Houston Still #1, And Why Bad Planning Hurts (Elsewhere)
Just a few quick items that have crossed the screen recently, reinforcing some long-held Houston Strategies principles:
Houston: Still Drawing a Crowd
First up, no surprise to those of us living here, but Houston has once again topped Penske's list of America's top moving destinations for 2024. CultureMap highlighted the news, noting this is the fourth consecutive year Houston has held the top spot. People are voting with their feet, and they're choosing Houston. Why? The familiar reasons resonate: job opportunities, a reasonable cost of living (especially compared to those "cool" coastal cities), and the ability to find more space. It seems the fundamentals still matter.
The High Price of "Planning" Utopia
Speaking of that reasonable cost of living, particularly in housing, the just-released 2025 Demographia International Housing Affordability report continues to lay bare the consequences of restrictive land-use planning. Year after year, Wendell Cox over at Demographia points out that a major driver of housing unaffordability globally is policies that try to force density and limit the expansion of housing on the urban fringe. These "smart growth" or "urban containment" strategies, while perhaps well-intentioned in some abstract sense, consistently lead to skyrocketing land costs and, consequently, housing prices that push ordinary families out. They create artificial scarcity. Houston is at a house-price-to-income ratio of 4.3, which is one of the most affordable in the country, especially for a high-growth city.
Pure gold excerpt on Planning and Portland
This brings me to a truly pure gold excerpt I saw recently from Randal O'Toole, The Antiplanner, discussing the failures of Portland's Metro 2040 plan. It's a long piece, but this part cuts to the chase (emphasis mine):
"The 1995 Future Vision called for “housing affordable for all,” “accessible employment centers throughout the region,” “equitable economic progress,” “public safety,” and reductions in poverty. By all of these measures, the region is worse today than it was in 1997, and this decline is almost entirely due to Metro’s 2040 plan. ....
The real problem is that planners can’t accurately foresee the future, so instead of planning for the future they plan for the past. Instead of helping people obtain the future they want, planners become so enamored with their plans that they persuade themselves that coercive tools such as restrictions on things that people want and subsidies for things that people don’t want are all good ideas.
This is why I am an Antiplanner. Planners get so caught up in their fantasies that they completely ignore reality when it is staring them in the face. Even when it is clear that their plans have failed — that “growing up not out” hasn’t made housing affordable, that building more light rail hasn’t gotten people out of their cars — they keep on doing the same thing. Metro, for example, continues to subsidize high-density housing projects and is busy planning at least two more light-rail lines."
Read that again. Decades of top-down planning, restricting what people actually want (like single-family homes with a yard, or the ability to drive their own car efficiently) and subsidizing what they don't, has led to the opposite of its stated goals. Housing is less affordable, and mobility can be worse despite billions spent on transit modes few choose to use for most trips.
Houston, for all its imperfections, has largely avoided this kind of ideological, restrictive planning when it comes to land use. Our "plan" has largely been to allow the market to respond to demand. And what do you know? We're a top destination for people seeking opportunity and a better quality of life, with housing that, while not immune to national trends, remains far more attainable than in heavily regulated, "planner-paradise" metros. Coincidence? I think not.
New Zealand learns from Houston, why airport rail doesn't make sense, Tokyo vs HTX High Lines, crazy housing reforms, and more
Some more smaller items this week:
The 2024 Demographia International Housing Affordability reportThe 2024 Demographia International Housing Affordability report is out (Antiplanner discussion here). Houston is surprisingly high at a median price-to-income ratio of 4.4, but still better than other Texas Triangle metros and one of the most affordable growing metros in America (vs. the stagnant ones mainly in the Rust Belt). The more interesting note is that New Zealand's affordability is rapidly improving after adopting supply-side reforms that they learned on a visit to Houston!
Chronicle: Why isn't there a train to Houston's airports? I've made similar points on my blog: it always makes more sense to invest in work transit over airport transit. It's a ridership disaster in DFW. There used to be a fast, frequent nonstop express bus from the downtown transit center to IAH but they shut it down from low demand. ~1-2 riders per bus, which is why even slower multi-billion$ LRT there is a massively bad investment.
