Downtown Retail Market

[livincinco]

It also means that Manhattan, San Fran, and the Inner Loop are LAND LOCKED so that any and all growth is quite impressive. Not sure why livincinco can't see this. It isn't quite a fair fight to pit the inner loop against everything else in the region when everything else can expand infinitely. 

 

To me, single family lots being turned into 6 condos, older office towers being converted into lofts, rice silos giving way to 1,500 apartment units, and former industrial spaces making way for residential development is quite impressive. If there was no demand by people to live "close-in" then you wouldn't find developers spending hundreds of millions to accommodate them. Just the same as if there was no demand for owning 3,200 square feet of KB Homes on the prairie, then you wouldn't find KB Homes mass producing them.

 

Nothing personal, but you can't compare the density of Manhattan, San Francisco, and the Inner Loop. 

 

Manhattan - 1.58 million people in 23 square miles

San Francisco - 815 thousand people in 47 square miles

Inner Loop - 490 thousand people in 93 square miles

 

Given those numbers, I don't think that the land constraints are really that severe yet.  Land prices are reflecting increasing density, but keep in mind that the current density of Midtown per sq mile is only about half of the density of the entire city of San Francisco per sq mile.

 

Look, I'm not trying to be a hater.  I'm just pointing out that I think that Houston is continuing to develop in the same manner that it has developed in the recent past. I just don't think that there's a mass rush to urbanization happening.  The inner loop will continue to get somewhat more dense as the city's population grows and the suburbs will continue to expand in multiple directions as they absorb the majority of the newcomers.

[Nate99]

Downtown seems ok to me, I'm not sure what retail would add to the equation.

 

Is there something intrinsically good about people buying shoes and housewears amidst tall buildngs?  Everything has a trade off, and you're not going to be able to plan perfectly for whatever result you desire when we're talking decade long trends.

 

It will shake out however it will, just so long as the process isn't perverted by people with a vision and a line to taxpayer money, I'm fine with it. If I find a better alternative, I'll go there.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Nate99

[KinkaidAlum]

Nothing personal, but where in the world did you get the idea that I was comparing density levels between San Fran, Manhattan, and Houston's Inner Loop? 

 

Land constraints aren't severe in central Houston, yet. But they are more severe than in the outter ring of suburban sprawl. That's why you no longer see garden style apartments rising in Uptown, Midtown, the Heights, Rice Village, etc... but rather, higher density, multiple floored apartments placed over or around parking podiums. 

 

12 years ago, Archstone built a garden style complex near Washington @ Waugh. It is already being replaced by something denser to capitalize on maximizing profit pert square foot. 

 

I take it from your name, that you live in Cinco Ranch. Do you spend time inside the loop? If you did, then you'd see that Houston is actually showing different patterns of growth. We're seeing midrise apartments rather than garden style apartments. We're seeing multiple townhomes take over former single family home lots. We're seeing former industrial wasteland being turned into residential pockets. We're seeing Mcmansions replace bungalows. We're seeing McVics taking over the Greater Heights. All of these types of builds are "new" to Houston and are reflective of a changing market in the central part of the city. Now, just because this is happening doesn't mean the suburbs aren't spreading like wildfire. They are because there's a market for that too.

 

 

 

 

[kylejack]

Agree that it's worth noting, but let's say that over the next ten years all numbers stay consistent and Houston draws another 600k or so people.  Even if the optimistic number of 40k moving inside the loop triples to 120k, that still means that only 20% of the population is going there with the balance 80% moving outside. 

 

..so? If another 40K move inside the Loop and make it more dense, I am glad. I want the urban core to get denser.

 

The other factor to consider is economics.  The more people that do move inside the loop, the higher it will drive housing prices because of the finite amount of land (which we're seeing already).  That will cause the suburbs to look more attractive to a number of people because of the relative value in those properties and will start to shift things back.

 

If you allege a lot more people will move to the suburbs, then that will drive prices in the suburbs up.

[TGM]

..so? If another 40K move inside the Loop and make it more dense, I am glad. I want the urban core to get denser.

Why? What is so bloody magical about people having less space and living on top of one another?

Do you enjoy waiting in line? Do you reach the counter at the Breakfast Klub, and say "oh, that was not long enough, I'm getting back in line."?

If you have big city dreams why not explore NYC, Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia? Houston will always let you down if this is your true desire.

Edited May 22, 2013 by TGM

[august948]

If you allege a lot more people will move to the suburbs, then that will drive prices in the suburbs up.

It will, but not to anything like the degree that will happen in the core. There's always more farm land to be bought on the fringes. Plus with the urban poor getting squeezed out of the core, there will be a segment of suburban buyers/renters without the money to push prices higher.

