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.
no offense but that is BS. Most of Houston's tax base would disappear if you were to do that.
In fact Houston would probably just shrivel up and die and the suburbs would flourish. That is the opposite of your desired outcome would happen.
and we don't have a problem getting 'urban' anything off the ground. People had been voting them down for a reason: PREVIOUS GENERATIONS DID NOT WANT THEM.
I doubt it. Smaller city limits would make a Houston more exclusive and more workable in terms of building a city infrastructure.
Who gives a flying **** about past generations? This is about Houston, here and now. If you asked previous generations if Houston's boiling climate was the site of America's future 4th largest city, you'd get a resounding no.
no offense but that is BS. Most of Houston's tax base would disappear if you were to do that.
In fact Houston would probably just shrivel up and die and the suburbs would flourish. That is the opposite of your desired outcome would happen.
Lets see what is outside the loop. 1.5M tax payers.
Huge tax bases such as the Port of Houston, All three airports, numerous businesses and head quarters.
There was an article some time ago that said that large sunbelt cities would have been the poorest cities in the US if they had kept pre 1940's boundaries. I don't mind getting rid of some poorly used areas, but limiting the city to the loop??? Seriously??? the east half of the loop is worse that anything out of it.
just because you make the city limits smaller doesn't mean the narrower area would densify. People would just leave.
and we don't have a problem getting 'urban' anything off the ground. People had been voting them down for a reason: PREVIOUS GENERATIONS DID NOT WANT THEM.
Well I wanted to say all of this but I was entirely too tired. I was going to say that I know why Houston has annexed all that land and it's a smart reason. Northeastern and Midwestern cities would love for their cities to annex as Houston did. Chicago wants most, if not all, of Cook county. But that's never going to happen. I see the advantages.
But I think he was pointing out the disadvantages as well. It's basically biting into something more than you can chew and that's the problem I see with Houston's large land area. You can have cut some of the areas and still have the airports, port, and other tax based economic areas within the city limits. Chicago does it with O'Hare.
Still though. Nothing can change my opinion in that the inner loop is basically the inner city or the city and most of, if not all of, the area outside the loop are the suburbs. Heck, even the city of Houston agrees that the inner loop is urban and everything outside of it is suburban. ITL is by far the best urban environment Houston has to offer and I think it would better if Houston was known as the inner loop plus few areas outside the loop instead of what it is now. That's my opinion though.
I doubt it. Smaller city limits would make a Houston more exclusive and more workable in terms of building a city infrastructure.
wishful thinking. Smaller limits would have made Houston a podunk small town with not enough money to provide enough water to flush our toilets. wait, there are no lakes in the loop, we would have to beg the suburbs to throw us a bone.
You all don't understand taxation. Small limits was a matter on necessity and not a development style. Houston attracted a lot of its business because it had the population to sustain them. NOLA lost a lot of its thunder as the other cities eclipsed it in population. That would not have been the case if Houston if it had remained loop size.
Houston would have dried up, and when the upper and middle class left houston would have been a dump. the only reason River Oaks, and the other rich hoods stayed was because there was more to the city. face it with white flight from the core and black upper class from the wards, the loop would have been DEAD. You think their flight would have been to different areas of the loop?? HA!!!! and gentrification would have been in other areas. The loop would not have been undergoing gentrification, that would be happening in some different area outside the loop because Houston would not be the big dog in the area. The city that owns the port would have been.
Quote:
Who gives a flying **** about past generations? This is about Houston, here and now. If you asked previous generations if Houston's boiling climate was the site of America's future 4th largest city, you'd get a resounding no.
even if you cut off the loop right now, same result. The tax payers are outside the loop. The bus system in the loop would cease because its paid for by people who live outside the loop. Those big buildings downtown?? You can't divide the city's tax base by 4 and expect it to survive.
