Continuing transformation of downtown Houston

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This, along with a low cost of living, decent weather, and low taxes, has been a key driver in the growth of Texas cities. It's not really something to deny or be ashamed of.

I see Texan cities as a good model when it comes to jobs and keeping prices lower. Its nice to be able to get 80-100k per year jobs, yet have a cost of living that's probably half of what it is in the Northeast. The centers of the cities are expensive, but I've eyed some houses in Dallas for example, and am still blown away with the deals. I mean you get a palace for 300-400k. Cars are cheaper too. I do like the no personal income tax.

Texas is kinda hybrid of the typical Southern States. A economy comparable in strength to the Northeast, yet prices that are much lower. The business climate is attractive in Texas. Usually the income potential is lower in other states in the South, but Texas is different.

But if I had to pick, definitely Dallas. Just my personal preference.

[mhays]

I'll take the growth management model instead. Keep growth in a smaller area. Let land be expensive enough that anything new uses it way more efficiently. Handle added people with public transit, not more/wider roads. That's for both environmental reasons and urban character reasons. For example more housing units per acre and less car reliance will make sidewalks busier.

You can make some progress on urbanity the Houston way (good to see this happening) but it'll keep sprawling and the urbanity will generally be of the "sort of" variety.

[chris08876]

But lets be realistic, does that model necessarily work for large cities (In texas) and the way they build in Texas? Cities that are more compact, and smaller like SF or Seattle sure, but in a 500 or 400 sq mile city like Houston or Dallas. Given their size, growth all over, with the multiple CBD's and densification of many neighborhoods along the length is appropriate. Densification of the current sprawl miles away from the central CBD is key.

[mhays]

Step one is seriously restricting growth outside of a reasonably tight boundary, except for in towns with their own boundaries. And stop building highways. And establish zoning. Start limiting how much parking a building can build in transit-served districts. And so on.

I'm not saying that would be easy, or politically even plausible, but it would be much better than the "model" you're talking about.

[ThePhun1]

^

Houston is just not that kind of city. I doubt you'll see it become too vertical. "Everyone" out here loves the space and Cul du Sac subdivisions as opposed to living on top, below and next to everybody. It's not nicknamed Space City just because of NASA.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by mhays

Step one is seriously restricting growth outside of a reasonably tight boundary, except for in towns with their own boundaries. And stop building highways. And establish zoning. Start limiting how much parking a building can build in transit-served districts. And so on.

I'm not saying that would be easy, or politically even plausible, but it would be much better than the "model" you're talking about.

Why? That's just silly. Artificially ruining a successful market? Obviously, people want to move there, so let it grow.

In the PacNW, I agree with the growth model because of the setting. Pristine, old growth rainforest shouldn't be razed for run-away urban growth and expansion.

[TexasPlaya]

Balance is key. Essentially every major Texas city, Austin is the slight exception, have zero geographic barriers to sprawl. How do you control sprawl with that type of geography and politics in Texas?

I would focus more on making transportation more costly for drivers through registration fees and gas tax. When you are adding 350-400k of people yearly, it's impossible to stop building/expanding highways. I know rail is en vogue on this forum, but Texas would be better suited focusing more on it's local bus systems, adding express bus service, and increasing park & ride.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by mhays

Step one is seriously restricting growth outside of a reasonably tight boundary, except for in towns with their own boundaries. And stop building highways. And establish zoning. Start limiting how much parking a building can build in transit-served districts. And so on.

I'm not saying that would be easy, or politically even plausible, but it would be much better than the "model" you're talking about.

All that would do is drives prices up and price people out. I don't think Houston wants a SF or NYC situation where most don't have a pot to piss on after expenses. One of the allures of Texan cities are the cheaper prices and space. Even the prices for rentals in high rises are a bargain compared to those other cities. Land prices go up, developer pays more, and therefore transfers the cost to others. I think the current mode of operation is doing just fine in Houston and Dallas.

I don't see it becoming a reality though. Politically it would get an outlash especially in a state that is against regulations and limitations.

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Balance is key. Essentially every major Texas city, Austin is the slight exception, have zero geographic barriers to sprawl. How do you control sprawl with that type of geography and politics in Texas?

I agree on the balance. Thats how it needs to be and is, without resorting to a anti-real estate solution, which will pass the expense towards the consumer for the sake of being urban. When it comes to peoples pockets, at the end of the month, those savings matter, and cities in Texas offer the ability to build wealth, and not spend it all on housing WHILE offering income potential comparable to NJ/NY and the West Coast cities.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Why? That's just silly. Artificially ruining a successful market? Obviously, people want to move there, so let it grow.

I'd have thought the answer to your question would be obvious. Most people don't consider the advancement of something negative to be a form of success. A market that attracts people by promoting a wasteful, unsustainable, and environmentally damaging lifestyle isn't something you can "ruin" it's something you can "correct".

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'd have thought the answer to your question would be obvious. Most people don't consider the advancement of something negative to be a form of success. A market that attracts people by promoting a wasteful, unsustainable, and environmentally damaging lifestyle isn't something you can "ruin" it's something you can "correct".

Thats the U.S. right there. The American lifestyle isn't going away anytime soon. Big house, cars, lots of food, expenses, and so on. Correcting this will take generations. We are a service economy and it breeds wastefulness. The very nature of the American lifestyle is why our country looks the way it does now.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by chris08876

All that would do is drives prices up and price people out. I don't think Houston wants a SF or NYC situation where most don't have a pot to piss on after expenses. One of the allures of Texan cities are the cheaper prices and space. Even the prices for rentals in high rises are a bargain compared to those other cities. Land prices go up, developer pays more, and therefore transfers the cost to others. I think the current mode of operation is doing just fine in Houston and Dallas.

