Houston Playing Catch-up

[VelvetJ]

True, but many others don't want a government that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar. Making more sensible decisions with respect to the city's development and growth is hardly an imposition. With more sensible, long-term decision-making, the city will most likely become more "great" in mpope's (and many others') conception of the word. I think many citizens of Houston are fed up with car-centric, unscrupulous, irresponsible development, and they are right to want something better. It doesn't have to be more expensive, or "ideal", or "elite", just smarter.

Excellent post.

[Mister X]

When I sit and think about it, I start to realize that even as great as Houston is already, it doesn't seem to be taking enough steps at a time to become even greater.

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

This is just another "the grass is always greener" post. If 'Victory Park' would have been built in Houston instead of Dallas BUT Dallas had built a downtown baseball stadium (MMP), basketball stadium (Toyota), soccer stadium (maybe) urban park (Discovery Green), 3-block outdoor retail center connected to light rail (HP), a unique new 46 floor tower (Main Place), and had another 5 or 6 towers planned in it's downtown all within a few blocks of a large convention center (GRB), many hotels, bayou walk and a large theatre district... while at the same time, expanding it's uptown and medical center areas (Galleria, BLVD Place, High Street, West Ave, TMC)... and all in less than 10 years instead of Houston, then there would still be someone griping about how Houston has to play catch up with Dallas.

In that case they would be right tho. Personally, I wouldn't trade all those things for a 'Victory Park' - ever! Just take a look at how far Houston's downtown, uptown and med center areas have come over the last decade and be greatful for it. This city is moving in the right direction. A 'Victory Park' in Houston would just be another thing on the 'going up' section at HAIF, nothing more.

[mojeaux131]

The same kind of questions I'd asked mpope apply here. By whose authority do you lay claim to sensibility? What is "great"? You believe that many citizens are fed up with this that or the other and proclaim to want something "smarter", but you fail to acknowledge those that would be inconvenienced by policies necessary to bring about your personal vision of utopia. You claim that "many others" share this conception of greatness, and I'd agree that this is the case. Even a dozen qualifies as many. But there is a reason that the vast majority of persons live in the suburbs--they like it there. Is it too much to ask that you respect their preferences and that you might be able to live out your own?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I do not lay claim to sensibility, nor do I wish to bring about my own personal vision of utopia. It's my city and I love it and I was simply expressing a personal opinion which I've noticed seems to be shared by "many" (however you want to dissect or analyze the term) other people. I do not fail to acknowledge that changes in the city's pattern of development would inconvenience others, even if I didn't make mention of something so obvious in my post. "Great" is different things to different people, and that's why we have these discussions. But if you want to reduce everything to semantic analysis and assume from a single post that I do not respect the preferences of others, you clearly have the wrong idea.

Is it too much to ask that you not make ridiculous personal assumptions about posters like myself and instead ask them reasonable questions in order to clarify their positions instead of badgering them with questions that are phrased in such a way as to cause them upset and lower the level of the discourse?

Really, now.

Edited November 8, 2007 by mojeaux131

[mojeaux131]

By the way, there's also this.

I appreciate this OpEd by Rice professor Stephen Klineberg and his student, Dayna Fondell, in response to the Kotkin report discussion:

Stephen Klineberg and Dayna Fondell wrote:

Aug. 11, 2007, 10:35AM

Houston, we have a consensus

As experts' views converge, residents are far ahead of them in the debate over city's future

By STEPHEN L. KLINEBERG and DAYNA R. FONDELL

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

We have been following with interest the healthy debate in the Outlook pages during the past several weeks inspired by Joel Kotkin's report to the Greater Houston Partnership, in which he celebrated Houston as a shining example of today's "opportunity city." Despite what might seem like dueling op-eds, where urbanists clash with suburbanists, and free-enterprisers with urban planners, there is considerable underlying agreement, as former Mayor Bob Lanier, Ed Wulfe, Richard Weekley and others have shown...

As consensus develops among the experts, it is important to ask about the views of ordinary citizens. The 2007 Houston Area Survey, conducted in February and March of this year, included several new questions asking a scientifically selected representative sample of Harris County residents about how they would guide the region's future growth. The findings make it clear that area residents are far ahead of Houston's leadership in their support for quality-of-life initiatives, and they are almost unanimous in their conviction that some kind of general plan for the region is now required.

By 59 percent to 36 percent, area residents said they were in favor of "raising taxes to make major improvements in the Houston area's quality of life, such as pollution control and park improvements."

Fifty-four percent said that the best way to spend the region's transportation dollars would be "to improve rail and buses." Only 37 percent called for more spending "to expand existing highways."

When asked about the impact of an additional million residents on the area's living conditions, fully 50 percent said that such growth would make things worse. Just 20 percent thought conditions would improve.

The concerns about unfettered growth translate into strong support for some form of planning: 70 percent agreed that, "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22 percent believed instead that, "People or businesses should be free to build wherever they want."

Finally, among all area residents in this famously "unplanned city," 83 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of "creating a general plan to guide Houston's future growth." Just 11 percent were opposed...

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/5046529.html

The post and entire article can be found here:

http://www.ctchouston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=998

Booyah!

Edited November 8, 2007 by mojeaux131

[TheNiche]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I do not lay claim to sensibility, nor do I wish to bring about my own personal vision of utopia. It's my city and I love it and I was simply expressing a personal opinion which I've noticed seems to be shared by "many" (however you want to dissect or analyze the term) other people. I do not fail to acknowledge that changes in the city's pattern of development would inconvenience others, even if I didn't make mention of something so obvious in my post. "Great" is different things to different people, and that's why we have these discussions. But if you want to reduce everything to semantic analysis and assume from a single post that I do not respect the preferences of others, you clearly have the wrong idea.

Is it too much to ask that you not make ridiculous personal assumptions about posters like myself and instead ask them reasonable questions in order to clarify their positions instead of badgering them with questions that are phrased in such a way as to cause them upset and lower the level of the discourse?

Really, now.

You express a personal opinion along with poorly-qualified asides, then--when challenged--claim to understand that bringing it about would be an inconvenience to others and that you do not wish to bring it about. You will have to forgive me for presuming that your comments were more than mere whining and that you might back up preferences with intent.

