New Geography

Tag: Houston

  • Which Cities Will the High Cost of Energy Hurt (and Help) the Most?

    A high cost energy future will profoundly impact the cost of doing business and create new opportunities, but not necessarily in the way most people expect.

    By Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires

    The New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly and the rest of the establishment press have their answer: big cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco will win out. Our assessment is: not so fast. There’s a lot about the unfolding energy economy that is more complex than commonly believed, and could have consequences that are somewhat unanticipated.

    On the plus side there are some undoubted winners — those areas that produce energy and those with energy expertise. What’s working for Moscow, St. Petersburg, Calgary, Edmonton, and Dubai is also working for the U.S. energy regions as well. Not surprisingly, many are located deep in the heart of Texas. This includes not only big cities like energy mega-capital Houston but a host of smaller ones, like high-flyers Midland, Odessa and Longview.

    But it’s not just Texas cities that are winning. A host of other places have strong ties to energy production and exploration — Salt Lake City, Denver, and the North Dakota cities of Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks. And it’s not just oil: The U.S. Great Plains have also been described as “the Saudi Arabia of wind.” If the right incentives are put in place, a wind-belt from west Texas to the Canadian border could be produce new jobs, both in building mills and also for the industries — manufacturers, computer-related companies — that will harness the relatively cheap energy.

    Alternative renewal energy producers in biofuels, thermal, and hydro-electric will also become big business. The Sierra Nevada cities like Reno could benefit from thermal; the Pacific Northwest’s hydro-power gives places like Portland, Seattle, and a host of smaller communities — Wenatchee, Bend, Olympia — a great competitive advantage in terms of dependable, low cost and low carbon energy.

    How about the big cities and metros that consume less energy? It seems logical that San Francisco, D.C., Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and New York should have an advantage over other cities and their suburban hinterlands; these cities, especially New York, have higher than average transit use. San Francisco and Los Angeles enjoy milder climates requiring less air conditioning and heating.

    But these advantages are somewhat mitigated by the fact that these same cities often pay far more for energy than their rivals. Electricity in New York, notes an upcoming study by the New York-based Center for an Urban Future, costs twice the national average. California cities also suffer much higher prices — almost 50 percent higher than their counterparts in the Midwest. So even if you use considerably less energy, you might end up paying more. Being a big, dense city clearly has advantages, but they too often are squandered by aging infrastructure, lack of new plants and high business costs.

    One other problem for big Northern cities: colder regions will feel the ripple in local economies as the impact of high heating bills is felt next winter. A cold winter will push northeastern city-dwellers to join the chorus of complaints now voiced by drivers in auto-heavy Sunbelt states like Florida and California.

    Nor is it certain suburban areas will do so much worse in tough energy times. Studies of commuting patterns in Chicago and Los Angeles show that many suburbs thirty miles or more from their downtowns — places like Naperville, Illinois and Thousand Oaks or Irvine, California — have shorter commutes than most inner-ring urbanites. This is a result of the movement of jobs to “nodes” on the periphery over the past 30 years.

    Another kind of area that will do well are those that have well-developed telecommuter economies. In Los Angeles, notes California State University at Los Angeles geographer Ali Modarres, telecommuters are concentrated not only in places like Santa Monica, but also in sections of the San Fernando Valley (which has most of the region’s entertainment workers) as well as further out inu highly educated communities like Thousand Oaks and Irvine. In the long run, the best and most energy efficient commute is none at all.

    So who are the losers? Certainly some of the distant outer suburbs, like the high desert communities far east of Los Angeles, which lack jobs for their residents, and suffer longer than average commutes. Also hurt will be poorer inner city areas where workers have to commute, by transit or car, over great distances. Sadly, it’s many of the communities that have already suffered the most. The changeover to lower mileage vehicles will be particularly tough on those communities that produce SUVs and trucks — places like Flint, Michigan; Ft. Wayne Indiana; and Janesville, Wisconsin.

    But there are also some auto centers that are likely to do better. Just follow where low-mileage vehicles, particularly those built by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and the Korean makers, are either being built or planned. This is mostly a southern play — Tupelo, Mississippi; Nashville, Tennessee; and Georgetown, Kentucky, site of the largest Toyota plant outside Japan.

    Economic change has always impacted America’s communities. But with the current energy price surge, we may find that “creative destruction” may be sweeping through many communities even faster than we anticipated.

    Cities and Oil Prices: The Winners and The Losers

    For most places, it’s hard to tell what the long-term effect of the high cost of energy might be. But there are some fairly safe bets.

    Two kinds of areas tend to perform best in a harsh energy environment. One is the energy-producing cities, whose place at the top of this list should come as no surprise. Another, though it may take a bit longer to emerge, may be those cities that are sites for production of fuel-efficient vehicles. These tend to be located in parts of the country — Texas, the Southeast, and the Great Plains — that have lower energy costs and more favorable business climates.

