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.
I'm still waiting for all those walkable areas in Orlando.
S Enola is a few blocks, equivalent to a corner of Midtown Houston. The poster from the Houston suburbs keep posting a lot of words but no receipts.
Where are these Orlando neighborhoods you speak of?
Midtown Houston alone has more walkable blocks than Orlando, and we haven't even touched downtown Houston, Heights, TMC etc.
Orlando City is only about 300K in 110 sq miles.
Inner loop Houston is about 500k in 90 sq miles.
Inner loop Houston has downtown, TMC, Greenway Plaza, Montrose, Parts of Uptown, Upper Kirby, Museum District/ Binz, Allen Parkway Corridor... with no equivalents in Orlando. Inner loop Houston daytime population swells to 5 times the size of all of the city of Orlando.
It's really not a contest in terms of structural density and population. I am not sure why the suburban Houston poster keeps going on and on without receipts.
TMC or Uptown alone blows away anything in Orlando. Heck suburban employment centers like The Energy Corridor and Greeenspoint would be big deals if they were in Orlando.
Is it the loop vs Orlando or Houston vs Orlando? He already mentioned 5 hoods.
1) I never assumed Orlando doesn't have those issues. Why are you twisting my words around? My whole point is the little walkable areas ORLANDO has is more walkable than Houston's most walkable areas. How is that me saying Orlando doesn't suffer from a lack of cohesion? I know exactly what type of city Orlando is. You honestly think Houston's MOST WALKABLE AREAS are cohesively more pedestrian friendly than the few Orlando has. It's not. I'm not even lying that's a fact.
2) It's comical you can post up google map links of Orlando to try to prove your point but can't do the same for Houston. Why is that? Why can't you show me these pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in Houston that are easily more cohesive and more pedestrian friendly than those few in Orlando? Is Main street and that tiny block of Gray street the only ones you can show me with mixed retail, residential and restaurants? Are you going to show Rice Village a shopping center or an actual real neighborhood?
3) I didn't bring up Midtown first. Atadytic19 brought up Midtown first. And you followed it up by throwing out the outdated apartment complexes of Post Midtown Square and Camden City Centre. Atadytic19 posted up a picture of the one block of Gray street with mixed residential, retail and eateries. You can literally walk fast and tour that one walkable block in less than a minute. Yall gloated about that tiny block yet scoff at the 3 or 4 blocks that make up S Eola with that same combination. LMAO, talk about hypocrisy.
4) You put so much emphasize on population. I figured you'd contradict your argument once I brought up New Orleans. So size matters when it's Orlando but not New Orleans. LMAO
5) That part of CVS is Midtown though. That's midtown Houston for you. And that's the local CVS for residents living in Camden and Post.
6) You clearly don't spend enough time in Chicago. Maybe Chicagoland if you think Houston is more pedestrian friendly than the neighborhoods I posted in Orlando.
7) I didn't shoot myself in the foot I actually made my point ever more clear. Outside of downtown Houston, every neighborhood outside of that only has small pockets of cohesive truly pedestrian friendly areas. Everything else is interrupted infrastructure built for cars not foot traffic.
Btw, to drive the point home even further, the most cohesive neighborhood for walkability in Houston is downtown. Downtown Houston has a population of 16,655. Which is abysmal for a city it's size btw. Downtown Orlando with a city population under 500,000 has a downtown population of 14,236. Which is only a little less than a city with over 2 million people. You fail to realize that S Eola, Thornton Park, Lake Eola Heights, Central Business District and a few other neighborhoods make up Downtown Orlando. So yeah a larger cohesive area of walkability unlike Houston which are just Islands surrounded by urban suburbia layout.
So in the loop 148,793 live in a car centric environment with tiny walkable blocks that can't even get a 80 score rating on walkscore. LOL
1) You literally have pointed out time and time again the cohesion issues Houston has but suddenly when the same is done with Orlando you're all upset. You have literally pointed out that Orlando's core neighborhoods would essentially fit within downtown Houston (both population and area). The issue with this is that Downtown Houston is much more cohesive in its urban development than Orlando's core and it singlehandedly beats the ENTIRE core of Orlando. Then there is all of the other neighborhoods and their walkable areas as well in Houston. Orlando has no answer to the rest of Houston's neighborhoods.