[bachanon]

I have been reading this post for the better part of a day, yet I cannot figure out what you are complaining about. Who is this "we" you speak of, and why do you insist that the City needs this "we" to build an overpriced playground for several hundred wealthy residents to be a "greater city"?

If you are concerned with the destruction of historic places, why are you pushing for a "Victory Park" to be built, since the only way to assemble the 80 acres of land needed to build it is to destroy many buildings. And, isn't Victory Park, to use your description, "a brand new, sparkling hell hole"?

As a general rule, city leaders are not in charge of architecture. If you are suggesting that they should be, I will personally lead the opposition to your proposal. As for laziness about our image, it appears that our civic leaders almost care TOO much about it, as shown by the annual deluge of image campaigns that are brought forth.

You, like many posters on this forum, appear to be dazzled by the lipstick on the pig. Dallas has many, many problems, from a persistently under leased downtown, to crime, to an inability to grow, to a city council that cannot put its racial problems behind it long enough to do some good for the city. Yet, you and others look at one 78 acre piece of land out of its 385 square miles, and proclaim it great. Victory Park will only provide housing for about 2,000 upscale residents of Dallas' 1.2 million population. At the same time, it continues to suck the life out of downtown and its 20% plus vacancy rate. As for gentrification, what has Dallas done for the hundreds of thousands of residents South of the Trinity River? I have no interest in emulating a city with as many or more problems than my own city has.

Perhaps because this is an architecture forum, we are inundated with topics like this. A city's worth is judged by how many buildings it has, not whether anyone lives or works in those buildings. Demands are made that cities MUST build newer shier buildings, ignoring the fact that the "city" does not build buildings, and developers will not build them unless it is profitable to do so. Perhaps if this were a political science forum, or a socioeconomics forum, we might actually look at the inner workings of our cities, how parks improve quality of life, how crime affects residents, how being hemmed in by suburban cities stifles growth, how REAL industry creates more jobs than an IMAGE of glamour.

Some no doubt will see this response as some sort of bashing. It is not. It is merely an observation that a veneer of shiny new buildings does not cure the underlying problems of cities, and that too many posters on this forum see a building or a development as more than it is. Mostly, this thread is a response to a disjointed topic with flawed assumptions.

people who are realists are seldom much fun; however, the truth hurts sometimes don't it? gotta love red. keep 'em comin'. great post.

[TheNiche]

A project in Dallas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Park

I visited it for the first time last night. Dined at N9ne steakhouse before the Rockets/Mavs game. Shame about the Rockets late collapse.

It is a nice project. Not to my taste though. I wouldn't live there and will not return to dine.

I stayed in Dallas earlier in the week, and also dined at N9ne. Nice place to visit, I like the shear mass of cutting edge architecture, but I'm with you--wouldn't want to live in or near Victory, and unless I've got a particular purpose like I did this time, I'm not going out of my way to make a return trip.

Edited November 10, 2007 by TheNiche

[memebag]

Does anyone know what victory Victory Park commemorates? Did Dallas defeat something?

[dalparadise]

Does anyone know what victory Victory Park commemorates? Did Dallas defeat something?

I predict approximately 30% of the posters on HAIF will answer, "Houston."

[RedScare]

people who are realists are seldom much fun; however, the truth hurts sometimes don't it? gotta love red. keep 'em comin'. great post.

I only revert to realist mode when confronted with posts that claim to make a point, but are utterly devoid of supporting facts, logic, or both. These posts in reality, are nothing more than a fixation on one thing, usually irrelevant to the overall point (see above reference to Victory Park), followed by an ill-thought attempt to expand that small fixation to the entire city.

Once my foray into realism is complete, I happily retreat to my normal state...fatalism. Have I mentioned that we are all doomed, today?

[RedScare]

Does anyone know what victory Victory Park commemorates? Did Dallas defeat something?

It is one of those classic developer inspired names, coined to less than subtly pay homage to its surroundings, in this case, American Airlines Center, home to the Dallas Mavericks, who coincidentally, have never been victorious. Jerry Jones, in one of the classic developer faux pas' of all time, coined another "homage to sports champions" name in nearby Arlington with the jaw-dropping "Glory Park", a name that immediately conjures images of Senator Larry Craig hanging out in Minneapolis airport restrooms.

The Victory Park developers had another name in mind, but found that it was taken. Besides, Texans do not speak French.

[TheNiche]

I predict approximately 30% of the posters on HAIF will answer, "Houston."

Well lets see now, in Houston, we've got 12 cranes up over the Texas Medical Center. Projects now total in excess of 8 million square feet. And while construction cost figures are only available for about a third of all new facilities, that is already exceeding $2 billion in the main campus alone. The TMC caters to people of all walks of life; it is functional and purpose-driven.

In Victory Park, I can't tell how many cranes are up because their webcam is down; I'm guessing from vague recollection that its probably 6 to 8. We're talking about something that is half the size, at 4 million square feet. And we're only talking about a $3 billion total investment, surely less than in our medical center. It caters to yuppies, feeding its image by nurturing an aire of exclusivity. If there's any doubt to that, check out their website--and make sure you have your computer's volume up.

Perhaps Victory Park is named 'Victory' to commemorate the greatness of the State's assets, wherever they may be. I seriously doubt it, but that'd be perfectly appropriate, given that the whole of the State of Texas is experiencing population and employment growth at about 2.14 times that of the other 49 states and the location of Victory Park would be appropriate given that the DFW area is the most rapidly-growing metro area in the State.

[N Judah]

Just because a percentage of people are in favor of a 'general plan' doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[mojeaux131]

You express a personal opinion along with poorly-qualified asides, then--when challenged--claim to understand that bringing it about would be an inconvenience to others and that you do not wish to bring it about. You will have to forgive me for presuming that your comments were more than mere whining and that you might back up preferences with intent.

