North Houston Highway Improvement Project

[triplemultiplex]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

[Bobby5280]

A lot of the urbanist types were left fuming after the project was completed, because, in their eyes, Oklahoma City Boulevard isn't much better than the freeway it replaced, other than the area immediately surrounding the Thunder arena and Scissortail Park. They were hoping the City of OKC would immediately tear it out and restore the grid once they got the keys to it. OKC doesn't seem to have much interest in doing that, though, probably because it would be a much bigger expense than the city wants to take on, and there's plenty of infrastructure that has more wrong with it than being not to a vocal minority's liking.

I can't imagine what else the city could have done with the new at-grade OKC Blvd than what they built. A bunch of lots in and around the old elevated highway to the West of downtown are still pretty run down or industrial looking. There would not have been a big rush to develop lots left vacant where the old elevated Crosstown once stood.

The Western end of OKC Blvd between I-40 and Klein Ave functions like a freeway, one that is not Interstate quality. The East end from the front of Toby Keith's restaurant to the I-40/I-235 interchange is pretty much a freeway on/off ramp. However, OKC Blvd is flanked by sidewalks starting at the Riverwalk and going a dozen or so blocks West to Classen. The Blvd is at the front of Scissortail Park. The OKC Streetcar system has a stop there. It's a short walk from there to the Skydance Bridge. Almost all the surface streets crossing the new I-40 have pedestrian access. Shields Blvd is one exception. Overall, it's not difficult to get around downtown OKC by foot or bicycle. The critics up there should be glad they don't live here in Lawton!

The same is true for much of the Sunbelt, this is the fastest growing area of the U.S., despite all the urbanist objections about how sprawling and bad it is supposedly is. Apparently, it is what people prefer.

I don't like the either-or, zero sum game that is preached by some New Urbanists: replace roads with sidewalks and bike paths. That's not going to work. But the cars only approach doesn't work so well either. A balance of BOTH is needed.

We have this ridiculously dangerous situation here in Lawton with the intersection of I-44 and Gore Blvd. The problem has existed for many years and has been growing worse. That point is very much the main gateway between the East and West sides of Lawton. The intersection is a choke point for motor vehicles. There are 3 traffic signals in short succession there. The location is a dangerous hurdle for anyone trying to use Gore Blvd to cross over I-44 on foot or on a bicycle. There are NO sidewalks on Gore Blvd crossing I-44. There are no sidewalks along Gore in that vicinity either. Some of the complaints from the Just Not Bikes guy about his Houston walking adventure are more extreme here. If you're going to walk along Gore Blvd to cross over I-44 you have to tread very carefully and hope you don't get clipped by a side view mirror of a passing car. The situation is bad enough that some people choose to walk down the hill and jay-walk across the main lanes of I-44 instead. Several pedestrians have been hit and killed on the Interstate over years. But obviously not enough deaths to get any solutions in the works on that matter.

Any complaints about this down here are dismissed with excuses. "Well, he should have been driving in a car." Not everyone can drive a car. Some can't afford it. Some don't have the ability due to old age or other disabilities. Yet they're on their own, on foot. It almost feels like there is a political ideology tied up in this. Building pedestrian bridges over highways or adding sidewalks to streets are seen as acts of socialist communism by some.

We have a lot of lower wage, service industry workers in Lawton. And I see plenty of them on foot there on Gore Blvd trying to cross that damned intersection. There is a fair amount of casino customers doing the same thing.

[Plutonic Panda]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

[Scott5114]

I can't imagine what else the city could have done with the new at-grade OKC Blvd than what they built. [...] The Western end of OKC Blvd between I-40 and Klein Ave functions like a freeway, one that is not Interstate quality.

And that's their problem–the portion west of Klein is just as bad as I-40 was in their eyes, despite the fact that it's no longer Interstate quality. I remember seeing design concepts that suggested having a big roundabout at OKC Blvd/Classen/Western instead of the overpass that is there now (and perpetually has a lot of homeless people sheltering under it). Another option that they like was building nothing at all on the old alignment and just reconnecting streets that had been cut off by the right-of-way.

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

I think he's saying basically that people may choose to live in Houston in spite of, not because of, the sprawling nature of the city. That is, the city's growth is due to other factors than people simply liking the sprawl.

[Henry]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

This is pretty much the same thing they did with I-30 in Fort Worth when they tore down the Lancaster Elevated and moved i-30 to a new path just a short distance farther south.

