Sprawl

[h2obuff]

i am dragging this over here - a good post capable of further discussion (even though it was parsed to death in the other thread )

i admittedly don't get out to these sprawling areas too often, so the pictures and descriptions provided are alot of what i have to go on.

maybe we can make a running list of why folks might think these areas are appealing (versus actually living in a semi-rural area, or in the "big city") - not that these things are necessarily real or true, but maybe just perceptions...i'll throw out a few:

safety?

having something brand new?

lower home value?

...

The biggest problem with this country is overpopulation. It's unfortunate that Houston, where I live, is still growing at a fast pace, while it was already the 4th largest city in the U.S.

You definitely need to get a better grasp on what qualifies for overpopulation. Our birth rate in this country is as low as it has ever been do to people marrying later in life and having fewer children. Also, people are living longer, causing there to be a greater number of people over all.

If Bridgeland considered itself a neighborhood in Waller, TX, I wouldn't complain, but since its identity is that of an outer Houston suburb, it makes me cringe to think of all the people who reside along the 290 corridor now. That area was meant to be farmland.

How was this land "meant" to be farmland? Who "meant" it to be farm land? Is all land zoned for only one type of use from a set point in history for all eternity? What about before it was all farmland, it was forest? And before that it was nature? Who gets to decide this? Luckily for most Americans, it is its people and land owners. Also, don't even get me started in what environmental impacts farming can have!

I'm sure all the residents of Hockley and Waller love how our city is creeping in on their peaceful towns. If things don't reverse in the next decade, pollution levels will be sky high and it will be easier to commute to Austin than to downtown Houston. Hopefully I'll be in another city or tucked inside loop 610 where I don't have to think about all the parasitic growth around what was once a truly great city. Bridgeland is one of the most over-hyped, marketed, corporate projects I have seen in Houston.

Have you seen advertising for other neighborhoods/developments in town? I have, for all of them, marketing is the name of the game in new home sales. It

[houstonmacbro]

(posted by Trae)

i've never quite understood why some builders make the garages so ... prominent. at the very least, disguise it, or turn it to a side entrance type deal. they, and presumably our car-culture, promote it as a huge feature.

yuck.

[Subdude]

Garages on the side may not be practical because of the amount of space that would be necessary for the driveway on a small lot. I don't have a problem with prominent garages, after all they are the primary means of entrance into a house. What looks strange is when the prominent garages are grafted onto the front of what is supposed to be a "traditionally" styled house (such as they were). I think houses can be designed in such a manner as to incorporate large street-facing garages without looking so odd. In Mexico, for example, it is common for the street facade of houses to be nothing but a wall and a garage door. It actually looks more harmonious and the wall provides more security for the house.

[houstonmacbro]

yeah ... most of these (our) builders just do it badly.

[Trae]

How about this car garage. This house is in a neighborhood close to mine:

Just pretend those to doors are the garage. I think sideways garages are better.

[sevfiv]

a bit OT, but on the subject of garages - i recently saw a new home in bellaire that had a garage in the front (but not facing the street). didn't look terrible, except that the garage apartment above it had window(s) that looked straight at a wall of the house (it was recessed from the house a little).

i think it was one of those "custom" homes, but i am sure no one intentionally opted for that...(i'll try and snap a picture if i can find it again).

Edited December 22, 2006 by sevfiv

[gnu]

What looks strange is when the prominent garages are grafted onto the front of what is supposed to be a "traditionally" styled house (such as they were).

Snout houses!

[Montrose1100]

You can mathematically arrange for 6 billion people to live in Texas. But you can't re-program the DNA in our bodies to make us happy, healthy, or productive in an arrangement like that.

Hong Kong seems pretty productive... Plenty of happy & healthy people there (minus the SARS).

[SpringTX]

Excellent information, h2obuff, especially about Bridgeland. I didn't realize it was being planned that well. It definitely sounds like "The Woodlands but without all the trees". If I worked at HP/Compaq or thereabouts, I'd be first in line to buy in Bridgeland. Master-planned communities retain near absolute control over development within their boundaries, and with the wild and dangerous real estate game of Texas, that's the kind of protection other communities would kill for.