"Now count how many times you go to the airport versus how many times you drive or take a bus to the office.
“Even if they use the train for every airport trip they take, that might be eight trips a year,” Spieler said.
Business travelers, some of the most frequent fliers, meanwhile have different considerations.
“They are on expense accounts and not price-sensitive,” Spieler said."
...
Three recent rail projects to airports are illustrative, Spieler said, for how a train's service, location and the layout of the airport make a difference. In Washington, the train to Dulles Airport, which opened in 2022, gets around 2,500 boardings per day, less than half that of the train to Reagan National Airport, which is closer to the metro core but also a smaller airport. In Dallas, fewer than 1,100 riders daily hop on the train to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.
Houston tops affordability and innovation, big US homes, Houston's winning secret sauce, and more
A few smaller items this week:
US vs European homes graphic below: "A good visual showing how huge US living spaces are compared to European. The average person below the poverty line in the US lives in more square feet of living space than the average European." (HT Michael). This is an often unsung advantage of Texas and especially Houston: not just lower home prices but how much home you get, plus the amenities of master-planned communities. But wow, those Mormons in Utah build some big homes for some big families! (click the graphic to enlarge it)
A great tweet from John Arnold: "Houston has bad weather, no natural beauty, and little history. But that’s a feature, not a bug. It means government has to be responsive to the people to create a place people and businesses want to locate. It must be efficient with taxpayer money and consider tradeoffs. It must create an ecosystem that leads to a high quality of life for its residents. Lose this focus and the city fails. There is no presumption that residents must acquiesce to the city; the city must work for the residents. Turns out there’s great demand for this concept: the city has gone from the from the 45th largest in the US to the 4th largest in 100 years. It's a simple concept but one I find wanting in many legacy cities with more natural advantages."
Houston needs this - more private operators covering suburb-to-work center routes that METRO doesn't.
The #1 way to revive urban cores, CA attempts the greatest white elephant project in history, Australia's home-building restrictions finally catch up with it, and more
Bill King: Harris County Grew By 1.2% In 2023, But Domestic Migration Continues Slide. The #1 change that could revive urban cores would be school choice vouchers. But in general the far suburbs definitely have a superior value proposition: less expensive newer homes in better school districts with lower taxes and less crime. More of their taxes go directly to services as well instead of public employee pensions and other long-term liabilities built up in the core. That is very hard to compete with.
Chronicle: "The trend of converting old offices and hotels into new spaces is gaining momentum in Houston largely due to the city's lack of zoning laws, which makes it easier for real estate developers to repurpose the land and buildings. The concept of adaptive reuse, which involves repurposing an existing building for a use other than its original purpose, is a contemporary approach to land utilization that has the potential to drastically alter the appearance of Houston in the years to come." (hat tip to Rich)
"Magical thinking caused politicians and the media to back this boondoggle in the first place, and more than 15 years later, incredibly, the spell still hasn't broken."
"The plan admits that the agency expects to spend more on the 171 miles between Merced and Bakersfield than the $33 billion it had projected the entire 463-mile project would cost when voters approved it in 2008. ...
Meanwhile, in light of the pandemic, the agency has modestly reduced its ridership expectations from 35 million trips per year to 27.6 million. This is still more unrealistic than the cost projections. In 2019, Amtrak’s high-speed Acela carried less than 3.6 million riders in a corridor with a higher population than the LA-SF corridor. While California is promising higher speeds than the Acela, the Northeast Corridor has the advantage of really being two corridors anchored by New York, America’s largest city. The California corridor has no similar mid-point metropolis; the Fresno urban area has fewer than 725,000 residents compared with New York’s 19.5 million. Incidentally, to the extent that the 27.6 million turns out to be too high, the supposed savings from not having to expand road and airline capacities dwindles."
"More than 25,000 establishments relocated to Texas from 2010 to 2019, bringing more than 281,000 jobs with them and resulting in a gain of nearly 103,000 jobs for the state, data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank shows.
The report said Texas appeals to relocating businesses for a variety of reasons, including its central location in the continental U.S., access to multiple large cities and business-friendly environment...