Well I wanted to say all of this but I was entirely too tired. I was going to say that I know why Houston has annexed all that land and it's a smart reason. Northeastern and Midwestern cities would love for their cities to annex as Houston did. Chicago wants most, if not all, of Cook county. But that's never going to happen. I see the advantages.
yeah. Houston lassoed their tax payers back in everytime they tried to flee. Houston got back its tax payers and at the same time increased the federal funding potential. Money for schools, etc are doled out based on population.
Quote:
But I think he was pointing out the disadvantages as well. It's basically biting into something more than you can chew and that's the problem I see with Houston's large land area. You can have cut some of the areas and still have the airports, port, and other tax based economic areas within the city limits. Chicago does it with O'Hare.
I agree with you again. We could have annexed the way we did the last few annexations instead of the everything around it. we could have gotten the ship channel without getting everything in-between, we do not need all of the land but we do need the major money earners, we do need the tax base, we do need the resources, water etc. We did not need all of that land to the east, we did not need all of that land in the northwest part of the city.
Quote:
Still though. Nothing can change my opinion in that the inner loop is basically the inner city or the city and most of, if not all of, the area outside the loop are the suburbs. Heck, even the city of Houston agrees that the inner loop is urban and everything outside of it is suburban. ITL is by far the best urban environment Houston has to offer and I think it would better if Houston was known as the inner loop plus few areas outside the loop instead of what it is now. That's my opinion though.
3 for 3 there. No disagreements. The inner loop is the city. but that is neither here nor there.
Do you know that Houston supports more than just its city limits right?? Houston provides services to its residents and its ETJ. Granted the service to its ETJ is not as good as that to the city, but it does provide them. Houston's ETJ has 1.6M people so the city is providing services to almost 4M people whether or not the city limits says it does. And guess what? who cares what people in the NE say those people who lived there would have lived there no matter what the invisible line says. Had Houston remained loop sized, those people would still be living where they live now, but someone else would have been the major city and the people would be commuting there instead of to Houston.
This isn't a crazy statement or question at all. With this urban living outside the loop, this gives Houston the chance to become more urban and citified in suburban areas. As a result, the "city" part of Houston may spread more and more, so if this may become the case, do some of you still want Houston to de-annex? [I know I've not been to Houston.]
wishful thinking. Smaller limits would have made Houston a podunk small town with not enough money to provide enough water to flush our toilets. wait, there are no lakes in the loop, we would have to beg the suburbs to throw us a bone.
You all don't understand taxation. Small limits was a matter on necessity and not a development style. Houston attracted a lot of its business because it had the population to sustain them. NOLA lost a lot of its thunder as the other cities eclipsed it in population. That would not have been the case if Houston if it had remained loop size.
Houston would have dried up, and when the upper and middle class left houston would have been a dump. the only reason River Oaks, and the other rich hoods stayed was because there was more to the city. face it with white flight from the core and black upper class from the wards, the loop would have been DEAD. You think their flight would have been to different areas of the loop?? HA!!!! and gentrification would have been in other areas. The loop would not have been undergoing gentrification, that would be happening in some different area outside the loop because Houston would not be the big dog in the area. The city that owns the port would have been.
even if you cut off the loop right now, same result. The tax payers are outside the loop. The bus system in the loop would cease because its paid for by people who live outside the loop. Those big buildings downtown?? You can't divide the city's tax base by 4 and expect it to survive.
Hardly. I like Houston, I really do, but it's shot itself in the foot. The only thing Houston has going for it, in terms of business, is space and the bottom line. Part of the reason for that bottom line is the abundance of space. I think it would be easy to keep the port and the airport as part of Houston.
Based on the article, it certainly looks like the upper and middle classes are back and Houston should capitalize on that.
Less area, and thus less population means that there would be less funding (taxation) that would need to be provided. ITL would be sustainable, especially since a good portion of the Houston area population would still be spending in the city core, because of the businesses located there. Better, more extensive transportation could then be implemented in the Inner Loop, because it would be a smaller area of service, further increasing attraction. Area transport could be expanded to the suburbs that needed/wanted it and they would pay their fair share, rather than having a large ineffective transportation system that people in the Outer Loop complain they don't use.