Yes, my asides were so poorly qualified that the article I referenced had nothing to do with anything I mentioned, right? I do not claim to understand something so obvious as inconvenience, I simply understand it. This is a forum, not a laboratory. I do not have to scientifically or statistically qualify everything I say. Again, ask me a specific question instead of generalizing and making assumptions about my opinion. Again, I do not wish to bring about my "own personal utopia" at all. You ask me to "qualify" my opinions, but you rudely and hypocritically do not qualify your own caustic statements.

What exactly do you mean by "back up preferences with intent"? Do you mean explain my opinion? I'll be happy to do that if you ask me something specific, like "why do you think _______?" or "what do you mean by ______?" But that appears to be too difficult for you. I've often been impressed by your precision and knowledge on this forum, but in this case, your knowledge of decorum appears quite lacking, sir.

I'll spare you the embarrassment of pointing out obvious connections between my first post in this thread and the results of the Klineberg survey from the Chronicle article from the post I referenced from a different forum that oddly enough, you completely failed to mention in your second lame attack on a simple opinion expressed by myself. Good day.

Edited November 13, 2007 by mojeaux131

[TheNiche]

I'll spare you the embarrassment of pointing out obvious connections between my first post in this thread and the results of the Klineberg survey from the Chronicle article from the post I referenced from a different forum that oddly enough, you completely failed to mention in your second lame attack on a simple opinion expressed by myself. Good day.

Firstly: I know Klineberg. Klienberg knows how to ask a question.

Yes, my asides were so poorly qualified that the article I referenced had nothing to do with anything I mentioned, right? I do not claim to understand something so obvious as inconvenience, I simply understand it. This is a forum, not a laboratory. I do not have to scientifically or statistically qualify everything I say. Again, ask me a specific question instead of generalizing and making assumptions about my opinion. Again, I do not wish to bring about my "own personal utopia" at all. You ask me to "qualify" my opinions, but you rudely and hypocritically do not qualify your own caustic statements.

What exactly do you mean by "back up preferences with intent"? Do you mean explain my opinion? I'll be happy to do that if you ask me something specific, like "why do you think _______?" or "what do you mean by ______?" But that appears to be too difficult for you. I've often been impressed by your precision and knowledge on this forum, but in this case, your knowledge of decorum appears quite lacking, sir.

Look, if you're expressing nonsense with the intention of just stirring the pot so that other people will react to you, that might be called trolling. Frankly, I've been giving you that benefit for a while now, and continue to do so. I'm not asking those questions of you because I have an expectation (rational or not) that people will express what they believe with some degree of completeness. You aren't though. It still sounds like you're just being whiny.

If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise don't waste my time.

[mojeaux131]

Firstly: I know Klineberg. Klienberg knows how to ask a question.

Look, if you're expressing nonsense with the intention of just stirring the pot so that other people will react to you, that might be called trolling. Frankly, I've been giving you that benefit for a while now, and continue to do so. I'm not asking those questions of you because I have an expectation (rational or not) that people will express what they believe with some degree of completeness. You aren't though. It still sounds like you're just being whiny.

If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise don't waste my time.

I find it interesting that you would speak to me about pot-stirring and trolling when you're the one using loaded language in his posts. It was not my intention at all to stir the pot and get people to react to me. However, I will defend myself and my posts if I believe that someone is making incorrect personal assumptions about me and what I've said. Of course, if I defend myself against rudeness, in your opinion, I'm "stirring the pot" or "expressing nonsense" or "being whiny". It is because your posts are worded so impolitely that I have responded as I have.

All right, now to respond as best I can to what you've said (disregarding the personal slights, that is). I'm glad you know Klineberg. That doesn't change the fact that his article supports what I said. Now, for "completeness", I'll try to draw parallels between what I said in the beginning and what his article mentioned.

First, I said that "many others don't want a city that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar." You agreed with this and expanded on it by saying that government shouldn't cater to anyone. I agree with your statement. Now, when the government decides to spend federal transportation funds on expanding yet another freeway instead of enhancing transportation options (by expanding bus or rail), this is catering to the people who make their money from road construction (and others). It doesn't serve the interests of the people (the same people who voted for and approved light rail) when the freeway is beset by construction for long periods and roadside businesses are lost. Businesses were lost to the Katy Freeway expansion and 59 was a nightmare for at least two years because of expansion. This is what I meant by "car-centric". If we shifted our attention to diversifying transport options instead of working on only one, the city would be a lot less gridlocked. (And surprise, Metro has recently produced a plan to do just that.)

When I said many people feel this way, although it could have been as few as "a dozen", my statement (although not backed up at the time) was later qualified by the Klineberg survey. 54% said the best way to spend regional transportation dollars would be to improve bus and rail, and only 37% percent felt it would be better used for highway expansion. So, a majority of people surveyed (thus many) mirrored my statement about being fed up with car-centric development. They would rather see that money used to improve bus and rail because they most likely believe it would be more sensible than simply building more freeways. That's all I meant.

We can't simply build ourselves out of traffic with more freeways. We need options. Despite assumptions to the contrary, I would prefer to live in the suburbs as well. I grew up in the suburbs. But I think many people living in the suburbs would take a train into the city if they could. It would alleviate traffic and save them money on fuel and vehicle maintenance.

Also, as for "unscrupulous, irresponsible development", the survey found that 70% of respondents agreed with this statement: "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22% disagreed. Again, many feel the same way about guiding development through the implementation of better land-use planning; they would like better rules put in place so that they can have their own "preferences" respected. Someone will be inconvenienced no matter what. But the question is whether many or few will be inconvenienced. If the mayor makes a policy that wreckers can't line up on the freeway when there's an accident, those guys are inconvenienced, but the people who'd be stuck in the exacerbated traffic are helped. If better land-use policies prevent a strip club from being built outside a neighborhood or near a school, the owner of the club is inconvenienced, but the denizens of the neighborhood or the students and teachers are not (unless some teachers go for that sort of thing). But that's besides the point.

What I meant in my original post is that it seems like for too long, the preferences of those who'd prefer more planning rules or even (gasp! should I say it?) zoning have been ignored and the developers have been free to uglify our city in terrible ways. Hold it right there. Yes, it's what I perceive as ugly. You're right about that. But it's not just me. That's my whole point. 70% of survey respondents support better land-use planning to guide development.