[august948]

..so? If another 40K move inside the Loop and make it more dense, I am glad. I want the urban core to get denser.

And it will, slowly, and never to the extent of NYC or San Francisco. Houston is already well on the way to being a distributed, multi-core city and only the sudden appearance of mountains or ocean circling the area is going to change how the city grows. In 50 to 100 years one might ask which core you are talking about.

[kylejack]

Why? What is so bloody magical about people having less space and living on top of one another?

Do you enjoy waiting in line? Do you reach the counter at the Breakfast Klub, and say "oh, that was not long enough, I'm getting back in line."?

Because it will push Houston more towards the types of transit I like.

 

If you have big city dreams why not explore NYC, Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia? Houston will always let you down if this is your true desire.

Au contraire, Houston doesn't let me down now.

[august948]

Because it will push Houston more towards the types of transit I like.

Or it might just put more cars on the road in your neighborhood. Isn't that what the Stop Ashby folks were arguing?

[kylejack]

Or it might just put more cars on the road in your neighborhood. Isn't that what the Stop Ashby folks were arguing?

 

I don't subscribe to their NIMBYism.

 

Increased density will necessarily result in city permitting that doesn't require that we pave all our buildings to put up parking lots. More walkable retail, etc.

[august948]

Increased density will necessarily result in city permitting that doesn't require that we pave all our buildings to put up parking lots. More walkable retail, etc.

I believe the city is already working on that, aren't they? Question is, will much more walkable retail actually result or will reduction in parking options tend to decrease business?

[kylejack]

I believe the city is already working on that, aren't they? Question is, will much more walkable retail actually result or will reduction in parking options tend to decrease business?

 

Yes, they are working on it in response to increased density. The new option to reduce parking requirements by 10% by installing bike parking are very cool, and I'd like to see more of it.

 

I'm talking about reducing parking requirements, not reducing parking options. Parking options can crop up as the market demand is there for them. It reduces barrier to entry to the market and makes more current properties able to open different kinds of businesses.

Edited May 22, 2013 by kylejack

[H-Town Man]

Nothing personal, but you can't compare the density of Manhattan, San Francisco, and the Inner Loop. 

 

Manhattan - 1.58 million people in 23 square miles

San Francisco - 815 thousand people in 47 square miles

Inner Loop - 490 thousand people in 93 square miles

 

Given those numbers, I don't think that the land constraints are really that severe yet.  Land prices are reflecting increasing density, but keep in mind that the current density of Midtown per sq mile is only about half of the density of the entire city of San Francisco per sq mile.

 

Look, I'm not trying to be a hater.  I'm just pointing out that I think that Houston is continuing to develop in the same manner that it has developed in the recent past. I just don't think that there's a mass rush to urbanization happening.  The inner loop will continue to get somewhat more dense as the city's population grows and the suburbs will continue to expand in multiple directions as they absorb the majority of the newcomers.

 

Okay, but your big point earlier was that only 20% of Houstonians live inside the loop.  The counterpoint being that in recognizably urban cities, only a small percentage of metro residents lives in the urban core.

 

No, there's not a mass rush to urbanization in Houston, but there's an ever-increasing draw towards it that has been going on for at least 15 years now.  The same changes can be observed in Dallas and other comparable cities.  People want to live closer to where they work.  People are starting families less often and later.  And more and more people want a car-free or car-minimal lifestyle.

 

These aren't monster trends in Houston yet, but they are quietly and constantly increasing.

[august948]

Yes, they are working on it in response to increased density. The new option to reduce parking requirements by 10% by installing bike parking are very cool, and I'd like to see more of it.

I'm talking about reducing parking requirements, not reducing parking options. Parking options can crop up as the market demand is there for them. It reduces barrier to entry to the market and makes more current properties able to open different kinds of businesses.

I agree on the bike parking. It can be a pain sometimes trying to find a place to tie up. I also agree on reducing the requirements as that will let the market decide. Might still end up with a lot of buildings paved over, though.

[mfastx]

There are many advantages to having a dense inner core.  It's just more efficient than sprawl on a large scale, which is a less efficient allocation of subsidies. 

[august948]

There are many advantages to having a dense inner core.  It's just more efficient than sprawl on a large scale, which is a less efficient allocation of subsidies. 

There are also many disadvantages to density. Less personal space, higher crime rates, overcrowded schools, higher real estate costs, greater susceptibility to a disaster, overtaxed transit, scarce parking, etc.

[mfastx]

There are also many disadvantages to density. Less personal space, higher crime rates, overcrowded schools, higher real estate costs, greater susceptibility to a disaster, overtaxed transit, scarce parking, etc.

