Houston: City Gone Wrong or Model of Urbanity for the Future?

[chrizow]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 15292.html

this is a piece by Joel Kotkin, an anti-urbanist pundit, about how Houston's "market-based" approach to urban development is the way of the future.  by contrast, urbanists wishing to create Chicagos and Bostons in new cities are elitists wishing to impose their ideal urban form on everyone else.  the solution is to let the market decide, so people who like density can get it, and people who want sprawl can have it. 

i thought this was a pretty interesting article.  KC doesn't have the population or population growth of Houston, but if it did it seems pretty obvious to me that KC would emulate the Houstons and Atlantas and Charlottes rather than the Portlands or San Franciscos.

excerpts:

"Critics often denounce such sprawling places as the ''anti-city,'' inimical to the historic spirit of urbanism. But viewed from the future perspective, such attitudes surely seem as shortsighted as it would have been for a Florentine to see the growth of industrial cities like Manchester, England, as outside the realm of the urban experience.

This new form of urbanism, like those before it, has been shaped by factors unique to American historical development — the vast availability of land, the burgeoning population growth, the affluence that has allowed so many to purchase cars and homes. Yet, at the same time, the multipolar model also harkens back to pre-industrial urban patterns. The great cities of the past — London, Paris, Tokyo — did not and to a large extent still do not revolve around what we think of as ''downtowns,'' a term that did not even gain currency till late in the 19th century. Instead, cities consisted of specialized districts dominated by the church, by financiers or by specific trades such as book-sellers, fishmongers, fashion or entertainment.

The modern multipolar city re-creates this dispersed urbanity, but at distances defined not by walking but by the time it takes to travel by car. This, along with the rise of the Internet, increasingly allows individuals, families and businesses to locate where they wish.

In the future, this new model will allow for the evolution of an unprecedented development of diverse metropolitan environments. They will include everything from the ''gritty downtown'' to lower and moderate density inner-ring communities, as well as new suburban ''villages'' on the outer ring.

Perhaps no place has been more adept at fashioning this last form of development than Houston. Rather than impositions by government fiat, Houston's myriad master-planned communities are largely creations of the planners' nightmare — the marketplace. They reflect a typically pragmatic, market-oriented, Houston-style approach: building the kinds of housing that people demand and providing the infrastructure, such as a vital town center, that binds them to the area.

* * * * * * *

"Houston's tradition as a market-based urban innovator also extends to its rapidly recovering inner ring. As the city's population grows, it will inevitably become denser both in its periphery and closer to the central core. New urbanists and planners need not legislate this change. Demand will be created by many factors: the overall rise in population and immigration; energy-related concerns; desire for shorter commutes; and rising land costs.

The evidence shows that Houston's more pragmatic approach — essentially allowing development to follow market demand — has worked better to drive inner ring development than the models beloved by many planners. Since 2000, only 2.5 percent of all population growth in greater Portland, Ore., occurred in the city; in Houston, the city accounted for more than 10 percent. Other cities often praised by ''smart growth advocates,'' — cities such as Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis — all lost population.

In other words, Houston's inner-city boom, while less controlled and heralded, is doing the job of increasing density — the summum bonum of ''smart growth'' — over wider areas than most traditional cities. Places like Chicago, San Francisco or Boston may be gentrifying closer to their core, but they are also losing people, particularly families with children, in many neighborhoods.

By contrast, Houston's urban evolution appears to be attracting — if not families — then significant numbers of educated workers. In fact, despite local critics' constant carping about the city's landscape, Houston has been experiencing a net gain of such workers over the past few years while ''creative'' meccas, such as Boston, San Francisco and New York, have been suffering a net out-migration.

* * * * * * *

An urbanist with an eye for the future cannot help but be excited by how inner-ring Houston is evolving from its grass roots: a kaleidoscopic, undisciplined environment spanning predominantly African-America areas like the Third Ward, recently Latinized or Asian immigrant neighborhoods, as well as more upscale, largely Anglo areas. Between these dense stretches of townhomes lie more traditional single-family districts critical to keeping middle-class families inside the 610 Loop.

