3 ms·

Density is returning to American cities, seemingly because the roads could not keep up with what they promised. Houston has typically been a perfect example of

Density is returning to American cities, seemingly because the roads could not keep up with what they promised. Houston has typically been a perfect example of urban sprawl, but as of late it has been rapidly getting denser and land values are skyrocketing the closer you are to these areas.

nilkn 13y ago
I live in Houston and walk to work. It's just a 2-3 minute drive for me to get to a grocery store, a movie theater, restaurants, and museums. But I'm unmarried with no dependents. I couldn't afford to buy a home here (they're seemingly all $1M+). As a consequence, with a city the size of Houston, simply increasing the density probably does not have the desired effect. The urban core of Houston will be completely re-invented in the next decade. It will consist almost exclusively of only two groups: (1) the rich; (2) the well-off singles and DINKs (dual-income-no-kids). If you're not a successful lawyer, doctor, executive, or someone with pre-existing land ownership, you will never be able to own a home in inner-city Houston in 10 years (barring some economic crash). Even now, it takes two highly paid engineers to comfortably support a family life in many inner-loop areas. Moreover, very few new single-family homes are being built--it's almost exclusively townhomes intended for childless young professionals. Everybody else will be pushed to the suburbs, which will actually greatly exacerbate the traffic problem and further insulate the vast majority of kids from urban life. This is why I'm of the opinion that it would actually be better for everybody if more emphasis were put on suburban development. Make the suburbs less suburban, provide them with more infrastructure, create more walkable centers in them, and also invest more in providing public transportation from the suburbs into downtown business districts. There are already a few park-and-ride bus services (e.g., from Sugar Land or the Woodlands into Downtown, Greenway, etc.), but most suburbanites, so caught up in the car culture, won't swallow their pride and use them.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  I don't disagree. I fall in the DINK category, but even we cannot afford many of the places that are inside the loop, or even near there. I know some people who do live in the Montrose area (rapidly rising price), and they do so by putting 3 single developers in one house. Once you get married, that becomes less attractive, and you end up forced out of the loop (like we did) - I'm in the process of buying a house conveniently located under 5 minutes from work just inside BW8, and I still can't walk there - doing so would require crossing the Beltway at high traffic times, and I don't care to greatly increase my risk of death five days a week. I'm actually a big proponent of public transportation and increased options for travel, and am really glad when they get implemented, but purely for selfish reasons - it means less people on the roads. I'll gladly pay a bit more in taxes to make the roads less of a logjam at most hours of the day.

nilkn 13y ago

I live in Houston and walk to work. It's just a 2-3 minute drive for me to get to a grocery store, a movie theater, restaurants, and museums. But I'm unmarried with no dependents. I couldn't afford to buy a home here (they're seemingly all $1M+). As a consequence, with a city the size of Houston, simply increasing the density probably does not have the desired effect. The urban core of Houston will be completely re-invented in the next decade. It will consist almost exclusively of only two groups: (1) the rich; (2) the well-off singles and DINKs (dual-income-no-kids). If you're not a successful lawyer, doctor, executive, or someone with pre-existing land ownership, you will never be able to own a home in inner-city Houston in 10 years (barring some economic crash). Even now, it takes two highly paid engineers to comfortably support a family life in many inner-loop areas. Moreover, very few new single-family homes are being built--it's almost exclusively townhomes intended for childless young professionals. Everybody else will be pushed to the suburbs, which will actually greatly exacerbate the traffic problem and further insulate the vast majority of kids from urban life. This is why I'm of the opinion that it would actually be better for everybody if more emphasis were put on suburban development. Make the suburbs less suburban, provide them with more infrastructure, create more walkable centers in them, and also invest more in providing public transportation from the suburbs into downtown business districts. There are already a few park-and-ride bus services (e.g., from Sugar Land or the Woodlands into Downtown, Greenway, etc.), but most suburbanites, so caught up in the car culture, won't swallow their pride and use them.

cobrausn 13y ago
I don't disagree. I fall in the DINK category, but even we cannot afford many of the places that are inside the loop, or even near there. I know some people who do live in the Montrose area (rapidly rising price), and they do so by putting 3 single developers in one house. Once you get married, that becomes less attractive, and you end up forced out of the loop (like we did) - I'm in the process of buying a house conveniently located under 5 minutes from work just inside BW8, and I still can't walk there - doing so would require crossing the Beltway at high traffic times, and I don't care to greatly increase my risk of death five days a week. I'm actually a big proponent of public transportation and increased options for travel, and am really glad when they get implemented, but purely for selfish reasons - it means less people on the roads. I'll gladly pay a bit more in taxes to make the roads less of a logjam at most hours of the day.