If they get their way and we still have tacky strip malls and ginormous expanses of asphalt for parking lots and more streets and more freeways and cars, cars, cars; fine. But I don't think that's their preference, and I think their preference is worthy of respect. Business as usual in Houston isn't sensible because it doesn't look to the future. It doesn't make plans. That attitude worked well in the past and helped us grow into a great city, but just as gentrification is necessary for urban renewal and development, sometimes we have to tear down old ways of thinking and make decisions that may inconvenience some for the good of the city and its future and the preferences of all or at least most of the people who choose to live there.

A great city listens to its citizens and respects their wishes for the future. A great city balances the need for planning with personal and entrepreneurial freedom. A great city implements sensible policies by looking into the future and not what is easiest at the present.

Now, if I failed to respond appropriately to a question or critique you raised, please tell me specifically and I will answer as best and as politely as I can. But I will not continue this discussion if you refer to my points as "nonsense" or whining. I have not tried to waste your time, so I ask that you not waste mine.

Edited November 14, 2007 by mojeaux131

[VelvetJ]

I find it interesting that you would speak me about pot-stirring and trolling when you're the one using loaded language in his posts. It was not my intention at all to stir the pot and get people to react to me. However, I will defend myself and my posts if I believe that someone is making incorrect personal assumptions about me and what I've said. Of course, if I defend myself against rudeness, in your opinion, I'm "stirring the pot" or "expressing nonsense" or "being whiny". It is because your posts are worded so impolitely that I have responded as I have.

All right, now to respond as best I can to what you've said (disregarding the personal slights, that is). I'm glad you know Klineberg. That doesn't change the fact that his article supports what I said. Now, for "completeness", I'll try to draw parallels between what I said in the beginning and what his article mentioned.

First, I said that "many others don't want a city that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar." You agreed with this and expanded on it by saying that government shouldn't cater to anyone. I agree with your statement. Now, when the government decides to spend federal transportation funds on expanding yet another freeway instead of enhancing transportation options (by expanding bus or rail), this is catering to the people who make their money from road construction (and others). It doesn't serve the interests of the people (the same people who voted for and approved light rail) when the freeway is beset by construction for long periods and roadside businesses are lost. Businesses were lost to the Katy Freeway expansion and 59 was a nightmare for at least two years because of expansion. This is what I meant by "car-centric". If we shifted our attention to diversifying transport options instead of working on only one, the city would be a lot less gridlocked. (And surprise, Metro has recently produced a plan to do just that.)

When I said many people feel this way, although it could have been as few as "a dozen", my statement (although not backed up at the time) was later qualified by the Klineberg survey. 54% said the best way to spend regional transportation dollars would be to improve bus and rail, and only 37% percent felt it would be better used for highway expansion. So, a majority of people surveyed (thus many) mirrored my statement about being fed up with car-centric development. They would rather see that money used to improve bus and rail because they most likely believe it would be more sensible than simply building more freeways. That's all I meant.

We can't simply build ourselves out of traffic with more freeways. We need options. Despite assumptions to the contrary, I would prefer to live in the suburbs as well. I grew up in the suburbs. But I think many people living in the suburbs would take a train into the city if they could. It would alleviate traffic and save them money on fuel and vehicle maintenance.

Also, as for "unscrupulous, irresponsible development", the survey found that 70% of respondents agreed with this statement: "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22% disagreed. Again, many feel the same way about guiding development through the implementation of better land-use planning; they would like better rules put in place so that they can have their own "preferences" respected. Someone will be inconvenienced no matter what. But the question is whether many or few will be inconvenienced. If the mayor makes a policy that wreckers can't line up on the freeway when there's an accident, those guys are inconvenienced, but the people who'd be stuck in the exacerbated traffic are helped. If better land-use policies prevent a strip club from being built outside a neighborhood or near a school, the owner of the club is inconvenienced, but the denizens of the neighborhood or the students and teachers are not (unless some teachers go for that sort of thing). But that's besides the point.

What I meant in my original post is that it seems like for too long, the preferences of those who'd prefer more planning rules or even (gasp! should I say it?) zoning have been ignored and the developers have been free to uglify our city in terrible ways. Hold it right there. Yes, it's what I perceive as ugly. You're right about that. But it's not just me. That's my whole point. 70% of survey respondents support better land-use planning to guide development.

If they get their way and we still have tacky strip malls and ginormous expanses of asphalt for parking lots and more streets and more freeways and cars, cars, cars; fine. But I don't think that's their preference, and I think their preference is worthy of respect. Business as usual in Houston isn't sensible because it doesn't look to the future. It doesn't make plans. That attitude worked well in the past and helped us grow into a great city, but just as gentrification is necessary for urban renewal and development, sometimes we have to tear down old ways of thinking and make decisions that may inconvenience some for the good of the city and its future and the preferences of all or at least most of the people who choose to live there.

A great city listens to its citizens and respects their wishes for the future. A great city balances the need for planning with personal and entrepreneurial freedom. A great city implements sensible policies by looking into the future and not what is easiest at the present.

Now, if I failed to respond appropriately to a question or critique you raised, please tell me specifically and I will answer as best and as politely as I can. But I will not continue this discussion if you refer to my points as "nonsense" or whining. I have not tried to waste your time, so I ask that you not waste mine.

Beautiful.......simply Beautiful is how I would describe this post. You've spoken from my heart.

[sargento03]

I had to relocate away from Houston for the majority of this year (Dallas and Atlanta) and I'm finally moving back permanently next week. Now that I've been away I've realized two things: 1. Houston is a great place to live. I knew that before and have always loved the city, but now I know it even more. 2. The progress going on here is amazing.

Houston may have its problems, but I think the city has a lot going for it. The cost of living here is low, and for the most part, people can live in a decent place in a decent area for a decent price. The transportation system is not the greatest, but if people really wanted to, they can take the bus almost anywhere within the city. When I went to UH, I didn't have a car, and got around perfectly fine in the bus. Its obviously not as convenient, but I would do it again if I needed. During the summers, it is hot and muggy, but I love being able to run outside in January. Hey, and at least we have water! Atlanta is running out of water.