    Winners:

    1. Houston: This is one town where $150 a barrel gasoline is viewed more as an opportunity than an atrocity. Not that Houstonians don’t drive — like other Texans, they tend toward the profligate in energy use. But prices are not terribly high by national standards and, more to the point, energy is producing lots of high wage jobs here for both blue- and white-collar workers. As headquarters to sixteen large energy firms — far more than New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles combined — Houston, which ranks No. 4 on our list of the best large cities to do business, provides an irresistible lure to hundreds of smaller firms specializing in everything from shipping and distribution of energy, to trading, exploration and geological modeling.
    2. Midland-Odessa, Texas: Houston is no longer the oil production center it once was, but the twin cities of Midland (No. 1 on our Best Cities list overall and among small cities) and Odessa (No. 4 on the list of small cities) certainly are. The two cities, only 20 miles apart in the energy rich Permian Basin, experienced hard times when energy prices dropped. Office buildings went empty, and people fled. But now the big problem is finding enough labor to keep the rigs going. Boomtimes are back — and only a dramatic change in the energy markets will slow them down.
    3. Bismarck, North Dakota: No. 30 on our Best Cities list of small cities, Bismarck may be in the early stages of a big time expansion. It’s the closest “big” city to the rapidly developing Bakken range — rich with oil and shale deposits — and already enjoys the advantages of being the capitol of a state that boasts a $1 billion surplus. North Dakota’s biofuels, wind, and coal industries also make the city a natural focal point for Great Plains energy. As in Midland-Odessa, the biggest constraint may well prove to be the availability of labor.
    4. The Mid-south Autobelt: The shift to smaller cars may seem dismal in Detroit, but it’s pure joy to much of the mid-South. Foreign companies specializing in energy efficient vehicles — Volkswagen, Kia, Honda, Nissan — are concentrated in a belt running from Nashville (No. 18 on the large metro list) and Chattanooga (No. 59 on midsize list) in Tennessee to Huntsville, Alabama (No. 5 on the midsize list). Local universities in the area are also getting into the act, with several cooperating in an automotive research alliance.

    Our list of losers is all too familiar. Basically, these are areas dominated by America’s weak automakers and are particularly wedded to the SUVs and trucks that are losing market share at an astonishing rate. Most fall in states that are strong union bastions, have relatively high energy prices, and get much of their energy from coal, a fuel that’s even less popular with environmentalists than oil is.

    Losers:

    1. Detroit: The center of the American auto industry ranks dead last, No. 66, on our big city list. The Motor City’s legacy as headquarters town for the former Big Three is now its biggest headache. It’s not just factory workers being hurt here; Detroit is where much of the technical, manufacturing, and design talent base of the U.S. auto industry resides. It’s also where ad agencies, law firms, and other high-end business service providers to the industry cluster. All have taken big hits over the last few years, which has led to increased out-migration, high rates of foreclosure and a deteriorating fiscal situation.
    2. Flint, Michigan: No. 171 on the small city list, just two from the bottom, Flint seems to make more and more of what Americans don’t want. In 2006, it made more than 170,000 pickup trucks; it’s doubtful it will see that level of production for a long time to come. And this is a place that was hurting even before gas prices went up. Over 40 percent of all manufacturing jobs disappeared between 2002 and 2007.
    3. Ft. Wayne, Indiana: Compared to Flint or Detroit, Ft. Wayne (No. 85 on the mid-sized list) is not doing too badly. Between 2002 and 2007 manufacturing employment dropped only 2.5 percent. The big problem is the future of the industrial sector. Ft. Wayne made 200,000 pickup trucks in 2006. It’s hard to see many of these jobs surviving if energy prices stay high.
    4. Janesville, Wisconsin: No. 92 on the small list, the Janesville plant manufactures GMC Yukon, the Yukon XL, the Chevy Tahoe, and the Suburban. Although more than 200,000 SUVs were produced at this plant in 2006, the plant will close by the end of 2010. The largest private employer in Janesville is Mercy Health Systems. Being in Wisconsin helps — the state is in better shape than Midwest neighbors such as Michigan and Ohio.

    Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of Newgeography.com.

    Michael Shires, Ph.D. is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.

  • Houston, New York Has a Problem

    The Southern city welcomes the middle class; heavily regulated and expensive Gotham drives it away.

    New Yorkers are rightly proud of their city’s renaissance over the last two decades, but when it comes to growth, Gotham pales beside Houston. Between 2000 and 2007, the New York region grew by just 2.7%, while greater Houston — the country’s sixth-largest metropolitan area — grew by 19.4%, expanding to 5.6 million people from 4.7 million.

