One Park Place: Multifamily At 1400 McKinney St.

[Jax]

Interesting. I figured that if it was a CM that it would have to be scaled down, but I guess if HEB doesn't do that then it's unlikely. I'd still like to see a new CM in Houston closer to my hood some day.

I've been in a scaled down Whole Foods in Manhattan and it was very nice (and very expensive). I'd be happy to see one of those downtown as well. I guess the residents of a place like this probably won't complain about the prices as much as I do.

I like Central Market better because they have more coupons and some things are actually pretty reasonably priced considering it's a fancy store (I find orange juice and yogurt are often cheaper than Fiesta for example).

[crunchtastic]

Exactly. If you're paying $2,500 a month in rent, what's a $2 piece of fruit.

But if I were Whole Foods and had their experience with smaller stores in urban neighborhoods, I would not like the current downtown demographics enough to go into OPP. I bet it's another retailer entirely.

[totheskies]

Exactly. If you're paying $2,500 a month in rent, what's a $2 piece of fruit.

But if I were Whole Foods and had their experience with smaller stores in urban neighborhoods, I would not like the current downtown demographics enough to go into OPP. I bet it's another retailer entirely.

Do you think Urban Market (in Dallas) is thinking about coming here? or possibly Trader Joe's?

[kylejack]

I heard it is going to be Central Market, don't know if it is true, but that is the rumor I heard. It makes sense due to the fact that Fingers was doing the other development off of W. Dallas that more than likely is not going to break ground and they had a lease agreement with Central Market.

Let's see if it pans out.

I live just SE of the Hilton and Toyota Center, so if this is true, I will consider myself to have hit the jackpot. Do you know how miserable it is living in the East End and your best choices are the ratty Kroger on Cullen or the pricy and somewhat distant Randall's in Midtown? Please please please let this be true.

[crunchtastic]

I live just SE of the Hilton and Toyota Center, so if this is true, I will consider myself to have hit the jackpot. Do you know how miserable it is living in the East End and your best choices are the ratty Kroger on Cullen or the pricy and somewhat distant Randall's in Midtown? Please please please let this be true.

It is not 'somewhat distant' from where you are to the midtown Randall's. Since when is a mile and half distant, or a hardship? If not having high-end groceries within a half mile is a hardship, then 99% of the metro is suffering. Funny how I don't hear them whining.

[totheskies]

I live just SE of the Hilton and Toyota Center, so if this is true, I will consider myself to have hit the jackpot. Do you know how miserable it is living in the East End and your best choices are the ratty Kroger on Cullen or the pricy and somewhat distant Randall's in Midtown? Please please please let this be true.

Take the 3!! You can catch it in downtown, and it'll drop you off right at the West Gray Kroger.

http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdf...angleywgray.pdf

The 81/82 will take a bit longer, but if you're needing to get to Central Market, it'll drop you right off.

http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdf...-sharpstown.pdf

[LTAWACS]

I live just SE of the Hilton and Toyota Center, so if this is true, I will consider myself to have hit the jackpot. Do you know how miserable it is living in the East End and your best choices are the ratty Kroger on Cullen or the pricy and somewhat distant Randall's in Midtown? Please please please let this be true.

Just take your truck.

[20thStDad]

I didn't read through all 800 posts to check, but does anyone else think OPP looks incredibly similar to that building (hotel?) on the SW corner of I-10 and west loop?

[woolie]

I take the train to the TMC from Midtown. It's faster and cheaper than driving and parking.

But yes. No one will take transit unless it's quantitatively better than private auto (as it is in my case.) And Mosaic is an amateur job on a shit site. I know better than anyone on this forum because I lived on a property adjacent to the site for 4 years.

Niche is thankfully a reality-based participant in these discussions, but I think that he sees urban vs. suburban as merely an aesthetic choice, instead of something that will ultimately be driven by more concrete factors as the suburbs (and the lifestyle choices they represent/require) become less sustainable and more expensive. American cities are going to be dragged into a more urban future, with or without consent. I think it's wise to start planning for this new reality now, while it's relatively easy to do so.

[TheNiche]

I take the train to the TMC from Midtown. It's faster and cheaper than driving and parking.

But yes. No one will take transit unless it's quantitatively better than private auto (as it is in my case.) And Mosaic is an amateur job on a shit site. I know better than anyone on this forum because I lived on a property adjacent to the site for 4 years.

