It really doesn't matter how many anecdotes or criticisms from urban designers get posted here, because the important part is that an enormous number of people want to and do live in Houston, which is tautologically better urban design than any city which to which people have been unable or unwilling to move.
Just because a city holds more people at a lower price doesn't make it intrinsically better planned.
If you ask people, they're bound to lie to you. What people do is much more indicative of their priorities than what they say.
Many gold rush boom towns pulled a lot of strings to get enough housing, tents, taverns or tenements to house their populations. Would we call most of those towns well planned? Even successful?
Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough job market to offset several other negatives (long commutes, lack of green space). Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence.
Put another way, given the option between two suburban hell-scapes, people will pick the one that pays better. But, it's a still a suburban hell-scape.
Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).
Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city.
I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example...
> Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).
"Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there.
Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.
You're absolutely right that people won't always answer polls seriously or honestly, but it's fairly clear people will put up with awful situations if it will help their family out, so looking at their actions isn't a reliable indicator either.
If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.
You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others.
The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions.
Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.
It grew because people wanted to move there, jobs were good, and housing was (relatively) cheap. It's what people wanted. How could you possibly indict this?
Correction. It grew because lots of people did move there. People move despite their personal feelings all the time.
Same with Houston, just that it's also accessible to people who aren't making tons of money as software engineers.
Anecdotally, I spent two decades in Houston and have a pretty good feel for it. It has many redeeming qualities and will always have a place in my heart, but most people I talk to find the flatness, lack of seasons, and oppressive heat to be too much of downsides to "want" to live there. I don't think I have ever met anyone ever who moved to Houston because they wanted to move to Houston in the same way people move to Florida or San Diego or Denver because they want to move to those places.
If you make $40,000 in a lot cities you need to live in someone else's closet. But in Houston you can buy a house, raise a family and even go out to some of the cities nicest bars and restaurants occasionally.
Only if "perpetual population growth and sprawl" is your definition of a good time.
If you look at the prices in SF, people are willing to spend enormous amounts of money to live there, does that mean that it's tautologically better designed than cities that can't command such prices?