However, research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that attractive economic fundamentals — like low taxes, low regulations, a growing population, a relatively lower cost of living and less union activity — are far more important than incentive packages when businesses make location and expansion decisions."
Salim Furth at Mercatus: "How much are #Houston's different lot sizes in different eras showing up in real houses for real people? Here are single family houses built in the 22 years before reform, and the 22 years after - same scale." When minimum lot sizes shrank, a whole lot more small-lot houses got built because that's what the market wanted.
"Founded in Houston, Cart moved its headquarters to Austin in 2021, only to return to Houston in November.
The company moved to Austin to hire software developers, says co-founder Remington Tonar. But Cart is a logistics company as well as an e-commerce services provider, and its leaders found the company’s rapid growth required a bigger city with a larger and more diverse talent pool, including skills that go beyond just software development.
“If I’m looking for front-end software devs who can build beautiful tools to perform one task, a place like San Fran or Austin may be better,” says Tonar. “But if I need people who can integrate digital and physical systems, Houston is a lot more attractive, because people are coming out of logistics and energy.”
"Demographer Wendell Cox’s recent estimates of U.S. housing affordability found unaffordable housing in Dallas, Houston, and other Texas cities that have historically been quite affordable. In a post about housing issues, I noted that Cox’s home price data were based on real estate transactions while the Census Bureau numbers are based on a cross-section of all homes in a region.
Before the pandemic, median real estate transaction prices were only 2 or 3 percent higher than Census Bureau values, indicating that people buying homes represented a good cross-section of America. In 2021, median real estate sale prices were at least 20 percent higher than Census Bureau values. As the recent real estate boom is driven by people who have discovered they can work remotely, which means people of above-average incomes, price-to-income ratios based on real estate transactions overestimate the true value-to-income ratios.
The 2022 data from the Census Bureau confirm this. The data show that the value-to-income ratio was 3.9 for the city of Houston and 3.2 for the Houston urban area. These are a lot lower than the 4.7 in Cox’s paper."
"Houston has the title of second most popular headquarters city for Fortune 500 firms... with 22 of them headquartered in the city...
What makes Texas, or Houston for that matter, so appealing for corporations? Mostly the low cost of living and lack of taxes on businesses. Even Exxon has tightened its belt in the inflationary age, though, shedding its “God Pod” and consolidating its upper management’s formerly exclusive luxury suite into its preexisting Houston campus."
Chronicle: Houston poverty rates the highest among major U.S. metros, new Census data shows. Flip the perspective on this story: So restrict housing -> drive up costs and drive out opportunity-seeking low-income households -> median incomes go up = city wins??? 🤔😠 This is exactly what so many cities do, playing a game of hot potato with low-income households, but not Houston, which should be proud of attracting opportunity seekers rather than embarrassed.
"faster cities are faster because they have more roads and are lower in density (which they describe as have a “larger land area”); and that those roads produce benefits by allowing faster top speeds more than by reducing congestion...The authors conclude that cities that want to increase speeds (and, by stated implication, worker incomes) should build more roads. While it admits that won’t be possible in Bangladesh, it should be possible in most cities and countries. Even if, as the anti-road people argue, building more roads simply leads to more driving, building roads that are faster leads to higher overall speeds which should produce enormous economic benefits."
BRT Should Use Shared Not Dedicated Lanes, HTX #1 real estate market, college grads flee the superstar cities, cutting zoning reduces housing costs, and more
A few smaller misc items this week:
BRT Should Use Shared, Not Dedicated Lanes. Everything in here absolutely applies to the planned METRO Universities BRT line, especially on Richmond inside the loop. 'Lite BRT' would be a great option for that line.
"Dedicating two of the six lanes on major streets in Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe exclusively to buses would be a complete waste, says a new report released last week by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and two other groups in the Phoenix area. Each of the lanes that Valley Metro would take for buses typically move roughly three to four times as many people per day as would have taken the bus before the pandemic, and bus ridership has fallen by 50 percent since the pandemic. ...