Rather than an adherence to the traditional urban hierarchy, the prevailing characteristic of the emerging inner ring lies in its diversity and range of functions. One such district, for example, the Harwin Corridor, has evolved into a kind of wholesale goods bazaar dominated by Asian businesses along a long, auto-reliant boulevard. Other districts, such as the one along Bellaire Boulevard, are dominated by various ethnic groups from Vietnam, India or Latin America.

Even at higher densities such districts will likely offend most urbanists and planners. For one thing, although transit may play a supporting role, the car — albeit a cleaner, more fuel efficient version — will remain king. Many aesthetes also will gasp at the hodgepodge of architectural style, with New Orleans style jutting against modernist metal shells, adjacent to faux Italianate. Paris, Boston or even Portland, Ore., Houston is not nor will likely ever be.

Yet there are those like architect Tim Cisneros who exult at Houston's prospects for urban innovation. As he drives down Bellaire, Cisneros even finds good things to say about Houston's ubiquitous strip malls. These low-cost areas, he argues, provide opportunity for ethnic restaurateurs and business people who could never afford the places favored by most urban planners. They also provide sometimes unique close-by services, and sometimes the land, for new townhouse developments, which he sees filling up mostly with skilled workers in their 20s and 30s."

* * * * * *

[KCMax]

The problem with taking in a market-based approach is that there are many externalities the market doesn't account for. Highway subsidization, environmental effects, electrical grids, water and drainage systems - all of these are public costs that sprawled developments will benefit more from than dense new urbanism.

I agree to a point that sometimes I think the new urbanist are trying to impose their ideals on everyone else - but if people didn't like it, the market would snuff these projects out. Instead, many are flourishing. So obviously there is a market there.

This kinda seems like post hoc rationalization for the sprawling mess Houston has made.

[Spartan65]

Houston is urbanizing and gentrifying faster than almost all major US cities. That's the bottom line.

At the same time no one is denying that Houston is also sprawling faster than almost all major US cities.

And now for the obligatory skyline pic:


Home!!

[GRID]

Houston is urbanizing and gentrifying faster than almost all major US cities. That's the bottom line.

Um, no it's not.  Downtown KC is building far more urban housing than Houston, a city much much larger.

In Houston, it's all about the Galleria area which is nothing but a large version of College Blvd.  That area makes Clayton seem like Manhattan.

Houston is an ok town, I really like the new light rail system, but lets not get too carried away with its urbanity.  It's the biggest sprawl center in the nation, topping Atlanta, Phoenix and Dallas with ease.

[ComandanteCero]

I think Kotkin also glosses over some of the problems of having a completely market driven development process.  Zoning laws can be bad, but they can also be used for good, they are just a tool.  By leaving all urban form decisions up to developers and traffic engineers (which is what Kotkin seems to be suggesting), we could very well end up with some cool areas, but we'd also have some areas that would suffer.  For example, without zoning, it'd be very likely that boulevards such as Ward Parkway would be dotted with gas stations and other surface lot retail (as the market would likely dictate for such a highly trafficked roadway).  Not to mention, it's not like it's a free for all in Houston, there are many ways in which the private sector accomplishes a lot of the homogeneity and predictability that people assume is due to zoning, mostly in the form of convenants and Home Owner Associations that one enters upon buying into a master planned community.

More importantly, the market drives a lot of development regardless of zoning.  Zoning maps are regularly changed at the request of developers, and although one may say it's an inefficient process that interferes with the market, it allows neighbors and the surrounding community to have their voices heard in terms of concerns they might have.

I think we can all look around KC and see some of these "futuristic urban trends" that Kotkin attributes to Houston's lack of zoning (i.e the variety of urban forms) from places like Park Place, to downtown, to 151st and Metcalf to Prairie Village to Zona Rosa there's a lot of variety in urbanism throughout the metro, and that's despite zoning (because, like i said, it's not set in stone, and developers can always try to re-zone parcels).  Houston isn't plowing some new path in development, it's just doing the same thing everyone else is doing, with or without zoning.

[ShowMeKC]

I don't like Kotkin one bit, and if KC ends up like Houston, I'm moving... 

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't like Kotkin one bit, and if KC ends up like Houston, I'm moving... 

Hey even in the worst case development scenario, KC still will not be located in a nasty, humid, mosquito-infested, swamp. 

[chingon]

Or, for that matter, peopled by Texans.