I drove around the city today to check out some of the developments and was really shocked. When you live here everyday, I think its hard to notice the progress of the city, but I can go on and on about the projects / buildings / houses that were finished or started within the last 11 months. I live in fourth ward, directly west of downtown, and I now have neighbors whose houses weren't even there at the beggining of the year!!! It's crazy. On the other hand, I saw a lot of projects in midtown that I was unhappy about...mostly banks that weren't there before (chase, wachovia, a CVS on main street, etc). Like many people here, I agree that those aren't the most ideal "urban" developments, but when I think of what was there before, nothing comes to mind...so I guess they are better than an empty lot.

I don't think Houston is playing catch-up. I think that maybe over the last several years a lot of its growth had been spread throughout the city, including suburbs, and it was hard to notice it. Today, we are seeing a lot of inner-loop growth, which is great. I think the potential of this city is amazing, and the best is yet to come. I also agree with another post that said that you have to love the city for what it is, and everything else that comes along will just be icing.

[mojeaux131]

nice post.

[TheNiche]

I find it interesting that you would speak to me about pot-stirring and trolling when you're the one using loaded language in his posts. It was not my intention at all to stir the pot and get people to react to me. However, I will defend myself and my posts if I believe that someone is making incorrect personal assumptions about me and what I've said. Of course, if I defend myself against rudeness, in your opinion, I'm "stirring the pot" or "expressing nonsense" or "being whiny". It is because your posts are worded so impolitely that I have responded as I have.

Politeness is not a requisite for correctness. If you were offended for any reason whatsoever, I offer no apology; just the constructive advice that you might want to suck it up, grow a thicker skin, and move on.

What I do apologize to you and other HAIFers for is that I somehow overlooked your response. I was out of town, but it was nevertheless my mistake. Excuse me.

All right, now to respond as best I can to what you've said (disregarding the personal slights, that is). I'm glad you know Klineberg. That doesn't change the fact that his article supports what I said. Now, for "completeness", I'll try to draw parallels between what I said in the beginning and what his article mentioned.

Newspaper articles support nothing. They are one person's edited interpretation of another person's interpretation of facts. They are unavoidably just cases of hearsay. But when the basic facts are suspect on account of that surveying techniques are intentionally flawed, it's just a big steaming pile of hooey that gives way when stepped in by unsuspecting interlopers.

First, I said that "many others don't want a city that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar." You agreed with this and expanded on it by saying that government shouldn't cater to anyone. I agree with your statement. Now, when the government decides to spend federal transportation funds on expanding yet another freeway instead of enhancing transportation options (by expanding bus or rail), this is catering to the people who make their money from road construction (and others). It doesn't serve the interests of the people (the same people who voted for and approved light rail) when the freeway is beset by construction for long periods and roadside businesses are lost. Businesses were lost to the Katy Freeway expansion and 59 was a nightmare for at least two years because of expansion. This is what I meant by "car-centric". If we shifted our attention to diversifying transport options instead of working on only one, the city would be a lot less gridlocked. (And surprise, Metro has recently produced a plan to do just that.)

We can't simply build ourselves out of traffic with more freeways. We need options. Despite assumptions to the contrary, I would prefer to live in the suburbs as well. I grew up in the suburbs. But I think many people living in the suburbs would take a train into the city if they could. It would alleviate traffic and save them money on fuel and vehicle maintenance.

We are still not in disagreement, I think. My preference is that roads be tolled, paid for by private concerns in a competitive market; it would still stand to reason that transit would receive funding from private sources, but it would likely be much less than at present, and I'd be A-OK with that. For practicality's sake, I believe that eminent domain still needs to be available, but in all other respects, it should be a market-based solution with no involvement whatsoever at the state or federal level. Let the larger entities concern themselves with inter-city and inter-state commerce, and only with that, and even then, only insofar as powers of eminent domain are concerned.

Now having said the above, I recognize that a pragmatic approach to the system as it is demands a lot of highway funding. It is terribly difficult to justify large amounts of funding for mass transit if you just play it by the numbers...and I'm not just talking about public finance, but also about ridership and congestion issues.

You talk about businesses that were eliminated as a result of the Katy Freeway reconstruction, but make no mention of the millions of square feet of office development in the Energy Corridor or of the new retail development along I-10 that undoubtedly wouldn't be supportable without the added capacity. Yes, all that new development is a result of "car-centric" policies as you define them, but is that really such a bad thing?

And although you claim that diversifying transport options will reduce gridlock, I can (and have in numerous other threads) offer many observations related to both bus and LRT that would indicate that poorly-implemented transit actually causes congestion. On the whole, I suspect that it is largely a wash.

Also, as for "unscrupulous, irresponsible development", the survey found that 70% of respondents agreed with this statement: "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22% disagreed. Again, many feel the same way about guiding development through the implementation of better land-use planning; they would like better rules put in place so that they can have their own "preferences" respected. Someone will be inconvenienced no matter what. But the question is whether many or few will be inconvenienced. If the mayor makes a policy that wreckers can't line up on the freeway when there's an accident, those guys are inconvenienced, but the people who'd be stuck in the exacerbated traffic are helped. If better land-use policies prevent a strip club from being built outside a neighborhood or near a school, the owner of the club is inconvenienced, but the denizens of the neighborhood or the students and teachers are not (unless some teachers go for that sort of thing). But that's besides the point.

And the vast majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq is mismanaged. That doesn't necessarily translate to that all such people would agree upon the best approach to the management of the war.

The fact is that I think we need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area. "Better" is of course subjective. My ideas aren't in the norm will never be implemented, but I'd be lying if I answered that I thought that we didn't. I suspect that the 22% that answered that we didn't need better planning are those that didn't understand the question, those that are either satisfied with the status quo on such an issue no matter what is asked of them, those that understood the true intent of the survey question and answered that they were satisfied because people such as yourself would misinterpret a truthful answer.

While there are undoubtedly a small subset of voters (which aren't the group represented in the survey) that have particular special interests, you seem to ignore the possibility that someone would vote based upon principle or aspiration.

