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.
Nonsense. Lots of pompous talk but neither you nor anyone else can provide a real example of such a "dense walkable city" handling 50" rain in a few days without flooding. Blah blah blah, lots of sidetracking and bloviating, but no example. Not interested in another word out of your mouth until you name the place, date of the event, with references.
Most deaths were from people attempting to evacuate rather than stay in place. In a denser area you would have more people doing this in one place and more people getting stuck and drowning. Evacuation becomes the logistical nightmare of Katrina. And forget the silly idea that multi-story apartments means you just stay in the upper floors. The upper floors may be dry but they are not habitable without power, water, food, etc.
The comments about the dam are disenginuous. That has nothing to do with density or sprawl. That's an issue of building in the wrong place not building the wrong way. A dense walkable zone built in the same place would have flooded the same way. Plenty of blame to go around there. Lots of maps depicting flood zones so people know the risks of building in a location or the need to insure such building. Show me one map depicting the projected flood zones of controlled dam releases. I'll bet most people had no idea that authorities would open the dams and knowingly flood hundreds of homes.
Ground percolation is a factor in moderate rainfall but makes no difference in the kind of rain we have in tropical events. After 10" or so the ground is saturated and is running off bare earth. Concrete does decrease resistance and allow faster runoff so why aren't the bayous concrete-lined like the channels in LA?
The solution to flooding isn't denser walkable (as if mode of transportation has anything to do with it) development but better drainage systems, wider and deeper bayous that are concreted with pumping stations. I promise the ocean can take as much runoff as we throw at it.
I think it's pretty obvious to most here that you are just pushing an agenda for "walkable" development. You probably couldn't care less about flooding but you think you can use it to sneak in your agenda.
I wasn’t talking about evacuation only when saying upper floors are safe but also loss of property. I disagree that it is necessary for Houston to become dense, but I still think it will help the city a lot. One, when density increases in the city, 90-95% of the city will stay the same, people like to site Katrina as dense living but the vast majority of New Orleans metro and city residents live in Houses.
Is how high density or as Texyn is saying making an area more “urban” helps cities have less pollution is simple.
1. Their are less people owning less cars.
2. When Houston expands regularly it would go from a 1,000 square mile urban area to a 1,300 square mile area in a decade. If Houston focused on redeveloping just a few low density areas into urban nodes it would instead expand he urban area from 1,000 to say 1,150 square miles, and have the added benefit of less vehicles on the road as the need for a vehicle becomes mute.
Most people see this through American eyes, thinking that San Fran and Philly and a few of the Outer Boroughs of NYC are dense urbanity, yes in the American sense, but when talking about apartment to house ratio, all of these cities and even metros are dominated by Houses, smaller houses yes but houses. That is the reason why urban living is even so expensive in America, because of things like NIMBYism, even building a city like Istanbul or Seoul which are literally apartment cities is impossible because knocking down an old building not in the hood is a crime against humanity thus increasing the price of truly urban places (by truly urban I mean apartments/ and not suburban apartments but office building look alike apartments).
I’m not even proposing knocking down the entire inner loop or something but even if 10% of the city in flood zones focused on Apartments over SFH, Houston would be one of the most urban metros in America, and the city would have barely changed. In fact if EaDo and about half of the remaining eastern half of the inner loop was an apartment only district the city of Houston would have something literally only NYC in America has.
The overpopulation issue involves the entire world, beyond just the US. Far from being a Houston-specific issue. It's off tangent from the thread, therefore, there will be no further discussion on it. Take it to Great Debates.
We are talking about Houston and I am specifically talking about the population increase that we are seeing in Houston.
You don't dictate to me what I can and can't post about. If you don't like it then don't read it or respond to it.
Houston is a growing city and the fact that the entire planet is facing overpopulation directly relates to Houston's growing population. I see you are having trouble connecting the dots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Houston is a fast growing city and management of land and resources will obviously be important. This is especially the case given the city's storm-prone location. That is exactly why I advocate for the urban growth form that causes least impact to the environment: dense walkability.
I get it...you can't answer a simple question about a claim that you made. This tells me that you have zero understanding of the claim you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
High density, regardless of its issues, would be a much more efficient way to manage high populations.
I am certain that asking your for a 3rd time...Exactly what high population issues are being managed and how are they being managed more efficiently? Asking will get me the same results...dodge and evade and your inability to answer a simple question about a claim that you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
The city has issues to solve going forward. These knee-jerk responses won't get you two anywhere.