2) I have already put up multiple links of Houston displaying this but since you want more here you go.
https://goo.gl/maps/f4iNrHh5wRFVxZ7B7 - don't know how you can try and discredit Rice Village as "not an actual neighborhood" when you keep boosting Thorton Park, a neighborhood/area with a similar land area and population.
Where Houston really starts pulling ahead is with residential neighborhood density
3) Literally no one hyped it up. All we said was that the area comprised of Post Midtown Square and Camden City Centre were about the size of South Eola. Those 10 or so blocks are literally the size of South Eola. The only reason we brought it up was to show that South Eola to Midtown was an apples to oranges comparison. We have been consistent with this from the start. I mean South Eola better be more consistent in its development than all of Midtown, its literally a 3x3 block neighborhood whereas Midtown is substantially larger. We used the example to prove there are several South Eola sized pockets in Houston's neighborhoods.
4) Do you know how to read?? I very clearly pointed out why using the French Quarter to justify South Eola's size is a horrendous comparison. South Eola is 3x3 block of walkability. It takes 5 minutes to walk from one end of the neighborhood to another no matter where you start. The French Quarter sustains its walkability over a substantially larger area. You can't walk through the neighborhood in 5 minutes. New Orleans is also described as more walkable than Houston because the expanse walkability in relation to the city is far greater than Houston. This isn't true with Orlando at all. This is not the got-ya moment you thought it was lmao. This is the most embarrassing thing you have tried this whole thread.
5) This was brought up to show how neighborhood to neighborhood comparisons between the two cities is not apples to apples. That CVS could quite literally be a different neighborhood if we used Orlando neighborhood definitions. And its not like Orlando's development is consistent either like I have pointed out in my last post.
6) Nice try bud. I live in Lincoln Park. I'm pretty sure I know how Chicago does its urban spaces. Definitely more than some troll who lives outside the beltway in a totally different city.
7) Yikes. According to you literally EVERY SINGLE core neighborhood in Orlando is not even able to match the population (or built expanse) of Downtown Houston alone. The built consistency of Downtown Houston far outweighs that of the core of Orlando. The subsections of Downtown Houston (which would be entire neighborhoods in Orlando) like Market Square, Avenida/Discovery Green, etc easily beat out Orlando's core neighborhoods. Then there's urban "pockets" of Midtown, Montrose, Museum District, The Heights, etc which have no answers in Orlando since the rest of Orlando is suburbia (I say "pockets" since these would be defined as neighborhoods in Orlando). Yes we know Houston is underwhelming for its size (I've pointed it out plenty) but it still beats Orlando by a decent margin.
8) Its laughable seeing you label Houston as car-centric sprawl when you're comparing it to ORLANDO of all places. Orlando is every bit as car centric if not even more. Houston still has a larger percentage of people who use public transit in relation to Orlando and while METRO is definitely subpar, it is still leagues above LYNX. Saying the 149k people living in walk scores above 70 in Houston are living in "car-centric sprawl" but assuming all the 19k people living in walk scores above 70 in Orlando are not is just another issue. The link on point 9 will clearly show there are sprawly areas in Orlando's core that also meet the 70 Walk Score threshold.
9) Yes Walk Score has it flaws but for you to assume those flaws are only beneficial to Houston is just a faulty assumption. I can do the same in reverse too. You're the one who brought Walk Score into here.
Bottom line, Houston has a larger expanse of area that can be deemed walkable, a larger population living in walkable areas, and a better transit system connecting these areas. This is undeniable. Downtown Houston alone beats the whole core of Orlando when it comes to shear expanse of urban development and population living in urban developments. Then theres every other node in Houston to which Orlando has no answer for. Carving out a bunch of small neighborhoods and saying "hey we have more and its more consistent within the neighborhood" is not going to work, Spending 2 days in a 3x3 block of walkability after living in the suburbs in Houston is not going to change the facts.
