How Houston Is Becoming America’s Next Dense City

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Those are pockets, are they not? What's confusing about this?

. It's not like those suburbs (outside of Miami Beach) are uber dense or vibrant. They're ok for suburbs, like dozens of other suburbs in america. Again you're probably confusing highrises for urbanism, which is kinda funny.

If Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach are suburbs than so are San Jose and Oakland as they don’t function as such.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

If Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach are suburbs than so are San Jose and Oakland as they don’t function as such.

They're pockets of urbanity/walkable areas. Are you saying all of Fort Lauderdale is urban? LMAO

[Wigs]

last I checked this thread was so supposed to be about Houston.

take your city vs city debate to skyscrapercity please

[chris08876]

The nice thing with Texas cities is the amount of land. Granted its build out with single family homes but the parcels are there that if developers make big assemblages, no shortage of what could be built.

Everything in the red should be built up.

There should not be single family homes there. Should all be dense mid rises or high rises.

[JManc]

That area (in red) was not part of Houston when it was developed and was suburban for much of its history so it shouldn't be anything more than it is. Bad enough pre-war Craftsmen bungalows there are being replaced by townhouses.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Today it's Minneapolis, for sure... And as you allude to, that city comes in 2nd place not because Minneapolis is extraordinary, but because the declines of other Midwest cities were so dramatic. If Detroit and St. Louis had hypothetically declined in parallel to Chicago then they'd both still be a bit ahead of Minneapolis on a number of metrics:

Chicago 24% decline in population since 1950

• 2020 population: 2,746,388
• 2020 density: 12k ppsm

Detroit (hypothetical) 24% decline in pop. since 1950

• 2020 population: 1,405,672
• 2020 density: 10.1k ppsm

St. Louis (hypothetical) 24% decline in pop. since 1950

• 2020 population: 651,165
• 2020 density: 10.5k ppsm

Minneapolis

• 2020 population: 425,336
• 2020 density: 7.9k ppsm

Yeah, I think Detroit and St. Louis not building a subway system 100 years ago was a major setback. They should essentially be the Midwest answers to Philadelphia and Boston.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by goat314

Yeah, I think Detroit and St. Louis not building a subway system 100 years ago was a major setback. They should essentially be the Midwest answers to Philadelphia and Boston.

Yeah. I think the missed opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s was probably fate sealing. There were a series of bills passed by Congress in the 1960s and 1970s to support urban mass transit. That's how NJ Transit, Metro-North, DC Metro, Atlanta MARTA, SF BART, etc., came about. Detroit's SEMTA (now SMART) was also created during that era and intended to be an agency that built and operated a Detroit subway and commuter rail system, but it stalled due to local political bickering. It died during the wave of Reaganism in the 1980s that gutted support for mass transit at the federal level and in state houses around the country.

[craigs]

The land area of a city proper divided by its population is one way to measure density. Here are some others, as posted in the Census Bureau thread:

Percentage of MSA living in Census tracts with population densities exceeding the national average (5,792 ppsm):

Los Angeles: 78.1%
San Jose: 75.0%
New York: 68.9%
San Francisco: 66.3%
Honolulu: 62.7%
Las Vegas: 62.0%
Miami: 57.4%
San Diego: 51.1%
Philadelphia: 46.8%
Chicago: 42.0%
Boston: 39.7%
Washington, DC: 38.8%
Seattle: 33.5%


Weighted population density, MSAs over 1 million, persons per square mile:

New York: 33,787.5
San Francisco....13,267.8
Honolulu....12,581.9
Los Angeles....12,169.4
San Jose....9,075.9
Chicago....9,011.9
Boston....8,987.9
Miami....8,489.2
Philadelphia....8,258.5
San Diego....7,381.9
Washington....7,296.1
Las Vegas....7,031.7
Seattle....6,146.3
Denver....5,418.0
Providence....5,204.6
Baltimore....5,144.7
Salt Lake City....5,070.9
Portland....5,058.8
Milwaukee....5,023.7
Sacramento....5,002.7
Phoenix....4,807.7
Riverside....4,636.9
Houston....4,606.4
New Orleans....4,577.0
Fresno....4,518.4
Buffalo....4,348.8
Dallas....4,274.7
Detroit....3,906.9
Minneapolis....3,784.4
Cleveland....3,676.9
Tampa Bay....3,616.6
Columbus....3,605.8
Virginia Beach....3,580.8
Austin....3,565.3
San Antonio....3,424.0
Tucson....3,285.2
Orlando....3,275.7
Hartford....3,195.3
Pittsburgh....2,970.0
Rochester....2,948.2
St. Louis....2,738.0
Atlanta....2,686.4
Louisville....2,686.3
Cincinnati....2,658.2
Oklahoma City....2,647.3
Richmond....2,590.4
Kansas City....2,561.4
Indianapolis....2,457.3
Jacksonville....2,431.3
Grand Rapids....2,413.3
Memphis....2,339.4
Tulsa....2,167.3
Raleigh....2,166.8
Charlotte....1,996.1
Nashville....1,943.3
Birmingham....1,402.6


