What's wrong with Houston that growth restriction would solve? Assuming your point isn't "I don't like Houston and wish there were less of it."

It's not like those last 2 million people are what prevented it from being a 1000 year old, bike-friendly northern european hamlet or something.

Perhaps I've been misunderstood. I strongly believe in growth and density and believe the SF approach is literally insane. I live in New York City where we have our problems but appear to know how to actually build housing for people.

But with that said, a knee-jerk cry of "deregulate" isn't going to be much better. The right answer is to figure out a more thoughtful system that enables the market to be channeled properly.

Which basically all modern successful cities have figured out.

But Houston is kind of a counterexample of that, no? It's the go-to thing city planners complain about when you just let people build whatever they want without regulation, but the result appears to be a decent second-tier city with a healthy local economy and affordable housing, not Kowloon.

Pity about the climate though.

The thing is Houston does have zoning, they just don't call it "zoning."

https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youv...

Sure, there is an element of that. Though the fourth largest city in the U.S. is probably not best described as second-tier.

Of course it does lack many of the things people consider essential for modern urban living, and is highly bound to the automobile.

True, Houston is the 4th largest city but it's kind of cheating - it's a very large area with a population density similar to a Northeast suburb. If Houston had Manhattan's population density it would have 43 million people.

> I live in New York City where we have our problems but appear to know how to actually build housing for people.

Uh... housing costs in NYC are pretty ridiculous. Commute times as well. The furor over the subway wouldn't be as pronounced if everyone had relatively short commutes.

Housing costs in NYC will remain high as long as it's the greatest city in the history of world civilization of course, that does add an attractive element.

But NYC has a lot of options and many of them are affordable, there's much more to it than just Manhattan and gentrified Brooklyn. It has the ability to actually build, so there's somewhat of a pressure relief valve. And though it's problematic by European standards it clearly has a far more effective and comprehensive mass transit system than any other city in the western hemisphere.

I'll disagree with your characterization.

There are reasons why the retired and most families end up leaving NYC fairly quickly. And those reasons are often rent and accessibility of the transit (subways don't have elevators, generally).

NYC is affordable for professionals without kids. It's very expensive in time, money, or both to live in NYC with a blue-collar income.

At least Houston is affordable. Lower income families have places to live. Sure, San Francisco and many other cities may be nicer when you are rich

Houston's urban geography is not appreciably different from that of LA. Other than it's a lot cheaper. Yes, the weather is terrible and there are no hills or mountains.