Observing that you post exactly in the same manner and tone as a former member (dalparadise) is not a knee jerk response...it's a simple observation. You can learn a lot in life from merely observing others.
Let's get the terms correct:
Knee Jerk Response: an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.
Observation:
1.the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.
2.a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.
You only wish it were a knee jerk response when we observe that you are most likely the poster I pegged you to be. Not only did I observed this but another poster as well. Hmmmm...do you think this is a mere coincidence?
Or you could just move to somewhere that already has what you want.
I fail to see a lot of the logic here. I also see a lot of ego.
Cities change. Houston probably wont increase density until the market makes it attractive. Artificially forcing it via arbitrary boundaries will just drive up costs. (see Portland, Oregon also see definition of madness)
Chicago is a large, urban city as well, with a very clean downtown. Even in places like SF, the filth is only in key areas, not spread all over the city.
So filth and urbanity certainly don't go hand in hand.
No matter how much you resist, the fact still remains: high density is the key to resolving these issues with flooding.
A few problems with the 'high density' solution in Houston.
First is the aquifer below the city. More water was taken out than was replenished. This caused the subsoil to settle. There are articles out there on how older parts of Houston have shrunk down in elevation. Subsidence grows worse every year.
Houston is built on a swamp. The soil is mainly clay. Between the heat and cold the soil expands and contracts causing all sorts of problems.
Dense means more sky rises, right? But those are damaged in the storm, too. Windows blown out. Debris blown at them. Lower levels flooded and the health issues from that stagnant water. . . So they may be safe to ride out the storm but they're still stranded without water or food and A/C when they need it.
So tell me, after a hurricane, what will people do that live in high rises, when they can't live in their home? Because it has happened. Check the news link. This is a multiple story complex of apartments for older vets and retirees.
Just like you don't see sky rises in New Orleans. There's a reason you don't build up dense on swampland.
I watched the clip I just posted about the apartment complex and how the expense of fixing repairs, electrical the guy said, may determine whether they abandon the building or not. I have no idea if there's an update on those residents. It's really sad. Now. Talk about having fewer cars. These people have no where to go and no transportation to get there.
I can't help it when you're the one getting lost in these wild tangents.
Quote:
We are talking about Houston and I am specifically talking about the population increase that we are seeing in Houston.
Houston is a growing city and the fact that the entire planet is facing overpopulation directly relates to Houston's growing population. I see you are having trouble connecting the dots.
So the entire planet is facing the overpopulation problem, therefore, it's not a Houston-specific issue. No more debate on that in this thread anymore.
As you mentioned, what we can talk about is Houston's population growth. And that's the purpose of threads like this, to discuss the most efficient growth patterns for the city, especially given the aftermath of Harvey.
Quote:
I get it...you can't answer a simple question about a claim that you made. This tells me that you have zero understanding of the claim you posted.
Quote:
I am certain that asking your for a 3rd time...Exactly what high population issues are being managed and how are they being managed more efficiently? Asking will get me the same results...dodge and evade and your inability to answer a simple question about a claim that you posted.
Wow, you must really be in need of an opthamologist. Because I've been answering that question in my posts you've been responding to. Here's what I said in my previous post to you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Houston is a fast growing city and management of land and resources will obviously be important. This is especially the case given the city's storm-prone location. That is exactly why I advocate for the urban growth form that causes least impact to the environment: dense walkability.
^ High population issues in bold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Walkable urbanity constitutes far less of a energy usage, ecological impact, and footprint compared to suburban sprawl. Less automobiles required as there would be greater public transit, more intact natural landscape since there will be less sq miles of land built up, etc.
^ How the issues would be managed with dense walkability.
Quote:
Observing that you post exactly in the same manner and tone as a former member (dalparadise) is not a knee jerk response...it's a simple observation. You can learn a lot in life from merely observing others.
Let's get the terms correct:
Knee Jerk Response: an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.
Observation:
1.the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.
2.a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.
You only wish it were a knee jerk response when we observe that you are most likely the poster I pegged you to be. Not only did I observed this but another poster as well. Hmmmm...do you think this is a mere coincidence?
I read that entry for 'Knee Jerk Response,' and immediately saw you in it (along with several others in this thread). Literally.
Like typical Texans, you all are allergic to high density, and so try to find every way to go against those who advocate for it, regardless of whether it actually matters to the argument. Just the fact that you are accusing me of being 'dalparadise' or whatever says it all: that shouldn't even be a concern at all, since it has nothing to do with the argument being made.