And in Providence when they moved I-195 south from its old location between Downtown and the Jewelry District.

Also in Denver when they buried I-70 next to the old viaduct.

[kernals12]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

If the restaurant is only selling coke, then it's because most people prefer coke. It's why Detroit has all but given up on passenger cars in favor of SUVs.

[TXtoNJ]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

If the restaurant is only selling coke, then it's because most people prefer coke. It's why Detroit has all but given up on passenger cars in favor of SUVs.

It might be that coke is more profitable than other choices for the owner, and the owner's got a deal with city hall to make sure no other restaurants open in town.

[Rothman]

I would like Coke and a car, please.

[triplemultiplex]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

[ethanhopkin14]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

If the restaurant is only selling coke, then it's because most people prefer coke. It's why Detroit has all but given up on passenger cars in favor of SUVs.

Not necessarily.  Restaurants have soft drink deals so that they only sell Coke products or Pepsi products.  It makes a very unrealistically skewed sample.  This may seem like I am going on a tangent, but I think this is the meaning behind the original question.  If the restaurant is only selling coke, that doesn't mean most people prefer Coke, its just what their option is because the restaurant struck a deal with Coke to sell their product.  The test only really 100% works if you give the public every soft drink to chose from and you run the numbers every time each product is selected.

People who lived in dictatorships loved the dictator!  The reality was they didn't have a choice to like anything but the dictator. 

[Plutonic Panda]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it's there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

[TXtoNJ]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it's there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

The issue isn't so much the infrastructure so much as the development it incentivizes - hugely-profitable single-family detached suburban housing on greenfields, that subsequently require more car infrastructure for the traffic this land use generates.

It's like using Afrin for nasal congestion - yes, there's a temporary relief, but do it too much and you can't get off of it without the congestion being worse than before.

[bwana39]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I’m not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it’s there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

The issue isn't so much the infrastructure so much as the development it incentivizes - hugely-profitable single-family detached suburban housing on greenfields, that subsequently require more car infrastructure for the traffic this land use generates.

It's like using Afrin for nasal congestion - yes, there's a temporary relief, but do it too much and you can't get off of it without the congestion being worse than before.

The issue is that the only way to keep the sprawl in check is to build multi-family housing to replace slums and clear the slums and build replacement single family housing communities.  We know how that frames in the political correct 2020's. That leaves the choices are simply greenfield building versus gentrification.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah there's a lot of moving parts to this. They're also exist at it to suggest that people do generally want cars as opposed to taking alternative transportation. Count me in as someone that prefers suburban sprawl over dense urban development with trains and cycleways. Though I do think we need more of the latter.

[TXtoNJ]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it's there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

The issue isn't so much the infrastructure so much as the development it incentivizes - hugely-profitable single-family detached suburban housing on greenfields, that subsequently require more car infrastructure for the traffic this land use generates.

It's like using Afrin for nasal congestion - yes, there's a temporary relief, but do it too much and you can't get off of it without the congestion being worse than before.

The issue is that the only way to keep the sprawl in check is to build multi-family housing to replace slums and clear the slums and build replacement single family housing communities.  We know how that frames in the political correct 2020's. That leaves the choices are simply greenfield building versus gentrification.

You mainly need to upscale SFD housing in central areas where land values are high, and that's where the NIMBYs start shrieking bloody murder. Slums generally have higher density by necessity, even if it's of the informal variety.

The real problem is that upper-middle class landholders in desirable areas don't want their neighbors cashing out and converting their houses to 2 to 4-plexes, because they feel it will decrease property values, or increase traffic, even if that's demonstrably not the case. Press further, and you get the "change the character of the neighborhood" - in reality, they don't want to associate with owners or renters they feel are beneath their social class.

Houston's actually been one of the better areas to address these issues, but a lot of that has been an accident of history - inside the loop north of Buffalo Bayou was so depressed, for so long, that most of the landowners were renting their houses out. They didn't mind cashing out whole blocks to put up "townhouse farms". However, 15 years onward from when the density boom really picked up, you're hearing the NIMBY lines of complaint that wouldn't be out of place in Austin.

[kernals12]

The massive infill development in Houston's core is the entire reason for the project that is the subject of this thread. Studies have shown that reduced VMT in denser areas is largely self-selection bias, i.e. people who don't like driving tend to live in denser areas. These urbanites don't stay in the city, they have relatives to visit and jobs to go to in the suburbs.