1) You literally have pointed out time and time again the cohesion issues Houston has but suddenly when the same is done with Orlando you're all upset. You have literally pointed out that Orlando's core neighborhoods would essentially fit within downtown Houston (both population and area). The issue with this is that Downtown Houston is much more cohesive in its urban development than Orlando's core and it singlehandedly beats the ENTIRE core of Orlando. Then there is all of the other neighborhoods and their walkable areas as well in Houston. Orlando has no answer to the rest of Houston's neighborhoods.
2) I have already put up multiple links of Houston displaying this but since you want more here you go.
https://goo.gl/maps/f4iNrHh5wRFVxZ7B7 - don't know how you can try and discredit Rice Village as "not an actual neighborhood" when you keep boosting Thorton Park, a neighborhood/area with a similar land area and population.
Where Houston really starts pulling ahead is with residential neighborhood density
3) Literally no one hyped it up. All we said was that the area comprised of Post Midtown Square and Camden City Centre were about the size of South Eola. Those 10 or so blocks are literally the size of South Eola. The only reason we brought it up was to show that South Eola to Midtown was an apples to oranges comparison. We have been consistent with this from the start. I mean South Eola better be more consistent in its development than all of Midtown, its literally a 3x3 block neighborhood whereas Midtown is substantially larger. We used the example to prove there are several South Eola sized pockets in Houston's neighborhoods.
4) Do you know how to read?? I very clearly pointed out why using the French Quarter to justify South Eola's size is a horrendous comparison. South Eola is 3x3 block of walkability. It takes 5 minutes to walk from one end of the neighborhood to another no matter where you start. The French Quarter sustains its walkability over a substantially larger area. You can't walk through the neighborhood in 5 minutes. New Orleans is also described as more walkable than Houston because the expanse walkability in relation to the city is far greater than Houston. This isn't true with Orlando at all. This is not the got-ya moment you thought it was lmao. This is the most embarrassing thing you have tried this whole thread.
5) This was brought up to show how neighborhood to neighborhood comparisons between the two cities is not apples to apples. That CVS could quite literally be a different neighborhood if we used Orlando neighborhood definitions. And its not like Orlando's development is consistent either like I have pointed out in my last post.
6) Nice try bud. I live in Lincoln Park. I'm pretty sure I know how Chicago does its urban spaces. Definitely more than some troll who lives outside the beltway in a totally different city.
7) Yikes. According to you literally EVERY SINGLE core neighborhood in Orlando is not even able to match the population (or built expanse) of Downtown Houston alone. The built consistency of Downtown Houston far outweighs that of the core of Orlando. The subsections of Downtown Houston (which would be entire neighborhoods in Orlando) like Market Square, Avenida/Discovery Green, etc easily beat out Orlando's core neighborhoods. Then there's urban "pockets" of Midtown, Montrose, Museum District, The Heights, etc which have no answers in Orlando since the rest of Orlando is suburbia (I say "pockets" since these would be defined as neighborhoods in Orlando). Yes we know Houston is underwhelming for its size (I've pointed it out plenty) but it still beats Orlando by a decent margin.
8) Its laughable seeing you label Houston as car-centric sprawl when you're comparing it to ORLANDO of all places. Orlando is every bit as car centric if not even more. Houston still has a larger percentage of people who use public transit in relation to Orlando and while METRO is definitely subpar, it is still leagues above LYNX. Saying the 149k people living in walk scores above 70 in Houston are living in "car-centric sprawl" but assuming all the 19k people living in walk scores above 70 in Orlando are not is just another issue. The link on point 9 will clearly show there are sprawly areas in Orlando's core that also meet the 70 Walk Score threshold.
9) Yes Walk Score has it flaws but for you to assume those flaws are only beneficial to Houston is just a faulty assumption. I can do the same in reverse too. You're the one who brought Walk Score into here.
Bottom line, Houston has a larger expanse of area that can be deemed walkable, a larger population living in walkable areas, and a better transit system connecting these areas. This is undeniable. Downtown Houston alone beats the whole core of Orlando when it comes to shear expanse of urban development and population living in urban developments. Then theres every other node in Houston to which Orlando has no answer for. Carving out a bunch of small neighborhoods and saying "hey we have more and its more consistent within the neighborhood" is not going to work, Spending 2 days in a 3x3 block of walkability after living in the suburbs in Houston is not going to change the facts.