Total MSA population of persons living in census tracts with densities of 20,000+ ppsm:

New York: 9,151,543
Los Angeles: 1,919,006
Chicago: 1,238,801
San Francisco: 899,765
Philadelphia: 841,729
Boston: 727,666
Washington: 501,510
Miami: 396,021
Honolulu: 182,167
Seattle: 160,101
San Diego: 103,421
Houston: 88,080
Baltimore: 67,095
San Jose: 64,724
Dallas: 54,893
Minneapolis: 52,998
Denver: 49,423
Milwaukee: 47,988
Bridgeport: 47,791
Providence: 39,442
Portland: 38,057
Madison: 35,514
Columbus: 31,592
Allentown: 29,319
Atlanta: 26,589
Worcester: 26,374
Las Vegas: 26,114
Austin: 23,224
Champaign: 22,271
Salinas: 21,893
Phoenix: 20,351


MSAs by % and total population living within census tracts with 10,000+ persons per square miles:

58.0% New York: 11,694,534
50.0% Los Angeles: 6,611,283
43.6% San Francisco: 2,073,127
38.8% Honolulu: 395,854
36.0% San Jose: 720,560
29.3% Boston: 1,448,764
27.1% Chicago: 2,614,012
26.4% Salinas: 116,532
25.3% Philadelphia: 1,580,169
24.7% San Diego: 816,530
23.2% Santa Barbara: 104,916
22.7% Miami: 1,398,475
19.5% Las Vegas: 441,510
19.2% Washington: 1,230,663
18.0% Oxnard: 152,811
18.0% Trenton: 70,272
17.9% Providence: 301,925
17.7% State College: 28,622
17.5% Bridgeport: 168,397
15.9% Santa Cruz: 43,412
14.3% Milwaukee: 226,941
14.2% Reading: 61,836
13.1% Baltimore: 375,152
13.1% Buffalo: 153,098
12.5% Seattle: 505,840
11.1% New Haven: 96,281
10.6% Denver: 315,809
9.9% Champaign: 22,271
9.7% Allentown: 84,293
9.2% Madison: 63,212
8.5% Manchester: 36,655
8.3% Lancaster: 46,505
8.3% Stockton: 65,403
8.0% Springfield, MA: 56,107
7.6% Atlantic City: 21,194
7.3% Riverside: 339,111
7.4% New Orleans: 95,502
7.1% Hartford: 87,780
7.1% Phoenix: 328,143
7.1% Portland: 179,612
6.9% Ann Arbor: 26,580
6.9% Houston: 495,906
6.8% Poughkeepsie: 48,699
6.7% Reno: 33,110
6.7% Worcester: 66,488
6.6% Boulder: 22,321
6.5% Minneapolis: 241,894
6.3% Albany: 57,733
6.3% Fresno: 64,225
6.2% Sacramento: 149,401
5.5% Rochester: 60,997
5.4% Harrisburg: 32,348
5.4% Scranton: 31,525
5.4% York: 25,122
5.1% Dallas: 390,927
4.7% Modesto: 26,829
4.6% Provo: 31,825
4.6% Vallejo: 21,593
4.0% Columbus: 86,536
4.0% Syracuse: 27,262
3.9% Bakersfield: 36,880
3.9% Pittsburgh: 94,694
3.7% Cleveland: 78,607
3.7% Salt Lake City: 47,020
3.3% Austin: 76,408
3.0% Richmond: 40,379
2.8% Detroit: 126,508
2.5% Orlando: 67,832
2.4% Atlanta: 150,542
2.0% Cincinnati: 46,615
1.8% St. Louis: 53,286
1.3% Tampa Bay: 43,634
1.2% San Antonio: 33,299
0.7% Charlotte: 21,929

[goat314]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah. I think the missed opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s was probably fate sealing. There were a series of bills passed by Congress in the 1960s and 1970s to support urban mass transit. That's how NJ Transit, Metro-North, DC Metro, Atlanta MARTA, SF BART, etc., came about. Detroit's SEMTA (now SMART) was also created during that era and intended to be an agency that built and operated a Detroit subway and commuter rail system, but it stalled due to local political bickering. It died during the wave of Reaganism in the 1980s that gutted support for mass transit at the federal level and in state houses around the country.

Same thing happened in St. Louis. Believe it or not, the governor of Missouri at that time was actually very supportive of building at metro system in St. Louis at that time but local bickering killed it. Now it's the opposite, St. Louis has tried to piece together a light rail system with practically zero state support.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by goat314

Same thing happened in St. Louis. Believe it or not, the governor of Missouri at that time was actually very supportive of building at metro system in St. Louis at that time but local bickering killed it. Now it's the opposite, St. Louis has tried to piece together a light rail system with practically zero state support.

