Houston: City Gone Wrong or Model of Urbanity for the Future?
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:57 pm
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."
* * * * * *
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."
* * * * * *