An anology: Would you like one really fancy, but small gift, or a huge cheap one? Houston is at a point where it's realized it can't have both quantity and quality, and that's purely what this article addresses.
Hardly. I like Houston, I really do, but it's shot itself in the foot. The only thing Houston has going for it, in terms of business, is space and the bottom line. Part of the reason for that bottom line is the abundance of space. I think it would be easy to keep the port and the airport as part of Houston.
Based on the article, it certainly looks like the upper and middle classes are back and Houston should capitalize on that.
Less area, and thus less population means that there would be less funding (taxation) that would need to be provided. ITL would be sustainable, especially since a good portion of the Houston area population would still be spending in the city core, because of the businesses located there. Better, more extensive transportation could then be implemented in the Inner Loop, because it would be a smaller area of service, further increasing attraction. Area transport could be expanded to the suburbs that needed/wanted it and they would pay their fair share, rather than having a large ineffective transportation system that people in the Outer Loop complain they don't use.
An anology: Would you like one really fancy, but small gift, or a huge cheap one? Houston is at a point where it's realized it can't have both quantity and quality, and that's purely what this article addresses.
Houston didn't shoot itself in the foot, it saved itself.
Houston would be dead without the surrounding land. Houston is no different from any major sunbelt city not confined by nature. They all grow that way whether the city limits move or not. The only difference between the Texas cities is that Houston's would be suburbs are within the city limits and that is all. Had Houston not annexed them they Would be Houston's Richardson, Plano, Irving, Grapevine etc. Remove the colored lines on maps that denote where the cities are carved out and ask yourself if you see any difference.
I agree if you are telling me that Houston should have concentrated its towers, public transportation etc etc within the loop. but limiting the city limits to the loop would have signed the city's death sentence.
An Apology: would you prefer someone gifting you a small dead dog or a big harder to handle one. Not two pleasant choices but I would take the live one anyday
do you guys even realize that federal funding is dependent on population??? The city limits have nothing to do with being successful. Why would what people think of the city be more important than funding
you all are happy go luckily chopping out areas like losing population only kills bragging rights.
Give up billions of dollars just because north-easterners prefer it that way?
The northeasterners would be laughing at us in the end. Any NE city official would be more than delighted to have land area. It increases their tax bases and federal funding. what does a smaller land area get you??? Absolutely nothing.
My ideal city (model) is St. Louis, which is made up of about 100 small cities.
The largest one of which is St. Louis (300,000 people)
Now, explain to me, what's wrong with having a city like that.
I'd tell you what's good about it. People actually elect city official that work for their area/region.
In a perfect World, each zip code would be a city.
St. Louis itself is weak, and a lot of big companies are in the suburbs. St. Louis cannot reach the tax base that would sustain it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo
My ideal city (model) is St. Louis, which is made up of about 100 small cities.
The largest one of which is St. Louis (300,000 people)
Now, explain to me, what's wrong with having a city like that.
I'd tell you what's good about it. People actually elect city official that work for their area/region.
In a perfect World, each zip code would be a city.
Houston didn't shoot itself in the foot, it saved itself.
Houston would be dead without the surrounding land. Houston is no different from any major sunbelt city not confined by nature. They all grow that way whether the city limits move or not. The only difference between the Texas cities is that Houston's would be suburbs are within the city limits and that is all. Had Houston not annexed them they Would be Houston's Richardson, Plano, Irving, Grapevine etc. Remove the colored lines on maps that denote where the cities are carved out and ask yourself if you see any difference.
I agree if you are telling me that Houston should have concentrated its towers, public transportation etc etc within the loop. but limiting the city limits to the loop would have signed the city's death sentence.
An Apology: would you prefer someone gifting you a small dead dog or a big harder to handle one. Not two pleasant choices but I would take the live one anyday
This is really not worth explaining. City shot itself in the head with too much space--end of story.
In any case, which ever one makes the cutest taxidermic animal.
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.
