So I grew up in Plano. In 1980, Plano was 96% white and solidly upper middle class. By 2000, Plano, particularly the west side, was the jewel of suburban Dallas affluence, and still 78% white as a whole. During this era Plano was nationally recognized as one the best places to live in the country and named the richest city with over 250,000 people in the US.

Today, Plano is poorer, aging, decaying in certain areas, has been hemorrhaging white people (now just 48% white!!) and is no longer the "it suburb" of DFW. That distinction has moved to Frisco and Southlake.

Plano's slide into mediocrity and decay isn't unique, it's a pattern that repeats itself over and over both in DFW and Houston. Suburbs start out nice, desirable, and sought after, where all the middle and upper middle class white people scramble to buy houses, and then suddenly, they all abandon these cities for the newest, shiniest suburb up the road. Plano is unique in that it's so far the wealthiest and most highly regarded suburb to undergo this transformation in DFW at least. It also had a longer desirability life span compared to other suburbs like Irving, Farmers Branch, Richardson, Garland, or Carrollton, which were hot and then not within 10 years.

My question isn't why this happens… that is obvious. Apartments get built, poor minorities move in, and white people leave. My question is WHY do residents let this happen to their communities? I've never seen this pattern of "disposable" suburbs outside of Texas.

You keep emphasizing the demographic changes.

Do you know who the wealthiest ethnic groups are? Here is a hint… not whites

I did not see that demographic change at the last Plano West high school graduation I went to but it's been 6 years ago. The area I'm familiar with off the n toll road and windhaven is Lilly white with some Indians and Asians sprinkled in. Dot not feather.

I know Indians are the wealthiest. They are well represented in still-hot Frisco and Southlake. The fact that Indians are on average wealthier than whites doesn't diminish the fact that white people are the majority (for now at least), and when they move out en masse, it's a death sentence for suburbs and they start to slide downhill.

I think maybe a better way to look at this is economically disadvantaged % at each school. That is a better tool to value economic value or where a suburb/school district is going. I think your main rating tool is what I would call not overly appropriate.

If that is your key criteria for voting, I would recommend moving to Minnesota suburbs or Wisconsin.

In the year 1980, 1980 model year vehicles were also mostly owned by wealthier people than those who own 1980 model year cars today.

Suburb developments are commodity housing. The wealthy will buy a nicer, newer vehicle (or suburban home) when needed, or able, and their older vehicle will likely be re-sold to someone with less financial means.

Makes sense. The same scenario has played out in the Houston area. Suburbs and small towns have changed dramatically with the ever increasing Hispanic immigration over the past 30 years. Some like Baytown and Pasadena have seen their school district demographics go from 80 percent white to 80 percent Hispanic. And I'm just guessing at those numbers.

Don't see any problem discussing the actual demographics. Discussion board here.

The main answer is that land is relatively cheap and plentiful so new suburbs continue to be built, pushing buyers further and further away from the city's core.

As buyers chase new homes and better schools, the older neighborhoods left behind become filled with rentals, and the decline accelerates. Nothing kills a neighborhood faster than transient residents who don't own their own homes (no offense to the landlords on here). And people would rather spend more for a new home with new features than buy a house that is 30, 40 or 50 years old.

I've lived through two of these transitions -- Sharpstown and Alief -- and am now experiencing another, albeit slower, one in Fort Bend.

Sharpstown and Alief were doomed because they were just vast areas of middle class tract homes, with no fancy neighborhoods and no master planned communities. Fort Bend is somewhat protected by some very expensive neighborhoods that still have high-performing schools, attracting high-income immigrants. But it's very easy for old-timers to feel like outsiders. No one ever talks about that.

Years ago, my kids were in a dance recital at Northbrook High School in Spring Branch ISD.

It went on for hours, and I got completely bored waiting for their performance. So I walked out to the lobby and looked in all the trophy cases, which housed every senior class photo since the school's inception.

You could literally see the demographic changes year-by-year. It was fascinating.

I missed OP's real question ... why do residents allow these changes to happen?

The truth is that they have no choice. It happens around them, and they eventually get chased out. No one asked me if I wanted my neighborhood transformed; it just happened in a span of two decades.

I know people whose parents tried to hang on in Alief until the crime and general decay around them forced them to move. Imagine selling your paid-off home at age 65 and taking on a new mortgage.

One more comment. When it comes to apartments being built, there's another factor at play: City council members all want those sweet, sweet campaign donations from developers and they'll sell their souls to get them.

Sugar Land residents have fought for years to block massive apartment complexes but the city keeps pushing. Their main argument is that local businesses want "affordable housing" for employees; they are seemingly clueless about what that will mean for crime, home values, etc., in 10 years.