SUB-QUOTE(PureAuteur @ Wednesday, December 20th, 2006 @ 2:51pm):

("The biggest problem with this country is overpopulation. It's unfortunate that Houston, where I live, is still growing at a fast pace, while it was already the 4th largest city in the U.S.")

END SUB-QUOTE

You definitely need to get a better grasp on what qualifies for overpopulation. Our birth rate in this country is as low as it has ever been do to people marrying later in life and having fewer children. Also, people are living longer, causing there to be a greater number of people overall.

While I think that global population growth is one of the largest issues facing our man-made and natural environments, I think PureAuteur's recommendation of "stop the economic growth, control the population, and keep cities at a moderate, functional size" is a pipe dream. At the rate humanity's population is growing, in another couple hundred years, you'll probably be able to drive from coast and coast and see residential development in every habitable area along the way. And it's getting like this all over the world now. There may not be any more rain forest in another couple hundred years. And most exotic mammals will only be in zoos by that time.

The problem isn't communities like Bridgeland. The real problem is the population growth. In fact, I think Bridgeland is the best response to the problem: creating lower-density, ecologically-friendly, sane communities with that precious and shrinking commodity called land.

If we could control population globally (like they've been doing in China), that would be the answer to saving our planet. But while the western world has slowed their birth rates, we're just importing people from the rest of the world where the birth rates are still high. And it doesn't help that some governments and religions tend to encourage high birth rates in self-interest. Let's hope that the third world follows the western world's trend of declining population rates over the next century or we're all in for a world of hurt, no pun intended.

[Trae]

By the time we will be running out of land in the U.S., people will be living on Mars.

[TheNiche]

While I think that global population growth is one of the largest issues facing our man-made and natural environments, I think PureAuteur's recommendation of "stop the economic growth, control the population, and keep cities at a moderate, functional size" is a pipe dream. At the rate humanity's population is growing, in another couple hundred years, you'll probably be able to drive from coast and coast and see residential development in every habitable area along the way. And it's getting like this all over the world now. There may not be any more rain forest in another couple hundred years. And most exotic mammals will only be in zoos by that time.

The problem isn't communities like Bridgeland. The real problem is the population growth. In fact, I think Bridgeland is the best response to the problem: creating lower-density, ecologically-friendly, sane communities with that precious and shrinking commodity called land.

If we could control population globally (like they've been doing in China), that would be the answer to saving our planet. But while the western world has slowed their birth rates, we're just importing people from the rest of the world where the birth rates are still high. And it doesn't help that some governments and religions tend to encourage high birth rates in self-interest. Let's hope that the third world follows the western world's trend of declining population rates over the next century or we're all in for a world of hurt, no pun intended.

There is not a land shortage insofar as residential uses are concerned. Agricultural land uses are really the big issue...but Aggies and the like ensure that crop yields continue to rise with each passing year so that each acre can feed more people. As this technology is exported and adapted, it'll go a long way to preserving natural habitat. Here in the U.S., we've already witnessed how agricultural productivity has resulted in lands lying fallow and eventually returning back to native pasture.

Barring a collapse of global economic growth, the rate of population growth will start to decline (and according to some, already has started). The trick is to allow third-world countries to develop to the point that wages are high enough that it is more beneficial for women to enter the workforce than to raise large families. The best population control is wealth.

[JJxvi]

Did someone just cite China as a beacon for population control?

[Pumapayam]

Did someone just cite China as a beacon for population control?

Don't they have a law of some sort limiting 2 kids per family.

[SpringTX]

Hong Kong seems pretty productive... Plenty of happy & healthy people there (minus the SARS).

I can't comment on Hong Kong. We can compare suicide rates of various countries, but the data I found from the WHO on Wikipedia appeared to be incomplete and outdated. Not to mention that it's certainly heavily influenced by factors like unemployment, religion, etc. I can't find morbidity rates by country, and that's certainly affected by income, health care, etc. And crime rates would be affected by all these same factors, as well as policing levels. Not to mention that you've got to question some of the reporting from some of these countries in some of these areas.