Instead of dedicated lanes, the report recommends the Valley Metro experiment with “lite BRT,” which means running frequent buses in shared lanes and coordinating traffic signals so everyone can minimize the number of stops they have to make. If these modest improvements significantly increase ridership, Valley Metro could experiment with other improvements, but if they don’t, “then it is unlikely that . . . dedicated lanes and traffic signal priority would do any better.”
"In 2004, Denver voters approved spending $4.8 billion building six new rail transit lines, and the first line opened ten years ago. This was soon followed by four more to the gushing praise of various outsiders.
Inside Denver, however, people are beginning to realize that the whole thing was a miserable failure, suffering massive cost overruns and never attaining its ridership projections. The West line, which had its tenth anniversary last week, never carried as many passengers as were projected in its first year. It’s too bad that the reporters who are questioning this now weren’t asking the same questions in 2004."
"Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. "
NYT: Coastal Cities Priced Out Low-Wage Workers. Now College Graduates Are Leaving, Too (link gets past paywall). Educated workers are increasingly migrating away from the country’s most expensive major metros — and have been since before the pandemic. Really good in-depth article. Lots of stats/graphs. Tide is really turning against the expensive coastal cities, even with educated workers.
The decisive argument for school choice, transit agencies go insane, stop road diets, HTX tops home building and affordability, and more
A lot of smaller items to catch up on this week...
Houston #1 for single-family home building permits, and a close #2 for total permits behind DFW. Austin gets the hype but Houston and DFW have the numbers. Hat tip to Oscar. Click/tap on graph for a larger version.
The best argument I've seen for school choice: in states that have implemented it, public schools for low-income students have gotten dramatically better even while not losing many students!
Fortune: The $300,000 starter home is going extinct (archive link): ‘A renter society not because of choice but because of force’ Affordability has collapsed across the country, although Houston and San Antonio continue to outperform. The Dallas collapse is surprising - almost as bad as Austin. Percentage of new homes under construction which are priced under $300,000, according to Zonda Home: (click/tap on graph for a larger version)
Transit Agencies Go Insane. These numbers are absolutely bonkers and yet are getting no media coverage whatsoever:
"In the 1990s, light-rail lines that cost $50 million a mile ($100 million in today’s dollars) were considered extravagantly expensive. A decade ago, the average light-rail line cost about $125 million a mile ($160 million in today’s dollars). Last year, average light-rail construction costs had risen to $278 million a mile (about $310 million today).
This year, the average light-rail cost has grown to $384 million a mile. Average commuter-rail costs have grown from $232 million a mile last year to $447 million a mile. Average heavy-rail costs have exploded from $974 million a mile to $1.4 billion a mile."
"On November 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, Austin voters foolishly agreed to raise property taxes in order to build 28 miles of light rail at a projected cost of $5.8 billion. To avoid congestion, the downtown portion of light-rail lines would go through a four-mile-long tunnel.
No one reading this blog will be surprised to know that, in the short amount of time since then, projected costs have nearly doubled to $10.3 billion. Early this week, the city’s transit planners announced a new plan that would build fewer than half as many miles of light rail."
Cost of living disparities mostly come down to housing. Really great interactive graphs that unfortunately won't copy over to the blog, so be sure to check them out. Houston is the only major city in the lower left quadrant with both housing and non-housing costs below the national average.
Problem, we have a Houston - Houstonians got a free $18k from min lot size reform, METRO 2nd worst for rail crime, The Economist loves Texas, HTX tops std of living, Houston sliding towards zoning? and more
Lots of good smaller items again this week:
Resources for Reformers: Houston’s minimum lot sizes - Problem, we have a Houston (clever twist!) "The lot size reform was equivalent to a one-time gift of $18,000 to every Houston household living in a single-family home. That adds up to about $8 billion."
The Economist: Why America is going to look more like Texas (archive link) - Lessons from the surge of the Lone Star State (followed by the more in-depth article "Texas’s latest boom is its biggest yet" - archive link). Key takeaways: Texas gets 1/3 of all net new US jobs(!), +500k people/year, #1 most Fortune 500 HQs, will pass CA for the #1 state in the 2040s, largest budget surplus ever at $33B (larger than the total budgets of 24 states) without needing an income tax to do it.
