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.
What I am saying is the inner city is gaining population too. Hell, the entire region is. What is so hard to understand about this?
That's a change of story from "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. " where you're trying to assert that the light rail brought way more new people into the inner city than to the suburbs. That's not true. Yes new blood is moving into town but at the same time many are moving out.
That's a change of story from "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. " where you're trying to assert that the light rail brought way more new people into the inner city than to the suburbs. That's not true. Yes new blood is moving into town but at the same time many are moving out.
You know what, I'm going to ask nicely - this time - for you to quit trying to turn my thread into another city vs. suburb crapfest. It was quite thought-provoking until you got into it.
This thread is about better planning for the future and what it holds for the inner city.
Maybe it wasn't the rail that brought them in, but it certainly helped to deal with the increased density. Once you've reached a certain point it becomes impractical to have everyone driving everywhere.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,687,192 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthou
That's a change of story from "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. " where you're trying to assert that the light rail brought way more new people into the inner city than to the suburbs. That's not true. Yes new blood is moving into town but at the same time many are moving out.
What you're extrapolating is not what he's saying at all. What he's talking about is a general trend that has been happening pretty much everywhere, not just Houston and L.A. where people are moving back into long-neglected urban cores once thought to be dangerous and dirty and opting for a more urban lifestyle rather than suburban, not just fresh-out-of-college twenty-somethings, but even families with children. This trend has also been helped along by gas prices skyrocketing and a desire to live closer to work to help save on fuel costs. The excerpt you quoted does not anywhere state or even imply that "the light rail brought way more new people into the inner city than to the suburbs," but that the light rail was one incentive that helped revitalize the city and make it a livable option.
The excerpt you quoted does not anywhere state or even imply that "the light rail brought way more new people into the inner city than to the suburbs," but that the light rail was one incentive that helped revitalize the city and make it a livable option.
Looks like "Maybe it wasn't the rail that brought them in, but ..."was an implicit intention of making such a statement. As I stated earlier, people are moving into the inner loop areas but far more are moving to the suburbs, particularly because of the poor schools inside the loop.
You know what, I'm going to ask nicely - this time - for you to quit trying to turn my thread into another city vs. suburb crapfest. It was quite thought-provoking until you got into it.
This thread is about better planning for the future and what it holds for the inner city.
I understand what the thread is about which is why I responded to your post with some evidently thought provoking comments. The 11 news report clearly states "The survey found 57 percent of Houstonians prefer a home with a big yard farther out, while 41 percent like smaller homes in a more urban area." so no one was trying to start anything. Information was in the report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Maybe it wasn't the rail that brought them in, but it certainly helped to deal with the increased density. Once you've reached a certain point it becomes impractical to have everyone driving everywhere.
With the current density levels in Houston, we have a long way to go before we reach a density level that will require this.
With the current density levels in Houston, we have a long way to go before we reach a density level that will require this.
I disagree. Firmly. Because I am not going by citywide density figures, but local ones. If you just go number of square miles in the city limits/total population you get a figure that does not reflect every location in the city. Locations like the undeveloped land south of 610 on 288 or the airports get factored into that, driving it downward. Basically, it is not an accurate count.
If Montrose is approaching 10,000/square mile and growing even though it is almost completely built out, and you have Midtown with the potential to reach a similar level within the next few years as it has many lots that can be filled in, the time to start seeking solutions is before it gets here, not after. Your approach is reactionary. We need to act, not react. When you react, you're always behind the action. LA waited until it was almost too late and had to play catchup. It's also why it makes sense to start developing the transit system from within - the areas with the highest population density - and then extend it from there.
One big reason why I don't really care to compare directly urban vs. suburban population growth is because it's useless - in the suburbs, there is plenty of open space where housing can get built on demand. In the city, you have a limited amount of space which is completely or mostly built out. Just because the demand is there doesn't mean there's necessarily a supply, which drives land value up and land value in turn leads to increased density. This is why NYC and San Francisco are built the way they are, because there was a small, finite amount of land and a high demand for it. That does not exist in the suburbs here, and for that matter it did not exist in the city, but now we have reached the point where the metro has sprawled to the point that being close to work and cultural attractions means something. Maybe not to everybody but to enough people that properties closer in command a premium. If that land is worth more, higher density development allows the most to get made out of that property. This is not difficult to understand. This is basic high school level economics.
The 11 news report clearly states "The survey found 57 percent of Houstonians prefer a home with a big yard farther out, while 41 percent like smaller homes in a more urban area."
