How did Houston end up with so many skyscrapers? (Dallas: condos, to live)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by rdz1979

Not 42,000 ppsm, but Gulfton has very impressive density and is very urban. Anyone that says differently hasn't been there. I don't get why people will judge the whole city on the northside or downtown or whatever little part of Houston they have seen, and then say all of Houston is like that particular neighborhood. It speaks volumes of their tiny bubble when they haven't even scratched the surface of the scope of this humongous city. My guess is that they have only experienced geographically small places and don't realize how much more there is beyond the limitations of their small experiences.

Gulfton is suburban by far. It is nothing more than suburban style apartments setback far away from the streets with narrow sidewalks and big box stores throughout the area. Very little urban about it. It's tele epitome of density does not equal urban.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I don't get the Houston haters and the urban purists. For instance Austin has a much more dense urban core and downtown but it still has the feel of a small city. I don't get the sense that I'm in a huge city at all and you can go all the way to South congress and get that dense walkable scene. Yet Houston feels WAY bigger and Uptown alone makes it feel grander than a smaller city like Austin. So I don't get why it's not considered as "urban" or large.

Because the "purists" do not look at just an area being built. They look at efficiency, sustainability, intimacy, transit, walkability, density, cohesiveness, etc. There are certain things Houston needs to work on. It's a great city but to most "purists", it's not up there with its peers of Philly, DC, Chicago, and Boston. Heck even Seattle is separating from Houston a bit. No slight because I think the dense urban walkable environment is still very new to Houston and they are still choosing to either stay urban or continue being suburban. The density looks to be increasing regardless, though. Austin will feel like a small city because it is smaller. Three times smaller at that. I personally would not say Austin has a much more dense urban core but it's more cohesive with surrounding neighborhoods.

[BCLRRE]

Density/density obsession is not the standard or definition of a great city. Who died and made density and its obsession the authority/arbiter of what a great city is? That's BS. Houston is not trying to be like any other city, but Houston. In its ultimate rank, Houston is 4th in America (soon to be 3rd), so it's those other cities that should be trying to 'be up there' with Houston. The others aren't where Houston is, and they have quite a ways to go. Houston is doing something quite right. Moreover, ALL cities have work to do, the least of which is obsessing over density, a trivial pursuit.

[Spade]

Nobody said density is the standard of a great city. It is though a catalyst in being an urban city. The only reason Houston is the 4the largest city is because it's 599 sq miles. If Chicago annexed to that amount of sq miles, it would be in no danger of losing its spot as the third largest city. In fact, many cities would pass Houston if it had that many sq miles. But they don't so that's neither here nor there. Point is, I never said Houston was not a great city. I just said it's not an urban city. Urban in the mold of older cities plus European and Asian, and Latin America cities. Most, if not all, of which are indeed dense. But density doesn't automatically equal urban.

[radiolibre99]

Spade I appreciate your opinions on the matter but saying Houston isn't urban is just plain silly. By those standards LA isn't urban because there are pockets of suburbs in the middle of the city? No one would consider third ward or the neighborhoods around them suburban because there are family style homes. Houston's urbanity is urban sprawl which is a thing. It's a low intense density city and it feels "urban" out near the neighborhoods in the galleria area off Westheimer. It doesn't feel fully or traditionally suburban there. Westchase where I used to live always felt urban but not in the same sense as Boston or Philly or NYC.

I think the nitpicking is just hating on the city honestly. I mean it's strange that small cities that even feel tiny compared to Houston such as Boston are considered more urban or more of a city because Boston has way more cohesion and higher density. So what? Boston feels smaller and less of a city to me by comparison. It's almost like competing LA to Boston.

I don't understand how anyone could not see Houston as a city. You distinguish between city and urban city but a city this size wouldn't be urban? Especially with all our skyscrapers and midrises and concrete? Cmon. That's protesting too much.

[BCLRRE]

Density is only a singular factor, among a great many, that relates to cities. Houston being 599 sq/mi is not the 'only' reason Houston is 4th largest. That's BS. Is LA being 503 sq/mi the 'only' reason it's 2nd largest...is NYC comprising itself of 5 separate boroughs the 'only' reason it's 1st...is land mass the 'only' reason Philadelphia slipped to 5th, now 6th...is land mass the 'only' reason Dallas was 2nd, now 3rd in Texas? No, that's absolute BS.

