Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Houston it seems there are many fewer "good ones." Areas that once were or had potential to be "good ones" are not that way because of blight, which often involves over-build of too many apartments that "brought down" the surrounding area. Whether this is a case of lack of zoning or something else, I don't know, but it seems to be more of a problem in Houston than in many other comparable places.
Houston is HUGE of course it's going to at least appear that there are less "good schools" superficially or not.
You're right about one thing though--the Evil Apartment Theory only works in Houston, since it doesn't fit in with the general housing stock. Apartments tend to equal "blight" here because of our suburban infrastructure qualities, I suppose.
No, it puts out more of these people because of the university. People in their 20's, 30's and 40's are usually finished with college -- they don't move there for UT. They move there based on QOL.
Ummm...they move there for work too, I'm talking about students, professors and scholars. Obviously a school of higher education is going to provide a higher quality of life--school isn't cheap. Period. And that's the point I'm trying to make.
I'm not going to fight about this. It's my experience, and that of many other young parents in the metro I've spoken with. Including several on C-D. Take it or leave it. I'm guessing some suburbanites don't really understand that generally, it's going to cost more to live closer in to the core of a city, it doesn't matter what the schools are like. A good school in a central neighborhood is simply an extra price boost. I guess I'm leavin' it.
This. is. not. different. than. any. other. city. that. is. large.
Last edited by theSUBlime; 05-03-2010 at 04:36 PM..
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,860,965 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasilyAmused
So Austin provides a better QOL and employment for the middle class. Ok, I can see that, it's smaller.
What Austin doesn't have is a HUGE medical center,a Huge Oil and Gas industry, and niche industries/business that provide employment for middle class to upper class..Simply put, Houston is a "richer" city and it's size and socio-demographically demands fall in line with larger cities.
In larger cities, you get rid of apartments close in, they aren't going to make way for middle class family living. They will make way for high dollar housing..good public schools or not. The demand and money is here in Houston to drive pricing.
ie. If they could magically level all the apartments around Sharpstown, do you think they would start pricing at 200k? No way. It would be cranking at 400k and up for new housing at the bare minimum. If the schools turned completely around, bang you're easily over the 600 mark again.
True... but in this hypothetical situation for Sharpstown, if indeed the prices really were like that (hard to say since it's hypothetical), it would still be better (for Houston the city) than it is now, and people priced out of the $500-600k in the new hypothetical Sharpstown would instead go to Fondren Southwest, east Alief, Westchase, Gulfton area or wherever else nearby where they could get $300k homes. Maybe the open land west of 288 inside the Beltway would start getting developed into quality communities instead of uber-cheap, ill-planned crappy housing. Basically, it would possibly revitalize the whole of southwest Houston and open up more choices for the demographic that now mostly lives further out in suburbs.
True... but in this hypothetical situation for Sharpstown, if indeed the prices really were like that (hard to say since it's hypothetical), it would still be better (for Houston the city) than it is now, and people priced out of the $500-600k in the new hypothetical Sharpstown would instead go to Fondren Southwest, east Alief, Westchase, Gulfton area or wherever else nearby where they could get $300k homes. Maybe the open land west of 288 inside the Beltway would start getting developed into quality communities instead of uber-cheap, ill-planned crappy housing. Basically, it would possibly revitalize the whole of southwest Houston and open up more choices for the demographic that now mostly lives further out in suburbs.
...and the cycle continues. Make a place attractive, more people want in..the price goes up. Middle class is still out in the burbs decades in the future.
You forget something though. Downtown is becoming more than just a work destination, for one. For another, 10% of the workforce in a city of over two million (or a metro of over five million, depending on what you're going on) is still an awful lot of people. You seem to be using percentages to try and make a segment of the city's population and workforce look insignificant. And yet you think I'm being misleading. (Would you care to share some sources of the numbers you throw out? Turnabout's fair play.) And then we have other work centers that are still within the inner core of the city if not in downtown itself. TMC, Greenway Plaza to name a couple. Houston is not as unique as people think in that regard. Every city has multiple work areas.
No one said it was unique. That's why I had to mention that Downtown has changed from the old days where it was the primary employment center. It no longer is. According to the Houston Galveston Area council here's their 2025 forecast...
H-GAC’s forecast predicts a trend of strong suburban growth around a redeveloping urban center. This is a continuation of a pattern that emerged in the late 1990s, as confirmed by the results of the 2000 Census. Substantial population and job growth are forecasted for the core urbanized areas. However, 67 percent of the growth in households and 59 percent of job growth are projected to occur outside Beltway 8.
Forty-one percent (41%) of the region's employment is currently located in "activity centers," such as the Houston Central Business District (CBD) or the Uptown/Galleria area. The Forecast shows a 6 percent decrease in the share of employment located in the region's established activity centers. This change indicates that employment is becoming increasingly dispersed. The Houston CBD is projected to experience a 16 percent employment increase during the next 25
years. As a group, well-established urban centers (Uptown/Galleria, the Medical Center, and Greenway Plaza) are expected to experience average employment gains of about 25 percent. Established centers located outside of the Beltway,(i.e., Sugar Land, West Houston, and the Clear Lake/Nasa area) are expected to see increases in the 50 percent range. Employment in emerging centers (i.e., the Woodlands and the Richmond/First Colony area) is projected to double.