[chrizow]

i've never been to Houston but i have friends from there and it sounds like a pretty interesting place.  it is certainly no model of urbanity (in the classic sense) but from what i gather there is a fun, funky, arty soul lurking beneath the veneer of sprawl/oil/etc. 

when i first became interested in urbanism and urban issues, i definitely adhered to the euro/east coast model of urbanity.  even now, i think places like brooklyn, boston, philadelphia (let alone london, paris, etc) are stellar examples of urbanism that are pedestrian oriented and cultivate an exciting public life. 

in the past couple of years or so, however, i've come to appreciate the brand of urbanism seen in newer cities in the US.  take a place like LA - very dense, urban, yet car-dependent with an agglomeration of questionable 50s-70s architecture crammed into the hilly terrain like some sort of postmodern italian city.  i also appreciate less dense cities like KC more and more.  though it's car-centric, i sort of like the mix of stately and ramshackle and the overgrown, almost jungle-like quality of many areas of the core.  it would be great if we preserved more of our history, but that's in the past.  i assume the same of houston - a nice collection of old buildings and homes but with a modern sheen. 

we're probably never going to build another boston or chicago or new york.  at best, places that focus somewhat on smart growth like portland, seattle, denver, etc. will continue to build on their ever-bustling cores, but that isn't going to happen in KC.  in fact, KC won't see Seattle OR Atlanta/Houston type urban growth without sunbelt-esque population migration, which doesn't appear to be forthcoming.  so, what do we do?

[chingon]

Well, if there is one thing that Texas and its cities prove, its that a place can have its own definitive, unique urban culture without adhering strictly to any formula of built environment. Even more relevant in KC's case, is that there is no shame in a population's rural roots/ties. I have a strong distaste in my mouth for a lot of Texas culture, especially the posturing, juvenile braggadacio that passes for pride in their little world, but at the same time I have to say I respect their collective ability to thumb their noses at anything that smacks of broader American cultural imposition. I think a lot of midwestern cities would do better to embrace their own unique (fading) cultural tademarks a la Houston/Austin/San Antonio, instead of vainly pursuing half assed imitations of "first tier" city cultural norms.
I like KC's built environment, for a lot of the same qualities you mention, I think its pretty fascinating. I think STL and Cincy and Pittsburgh are cooler looking cities, but not any cooler places to live or visit. By contrast I think the cities of the Pacific NW are architecturally hideous, and a lot of people think they are the greatest thing ever to happen to the American urban landscape. I guess my point is that I think built environment is a much smaller part of a city's character than a lot of people on this board, and people in the urban centers of Texas seem to get that. 

[ComandanteCero]

Well, I think there are a lot of people who would rather live in an apartment where they can walk to shopping and restaurants and cultural activities, but many don't think they can afford it, or still have bad perceptions of crime and vandalism, or don't think they can have that lifestyle in KC.  There are lots of folks with a more adventurous streak who are willing to give it a go and see how things turn out (i.e most of the people downtown today), and then there's a large chunk of people who need to be sold on what is currently there.  I think the only area that we an unequivocally sell to just about anyone looking for urbanesque living is the Plaza (i.e walkable, dense, vibrant, safe, etc).    I think 10 years from now the downtown area will be almost as sellable as the Plaza. 

I remember reading somewhere that approximately 10 percent of folks in a given metro would be very interested in living in a vibrant urban area.  Doesn't sound like much, but if we could get 200,000 people in the RCP corridor we'd have a moderately hopping area (in 2000 the RCP population (as calculated from census tracts) was about 76,000).  At a population of 200,000 we'd have a density of about 11,534 people/sq mile (i'm using a definition of the RCP as being from Prospect to State Line, the River to 55th).  For comparison's sake, that'd be comparable to Montreal's city wide density, and almost as dense as Boston.  This could be accomplished through densification/redevelopment downtown, along the Main Corridor, Westport and eventually along the Troost corridor and in the 18th and Vine area. 

I don't think people in KC are that different from people in other cities, and I think that 10% estimate probably holds true to KC.