    To East Coast urbanites, Houston’s appeal must be mysterious: The city isn’t all that economically productive — earnings per employee in Manhattan are almost double those in Houston — and its climate is unpleasant, with stultifying humidity and more days with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees than any other large American city. Since these two major factors in urban growth don’t explain Houston’s success, what does?

    Houston’s great advantage, it turns out, is its ability to provide affordable living for middle-income Americans, something that is increasingly hard to achieve in the Big Apple. That Houston is a middle-class city is mirrored in the nature of its economy. Both greater Houston and Manhattan have about 2 million employees.

    In Manhattan, almost 600,000 of them work in the idea-intensive sectors of finance, insurance, and professional services; only 2% are in manufacturing, and fewer than that in construction. Finance increasingly drives New York City’s economy as a whole. By contrast, Houston is a manufacturing powerhouse that makes machinery, food products, and electronics, with a retail sector twice the size of Manhattan’s and lots of middle-class jobs.

    Housing prices are the most important part of Houston’s recipe for middle-class affordability. In Gotham, the extraordinarily high housing costs aren’t a problem for the hyper-rich. With enough money, you can live in a spacious aerie overlooking Central Park, shop at Barney’s, eat at Le Bernardin, and send your children to Brearley or Dalton.

    The abundance of poorer immigrant New Yorkers, in turn, tells us that for people simply seeking a lifestyle that beats rural Brazil, the city’s many entry level service-sector jobs, wide array of social services, and extensive public transportation can offset high apartment prices.

    But what if, like most Americans, you are neither a partner at Goldman Sachs nor a penniless immigrant? Consider an average American family with skills that put them in the middle of the U.S. income distribution — nurses, sales representatives, retail managers — and aspirations to a middle-class lifestyle. What kind of life will such people lead in Houston and New York City, respectively?

    For starters, they’ll probably earn less in Houston, though not as much less as you might think. In the 2000 U.S. Census, the typical registered nurse made $50,000 in New York and $40,000 in Houston. A retail manager earned $28,000 in New York and $27,800 in Houston. Let’s be generous to New York and assume that our middle-income family would earn $70,000 there but just $60,000 in Houston.

    If our Houston family’s income is lower, however, its housing costs are much lower. In 2006, residents of Harris County, the 4-million-person area that includes Houston, told the census that the average owner-occupied housing unit was worth $126,000. Residents valued about 80% of the homes in the county at less than $200,000. The National Association of Realtors gives $150,000 as the median price of recent Houston home sales; though NAR figures don’t always accurately reflect average home prices, they do capture the prices of newer, often higher-quality, housing.

    In Houston, you’ll find a lot of nice places listing for $175,000, and they’ll probably sell for about 10% less, or $160,000. These are relatively new houses, often with four or more bedrooms. Some have more than 3,000 square feet of living space, swimming pools, and plenty of mahogany and leaded glass. Almost all seem to be in pleasant neighborhoods — a few are even in gated communities. The lots tend to be modest, about one-fifth of an acre, but that still leaves plenty of room for the kids to play. For a family that has about $35,000 available for a down payment, basic housing costs — that is, mortgage payments — would be about $9,200 a year.

    The average home price in New York City is dramatically higher. In 2006, the census put it at $496,000, and $787,900 in Manhattan — way out of reach for a family earning $70,000 a year. There are cheaper options: a perfectly pleasant Staten Island home with three bedrooms and two baths for $340,000, for instance. These houses don’t have the amenities you would find in new Houston houses, but they offer 2,000 square feet of living space. Alternatively, the family might purchase a condominium, with two or three bedrooms, in Queens — say, in Howard Beach or Far Rockaway. Even for the Staten Island option, a family making the same $35,000 down payment would face basic housing costs of about $24,000 a year.

    You thus get much more house in Houston and pay a lot less for it. Small wonder Houston looks so good to middle-class Americans.

    It looks even better once you take taxes into account. Federal taxes are roughly equal for the two families: about $7,000 per year. But under the Texas constitution, to enact a state income tax requires approval by statewide referendum — and two-thirds of the revenues generated by such a tax, if passed, must go toward reducing other taxes. As a result, Texas doesn’t have any state income taxes. Nor, for that matter, does it have any city income taxes.

    Houston residents do have to pay property taxes, which come to about $4,800 for a $160,000 home. In New York City, not only would a middle-class family have to pay local property taxes, probably about $3,400; they would also have to pay state and city income taxes — adding another $4,000 or so to their tax burden, depending on deductions and other factors. State and local levies thus add about $2,600 to the cost of living in New York.

    Ah, but doesn’t it cost a lot more to get around sprawling Houston? The Houstonians must have two cars: the poor public-transit system leaves them no other choice. American families earning $60,000 typically spend about $8,500 a year on transportation — and sure enough, in Houston, that’s sufficient (barely) to cover gas, insurance, and payments on two relatively inexpensive cars.

