Houston Chronicle  -  July 14, 2007

 

Viewpoints, Outlook

We mostly agree on Houston's future

By Bob Lanier

ver the past several weeks there has been a healthy debate in Outlook initiated by urban historian Joel Kotkin's address and report to the Greater Houston Partnership — some critical and some (including me) in support.

I think if you look to the future, understanding Houston as it is and where we wish it to be, we will find widespread agreement of the most fundamental principals. Much of the disagreement is in the area of architectural style, on matters pretty much settled (i.e., zoning) or on emphasis.

I have lived in Houston pretty much all my 82 years and loved it. I still do. I think Houston has been, and will be, an ever-great city. We thrive on the idea that we are an open city, and that any person no matter their gender, race, religion or ethnicity has as good a chance to come here and work to realize their dreams as in any city in the world. I believe this to be the uniqueness of our city — the quality that sets us apart, the area where we have an enormous competitive advantage. This, however, is a fragile value that must ever be tended.

Houston is an entrepreneurial city. It is a city that has moved forward in leaps and bounds due in no small part to creativity, drive, pride and the can-do spirit of those who have gone before us. Again, this is a competitive advantage.

To successfully compete in a world market, Houston should increase its focus on critical educational needs for the city and its people. The same is true for the environment and quality of life. I believe that with 5.5 million people and our inherited "can-do" spirit we can do that.

I pick up particularly on Kotkin's idea of Houston as an "opportunity city," (or, as Chronicle columnist Kristen Mack more plainly states, "People come here to work"). Over the past 15 years, I have asked hundreds of individuals why they came to Houston. Almost uniformly they said "I thought I had a better chance to work and get ahead here."

In speaking to audiences over the years I would ask the following question to those who moved here from out of town: Did Houston meet, exceed or was it below your expectations?

Ninety percent said that Houston was better than they expected. Also, I would look further at the retention rate. Even when we lost 250,000 jobs during the energy crunch, we did not lose population. Small business formation soared. Further, people stay here after they retire.

Dr. Stephen Kleinberg of Rice has statistics that generally show Houstonians believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, in Houston you can get ahead.

I first came in contact with Joel Kotkin when he wrote in the 1990s that Houston's inner city revitalization was the best in the nation. He liked that it emphasized fundamentals, safety infrastructure, and that we undertook to capitalize on its diversity, not treating it as a problem. He understood the city's cultural and environment improvements added to the retention rate and quality of life. Over the years since he has consistently believed in and praised Houston.

On the essentials in Houston you will find substantial agreement. Andres Duany, an architect, has particular faith in his high-density projects. He believes his designs are essential. He will just have to compete in the marketplace here.

Duany's design has been both praised and criticized. But it likely has a place in the Houston market. He will probably have to watch his pricing.

Houston has moved from a quarter of a million people when I was a boy to 5.5 million today. It's added some 800,000 persons since the year 2000.

I think we need to look back and give proper credit to those who have gone before us for our ability to experience growth like this. Houston was created and over its lifetime has been fostered and supported by men and woman of enormous vision and talent. They were monumentally creative. Think Jesse Jones and the Ship Channel, which created a great port 30 miles inland. Think Hugh Roy Cullen, who decided Houston needed a great city university and built one. M.D Anderson, the Brown Foundation (George and Herman Brown). William Marsh Rice and Captain Baker, who founded Rice University, and so many others.

Our major foundations exist as a result of many of these people. The Brown Foundation, for example, was a major sponsor of the downtown park purchase. The donors of Hermann Park, Memorial Park and Moody Park shine as bright stars. The Museum of Fine Arts, where Peter Marzio has been director for 25 years, has an art collection of $4-$5 billion in market value. It exists in beautiful buildings that were primarily the result of private contributions by people such as Alfred Glassell, Fayez Sarofim and Meredith Long. Newcomers praise our arts presence: the museums, the Alley, Hobby Center, the opera, the symphony, the ballet and the buildings they occupy.

We have in Houston mostly the application of high-tech, rather than its origination, although Hewlett Packard and others are examples of the latter. The oil industry has an enormous critical mass of creative talent in the applied technology field. That's also true of our great medical field.

Our effort to make Houston an ever-greater city must be ongoing and continuous, and I think debate is healthy. But more important than debate or study is doing it.

I think we agree that everybody ought to have a chance. We all understand Houston's entrepreneurial spirit is an asset. I found no one who does not want to see an improvement in the quality of life or the environment. I do see some willing to give more credit to those who have gone before than others.

Lanier served three terms as mayor of Houston in the 1990s.

* * *