Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
some folks just want consistency - that's different in the city but in the suburbs where we are taught to believe that all is well - it should happen but developers are slick - Houston is an area where folks in the past could up and leave behind an investment for whatever reason so areas never had time to mature and stabilize cause folks ran at the first sign of perceived trouble
Hiram Clarke was built for medical center and HLP employees but never took off cause folks left once a few other races moved in so they moved to Missouri City
those same races followed to Missouri City - and before Mo. City ever stabilized folks sold the homes they just bought and then you started to see the exodus to Sugar Land
First Colony and the city of Sugar Land did a damn good job of controlling how much it cost to get in and what type of housing to erect - in some cases, there are plenty of starter homes in Sugar land in First Colony which are smaller than homes in Houston but folks paid extra
Missouri City was anti apartment for years - Sienna convinced them that they needed apartments for their development to work and now you see them creeping up on 2234
Shadow Creek in pearland has tons of apartments already on 2234 - not sure about that honestly
what happened is the developers got wise and started building in unincorporated areas surrounding the cities and that's where you see varying price points like Cypress, Alief, Richmond, etc. Sugar Land annexed Greatwood but left Tara, which is next door alone, makes you wonder
In Rosenberg, one side of the street is city, the other side is county - one community erected $300k homes but DR Horton bought 500 acres next door for a entry level home community then KB comes across the street for its new development
difference now is the housing market isn't easy for folks to dump a $300k home cause the next step is a $450k home which ain't easy to get into so folks are upset when their investments are boxed in
I want to say that while many people in this thread are correct, with decline and the apartment association. I will say the decline overall isn't anywhere as bad as people make it out to be now. The Houston of the 70s-90s was far more dangerous than the Greater Houston of now. Crime in absolute numbers has been decreasing nationwide for decades, although murders and other crimes have seen upticks, property crime is basically at record lows in most states.
What does this mean? I place that declines in 2020 till 2030 is never gonna be as bad as a place that declined in the 70s, 80s and 90s with a few exceptions. Society as a whole also has far more upper middle class people. A middle class area declines differently than an area with median income over 100,000 dollars.
So heading into 2030, not only has safety improved, the average suburban area is less middle-class and more upper-middle class the formula is pointing towards a far more minute decline. Now I still don't think our suburbs will be as safe as similarly wealthy areas in the NE, but would crime ever get high enough to scare the people in their homes out, probably not.
On top of this, really poor areas, Houston-wide are also generally improving and seeing some level of gentrification especially inside the loop as more and more people in those areas move up the income ladder.
I think it's more likely we see Spring Branch or Alief return to a nicer lower middle class area, than it is likely we see Cypress or Katy decline to a lower middle class area.
I actually think North Katy is a key example here, by all means with both of the big High schools at over 50% reduced lunch, which is normally a sign of a lower middle class school. in 2010 it was in the 64% of HS (doing better than 64% of HS in Texas), in 2020 it's in the 63% of High schools). Theirs's been a bit of a more noticeable decline in average test score, but it's not like 2010 Morton Ranch was any significantly different than today. Paetow is in much of the same boat, but with a new high school to the north, and generally more upper-middle class stuff planned for North Katy, West of 99, it might become a wealthier school over time just due to changing demographics.
Mayde Creek has actually seen an improvement in test scores that only seemed to tank in 2021, and as recently as 2018, was doing better than 80% of Texas high schools.
Katy HS- seems to see a massive 2021 improvement, but that's because more upper middle class is going north and south of the highway zoned to Katy HS, which was probably along with half of Taylor the only truly middle class part of Katy in terms of zoning.