Ok red lion is not a troll. In fact he’s generally a pretty ardent Houston defender who ironically can’t stand Austin
Yall keep saying that, but apart from the few disjointed blocks of S Eola that was offered yall have not offered any examples of this cohesiveness that is Orlando's neighborhoods.
For me, this is another one of those apples to oranges comparisons. Houston by itself as a metro, vs Orlando by itself as a metro, would be Houston for me. I’m often a bigger metro person, just a personal preference, nothing more or less. I prefer the weather in Orlando, and the side trips.
You ever think of how sprawly a city is when your “urban loop” is larger than a lot of cities?
Pardon me since i know nothing about urban planning.
I just thought of CDMX, its inner loop is humongous. Granted it’s a much walkable city than Houston, but the size of its loop is larger than a lot of cities too.
Not an urbaniste, but is “sprawl” really such a bad thing? I’m genuinely curious.
Not a seasoned poster in C-D so pardon my ignorance. Seemed to be such a cardinal sin here if a city is sprawling, not very walkable, not legacy……the impressions I got. L.A is sprawling like mad, not legacy and overall a car-centric city, doesn’t make it any less a legitimately wonderful and interesting city in my book. Same is Houston here.
Pardon me since i know nothing about urban planning.
I just thought of CDMX, its inner loop is humongous. Granted it’s a much walkable city than Houston, but the size of its loop is larger than a lot of cities too.
Not an urbaniste, but is “sprawl” really such a bad thing? I’m genuinely curious.
Not a seasoned poster in C-D so pardon my ignorance. Seemed to be such a cardinal sin here if a city is sprawling, not very walkable, not legacy……the impressions I got. L.A is sprawling like mad, not legacy and overall a car-centric city, doesn’t make it any less a legitimately wonderful and interesting city in my book. Same is Houston here.
Sprawl is something that urban planners have fought against for decades with the idea that more people should want to live in dense, walkable, urban areas as they are the most efficient way to deliver expected goods and services. The reason they have been mostly unsuccessful in slowing sprawl is because, frankly, the majority of people still prefer the SFH model over dense living.
So is sprawl bad? Depends on who you ask. Urbanists don't like it, most other people don't really care.
In the case of Houston and Orlando, both sprawl but both have been making notable upgrades in their urban environments in recent years to make them more walkable and livable. I'd say neither has an especially walkable urban environment in sum, but both have been making improvements at a rapid pace. Neither is a walking city at the end of the day though.
Sprawl is something that urban planners have fought against for decades with the idea that more people should want to live in dense, walkable, urban areas as they are the most efficient way to deliver expected goods and services. The reason they have been mostly unsuccessful in slowing sprawl is because, frankly, the majority of people still prefer the SFH model over dense living.
So is sprawl bad? Depends on who you ask. Urbanists don't like it, most other people don't really care.
In the case of Houston and Orlando, both sprawl but both have been making notable upgrades in their urban environments in recent years to make them more walkable and livable. I'd say neither has an especially walkable urban environment in sum, but both have been making improvements at a rapid pace. Neither is a walking city at the end of the day though.
Thank you (sincerely since I was genuinely curious.) for the detailed explanation. Very helpful.
I guess I had so many years of living in extremely dense, extremely walkable and public transportation-heavy cities (Taipei, Paris, Vienna and NYC) I actually am happier in SFH and i don’t mind the liberty of owning a car. Respect what the urban planners advocate and their effort, and I very much enjoyed whenever I was in walkable cities (two weeks ago in CDMX, Paris in Nov.) but I’m also perplexed (somewhat) when cities who aren’t get so much flacks, especially when they offer otherwise valuable and great amenities to residents.
Funny i actually walk A LOT in Houston, contrary to what people believe.
I’m a big city person, was and am and always will be, but I wouldn’t expect everyone else to love what I prefer. I see clearly why some prefer the tranquility and easiness of country living and the comfort of small town life.
Thanks again!
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.
