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.
In all honesty, Houston has quite a pleasant natural setting and climate, great for growing live oaks and other evergreen trees. But the unbridled sprawl diminishes this beauty, as well as the ability to enjoy it.
So, you essentially want to build a time machine, go back 100 years, and implement a scheme to prevent Houston from growing into the empty, treeless prairie that was the nature of most of the land at the time. That's not going to happen.
Your mentions of cities in Europe and other places where cities are far older than Houston conveniently forget that they grew densely, either due to geographic constraints or because in the days prior to automobiles, density was just natural. Houston grew after the advent of automobiles, and people loved being able to live somewhere other than the middle of town, cheek to cheek with their neighbors.
If I am inferring correctly, your plan is to create a Development Czar that tells people "I don't care how you want to live, you will live in a tiny, cramped high rise hovel in a location I determine, because I am far smarter than you, better looking, and am the God of Development decisions". Good luck with that. Once you start, I will need some notice to open my torches and pitchfork store.
The "sprawl" horse is out of the gate for Houston at this point. It's not going away. Deal with it.
So, you essentially want to build a time machine, go back 100 years, and implement a scheme to prevent Houston from growing into the empty, treeless prairie that was the nature of most of the land at the time. That's not going to happen.
First, start by paying attention to the argument at hand, rather than coming up with outlandish strawmans.
We've already went over the "treeless prairie" thing in the other thread, and established it as a myth. The city's climate renders it all moot, anyway.
Quote:
Your mentions of in Europe and other places where are far older than Houston conveniently forget that they grew densely, either due to geographic constraints or because in the days prior to automobiles, density was just natural. Houston grew after the advent of automobiles, and people loved being able to live somewhere other than the middle of town, cheek to cheek with their neighbors.
You tell me this as if it would make Houston's design any less of a mistake.
Quote:
If I am inferring correctly, your plan is to create a Development Czar that tells people "I don't care how you want to live, you will live in a tiny, cramped high rise hovel in a location I determine, because I am far smarter than you, better looking, and am the God of Development decisions". Good luck with that. Once you start, I will need some notice to open my torches and pitchfork store.
The "sprawl" horse is out of the gate for Houston at this point. It's not going away. Deal with it.
This is all just information showing that high urban density is the best development form for the city, given the facts established from these repeated flood events. These facts stand regardless of preferences, or any knee-jerk fussiness you have to let out.
Now there's nothing wrong with liking soulless McMansion sprawl. But just know that regardless of development choice, your city will have to enact major changes and sacrifices if it is to be well prepared for the next "thousand year flood" (coming up in a couple of months). If not, well, let's just say that the issues will go beyond just the flames on your little torches getting snuffed out.
Then you should have quoted ONLY that sentence. How is anyone else supposed to divine that your answer was to one of two sentences quoted (not to mention which one)?
Maybe and you could also have been less dense. Not like it was some huge post so just use context clues and it makes perfect sense which sentence I was responding to.
This is all just information showing that high urban density is the best development form for the city, given the facts established from these repeated flood events. These facts stand regardless of preferences, or any knee-jerk fussiness you have to let out.
Except they aren't facts, they are opinions. If we were the high urban density you desire I think our flooding catastrophies would have been twice as bad.
In all honesty, Houston has quite a pleasant natural setting and climate, great for growing live oaks and other evergreen trees. But the unbridled sprawl diminishes this beauty, as well as the ability to enjoy it.
Except they aren't facts, they are opinions. If we were the high urban density you desire I think our flooding catastrophies would have been twice as bad.
Why would they be bad?
Apartment buildings are generally stronger than regular houses. Also in apartment buildings only the ground floor would be flooded and if we built our apartments knowing the ground floor will be flooded. Said ground floor could become only a lobby or apartment amenities or parking even and the second or third story and up would be were residents live, thus flooding has zero impact. Hong Kong and other Chinese cities have serious flooding all the time, but it impacts them less because they can just brave the hurricane in their giant building that is basically earthquake proof let alone hurricane proof.
If Houston focused on gentrification with mostly apartments and just filled out the inner loop with just Uptown Dallas apartment density, the vast majority of the city would still be suburban housing yet the city would grow by 500,000 people in the inner loop. Instead of another Katy/Cypress/The Woodlands-Conroe/Sugar Land-Mo City/ Spring/ Pearland-Friendswood/ Northern Galveston County, SE Harris County etcetera sized area being built to absorb 500,000 people his making the flooding even worse. Take in mind Uptown Dallas isn’t even that dense, and isn’t cramped and is an overall beautiful area. This alone would take of thousands of cars in the inner loop and replace them with dozens of buses thus making the inner loop overall have less pollution.
We've already went over the "treeless prairie" thing in the other thread, and established it as a myth. The city's climate renders it all moot, anyway.
It was mostly treeless prairie. You are completely and totally wrong in thinking that the entire area was forested. The only large quantities of trees were along watercourses. There were no large forested areas until you reached Montgomery county.
"Promotional advertising in 1909 explained that Bellaire was named for the area's Gulf breezes, but Baldwin may have named it for Bellaire, Ohio, a town served by his railroad. By 1910 Baldwin had invested over $150,000 in capital improvements to turn the treeless prairie into an attractive location for residences and small truck farms"
"The Texas coast once held 6.5 million acres of prairies, thick with chest-high grass that supported enormous numbers of prairie chickens. Less than 1 percent of these acres remain."
