5 ms·

The important thing to note about Houston is that it has grown 20-60% per decade over the past half century and now has over 7,000,000 people and is still grow

The important thing to note about Houston is that it has grown 20-60% per decade over the past half century and now has over 7,000,000 people and is still growing rapidly. It really doesn't matter how many anecdotes or criticisms from urban designers get posted here, because the important part is that an enormous number of people want to and do live in Houston, which is tautologically better urban design than any city which to which people have been unable or unwilling to move.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
This is borderline "no true scottsman". Lots of people live where they need to not where they want to. Just because a city holds more people at a lower price doesn't make it intrinsically better planned.
- parineum 6y ago
  What better metric is there? If you ask people, they're bound to lie to you. What people do is much more indicative of their priorities than what they say.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    Better is pretty subjective. But there are quite a few I'd say are also reasonable to consider. How healthy is the average person living there? How happy is the average person living there? Is the development sustainable or will it create problems in the future? Many gold rush boom towns pulled a lot of strings to get enough housing, tents, taverns or tenements to house their populations. Would we call most of those towns well planned? Even successful?
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    It's probably a reasonable metric. But, it doesn't necessarily tell us why. Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough job market to offset several other negatives (long commutes, lack of green space). Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Put another way, given the option between two suburban hell-scapes, people will pick the one that pays better. But, it's a still a suburban hell-scape. Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).
    - parineum 6y ago
      > Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city. I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example... > Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC). "Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there. Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.
  - nitwit005 6y ago
    People will happily move to heavily polluted cities to get a job. Should we infer they enjoy pollution? You're absolutely right that people won't always answer polls seriously or honestly, but it's fairly clear people will put up with awful situations if it will help their family out, so looking at their actions isn't a reliable indicator either.
    - parineum 6y ago
      No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. The metric is that they _do_ prefer that city to others. If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.
      - DubiousPusher 6y ago
        > No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others. The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions. Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  I don't really understand this. Houston didn't grow because of natural population growth (at least, mostly not). It grew because people wanted to move there, jobs were good, and housing was (relatively) cheap. It's what people wanted. How could you possibly indict this?
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    > wanted to move there Correction. It grew because lots of people did move there. People move despite their personal feelings all the time.
  - seattle_spring 6y ago
    I lived in SF for a couple years but I sure didn't want to live there. I went where the jobs were.
    - davidw 6y ago
      Well, you wanted to live where there were a lot of jobs. Not everyone made that choice. I've worked as a programmer in Italy, Austria and now Oregon. So maybe you didn't "want" to live there, but you chose to. Same with Houston, just that it's also accessible to people who aren't making tons of money as software engineers.
      - throwawayfrauds 6y ago
        Most people don’t have the options that programmers do when it comes to jobs and homes, especially people who live in Houston.
        davidw 6y ago
        Right - the SF Bay Area has a housing policy that excludes people who don't have the means that programmers do. Houston does not.
  - site-packages1 6y ago
- freewilly1040 6y ago
  It’s a useful metric in this age where failing to plan for growth is endemic in American cities. What’s an alternative? A city that is highly desirable but does not grow is a playground for the rich.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  They live where they choose to live, and affordability is a one of the biggest factors in that decision. If you make $40,000 in a lot cities you need to live in someone else's closet. But in Houston you can buy a house, raise a family and even go out to some of the cities nicest bars and restaurants occasionally.
pchristensen 6y ago
You can tautologically say that living there is more attractive than cities with population stagnation, but not that it's a better urban design. Would the current built Houston still be growing if the energy industry were in a different region? Doubtful.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
swiley 6y ago
I live where I live so I can walk to the office (It kind of feels like I wasted my money last year but I'm afraid to move in case the WFH thing collapses, there's no way I could handle driving in such a dense place.) The fact that there's a bunch of stuff around here to do and decent public transit is a huge plus but I wouldn't have moved here for it.
majormajor 6y ago
> It really doesn't matter how many anecdotes or criticisms from urban designers get posted here, because the important part is that an enormous number of people want to and do live in Houston, which is tautologically better urban design than any city which to which people have been unable or unwilling to move. Only if "perpetual population growth and sprawl" is your definition of a good time. If you look at the prices in SF, people are willing to spend enormous amounts of money to live there, does that mean that it's tautologically better designed than cities that can't command such prices?

