The New York Times begins a light-hearted article on parking spaces with these two paragraphs:
In Houston, $225,000 will buy a three-bedroom house with a game room, den, in-ground pool and hot tub.
In Manhattan, it will buy a parking space. No windows, no view. No walls.
At that point, a person from Mars would expect the rest of the article to explain what Houston is doing right, and what Manhattan is doing wrong. (Or even a person from Houston.) But that question does not interest the reporter, Vivian S. Toy, because she continues blithely on with a discussion of these high costs, without ever considering why Houston does so much better.
For those with more curiosity than Toy about this question, there may be a hint in this Wikipedia article on Houston.
Houston, the largest city in the United States without zoning regulations, has expanded without land use planning.[46][47][48] Voters rejected efforts to have separate residential and commericial land-use districts in 1948, 1962, and 1993.
Houston has, in other words, one of the least regulated housing markets of any large American city. It also has some of the cheapest housing of any large American city. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Perhaps Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times might learn something from Houston's combination. He has noticed that housing prices are high in this area, but thinks that the solution might be either more regulation, or virtuous landlords, who do not seek maximum profits. I don't think that landlords in Houston are notably more virtuous than those in this area, so I would suggest that Westneat might want to search for a different solution, perhaps less regulation, or even repealing part or all of the G----- M--------- A--.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 15, 2007 03:31 PM | Email ThisOn earth we just expect reporter to follow the Marxist dialectic.
Posted by: Not a Yank on July 15, 2007 03:53 PMThe GMA, worse for the environment, worse for affordability, longer commute times, ugly treeless dense asphault developments everywhere!
Posted by: AP on July 15, 2007 04:30 PMSorta makes the opposite that the blind monkeys are trying here in Seattle sound just a bit goofy, dontcha think?
OH GEE.. we weren't prepared, it's far too late, but oh well let's just throw up a few rails for the hell of it.
Good grief.
Get it?
People moved about BECAUSE of the trains... not the other way around... because oh gee, it's much easier to direct population growth with previously existing infrastructure than it is to make non-existant infrastructer go where teh people already ARE.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 15, 2007 06:02 PMOnce again, Stephen feels what its like to be poked in the eye with a fact. Haha, see you next time.
Posted by: Auburn's Finest on July 15, 2007 08:25 PMAre you talking about my post @12? I am all for planning, I am not for throwing planning out the window when a developer waves some bucks under Ron Sims nose.
Posted by: Huh? on July 15, 2007 08:26 PMBut what was the population of Seattle in 1869? Perhpas if they;d built subways back then, we'd still be running them too.
How typical of the true believer to make a comparison between cities 1.5 centuries apart and somehow think it advances their argument. Even today, to make comparisons with Manhattan (New York, not the one in Montana) is to pretend that an exception is somehow typical. (Actually, a comparison between Seattle and the one in Montana leaves Seattle coming up short in a lot of ways.)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on July 15, 2007 08:45 PMBut what was the population of Seattle in 1869? Perhpas if they;d built subways back then, we'd still be running them too.
How typical of the true believer to make a comparison between cities 1.5 centuries apart and somehow think it advances their argument. Even today, to make comparisons with Manhattan (New York, not the one in Montana) is to pretend that an exception is somehow typical. (Actually, a comparison between Seattle and the one in Montana leaves Seattle coming up short in a lot of ways.)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on July 15, 2007 08:46 PM"Stefan, when New York began building is subway in 1869 its population density was under 5k, or just more then 2k less than Seattle is today."
Hey Giffy - New York didn't begin building its subway. Rather, the taxpayers didn't. It was built by a flock of private entrepreneurs, to make a buck by providing a service. The City gobbled all the different lines by brute politics.
You might recall (if you aren't one of them imported New Yorkers) that Puget Sound used to have swarms of small steamers and ferries carrying passengers from points A to points B. All built and operated by private entrepreneurs. And the State of Washington gobbled them up by brute politics too.
So why don't you and some of your buddies start your own cute light rail project, so Ron Sims and Greg Nickels can grab it and call it public transportation?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 15, 2007 08:58 PMNY and Chicago built them then the sprawl worked its way along the rails. Here we have plenty of sprawl and the nuts want us to believe the rail will serve it.
It's like trying to build a fence after your 2,000,000 goats have found grass to munch on in the surrounding 50 miles of grass land: IT'S TOO DAMNED LATE. The goats are where they want to work and play: they aren't interested in being limited by your goat fence.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 15, 2007 11:12 PMA person from Earth, by contrast, would attribute this to differences in supply and demand.
At Rover's, $300 will get you dinner and beverages for two. At McDonald's, it will get you dinner and beverages for 60. I guess Rover's should wonder what it's doing wrong.
Posted by: Bruce on July 16, 2007 12:23 AMThere's good news in South King -- I keep seeing signs for housing (condos) selling for $180,000. It's a start. The housing signs have started sliding as well....first it was the 400s, now it's the "high 300s". Pretty soon well dip into the 200s. It's gotta come....the Puget Sound just isn't that great an area. It's "ok", just not worth the egregious prices people are charging.
Nobody sane would really want to live there.
Posted by: John Galt on July 16, 2007 09:31 AMI am alittle puzzled as to the rail in Houston. When I left there was the Toonerville Trolley ( a street car) which ran from downtown to the Med Center. I'm quite certain in the limited time they have not installed a full rail system, something else the voters fought.
I am alittle puzzled as to the rail in Houston. When I left there was the Toonerville Trolley ( a street car) which ran from downtown to the Med Center. I'm quite certain in the limited time they have not installed a full rail system, something else the voters fought.
Stefan writes: In Houston, $225,000...explain what Houston is doing right, and what Manhattan is doing wrong.Actually it was Jim who wrote that. Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 16, 2007 11:19 AM
Rob @ 13: the obvious difference is that a company plans USING ITS OWN MONEY. I would prefer not to have my life planned for me and be forced to pay for it, too... just so some politician can pat himself on the back for being such a great leader.
Posted by: John Galt on July 16, 2007 04:13 PMWhat we need is a 5 year plan updated annually.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 16, 2007 07:34 PMAnd count me one of those who prefer Houston to Seattle.
Posted by: Hailstroms on July 21, 2007 05:09 PM