As a start, I like urban development and I think Houston should have more of it. I especially like urban development when coupled with a robust public transportation system that is structured in a way that a.) moves people from outside into the developed area and b.) makes it fairly simple to get around said area.
You see this type of infrastructure in many of the older European mega-cities. London has an extensive rail network that ends in beautiful train stations from which one can either hop on the Tube or a bus and get pretty much anywhere you want to go within the city center. Paris has a decent metro system, but shoddy bus mapping and a horrendous means of transport to/from the suburbs to the city center. Because of this London has a relatively affluent suburban system and Paris is subject to periodical riots due to lack of opportunity etc.
In Houston, we're trending more toward the Parisian model of public transit and development, with one large twist. The twist, as identified by Kevin Whited at BlogHouston (Note: a site where I contribute occasionally) is one of elitism, American style. In Houston, we want our New Urbanist dream but we want it under a specific set of conditions. Those conditions involve not disturbing the suburban-like development in certain key neighborhoods of a certain demographic lean. They don't involve building multi-family structures where single-family homes already exist in a very un-dense environment. The twist involves calling for more in-fill development where "those" people live so as not to disturb the idyllic environment envisioned by predominately wealthy white progressives who have decided their lifestyle choice is somehow morally superior to the rest of us.
This brings us neatly to the current outrage over a planned Olive Garden & Chili's near the Heights. It appears that these types of establishments, places where $9.99 all-you-can-eat pasta are commonplace, are not in line with the white-linen night aesthetic envisioned by the new moral minority. Hilariously, this is leading to questions as to whether or not the area is becoming "suburbanized" which is code-word for "appealing to the masses". And as we all know the masses are not the type who would pay $35.00/lb for house-made salami.
The problem is not with Olive Garden, but with the people who would dine there. Just as the problem, for Metro, is not with busses to regions that need transportation but with who would be riding. By allowing this mentality to dominate our transportation discussions we're allowing a small group of people to effectively limit public transportation and development in Houston.
Is this really the transportation/redevelopment that we want?
It's the same story with historical preservation, where buildings originally designed to be temporary and aging unused relics draw much attention and needed funds from things that Houston really needs. Houston needs good roads, fixes to it's water system, updated infrastructure, sequenced traffic-lights and a host of other, basic, public goods and services. By catering to Richard Florida's creative class and handing over the key-decisions to the Inner-Loop set we're short-changing neighborhoods and communities in favor of playthings for the unproductive class.
These decisions were made at the ballot-box, based on campaigns that were mute on the issue or made promises of give-aways for all. Politicians and organizations who relied on the votes of certain communities wouldn't dream of telling them that they were going to do the exact opposite of what they promised. The problem is, the voters never learned. So we've been hammered with a Metro Board that now wants to reduce bus service to the areas that need it most, a City Council that passed a "rain tax" and is now clamoring for more funds to do the work the tax was earmarked for, a Mayor who has priorities so outside of her campaign speeches as to be almost unrecognizable and a Comptroller who does......well, nothing to be honest, unless it's campaign season.
Houston has let this carry on for a while now, content to be coddled and told stories while the city's infrastructure crumbles around them. We've been fed a diet of world classiness and new urbanism livability substituted for the nuts-and-bolts that actually improve quality of life. Is there a way to reverse the flow? I think probably no. One thing is for sure, our former newspaper of record has no interest in telling the story. Neither do our TV news outlets or even our alt-weeklies. What we're seeing is a city in decline. I don't care which side of the political aisle you find yourself that should make you sad.
Unless you're of a New Urbanist lean however, then you're likely to be quite satisfied up to the point the redevelopment encroaches on your view. Then you're furious. And well funded, which means you win.
C'est la vie.