"Most of the nation’s major cities face a daunting future as middle-class taxpayers join an exodus to the suburbs, opting to work remotely as they exit downtowns marred by empty offices, vacant retail space and a deteriorating tax base."
"Firms like to open factories and offices in cities with plenty of skilled workers. When choosing between cities, they typically run an analysis to see how many potential employees live within a reasonable commute of a site. Poor traffic shrinks the radius, and by extension the labor pool, hurting a city’s chances of attracting companies."
Warren Buffet calls bs on rail, remote work permanence, induced demand idiocy, HTX tech + construction + port growth, Ike Dike, and more
Happy new year everyone! Hope you all had a good holiday season and didn't get caught up in the Southwest airlines chaos. Sadly, I accidentally wiped out all my backlog of post topics and blogspot does not have any recovery functionality (why can't it keep history like Google Docs?!). So I'm combing back through my tweets to try to find at least some of them:
Richard Florida: “When I started with the creative class, places didn’t care about young people, they were only trying to attract a family with children to the lovely suburbs, and I’m saying, ‘No, no, no, no, no,’” Mr. Florida said in an interview. “Twenty years later, people forgot about the families. And now here’s a whole generation leaving cities again, for metropolitan or virtual suburbs.” ...
"A few feet away from her, another group of young workers was playing Jenga. One by one, they took blocks away from the structure, making way for the inevitable collapse."
NYT idiotically parrots the induced demand argument, including mentioning I10 and I45. Which type of infrastructure should government invest in: transit nobody will use, or lanes everybody will use? 🤔 Induced demand is a false argument. Nobody says "don't build a new airport runway - it will just fill up with new flights" 🙄
AP: Warren Buffett jumps into local politics to fight streetcar: "Billionaire investor Warren Buffett broke with his practice of staying out of local politics to urge his hometown of Omaha to abandon its planned streetcar project because he says it's too expensive and not as flexible as buses."
WSJ: The Blue State Exodus Continues: "Texas and Florida make up about 15% of the U.S. population but accounted for 70% of its population growth this past year. "
Houston ranks as the top market for tech job growth: “Although sometimes overshadowed by the cachet of Dallas, Austin, & San Antonio, Houston is absolutely a tech hub in its own right, attracting a mix of major tech companies & VC-backed startups + established base of aerospace, defense, & energy companies”
WSJ: California Long Ruled U.S. Shipping. Importers Are Drifting East. - Companies that depended on the West Coast as a point of entry for their goods are turning to other parts of the country as global trade gets upended. A chart inside shows Houston #1 in the country for port growth in containers. Looks like the port expansion is paying off!
"Bloom provided data showing strong economic incentives for both corporations and their employees to continue the work-from-home revolution if their jobs allow it:
First, “Saved commute time working from home averages about 70 minutes a day, of which about 40 percent (30 minutes) goes into extra work.” Second, “Research finds hybrid working from home increases average productivity around 5 percent and this is growing.” And third, “Employees also really value hybrid working from home, at about the same as an 8 percent pay increase on average.”
Why Houston is better with TIRZs, our lack of zoning held up as a model for the country, 45N expansion gets support, professionals migrating to TX, and more
Before getting to some smaller items, I want to comment on the Chronicle's investigative report on TIRZs (tax-increment reinvestment zones). While I'll admit they can be a bit of a mess and even a bit wasteful, what the reporters miss is that if the TIRZs were dissolved and the money sent to the City instead, it would just get gobbled up by the public employee unions long before it can do any good in any lower-income neighborhoods outside the TIRZs. As the pieces note, every mayor comes into office thinking they will go after the TIRZs, then realize they can make them work for the city as a whole by delegating projects to them (like improvements to Buffalo Bayou and Memorial parks), and shift City budget money to those neighborhoods outside the TIRZs. Finally, I think Houston's core (and the City as a whole) would be in a much more precarious position if it wasn't for the TIRZs making strong investments in Uptown, Downtown, Midtown, the Med Center, and other key districts to keep them attractive to employers and high-income professionals.
