much. She's quirky like that. There's something about chairs on the ceiling that doesn't sit too well with her.

[livincinco]

Given the discussion about outlying towns changing their identity from distinct communities outside of Houston to now being suburbs of Houston, a Chronicle article today about the Stewart and Stevenson plant in Sealy referred to Sealy as suburban Houston. Interesting that the point 1/4th of the way to San Antonio is now considered a suburb, or else the writer didn't know how to use the word "rural" to describe the area.

Since the piece was about how the Houston area was losing 3,000 jobs, they had to refer to Sealy as part of Houston. Probably wouldn't connect with too many people if they called the article "3000 jobs to be lost in that rural area that you drive through at 80 mph on your way to San Antonio."

[TheNiche]

Given the discussion about outlying towns changing their identity from distinct communities outside of Houston to now being suburbs of Houston, a Chronicle article today about the Stewart and Stevenson plant in Sealy referred to Sealy as suburban Houston. Interesting that the point 1/4th of the way to San Antonio is now considered a suburb, or else the writer didn't know how to use the word "rural" to describe the area.

It was just a Chronicle flub. Don't bother reading anything into it.

[KinkaidAlum]

Sealy is in Austin County. Austin County is a part of the Houston-Baytown-SugarLand metropolitan area. Sealy is about 4.5 miles from Brookshire and only about 9 miles from Cinco Ranch and other parts of the greater Katy area. It is most definitely a suburb.

[TheNiche]

Sealy is in Austin County. Austin County is a part of the Houston-Baytown-SugarLand metropolitan area. Sealy is about 4.5 miles from Brookshire and only about 9 miles from Cinco Ranch and other parts of the greater Katy area. It is most definitely a suburb.

The Census has definitions for rural and urban areas, but does not include in its extensive glossary any official terms such as suburb or exurb.

Furthermore:

"Geographic entities, such as census tracts, counties, metropolitan areas, and the territory outside metropolitan areas, often are "split" between urban and rural territory, and the population and housing units they contain often are partly classified as urban and partly classified as rural."

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

No portion of Sealy meets the criteria to be considered an "urban area" according to Census standards.

[august948]

Sealy is in Austin County. Austin County is a part of the Houston-Baytown-SugarLand metropolitan area. Sealy is about 4.5 miles from Brookshire and only about 9 miles from Cinco Ranch and other parts of the greater Katy area. It is most definitely a suburb.

I'd say Sealy is more like an exurb than a suburb. It's close enough for people to live there and commute to Houston proper, but far enough away to still retain it's character (whatever that may be).

[little frau]

Sealy is in Austin County. Austin County is a part of the Houston-Baytown-SugarLand metropolitan area. Sealy is about 4.5 miles from Brookshire and only about 9 miles from Cinco Ranch and other parts of the greater Katy area. It is most definitely a suburb.

s

Sealy is more like 15 miles from Brookshire, at least on I-10.