Houston : Model city ? (Cleveland, Center: house, tax, living in)

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

TMC is the largest in the world. Not the best. Boston's #1 when it comes to medical research.


Anyways, in terms of the article it seems pretty legit...but there are a lot of things that don't necessarily seem sustainable. The cost of living doesn't necessarily seem sustainable to me. The super-expensive cities he listed like NY, SF, Bos, DC, etc weren't always super-expensive. As Houston becomes more and more attractive, I don't see how it can keep taxes low and housing prices in the basement. Does Houston plan on just continuing the "drive until you qualify"-style of development?

Yeah the cost really isn't sustainable, not with this kind of growth, but Spade's post will describe further in detail.

Yes, Boston does get the recognition for being number one in medical research, but the TMC trumps Boston in other things as well, one being cancer treatment;
Best Hospitals For Cancer Treatment

That's just one of a few, where TMC has a lead on everyone else. But yes, it's not the best in everything and certainly not the most important in every field either. It's the largest- yes, all that taken into account IMHO.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Yeah the cost really isn't sustainable, not with this kind of growth, but Spade's post will describe further in detail.

Yes, Boston does get the recognition for being number one in medical research, but the TMC trumps Boston in other things as well, one being cancer treatment;
Best Hospitals For Cancer Treatment

That's just one of a few, where TMC has a lead on everyone else. But yes, it's not the best in everything and certainly not the most important in every field either. It's the largest- yes, all that taken into account IMHO.

I'd take a lot of these rankings with a huge grain of salt. These rankings, be they for colleges, graduate schools, or hospitals are definitely good for driving up magazine sales. Whether they have much value for consumers is another question. On a different issue, cancer treatment is so varied and patient-specific, that to talk of one place as being the indisputable best in "cancer treatment" is a bit laughable. While the TMC may be the best place to go for patient A with has diagnosis B, it may not be the best for patient C with diagnosis D.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I'd take a lot of these rankings with a huge grain of salt. These rankings, be they for colleges, graduate schools, or hospitals are definitely good for driving up magazine sales. Whether they have much value for consumers is another question. On a different issue, cancer treatment is so varied and patient-specific, that to talk of one place as being the indisputable best in "cancer treatment" is a bit laughable. While the TMC may be the best place to go for patient A with has diagnosis B, it may not be the best for patient C with diagnosis D.

Then in that case, if it's so laughable why don't you show me something that says other wise.

Find me an article, maybe two that has another hospital in the country better in cancer treatment, then I'll consider what you're saying.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Then in that case, if it's so laughable why don't you show me something that says other wise.

Find me an article, maybe two that has another hospital in the country better in cancer treatment, then I'll consider what you're saying.

Thanks, but I'll just rely on my professional judgment. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Thanks, but I'll just rely on my professional judgment. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

Yes and I'll rely on the information I can find.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Yes and I'll rely on the information I can find.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure TMC is an excellent institution. Some of my colleagues from residency work there. What I don't necessarily believe, is that every single cancer patient would be better off at TMC versus Dana-Farber or Mayo, or even the local community hospital. I realize not everyone is a doctor or is a friend of a doctor, so these rankings do serve some purpose. Still, I wouldn't hold them up as Gospel. Hospital quality is not as cut-and-dried as batting averages. Its immensely complicated, and you need to pay attention to the methodology used in the rankings.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure TMC is an excellent institution. Some of my colleagues from residency work there. What I don't necessarily believe, is that every single cancer patient would be better off at TMC versus Dana-Farber or Mayo, or even the local community hospital. I realize not everyone is a doctor or is a friend of a doctor, so these rankings do serve some purpose. Still, I wouldn't hold them up as Gospel. Hospital quality is not as cut-and-dried as batting averages. Its immensely complicated, and you need to pay attention to the methodology used in the rankings.

No, doctors aren't perfect, there's good and bad doctors everywhere.

And I know, rankings don't always necessarily mean better. It's like saying they project the Eagles to win the super bowl statistically because they have the best offensive line up and defense in the league this season. But that's not the case.

By the way that was a hypothetical situation, lol to draw a similarity.

But there's always going to be those same people who will believe the statistics knowing that it's not entirely true.

I was just simply refuting what another poster had said, ordinarily, I tend to be very defensive, not about my city, but any city playing the underdog. I'm always used to seeing discrediting and hatred for specific regions here, so instilling where credit must be earned/fair game has always been my priority on these threads.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

The problems with Chicago and New York aren't maturity...It's just a theory.These cities made bad moves (high taxes, high spending..etc..) and economic problems arrived.
If Houston uses this model it will grow for very long time.

Don't be so sure that Houston won't be saddled with high costs and taxes in the future. Suburban sprawl development creates an inordinate amount of infrastructure that will age and will require maintenance. Suburban development that is less dense creates less tax revenue per acre than does urban development and that's a future problem. I think there's going to be a huge financial mess awaiting the futures of America's sprawling cities as their infrastructures near their useful lifespans.

[BearBranch]

Originally Posted by killakoolaide

When a city takes up 500 sq. miles or whatever it is, of course its gonna have the most this and the most that, imagine if DC or SF or Boston was to take up that much land area, they would damn near be comparable to NYC.

uhm...they are all in the Theater District downtown

Houston Theater District - World-class performing arts in the heart of Houston, Texas

[Wonderful Jellal]

Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl

Don't be so sure that Houston won't be saddled with high costs and taxes in the future. Suburban sprawl development creates an inordinate amount of infrastructure that will age and will require maintenance. Suburban development that is less dense creates less tax revenue per acre than does urban development and that's a future problem. I think there's going to be a huge financial mess awaiting the futures of America's sprawling cities as their infrastructures near their useful lifespans.

Don't be so pessimistic, a dynamic city will have the money for this infrastructure