The Post-Harvey Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban (Dallas: power lines, renters)

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Texyn

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.

False

Over the past century, the United States has become an increasingly urban society. The changes in land use associated with urban development affect flooding in many ways. Removing vegetation and soil, grading the land surface, and constructing drainage networks increase runoff to streams from rainfall and snow melt. As a result, the peak discharge, volume, and frequency of floods increase in nearby streams. Changes to stream channels during urban development can limit their capacity to convey floodwaters. Roads and buildings constructed in flood-prone areas are exposed to increased flood hazards, including inundation and erosion, as new development continues. Information about stream-flow and how it is affected by land use can help communities reduce their current and future vulnerability to floods.

Effects of Urban Development on Flood

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by Matadora

I see you still are having difficulty connecting the dots.

No, I've connected them just fine. I'm saying that you should stick with overpopulation only concerning it's contributions to growth in Houston.

A person who starts a thread titled: The Post-Harvey Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban is not interested in a discussion...

The thread title, based on the title of the article, indeed implies interest in discussion, in the form of feedback towards the argument brought up by the article. Those who disagree simply provide their arguments as to why, like you are doing right now.

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.

No, you only think that way because you still haven't grasped the semantics.

False

Why is SF So Damn Dirty & Homeless?

Man writes letter to San Francisco

A Reddit thread as your source ? Now you're really reaching, and living up to the knee-jerk definition.

Plus did you even read the source? Here's the comment listed as "best" in that discussion:

What fascinates me is that if you're rich, you can really minimize your exposure to the homeless elements of the city.

For example, if you live in Pac. Heights and drive to work and don't walk around downtown or market st., you're not going to see many homeless people. So the movers and shakers of the city arguably don't get the visceral experiences associated with hobos.

Also, the nice areas seem to have no homeless AT ALL; I really wonder how they do it.

Which proves my point that filth in an area is related to the income levels. Nothing to do with urban living specifically.

Originally Posted by Matadora

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.

No, it answers your question exactly; don't get too hung up on the wording. I clearly pointed out the land and resources as what's being managed, and identified the eco friendliness as why density was able to provide effective management.

[Texyn]

Originally Posted by Matadora

False

Over the past century, the United States has become an increasingly urban society. The changes in land use associated with urban development affect flooding in many ways. Removing vegetation and soil, grading the land surface, and constructing drainage networks increase runoff to streams from rainfall and snow melt. As a result, the peak discharge, volume, and frequency of floods increase in nearby streams. Changes to stream channels during urban development can limit their capacity to convey floodwaters. Roads and buildings constructed in flood-prone areas are exposed to increased flood hazards, including inundation and erosion, as new development continues. Information about stream-flow and how it is affected by land use can help communities reduce their current and future vulnerability to floods.

Effects of Urban Development on Flood

Wow, you're not even paying attention to the argument anymore. The source doesn't even address what I stated in that section of my post that you quoted. Plus all that is listed is worse under suburban sprawl than urban density (for reasons I've gone over).

You're just posting out of mindless spite because you can't handle how unsustainable it is to build in the soulless sprawl pattern you love so much. Knee jerk to a T. Just log off and go to bed, little girl.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Texyn

No, I've connected them just fine.

I don't see it. You negate that the worlds overpopulation issue has no effect on Houston...hint...it's interrelated.

Originally Posted by Texyn

A Reddit thread as your source ? Now you're really reaching, and living up to the knee-jerk definition.

Plus did you even read the source? Here's the comment listed as "best" in that discussion:

Which proves my point that filth in an area is related to the income levels. Nothing to do with urban living specifically.

First you scoff at the source but then use it to try and prove your point! LMAO!!!!

Originally Posted by Texyn

I clearly pointed out the land and resources as what's being managed, and identified the eco friendliness as why density was able to provide effective management.

You've done no such thing...you have only posted vague responses and failed to address the question asked.

Let's try again. How is "high density" a much more efficient way to manage high populations? What processes are being employed to manage a high population of people?

Originally Posted by Texyn

Plus all that is listed is worse under suburban sprawl than urban density.

Do you have any data to backup your opinion?

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Texyn

Just log off and go to bed, little girl.

LOL at your agenda!!!

[Sollaces]

Yes Houston is growing. The sprawl is heading to the suburbs. Look at statistics in Fort Bend. How when the Grand Parkway was built there were no developments around it. Now the Grand Parkway is another loop around Houston. With that said roads are being built to keep up with the sprawl. The Westpark Tollway is extending (1093) further out to Fulshear. Fulshear has grown so much.


Here is your quote TEXYN:
"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."

Nope.
Read up on Ike. Read up on the power outages. These hurricanes hit from June to November but the peak is August and September. Now. What are our temperatures in August and September? 90's? 100? Picture surviving a hurricane in a high rise with no power. Because the flooding will wipe out the power. So you're stuck in a high rise with no electricity and who knows if windows can be opened. EDIT: Forgot another fun one - No sanitary water. Yes the water pumping stations can go out. It's happened before.

I watched the news during Hurricane Harvey. A hotel in the downtown area that is known to flood evacuated all their building before the storm. That is what these high rises do. Who wants to be stuck on the 14th floor and no power for the elevator? Stuck in a room where the windows don't open, the electric door lock key card won't work, you're stuck in an oven and the flood waters will take days if not weeks to subside. And power is out for half the city, power will be restored to various areas but yours may not come for weeks.

Some after Hurricane Ike waited on their power for twelve yes TWELVE weeks. No one will want to stay stuck in a high rise in those conditions.

Last fact.

Houston is broke. The city is in debt up to it's eyeballs. I don't see any conceivable way for Houston to have these grand high rises that aren't office buildings when the city can't even keep up with various two story apartment buildings.

Oh another fact.
NASA and oil are big money in the Houston area. Well. That's not true anymore. NASA took a huge hit and the oil and gas industry, too. Money not coming in means Houston doesn't have the means. It's enough the downtown is putting in the Metro Rails and how well that's gone.

[Sollaces]

Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare

Why would they be bad?


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.

You forget that downtown Houston is a place where people go for entertainment. There will still be cars and people on the roads traveling to downtown Houston. The medical center is there, people going to the zoo, the ballet, the museums, the airport, so many places.

The main transportation in Houston is the car. It still is. Traveling through Houston is a way to go to Louisiana. People drive thru here to get elsewhere. They will also travel to get to their jobs. Just because someone may live near down town may not mean they live near their work. That's true for so many that live in the suburbs, they travel by car.

I don't see this solution you're posting to happen anytime soon.

[IndyRC]

Soulless, high density living isn't for me. It may solve some problems, but what problems does it create?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by IndyRC

Soulless, high density living isn't for me. It may solve some problems, but what problems does it create?

Noise.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by Texyn

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.

Most of those that died in Harvey trying to evacuate had no real need to be evacuating. In many cases I've seen, the homes they were evacuating from remained dry. People evacuate because they don't want to be stranded without power and other supplies. You'd have the same issues in high-rises. You can tell people to stay where they are but some will risk leaving anyway because who wants to be stranded in a 7th floor apartment with no power, no running water, no cable, no fresh food, sweltering in 100 degrees with no AC. So you can't ignore the element of human nature in your planning.