I'd also like to point out that the question referenced the "Houston area", not the "City of Houston". There is a very big difference, and the fact is the Kleinberg doesn't even interpret his survey area in the same way that the Bureau of the Census does, the same as the Houston-Galveston Area Council does, or along any other standard or political geographies. If you're going to discuss issues such as zoning, implemented at the municipal level, you need to reference a corresponding population.

What I meant in my original post is that it seems like for too long, the preferences of those who'd prefer more planning rules or even (gasp! should I say it?) zoning have been ignored and the developers have been free to uglify our city in terrible ways. Hold it right there. Yes, it's what I perceive as ugly. You're right about that. But it's not just me. That's my whole point. 70% of survey respondents support better land-use planning to guide development.

I accept that it is your opinion that Houston is ugly. I've spent a lot of time over the last several weeks in Austin and Dallas, and I'm not inclined to disagree with you. But as sure as I'll sacrifice a pretty face for the remainder of a girl's person--lame though I may be by many peoples' standards--I'll sacrifice a monotonous Dallas or an uber-Bobo Austin for Houston's sincerety of form any day of the week. That's my take, and you don't have to agree.

Moreover, I think that it would be disingenuous to imply that 70% of the population holds your position. The survey question just isn't specific enough from which to draw meaningful conclusions.

If they get their way and we still have tacky strip malls and ginormous expanses of asphalt for parking lots and more streets and more freeways and cars, cars, cars; fine. But I don't think that's their preference, and I think their preference is worthy of respect. Business as usual in Houston isn't sensible because it doesn't look to the future. It doesn't make plans. That attitude worked well in the past and helped us grow into a great city, but just as gentrification is necessary for urban renewal and development, sometimes we have to tear down old ways of thinking and make decisions that may inconvenience some for the good of the city and its future and the preferences of all or at least most of the people who choose to live there.

A great city listens to its citizens and respects their wishes for the future. A great city balances the need for planning with personal and entrepreneurial freedom. A great city implements sensible policies by looking into the future and not what is easiest at the present.

Now, if I failed to respond appropriately to a question or critique you raised, please tell me specifically and I will answer as best and as politely as I can. But I will not continue this discussion if you refer to my points as "nonsense" or whining. I have not tried to waste your time, so I ask that you not waste mine.

The governments comprising the Houston area largely do not plan for the future. That doesn't translate to a lack of future planning.

Take our many Master Planned Communities as an example. They are large expanses of land that are most frequently outside of municipalities' control, as such being unzoned and completely autonomous, even required to establish their own utility districts to be paid for by the future residents of these places. And the results we see are The Woodlands, First Colony, Cinco Ranch, Shadow Creek Ranch, South Shore Harbor, Clear Lake, Kingwood, Fairfield, Bridgeland, Sienna Plantation, et al. By their very nature, they must be planned. They add value by promising prospective builders and residents that their neighbors will be compatible or at the very least known, at the very outset. But these are the epitome of successful planning, by virtue of the sales volume immensely popular to the local populous, yet they do not conform to your preferences almost at all.

Unfortunately, local governments just aren't as effective. When they forumlate plans, many suburbs eliminate multifamily options almost altogether to appease a tyrannical majority (fearful of crime and traffic) at the polls, but then grant variances willy-nilly to developers in a first-come-first-serve basis so that there oftentimes isn't really any effective planning or certainty about what'll be built behind an individual's back fence when it all plays out. Dallas has had a bad run of it because on top of these issues, there were incidents of corruption. Excellent local cases in point supporting my argument include League City and Sugar Land. If local governments had a spine, you might have a good case to make. But insofar as they can't seem to get it together, it seems altogether dubious that zoning has a positive effect. I'll admit that there are exceptions, of course, such as West U or Southside Place, where the voters are demographically homogenous and the land area is small enough that 'special interest' voters comprise the majority of the voting population.

When it comes to urban governments, the outcomes also aren't necessarily desirable. For instance, a central city might zone particular multifamily submarkets for lots of new apartments and condos, but totally neglect to zone multifamily in other neighborhoods where there is also demand. While such a policy implemented in a neighborhood such as our Midtown could cause very rapid transformation of its built environment, the substitution effect for apartments not built in other parts of the urban core wouldn't be 1:1 for additional units built in Midtown. Likewise, on account of so little land being made available, and it being so concentrated, its price will skyrocket. Those prices get passed on to the eventual tenants; if they aren't then developers lose money; if developers are going to lose money, they won't build. Such a policy also ignores where the real job growth is occuring, often taking residential units away from the new jobs and resulting in longer commute times. ...and as with the suburban example provided, there is still opportunity for numerous variances and even corruption.

Speaking of land prices, since they are based upon the present value of all income from the land's use, there is a mechanism in place that regulates urban land use without government intervention and by the highest and best market-supported use.

Do bear in mind that I'm not disrespecting your preferences or those that think like you. But I'm not in favor of cutting such people special favors, especially when market-driven land use planning is already providing for options that cater to such persons. Its not transformational, it is scattered, but if these projects under development prove to be successful, there will undoubtedly be copy-cats. Those greedy developers that you so readily poo-poo are on your side; they want for there to be another kind of product to build; all because it is they that want to build it...if you can support it.

[Trae]

Niche, I got a history paper due on Friday...

Edited November 26, 2007 by Trae

[mojeaux131]

Blah, blah, blah. I've made my point. It is not my objective to change your mind. Even though by your own admission we "agree" on some things, it's obvious that we aren't going to change each other's minds. I prefer polite discussions and you prefer "correctness". Neither one is better than the other. Different strokes for different folks.

Before ending this discussion (between you and I only), I will say that I find your logic (or lack thereof) hilarious. True, politeness does not equal correctness, but an impolite tone in posts will eventually detract from the quality of the discussions. I've seen this many times. Facts and being correct are important, but if you're too rude to hold a civil discussion, people aren't going to want to contribute as much as they would. To paraphrase something you once said, by whose authority do you dare to advise me to "suck it up" and grow a thicker skin? What is the proper formula for being "correct" and polite on this forum? You demand precision from others but do not appear to be respectful of their desire to be treated with respect. IMHO, this is "incorrect".

