Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, but I think import volume is pretty good metric. How well a given place is utilizing its coastal location. San Diego fails miserably here, and it looks like Houston is an overachiever.
I think that's not a measurement of "how coastal" a city is; it's merely a measurement of how busy its port is.
Basically, a coastal city has a port that can handle oceangoing ships, period. A city is either coastal or it isn't.
(Wait, that puts Washington, which has no such port, out of the running. Yet it's considered a coastal metropolis. My brain hurts.)
The bayou flooding is the case only for areas west of downtown Houston - going east, the waterway is wide enough to accommodate volume without over spilling the banks. Many areas around 2nd Ward and East End Houston were even spared from Harvey's flooding.
As far as urban development is concerned, much of the Houston area is really just a clean slate. The city is a compact downtown with skyscrapers, some infilling nearby neighborhoods, then the rest of the area is roadways, suburban/strip complexes, and open land. Same goes for the suburban cities of "The Woodlands, Katy, and Sugar Land, except the "downtowns" are cute little "Town Centers."
Any water-centric Houston development will have to focus linearly east along Buffalo Bayou - current grid patterns extend as far east as Harrisburg outside 610, though ETJ extends all the way to Burnett Bay. Then, as you referenced, the slack then is picked up by some other Galveston Bay town, Seabrook, Kemah, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
Outside of Galveston, homes on the water as i'm sure you know is asking to be flooded without getting much in return. I don't see Houston ever developing it's coast just because the Ship Channel/Refinery area was a swampy region historically, that made little sense even more so than down towards Galveston to Devolop it. Even then most of Houston was 20+ miles away from the bay. In the modern post 1960s Houston the only time the city could viably have developed the coast. But even then the city is simply to far and too physically small to support a multi-billion dollar new coastal city. Baytown and Galveston if they had gotten enough funding could maybe pull a Fort Lauderdale/Clearwater in 30 years, but sadly both of those places are still declining to some extent or are stuck in a rut. If Galveston does empty out and development from League City/Friendswood/Pearland/Missouri City spill more into Manvel/Alvin/Santa Fe Highway 6 corridor this could lead massive growth in Galveston as a new wealthier population South of Houston could possibly find Galveston as a mini-Houston that is closer than Downtown and spur tons of growth. Freeport as well is only growing in importance.
But back to Advertising even with the misuse of coastal resources. LA is even closer has better Terrain and is a bigger city and still doesn't have skyscrapers on the coast (It very might in 20 years). Houston didn't really have a chance at best Galveston could have been a Santa Monica and still can be and if an area like League City can help develop it's surrounding towns like Bacliff and San Leon through spillover as it's much larger than those places we could possibly see some coastal development but I doubt it.
San Diego (the federal government) prioritized its port for shipbuilding and the military. As such, most sane people would concede that San Diego does not "fail miserably" in imports or utilizing its coastal location. The priority is being the homeport of the Pacific Fleet. It is what it is.
*chip on your shoulder*
You need to get a life.
If they had a basic understanding of California history they would probably agree with me.
San Pedro was the home port of the U.S. Navy Battle Fleet while it was beating out San Francisco as the busiest port on the west coast.
San Diego has a naturally occurring harbor, San Pedro is man made, giving San Diego an advantage right off the bat.
San Diego Port makes the news for what happens on cruise ships.
San Pedro Port makes the news for being responsible for %20 of all cargo inbound to the United States.
Maybe we need a poll to help us figure out who succeeded and who failed there.
We're well below SD as a Navy center, but still pretty important with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyards, the Everett Home Port, the Bangor Trident submarine base, etc.
The Seattle-Tacoma cargo ports are way below LA, but we do ok there too.
We're well below SD as a Navy center, but still pretty important with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyards, the Everett Home Port, the Bangor Trident submarine base, etc.
The Seattle-Tacoma cargo ports are way below LA, but we do ok there too.
Makes sense Alaska is probably the main destination for West Coast Cruises
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