Niche is thankfully a reality-based participant in these discussions, but I think that he sees urban vs. suburban as merely an aesthetic choice, instead of something that will ultimately be driven by more concrete factors as the suburbs (and the lifestyle choices they represent/require) become less sustainable and more expensive. American cities are going to be dragged into a more urban future, with or without consent. I think it's wise to start planning for this new reality now, while it's relatively easy to do so.

On the contrary, I see a suburban growth trend in the context of that the majority of jobs are located there (and are going there) and that people will prefer to live either closer to where they work or where they play. I actually discount aesthetics almost in their entirely; it's not that there aren't people that are driven by that consideration, myself among them, just that they are a rare breed.

It isn't clear to me that an urban future is inevitable. Part of the equation is the geography of job creation; and part of it too is that many new jobs aren't tied down by geography. As telecommuting becomes more commonplace, what's to keep people in metropolitan areas at all? Who is to say that society will not tilt in a more anti-social direction, rejecting entirely the archetypal notion as cities being a place for the avant garde intellectuals to gather and mull about? Why bother with such antiquated notions when you can enjoy a private view of the Christmas Mountains of west Texas and still earn six figures? And then what happens when that 30,000-acre ranch next door gets subdivided into ranchettes for people that want the same lifestyle? ...but that's a view to the long run.

In the immediate term, I simply respect other people's decisions whether they abide by my preference or not. There are certainly compelling economic arguments for people who buy homes in the suburbs. Not everyone believes in peak oil, and as I pointed out earlier some people in suburbs actually live much closer to where they work than they ever could living in an urban or quasi-urban environment. I begrudge them nothing.

[totheskies]

On the contrary, I see a suburban growth trend in the context of that the majority of jobs are located there (and are going there) and that people will prefer to live either closer to where they work or where they play. I actually discount aesthetics almost in their entirely; it's not that there aren't people that are driven by that consideration, myself among them, just that they are a rare breed.

It isn't clear to me that an urban future is inevitable. Part of the equation is the geography of job creation; and part of it too is that many new jobs aren't tied down by geography. As telecommuting becomes more commonplace, what's to keep people in metropolitan areas at all? Who is to say that society will not tilt in a more anti-social direction, rejecting entirely the archetypal notion as cities being a place for the avant garde intellectuals to gather and mull about?

But (like the other areas) the inner loop is growing too... the Medical Center is nearly doubling its size right now, and there's significant expansion on all of the University campuses. There are some boomtown areas like Memorial City and the Energy corridor, but I wouldn't say that Central Houston isn't lacking in employment growth. Beyond that, there are still plenty of reasons to live in the center city... it just depends on the type of person you are. If your idea of a fun night out is Buffalo Wild Wings and Slick Willies, nearly any old corner of the metro will do for you. But there is a community (and I believe a growing community) in Houston that prefers to live close to major sporting events, the Arts, museums, and all of the other things that the central city can offer. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it will take a very long time for a Sugar Land or Kingwood to compete with these advantages of inner loop Houston.

Why bother with such antiquated notions when you can enjoy a private view of the Christmas Mountains of west Texas and still earn six figures? And then what happens when that 30,000-acre ranch next door gets subdivided into ranchettes for people that want the same lifestyle? ...but that's a view to the long run.

LOL... Mountains are kinda scary. I don't think I'd want to look at them EVERY day.

Telecommuting has revolutionized the way that most of us work. For this reason, I believe that leisure is going to increase as a factor for where people live. If you only have to show your face at the office once a month, you don't really have to worry about commute costs. IMO, the suburbs biggest advantage is the top-tier school systems. There's just no comparison between HISD and (insert district here) suburb. If I knew my kid was going to have a better shot at going to college, I'd probably put up with CincHO Ranch too.

In the immediate term, I simply respect other people's decisions whether they abide by my preference or not. There are certainly compelling economic arguments for people who buy homes in the suburbs. Not everyone believes in peak oil, and as I pointed out earlier some people in suburbs actually live much closer to where they work than they ever could living in an urban or quasi-urban environment. I begrudge them nothing.

[TheNiche]

But (like the other areas) the inner loop is growing too... the Medical Center is nearly doubling its size right now, and there's significant expansion on all of the University campuses. There are some boomtown areas like Memorial City and the Energy corridor, but I wouldn't say that Central Houston isn't lacking in employment growth.