 

Well some of the things you listed might be considered positive things, such as higher real estate costs, and "overtaxed transit" to some just means investing more money in transit and infrastructure which to many is a good thing. 

 

But yeah, some things like lack of parking and less space are just negative things about a big city, but even Houston is starting to have these problems in some areas. 

 

And I'm confused about the higher crime rate point you made.  While true that higher density would result in higher raw numbers of crime, but many dense cities have lower crime rates than Houston, and the highest crime rates are in lower density cities such as Detroit, etc.  So I don't see a correlation between the two.

[TGM]

Because it will push Houston more towards the types of transit I like.

Let me guess, mass-transit projects largely funded and subsidized by taxpayers.

[august948]

Well some of the things you listed might be considered positive things, such as higher real estate costs and "overtaxed transit" to some just means investing more money in transit and infrastructure which to many is a good thing.

But yeah, some things like lack of parking and less space are just negative things about a big city, but even Houston is starting to have these problems in some areas.

And I'm confused about the higher crime rate point you made. While true that higher density would result in higher raw numbers of crime, but many dense cities have lower crime rates than Houston, and the highest crime rates are in lower density cities such as Detroit, etc. So I don't see a correlation between the two.

I'm not sure how higher real estate costs are a positive for anyone other than people selling the real estate and their agents. Since transit is run by government agencies and subject to the capricious will of the voters it almost always lags demand, sometimes by decades, so that overtaxed becomes the norm. Not sure how that would be a positive either.

You probably need to choose a different city than Detroit for this comparison as it has unique problems. My point here is the more people come into contact, the more friction will occur. And you are right, these are things that come with the territory. My point is there are negatives and positives to both denser (urban core) and less dense (suburbs) locations.

Edited May 23, 2013 by august948

[samagon]

And it will, slowly, and never to the extent of NYC or San Francisco. Houston is already well on the way to being a distributed, multi-core city and only the sudden appearance of mountains or ocean circling the area is going to change how the city grows. In 50 to 100 years one might ask which core you are talking about.

 

Enter global warming and sea level rise, I'm just sayin' get your beach-front property in Sunnyside now!!! 

[kylejack]

Let me guess, mass-transit projects largely funded and subsidized by taxpayers.

 

Yes. Time to have an alternative to the highways wholly funded and subsidized by taxpayers.

Edited May 23, 2013 by kylejack

[TGM]

Yes. Time to have an alternative to the highways wholly funded and subsidized by taxpayers.

No. Pay your own way.

[livincinco]

Yes. Time to have an alternative to the highways wholly funded and subsidized by taxpayers.

 

Texas' utilization of private partnerships for toll road construction has been a pretty effective way to limit costs for highway construction.

[H-Town Man]

Texas' utilization of private partnerships for toll road construction has been a pretty effective way to effectively tax owners of small cars by forcing them to pay just as much for road construction as the owners of large cars who need wider lanes, put more wear on pavement, and contribute more to congestion.

 

fixed it for you

[livincinco]

fixed it for you

 

That's a by-product of the pricing, not the construction.  Besides, the difference in wear and tear between big and small cars is really not the issue.  Commercial trucks cause a much higher percentage of the damage to roads. See below quote:

 

The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons. According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to the road as 9,600 cars.

[kylejack]

No. Pay your own way.

 

I wasn't asking you for permission. It's already happening and will continue to happen.

[samagon]

No. Pay your own way.

 

so every freeway and road should be tolled?

[H-Town Man]

That's a by-product of the pricing, not the construction.  Besides, the difference in wear and tear between big and small cars is really not the issue.  Commercial trucks cause a much higher percentage of the damage to roads. See below quote:

 

The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons. According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to the road as 9,600 cars.

 

Yes, but toll roads necessarily have a price structure that doesn't differentiate between big and small passenger cars.  And agreed on the weight difference being small, but the size difference as it impacts lane width and overall congestion is more significant.

[Houston19514]

Yes, but toll roads necessarily have a price structure that doesn't differentiate between big and small passenger cars.  And agreed on the weight difference being small, but the size difference as it impacts lane width and overall congestion is more significant.

 

Even if we all drove Fiat 500s, the toll road lanes will remain the same width.  You may have noticed our highways also serve to transport freight on trucks. 

[TGM]

so every freeway and road should be tolled?

Every road the government builds is already a toll road. The difference is instead of an EZ tag you use a 1040EZ. (Or at the gas pump, or through property taxes, or, or, or...) Now there those that don't pay any of the above, and yet somehow they feel entitled to demand that those that do pony up even more dollars.