It was mostly treeless prairie. You are completely and totally wrong in thinking that the entire area was forested. The only large quantities of trees were along watercourses. There were no large forested areas until you reached Montgomery county.
"Promotional advertising in 1909 explained that Bellaire was named for the area's Gulf breezes, but Baldwin may have named it for Bellaire, Ohio, a town served by his railroad. By 1910 Baldwin had invested over $150,000 in capital improvements to turn the treeless prairie into an attractive location for residences and small truck farms"
"The Texas coast once held 6.5 million acres of prairies, thick with chest-high grass that supported enormous numbers of prairie chickens. Less than 1 percent of these acres remain."
Bwahahaha, do some more research on the matter, then get back to me. And no, there's more to it than superficial maps, and obviously exaggerated adverts.
Apartment buildings are generally stronger than regular houses. Also in apartment buildings only the ground floor would be flooded and if we built our apartments knowing the ground floor will be flooded. Said ground floor could become only a lobby or apartment amenities or parking even and the second or third story and up would be were residents live, thus flooding has zero impact. Hong Kong and other Chinese cities have serious flooding all the time, but it impacts them less because they can just brave the hurricane in their giant building that is basically earthquake proof let alone hurricane proof.
Just a quick look at how devastation occurred:
An entire family of six - drowned in a car
A pastor and his wife - drowned in a car
Release of Addicks Dam to alleviate overflow - cheap McMansions swamped because they were sprawled in the way.
Concrete all over upstream that decreases perlocation, increasing the amount of runoff to the bayous to flood downstream.
List goes on. All these deaths, and all these property damage instances would easily have been avoided if Houston were a dense walkable city. Key concentration in one area means that said area can be easier managed. Meanwhile, less areas all over the land are built up with people in the way of flood waters. Lots of services in an area mean people depend less on automobiles and freeways that get flooded over.
Quite laughable to see many use the money received to rebuild their cheap sprawl in the same areas, especially those in flood plains and reservoir flood paths. That's fine, just as long as they don't cry when the next thousand year flood strikes in a few months.
People just have to stop being defensive when these facts are pointed out. Knee-jerk reactions and allergic responses to the whole "density" thing will go nowhere, since sacrifices will have to be made going forward if the city is to continue thriving in its location.
Because I already have. Numerous times. Again, put on your bifocals and try again.
Actually you have only commented on the fact that "it's walk able" and thus makes it all good for the environment. However you fail to acknowledge when you spout off that Houston "needs to get denser and more urban", that urban development is not good for earth, environments, ecosystems, climate...etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
In all the sources you have posted so far this thread, the "urban development" that they are referring to is simply growth in general, regardless of whether it is dense walk able or sprawling suburban. I've already acknowledged that both forms of development will have impact to nature. Therefore, your sources don't bust anything I've said.
Sure they did...you are claiming that urban development is walk able and therefore wonderful for the environment...I am simply showing how urban development is not as eco friendly as you are trying to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Since it's established that both forms will impact nature, it's best to choose the form with least impact if you want more of the landscape intact. And that form would be walkable development.
This again? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
So the death rate has to be high enough to offset the birth rate by a good margin in order to prevent the problem. But India, which has a far larger population than the US (over a billion), not only has a much higher birth rate (as shown by my link), but also a lower mortality rate. Look at India, and countries like it if you want to truly see where "overpopulation" issues are the biggest..
This has nothing to do with my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
As far as population growth in the US, immigration constitutes a large component of that.
Does it really matter what contributes to a population increase? The fact that a population is increasing is the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
.... Which comes from the US being way more sprawling and autocentric compared to the dense, walkable Europe.
That's only a part it it. You left out a whole slew of other pollutants the US spews around such as chemicals, pesticides, drugs, farmland runoff, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
If it's cities were less sprawled out, then there would be less consumption and fossil fuel use, since masses of automobiles would be replaced by the more energy efficient public transit.
The key is pushing for finding better energy sources...not pushing for living conditions of being stacking on top of each other surrounded by concrete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Still would be preferable compared to the natural landscape all being used up, paved over, and polluted with loads of car exhaust, as would come with far flung, soulless McMansion sprawl.
This is nothing more then your skewed opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
High density, regardless of its issues, would be a much more efficient way to manage high populations.
High density is an efficient way to manage high populations? Exactly how are these high populations being managed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Plus cleanliness and stacked density aren't mutually exclusive, as shown by areas like Chicago, London, etc.
Never claimed otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
The thread is about Houston and the dense growth pattern in needs post-Harvey. Your overpopulation argument does not relate to that, and so is off-topic.
No this thread was started so you could tell all of us how Post-Harvey Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban. Population growth is what drives Urban development...so yes it's actually related to the topic.
The key you seem to be missing is the following:
Quote:
The causes of urban growth are quite similar with those of sprawl. In most of the instances they can not be discriminated since urban growth and sprawl are highly interlinked. However, it is important to realize that urban growth may be observed without the occurrence of sprawl, but sprawl must induce growth in urban area.
My claims either fall under common sense, or are obvious conclusions reached once you actually think things through.
Your claims are nothing more than your opinion. You fail to look at the facts surrounding the damaging effects of Urban development. You think your opinion is simply common sense but it has nothing to do with common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Your fake news links don't change that.
Funny I did not post any news...none at all.
Last edited by Matadora; 01-07-2018 at 11:08 PM..
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.