Katy is going to rue the day all those giant complexes were built on and near the Grand Parkway. They may be nice now but they won't be forever.

I'm not saying yall need to move to college station, but there is a reason why I relocated my family here after growing up in Bryan and moving to Dallas/Plano after college.

I enjoyed the area and big cities/amenities, but there is no denying that BCS is a wonderful place to raise a family and retire here. We've never regretted moving back.

Neighborhood is new and shiny. Families move in. Families have more kids. They want bigger houses. They move to the newer, shinier neighborhood in the same school district. Investors buy the cheaper house they just sold. Renters move in. Area becomes desirable for more rental properties. Developers build "luxury" apartments. Apartments sell multiple times over ~10 years and need to generate more and more profit. Complexes start accepting vouchers while repairing nothing. Buildings start falling apart. Vouchers + crappy living conditions attract a certain style of renter. No developer wants to buy the apartment complex to completely renovate it because the entire neighborhood is blighted at that point. New families don't move back in because the schools are so awful. Sometimes there's an outside force that brings them back in, like the Heights, but that's never going to happen in some random master planned community off I-10 surrounded by corporate commercial & apartments.

This happens less in other states because they don't have the land to just keep pushing out. Plus there is more draw to living in the walkable historical downtown areas.

Hard to not think the OP is a troll or a racist or Both. But I will assume otherwise for now. I'm from Houston. I graduated from HS in '78 so I guess old enough to see the demographics discussed. You have to increase your timeline than 30 years. Go 60.

In Houston all the old neighborhoods were center city . Heights, inside the 610 loop on the west side (east side was bad even then) even near 610 west side. I grew up in Spring Branch and right after I graduated HS it started to deteriorate. But in the last 20 years it's being redeveloped. The entire west side is the same.

Hell the Heights one of the most desirable areas was a rat hole in my teens. Just above the Wards. Now the floor is damn near a million for a house there.

To put simply what others have already said, most
big city suburbs have no geographical staying power.

In suburbs the house is worth more comparatively to the land so as the homes age they have less value compared to newer homes being built somewhere else where land is similarly cheap. Neighborhoods not subject to this likely either had a similar period of stagnation in the distant past until land values rose or land value was always high enough to generate continuous renewal of the homes.

SteveBott said:

---

Hard to not think the OP is a troll or a racist or Both. But I will assume otherwise for now. I'm from Houston. I graduated from HS in '78 so I guess old enough to see the demographics discussed. You have to increase your timeline than 30 years. Go 60.

In Houston all the old neighborhoods were center city . Heights, inside the 610 loop on the west side (east side was bad even then) even near 610 west side. I grew up in Spring Branch and right after I graduated HS it started to deteriorate. But in the last 20 years it's being redeveloped. The entire west side is the same.

Hell the Heights one of the most desirable areas was a rat hole in my teens. Just above the Wards. Now the floor is damn near a million for a house there.

---

That is the easy/lazy response to give. As someone who was born and raised in Plano (and currently live close by), I am not sure what the OP said that is factually inaccurate?

EclipseAG,

Thank you for your wonderful multi-post analysis on this issue. What's interesting to me is that, given the clear evidence that apartments eventually lead to decline (both demographic and socioeconomic), why do residents allow this?

Plano residents for instance valiantly fought and sued the city over the "Plano Tomorrow" plan in 2020, which wanted to turn every remaining vacant plot of land in Plano into a high density multi-family or mixed use development.

The leftist race-baiting media of course immediately insinuated that Plano's rejection of "Plano Tomorrow" was due to racism, while ignoring valid complaints about density, traffic, a diminished suburban character, and the very strong correlation between increased apartments and declining schools (economically disadvantaged students perform poorly overall).

Only problem was this fight came way too late, since tens of thousands of apartments were built in Plano between 2010 and 2020. No matter what developers or city officials say about apartments being needed, they ALWAYS lead to brisk demographic shifts and decline. Residents know this, and yet, rather than fight to preserve their neighborhoods character, they just up and leave once too many poor people start moving in. This trend is already playing out in other Collin County suburbs like Allen, McKinney, and current suburban darling Frisco, which is hot now, but probably won't be 10 years.

Southlake is the only suburb in DFW which has fought successfully to ensure that no apartment complexes, even ones billing themselves as "high end" ever get built there. Southlake may be the first DFW suburb to stay nice indefinitely because of its strict ban on apartments.

You know you're winning an argument with a leftist when they call you racist. Accusations of racism from the left have become so commonplace that the word has lost all meaning and credibility at this point.