Continuing the density analogies (for shits and giggles), Montreal's highest density district is roughly 34,000 ppl/sq mi (Chicago's highest density district, Edgewater is about 36,000 ppl/sq mi).... if we wanted the Loop to match that density, we'd need 23,800 folks just in the loop (which is .7 sq mi).  The River Market (.24 sq mi) would need 8,160 people, the Crossroads (.51 sq mi) would need 17,340.  Al together we'd need 49,300 people in those three areas (right now that area has about 12,000 folks), or about four times what we currently have.  I left out the West side (.25 sq mi) and Crown Center/Hospital Hill (.72 sq mi) just cause they have their own thing going at the moment, but if the West Side wanted that density (which it doesn't look like it does) it would also have to quatruple its population, while the Crown Center/Hospital Hill area would have to go from a Census 2000 population of 2,000 to 24,480... which seems unlikely.

Seems unlikely right now, but consider the fact that we have just now (literally in the past 7 years) started seriously populating those three neighborhoods.  I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now we've been able to double the current population of 12,000.  And as we approach those higher populations the more vibrant the area will seem, and thus more attractive.  I think we can do it, and i don't think it'll require explosive population growth (or even peak oil), i think the demand is there, and it's just a question of continuing to improve our urban areas.

[cdschofield]

I have family in Houston and have spent a lot of time in Houston. I will categorically say that it has to be the most un-aesthetically pleasing city I have ever encountered. I don't think the infrastructure has ever caught up since it started booming in the 80's and it just looks like there were never any zoning laws. Even the Galleria area is not that great considering it's the premiere shopping area. Houston is a good case that the availability of jobs has more to do with the growth of a city than a cool urban environment.

[ShowMeKC]

Houston doesn't have zoning.

[Spartan65]

Um, no it's not.  Downtown KC is building far more urban housing than Houston, a city much much larger.

Opine all you like. Just letting you know you sound just like someone who's never once ventured into the INSIDE of the Loop 610.

In Houston, it's all about the Galleria area which is nothing but a large version of College Blvd.  That area makes Clayton seem like Manhattan.

Are you serious? The Galleria puts Clayton utterly to shame.

Houston is an ok town, I really like the new light rail system, but lets not get too carried away with its urbanity.  It's the biggest sprawl center in the nation, topping Atlanta, Phoenix and Dallas with ease.

I take it that you have never once been to Phoenix. I envy you sir!

By leaving all urban form decisions up to developers and traffic engineers (which is what Kotkin seems to be suggesting), we could very well end up with some cool areas, but we'd also have some areas that would suffer.

Exactly. But you gotta give a little to make a little. Houston is a very unique city. Sure, its distinctive architectural style of glass high-rises might be a little bland, and the "grand" corridors of upscale hodge podge from Mexican tile roofs, to ultra-contemporary, to plantation, to faux Renaissance do get old. But in few cities will you see as diverse and huge an offering of every imaginable real estate, landscaping types, people, and the true essence of the "ultimate Libertarian city." As Thomas Jefferson would say, "Laissez faire."

an inefficient process that interferes with the market, it allows neighbors and the surrounding community to have their voices heard in terms of concerns they might have.

It's called a building permit. You still have to have one, even in Houston. There are developments that have been protested in Houston, the only problem with protesting developments is that you're pretty much alone. As the "ultimate Libertarian city" nobody in Houston is about to protest development any time soon. The mentality is, if they buy the land, it's theirs, and they can do whatever in the hell they want.

Usually development projects in Houston aren't half-bad. The reason the market-driven approach works so well for Houston is that the market IS driven. What works for Houston with so much demand and growth simply does not work in KC and certainly not in OKC. I'm not against incentivizing for growth and planning to make things go smoothly, but Houston is lucky to not have to do that because that's less public money spent. And less public money spent is less public money collected, which is also very attractive, for residents and developers alike.

Hey even in the worst case development scenario, KC still will not be located in a nasty, humid, mosquito-infested, swamp.

You mean... instead of being located between the Piney Woods and the ocean, and being criss-crossed by bayous and rivers.

Or, for that matter, peopled by Texans.

I will level with you there however. Although it is ironic that an avid Okie like myself, and an OU graduate, did so well living in Texas' largest city. Perhaps the fact that Houston has the nation's largest Sooner fan club helped out a little bit.

Even the Galleria area is not that great considering it's the premiere shopping area.