You all are also quite sensitive in your reactions, with lots of spite and seething anger because the facts run counter to the soulless McMansions: hence all the talk about "agenda" or whatever.
It's clear you have little to no understanding about the topic.
Filth has nothing to do with urban density specifically, but rather, it's more about low socioeconomic status (especially when social services are inadequately distributed). Because even in the cities like SF that are said to be "filthy," the filth is only in poorer areas (like where the homeless congregate), rather than being all over the city.
So the entire planet is facing the overpopulation problem, therefore, it's not a Houston-specific issue. No more debate on that in this thread anymore.
I see you still are having difficulty connecting the dots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
As you mentioned, what we can talk about is Houston's population growth. And that's the purpose of threads like this, to discuss the most efficient growth patterns for the city, especially given the aftermath of Harvey.
A person who starts a thread titled: The Post-Harvey Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban is not interested in a discussion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Like typical Texans, you all are allergic to high density, and so try to find every little article that paints it in negative light (or seem to do so): even when it doesn't change the facts I've put forth.
I'm only allergic to mold and mildew. There's no need to try and find any article addressing the negatives of urban development...it's effortless to find these papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Filth has nothing to do with urban density specifically, but rather, it's more about low socioeconomic status (especially when social services are inadequately distributed).
Because even in the cities like SF that are said to be "filthy," the filth is only in poorer areas (like where the homeless congregate), rather than being all over the city.
High density, regardless of its issues, would be a much more efficient way to manage high populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Wow, you must really be in need of an opthamologist. Because I've been answering that question in my posts you've been responding to. Here's what I said in my previous post to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Houston is a fast growing city and management of land and resources will obviously be important. This is especially the case given the city's storm-prone location. That is exactly why I advocate for the urban growth form that causes least impact to the environment: dense walkability.
I've asked you in 3 separate posts...what exactly is being managed more efficiently with high populations in high density areas?
Your response above in green does not answer my question.
A few problems with the 'high density' solution in Houston.
First is the aquifer below the city. More water was taken out than was replenished. This caused the subsoil to settle. There are articles out there on how older parts of Houston have shrunk down in elevation. Subsidence grows worse every year.
Houston is built on a swamp. The soil is mainly clay. Between the heat and cold the soil expands and contracts causing all sorts of problems.
Dense means more sky rises, right? But those are damaged in the storm, too. Windows blown out. Debris blown at them. Lower levels flooded and the health issues from that stagnant water. . . So they may be safe to ride out the storm but they're still stranded without water or food and A/C when they need it.
So tell me, after a hurricane, what will people do that live in high rises, when they can't live in their home? Because it has happened. Check the news link. This is a multiple story complex of apartments for older vets and retirees.
Just like you don't see sky rises in New Orleans. There's a reason you don't build up dense on swampland.
Actually, the fact of Houston "being a swamp" is precisely why high density is best for it. You concentrate build on the good bit of high ground there is, while restricting/regulating development in other areas that inundate easily. Density can consist of low, mid, or high-rises, but all will suit Houston well. Execute this efficiently, and there will never be problems like what you've shown with that vet/retiree apartment complex.
Now contrast this with soulless McMansion sprawl, which causes development to be spread all over the land, even in areas never meant to be built on in the first place. Hence all the destruction when they had to release the flow from Addicks Dam.
Flooding is far and away the major natural problem that Houston deals with, so all the arguments are based around that. As long as warning is sufficient, people in a high rise can stockpile all the goods that they need to keep them through the storm and aftermath. No need to risk death crossing flooded freeways, since density allows services to be concentrated in walkable distances.
And, yes, wind can be an issue if the storm is powerful enough (i.e. direct hit from hurricane); but that's what strong building codes are for. The dense, high-rise city of Miami, which has strong building codes, fared well during Irma: Cat 4 landfall, storm surge and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sollaces
I watched the clip I just posted about the apartment complex and how the expense of fixing repairs, electrical the guy said, may determine whether they abandon the building or not. I have no idea if there's an update on those residents. It's really sad. Now. Talk about having fewer cars. These people have no where to go and no transportation to get there.
The high density that I'm advocating for is practically European levels, far beyond the mediocre pseudo-density people often think of as "dense areas of Houston" (i.e. Gulfton). In that case, there won't be any problem regarding lack of habitation and transportation.
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.
Or you could just move to somewhere that already has what you want.