    The New Yorkers could save a lot by giving up on cars altogether and relying solely on Gotham’s extensive network of buses and subways, but on Staten Island or in outer Queens, that would mean a significant lifestyle cost. Family members would have to walk to the grocery store and rely on taxis for other trips. A more reasonable approach would be to have one car for local trips and use public transit to get to work. With a public-transit bill of $80 per month, a fair guess is that the New York family will end up spending about $3,000 less per year than the Houstonians on getting around.

    Just as with housing, however, there’s a significant difference in the quality of transportation in Houston and New York. In Houston, the middle-class breadwinner likely will drive an air-conditioned car from an air-conditioned home to an air-conditioned workplace, and take 27.4 minutes to do it, on average. Commuting via New York public transit is more complicated. If you live in Queens, the average commute to midtown Manhattan (if that’s where you work) is 42 minutes, and longer if you’re coming from Far Rockaway.

    From Staten Island, the average commute is 44 minutes — and often something of a triathlon, with bus, ferry, and subway stages. Our middle-class New York commuter thus spends at least 120 more hours in transit per year than does his Houston counterpart. And except perhaps for the ones spent on the ferry, none of those hours is as agreeable as sitting in an air-conditioned car listening to the radio.

    Will rising oil prices eat away Houston’s cost advantages? While there’s no question that more expensive crude favors dense New York, the impact of paying more at the pump is likely to be modest. If the Houston residents buy 500 more gallons of gas per year than the New Yorkers, and if the price of gas jumps by $3 a gallon, then the price of Houston living will increase by $1,500. This is a real cost, but it doesn’t come close to evening the playing field.

    Further, the Houston family could always drive a 50-miles-to-the-gallon hybrid, which would let them buy only 400 gallons of gas to drive 20,000 miles. Big-city boosters may like to think that rising gas prices will end suburban sprawl, but a far more likely response to expensive oil is a large switch to more fuel-efficient cars.

    After housing, taxes, and transportation, the New Yorkers have $26,000 left. The Houston family has $30,500, and those dollars go a lot further than they would in New York. The American Chamber of Commerce produces local price indexes for various areas, including Houston and Queens (though not Staten Island). The overall price index for Queens is 150, which means that it costs 50% more to live there than it does in the average American locale. The price index for Houston is 88.

    If we exclude the areas that our two families have already paid for (housing and transportation) and average the remaining categories in the index (food, utilities, health, and miscellaneous), Queens is 24% more expensive than the average American area and Houston is 6% less expensive. Thus — again, after housing, taxes, and transportation — the Queens residents’ real remainder is a little less than $21,000; the Houston family’s is $32,200. The Houston family is effectively 53% richer and solidly in the middle class, with plenty of money for going out to dinner at Applebee’s or taking vacations to San Antonio. The family on Staten Island or in Queens is straining constantly to make ends meet.

    If the key factor making Houston a middle-class magnet is its plentiful and inexpensive housing, that raises the question: why is it so cheap? The low cost of homes reflects the low cost of supplying homes in Texas. Building an “economy” 2,000-square-foot house in Houston costs about $120,000, and a slightly larger “standard” one about $150,000.

    Why is it so much more expensive in New York? For one, supplying housing in New York City costs much, much more — for a 1,500-square-foot apartment, the construction cost alone is more than $500,000. Also, part of the reason is geographic: an old port on a narrow island can’t grow outward, as Houston has, and the costs of building up — New York’s fate, especially in Manhattan — will always be higher than those of building out. And the unavoidable fact is that New York makes it harder to build housing than Chicago does — and a lot harder than Houston does.

    The permitting process in Manhattan is an arduous, unpredictable, multiyear odyssey involving a dizzying array of regulations, environmental, and other hosts of agencies. A further obstacle: rent control. When other municipalities dropped rent control after World War II, New York clung to it, despite the fact that artificially reduced rents discourage people from building new housing.

    Houston, by contrast, has always been gung ho about development. Houston’s builders have managed — better than in any other American city — to make the case to the public that restrictions on development will make the city less affordable to the less successful.

    Of course, Houston’s development isn’t costless. Like most growing places, it must struggle with water issues, sanitation, and congestion. For environmentalists who worry about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, Houston’s rapid growth is particularly worrisome, since Houstonians are among the biggest carbon emitters in the country — all those humid 90-degree days mean a lot of electricity to cool off, and all that driving gobbles plenty of gas.

    But Houston’s success shows that a relatively deregulated free-market city, with a powerful urban growth machine, can do a much better job of taking care of middle-income Americans than the more “progressive” big governments of the Northeast and the West Coast.

    The right response to Houston’s growth is not to stymie it through regulation that would make the city less affordable. It’s for other areas, New York included, to cut construction costs and start beating the Sunbelt at its own game.

    This article appeared first at the New York Sun.

    Mr. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard University, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This article is adapted from the forthcoming issue of City Journal.