Survey: Many Houstonians want better land use planning, urban renewal (Austin: fit in, neighborhoods)

[jfre81]

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.

Peter Brown wouldn't have been my choice for mayor or for really running anything but the idea there and even in some of the comments are valid. His take is as good as mine or yours, just speaking as somebody in the community. One of the commenters said how we're bound to lose if we ignore one form over the other of urban or suburban development. It's not an either-or proposition. Couldn't agree more.

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.

No, that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying it's not there yet, and you seem to suggest we should not act until it's there. This would be reacting, not acting.

I use Montrose as a model mainly because I'm having trouble finding citywide figures as conveniently as I did for LA. Like I said - I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you - but I'm talking about the urban core of the city, not necessarily the entire city limits. This is for solutions in Montrose, in Midtown, in Third Ward - not necessarily for Clear Lake or Kingwood which really has the infrastructure it needs, save for maybe commuter rail which can come along once we get a way for those people to get around in the city laid out. Inside 610 it's right at an average of 5-6K per square mile, over the space of around 110 square miles, and this is including a sizable industrial area and a huge seaport on the east side so in the areas where people actually live it may average slightly higher than that even.

So we're behind on infrastructure. That's not a secret. Well, no one infrastructure project is going to serve everyone at the same time. Did the Katy Freeway expansion do anything to help people commute north or south? No, it didn't. Was it expensive? Yes. Did it need to be done? Yes. But it was done without this "well it didn't serve me so I'm against it" garbage that people said about the rail plan. I use that freeway only when leaving town, but that's not everyone. So, moving forward, we need to solve these issues with infrastructure and that was the whole idea of this thread, even more than just talking about the survey itself. And it certainly wasn't to be about city vs. suburbs which is what you continue to try to turn it into.

[EasilyAmused]

Do any of the other Top 3 cities have middle class family friendly pricing with excellent public schools anywhere near their cores? NYC, LA, Chicago. No. Yet somehow people still continue to pour into those areas and keep driving the prices up.


It's just the reality of big city life. To live in takes more money.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

Do any of the other Top 3 cities have middle class family friendly pricing with excellent public schools anywhere near their cores? NYC, LA, Chicago. No. Yet somehow people still continue to pour into those areas and keep driving the prices up.

It's just the reality of big city life. To live in takes more money.

Maybe, but those aren't in Texas. Texas is a little different. I have friends in Austin who do it rather easily, while in Houston it's more like finding a needle in a haystack... I know not the same, but aside from size Houston is more comparable to there than to places like NYC/Chicago.

[EasilyAmused]

Well not really in my humble opinion. Once you go a certain distance out, Houston becomes cleared, old rice fields and cow pastures. Natural/native trees and water just aren't there. Austin is the same everywhere,in every direction. There isn't a major change in the appearance.

I really don't see any similarities to Austin other than it's in Texas and endless lands surround them. JMHO though

[theSUBlime]

Originally Posted by AK123

Maybe, but those aren't in Texas. Texas is a little different. I have friends in Austin who do it rather easily, while in Houston it's more like finding a needle in a haystack... I know not the same, but aside from size Houston is more comparable to there than to places like NYC/Chicago.

Erm, try Boston and the other second tier cities on for size. You won't find Austin there and you won't find desirable and cheap schools--EA's right, of course.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

Erm, try Boston and the other second tier cities on for size. You won't find Austin there and you won't find desirable and cheap schools--EA's right, of course.

Not sure what you're trying to say, Boston's not in Texas either.

Like it or not, admit it or not, Houston's got a problem with this, no matter how much people try to rationalize this. Speak to parents who have actually tried it. It's been talked about before in the thread here on someone trying to find great public schools at all levels in the city, and the only option was 77024.
I fully expect this to be difficult in world-class urban cities with crazy high land values, but Texas cities aren't in this category.
Keep ignoring the problem, keep rationalizing, and neighboring cities like Austin will keep gaining (and attracting more educated and qualified workers and young families) over Houston (not saying that's the only reason why, but it's a large part of it - QOL.)

[jfre81]

Schools are only as good as the people involved with them, students and parents alike.

Good to see this is moving beyond my repeating the same stuff over and over again to matthou.

[theSUBlime]

Originally Posted by AK123

Not sure what you're trying to say, Boston's not in Texas either.

Like it or not, admit it or not, Houston's got a problem with this, no matter how much people try to rationalize this. Speak to parents who have actually tried it. It's been talked about before in the thread here on someone trying to find great public schools at all levels in the city, and the only option was 77024.
I fully expect this to be difficult in world-class urban cities with crazy high land values, but Texas cities aren't in this category.
Keep ignoring the problem, keep rationalizing, and neighboring cities like Austin will keep gaining (and attracting more educated and qualified workers and young families) over Houston (not saying that's the only reason why, but it's a large part of it - QOL.)

Ummmm...I don't know what you're not understanding. Texas is not an island unto itself (as much as it would like to be). Cities tend to have terrible schools and it costs money to live near the good ones. By that logic, most people who put schools ahead of urban amenities end up in the suburbs. End of story. Might I add that size has a lot to do with things, it's not only a Houston problem. Austin's going to attract more educated, qualified workers because there's a huge university there. Seriously, what is your point? Please explain to me why Texas would be any different.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

Cities tend to have terrible schools and it costs money to live near the good ones.

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.

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

Austin's going to attract more educated, qualified workers because there's a huge university there.

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.

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.

[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.

Sections of this city wouldn't be "gentrifying" after decades of going down hill if the demand wasn't there.

And as you say, "Take it or leave it."