livincinco Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 and this is why Houston annexed Kingwood and Clear Lake, and will eventually grab the outer 290 areas I think that's one of the key differences between Houston and Detroit. Both Detroit and Houston had signature industries that went through hard times. Detroit was rigid and drove other industry into suburbs which were outside of its tax base. It also drove its key industry to other parts of the country by not adjusting to the changes. Houston annexed suburban areas that were developing other industry and encouraged diversification inside the city so that it retained a solid tax base. It was flexible in supporting the growth and evolution of its key industry. Discussion of the amount of rail is noise. I understand why cities like this are recreating themselves as "new urban" centers. They have to do something to differentiate themselves and draw population. Detroit, Pittsburgh and other "rust belt" cities have lost population for decades now. How do you start to draw people back? You create a different experience for them then what they receive in other cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 The Rust Belt cities from Detroit to St. Louis, weren't afforded the luxury of annexation and as a result were hemmed in while the suburbs thrived. But Detroit has a bigger problem than that. The riots in 1967 were spun into a race issue, and having a mayor that branded every white family that moved to the suburbs a racist didn't help much. You also had unions who were stuck in the past when it came to new foreign competition, and a legacy of corruption stretching for decades.And you're talking about not having a light rail that caused them to be where they are now. Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 So basically the premise here is that lack of rail drove businesses to the suburbs which caused the decline of urban Detroit. Pretty thoroughly discredited, but I did find the following interesting. Following are the end of year 2012 occupancy rates for the five largest downtowns in Texas. Interesting that Dallas is the only one that has invested significantly in rail to connect the suburbs to downtown yet it has the lowest occupancy rate by a large margin. I'll admit that this surprised me. Thoughts? Fort Worth - 92%Austin - 88%Houston - 87%San Antonio - 82%Dallas - 73% http://news.yahoo.com/downtown-fort-worth-healthiest-office-market-texas-165300521.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 So basically the premise here is that lack of rail drove businesses to the suburbs which caused the decline of urban Detroit. Pretty thoroughly discredited, but I did find the following interesting. Following are the end of year 2012 occupancy rates for the five largest downtowns in Texas. Interesting that Dallas is the only one that has invested significantly in rail to connect the suburbs to downtown yet it has the lowest occupancy rate by a large margin.I'll admit that this surprised me. Thoughts? Fort Worth - 92%Austin - 88%Houston - 87%San Antonio - 82%Dallas - 73%http://news.yahoo.com/downtown-fort-worth-healthiest-office-market-texas-165300521.htmlHouston's is above 87% right now. Closer to 100%. Also the suburbs of Detroit definitely had a huge effect on the decline of Detroit. Ask anyone that lived in Detroit and they'll admit the same. Whether rail had an extra effect is open for discussion but the author makes an interesting point that when people have the ability to get around easy based on a public transit infrastructure that's helpful in tough economic times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Houston's is above 87% right now. Closer to 100%. Also the suburbs of Detroit definitely had a huge effect on the decline of Detroit. Ask anyone that lived in Detroit and they'll admit the same. Whether rail had an extra effect is open for discussion but the author makes an interesting point that when people have the ability to get around easy based on a public transit infrastructure that's helpful in tough economic times.Those are end of year 2012 numbers. My point was that Dallas is the lowest of the five major downtowns by a significant amount despite the largest amount of rail which should theoretically push more businesses to downtown. If Houston's downtown numbers have continued to improve that just reinforces the point because I understand that Dallas' numbers have not improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Whether rail had an extra effect is open for discussion... No, it really isn't open for discussion. There is absolutely no empirical data suggesting Detroit's demise is related to a lack of rail transit. None. Only a single rail fanatic has suggested it. Even you are clearly keeping your distance from that opinion. I am a rail fan, but I am realistic about it. That blogger is an example of being completely blinded by rail lust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Isn't Fort Worth served nearly 20 times a day by the Trinity Express commuter train? Doesn't that train connect to DART's light rail system? Doesn't the Trinity Express make stops in several suburban locations between Dallas and Fort Worth as well as at DFW Airport? Didn't Fort Worth build a new intermodal transit center for the Trinity Express? Doesn't that center also have daily train service to Oklahoma City (Heartland Express)? Doesn't it also serve Amtrak's daily Texas Eagle Train? Also, last time I was in Austin, I was pretty sure I saw a light rail line running through downtown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 Those are end of year 2012 numbers. My point was that Dallas is the lowest of the five major downtowns by a significant amount despite the largest amount of rail which should theoretically push more businesses to downtown. If Houston's downtown numbers have continued to improve that just reinforces the point because I understand that Dallas' numbers have not improved.The problem with DART is that it's eat to get in an out of town but not easy to get around town once you get in. That's why Houston's plan if it's built will make it easier to travel within the city with commuter links built afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 It's dubious to me that investing in light rail in Dallas is a cause of high vacancy rates. Houston is investing in three lines to go downtown and their vacancy rate isn't rising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 It's dubious to me that ifactors atg in light rail in Dallas is a cause of high vacancy rates. Houston is investing in three lines to go downtown and their vacancy rate isn't rising. Not implying that at all. What I'm implying is that there doesn't seem to be a strong coorelation between the amount of light rail and downtown office occupancy rates. Dallas invested heavily in light rail and that does not appear to have increased the number of businesses that choose to locate downtown. There are certainly other factors at play, but it definitely isn't what I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Not implying that at all. What I'm implying is that there doesn't seem to be a strong coorelation between the amount of light rail and downtown office occupancy rates. Dallas invested heavily in light rail and that does not appear to have increased the number of businesses that choose to locate downtown. There are certainly other factors at play, but it definitely isn't what I expected. I will say that Dallas is getting an increasingly vibrant street level scene downtown and in the surrounding areas though. So while the office buildings might not be occupied with major firms, there's plenty of business in the area from a retail standpoint. Not sure what their investment in light rail has to do with it, if anything, but it certainly doesn't hurt. In regards to the OP, the proposed light rail line in Detroit will most likely spark some sort of rejuvenation along the corridor over the next few decades, making the area a more desirable place to live. However Detroit's problems are much bigger than poor quality of life on one major street, lol. There are lots of cities with poor public transportation that are doing fine. The posted article is pretty laughable IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed_Tx Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I am a rail fan, but I am realistic about it. That blogger is an example of being completely blinded by rail lust. Detroit already has a rail system- the People Mover is pretty cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Detroit already has a rail system- the People Mover is pretty cool LOL, that thing is a joke, not sure how or why that thing got built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativehoustonion Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Oh please it's a ugly miserable city. They should have diversified their economy 20 years ago. I still would like to go to that Pawn Shop there with all the hootchies go and take pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.