[Plutonic Panda]

The massive infill development in Houston's core is the entire reason for the project that is the subject of this thread. Studies have shown that reduced VMT in denser areas is largely self-selection bias, i.e. people who don't like driving tend to live in denser areas. These urbanites don't stay in the city, they have relatives to visit and jobs to go to in the suburbs.

I think there is some truth. It's hard to prove a false negative(is that the correct term?). To say that someone could be doing something they aren't but would if x was true isn't easy to prove. Not really sure if any study has been taken to try and look into that.

If you gave someone the option to have a condo the same size as their suburban home, quick parking, a private large patio/yard(something only seen in ultra luxury units), high quality schools, right next to a transit stop, at the same price of their current house, but the catch is it becomes super inconvenient to drive, would they take it? I know many people that wouldn't because they like living in suburbs. That is their preference. Anecdotal, I know. But I am largely the same way. I'd love living in the far flung reaches of the Phoenix metro with a fleet of cars over anywhere in the center of any major city. I would never take transit unless I was out for a night of drinking.

[Bobby5280]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

[TXtoNJ]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

[bwana39]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

No, it comes from an economic precept. Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.). Which means in practice that urban land is worth more than rural land because it has an established price that is more. Even when a seller incurs a loss, it is because he overpaid for it initially not because it actually is worth less now.  The cost of raw land will hardly ever be less than the previous sale even when significant remediation or structure removal costs are going to incurred.

[TXtoNJ]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

No, it comes from an economic precept. Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.). Which means in practice that urban land is worth more than rural land because it has an established price that is more. Even when a seller incurs a loss, it is because he overpaid for it initially not because it actually is worth less now.  The cost of raw land will hardly ever be less than the previous sale even when significant remediation or structure removal costs are going to incurred.

The existence of agricultural reserves in other parts of the world belies your point. Economic precepts are always the creature of the policy structures that create them. They are not laws of nature.

[Bobby5280]

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

Prices are (normally) set by supply and demand. The farther you move away from the city center the less demand there is for housing. Now public policy does come into play when suburban towns pick and choose the kinds of residential developments that are allowed to go forward. That's not to mention the kinds of people they want living in those homes. And home builders themselves have very clearly shown their bias toward building great big McMansions as opposed to building more modest sized, less expensive homes. That forces buyers with modest budgets to consider really difficult choices where all the options have serious drawbacks.

Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.).

The Great Recession of the 2000's says hello.

[TXtoNJ]

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

Prices are (normally) set by supply and demand. The farther you move away from the city center the less demand there is for housing. Now public policy does come into play when suburban towns pick and choose the kinds of residential developments that are allowed to go forward. That's not to mention the kinds of people they want living in those homes. And home builders themselves have very clearly shown their bias toward building great big McMansions as opposed to building more modest sized, less expensive homes. That forces buyers with modest budgets to consider really difficult choices where all the options have serious drawbacks.

Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.).

The Great Recession of the 2000's says hello.

Agreed - my point is that supply/demand are generally set by public policy, particularly when it comes to land use. Nobody is acquiring land by conquest anymore, hopefully.

[bwana39]

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

Prices are (normally) set by supply and demand. The farther you move away from the city center the less demand there is for housing. Now public policy does come into play when suburban towns pick and choose the kinds of residential developments that are allowed to go forward. That's not to mention the kinds of people they want living in those homes. And home builders themselves have very clearly shown their bias toward building great big McMansions as opposed to building more modest sized, less expensive homes. That forces buyers with modest budgets to consider really difficult choices where all the options have serious drawbacks.

Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.).

The Great Recession of the 2000's says hello.

While prices were stagnant around 2008. Sales tapered off because sellers did not want to sell.  Yes, the short term did have a downturn in prices, but also had more dramatic loss of inventory.  People were not selling because of the reduced prices.

Outside the great depression, there have not been long term price reductions (or corrections) on properties.  This also said, supply and demand set the sales volume, not the price. Supply and demand in real estate is a function of price. As the price increases supply will increase. As prices decrease (or fail to increase sufficiently) supply will retreat.

Prices are increasing right now due to a perceived supply shortage (new construction is down) but material prices for new construction are as big or bigger reasons for both the shortage of new builds and increase in prices of new builds.