I don't see it becoming a reality though. Politically it would get an outlash especially in a state that is against regulations and limitations.



I agree on the balance. Thats how it needs to be and is, without resorting to a anti-real estate solution, which will pass the expense towards the consumer for the sake of being urban. When it comes to peoples pockets, at the end of the month, those savings matter, and cities in Texas offer the ability to build wealth, and not spend it all on housing WHILE offering income potential comparable to NJ/NY and the West Coast cities.

Easy now. Texas and its cities can certainly look at better growth management policies from the coasts and places in between. Balance works both ways.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Thats the U.S. right there. The American lifestyle isn't going away anytime soon. Big house, cars, lots of food, expenses, and so on. Correcting this will take generations. We are a service economy and it breeds wastefulness. The very nature of the American lifestyle is why our country looks the way it does now.

What a confusing argument. Are you suggesting that because it's impossible to solve everything overnight we shouldn't even try to address the issue? Do you think of education the same way? Should people not even start because it's going to take a lot of years and effort?

As for your price post, not really. You can control growth and make land more expensive without prices rising on a square-foot basis. Yards would tend to get more expensive, but not housing itself. Land would be used more efficiently. Houston would continue to allow a ton of growth, just not as much in the outer fringes.

You seem to be thinking in black-and-white terms. The world doesn't work like that. You can add a policy without ending up with the extreme of that policy.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Balance is key. Essentially every major Texas city, Austin is the slight exception, have zero geographic barriers to sprawl. How do you control sprawl with that type of geography and politics in Texas?

I would focus more on making transportation more costly for drivers through registration fees and gas tax. When you are adding 350-400k of people yearly, it's impossible to stop building/expanding highways. I know rail is en vogue on this forum, but Texas would be better suited focusing more on it's local bus systems, adding express bus service, and increasing park & ride.

That might be right on types of transit depending on where it's going.

But absolutely you can stop building highways. Lots of places don't build much road space in relation to their growth. Traffic doesn't flow easily perhaps, but traffic will self-regulate to some extent, as it does in those other places. Some people will keep driving but others will live a bit closer to work, or take the bus, or whatever.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'll take the growth management model instead. Keep growth in a smaller area. Let land be expensive enough that anything new uses it way more efficiently. Handle added people with public transit, not more/wider roads. That's for both environmental reasons and urban character reasons. For example more housing units per acre and less car reliance will make sidewalks busier.

You can make some progress on urbanity the Houston way (good to see this happening) but it'll keep sprawling and the urbanity will generally be of the "sort of" variety.

This got off-track. My original point is that the massive highway spending in Texas can be used for good as well as evil... projects like the I-45 reroute in Houston could dramatically transform downtown. In that notorious picture with parking lots, BOTH of the elevated highways would disappear from view. Boston is the only major US city to accomplish this, at the absurd cost of $12B, while other cities can't even dream of burying their highways like that. I have no doubt the Houston project will be accomplished for far less than $12B.

Houston's light-rail is also pretty well-planned. Unlike Dallas, which is taking a regional approach to rail with mixed results, Houston has focused on more of a "fast streetcar" model targeting Inner Loop areas that could actually be walkable. It's a shame they have blocked the line down Richmond for so long. I don't think it's possible to make transit competitive outside of the Inner Loop except in a select few areas, so why waste resources there as Dallas does? The bus infrastructure on freeways is a good way to go for these areas and can easily be bundled into freeway expansions.

[JManc]

The "Big Dig" in Boston is pretty massive and extensive and whatever they do to 45 would be nothing close to that scale probably closer what they did in Dallas over the Woodall Rogers freeway.

Plus, the Big Dig was notorious for out of control budget overruns and I doubt anyone would allow something like to happen again.

[Ryanrule]

i would hardly call anything in texas a successful market. more like a mortgaging your future market. taxes are low because basic public services are drastically underfunded, and the people with money dont care because they have their private schools and their private police and private neighborhoods and private hospitals.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by mhays

What a confusing argument. Are you suggesting that because it's impossible to solve everything overnight we shouldn't even try to address the issue? Do you think of education the same way? Should people not even start because it's going to take a lot of years and effort?

thats standard operating procedure for the right.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by JManc

The "Big Dig" in Boston is pretty massive and extensive and whatever they do to 45 would be nothing close to that scale probably closer what they did in Dallas over the Woodall Rogers freeway.

Plus, the Big Dig was notorious for out of control budget overruns and I doubt anyone would allow something like to happen again.

It only cost $24 billion (after interest) for a couple miles of freeway work.

The contractors (connected) made mega bucks off taxpayers and future generations.

[mhays]

The contractors might have lost money. I don't know the specifics, but often both the contractor and client take a hit when things go poorly.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by JManc

The "Big Dig" in Boston is pretty massive and extensive and whatever they do to 45 would be nothing close to that scale probably closer what they did in Dallas over the Woodall Rogers freeway.

Plus, the Big Dig was notorious for out of control budget overruns and I doubt anyone would allow something like to happen again.

The Woodall-Rogers freeway in Dallas was already below the level of the surrounding surface streets at the location where it was covered over with a linear park that runs for a few short blocks only. The 45 project would involve trenching the entire ROW all around that side of downtown Houston. It is a huge project just to put the road below the level of surface streets especially in a location that is barely above sea level. Covering it over with a park would be another huge additional expense. It would not cost as much as a Boston style "Big Dig", but it is a massive undertaking that would disrupt traffic flow for a decade. It will be a tough sell to get this thing done in Houston in the short or medium run. Suburban interests and other constituencies around the state will fight tooth and nail for a finite amount of annual TXDOT funds. More will be revealed, I guess.