Central Houston is indeed growing its employment base. ...but as visually impactful as that process is, there is also a tremendous level of low-rise development occurring outside of the urban core that most people are so provincial as to never notice unless they happen to live there.

Beyond that, there are still plenty of reasons to live in the center city... it just depends on the type of person you are. If your idea of a fun night out is Buffalo Wild Wings and Slick Willies, nearly any old corner of the metro will do for you. But there is a community (and I believe a growing community) in Houston that prefers to live close to major sporting events, the Arts, museums, and all of the other things that the central city can offer. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it will take a very long time for a Sugar Land or Kingwood to compete with these advantages of inner loop Houston.

LOL... Mountains are kinda scary. I don't think I'd want to look at them EVERY day.

Telecommuting has revolutionized the way that most of us work. For this reason, I believe that leisure is going to increase as a factor for where people live. If you only have to show your face at the office once a month, you don't really have to worry about commute costs. IMO, the suburbs biggest advantage is the top-tier school systems. There's just no comparison between HISD and (insert district here) suburb. If I knew my kid was going to have a better shot at going to college, I'd probably put up with CincHO Ranch too.

The problem with relying on affluent mostly-white people as a justification for urban growth is that they are a stagnant population. They are an invasive species which once they have decided on a preferred habitat proceeds to displace all other creatures from it (except for cats); however most of them are infertile and the species is therefore considered endangered. The nature of their species is such that they do not socialize outside of it yet cannot even acknowledge the existence of other species (such as those that they are displacing) as distinct from them, as doing either would be considered a serious social faux pas which might preclude them from non-reproductive sex. Therefore, as the population density of their species increases within a given habitat, individuals are led to believe that their species is flourishing, growing by leaps and bounds...when it is in fact only being shuffled around.

Among those rare few of the species that are biologically fertile, fertility only occurs once several prerequisites have been met. For instance, whereas a 1,600 square foot townhome would be adequate for a mating pair of the species, at least 1,000 square feet of additional enclosed living area per child is considered necessary to ensure the health and well-being of the offspring. Other prerequisites include a plot of St. Augustine grass, granite counter tops (Formica will not do), a massive island in the kitchen, top of the line name-brand appliances including a commercial-grade refrigerator, tall privacy fences, and a lot fronting a dead-end street. Also necessary are elementary schools without inferior forms of life. Few of these affluent mostly-white species can afford such a lifestyle, except in their traditional birthing grounds, and so they grudgingly relocate, quite possibly never to return in their lifetime to their species' romping grounds except shamefully by way of a 15-minute ride in a minivan. They will die there, firmly believing that their immortality is secured by their offspring even though a greater and greater proportion of affluent mostly-white offspring turn out to be infertile with each successive generation.

[brian0123]

Among those rare few of the species that are biologically fertile, fertility only occurs once several prerequisites have been met. For instance, whereas a 1,600 square foot townhome would be adequate for a mating pair of the species, at least 1,000 square feet of additional enclosed living area per child is considered necessary to ensure the health and well-being of the offspring. Other prerequisites include a plot of St. Augustine grass, granite counter tops (Formica will not do), a massive island in the kitchen, top of the line name-brand appliances including a commercial-grade refrigerator, tall privacy fences, and a lot fronting a dead-end street. Also necessary are elementary schools without inferior forms of life. Few of these affluent mostly-white species can afford such a lifestyle, except in their traditional birthing grounds, and so they grudgingly relocate, quite possibly never to return in their lifetime to their species' romping grounds except shamefully by way of a 15-minute ride in a minivan. They will die there, firmly believing that their immortality is secured by their offspring even though a greater and greater proportion of affluent mostly-white offspring turn out to be infertile with each successive generation.

Thanks for the laugh Niche! Although I must have some genetic mutation that has made me different from my species... My wife and I plan on raising our future kids in our townhouse in Midtown. In all seriousness (just like totheskies described) we prefer living near Museums, art galleries, sporting events, theaters, parks, zoo, etc.

[totheskies]

Central Houston is indeed growing its employment base. ...but as visually impactful as that process is, there is also a tremendous level of low-rise development occurring outside of the urban core that most people are so provincial as to never notice unless they happen to live there.