Yeah, it's actually surprising how supportive governments were of mass transit well into the 1970s. Creating all of these big cities with terrible transit connectivity was a fluke of the anti-government mood that started in the 1980s.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, it's actually surprising how supportive governments were of mass transit well into the 1970s. Creating all of these big cities with terrible transit connectivity was a fluke of the anti-government mood that started in the 1980s.

Nixon signed the biggest federal aid package of all time, the $10 billion UMTA of 1970. It was expected that this act would become like the highway bills - a new one every 8-10 years. Instead, the decade's inflation eroded the ability of the $10 billion to fulfill its promises. A new UMTA never happened because Regan was able to pin its shortcomings on Carter and a new UMTA as a bailout for big cities like New York. Also, the high interest rates necessary to kill off inflation created a crazy ripple in the economy that didn't smooth until Reagan's second term. People were still worried that inflation might return, and that a second UMTA would again be unable to fund what it promised. I think that legislators were afraid to go to bat for another UMTA because the national sentiment had swung wildly toward punishing anyone with any resemblance to Jimmy Carter. It didn't matter than Nixon signed the thing into law.

[Zapatan]

I think that when Houston hits megacity status it's due for another supertall or two...

Filling in with lots of high-rises is what it needs first though.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think that when Houston hits megacity status it's due for another supertall or two...

Filling in with lots of high-rises is what it needs first though.

Filling in with lots of high-rises...that's what it's doing, and has been. They're scattered among the highrise nodes like Downtown, Uptown, Greenway, Med Center, Upper Kirby, Allen Parkway, Energy Corridor.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

Filling in with lots of high-rises...that's what it's doing, and has been. They're scattered among the highrise nodes like Downtown, Uptown, Greenway, Med Center, Upper Kirby, Allen Parkway, Energy Corridor.

I know it is, that's what I'm saying.

[Double L]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The nice thing with Texas cities is the amount of land. Granted its build out with single family homes but the parcels are there that if developers make big assemblages, no shortage of what could be built.

Everything in the red should be built up.

There should not be single family homes there. Should all be dense mid rises or high rises.

This would be a good thing, although there are some buildings that need to be preserved and in fact, are preserved by historic building and historic neighborhood designation. The accomplishment of densifying these neighborhoods doesn’t happen overnight but many in the city would want it to happen. These are the neighborhoods in the center of the city. With the construction of the light rail, bus rapid transit and bus systems, the inner loop is the most prepared to create walkable neighborhoods.

[mhays]

A word about those census tract numbers (which are incredibly interesting to look at!): Those were 2020, and in many growing cities they'd be quite a bit out of date even 35 months later.

In many cities, a lot more tracts are currently over each incremental bar, AND a lot of growth has happened in the tracts already counted. The numbers over 10k, for example, can rise exponentially due to the combination of these two effects.

It sounds like Houston should be in that group.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think that when Houston hits megacity status it's due for another supertall or two...

Filling in with lots of high-rises is what it needs first though.

What's the downtown office vacancy rate for Houston right now? I'm guessing it's fairly high like most other cities. If so, the only hope for supertalls would be residential. Does Houston have much in the way of residential towers?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LAsam

What's the downtown office vacancy rate for Houston right now? I'm guessing it's fairly high like most other cities. If so, the only hope for supertalls would be residential. Does Houston have much in the way of residential towers?

High but more people are in the office compared to most cities. No one wants to go into the office in the Bay Area. We are shutting down offices in SF.

[mhays]

Inside Houston's downtown freeway loop, CoStar has it at 24.3% today. Others with downtown submarkets of varying parallel levels:

Dallas is 27.9%.

LA 18.7%.

SF broken into smaller areas, mostly 18-23% but a 44% at Yerba Buena.

Seattle broken into smaller areas at 6.8% to 21%.

Chicago 11% to nearly 23%.

Boston 5.8% to 14.4%

Manhattan 6.4% to 19.7% but mostly around 14%.

Philly 6% to 13.4%, mostly at the higher end.

DC 13.6% to 18.2%.

Atlanta at 14.2% and 19.4 in Midtown.

[Bill51390]

Houston is definitely becoming more denser and walkable, especially in areas inside the loop. Many of these apartment buildings are adding street level businesses and restaurants. The city is lifting parking and set back requirements in areas of the city. Along with widening of sidewalks and adding bike lanes. The city is evolving and will look completely different, there’s a lot changing, and a big push for denser, more walkable living. The whole city of Houston will never be a dense walkable city, that’s unrealistic. But it will definitely happen inside of the loop and sporadic pockets outside.