Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2014, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Where Else...?
739 posts, read 1,187,478 times
Reputation: 662

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
It's not bashing to state a truth. Houston has a ton of suburban sprawl and it's not improving. Whether one believes that to be a negative is subjective.
it really isn't a negative. People on CD seem to feel that it is, because they're so caught up in "urbanity". Houston is urban. It's just isn't set in the same fashion as the "traditional" urban sites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2014, 11:35 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,068 posts, read 2,922,124 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
It's not bashing to state a truth. Houston has a ton of suburban sprawl and it's not improving. Whether one believes that to be a negative is subjective.
Not improving? Laughable. You clearly haven't taken notice of the infrastructure improvements Houston has made recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 12:10 AM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,051,721 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
Not improving? Laughable. You clearly haven't taken notice of the infrastructure improvements Houston has made recently.
I provided several links that don't support your view. I have little doubt that downtown Houston is seeing plenty of construction and infill, but that's true of most cities right now. Is all that urban construction balancing out the suburban kind? In Houston, it's not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 12:11 AM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,051,721 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Palm View Post
it really isn't a negative. People on CD seem to feel that it is, because they're so caught up in "urbanity". Houston is urban. It's just isn't set in the same fashion as the "traditional" urban sites.
For someone like me, it absolutely is a negative. But to each their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,514 posts, read 33,519,512 times
Reputation: 12147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I provided several links that don't support your view. I have little doubt that downtown Houston is seeing plenty of construction and infill, but that's true of most cities right now. Is all that urban construction balancing out the suburban kind? In Houston, it's not.
There's a reason for that. The land in suburban Houston is cheaper than most other major cities if not all major cities especially the ones in the top 10. It is mostly balanced in Houston though. It was, last time I checked, at 0.1% in favor of more suburban growth than core growth. There's tons of infill in Houston that increasing in density. But people still love the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Where Else...?
739 posts, read 1,187,478 times
Reputation: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
For someone like me, it absolutely is a negative. But to each their own.
I understand that. I guess it's just hard to get people to understand, that you can't make Houston something that it's not. It's not going to follow the design of a NYC or Philly or Chicago. The urban brick upon brick buildings and the massive walkability, that those cities are known for, Houston just isn't exactly designed like those cities. So for me, that is NOT a negative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 12:33 PM
 
195 posts, read 284,026 times
Reputation: 254
This whole urbanity argument seems pointless. Both cities are nearly all suburban. Columbus suburbs may be smaller and older, but your still going to need a car to get around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 02:16 PM
 
202 posts, read 319,976 times
Reputation: 316
Yeah when was the last time you were in Columbus? Cleveland and Cincinnati are more "urban" than Columbus. Columbus is a very auto reliant city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 08:11 AM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,051,721 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
There's a reason for that. The land in suburban Houston is cheaper than most other major cities if not all major cities especially the ones in the top 10. It is mostly balanced in Houston though. It was, last time I checked, at 0.1% in favor of more suburban growth than core growth. There's tons of infill in Houston that increasing in density. But people still love the suburbs.
Actually, the links provided show that the suburbs are growing at a rate of more than 2 full points faster, or about 46% faster. It's not balanced, it's still clearly dominated by suburban growth.

People may or may not love the suburbs, but in the majority of cities, suburban growth has slowed dramatically or has reversed in that cities are seeing faster growth. This hasn't really happened in Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 08:16 AM
 
16,345 posts, read 18,051,721 times
Reputation: 7879
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidd_funkadelic View Post
Yeah when was the last time you were in Columbus? Cleveland and Cincinnati are more "urban" than Columbus. Columbus is a very auto reliant city.
Columbus has the exact same density as Cincinnati, even being almost 3x larger in area size. If Columbus was the same size as either of those cities, its density would be much higher than both of them. It's factually untrue that being bigger in area in this case means that the city has no real density to it.

And it is much easier to live there car free now than it used to be, with improving bus service, bike share, and car share services like car2go, etc. And the city will likely be starting a rail system in the next few years, along with BRT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top