Houston Is Going Broke Because of Its Sprawl | Hacker News Reader

Houston Is Going Broke Because of Its Sprawl

strongtowns.org

45 pointsjseliger18 comments

I’ve read a few pieces by these folks, and they all just rub me the wrong way. They’re all very strident and confrontational and say that we’re all doing everything terribly wrong, but always seem conspicuously light on any answers.

The one cool thing that I might have taken away from this article - the productivity/value density map of Houston - was just a low-res image and not a map you could zoom and examine (but happily linked you to some consulting outfit that will sell you that map).

….LMFAO, I just noticed for the first time that, in addition to their consultant cross-selling, Strong Towns sells courses on how citizens can solve urban planning problems.

“I have a secret plan to save the urban fabric of America, but I can’t tell you until you pay me $300.” What a grift.

(Also, headline seems incorrect - Houston is going broke, expect all these other, non-sprawly cities are going broke much worse, so if anything arguably the growth and low housing prices enabled by Houston’s sprawl is keeping it solvent? Plus the author seems ignorant of the actual practices through which Houston selectively annexes outlying areas. Or maybe you just have to pony up for the class to learn about that.)

Tough, but fair

I’m glad you responded. I’ve been reading their articles for years, and the takeaway is always - all sprawl is bad, we must consolidate on row houses or other higher density designs to reduce the cost per linear foot of road to service these suburban layouts. Well, maybe people prefer their space, and in the last 10 years, my house has increased in value by $500k. Possibly we could tax suburban properties differently based upon their marginal infrastructure costs? Nope, have to outlaw it and rip it down otherwise it’s going to degrade into blight.

Some of their proposals are intriguing, but their dismissal of alternate funding methods for suburban living seems shortsighted.

Lol. Like you are going to pay 1500$ per month for marginal infrastructure cost? Suburbans are pretty expensive as well as rural communities, I don't need a consultancy to see that.

Look at some of the poorer places in America and you can see what you can get with no property tax or other contributions.

Suburbia is unnecessarily subsidised.

Tone policing isn’t a valid argument. [1]

It’s also perfectly valid to raise a problem without providing a solution. [2]

As it so happens, though, Strong Towns’ thesis is pretty clear. This article is one of many examples. It boils down to “low density costs cities more than it brings in revenue, so cities need to increase density or increase taxes. If they don’t, they’ll eventually fail.”

They have several articles going into specific recommendations, which you can find collected at [3]. I particularly liked “6 Principles for Building a Strong Town.”

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

[2] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22212/is-ther...

[3] https://actionlab.strongtowns.org/hc/en-us/articles/36005386...

New York seems like a pretty obvious counterexample to that prescription, though. High density, high taxes - so should be the ideal city, no? But according to this very article, New York’s finances are even worse off than Houston’s! Does that imply that every American city is destined to fail?

My overall impression from this piece was that someone really wanted to get something off his chest about cash accounting and unfunded liabilities. Lots of sound and fury around those topics but seemed pretty skimpy otherwise (and not terribly well informed about the facts on the ground in the specific example employed here).

Btw, I’ve got to imagine that I’m perfectly within my rights to object to the particular tone an advocacy piece employs and/or the solutions it proposes (or does not), and to find that piece more or less credible based on those factors. Not sure why you are linking me to wiki and stackexchange articles?

They discuss New York in a short segment of this video (linked to timestamp): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nChhkHpkD0Y&t=945s&pp=2AGxB5...

You are, of course, within your rights to object to an article’s tone, just as I’m within my rights to tell you why I find it to be a poor form of argument.

Your “tone policing” comment isn’t relevant here. The OP wasn’t saying the argument is wrong because of the tone. He was just criticizing the tone of the argument in of itself.

And in general if you’re trying to persuade people being strident and confrontational is not the best approach. That approach seems better if you’re trying to rile up people who already agree with you or if you are trying to antagonize people into arguing against you. If someone wants to actually persuade it’s better to present the argument in a calm rational way.

Also your Wikipedia article is bizzare. Presenting arguments in a calm rational way is “colonialist”? It makes a bizarre assumption that polite discourse is inherently European which it isn’t. Discussion and speaking arguments in a detached, educated, and rational tone has been going in in Africa, South Asia, and East Asia and other places for thousands of years!

> If someone wants to actually persuade it’s better to present the argument in a calm rational way.

That’s one of those “works better in theory than in practice” positions. In a perfect world, sure, people are persuaded by calm, rational argument. That’s why politicians and advertisers avoid emotional appeals, right?

The actual economic data doesn't support the Strong Towns thesis. If they were correct then we would be seeing spikes in Chapter 9 bankruptcies and muni bond insurance rates. That isn't happening. Strong Towns is largely just making things up and cherry picking data to push a biased political narrative.

I agree with most of their content, but I've never been able to figure out a solution that didn't cost "all the money".

Of course, I'm biased since I desperately want walkable neighborhoods far from street traffic, but the developers bribe their way into creating more ginormous parking lots, strip malls, and standalone fast food restaurants near the sprawling McMansions on postage stamp lots.

Town planners have no vision and/or balls to build communities.

I guess what I’m trying to puzzle out is what their ideal city looks like. So apparently it isn’t New York nor Houston. Is it downtown Palo Alto? Is it one of the master-planned communities along 30A in the Florida panhandle? Those are both pretty pleasant, walkable places, but they don’t scale (and the price of admission starts in the mid seven digits, or maybe more, I dunno).

I’m reading some more of the pieces on their site, but like you, I can’t really tell what exactly they would propose as a real world solution that is scalable for everyone.

I'd guess that Strong Towns would advocate for cities more along the lines of Amsterdam and many other similar European cities than NYC. Of course, I personally tend to agree with the thesis of walkable cities and what Strong Towns is advocating for. I don't know if this would necessarily be the answer, but it is a strong hunch.

  I’ve read a few pieces by these folks ... but always seem conspicuously light on any answers.

Have you read the book they published back in 2019?

  “I have a secret plan to save the urban fabric of America, but I can’t tell you until you pay me $300.” What a grift.

The Kindle edition of their book is $16.

In my regular smallish suburban city I have a sidewalk stamped from 1922. However, they just redid all the roads, sewer, and certain side walks (bad sections). They are now running municipal fiber tubes throughout the whole sprawling city. As far as I can tell the city is still operated as a self-financing entity and has been since the 1800’s. Is this a facade or just an anomaly?

In some of their other material, they go over this. Many of the bigger projects (not something like the two examples you picked, more like redoing intersections, making new roads, fixing highways, etc.) are financed by the state and federal governments, so they end up being able to keep their budget afloat as long as they get pulled up occasionally by the state/feds. This is still bad, mind you, which is why they're not wrong per se.

I like the idea of dense cities, but I think that a lot of YIMBYs go too far and twist facts to fit their narrative. This seems to be one of those posts.

The article/analysis seems a bit alarmist to me too. It suggests Houston is way behind in paving roads and has unsustainable long term liabilities. Ok, maybe. But last month called 311 and asked them to pave a pothole on a busy city street I hit. I noticed it was done within two weeks. Hmm. What are the full assumptions under their analysis? Who knows.

Kinda like cash accounting vs accrual which they highlight, both can be misleading if the assumptions aren’t clearly spelled out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com