The problem with relying on affluent mostly-white people as a justification for urban growth is that they are a stagnant population. They are an invasive species which once they have decided on a preferred habitat proceeds to displace all other creatures from it (except for cats); however most of them are infertile and the species is therefore considered endangered. The nature of their species is such that they do not socialize outside of it yet cannot even acknowledge the existence of other species (such as those that they are displacing) as distinct from them, as doing either would be considered a serious social faux pas which might preclude them from non-reproductive sex. Therefore, as the population density of their species increases within a given habitat, individuals are led to believe that their species is flourishing, growing by leaps and bounds...when it is in fact only being shuffled around.

Among those rare few of the species that are biologically fertile, fertility only occurs once several prerequisites have been met. For instance, whereas a 1,600 square foot townhome would be adequate for a mating pair of the species, at least 1,000 square feet of additional enclosed living area per child is considered necessary to ensure the health and well-being of the offspring. Other prerequisites include a plot of St. Augustine grass, granite counter tops (Formica will not do), a massive island in the kitchen, top of the line name-brand appliances including a commercial-grade refrigerator, tall privacy fences, and a lot fronting a dead-end street. Also necessary are elementary schools without inferior forms of life. Few of these affluent mostly-white species can afford such a lifestyle, except in their traditional birthing grounds, and so they grudgingly relocate, quite possibly never to return in their lifetime to their species' romping grounds except shamefully by way of a 15-minute ride in a minivan. They will die there, firmly believing that their immortality is secured by their offspring even though a greater and greater proportion of affluent mostly-white offspring turn out to be infertile with each successive generation.

Nadia Sulyeman... problem solved.

[RedScare]

Telecommuting has revolutionized the way that most of us work. For this reason, I believe that leisure is going to increase as a factor for where people live. If you only have to show your face at the office once a month, you don't really have to worry about commute costs.

Ha! I thought this myth died with the first round of Starbucks closings. Not only are we not going to be a nation of once a month at the office workers (too many lazy people need supervising), but telecommuting does not increase leisure time, just as cell phones and email have not. It INCREASES the amount of time that one works, due to the fact that work has now invaded your home.

[20thStDad]

I didn't read through all 800 posts to check, but does anyone else think OPP looks incredibly similar to that building (hotel?) on the SW corner of I-10 and west loop?

Yes that was incredibly vague, I mean this place at 777 N Post Oak, which is apparently a sweet retirement home. Forgive the crappy google street view screen shot.

[citizen4rmptown]

I agree, but we can all say OPP is bigger and better!

[N Judah]

Small towns have been experiencing a resurgence and cities with strong neighborhoods that can replicate a small-town feel (which excludes Houston and its suburbs) will do well too. This is the result of telecommuting. People with real options never choose the suburbs, except as a compromise. When we build freeways to the suburbs it's like subsidizing someone else's midlife crisis.

[TheNiche]

Small towns have been experiencing a resurgence and cities with strong neighborhoods that can replicate a small-town feel (which excludes Houston and its suburbs) will do well too. This is the result of telecommuting.

I would contend that the resurgence of small towns is more the result of an exodus of new retirees out of the cities and suburbs, along with people willing to take on extreme commutes, the trend towards companies offering a 10-hour workday 4 days per week, and up until recently that rural land prices were jacked up to the extent that land use patterns were shifting from agricultural to recreational or residential oriented at a wealthier demographic.

...way down on that list is telecommuting.

People with real options never choose the suburbs, except as a compromise.

When is any kind of major lifestyle choice not a compromise? Every decision carries with it an opportunity cost. The important thing is that it was the optimal decision for that individual or household.

When we build freeways to the suburbs it's like subsidizing someone else's midlife crisis.

I have three basic problems with that statement: 1) When my parents moved to downtown Galveston a couple years ago, it was to satisfy my dad's own midlife crisis; it seems entirely unclear that a midlife crisis is going to cause people to move to the suburbs. 2) Suburban residents could hold the exact same point of view as you do about projects that serve urban areas and not their own. They pay taxes, too, after all, and in aggregate they actually pay quite a bit more. Their point of view would be provincial, but then so is yours. 3) I would agree that the system that we have in place to finance freeway construction could be tweaked so as to more equitably direct funds in such a way as that the infrastructure serves the neighborhoods that paid for them. However I would also point out that easing access between the suburbs and the city allows urban employers to draw from a larger labor pool, making the urban core more desirable for new businesses. And those new businesses contribute to the economic vitality of urban areas. Transportation infrastructure is not necessarily a zero-sum game.

[N Judah]

I didn't mean literally subsidizing someone's midlife crisis, I said it's LIKE subsidizing someone's midlife crisis. People who live in the suburbs are people who had a dream of living somewhere else but couldn't execute. Now we all had to pay so that they could have their grassy plot of land. Living in the mountains sounds great, but not everyone does it.

