How did Houston end up with so many skyscrapers? (Dallas: houses, restaurants)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by 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.

You can definitely make the argument for both Houston and LA if you must. LA would still be in the top 10 though even if all cities were around 150 sq miles because LA is surprisingly very dense. Like I said, LA's density is very underrated. But I was just saying that Houston fits 2.3 million in 599 sq miles. Chicago does the same at half the sq miles. I'm not knocking Houston and never said it was a bad city. I'm just saying it's different. It's mostly suburban in nature. There is nothing wrong with that if people prefer that. Also, most of Chicago is urban and its core is far more urban than Houston's core.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is where we disagree then. Everything about that link I posted is suburban. Nothing really urban in the traditional sense about it. Most people would call it suburban. It's just that Houston's enormous physical size hides it from being a suburb.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by 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.

I personally felt DC, Philadelphia (especially), and San Francisco regional areas felt larger than Houston. Density does indeed give people that type of feeling. But yes, that's been my point. Houston is suburban by design that just happens to be a massive city. Most suburban cities are built around the car. Most urban cities are built around people.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Spade

I personally felt DC, Philadelphia (especially), and San Francisco regional areas felt larger than Houston. Density does indeed give people that type of feeling.

I thought SF was incredibly small and incredibly dense, how could it feel larger than Houston? It looks like a mini-Manhattan.

Density is just density, it doesn't make a city feel larger unless it is larger. Manhattan is large because it is huge. The buildings, the grandness, the population, from downtown to up 186th upper Manhattan it's huge and even larger if you include Brooklyn, Queens, etc. There is no mistaking it.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Spade

This is where we disagree then. Everything about that link I posted is suburban. Nothing really urban in the traditional sense about it. Most people would call it suburban. It's just that Houston's enormous physical size hides it from being a suburb.

Yes, I understand it can be seen as suburban, but it doesn't look traditionally suburban either. Traditionally suburban wouldn't have things around it associated with traditional urban things such as massive freeways, large ethnic enclaves, a major artery road such as Westheimer, condos and mid-rise buildings, etc. Especially since it's next to Town and Country City Centre headed one direction, Little Saigon and Chinatown to the other, near I-10. I mean c'mon. I totally get what you're saying but it looks as though a traditionally suburban place was annexed by a major sprawling city. Just because you can find some streets that look less dense and have perfectly manicured lawns and such doesn't make it totally suburban.

Ask anyone who lives in the exurbs if Westchase, Chinatown, Little Saigon, the International district, Bellaire and Hillcroft, or that long stretch of Westheimer before you reach Uptown if it's the city or not. Most will say it's the city. None would say it's anything like Sugar Land or Woodlands.

And last, the major thing is that you can find similar looking streets in Westchase in Sugar Land, yet the major difference is what I described.

[BCLRRE]

Originally Posted by Spade

You can definitely make the argument for both Houston and LA if you must. LA would still be in the top 10 though even if all cities were around 150 sq miles because LA is surprisingly very dense. Like I said, LA's density is very underrated. But I was just saying that Houston fits 2.3 million in 599 sq miles. Chicago does the same at half the sq miles. I'm not knocking Houston and never said it was a bad city. I'm just saying it's different. It's mostly suburban in nature. There is nothing wrong with that if people prefer that. Also, most of Chicago is urban and its core is far more urban than Houston's core.

Now there we agree, Houston is different from any other city...it prides itself on that, it doesn't run from or try to hide the fact that it is a dynamic example example of urban sprawl. LA (the king of urban sprawl) has become more dense as its become more populated, and Houston is doing the same. Now these foremost examples of American urban sprawl are densifying the sprawl, which is a unique transformation for both, especially Houston.

[BCLRRE]

Incidentally, a suburb is not the city. Suburbs adjoin major cities. Houston is the city adjoined by its suburbs...it's clearly not a suburb itself, right? Right. What major city does Houston (a major US city) adjoin? Calling Houston a suburb when it's obviously a major US city, is like calling Chicago a township, when it's obviously a major US city. See how silly that is?

These facts are embarrassingly elementary. Houston is the city, Katy is the suburb...LA is the city, Carson is the suburb...Philadelphia is the city, Cherry Hill is the suburb...Dallas is the city, DeSoto is the suburb...NYC is the city, New Rochelle is the suburb. Chicago is the city, Homewood-Flossmore is the suburb. To say that a major US city is a suburb or suburban is tantamount to insanely ridiculous.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by BCLRRE

Incidentally, a suburb exists outside the city. Houston is the city surrounded by its suburbs...it's clearly not a suburb itself. These facts are embarrassingly elementary.

Well again, nobody is saying that Houston is a suburb. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that Houston's design is typical of suburban area today because let's face it, most of the growth occurred post WW2 which has been dominated by suburban characteristics. Houston is not alone in this. Dallas, Phoenix, Charlotte, Austin, and Atlanta are the same.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Yes, I understand it can be seen as suburban, but it doesn't look traditionally suburban either. Traditionally suburban wouldn't have things around it associated with traditional urban things such as massive freeways, large ethnic enclaves, a major artery road such as Westheimer, condos and mid-rise buildings, etc. Especially since it's next to Town and Country City Centre headed one direction, Little Saigon and Chinatown to the other, near I-10. I mean c'mon. I totally get what you're saying but it looks as though a traditionally suburban place was annexed by a major sprawling city. Just because you can find some streets that look less dense and have perfectly manicured lawns and such doesn't make it totally suburban.

Ask anyone who lives in the exurbs if Westchase, Chinatown, Little Saigon, the International district, Bellaire and Hillcroft, or that long stretch of Westheimer before you reach Uptown if it's the city or not. Most will say it's the city. None would say it's anything like Sugar Land or Woodlands.

And last, the major thing is that you can find similar looking streets in Westchase in Sugar Land, yet the major difference is what I described.

To me, that does look traditionally suburban. The reason why people in Sugarland and Katy won't say it is suburban is because it's not in a suburb but inside the large city limits in Houston. But to most people in traditional urban areas, they would tell you there is nothing urban about Westchase. You seem to think I'm saying Houston and environs are a suburb. That's not what I'm saying. Though, most of Houston outside 610 would classify as a suburb in most regions throughout the world and it looks and feels suburban.

But yeah, we just have a different definition of what is urban and what is suburban.

[BCLRRE]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I thought SF was incredibly small and incredibly dense, how could it feel larger than Houston? It looks like a mini-Manhattan.

Density is just density, it doesn't make a city feel larger unless it is larger. Manhattan is large because it is huge. The buildings, the grandness, the population, from downtown to up 186th upper Manhattan it's huge and even larger if you include Brooklyn, Queens, etc. There is no mistaking it.

Agreed, I found San Francisco to be very small...seemingly smaller than DC. Very dense, but it's got to pack what it can into itself. I does so quite nicely. Great city.