What this shows is a demand for both, and we have the means to provide both. I am not saying to round everybody in Pearland or Kingwood up and throw them into a highrise downtown. I have no problem with people living the lifestyle they want to live. Nobody should. And by the same token, nobody should do the opposite. Even if we're talking 41 percent who want an urban lifestyle, we're not talking about a small amount of people by any stretch. If we're just going on city limits population, if we say that figure is 2,250,000 (it's probably higher, but we'll just throw a conservative number out there) then 41 percent of that is 922,500. That's a major city's population in its own right. That's a market that Houston should cater to as well. If we don't, that's almost a million people who will eventually end up elsewhere. That might be just fine for you, but that would not be a very good thing for the city as a whole.
I disagree. Firmly. Because I am not going by citywide density figures, but local ones. If you just go number of square miles in the city limits/total population you get a figure that does not reflect every location in the city. Locations like the undeveloped land south of 610 on 288 or the airports get factored into that, driving it downward. Basically, it is not an accurate count.
If Montrose is approaching 10,000/square mile and growing even though it is almost completely built out, and you have Midtown with the potential to reach a similar level within the next few years as it has many lots that can be filled in, the time to start seeking solutions is before it gets here, not after. Your approach is reactionary. We need to act, not react.
I have not offered a reactionary approach, I was simply pointing out that you can't base density for an entire city on one zip code or two. As we've all seen, the last Mayor ignored infrastructure in Houston and we are having to live with the problems. Over taxed sewers, poorly maintained roads, etc have come to plague some areas of town. These must be fixed prior to any increase in density. Montrose is a good example. Sewer backing up into certain areas makes living a real hell. Before anything is planned, the City needs to get back to the basics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
It's also why it makes sense to start developing the transit system from within - the areas with the highest population density - and then extend it from there.
I agree which is why METRO has more bus service in certain areas. But many caucasians are afraid to hop on the bus cause they would have to mingle with minority patrons. As for rail, the City Council changed the rail ordinance for the remaining lines, rail will no longer have priority over vehicular traffic which will hurt ridership due to longer travel times. It will essentially be operated as a bus fixed to a lane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
One big reason why I don't really care to compare directly urban vs. suburban population growth is because it's useless - in the suburbs, there is plenty of open space where housing can get built on demand. In the city, you have a limited amount of space which is completely or mostly built out.
Like I said earlier, Houston is not near this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Just because the demand is there doesn't mean there's necessarily a supply, which drives land value up and land value in turn leads to increased density. This is why NYC and San Francisco are built the way they are, because there was a small, finite amount of land and a high demand for it. That does not exist in the suburbs here, and for that matter it did not exist in the city, but now we have reached the point where the metro has sprawled to the point that being close to work and cultural attractions means something. Maybe not to everybody but to enough people that properties closer in command a premium. If that land is worth more, higher density development allows the most to get made out of that property. This is not difficult to understand. This is basic high school level economics.
I understand and there is still plenty of land within the inner loop that is affordable. But development is not happening in many areas because the infrastructure is not there to support it. You can't ignore basic infrastructure.
What this shows is a demand for both, and we have the means to provide both.
I'm not sure Peter Brown is a cornucopia of knowledge on this subject (or any subject). We have numerous job centers and they are not downtown based. Last I read, Downtown has less that 10% of the workforce it continues to head downward. I never said there wasn't some demand but overall more people are still moving to the suburbs. For families, the schools here are a huge factor for the move.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,847,219 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
An unmet demand for urban housing? | Prime Property | Chron.com - Houston ChronicleEven if we're talking 41 percent who want an urban lifestyle, we're not talking about a small amount of people by any stretch. If we're just going on city limits population, if we say that figure is 2,250,000 (it's probably higher, but we'll just throw a conservative number out there) then 41 percent of that is 922,500. That's a major city's population in its own right. That's a market that Houston should cater to as well. If we don't, that's almost a million people who will eventually end up elsewhere. That might be just fine for you, but that would not be a very good thing for the city as a whole.
^I was just about to post that article in this thread, you beat me to it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthou
I never said there wasn't some demand but overall more people are still moving to the suburbs. For families, the schools here are a huge factor for the move.
^The schools are a problem in town because there are too many areas in Houston where the public schools are bad because there are just way too many apartments. I know it's a tired thing to say, but it's true. The lack of choices in the city for families who want great public schools drives the price up on homes in those areas to the point that most people can't afford them, and you're looking at spending upwards of $500k for a home. Houston is sorely lacking in family-friendly areas reasonably priced with good public schools at all levels... unless you go out to the suburban master-plans. If there were more options in the city, there would be more families there. The companies/employers follow the workers, however; many of these workers have families... and until Houston improves upon this problem, the trend of companies relocating to the suburbs will likely continue.
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.