I would hope suburbanites pay more taxes. We gave them trillions of dollars in lifestyle subsidies -- I'd hate to think that they had nothing to show for it.

[JasonDFW]

I guarantee you that a "rich" person in Houston does not and will not ever take public transportation in Houston unless one thing changes. That change would be if the public transportation system was more reliable and FASTER than a private automobile.

I have a rich (top ~1.5%) friend in Houston that takes the bus. He enjoys being able to concentrate on something other than driving. He's in the oil business too, he's not trying to save the earth or anything.

Jason

[TheNiche]

I didn't mean literally subsidizing someone's midlife crisis, I said it's LIKE subsidizing someone's midlife crisis. People who live in the suburbs are people who had a dream of living somewhere else but couldn't execute. Now we all had to pay so that they could have their plot of land.

That's a gross generalization. There are vastly different preferences even among households with similar consumption patterns given their budgetary limits.

Living in the mountains sounds great, but not everyone does it.

Living on the beach sounds great, but not everyone does it.

Living in a working ranch sounds great, but not everyone does it.

Living on a golf course sounds great, but not everyone does it.

Living on a lake sounds great, but not everyone does it.

Living on a sailboat sounds great (especially to me), but not everyone does it.

Living in an urban environment sounds great, but not everyone does it.

We gave them trillions of dollars in lifestyle subsidies -- and I'd hate to think that they had nothing to show for it.

We include they.

[N Judah]

That's a gross generalization. There are vastly different preferences even among households with similar consumption patterns given their budgetary limits.

That's true. When moneymaking is your paramount objective, these decisions are essentially made for you.

Living in an urban environment sounds great, but not everyone does it.

Yep! 50% of Americans wish they lived somewhere else. The difference is that some of those Americans' lifestyle preferences are heavily subsidized while others are not.

We include they.

I understand you when you say that suburbanites would hold the exact same point of view as me about projects that serve urban areas and not their own. But for my part i guess I am just unable to come up with any such multi-trillion dollar lifestyle subsidies specifically targeting such urban areas.

[woolie]

Niche, peak oil isn't about running out of oil in an absolute sense, it's about the cost increasing enough (through supply/demand but also carbon taxes) to have significant impact on how people use it. Enough to make transit-based commutes more attractive, even if one could technically still afford $8/gas to fill their SUV and drive 80 miles a day.

[TheNiche]

That's true. When moneymaking is your paramount objective, these decisions are essentially made for you.

OK. So how do you propose to remove the budget constraint? Or do you? ...or are you just feeling whiny.

Yep! 50% of Americans wish they lived somewhere else. The difference is that some of those Americans' lifestyle preferences are heavily subsidized while others are not.

Show me data.

I understand you when you say that suburbanites would hold the exact same point of view as me about projects that serve urban areas and not their own. But for my part i guess I am just unable to come up with any such multi-trillion dollar lifestyle subsidies specifically targeting such urban areas.

At 1:01AM, earlier today, I explained how urban areas and suburban areas are each dependent upon transportation linkages between city and suburb. If those linkages are not expanded to accommodate increasing traffic volumes, the employment base in the urban area will stagnate.

You see a subsidy for people who want cheap housing, the developer of a downtown office building sees better access to labor, and the developer of an apartment project in midtown sees both an increasingly large pool of nearby office workers to market to and an improved reverse-commute. It all feeds back on itself. Now explain to me why I'm wrong or quit yer bitchin'.

[TheNiche]

Niche, peak oil isn't about running out of oil in an absolute sense, it's about the cost increasing enough (through supply/demand but also carbon taxes) to have significant impact on how people use it. Enough to make transit-based commutes more attractive, even if one could technically still afford $8/gas to fill their SUV and drive 80 miles a day.

I understand the Peak Oil theory, and I reject the myth associated with it that we're just going to run out one day. That much is obviously not going to happen. However, there is good reason to question Peak Oil and the effects that get attributed to it. The nitty gritty therein is fodder for a different thread.

As far as making urban areas more appealing, I'm sure that higher gasoline prices would have some effect so as to make urban areas more desirable, but suburbs are just that much less expensive and kid fetishism is just that prevalent that $8 gas doesn't reconfigure the urban landscape. People will use Park & Ride service much more, they will carpool, they will vanpool; they will even purchase 'smart' cars. ...and ultimately that price level will force technological innovation to replace oil as the raw material for fuel.