Further, in one post you claim to know Klineberg, a Rice University sociologist. You also say he "knows how to ask a question". Yet in another post, you call his research and article "hearsay" and "big steaming pile of hooey". By whose authority do you judge the survey and the article invalid?

It makes no sense whatsoever for you to deny the legitimacy of such a study and then pompously trumpet out your own "observations" and opinions as evidence to the contrary of anything. By your own definitions, your statements are rife with hypocrisy and double standards.

It was disingenuous of me to imply that 70% of the population holds my opinion, but the only tenet of my position that I articulated was that we need better planning. Sure, it's subjective, but it's still a statement (however unsubstantial or flawed you personally deem it to be). Of couse poorly-implemented transit can exacerbate traffic problems, but by whose authority do you deem Houston's planned transit (planned, since the vast majority of it has not been implemented and will not be for some time) as such?

I think the last paragraph of your post makes the most sense. However, although I am all about the free market, I think many people who extol the virtues of a free market sometimes forget that free markets work best when they are regulated by the state to some degree. Yes, it is subjective to which degree, but the fact remains that state regulation (and support) of markets has helped them realize more of their potential. I do not suppose that you are unaware of this, but I found it necessary to make this statement anyway.

Allow me to offer you this constructive advice: learn to talk to people. Otherwise, you're not going to change many minds no matter how much information you have. I could care less that you think I'm whiny or that you perceived (somehow) my assertiveness as trolling. It is quite possible that we agree on many things, but it becomes difficult to see just what those are when posts are rudely worded, no matter how "correct" they are. For all your knowledge, you do a disservice to your cause and opinions when you use condescending language--word to the wise (or at least to the detailed). I will not respond to any further posts you have to offer on this thread. I'm bowing out. If you take this to mean that you're smarter than me or that you've "won", by all means, go ahead. With respect to the original post on this thread, I could care less about Victory Park or gentrification. But my entire point was that Houston will benefit from the presence of greater transport options and more rules (and planning for the future) concerning development in the city. I hope you can find some tasty salsa for that chip on your shoulder. Peace.

[TheNiche]

Blah, blah, blah. I've made my point. It is not my objective to change your mind. Even though by your own admission we "agree" on some things, it's obvious that we aren't going to change each other's minds. I prefer polite discussions and you prefer "correctness". Neither one is better than the other. Different strokes for different folks.

Before ending this discussion (between you and I only), I will say that I find your logic (or lack thereof) hilarious. True, politeness does not equal correctness, but an impolite tone in posts will eventually detract from the quality of the discussions. I've seen this many times. Facts and being correct are important, but if you're too rude to hold a civil discussion, people aren't going to want to contribute as much as they would. To paraphrase something you once said, by whose authority do you dare to advise me to "suck it up" and grow a thicker skin? What is the proper formula for being "correct" and polite on this forum? You demand precision from others but do not appear to be respectful of their desire to be treated with respect. IMHO, this is "incorrect".

I have no doubt that it is true that you perceive my discourse as rude. My truthful perception is that I've done nothing that is rude and that your excessively-sensitive perception of me is counterproductive. This is why I advise you to grow a thicker skin. I issue the advice on my own authority; it is your prerogative whether or not to take it.

Further, in one post you claim to know Klineberg, a Rice University sociologist. You also say he "knows how to ask a question". Yet in another post, you call his research and article "hearsay" and "big steaming pile of hooey". By whose authority do you judge the survey and the article invalid?

You misunderstand my criticism. Newspaper articles are hearsay. The survey question is hooey for all the reasons cited, with the underlying issue being that the question does not adequately allow for conclusions to be drawn. I consider the survey question and the article invalid on the authority of reason.

It makes no sense whatsoever for you to deny the legitimacy of such a study and then pompously trumpet out your own "observations" and opinions as evidence to the contrary of anything. By your own definitions, your statements are rife with hypocrisy and double standards.

I fail to see why one person's invalid findings need negate my own opinions, which are independent of those findings.

Of couse poorly-implemented transit can exacerbate traffic problems, but by whose authority do you deem Houston's planned transit (planned, since the vast majority of it has not been implemented and will not be for some time) as such?

By the authority of my own independent observations and reasoning.

Btw, the majority of our transit (extant and planned) has already been implemented. Busses.

I think the last paragraph of your post makes the most sense. However, although I am all about the free market, I think many people who extol the virtues of a free market sometimes forget that free markets work best when they are regulated by the state to some degree. Yes, it is subjective to which degree, but the fact remains that state regulation (and support) of markets has helped them realize more of their potential. I do not suppose that you are unaware of this, but I found it necessary to make this statement anyway.

I agree. I'm not a very good Libertarian because I'm not an Anarchist. Those people scare me sometimes.

Allow me to offer you this constructive advice: learn to talk to people. Otherwise, you're not going to change many minds no matter how much information you have. I could care less that you think I'm whiny or that you perceived (somehow) my assertiveness as trolling. It is quite possible that we agree on many things, but it becomes difficult to see just what those are when posts are rudely worded, no matter how "correct" they are. For all your knowledge, you do a disservice to your cause and opinions when you use condescending language--word to the wise (or at least to the detailed). I will not respond to any further posts you have to offer on this thread. I'm bowing out. If you take this to mean that you're smarter than me or that you've "won", by all means, go ahead. With respect to the original post on this thread, I could care less about Victory Park or gentrification. But my entire point was that Houston will benefit from the presence of greater transport options and more rules (and planning for the future) concerning development in the city. I hope you can find some tasty salsa for that chip on your shoulder. Peace.

My problem with your presentation was in fact that you weren't being assertive. If you have a point to make, get out with it.

I'm not sure why you seem to believe that I have a superiority complex of some sort; I don't make comparsions between my person and yours or anyone else's because such statements really and truly are entirely unproductive. Just give me your premises and conclusions. I evaluate and criticize them on the basis of reason, not on the basis of who has put it forward.

