4 ms·

Houstonian here. We have plenty of rich people, more fortune 500 companies than San Francisco, wads Chinese-owned properties, and a median home price of $230K.

Houstonian here. We have plenty of rich people, more fortune 500 companies than San Francisco, wads Chinese-owned properties, and a median home price of $230K. The difference is the regulations, my dude.

tjr225 7y ago
You really don't get what's at play, my dude. It's cheaper in Houston because people don't want to live in Houston- at least not nearly to the same degree.
- refurb 7y ago
  Hmmm... then why is the population growth so much higher than SF?
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    Because the homes and jobs available in Houston strike a price point that makes sense for certain incomes. Households making $200k+ per year are migrating to California, many from New York. Californians with middle income ($40k-$90k) are migrating to Texas [0]. The number of households between 40k-90k is greater than the over 200k group. [0]: https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265
  - tjr225 7y ago
    Because they can't afford to live in SF- which is largely constrained by physical barriers to growth. I do agree anti building regulations are bad and somewhat at fault but it's not an apples to apples comparison by any means. Rich people want to live on the west coast because it's beautiful and the weather is pretty nice. In fact I wish I could live on the west coast but could no longer afford to once the baby came along and my wife and I decided to go single income.
enraged_camel 7y ago
I think Houston is not just a bad counter-example, it's the worst counter-example. It not only has really horribly high pollution[0], but enormous amounts of urban sprawl[1]. It's not exactly the model city to look up to. It's also worth noting that the lack of regulations that Houstonians take pride in contributed to the devastation caused by Harvey in a big way. [0]: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Despite-progress-Houston-air-quality-among-worst-13791574.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/... [1]https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/urban-sprawl-worst-cities https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/urban-sprawl-worst-c...
- refurb 7y ago
  It's not exactly the model city to look up to. And California cities are? Did you look at the rankings in your source? Houston comes in at #9 in terms of worst air pollution. #1-#8 are all California cities, with the exception of one in Arizona. In fact, California cities rank the highest in air pollution across all the measures. [1]https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-r...
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    >>And California cities are? No, I did not say California cities are, for precisely the reasons you stated in fact!
    - refurb 7y ago
      Huh? You said Houston is "the worst counter-example" to San Francisco because the pollution is so high. Yet, pollution is worse in in the bay area than Houston.
jaredklewis 7y ago
And one very specific kind of regulation at that: zoning laws. I could imagine a complex system of zoning laws maybe working, if they were written by urban planning experts with a genuine interest in the greater good. California’s zoning laws are cobbled together by the total opposite: ordinary local officials with a myopic focus on the interests of current property owners and a general hostility to anyone else. Houston zoning really is a breath of fresh air.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Houston is flat, not hemmed in by mountains or water, and hasn’t really been worried about sprawl. I’m sure it isn’t the worst place in the world, but it isn’t on my list, at least, even if the housing is cheap. At the end of the day, supply and demand are real market movers. As far as Texas goes, what about Austin? Housing is probably cheaper, but rising quickly because of tech interests. Houston, on the other hand, should be suffering from a downturn in the oil sector.
- jimthrow 7y ago
  Nope. If you count growth by population increases, Houston is growing more than 4 times faster than SF and still able to keep housing costs low.
- marcusverus 7y ago
  Median income / median home Houston: 63k / 230k Austin: 55k / 230k Dallas: 52k / 223k SF: 90k / 1,200k LA: 64k / 723k Sacramento: 67k / 350k Based on a quick Google search.
jariel 7y ago
The difference in demand for SF vs Houston as well as salaries and equity buyouts cannot be ignored. SF/Bay/North Cal is a very aspirational place, Houston is not.
- jimthrow 7y ago
  Poop town SF is becoming less aspirational by the year. And can you really say SF is aspirational if Houston is growing 4 times faster?
  - jariel 7y ago
    Neither of these items are true. As globalization increases, there is ever more increasing demand for SF/Bay real estate, it's becoming ever more elite due to the fixed nature of housing. 'All things being equal' in terms of cost, SF would be the choice 8 times out of 10 for people as a destination. SF boundaries are fixed, housing is limited, Houston is large and has room for new housing; Houston's growth is due to affordability, not because it's aspirational. 'Tourism' isn't a perfect estimation of livable aspiration, I mean, Orlando gets massive numbers of visitors each year, but SF gets a huge number of visitors as well without 'Disneyland/Epcot' to draw them in, even with a relatively small population, it's a top tourist destination in the US. [1]. Houston doesn't get a lot of tourists. Also, Houston's population growth has slowed dramatically, with new births accounting for more than the ingress population this year. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-... With worker mobility ever increasing in this world, the demand for the 'nice spots' skyrockets.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Salaries in SFBA are higher, but not 5 times higher than in Houston, while houses are in fact over five times more expensive.
  - jariel 7y ago
    Salaries do not need to be 5x in order to have 5x housing, that's not how supply and demand works.
auspex 7y ago
Regulations? OK.. they contribute but Houston is not an equal conparison to the bay area. Weather, nature and immense opportunity. Also there is no more land. Mountains on one side and water on the other.
blululu 7y ago
Zoning is a part of the difference, but recall that Texas also has 1.8% property tax (~top 5 nationally). That really changes the incentives for land owners & developers.

