Looks Like High Density Was Best For Houston All Along (Dallas: sales, apartment complex)

[predatorprey]

cannotnforce people into higher density. The cost is significantly higher and most people cannot afford it.

Sandy dropped 7-10" of rain. Nmae a city can handle half of what we received over a wide area?

I think simplistic solution is to elevate new construction homes similar to what Bellaire city requires. Cost is more initially but over time and savings via lower flood insurance costs would be worth it. Water wouldn't be signifantly displaced any longer by the home.

[Vicman]

There is a thing called the "Tombstone theory" in which radical changes in safety policies etc. aren't made until enough people die.

If people keep dying in these calamities the city government may act.

Originally Posted by WRM20

For those pushing the mid/highrise solution, are you going to force those of us who live in suburbs inside the Loop to give up our single family homes on decent sized lots? Who made you the arbiter of what the solution is?

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by curbur

Idk, wasn't me lol.. I at least appreciate the discussion even if I don't completely agree. I personally want rapid densification between downtown and uptown with some sort of dedicated row for public transit everywhere, but also don't think that's good for the entire metro population.

Surely it wasn't. The poster who wrote it knows very well who he/she is.

Anyways, the densification for Houston would apply only to city proper, while other municipalities across the metro can join in as well. So not only Houston densifying, but also Sugar Land, places along the Bay Area, Woodlands, etc.

Originally Posted by oceangaia

Seriously? You think that was due to population density and not the fact that Harvey dropped over 50" rainfall on Houston while Sandy dropped about 7" on NYC?

Originally Posted by predatorprey

Sandy dropped 7-10" of rain. Name a city can handle half of what we received over a wide area?

Of course 50" of rain will bring devastation anywhere, but losses would have been minimized (especially casualties) in high density compared to the sprawl Houston has now.

Originally Posted by WRM20

Houston sprawls because the land is cheap and there aren't any geographic imitations due to rivers, mountains, or coast lines. Without the cheap land and the ability to build thousands of single family homes with yards, garages, and lots of room, very few of those folks would move here.

Originally Posted by predatorprey

cannotnforce people into higher density. The cost is significantly higher and most people cannot afford it.

It was assumed that Houston had loads of available land, that development can spread out, and take up any space that is needed. But then Harvey came in and rained on that parade, literally: in reality, alot of Houston's land is swampy flood plain, criss-crossed by many bayous, such that building on it isn't ideal.

At this point, there's simply going to be some form of added costs no matter the plan for the city. Continue the regular suburban sprawl with no new regulation of any form, and the price is paid with flood after flood.

Originally Posted by WRM20

For those pushing the mid/highrise solution, are you going to force those of us who live in suburbs inside the Loop to give up our single family homes on decent sized lots? Who made you the arbiter of what the solution is?

Those who are willing to move into a high-rise can do so. Not only the Inner Loop, but also in outer municipalities like Sugar Land, Woodlands, etc if those develop high rises as well.

Others that want to stay in their suburban houses can continue doing so, just as long as there are flood-mitigation designs/preparations, for their sake.

[SpringBrancher]

Originally Posted by Spade

I see your point but this storm unfortunately will cloud judgement and add to the notion that Houston's development patterns need to change because of the floods of 2015, 2016, and now August 2017. Building one story slabs and businesses by reservoirs and bayous, including also wetlands and flood plains, was just simply a bad idea. Perhaps this discussion is not happen if it was just Harvey and the tax day flood and memorial day flood in 2015 didn't happen. I believe there was another flood in April 2015 too.

You forgot the MLK day flood of 2017 and the floods of June and July 2017. All of those floods caused residential flooding - the media didn't really report much of it though.

2017 had at least 4 storms that caused homes to flood. Also there was the 2015 Halloween floods that screwed over meyerland after memorial day

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by Texyn

Of course 50" of rain will bring devastation anywhere, but losses would have been minimized (especially casualties) in high density compared to the sprawl Houston has now.

Losses were minimized. We had fewer deaths than Sandy with 7x the amount of rainfall. But it is pointless to compare two very different storms in very different areas. I'm not the one that initially tried to compare Sandy to Harvey to further an agenda.

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

Losses were minimized. We had fewer deaths than Sandy with 7x the amount of rainfall. But it is pointless to compare two very different storms in very different areas. I'm not the one that initially tried to compare Sandy to Harvey to further an agenda.

The relative death toll from Houston by Harvey was higher than Sandy in NYC once you account for population disparities between the two cities.

But regardless, the main point is that the death toll and property loss from the flooding in Houston would have been lower had the city been denser (for all the reasons cited in the graphics and links of the OP). These facts are indisputable.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by Texyn

The relative death toll from Houston by Harvey was higher than Sandy in NYC once you account for population disparities between the two cities.

But regardless, the main point is that the death toll and property loss from the flooding in Houston would have been lower had the city been denser (for all the reasons cited in the graphics and links of the OP). These facts are indisputable.

No, they are not indisputable. It's all guess work, since Houston isn't dense. You can model with a variety of variables and come up with statistically significant predictions, but none of them are indisputable.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Texyn

It matters what's best for the city, regardless of what people prefer. If people want to live in Houston, given the storms it can get, then sacrifices are going to have to be made.

Who do you think you are? Youre nobody to tell the rest of us who live here what kind of lives we should lead and what kind of houses we should live in. I live in a ranch style house just outside the loop thats never flooded. Not in Harvey, not in Allison, never since it was built in the early 50's. We did our research before buying. We made sure that whatever house we wanted would have one of the highest elevations in the neighborhood.

This thread is just a CD pipe dream. Houston will continue to become more dense in some areas and it will remain subdivisions in others. This whole idea that youre going to see high rise condos on Dairy Ashford or by Hobby just because its part of the city of Houston is absurd.

Youll never catch me living in a condo or high rise and this may be news to you but I dont have to do that to live here.

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by WRM20

No, they are not indisputable. It's all guess work, since Houston isn't dense. You can model with a variety of variables and come up with statistically significant predictions, but none of them are indisputable.

Nope, no guesswork, just logical facts that can be arrived to if you truly think about it.

For instance, where would you rather be to escape rising flood waters: the 60th floor of a highrise, under comfortable shelter, or exposed to the elements on top of a SFH roof (like many of those affected by Harvey were)?

Originally Posted by Cowboys fan in Houston

Who do you think you are? Youre nobody to tell the rest of us who live here what kind of lives we should lead and what kind of houses we should live in. I live in a ranch style house just outside the loop thats never flooded. Not in Harvey, not in Allison, never since it was built in the early 50's. We did our research before buying. We made sure that whatever house we wanted would have one of the highest elevations in the neighborhood.

This thread is just a CD pipe dream. Houston will continue to become more dense in some areas and it will remain subdivisions in others. This whole idea that youre going to see high rise condos on Dairy Ashford or by Hobby just because its part of the city of Houston is absurd.

Youll never catch me living in a condo or high rise and this may be news to you but I dont have to do that to live here.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what people prefer. At the end of the day, Houston should do what's best for surviving these floods, and if density is the way it chooses, then so be it.

Those who disagree are welcome to live in their SFHs by the floodplain all they like. They just shouldn't be crying when the next major storm wipes them all out again.

[PedroMartinez]

Who is being prevented from living in a high density tower?

Or, is the problem that they have a choice not to live in one?