I'm sure the rent for apartments in Towne Lake and Bridgeland is astronomical, I wouldn't worry too much about them going downhill any time soon. Many folks living in them are waiting for their houses to be built as well. So you've got a lot of well-off people who are mostly in transition to permanent housing nearby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
There's also been comments in the Houston forum that "entry-level" single family, not just apartments, also needs to be forcibly limited. Some have said that North Katy, dominated by that kind of housing, somehow should have been "prevented" by government and somehow it's unfair to South Katy and parts of Cypress. As I related elsewhere, a former CFISD official told a story of how affluent homeowners were irate that a cheaper subdivision was "allowed" in the same school zone as them. It's just crazy how off the rails these people are.
At the time that land was pretty cheap, and construction costs were reasonable. The demand was high for affordable starter homes at the $120K or so range. It would be nearly impossible for that to happen now though with land and construction costs. I think a lot of builders aren't even building starter homes these days. I also wonder how many of those folks are getting priced out of their homes now trying to keep up with the property tax payments?
I'm sure the rent for apartments in Towne Lake and Bridgeland is astronomical, I wouldn't worry too much about them going downhill any time soon. Many folks living in them are waiting for their houses to be built as well. So you've got a lot of well-off people who are mostly in transition to permanent housing nearby.
At the time that land was pretty cheap, and construction costs were reasonable. The demand was high for affordable starter homes at the $120K or so range. It would be nearly impossible for that to happen now though with land and construction costs. I think a lot of builders aren't even building starter homes these days. I also wonder how many of those folks are getting priced out of their homes now trying to keep up with the property tax payments?
The term "starter homes" is kind of relative. These days they pretty much can't be done for less than a $230,000 selling price (typically on 40' or 45' lots), or in many areas higher, and certainly higher anywhere the developer can't get reimbursed for public infrastructure. (In DFW, it's basically $300K and up.) Basically, it's what a "middle middle" class household has a reasonable chance to get into without a big down payment gift from the family (probably FHA or VA mortgage). These days we're really talking about households $60,000 - $85,000 in income, which yes is far less than typical households in the "preferred" suburbs / school zones who for some bizarre reason think the "entry level" HH kids will negatively affect their own precious offspring and home values.
Most MPC's now are required to include some sort of apartment housing and more and more I see townhomes as well.
The catch that most ignore is that these apartments and townhomes are not cheap. As we have less land to develop, this will be the norm, whereas the old neighborhoods of huge lots and 1000's of houses are long gone.
Most MPC's now are required to include some sort of apartment housing and more and more I see townhomes as well.
The catch that most ignore is that these apartments and townhomes are not cheap. As we have less land to develop, this will be the norm, whereas the old neighborhoods of huge lots and 1000's of houses are long gone.
I'm not aware of any "requirements" for MPCs to include rental housing. They do it to have broader market appeal and quicken overall land absorption. Plus, the renters can also represent future homeowners in the community, so there's some "get at them early" thinking going on.
And no, they're not low-rent, at all. This is mainly a function of the rents that the developers have to get to justify the ever-rising land and construction costs; you pretty much have to build for "Class A" rents to make it work. This is a big issue in the housing world, because the share of renters who can afford these rents is limited. There are folks trying to crack the nut on building new "workforce" apartment complexes, because the middle-class renter that really can't afford "Class A" represents such a huge part of the market - but it's really tough. You have to eliminate amenities and finishes that drive the cost up, and even then it's difficult. Plus you're competing against rehabbed / updated older complexes that serve that market but also have the amenities, like nice pools etc.
Meh, I'm with LocalPlanner on this one. Government generally has no business meddling in what kind of housing is built. Exclusionary policies towards apartments cause us all to lose as housing is more expensive overall. Everyone isn't able to live in SFH and apartments have to be built SOMEWHERE. At the end of the day no one wants them near them but they're perfectly happy to burden other communities with apartments. There shouldn't be any neighborhoods that can legally prevent them imo. And local governments shouldn't be able to do what, for example, Providence Village in DFW is doing.
But see, you like Local planner are being dramatic with lines like this. I've seen both you and LP discuss having second family properties, so why not setup homeless people in those if you aren't renting them out?
