Using the Stimulus to Encourage Sprawl

[TheNiche]

For whom??? This is a bad assumption to make. GenXers may not prefer sprawl as they get older, and the economy may not be able to support it anymore anyway.

Suburbs are for people who embrace the cult of the child. GenXers don't exactly excel at that, but then, they also aren't an especially numerous population, as generations of the anglo saxon tradition go. A fair number of them will go to the suburbs, if not to raise children then because there are lots and lots of jobs in the suburbs. Beyond middle age, they'll probably tend to stay fairly close to where they have a social network and tend to age in place. Others will relocate to rural areas or to retirement destinations.

I would hypothesize that like every other group of immigrants, Mexicans will by and large become an affluent population able to support new suburban growth. And on account of their large and well-insulated cultural footprint in many American cities, they aren't necessarily going to need to acculturate as quickly as other immigrant groups. By and large, they're going to continue to make babies and gravitate toward the suburbs as soon as that becomes economically feasible.

How quickly we forget last summer...some families in our metro were stretched to their absolute limit b/c of gas prices. They were shopping at second hand stores and going to food pantries just so they could afford the drive to work and their mortgage in the same month. Do we really think that gas prices have "returned to normal"?? Sprawl growth may be the preference today, but I'm of the belief that people's minds may chnge out of necessity in the next 10-20 years.

The alternative to gasoline would be paying a significantly higher price for the same amount and quality of housing inside the loop.

A distressed suburban household with kids has to find somewhere to make sacrifices, but I'd tend to believe that they'd consume fewer nick-nacks, become more price-conscious at the grocery store, trade out their Hummer 2 for a used Escape Hybrid, and give up their Starbucks habit before they move into a smaller home in a less kid-centric environment, if they can help it.

And unless the Katy area is planning on growing enough to establish its own metro, this current growth pattern is dangerous and unsustainable.

Together, the Energy Corridor and Westchase comprise nearly the same employment base as downtown Houston...and they're growing faster.

[kdog08]

There could be compromise to having the GP built. Sitting aside some land for flood control and preservation would also provide a great recreation area. Barker and Addicks Reservoir are great and really provide something unique for Houston in my opinion. Both those areas are rather large so I would expect the land set aside for the Katy Prairie would be smaller as part of the imaginary compromise I thought of.

[livincinco]

No, but we can improve the frequency and quality of METRO, form some auxiliary transit organizations, increase usage of alternative modes of transportation (bicycles, walking, etc.) and establish more mixed-use development so that the growing population can adjust its travel needs.

I'm in favor of more alternative transportation, but I'm not particularly optimistic that it can be used to address more than a small segment of the population in a metro like Houston. The climate is not conducive to wide spread use of walking or biking for more than neighborhood trips. Mixed-use development is great, if you are able to work in the immediate area. Like most metro areas, Houston has multiple job centers that are located in different parts of the city.

The argument over 1717 Bissonet has absolutely nothing to do with traffic concerns... it's a result of NIMBYism. The citizens of that area want to keep it exclusive, and they don't want something that would disrupt the character of the neighborhood. They are rich and feel like they have "earned" a certain look to their area. But the problem is they live in houston, Texas... zoning doesn't mean much here unless you have a deed restriction. (For the record I don't support the Ashby high rise either, but not for the same reasons).

From stopashbyhighrise.org "it does not make sense to allow the predictable traffic congestion that this 23 - story development will cause. Even the developer's own traffic study indicates a significant worsening of traffic. The number of cars coming from that building has been estimated to be 2,000 per day. They would emerge onto two-lane neighborhood streets. Bissonnet is already backed up many times throughout the day."

Who's reality and what time period??? This is fully dependent on the trends of the NEXT generation... and they may not be so willing to sprawl.

Anything is possible, but increasing sprawl is a multi generational trend. Read the reasons for development of the Heights in 1891 and tell me if this sounds particularly different than the discussion that we are having today. www.houstonheights.org/overview

If you draw up a list of the pros and the cons of living in an urban vs. suburban environment, you'll find that the base reasons for sprawl are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Different people will weigh those factors differently depending on their own circumstances, but I tend to believe that it is more likely that the next generation will follow the trend of the last five.

[TheNiche]

From stopashbyhighrise.org "it does not make sense to allow the predictable traffic congestion that this 23 - story development will cause. Even the developer's own traffic study indicates a significant worsening of traffic. The number of cars coming from that building has been estimated to be 2,000 per day. They would emerge onto two-lane neighborhood streets. Bissonnet is already backed up many times throughout the day."

Veering OT, but 2,000 cars per day! That's ridiculous. Is every single condo going to be occupied by a crack or meth dealer? There's no other reason I could think of for there to be over a dozen trips per dwelling unit each day.

[Houston19514]

Veering OT, but 2,000 cars per day! That's ridiculous. Is every single condo going to be occupied by a crack or meth dealer? There's no other reason I could think of for there to be over a dozen trips per dwelling unit each day.

I thought the same thing upon reading that. I presume it's significantly elevated because of the planned retail portion at the base of the tower. But it still seems excessive. (Not to mention, using that number alone is a bit dishonest. There is already an apartment complex on the site, with cars coming and going each day. So the 2,000 is not a net increase, at least as presented)

Edited April 1, 2009 by Houston19514

[livincinco]

I thought the same thing upon reading that. I presume it's significantly elevated because of the planned retail portion at the base of the tower. But it still seems excessive. (Not to mention, using that number alone is a bit dishonest. There is already an apartment complex on the site, with cars coming and going each day. So the 2,000 is not a net increase, at least as presented)

I agree that the counts seem inflated, but it's just not accurate to say that the problems getting this building approved have absolutely nothing to do with traffic concerns.