If simple economics were actually in play housing costs would have increased about 600% max in the past 40 years. Instead they have increased around 1000% (10X) . The reason for the outsized inflation is the lack of resets. While there have been flat spots, even on the great recession, the only time prices decreased is when people HAD to sell. Most people, even those who move every few years "just because" stayed put.  Those who had to move for one reason or another did sell. New construction did not totally stop (and prices were just flat there.)

So to agree with your argument, yes there is no supply in the urban locale at the same price point as the rural greenfield construction. Therefore, there is low demand in the urban area at its price point.

[Bobby5280]

While prices were stagnant around 2008. Sales tapered off because sellers did not want to sell.  Yes, the short term did have a downturn in prices, but also had more dramatic loss of inventory.  People were not selling because of the reduced prices.

The real estate crash of the mid-late 2000's was a lot more messy than that, thanks to all the speculative buying and building that was taking place. The crash wrecked the global economy.

I still remember 2000's era national TV commercials from sketchy lenders trying to sucker people into getting adjustable rate mortgages. I can't remember the name of the company (Countrywide maybe), but there was this one commercial where this housewife berates her husband like he's some kind of idiot for being hesitant about getting on the hook for a home they can't really afford. "We can do this" is the catch phrase she uses when the poor sap finally gives in.

There were big residential developments way out on the fringes of major metros like DC that were left vacant. Some developments didn't even finish construction and were eventually bulldozed. Personal bankruptcies soared. Others who couldn't file for bankruptcy simply walked away from their homes and mortgages. Soaring gasoline prices combined with ARM notes hitting their adjustment phases left a bunch of buyers flat broke. What could the bank do with these broke people? Throw them in debtors prison? They had no alternative than just be stuck with the bad notes. Some of this was the fault of banks for having such stupidly low lending standards, even fraudulently low considering how low income minorities were targeted in the final phase of the mezzo-scale Ponzi scheme with a good bit of reverse red-lining.

The US Government is the only thing that put a floor under declining property values in that crash. They came in and bailed out the banks for all their bad loans. Had the government not stepped in many large institutional lenders would have been left insolvent. The lenders deserved to be severely punished for what they did. Unfortunately if they were left to fail it would have shut off business cash flow operations for much of the nation. That would have pushed us into Great Depression 2.0.

Outside the great depression, there have not been long term price reductions (or corrections) on properties.  This also said, supply and demand set the sales volume, not the price. Supply and demand in real estate is a function of price. As the price increases supply will increase. As prices decrease (or fail to increase sufficiently) supply will retreat.

The real estate market functions just as much on a specific local basis as it does on any kind of national scale. The notion that property, such as homes or land, do not lose value is a MYTH. The Great Recession is an example of runaway excess on a national scale.

Local markets can hit downturns just as severe if not worse. All it takes is a major employer in a modest sized town closing shop for good. Here in Lawton if the Goodyear plant (one of the largest tire factories in the world, if not the largest) were to shut down our local real estate market would be plunged into a severe downturn. The nearby town of Cache would devastated. There isn't a lot of other Goodyear-equivalent jobs in this area for blue-collar workers. Many employees would just leave the area. This happened in a big way to cities in the so-called "rust belt." Lots of small towns in Oklahoma seeing population decline. Young people are leaving and older residents are dying off. Meanwhile the old homes are just left sitting there, often falling into disrepair.

The current real estate market in the US is nothing short of absurd. Median home prices in many cities do not at all reflect average income. Investors both domestic and international are artificially propping up high prices by buying up properties as investment assets. These pricing conditions are NOT sustainable. They're really not going to be sustainable over the long term due to how badly ordinary people are being price squeezed.

Not many young adults are buying up these McMansions out in the suburbs and exhurbs. The buyers are mostly middle aged or retiring people. What are those older buyers of big homes going to do 20 years from now when they (or their estates) want to sell but there are hardly any buyers? The United States has all the conditions in place for our nation's birth rate to crash down much worse than it's already doing. Our long term economy depends a great deal on enough new Americans being born to keep the system running. The American Dream of a wife, nice house and a couple kids costs a shit ton of money. Lots of young adults are being priced out of that convention of living. Some are even happy to opt out of that and stay single and child-less. There are many thousands of square miles worth of "R1" zoned housing that may be really tough to sell a generation from now.