If, If, If. If Chicago expanded its borders, If Houston shrank its borders...if this, if that. Anyone who can't admit that Houston is an urban city is in shocking denial...and anyone who can't admit that sections of Chicago are 'suburban,' is also in denial, or further denial.

Look, it is what it is. Don't be mad at Houston because its planners had/have greater foresight. The other cities' planners should have planned better, like Houston and LA.

Constantly twisting different cities' makeup in an effort to either outdo Houston, or impress upon Houston to 'be like' someplace else is tired and futile...what nonsense. Why would people want to do that?

We all know why...but haters gonna hate.

[groovamos]

Originally Posted by Spade

I just said it's not an urban city. Urban in the mold of older cities plus European and Asian, and Latin America cities. Most, if not all, of which are indeed dense. But density doesn't automatically equal urban.

Wow let us revere this sage wisdom. We were so in the dark before.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Spade I appreciate your opinions on the matter but saying Houston isn't urban is just plain silly. By those standards LA isn't urban because there are pockets of suburbs in the middle of the city? No one would consider third ward or the neighborhoods around them suburban because there are family style homes. Houston's urbanity is urban sprawl which is a thing. It's a low intense density city and it feels "urban" out near the neighborhoods in the galleria area off Westheimer. It doesn't feel fully or traditionally suburban there. Westchase where I used to live always felt urban but not in the same sense as Boston or Philly or NYC.

I think the nitpicking is just hating on the city honestly. I mean it's strange that small cities that even feel tiny compared to Houston such as Boston are considered more urban or more of a city because Boston has way more cohesion and higher density. So what? Boston feels smaller and less of a city to me by comparison. It's almost like competing LA to Boston.

I don't understand how anyone could not see Houston as a city. You distinguish between city and urban city but a city this size wouldn't be urban? Especially with all our skyscrapers and midrises and concrete? Cmon. That's protesting too much.

No because again, we have two totally different definitions of urban. You're thinking just because it's built and there are people or cars there, it's urban. Urban "purists" as you call them have a totally different definition and expectation when it comes to a place having that label.

This is a good thread highlighting the differences between suburban and urban.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/urban...ural-what.html

This is westchase
https://www.google.com/maps/place/We...!4d-95.5669786

And this is Oak Brook, Il (a suburb of Chicago that I used earlier as an example)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oa...!4d-87.9535534

Hardly any difference between the two. What I am saying is by design, Houston is suburban. That includes Westchase. That doesn't mean it is hardly a city. It's just suburban in nature. The density shows this. It has the density similar to Schaumburg, Illinois (another suburb of Chicago).

[radiolibre99]

There has to be another word for it because the pic of Westchase you posted isn't suburban but low intense density urbanity to me. It's not suburban per se. There is beltway 8 and Westheimer running right through this area. The hustle and bustle is real there and people commute from the real burbs to live there. Burbs to me are Woodlands, Sugar Land, Katy, etc. Places not annexed by the monstrosity of Houston.

I can understand the urban purists definition of urbanity as it's traditional and makes a lot of sense, but the way Houston is set up makes it unlike both traditional urban and traditional suburban. It's a mix of the two with a little more to the former than the latter. I just can't picture Chinatown, Little Saigon and Bellaire which is right next to Westchase all of a sudden being suburban.

It's still city-like and people from the exurbs consider Westchase and anything along the freeways and the long stretch of Westheimer "the city". It's considered urban even if not in the traditional sense. Houston annexes suburban areas and makes them a little more urban and dense than before and incorporates them.

I get what you're saying but those burbs of Chicago you mentioned are stand alone burbs not connected to a greater city and attached to massive freeways and big mixed used developments near by or around highly ethnic enclaves. Houston is suburban/urban sprawl.

[radiolibre99]

Houston is traditional sunbelt city sprawl in the similar vein as LA before it started to get really dense and urban. Now LA is growing upward. Houston is taking up the mantle of where LA left off but with a different twist.

I mean maybe we can find middle ground here because I find utterly strange that someone could go around this massive city and not find it large or see it grandness. Are you basing your opinions on it being suburban by design but you still see it as a massive city? So is it something in it's own category?

Because I used to live in Boston, and compared to Texas I felt as though I was living in Europe, as though I was literally in England but "Newer" as the region is called. It's small, compact and very dense. Houston dwarfs it and not just in terms of sprawl but the buildings, streets, freeways, population, everything. The only other cities I can compare it to are NYC, LA and Chicago. Outside of those three, I have yet to see any other cities that can compare to how large the city is.