I did find data on fertility rates by country, however (links below). And I compared them with population densities (based on total square kilometers of land, not "habitable" land). And while fertility rate is most likely affected by income, religion, etc., I still see a trend. It looks to me like the fertility rate decreases as population density increases. Hong Kong has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. In fact, the 3 lowest fertility rates in the world (Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau) also happen to be 3 of the TOP 4 countries in population density. And the top 3 countries by fertility rate (Niger, Mali, and Somalia) come in at positions #206, #207, and #198 respectively in population density, out of 230 countries, or in the bottom 15%. I haven't merged the tables to test for a statistically significant correlation between the factors, however.

Are people healthier or happier in low-density areas? Is it better to raise kids in low-density areas (suburbs) rather than high-density areas?

Fertility rate ranked by country:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2127rank.html

Population density ranked by country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density

[Subdude]

How about this car garage. This house is in a neighborhood close to mine:

Just pretend those to doors are the garage. I think sideways garages are better.

Yes, but in a lot of communities the lots are not large enough to support the necessary curved driveway, or people don't like having that much of the front yard paved.

[TheNiche]

I can't comment on Hong Kong. We can compare suicide rates of various countries, but the data I found from the WHO on Wikipedia appeared to be incomplete and outdated. Not to mention that it's certainly heavily influenced by factors like unemployment, religion, etc. I can't find morbidity rates by country, and that's certainly affected by income, health care, etc. And crime rates would be affected by all these same factors, as well as policing levels. Not to mention that you've got to question some of the reporting from some of these countries in some of these areas.

I did find data on fertility rates by country, however (links below). And I compared them with population densities (based on total square kilometers of land, not "habitable" land). And while fertility rate is most likely affected by income, religion, etc., I still see a trend. It looks to me like the fertility rate decreases as population density increases. Hong Kong has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. In fact, the 3 lowest fertility rates in the world (Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau) also happen to be 3 of the TOP 4 countries in population density. And the top 3 countries by fertility rate (Niger, Mali, and Somalia) come in at positions #206, #207, and #198 respectively in population density, out of 230 countries, or in the bottom 15%. I haven't merged the tables to test for a statistically significant correlation between the factors, however.

Interesting little experiment you've got going here. International comparisons to the U.S. probably aren't fair in most cases due to differences in historical population and income growth, but comparisons between U.S. cities most certainly are. You can get a higher degree of confidence by subcategorizing U.S. cities by like characteristics (for instance, lump together Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, etc.).

I'd suggest that you should analyze by zip code or ideally census tract. I suspect that key exogenous variables will be population density and the household income distribution. If you want to keep things more general, just looking at cities in a broader sense, you might try using the population density gradient, which is the percentage change in population density for each additional mile from the city center. For example, if the density gradient is 0.50, then the population density decreases by 50% per mile.

[Gary]

What's the deal with all of this elitist urban stuff. I think most that have come to this forum aknowledge their interest in Houston becoming more urban. That being said, what is so wrong with wanting an affordable home with a decent sized yard? As a father of two, I have no interest in living where my children don't have green space to play. They've got a 60'x60' backyard which opens up to a bayou providing even more space for exploring etc.

I find it funny that the "urban at all costs" crowd reject us suburbanites as SUV driving morons, all the while ignoring the reasons why we fled in the first place.

[SpringTX]

There is not a land shortage insofar as residential uses are concerned. Agricultural land uses are really the big issue...but Aggies and the like ensure that crop yields continue to rise with each passing year so that each acre can feed more people. As this technology is exported and adapted, it'll go a long way to preserving natural habitat. Here in the U.S., we've already witnessed how agricultural productivity has resulted in lands lying fallow and eventually returning back to native pasture.

I read that 90% of the land in South Texas (Rio Grande Valley) was converted to agricultural use. And pretty much all that took place within the last century. So that makes sense with what you're saying.

So that I don't have to spend forever trying to look it up, do you know the ratio of agricultural to residential land in the US? Are we talking 2-to-1? 4-to-1? 10-to-1? Ballpark figure would be fine.

