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.
Unfortunately, I've learned nothing about why denser suburbs are better, guess I'll never know.
Better land / resource use, increased walkability, less need to commute for work, shopping or pleasure and more conducive to transit operations should they be installed.
The typical SFH / Culd-e-sac model seen in most suburbs are completely car dependent and very hampering to walkability and transit hendering their feasibility on even the most robust networks.
But DFW burbs are laid out more like Phoenix, Vegas, etc. than eastern cities.
Phoenix and DFW urbanized areas are close in density at around 3,500 ppsm compared to just over 2,000 in Atlanta.
All preference, but I much prefer the Western landscape of Arizona to anything in Texas or the South. Far fewer bugs to begin with, but the cacti, palms, and mountains make it far more interesting than anything I've ever seen in other suburban sunbelt areas. I also find expansive front yards repetitive and boring. Endless blades of grass in one lot next to the other puts me to sleep. If I had to live in a traditional sunbelt city it would be Phoenix easily.
Better land / resource use, increased walkability, less need to commute for work, shopping or pleasure and more conducive to transit operations should they be installed.
The typical SFH / Culd-e-sac model seen in most suburbs are completely car dependent and very hampering to walkability and transit hendering their feasibility on even the most robust networks.
My issue with all of this is that walkability isn't really increased much at all. You can say that amenities are closer in some cases but that's not always true and they're often still out of walkable range (like this subdivision in Katy or this neighborhood in SW Houston if you meant closer in suburbs) so I just don't see the point of smaller lots for some kind of land use purpose other than lower prices. Transit isn't made more useful just because density exists, you also need an environment where uses aren't separated by large distances and sidewalks and roads aren't dangerous. I get two conclusions from the comments in this thread. They allow less car commuting for work and retail and they're easier to take care of due to not having large lawns. I'd understand the hype if these Texas suburbs weren't still car-dependent, but they are, and cities like Houston don't have a decent urban core to make up for it like Atlanta does to make up for its suburbs.
My issue with all of this is that walkability isn't really increased much at all. You can say that amenities are closer in some cases but that's not always true and they're often still out of walkable range (like this subdivision in Katy or this neighborhood in SW Houston if you meant closer in suburbs) so I just don't see the point of smaller lots for some kind of land use purpose other than lower prices. Transit isn't made more useful just because density exists, you also need an environment where uses aren't separated by large distances and sidewalks and roads aren't dangerous. I get two conclusions from the comments in this thread. They allow less car commuting for work and retail and they're easier to take care of due to not having large lawns. I'd understand the hype if these Texas suburbs weren't still car-dependent, but they are, and cities like Houston don't have a decent urban core to make up for it like Atlanta does to make up for its suburbs.
I personally think Houston's core is underrated. It's downtown isn't connected to Uptown like Atlanta & Midtown are connected and yes they don't have MARTA but they have quite a bit of foot traffic during the day and night, the underground mall, and their light rail see's more use per-capita than DART which is pretty impressive for a system less than half the size...
But their ridership numbers are similar. DART Rail moves an average of 96,000 people on weekdays and 57,000 on Saturday. METRO light rail, meanwhile, gets 63,000 riders around town on weekdays, and 31,000 on Saturdays.
That makes for a more efficient system in Houston, with 2,700 passengers per mile on weekdays, compared to around 1,000 in Dallas.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 05-10-2021 at 09:48 AM..
This is so location specific as to be absurd as a comparison. You can find examples of cramped, open layout, or "planned" community in either place. Actually in almost every place in the country with developed or built-out suburban areas. The biggest difference will be climate, population, and preferred landscaping. The age of the suburban development might also have a bearing on walkability or general impression.
What I hate is the feed-lot style of housing that you find in suburban places. Unfortunately, that is what often serves as affordable housing and even that is a stretch in some cases. They are not making any more land and in the southwest, land is not always buildable so small lots and high density is becoming more common. Large parcels of land are off limits to development due to ownership (Indian lands, National Forest, BLM, etc.) or geography/geology and the cost of building.
New Mexico is an anomaly due to the very low population (2 mil.). I was going to build a house on a half acre parcel NW of Albuquerque and there were few services because I had no neighbors. It would cost $90k to run a water pipe to the property. They told me that sewer lines would not be available in my lifetime. They said they would grade the road occasionally. I figured I could drill several wells for $90k and a septic system would run under $10k and a future owner could fuss with the eventual upgrades. However, the cost of construction materials proved to be prohibitive and I killed the project. That is part of the problem with low density suburban development. In order to keep the price affordable, something has to be cut back so lots are smaller. A developer can fit six homes on an acre with 7,000 sq. foot lots and people will buy them. You could also argue that there is less enthusiasm (in an arid climate) for having a large maintained yard in the southwest.
I personally think Houston's core is underrated. It's downtown isn't connected to Uptown like Atlanta & Midtown are connected and yes they don't have MARTA but they have quite a bit of foot traffic during the day and night, the underground mall, and their light rail see's more use per-capita than DART which is pretty impressive for a system less than half the size...
The underground is nice, but on the street level, Houston is one of the most underwhelming Downtowns I've seen in the south. Other Texas cities like Dallas and Austin are more my style.
The Southeast, including the Piedmont, does have some interesting brick and stone designs and a lot of tree cover, but developments are so decentralized that traffic problems can be posed and it can be tedious to just drive three miles to go from one neighborhood to the other. Even so in Florida, where land is mostly so flat that grid systems can be easily built but aren't (South Florida does have a grid, but it isn't the cultural "South"). Southern cities themselves are often quite uninspiring. No, thanks.
That leaves the Southwest. Grid systems, wide highway and freeway capacity, more space for infrastructure improvements as needed (Southern California arguably notwithstanding) than back east, and plenty of views or easy access to some incredibly stunning scenery. At the same time, there are geographic limitations for development that will insure that it never sprawls like in the Southeast or Texas (Los Angeles and Phoenix are less "sprawly" relative to their populations and densities than Birmingham, Nashville and even Houston are). I also quite like the mixes of stucco and stone in the Southwest.
Oh, and in what universe is Texas in the Southwest!? Only far west Texas qualifies (from a line drawn from about Midland to Ozona and westward). Suburban developments throughout the state are also some of the most unattractive and "de-inspiring" I've ever seen. The occasional attractive stone house design isn't enough to offset the general unattractiveness. No. Just no. At least there's a lot of land to work with for new development and infrastructure enhancements - only for that newly developed area to look nice or be "it" for 10 years or so before same-looking, cheaply-built sprawl continues ever outward.
Southwest FTW!
Per U.S. Georgraphy. Texas is in the Southwest. The Southeast ends at Louisiana.
The cities you mention in California are in the Pacific Region, not Southwest.
Per U.S. Georgraphy. Texas is in the Southwest. The Southeast ends at Louisiana.
The cities you mention in California are in the Pacific Region, not Southwest.
Right, it is all the South but Texas is definitely not in the Southeast region
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.
