Why do people think that the Southern areas of Houston are treeless?

[curbur]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

You're comparing large Urban densely populated areas for trees? Um.. really?

Refer back to the OP. The premise is areas south of Houston and the woodlands. No one mentioned downtown Houston.

Once you leave the city of NYC, you're surrounded by forests (likewise with Philadelphia or DC). You go south of Houston, you're surrounded by majority open plains with the occasional trees.

The same is true with the outer-lying areas surrounding with SF and Chicago as well.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

You're comparing large Urban densely populated areas for trees? Um.. really?

Refer back to the OP. The premise is areas south of Houston and the woodlands. No one mentioned downtown Houston.

Once you leave the city of NYC, you're surrounded by forests (likewise with Philadelphia or DC). You go south of Houston, you're surrounded by majority open plains with the occasional trees.

To quote you,
"Everything south of the woodlands is barren."

Where in metro NYC or Philadelphia or DC are there forests? Between DC-Baltimore and Philly-NYC it doesn't look a lot different than Pearland/Friendswood.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by curbur

The same is true with the outer-lying areas surrounding with SF and Chicago as well.

Where?

Muir Woods? Well that's a park, not suburbia. Along the coast? Vallejo? Alameda?

[Gunion Powder]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

You're comparing large Urban densely populated areas for trees? Um.. really?

Refer back to the OP. The premise is areas south of Houston and the woodlands. No one mentioned downtown Houston.

Once you leave the city of NYC, you're surrounded by forests (likewise with Philadelphia or DC). You go south of Houston, you're surrounded by majority open plains with the occasional trees.

I know what you're trying to say, but barren is not the word you can use for any area in Houston. "Barren" would be parts of West Texas and much of the desert southwest. Not the coastal prairies Texas, Louisiana or Florida.

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

A lot of people in Houston are transplants from other parts of the country, including states where there are vast forests everywhere you drive. The areas south of Houston just don't have that. Sure you'll have some trees here and there, but not the forests that non-Houstonions are used to.

Source: Have lived in the Northeast US, and southern areas of Houston. Everything south of the woodlands is barren compared to a lot of the US.

I will just leave you with this post:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/40031927-post38.html

Also, south of the Woodlands, you still have areas like the Inner Loop and Brazoria County, very forested and tree-filled areas relative to alot of the US.

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

You're comparing large Urban densely populated areas for trees? Um.. really?

Refer back to the OP. The premise is areas south of Houston and the woodlands. No one mentioned downtown Houston.

Once you leave the city of NYC, you're surrounded by forests (likewise with Philadelphia or DC). You go south of Houston, you're surrounded by majority open plains with the occasional trees.

And if you leave Houston and head north, you enter the thick forested heat of the Piney Woods. Not that you have to leave Houston in order to encounter vast areas of trees, though.

And south of Houston, you will encounter large areas of forest, especially in Brazoria County. Look back at the pictures I posted on this thread:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/39937707-post18.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/39942392-post23.html