Interesting little experiment you've got going here. International comparisons to the U.S. probably aren't fair in most cases due to differences in historical population and income growth, but comparisons between U.S. cities most certainly are. You can get a higher degree of confidence by subcategorizing U.S. cities by like characteristics (for instance, lump together Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, etc.).

I'd suggest that you should analyze by zip code or ideally census tract. I suspect that key exogenous variables will be population density and the household income distribution. If you want to keep things more general, just looking at cities in a broader sense, you might try using the population density gradient, which is the percentage change in population density for each additional mile from the city center. For example, if the density gradient is 0.50, then the population density decreases by 50% per mile.

I'd like to get crime, suicide, fertility, and morbidity rates per census tract and cross it with population density, and eliminate the income variable as you say. I can't believe no one in history has done this yet. Surely we can't be the first ones to ask this seemingly simple question: do high-density environments mess people up more?

[TheNiche]

So that I don't have to spend forever trying to look it up, do you know the ratio of agricultural to residential land in the US? Are we talking 2-to-1? 4-to-1? 10-to-1? Ballpark figure would be fine.

I have much obscure knowledge, but that is not part of it.

...do high-density environments mess people up more?

Woah, there. The only question that this snapshot approach can answer is whether screwed up people exist in high-density environments. Causation might be inferred, but I'd rather not take that leap.

[SpringTX]

I have much obscure knowledge, but that is not part of it.

Woah, there. The only question that this snapshot approach can answer is whether screwed up people exist in high-density environments. Causation might be inferred, but I'd rather not take that leap.

I did some more searching. It looks like there's a boatload of research on population density and how it relates to crime and other factors. A quick glance shows some studies finding a correlation, others not. It's definitely a topic that could provide for a long debate of its own. Definitely an interesting question, though.

[DaTrain]

In response to all y'all's gripes about density, cost of housing, crime, etc., Houston doesn't HAVE to be super-dense inside the Loop (12k ppl per square mile) like Chicago, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami, Philly, all them. What about being satisfied with the hybrid layout of urban and surburban; at least the Inner Loop is semi-dense (5k to 10k ppl per square mile) along the lines of Washington, DC, Oakland, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, New Orleans pre-Katrina, all them. For semi-density in number of people, for every 20 expensive houses and condos in Houston, there is always every 30 affordable houses and apartments (no pun intended).

[MidtownCoog]

I find it funny that the "urban at all costs" crowd reject us suburbanites as SUV driving morons, all the while ignoring the reasons why we fled in the first place.

Don't worry. On this board 1/2 of negative uberloopers live with mamma or rent an apartment and have no kids.

[rps324]

Oh no, not another urban vs. suburban debate, these are almost as predictable as the Houston vs. Dallas ones!

I have speeded up the whole debate before, let me repost it so we can get the whole argument hashed out and over with and move on!

Of course you have two very different mindsets:

The Suburbanite:

"I can't believe people pay that much for those little shacks in-town! The areas around them look so run down & seedy. What is wrong with those people?!"

The Urbanite:

"I can't believe people pay that much to live SO far out! The areas are so cookie-cutter and soul-less. What is wrong with those people?!"

The Suburbanite:

"Why would you buy one of those old crummy out-dated houses that need SO much work when you could get a beautiful brand new home just 35 minutes farther out?"

The Urbanite:

"Why would you buy one of those new crummy cookie-cutter houses when you could get a beautiful vintage home & renovate it and cut 35 minutes off your commute?"

The Suburbanite:

"I would rather drive an extra 35 minutes and get the house I really want."

The Urbanite:

"Can you believe some people commute over 35 minutes each way? Every day!!?

The Suburbanite:

"There is too much crime in the city. It's not a safe place to raise a teenager!"

The Urbanite:

"I wish these teenagers from the suburbs wouldn't drive down and create problems!"

The Suburbanite:

"I just hop on the toll road and it make it so easy to get where I want to go!"

The Urbanite:

"Stop right there, the directions include a toll road? No, of course I don't have an EZ tag, those are for country people!"

The Suburbanite:

"Once the kids are out of school, I guess I would really consider moving into a loft or something in-town."

The Urbanite:

"If we ever have kids, I guess I would really consider moving to one of the suburbs or something in a better school district."