All people want is more planning, which is hard to do in a city with no zoning, that extends to the unincorporated areas that now have more people than the City of Houston. What does Houston's no planning style do? It keeps the market relatively cheap, so buying a home is within range for middle class families. This comes with drawbacks too though because the lax regulations lead to the apartment clusters that basically become projects over time.
In regards to your article, it is very ironic the woman's last name is "Threat" and she's one of the ones being forced out due to the small town eliminating section 8. Almost seems like a joke. Regardless, this example here is an extreme one as this is a newly formed town creating their own self governing rules. I'm sure this kind of thing has happened in Houston before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbcu
some folks just want consistency - that's different in the city but in the suburbs where we are taught to believe that all is well - it should happen but developers are slick - Houston is an area where folks in the past could up and leave behind an investment for whatever reason so areas never had time to mature and stabilize cause folks ran at the first sign of perceived trouble
Exactly. All people want is more planning. Less unincorporated no zoning (leave no zoning for the City of Houston), and let the incorporated areas govern themselves. Together it'll create a better Houston area in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
I want to say that while many people in this thread are correct, with decline and the apartment association. I will say the decline overall isn't anywhere as bad as people make it out to be now. The Houston of the 70s-90s was far more dangerous than the Greater Houston of now. Crime in absolute numbers has been decreasing nationwide for decades, although murders and other crimes have seen upticks, property crime is basically at record lows in most states.
What does this mean? I place that declines in 2020 till 2030 is never gonna be as bad as a place that declined in the 70s, 80s and 90s with a few exceptions. Society as a whole also has far more upper middle class people. A middle class area declines differently than an area with median income over 100,000 dollars.
So heading into 2030, not only has safety improved, the average suburban area is less middle-class and more upper-middle class the formula is pointing towards a far more minute decline. Now I still don't think our suburbs will be as safe as similarly wealthy areas in the NE, but would crime ever get high enough to scare the people in their homes out, probably not.
On top of this, really poor areas, Houston-wide are also generally improving and seeing some level of gentrification especially inside the loop as more and more people in those areas move up the income ladder.
I think it's more likely we see Spring Branch or Alief return to a nicer lower middle class area, than it is likely we see Cypress or Katy decline to a lower middle class area.
I actually think North Katy is a key example here, by all means with both of the big High schools at over 50% reduced lunch, which is normally a sign of a lower middle class school. in 2010 it was in the 64% of HS (doing better than 64% of HS in Texas), in 2020 it's in the 63% of High schools). Theirs's been a bit of a more noticeable decline in average test score, but it's not like 2010 Morton Ranch was any significantly different than today. Paetow is in much of the same boat, but with a new high school to the north, and generally more upper-middle class stuff planned for North Katy, West of 99, it might become a wealthier school over time just due to changing demographics.
Mayde Creek has actually seen an improvement in test scores that only seemed to tank in 2021, and as recently as 2018, was doing better than 80% of Texas high schools.
Katy HS- seems to see a massive 2021 improvement, but that's because more upper middle class is going north and south of the highway zoned to Katy HS, which was probably along with half of Taylor the only truly middle class part of Katy in terms of zoning.
But although overall Houston area crime might be down, it's undeniable that crime in places like North Katy has gone up. When I was a kid, you could leave your doors unlocked in these areas. I still know people here and the kids growing up are way different committing multiple burglaries and thefts. The vibes are not the same.
It'd be interesting to see crime comparisons by area because I bet you'd see crime went down a bunch in places like 3rd Ward, 5th Ward, Acres Homes, heck even parts of SW Houston. But it went up a bit in places like North Katy, South Cypress, Spring/Klein, northern FB County (Bush High area), etc.