By the way in 2000 HGAC states that Downtown had 7.1% of total employees and by 2025 it will be 5.2%. In 2000, the major employment centers employed 41% of the workers and by 2025 their estimate will be 35.3.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,697,919 times
Reputation: 1974
About the schools in the city debate... I'm not sure families are who the city should largely be looking to attract to the urban core. As EA and theSublime indicated, those who value schools above all else will head to the suburbs. This is no different from any major city. Houston's urban core should appeal mainly to twenty and thirtysomething singles, college students, DINKS/the childfree, artists/cultural creatives, and others who want to live in a city to be near the action. That demographic usually doesn't include families. There's enough catering to families in Houston. It's time to consider those other groups who are left out, or have to carve out their own space despite the challenges. Houston is kind of odd in that it is virtually the only major city that doesn't attempt to attract this demographic. Hence, why "downtown is dead"; why there appears to be "nothing to do." These are the people who will most help make the city vibrant. And I say this as a parent myself.
^^^^We value schools above anything, and live in the COH. We live IN the city for the best schools in the Metro area. Houston has the ability to be the best. It's already here. It's been here for decades. Check out our best schools in SBISD.......
My "urban core" attracts 30's -early 50's (new buyers)......with all exemplary schools.
By the way in 2000 HGAC states that Downtown had 7.1% of total employees and by 2025 it will be 5.2%. In 2000, the major employment centers employed 41% of the workers and by 2025 their estimate will be 35.3.
[/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font]
So, when adjusted for projected population increases, the actual number could be going up or holding steady even if it is a lower percentage of the total population. Make sense? For instance, 5% of 3,000,000 is 150,000 but 7% of 2,000,000 is 140,000. So you still have an increase in raw numbers in that case. Any way you cut it, 140-150K is not small potatoes.
Of course there is going to be high rates of growth outside the Beltway. There is plenty of space for it to grow. Inside the city there is a limited amount of space as it is built out for the most part. We've already been over this. At least once. Probably more than twice.
Look at it like this - you have suburbs for the families. They raise their kids there. Then the kids grow up. They go to college, come back, take entry level jobs, want young adult stuff to do. They want to live in the city. Their parents, left with a house that's bigger than they need as empty nesters, might follow them. At the same time, the young people who were in the city might grow up, have kids, want the best public schools, the yard, a huge room for each of the kids etc. and so they move from the city into the suburbs. Then you have more young 20-30 somethings taking their place. It turns into a big cycle. Rather than being opposed to each other, it compliments one another. That's what we should be going for. And that's why this should not be presented or debated as an either-or, one vs. the other thing. If that's what you're trying to do here, stop. You're being part of the problem. Be part of the solution.
So, when adjusted for projected population increases, the actual number could be going up or holding steady even if it is a lower percentage of the total population. Make sense? For instance, 5% of 3,000,000 is 150,000 but 7% of 2,000,000 is 140,000. So you still have an increase in raw numbers in that case. Any way you cut it, 140-150K is not small potatoes.
Yes but now more money has to be moved elsewhere because the employee population overall has moved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Of course there is going to be high rates of growth outside the Beltway. There is plenty of space for it to grow. Inside the city there is a limited amount of space as it is built out for the most part. We've already been over this. At least once. Probably more than twice.
Yes the limited public funding will now have to be used in other areas
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Look at it like this - you have suburbs for the families. They raise their kids there. Then the kids grow up. They go to college, come back, take entry level jobs, want young adult stuff to do. They want to live in the city.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,697,919 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Before the annexation and demolishing of the old buildings, what changed the whole game around here was the construction of the freeways. Pre-WWII, streetcar-era Houston had quite a bit in common with New Orleans. It was as urbanized as any other place in the South. Then they built the freeways right through the heart of town, literally splitting neighborhoods and the suburban flight was on from there. Everything else only followed. The suburban areas got annexed because that's where the tax base went. The historic buildings went down because the people left and values fell through the floor, or the freeways forever altered traffic patterns where they were no longer as accessible or desirable. You see this along the Pierce Elevated even today.
FWIW, Houston's not the only place that lost a lot of historic buildings and neighborhoods during that era. There was a trend in most major cities (St. Louis and Cincinnati, to name two examples) where 1960s "urban renewal" meant bulldozing whole neighborhoods for new construction, like public housing projects.
The thing about NYC and Boston is the transit infrastructure was there before the highways and remained there afterwards. In Houston, like in LA, it did not. The streetcars got scrapped, their tracks paved over and people had to drive. Enter sprawl. So, to reverse that, LA began building a new light rail system 20 years ago, and people started moving back into the city. Houston has generally followed LA, for better or worse, in its growth and development patterns. It will continue to do so, and in this case it might not be a bad thing.
Maybe, but the difference is that most cities realized their error. Houston continues to demolish its history without a care. There's more public consciousness about historic preservation now with the River Oaks Theatre and the Alabama Bookstop, which is great, because as long as the sentiment in Houston is business first over all else, the city's history, which contribute to its character, vitality, and sense of place, will continue to erode.
^^^^We value schools above anything, and live in the COH. We live IN the city for the best schools in the Metro area. Houston has the ability to be the best. It's already here. It's been here for decades. Check out our best schools in SBISD.......
My "urban core" attracts 30's -early 50's (new buyers)......with all exemplary schools.
Lizzzzy, SBISD isn't middle class in the neighborhoods that people want to live. The families that buy there have a choice. It's the middle class that most are pointing out that are exiled to the satellite burbs due to the dependance on public schools. It's hard to understand living in the areas we do, but most in this country can't afford an old 300-400k house.
But yes, those that can afford the 500k+ category and work in town, mostly chose to live IN downtown/uptown/med center/EC, and either use good public or pay for private. As a wealthy city, there are a lot of people that can make that choice, and more that would love too if there was more available. I think that's what pushing gentrification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