Even within the urban core, if oil prices were to go up so as to support $8 gasoline, you'd have transit powered by diesel that would cause operating costs and fare prices to increase. And at that level you'd see coal converted to oil to be refined into gasoline and diesel, so coal prices would rise, and so would electricity prices, thereby increasing the operating cost of light rail or other electric-powered transit.

Energy prices hit everybody, and while some are more affected than others, it just doesn't strike me as plausible that household priorities among buyers of new homes within the suburbs are as driven by fuel costs as they are by even commute time by itself as a factor--never mind the lower housing costs or kid fetishism or that so many jobs are also in the suburbs--and to the extent that more people are carpooling, vanpooling, or parking and riding, commute times would be expected to improve too.

[N Judah]

OK. So how do you propose to remove the budget constraint? Or do you? ...or are you just feeling whiny.

Yikes. If you can't figure out how to do that, then I really can't help you. Sorry!

Show me data.

http://www.google.com/search?q=50%25+of+am...+somewhere+else

You see a subsidy for people who want cheap housing, the developer of a downtown office building sees better access to labor, and the developer of an apartment project in midtown sees both an increasingly large pool of nearby office workers to market to and an improved reverse-commute. It all feeds back on itself. Now explain to me why I'm wrong or quit yer bitchin'.

I don't disagree that anything can snowball into a negative feedback loop once you've dropped a few trillion dollars to incentivize things in a specific direction. Freeways are their own cottage industry (and then some!), and as I have said I am glad they at least have something to show for it. But there were thriving urban areas before freeway subsidies and there will be thriving urban areas long after the freeways are gone.

[totheskies]

I understand the Peak Oil theory, and I reject the myth associated with it that we're just going to run out one day. That much is obviously not going to happen. However, there is good reason to question Peak Oil and the effects that get attributed to it. The nitty gritty therein is fodder for a different thread.

As far as making urban areas more appealing, I'm sure that higher gasoline prices would have some effect so as to make urban areas more desirable, but suburbs are just that much less expensive and kid fetishism is just that prevalent that $8 gas doesn't reconfigure the urban landscape. People will use Park & Ride service much more, they will carpool, they will vanpool; they will even purchase 'smart' cars. ...and ultimately that price level will force technological innovation to replace oil as the raw material for fuel.

Even within the urban core, if oil prices were to go up so as to support $8 gasoline, you'd have transit powered by diesel that would cause operating costs and fare prices to increase. And at that level you'd see coal converted to oil to be refined into gasoline and diesel, so coal prices would rise, and so would electricity prices, thereby increasing the operating cost of light rail or other electric-powered transit.

Energy prices hit everybody, and while some are more affected than others, it just doesn't strike me as plausible that household priorities among buyers of new homes within the suburbs are as driven by fuel costs as they are by even commute time by itself as a factor--never mind the lower housing costs or kid fetishism or that so many jobs are also in the suburbs--and to the extent that more people are carpooling, vanpooling, or parking and riding, commute times would be expected to improve too.

Some jobs and companies will probably never move back to downtown or the CBDs... it just doesn't fit them anymore. But you can't deny that there are still a whole lot of jobs that are concentrated inside the loop... over 100,000 in downtown, nearly 100,000 in the med center, and then another 60,000 among the higer ed. group (UH, TSU, Rice, HCC, St. Thomas and UH-D). The only reason I single these out is b/c these sectors are by and large not in the surrounding suburbs. IMO the employment concentration alone provides incentive to move inside the loop, especially when faced with adverse factors like rising gas prices. Increased commuter options is an intermediate step and will work well for some people, but you'll still get some that decide that they want to live close to their work. Now that we've lived through 2008, we know that $4 gas and $5 dollar gas can be a reality... this is going to cause some major difficulty for people that are entrenched in transportation costs.

I'm not an urban elitist... there are plenty of reasons to live in the suburbs, especially if you have kids and you're in a great school district OR you live in close proximity to your job. But for some people, the suburbs are a promotion of "the American DREAM"...i.e. get married, have kids BUY a house outside of the city, and live beyond your means for the rest of your life. The reality is, this choice may not be the best for everyone.