DubiousPusher 6y ago

This is borderline "no true scottsman". Lots of people live where they need to not where they want to. Just because a city holds more people at a lower price doesn't make it intrinsically better planned.

parineum 6y ago
What better metric is there? If you ask people, they're bound to lie to you. What people do is much more indicative of their priorities than what they say.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  Better is pretty subjective. But there are quite a few I'd say are also reasonable to consider. How healthy is the average person living there? How happy is the average person living there? Is the development sustainable or will it create problems in the future? Many gold rush boom towns pulled a lot of strings to get enough housing, tents, taverns or tenements to house their populations. Would we call most of those towns well planned? Even successful?
- alistairSH 6y ago
  It's probably a reasonable metric. But, it doesn't necessarily tell us why. Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough job market to offset several other negatives (long commutes, lack of green space). Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Put another way, given the option between two suburban hell-scapes, people will pick the one that pays better. But, it's a still a suburban hell-scape. Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).
  - parineum 6y ago
    > Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city. I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example... > Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC). "Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there. Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.
- nitwit005 6y ago
  People will happily move to heavily polluted cities to get a job. Should we infer they enjoy pollution? You're absolutely right that people won't always answer polls seriously or honestly, but it's fairly clear people will put up with awful situations if it will help their family out, so looking at their actions isn't a reliable indicator either.
  - parineum 6y ago
    No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. The metric is that they _do_ prefer that city to others. If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      > No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others. The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions. Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.
bpodgursky 6y ago
I don't really understand this. Houston didn't grow because of natural population growth (at least, mostly not). It grew because people wanted to move there, jobs were good, and housing was (relatively) cheap. It's what people wanted. How could you possibly indict this?
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > wanted to move there Correction. It grew because lots of people did move there. People move despite their personal feelings all the time.
- seattle_spring 6y ago
  I lived in SF for a couple years but I sure didn't want to live there. I went where the jobs were.
  - davidw 6y ago
    Well, you wanted to live where there were a lot of jobs. Not everyone made that choice. I've worked as a programmer in Italy, Austria and now Oregon. So maybe you didn't "want" to live there, but you chose to. Same with Houston, just that it's also accessible to people who aren't making tons of money as software engineers.
    - throwawayfrauds 6y ago
      Most people don’t have the options that programmers do when it comes to jobs and homes, especially people who live in Houston.
      - davidw 6y ago
        Right - the SF Bay Area has a housing policy that excludes people who don't have the means that programmers do. Houston does not.
- site-packages1 6y ago
freewilly1040 6y ago
It’s a useful metric in this age where failing to plan for growth is endemic in American cities. What’s an alternative? A city that is highly desirable but does not grow is a playground for the rich.
JamesBarney 6y ago
They live where they choose to live, and affordability is a one of the biggest factors in that decision. If you make $40,000 in a lot cities you need to live in someone else's closet. But in Houston you can buy a house, raise a family and even go out to some of the cities nicest bars and restaurants occasionally.

pchristensen 6y ago

You can tautologically say that living there is more attractive than cities with population stagnation, but not that it's a better urban design. Would the current built Houston still be growing if the energy industry were in a different region? Doubtful.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

swiley 6y ago

I live where I live so I can walk to the office (It kind of feels like I wasted my money last year but I'm afraid to move in case the WFH thing collapses, there's no way I could handle driving in such a dense place.) The fact that there's a bunch of stuff around here to do and decent public transit is a huge plus but I wouldn't have moved here for it.

majormajor 6y ago

> It really doesn't matter how many anecdotes or criticisms from urban designers get posted here, because the important part is that an enormous number of people want to and do live in Houston, which is tautologically better urban design than any city which to which people have been unable or unwilling to move. Only if "perpetual population growth and sprawl" is your definition of a good time. If you look at the prices in SF, people are willing to spend enormous amounts of money to live there, does that mean that it's tautologically better designed than cities that can't command such prices?