The Suburbanite:

"All those inner-looper commie freaks are a bunch of left-wing radical, welfare-state loving, drunken club-hopping, weirdo cultural snobs anyway! I don't think I could ever live down there."

The Urbanite:

"All those suburban facist freaks are a bunch of right-wing war-mongering, suv-gas-hog-driving, Hobby Lobby shopping, chain-restaurant-loving, cultural savages anyway! I don't think I could ever live out there."

[nmainguy]

Oh no, not another urban vs. suburban debate, these are almost as predictable as the Houston vs. Dallas ones!

I have speeded up the whole debate before, let me repost it so we can get the whole argument hashed out and over with and move on!

Of course you have two very different mindsets:

The Suburbanite:

"There is too much crime in the city. It's not a safe place to raise a teenager!"

The Urbanite:

"I wish these teenagers from the suburbs wouldn't drive down and create problems!"

This is the only one I have a problem with: Woodlands area teens coming to Montrose to murder a gay man with nail-studded 2x4s-just for fun.

Otherwise you offer up an excellent analysis.

[Guest Marty]

At least Houston is one of the last few cities to have shotgun houses; just renovate them like Project Row.

Now THIS is much easier on the eyes unlike the other kind

I always like those houses.

[MidtownCoog]

nmainguy,

That has to be the most asinine post ever. 1991 was a long time ago.

Are the kids from the burbs trying to get you?

[MexAmerican_Moose]

Oh no, not another urban vs. suburban debate, these are almost as predictable as the Houston vs. Dallas ones!

I have speeded up the whole debate before, let me repost it so we can get the whole argument hashed out and over with and move on!

Of course you have two very different mindsets:

The Suburbanite:

"I can't believe people pay that much for those little shacks in-town! The areas around them look so run down & seedy. What is wrong with those people?!"

The Urbanite:

"I can't believe people pay that much to live SO far out! The areas are so cookie-cutter and soul-less. What is wrong with those people?!"

The Suburbanite:

"Why would you buy one of those old crummy out-dated houses that need SO much work when you could get a beautiful brand new home just 35 minutes farther out?"

The Urbanite:

"Why would you buy one of those new crummy cookie-cutter houses when you could get a beautiful vintage home & renovate it and cut 35 minutes off your commute?"

The Suburbanite:

"I would rather drive an extra 35 minutes and get the house I really want."

The Urbanite:

"Can you believe some people commute over 35 minutes each way? Every day!!?

The Suburbanite:

"There is too much crime in the city. It's not a safe place to raise a teenager!"

The Urbanite:

"I wish these teenagers from the suburbs wouldn't drive down and create problems!"

The Suburbanite:

"I just hop on the toll road and it make it so easy to get where I want to go!"

The Urbanite:

"Stop right there, the directions include a toll road? No, of course I don't have an EZ tag, those are for country people!"

The Suburbanite:

"Once the kids are out of school, I guess I would really consider moving into a loft or something in-town."

The Urbanite:

"If we ever have kids, I guess I would really consider moving to one of the suburbs or something in a better school district."

The Suburbanite:

"All those inner-looper commie freaks are a bunch of left-wing radical, welfare-state loving, drunken club-hopping, weirdo cultural snobs anyway! I don't think I could ever live down there."

The Urbanite:

"All those suburban facist freaks are a bunch of right-wing war-mongering, suv-gas-hog-driving, Hobby Lobby shopping, chain-restaurant-loving, cultural savages anyway! I don't think I could ever live out there."

that pretty much sums it up

[Guest Marty]

At least Houston is one of the last few cities to have shotgun houses; just renovate them like Project Row.

Now THIS is much easier on the eyes unlike the other kind

What year was them shotguns got built come on sorry but my redneckness is showing

Edited December 24, 2006 by Marty

[sevfiv]

What year was them shotguns got built come on sorry but my redneckness is showing

http://www.projectrowhouses.org/history.htm

about 1930

[Subdude]

(posted by Trae)

I didn't know there was a term for them, but I stumbled on a reference to the houses with prominent garages in front as "snout houses".

Of course wikipedia has an entry on it.