[TheNiche]

Yikes. If you can't figure out how to do that, then I really can't help you. Sorry!

http://www.google.com/search?q=50%25+of+am...+somewhere+else

I don't disagree that anything can snowball into a negative feedback loop once you've dropped a few trillion dollars to incentivize things in a specific direction. Freeways are their own cottage industry (and then some!), and as I have said I am glad they at least have something to show for it. But there were thriving urban areas before freeway subsidies and there will be thriving urban areas long after the freeways are gone.

Read up on some Houston history. Right before the Gulf Freeway opened (that was the first one), traffic crawled on miserably at a snail's pace up major thoroughfares such as Telephone Road every morning. Even though urbanists would be right to argue that nothing much has changed because traffic is still crawling along, the volume of traffic has tremendously increased from was able to use the city streets.

Had the freeways not been built, and capacity remained at its limits, the only reasonable alternatives to continue growing Houston would've been to build denser residential in the inner city (from which the affluent were already beginning to flee) or moving jobs to the suburbs (nearer to where the affluent lived). Density costs more money, though, and actually a heck of a lot more than does paying for a toll and some extra gas to get into town. And to the extent that the cost of living is higher, Houston's growth expectations would've been more limited. Urbanists would be right to point out that growth is not a goal in and of itself, but it is an indicator of revealed preference.

And I'll take revealed preference over stated preference any day of the week...especially when you're citing a study that you don't even understand. I submit to you this quote from Pew's website:

Americans are all over the map in their views about their ideal community type: 30% say they would most like to live in a small town, 25% in a suburb, 23% in a city and 21% in a rural area.

And if you go to their website, you'll notice in the pie chart near the top that 31% of those polled said that they lived in the city...even though only 23% said that they most preferred living in the city.

Shocking.

[TheNiche]

Some jobs and companies will probably never move back to downtown or the CBDs... it just doesn't fit them anymore. But you can't deny that there are still a whole lot of jobs that are concentrated inside the loop... over 100,000 in downtown, nearly 100,000 in the med center, and then another 60,000 among the higer ed. group (UH, TSU, Rice, HCC, St. Thomas and UH-D). The only reason I single these out is b/c these sectors are by and large not in the surrounding suburbs. IMO the employment concentration alone provides incentive to move inside the loop, especially when faced with adverse factors like rising gas prices. Increased commuter options is an intermediate step and will work well for some people, but you'll still get some that decide that they want to live close to their work. Now that we've lived through 2008, we know that $4 gas and $5 dollar gas can be a reality... this is going to cause some major difficulty for people that are entrenched in transportation costs.

I'm not an urban elitist... there are plenty of reasons to live in the suburbs, especially if you have kids and you're in a great school district OR you live in close proximity to your job. But for some people, the suburbs are a promotion of "the American DREAM"...i.e. get married, have kids BUY a house outside of the city, and live beyond your means for the rest of your life. The reality is, this choice may not be the best for everyone.

It's certainly incentive enough for some people. In fact, I'm banking on it. Nearly all of my personal assets are now tied up in urban real estate. But urbanists seem to believe in some kind of an overwhelming transformative upwelling of preference for urban areas, and I'm observing that the demographics of urban areas are indeed changing very quickly, but that there is not any sort of paradigm shift in progress as it would apply at a regional level. ...at least not of a sort that we haven't already been observing for over a decade. I'm just trying to be realistic--that, and I don't want to deny someone their preference, however they may achieve it.

But downtown employs closer to about 140,000 people [source: Central Houston, Inc.] and the Texas Medical Center employs about 73,600 [source: TMC, Inc.].

Employment at the universities isn't anywhere remotely close to 60,000. You're talking about student enrollment, but most students either cannot afford living nearby, or in the case of UH or TSU have a strong aversion to living nearby. A whole lot of them live with their parents, and my understanding is that Rice strongly prefers that their students live on campus. Out of those students, how many are full-time status? How many of them are employed elsewhere, especially in the suburbs? As it pertains to economic development, students are not the same thing as employees. And as for employment at those universities, how many professors are there 40 hours per week? How many of them come in fewer than four days a weeks? How many of them hold full time jobs elsewhere? Professors are also not the same thing as employees.

Looking at downtown and TMC employees, the 213,600 of them represent only about 8% of the regional employment base [source: BLS]. I need to re-install my MS Office software, but maybe you can open and look through H-GAC's estimates of employment by zip code. Pick out what you believe to be the urban core and figure out what percentage of people actually work there. To be fair, I'd suggest that you include Greenway Plaza and Uptown.