Moving on to a backlog of smaller items, mostly from my Twitter feed:
You may find it hard to believe, but Houston has the shortest CBD commuting times of the major metros due to a high-capacity freeway and HOV lane network with great coverage (Chart 5, page 7).
Video: "Of all the Texas cities - most of which I'm very bullish on - the one that is probably going to have the biggest success story for the next 30 years is by far Houston." Hat tip to George.
The City Without Zoning: "For the most part, Houston’s positives are linked to its lack of zoning, and its negatives are essentially unrelated to zoning."
The Search for Intelligent Life Is About to Get a Lot More Interesting: "In 2018, Frank attended a meeting in Houston whose focus was technosignatures... seek out signs of technology on distant worlds, like atmospheric pollution... “That meeting in Houston was the dawn of the new era, at least as I saw it,” Frank recalls."
Public comment submitted on raising I10 at White Oak Bayou: this project seems unnecessarily disruptive and expensive to keep the freeway open a relatively tiny handful of days every few years, especially given that 610 provides a natural alternative when I10 is blocked by flooding. Additionally, when the city is flooding badly enough to put I10 underwater, most households and businesses are hunkered down anyway, reducing demand. There are better places to deploy TXDoT's limited resources.
"The planned rebuild of I45 in Houston drew the largest number of comments, 382 of the 1,685 TxDOT received through a month-long public comment period. Of those, TxDOT said 299 were supportive of the project while 66 were opposed." (source)
"Houston prioritizes the ease and cost of building housing above almost all else. As a result, residents with money have a higher standard of living and those without have more humane sheltering options. Cities with other priorities sacrifice on both of these." -John Arnold
The American Conservative: How Zoning Paralyzed American Cities: "America should learn from no-zoning Houston, says Gray...What proved crucial to rejecting zoning was Houston’s allowance of deed restrictions, whereby neighbors can voluntarily opt into zoning-like restrictions and design standards...And while neighbors get a say over their neighborhood, Houston as a whole is still allowed to grow. It builds housing at 14 times the rate of its peers and, in the process, has become one of the most affordable and diverse cities in the country.""
"Is Nolan Gray really calling for zoning abolition? Yes, he is. And before you dismiss him—perhaps Houston isn’t your cup of tea, or maybe you simply like your home and its zoning, thank you very much—consider that Houstonians agreed with Nolan’s view in 1948, 1962, and 1993, killing zoning each time it came up for a vote, largely thanks to working-class voters. What proved crucial to rejecting zoning was Houston’s allowance of deed restrictions, whereby neighbors can voluntarily opt into zoning-like restrictions and design standards to ensure whatever character of their community they desire for the next 25 to 30 years. And while neighbors get a say over their neighborhood, Houston as a whole is still allowed to grow. It builds housing at 14 times the rate of its peers and, in the process, has become one of the most affordable and diverse cities in the country."
“Knowledge workers like me, who move out of the city, make urban spaces more affordable for essential workers who staff hospitals and restaurants. Meanwhile, small towns and cities that were hollowed out by deindustrialization over the last 30 years get an influx of new residents to support their tax base. Again, the majority of jobs don’t allow for remote work, but a great deal of wealth is concentrated among the jobs that do. Empowering or even encouraging those workers to live wherever they want could have a positive impact on the affordability of cities and the economic health of rural communities.”
Finally, a short funny video well worth your time on Houston vs. LA. It's awesome and actually well-balanced. Matches my experience with CA vs. TX (and particularly Houston) as well. My blog readers will particularly appreciate the 3:55 (traffic) and 16:19 points (feeders) ;-) but I really appreciated the point about the purple political diversity. Hat tip to George.
2045 RTP survey, #1 permitting, POST HTX diversity, housing costs hurt education, planning tool vs NIMBYs and their mentality
Took my visiting cousin to POST Houston Saturday night and it had the most Houston diversity I've seen in one place in 40 years here, both in food and people. Just incredible. These photos don't do it justice. Every ethnicity in the city was represented! Very cool place worth visiting if you're ever near downtown.