Weak HOA!!!!

The master planned community has done a lot to preserve neighborhood integrity across Houston and I'm guessing other Sunbelt cities, too.

The Woodlands is 50 years old and still a desirable place to live.

First Colony is 46 years old and has retained a great deal of value even through a demographic transformation. I don't think First Colony will have the staying power of The Woodlands but pockets of that area -- and the neighborhoods immediately surrounding it -- will likely be very nice for years to come.

Cinco Ranch is 40 this year, and still very nice. Sienna is roughly the same age, and has held up very well.

Big MPCs with lots of HOA money can maintain landscaping and amenities and protect homeowners' investments. And they typically have smart placement of just a few apartment complexes. First Colony was built with just four smaller complexes, two on either side of Highway 6. A fifth was added years later but it is separated from the others to avoid too much density.

In Houston you can also follow Metro. The Champions area off of 249 was a very nice suburb back in the 90s. That entire area has gone downhill fast.

I think Texas struggles similar to other sunbelt cities with abundant land and suburbs that are created on prairie land vs. built around a historical downtown or ease of transit to a major city.

As others have mentioned I think a neighborhood or a communities staying power against decline has hinged on apartment development. It's the inevitable case with apartments and likely revolves heavily around the economics of multi-family ownership and financing.

Red Pear (or another RE pro) can probably add additional commentary but I don't think the economic/tax rules encourage buy and hold in these complexes. High ownership turnover discourages repair and continued investment. THis of course over the decades decreases the quality of tenant, especially once they start accepting Section 8 vouchers.

The larger the initial development, and the more control the developer retains the longer they can hold out. The Woodlands is large and is a weird mix as it's not an incorporated city so the development corp has some elements of a large HOA. My comparison, my area in Spring we're a loose mix of a bunch of small neighborhoods, each with our own little HOA's but no control over what is gets built on that next tract of vacant land.

126233 said:

---

You know you're winning an argument with a leftist when they call you racist. Accusations of racism from the left have become so commonplace that the word has lost all meaning and credibility at this point.

---

The problem isn't far right or leftist. It's that you think this is an argument to be won instead of having a rational discussion to exchange knowledge.

Bottom line is lower income leads to more crime and when you have more crime you start to see higher income families leave and then the snowball effect is very hard if not impossible to stop.

Southlake resident here.

Let's not try to make this discussion difficult. Money is the number one issue. There is a direct line between wealth, crime and schools. There is a direct line between schools and a property values. Southlake doesn't have the best schools because the administration is great or the teachers are amazing. We have the best schools because everyone that lives here makes sure their kids are doing their homework, being respectful in class and striving to go above and beyond. It's actually exhausting sometimes. We have our stains for sure but pound for pound Southlake has a strong conservative backing through its citizens and elected officials.

My kids 8U baseball team was 60% white and the other 40% were Asian, Indian(i know they're Asian too) and one black kid. Want to know what they all have in common? They're generally speaking wealthy and do not want apartments. Doesn't matter the race, we're all on the same page.

AgLA06 said:

---

126233 said:

---

You know you're winning an argument with a leftist when they call you racist. Accusations of racism from the left have become so commonplace that the word has lost all meaning and credibility at this point.

---

The problem isn't far right or leftist. It's that you think this is an argument to be won instead of having a rational discussion to exchange knowledge.

---

Are you serious? OP initiated dialogue then is immediately accused of being racist!!!

Call it what you want but having seen it first hand the assessment is pretty spot on.

Lazy, but expected, that some on here would accuse the OP of being racist for simply stating facts. Anyone familiar with the North Texas area knows exactly what the OP is talking about. Would be nice if others looked at the legitimate question and the facts and not immediately spout "that person is likely racist". It's a tired exercise.

BoDog said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

126233 said:

---

You know you're winning an argument with a leftist when they call you racist. Accusations of racism from the left have become so commonplace that the word has lost all meaning and credibility at this point.

---

The problem isn't far right or leftist. It's that you think this is an argument to be won instead of having a rational discussion to exchange knowledge.

---

Are you serious? OP initiated dialogue then is immediately accused of being racist!!!

Call it what you want but having seen it first hand the assessment is pretty spot on.

---

Right or wrong on the racism part I can't say. In this regard, it's definitely ignorant. Claiming a problem is race based when that's not factually correct, doesn't exactly look good.

The cause as has been explained is financial. There's plenty of deserted white towns around the nation with high crime and few jobs because the mine or the steel mill or whatever dominant employer shut down and moved on.

If he had asked why without throwing out a failed reasoning, this could have gone a little different.