[brerrabbit]

Without getting into all the back and forth on the issue, I offer only this. Projects like Victory Park or for that matter the new park being built in Houston in front of the GRB are nice, but are they really worth the price? Not just in terms of dollars but so many dollars on one project. Cities like Houston have a pool of resources to pull on each year. These are the corporate donations and endowments that are there to improve the quality of life across the city. A very good friend of mine works for the Houston Parks Board and I know that the downtown park sucked the life out of a lot of parks projects in Houston because it took $80 million off the table for other projects. That $80 million could have been much better spent in smaller projects at sites all across the city than dumping into one one block project in downtown.

As far as regulations go, no doubt Houston has lagged the country and it has casued problems. However at the same time it has created a unique city. Houston is something you have to experience to fully appreciate. Its not New York, or Chicago. or LA. It's something quite unto itself and thats what I love about it. I like the mix of old and new, tradition and non traditional. I was born and raised in this town and have seen a lot of change over my 48 years here. Some good, some bad. But isn't that the case anywhere you go. Developers will do things only when there is money to be made and no amount of regulation is going to force them into doing non profitable ventures. Because of this and the lack of zoning Houston's administration has to walk a fine line when looking to the future of the city.

I freely admit that I don't have all the answers but given all the acknowleded and perceived problems I think we have done a decent job overall and hope we will continue to do so into the future.

[RedScare]

You've made this argument before, but continue to ignore the obvious. Corporate donations are made as much for publicity purposes as for any charitable one. It is not a given that the $60 million donated toward the park project would have been given toward smaller invisible parks. The downtown donations will be seen by users of the big park, where pocket park donations will not.

As for whether the taxpayer funds were worth it, this is a fairly easy calculation. The City spent $20 million dollars building a parking garage that will be offset to some degree by parking fees. The park will also lease the restaurant and other retail space to vendors. There are at least at least 3 new towers under construction or proposed as a direct result of the park's presence...a 22 story hotel, 30 story apartment and a 30 office tower. Using a conservative estimate of $100 million for each tower, the increase in taxable value as a result of the park is $300 million. The City's tax rate is $0.64 per $100. The City will receive $1.92 million in property taxes, plus rent plus parking revenue EVERY year on its $20 million investment.

Yeah, it was worth it.

[TheNiche]

You've made this argument before, but continue to ignore the obvious. Corporate donations are made as much for publicity purposes as for any charitable one. It is not a given that the $60 million donated toward the park project would have been given toward smaller invisible parks. The downtown donations will be seen by users of the big park, where pocket park donations will not.

The counterargument could be made that the laundry list of donors for Discovery Green, where no one donor even got naming rights, means that the publicity has to be shared and is less potent.

Say that the Kinder Foundation, a $10 million donor to Discovery Green supported by Kinder Morgan, had instead bought about 21 quarter-blocks (or any equivalent land area totalling 7.65 acres) in the east downtown warehouse district at an average cost of $30 per square foot, then donated the portfolio to the Parks Department on the condition that the first word in the name of each developed park be "Kinder"? The cost would be approximately the same as the Discovery Green donation, yet they'd be securing extremely strong brand identification throughout in an up-and-coming essentially unnamed neighborhood, while at the same time bringing media attention directly upon themselves and the neighborhood and ensuring for the branded neighborhood's enhanced vitality.

In my mind, that approach beats the ____ out of the near-anonymity of a Discovery Green contribution.

As for whether the taxpayer funds were worth it, this is a fairly easy calculation. The City spent $20 million dollars building a parking garage that will be offset to some degree by parking fees. The park will also lease the restaurant and other retail space to vendors. There are at least at least 3 new towers under construction or proposed as a direct result of the park's presence...a 22 story hotel, 30 story apartment and a 30 office tower. Using a conservative estimate of $100 million for each tower, the increase in taxable value as a result of the park is $300 million. The City's tax rate is $0.64 per $100. The City will receive $1.92 million in property taxes, plus rent plus parking revenue EVERY year on its $20 million investment.

Yeah, it was worth it.

Taxpayer funds may have been worth it, but the cost/benefit calculus is not nearly so simple. While Discovery Green has undoubtedly influenced the location of new development, those developments are only being built because they are supported by market demand.

For instance, had Finger's Park One not gone forward, those that will live in it would likely have spent an equivalent amount of their income on housing elsewhere in the City. It is unlikely that many of this type of households would move outside of the City of Houston, but undoubtedly there would be some leakage.

Likewise, downtown hotel occupancy warrants new hotel construction. If not near the new park, it would likely have occured elsewhere within that submarket. The same goes for downtown office space.

And brerrabbit is correct to point out that funds not allocated to Discovery Green could've been allocated elsewhere, and that would've stimulated property values in those areas.

--------------------

Personally, I'd suspect that the medium- and smaller-sized corporate donations and the public investment into Discovery Green were worth it, although something on the order of Kinder's donation is perhaps excessive. What I'm not clear on was whether the donations and investments were maximally productive, or if they might've had a greater impact if spent on some other portfolio of parks projects.

[brerrabbit]

I don't have the total breakdown on the money donated to Discovery Green by donor but was lead to believe that at least some of the money came from trusts that are operated in the city. These trusts are not looking for recognition nearly as much as the corporate donors. They have a fixed amount of dollars to give each year based on the returns they make year to year. These are the dollars that I feel are wasted on one big project. Also I agree with TheNiche that the development is not a direct result of the park. Remember the developers will do projects that they feel will make them money and a return on the investment. With or without the park downtown occupancy and the market for downtown housing will drive the developers actions, not the mere presence of a new park.

Finally maybe I'm just a more spread the wealth kind of guy but I think that sum of money could have gone a long way to increase quality of life in a lot of places rather than just the downtown area. It's probably also driven by the fact that my good friend works for the Houston Parks Board which is a non profit organization that raises donations to aquire and develop park space throughout Houston and that a lot of projects across the city are being delayed because of a lack of funds to proceed. Granted the dollars will come again next year and they will move forward on the stalled projects but it just makes it harder when one nameplate park sucks up so much money.

At least the new skatepark is moving forward with the help of the Jamail's $1.8 million donation. Kinder could have got naming rights to that one and it would have cost $8.2 million less than Discovery Green.

Edited November 27, 2007 by brerrabbit