“Enrico Moretti (2013) estimates that 25% of the increase in the college wage premium between 1980 and 2000 was absorbed by higher housing costs. Moreover, since the big increases in housing costs have come after 2000, it’s very likely that an even larger share of the college wage premium today is being eaten by housing. High housing costs don’t simply redistribute wealth from workers to landowners. High housing costs reduce the return to education, reducing the incentive to invest in education. Thus higher housing costs have reduced human capital and the number of skilled workers with potentially significant effects on growth.”
Very cool tool that I'm also very glad Houston doesn't need because we don't need the public's approval over what gets built where: Fast Company - This ingenious tool helps cities avoid rabid NIMBY arguments over housing - Balancing Act helps calm the contentious process of deciding where housing should get built.
NYT: Twilight of the NIMBY - Suburban homeowners like Susan Kirsch are often blamed for worsening the nation’s housing crisis. That doesn’t mean she’s giving up her two-decade fight against 20 condos.
"How does a place (CA) that prides itself on progressive politics have so many policies that exacerbate inequality? How do homeowners whose window signs say they welcome every oppressed group rationalize a housing system that has caused their own children to flee?"
Market Urbanism Report: "Our latest data dive shows a clear correlation between permit rates fm 2004-2021, and current median home prices, in America's 20 "superstar" metros. Houston remains America's best metro for combining strong population/job growth with low prices. It's also had the most net permits (945,068) over this period. Not a coincidence." Hear hear! Click to enlarge the graph:
Finally, be sure you fill out the H-GAC 2045 Regional Transportation Plan survey before the end of June. They also have a Comment Map where you can add comments to very specific locations. Here was my public comment submission after attending their virtual public meeting:
"Very excited about the REAL network of managed/MaX Lanes! By far the most effective, cost-efficient, flexible, adaptable (to autonomous vehicle technology), and realistic transportation solution for a metro like Houston. Bike lanes and transit are nice amenities but will never be able to address more than a tiny slice of trips in Houston. Houston's future vibrancy and economic success is absolutely critically tied to expanding convenient, fast transportation used by the vast majority of people (cars), and if we ignore that and pretend we don't need to make any more traditional transportation expansions to accommodate growth (like freeways) we will stagnate into gridlock like LA, which has invested tens of billions into transit expansion while overall ridership *dropped*."
“ A paper published this week by two California economists calculated that the mass shift to remote work accounted for 15.1 percentage points of the 24% increase in U.S. home prices between November 2019 and 2021.”
“There are lots of places in America with jobs and lower climate risks or jobs and racial diversity, but if you want all three, Texas will take care of you best,” The NYTimes noted in 2021.
“Many of us move to big cities and spend little time in nature — also not a path to happiness. A study by the economists Ed Glaeser and Josh Gottlieb ranked the happiness of every American metropolitan area. They found that New York City was just about the least happy. Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco also scored low. The happiest places include Flagstaff, Ariz.; Naples, Fla., and pretty much all of Hawaii. And when people move out of unhappy cities to happy places, they report increased happiness.”
And a little humor, lol: "The data-driven answer to life is as follows: Be with your love, on an 80-degree and sunny day, overlooking a beautiful body of water, having sex."
And here are the academic paper details behind that excerpt: Unhappy Cities. People are the least happy in some of America's largest cities like NYC, LA, SF, Boston, and Chicago. Oddly, Dallas and Houston are not included, although Galveston scores surprisingly high (#16).
"Abstract: There are persistent differences in self-reported subjective well-being across U.S. metropolitan areas, and residents of declining cities appear less happy than other Americans. Newer residents of these cities appear to be as unhappy as longer term residents, and yet some people continue to move to these areas. While the historical data on happiness are limited, the available facts suggest that cities that are now declining were also unhappy in their more prosperous past. One interpretation of these facts is that individuals do not aim to maximize self-reported well-being, or happiness, as measured in surveys, and they willingly endure less happiness in exchange for higher incomes or lower housing costs. In this view, subjective well-being is better viewed as one of many arguments of the utility function, rather than the utility function itself, and individuals make trade-offs among competing objectives, including but not limited to happiness."
An open dialogue on serious strategies for making Houston a better city, as well as a coalition-builder to make them happen. All comments, email, and support welcome.