There's also been comments in the Houston forum that "entry-level" single family, not just apartments, also needs to be forcibly limited. Some have said that North Katy, dominated by that kind of housing, somehow should have been "prevented" by government and somehow it's unfair to South Katy and parts of Cypress. As I related elsewhere, a former CFISD official told a story of how affluent homeowners were irate that a cheaper subdivision was "allowed" in the same school zone as them. It's just crazy how off the rails these people are.
Nope, no one said any of this here.^^
What people did say was there needs to be more planning because Houston seems to be unique when it comes to these properties turning into high crime beds in relatively short order. A lot of this falls down on the lax regulations developers face, especially in Harris County, so they provide the bare minimum before jumping ship to the next lot. If they had to answer to more strict city regulations that change with each municipality, perhaps the quality of what is built and its design wouldn't be so basic.
By the way, the cheaper zone comment is what happens when you let the way Houston is built manifest for decades. Those folks might have their own personal examples of how some developments affected the school they were going to. Maybe if there was a long range plan where people can see what is going to be developed, some of those comments could have been avoided as there wouldn't be surprises.
But see, you like Local planner are being dramatic with lines like this. I've seen both you and LP discuss having second family properties, so why not setup homeless people in those if you aren't renting them out?
If I want to rent to low-income folks on my property, then I should be able to do it. You shouldn't be able to use public laws and regulations to prevent me from doing so.
What you're advocating is having zoning to actually prevent someone from developing a land use to answer a market need for rental housing. Or to attempt to artificially limit the amount of rental housing in a given area, presumably at a minority ratio to owner-occupied homes, because for some reason they deserve some sort of "preferred" status or "protection" in the eyes of the law? And should more expensive owner-occupied homes be given "extra" preference, including the ability to use zoning to limit the amount of cheaper owner-occupied housing is available in an area?
Furthermore, new apartments, as I've described in another post, aren't developed for low-income people, it's not economically feasible for for-profit developers, and only feasible for non-profits typically with some sort of subsidy. Apartments only become low-income (and only possibly at that) at some point in a vague future. The apartments in SW Houston, Hobby Airport, and Greenspoint only became low-income because (1) their development feasibility to begin with was warped by stupid tax shelters that fortunately went away and (2) the regional economy had a complete crash - did you forget that whole single family neighborhoods were also standing empty back then, or became full of renters? Should we expect such a crash to happen again?
If Bill Gates or (name random ultra-wealthy person) wanted to develop a rental housing complex for low-income people in Cypress or Katy or wherever and wasn't asking for government subsidies to do it, government should NOT be able to prevent them from doing so. End of story.
If I want to rent to low-income folks on my property, then I should be able to do it. You shouldn't be able to use public laws and regulations to prevent me from doing so.
Who said anything about preventing you from renting to poor people? My comment stems from the several you made that folks who are against large apartment clusters are also against poor people, yet you have multiple properties and aren't housing poor people in any of them. Why?
You can do anything you want with your property, but don't point fingers at others calling them uncompassionate/don't care for others/etc. for simply having a different opinion when there's more you could do as well.
Quote:
Furthermore, new apartments, as I've described in another post, aren't developed for low-income people, it's not economically feasible for for-profit developers, and only feasible for non-profits typically with some sort of subsidy. Apartments only become low-income (and only possibly at that) at some point in a vague future. The apartments in SW Houston, Hobby Airport, and Greenspoint only became low-income because (1) their development feasibility to begin with was warped by stupid tax shelters that fortunately went away and (2) the regional economy had a complete crash - did you forget that whole single family neighborhoods were also standing empty back then, or became full of renters? Should we expect such a crash to happen again?
Again, this seems to be a Houston unique problem where large apartment clusters all turn to crap. There is always an excuse, but at the end of the day, it's shoddy planning and bad development. Sugar Land has apartments, and although crime is higher in those apartments due to more density of residents, Sugar Land's apartments aren't quasi-projects like their Houston counterparts. Multiple this across the Houston area if places like Cypress, North Katy, Spring, Klein, etc., were their own cities and the Houston region would be better off for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