tjr225 7y ago

You really don't get what's at play, my dude. It's cheaper in Houston because people don't want to live in Houston- at least not nearly to the same degree.

refurb 7y ago
Hmmm... then why is the population growth so much higher than SF?
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  Because the homes and jobs available in Houston strike a price point that makes sense for certain incomes. Households making $200k+ per year are migrating to California, many from New York. Californians with middle income ($40k-$90k) are migrating to Texas [0]. The number of households between 40k-90k is greater than the over 200k group. [0]: https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265
- tjr225 7y ago
  Because they can't afford to live in SF- which is largely constrained by physical barriers to growth. I do agree anti building regulations are bad and somewhat at fault but it's not an apples to apples comparison by any means. Rich people want to live on the west coast because it's beautiful and the weather is pretty nice. In fact I wish I could live on the west coast but could no longer afford to once the baby came along and my wife and I decided to go single income.

enraged_camel 7y ago

I think Houston is not just a bad counter-example, it's the worst counter-example. It not only has really horribly high pollution[0], but enormous amounts of urban sprawl[1]. It's not exactly the model city to look up to. It's also worth noting that the lack of regulations that Houstonians take pride in contributed to the devastation caused by Harvey in a big way. [0]: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Despite-progress-Houston-air-quality-among-worst-13791574.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/... [1]https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/urban-sprawl-worst-cities https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/urban-sprawl-worst-c...

refurb 7y ago
It's not exactly the model city to look up to. And California cities are? Did you look at the rankings in your source? Houston comes in at #9 in terms of worst air pollution. #1-#8 are all California cities, with the exception of one in Arizona. In fact, California cities rank the highest in air pollution across all the measures. [1]https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-r...
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >>And California cities are? No, I did not say California cities are, for precisely the reasons you stated in fact!
  - refurb 7y ago
    Huh? You said Houston is "the worst counter-example" to San Francisco because the pollution is so high. Yet, pollution is worse in in the bay area than Houston.

jaredklewis 7y ago

And one very specific kind of regulation at that: zoning laws. I could imagine a complex system of zoning laws maybe working, if they were written by urban planning experts with a genuine interest in the greater good. California’s zoning laws are cobbled together by the total opposite: ordinary local officials with a myopic focus on the interests of current property owners and a general hostility to anyone else. Houston zoning really is a breath of fresh air.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

Houston is flat, not hemmed in by mountains or water, and hasn’t really been worried about sprawl. I’m sure it isn’t the worst place in the world, but it isn’t on my list, at least, even if the housing is cheap. At the end of the day, supply and demand are real market movers. As far as Texas goes, what about Austin? Housing is probably cheaper, but rising quickly because of tech interests. Houston, on the other hand, should be suffering from a downturn in the oil sector.

jimthrow 7y ago
Nope. If you count growth by population increases, Houston is growing more than 4 times faster than SF and still able to keep housing costs low.
marcusverus 7y ago
Median income / median home Houston: 63k / 230k Austin: 55k / 230k Dallas: 52k / 223k SF: 90k / 1,200k LA: 64k / 723k Sacramento: 67k / 350k Based on a quick Google search.

jariel 7y ago

The difference in demand for SF vs Houston as well as salaries and equity buyouts cannot be ignored. SF/Bay/North Cal is a very aspirational place, Houston is not.

jimthrow 7y ago
Poop town SF is becoming less aspirational by the year. And can you really say SF is aspirational if Houston is growing 4 times faster?
- jariel 7y ago
  Neither of these items are true. As globalization increases, there is ever more increasing demand for SF/Bay real estate, it's becoming ever more elite due to the fixed nature of housing. 'All things being equal' in terms of cost, SF would be the choice 8 times out of 10 for people as a destination. SF boundaries are fixed, housing is limited, Houston is large and has room for new housing; Houston's growth is due to affordability, not because it's aspirational. 'Tourism' isn't a perfect estimation of livable aspiration, I mean, Orlando gets massive numbers of visitors each year, but SF gets a huge number of visitors as well without 'Disneyland/Epcot' to draw them in, even with a relatively small population, it's a top tourist destination in the US. [1]. Houston doesn't get a lot of tourists. Also, Houston's population growth has slowed dramatically, with new births accounting for more than the ingress population this year. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-... With worker mobility ever increasing in this world, the demand for the 'nice spots' skyrockets.
xyzzyz 7y ago
Salaries in SFBA are higher, but not 5 times higher than in Houston, while houses are in fact over five times more expensive.
- jariel 7y ago
  Salaries do not need to be 5x in order to have 5x housing, that's not how supply and demand works.

auspex 7y ago

Regulations? OK.. they contribute but Houston is not an equal conparison to the bay area. Weather, nature and immense opportunity. Also there is no more land. Mountains on one side and water on the other.

blululu 7y ago

Zoning is a part of the difference, but recall that Texas also has 1.8% property tax (~top 5 nationally). That really changes the incentives for land owners & developers.