Really? What's better then...? Galleria is part of a breed of districts that transverse the realm of urban and suburban. The Galleria started developing in the 60s when the Loop 610 got big and the city started sprawling many miles past it. Today, it's over 100 miles from the southern tip of the CMSA on beautiful Galveston Island, to the northern tip of the CMSA around Willis, TX, a town in the sparkling Piney Woods.

The Galleria district is attached to downtown, because it's where the inner city begins, and it's part of the suburbs at the same time, because it is auto-centric and just barely outside the Loop 610. There are few districts you can really compare it to. Buckhead in Atlanta has closely modeled it but not begun to come close. Charlotte has modeled their downtown after it. The Galleria is home to numerous shopping, including The Houston Galleria (the mall) which is the nation's 5th largest indoor mall, and by far much more upscale than the few malls that are larger. There is literally a myriad of apartment high-rises surrounding the district, and the office space in the district itself is equivalent to that of Downtown Pittsburgh. The Galleria also lays claim to the largest skyscaper in the World outside of a CBD, but then again, you expect that in a city like Houston. Urbanism doesn't have to make sense to be great. What makes Houston so great is that it makes zero sense whatsoever, but yet, the end result is a very nice city, and by far, one of the most diverse you'll ever come across.

[GRID]

Opine all you like. Just letting you know you sound just like someone who's never once ventured into the INSIDE of the Loop 610.

Um, been to Houston many times, four times in the past year.  You do realize I have a photos website of cities from across the country right?

Are you serious? The Galleria puts Clayton utterly to shame.

I realize it's bigger and has taller buildings, but Clayton as a more "urban" feel to it....because it is more urban.

I take it that you have never once been to Phoenix. I envy you sir!

Again, there is not a major US city I have not been to.

[KCPowercat]

I was in Houston for the Texas Bowl.....we stayed at the medical center area and used the new rail to go downtown and to the game....I really enjoyed that part of houston including Rice Village....then we had one night out in the Galleria....yuck.

I have some family down in Houston so I've spent some time down there but that was mostly in the burbs....and I never really thought much of houston other than it's huge.....but staying at the medical center area, I had a new appreciation for what it has.....

[GRID]

I was in Houston for the Texas Bowl.....we stayed at the medical center area and used the new rail to go downtown and to the game....I really enjoyed that part of houston including Rice Village....then we had one night out in the Galleria....yuck.

I have some family down in Houston so I've spent some time down there but that was mostly in the burbs....and I never really thought much of houston other than it's huge.....but staying at the medical center area, I had a new appreciation for what it has.....

I do agree with that.  The medical center area is pretty cool and don't get me wrong, downtown is coming back, especially along the rail line, but it's just not representative of a city of that size and Dallas seems to be way ahead of Houston when it comes to getting some urbanity out of Texas sprawl.

[KCPowercat]

I didn't spend a ton of time downtown....seemed like the non-office space (retail/bar/residential) was pretty sparse from what we experienced and what we were told by locals.....but you could tell it was arriving due to rail (like you said)

I wouldn't recommend staying at the medical center proper....although it does have a nice connection to the rail line.  The area surrounding the center was cool though.

[Spartan65]

The Galleria is not urban? 



Anyway I think what you're looking for is new urbanism and more authentic urban scenes. For that I recommend areas of town like...

Midtown, major new-urbanist redevelopment area just southwest of downtown
The Heights especially, a historic preservation area NW of downtown
River Oaks, like take Elgin where it curves into Westheimer and keep going through the poshest part of town
Rice Village/Rice Military, or really, anything around the RU campus...Go Owls!
Upper Kirby, on the other side of Memorial Park from the Galleria
Montrose, the Gulf Coast's version of Haight-Ashbury
The Medical District, of course, and the adjoining Museum District (I lived on Caroline in the Museum District)
East Downtown, which is soon going to take off with Bayou-front development

And if I've left anywhere out, please someone mention it because I may have forgotten.

The area surrounding the center was cool though.

Hermann Park is one of my all-time favorite main urban parks. And it's also one of the older main parks that there are, built in the 30s I believe, and renovated throughout the 70s/80s. Not to mention just recently they have done wonders with it.

[ShowMeKC]

Towers surrounding by parking lots/garages or surrounded by parks/open space = suburban