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.
There are parts of Atlanta that are diverse and quite a few interracial couples are there. There are also parts of the city that are compleately segregated.
I said in the case of a large city proper, like Houston. The city proper limits do just fine, as part of the city of Houston is suburban itself. People who want city life in Houston live inside the main highway, the loop and people who want suburban lifestyle live outside of it. It's urban and suburban all in one city. Once you go out of Houston's city limits then you're just talking about a something different. Houston is like a metro in itself. A lot of other major U.S. cities are different...not that that's bad, they just are. A lot of cities have a small city proper with a large metropolitan area. Houston is the opposite.
I understand that Houston has been known for aggressively annexing surrounding land that has any development in it. But, when comparing cities in anything, metropolitan distinctions are much more accurate than city proper distinctions. It's the marketplace more so than any lines dividing jurisdiction. Comparing by city propers would leave many large and well known areas like Boston, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Atlanta, and so on. They all have limited amounts of land in their city propers.
I know it's not your "fault" that D.C. is "tiny" and filled with government property, and it's not mine either. If anything, you could "blame" our country's early leaders and the American government. That still does not make any type of comparison between D.C. to Houston by using city proper distinctions accurate.
I am not trying to make this a competition between D.C. and Houston. The only reason I used the two was because they both are relatively similar in size of metropolitan population. I don't think either of them is the most diverse and integrated. Like I said before, I believe that Sacramento holds that distinction, even though some others believe that it's not a "major" city.
Last edited by tenken627; 02-29-2008 at 11:07 AM..
guess again, my dear. foreign born population has little to do with diversity.
I actually do think the foreign born population is very relevant to a city's diversity. This is especially the case in the South, where many ethnic minorities have immigrated to the region within the past 30 years (except those of Latin American descent). Were there many Asian Indians in Houston in the 1970's? I've never seen Houston in the 1970's personally, so maybe you can answer that for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi
you tell me that a city has 56% of foreign born natives, and for all i know, that could mean all 56% was born in mexico, while the rest of the city is white.
now let's say a city has only 24% of foreigners. in that 24% there could be hundreds and hundreds of different nationalities, in relatively smaller numbers, but it still makes that city highly diverse, with a rainbow of different people.
I never said Houston was not diverse, but can you prove to me that it is a top tier city in that regard? Do not other cities also have a rainbow of different people, with more amounts of each color in that rainbow? Houston has one VERY large color (from Mexico). And while it still has many other colors, the other colors are smaller than other cities in not just percentage, but actual numbers as well.
Maybe you are correct, and Houston is one of the top 5 cities in diversity, but show me some facts and evidence besides just spouting off that it is so. Like I said earlier, I actually am interested in the subject. And please don't use your 3rd highest number of consulates bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi
notice that on all those graphs, all of the nationalities could not fit in the circle. you can't prove a point if you don't have all the facts.
If you actually clicked on the link I provided when I initially posted those pie charts, you would have seen tables that show more nationalities that would not have been able to fit on the pie chart. I used the pie charts, because for many people, it's easier to read than looking at long tables.
The tables show that Houston has smaller numbers of foreign born in each nationality almost across the whole board than DC. Especially in the European, African and Asian nationalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi
see what i'm saying? houston has the third largest number of consulates of any city in the united states, and only new york and los angeles have more. more than 90 different languages are spoken here. not only this, but the city is highly integrated, making it the most eligible city on this list. those are the facts.
Houston does have a large amount of consulates, as it should. It is the most diverse city in the South. Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas all share the distinction of most influential cities in the American South, but Houston has much more foreign born than the other two. The most influential city in the East is New York, and the most influential city in the West is Los Angeles. Any foreign born in the South can head to a Houston consulate if need be.
Last edited by tenken627; 02-29-2008 at 11:16 AM..
DC has offices and embassies for every friendly and not so friendly country in the world?
Do you know there are distinctions between embassies and consulates? The number of embassies in the capital versus the number of consulates in a major city are not comparable.
I understand that Houston has been known for aggressively annexing surrounding land that has any development in it. But, when comparing cities in anything, metropolitan distinctions are much more accurate than city proper distinctions. It's the marketplace more so than any lines dividing jurisdiction. Comparing by city propers would leave many large and well known areas like Boston, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Atlanta, and so on. They all have limited amounts of land in their city propers.
So why would you need to use metropolitan areas? People who live outside of a city make a conscious decision to do so, for various reasons. Those cities are so dense, would it really be a problem for them to stack one more floor on top of a high-rise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627
I know it's not your "fault" that D.C. is "tiny" and filled with government property, and it's not mine either. If anything, you could "blame" our country's early leaders and the American government. That still does not make any type of comparison between D.C. to Houston by using city proper distinctions accurate.
I think thats true, but you have to understand that they are built differently. Houston's metro is much more diluted as the majority of the people LIVE in the city and not the surrounding metro (which is not true for many other cities), so the comparison metro vs. houston city proper would actually be quite accurate.
I am not trying to make this a competition between D.C. and Houston. The only reason I used the two was because they both are relatively similar in size of metropolitan population. I don't think either of them is the most diverse and integrated. Like I said before, I believe that Sacramento holds that distinction, even though some others believe that it's not a "major" city.[/quote]
You should probably take land area into account with that too. Sacramento just might, but I also agree that it is not a major city.
So why would you need to use metropolitan areas? People who live outside of a city make a conscious decision to do so, for various reasons. Those cities are so dense, would it really be a problem for them to stack one more floor on top of a high-rise?
I think thats true, but you have to understand that they are built differently. Houston's metro is much more diluted as the majority of the people LIVE in the city and not the surrounding metro (which is not true for many other cities), so the comparison metro vs. houston city proper would actually be quite accurate.
You should probably take land area into account with that too. Sacramento just might, but I also agree that it is not a major city.
You are correct. People who live outside of a city made that decision. But, there are other factors into play, mainly price and availability. Houston could have chosen to build more densely as well, but they made the choice of just annexing land instead, which the other cities can not do because of legal reasons.
In the case of DC, there just isn't any land to annex unless Maryland or Virginia is willing to give up land since it is a city state. Also, there is a federal law limiting the height of buildings in DC to a meager 130 feet. You can't stack another level of high rises because there are no high rises within the city.
I understand that much of the population in Houston's metropolitan area is actually in the city of Houston itself. But, that just means the city of Houston encompasses much of the Houston metropolitan area. If Houston's city proper was only 60 square miles, the Houston metropolitan area would still be the same.
You are correct. People who live outside of a city made that decision. But, there are other factors into play, mainly price and availability. Houston could have chosen to build more densely as well, but they made the choice of just annexing land instead, which the other cities can not do because of legal reasons.
I think the predecessors decided to take advantage of the laws of Texas that other states don't afford.
Quote:
I understand that much of the population in Houston's metropolitan area is actually in the city of Houston itself. But, that just means the city of Houston encompasses much of the Houston metropolitan area. If Houston's city proper was only 60 square miles, the Houston metropolitan area would still be the same.
We would end up contending with Galveston instead. They would take away the coastal counties from us and try to create a separate identity like Dayton and Cincinnati or Cleveland and Akron-Canton.
I think the predecessors decided to take advantage of the laws of Texas that other states don't afford.
You are absolutely right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown
We would end up contending with Galveston instead. They would take away the coastal counties from us and try to create a separate identity like Dayton and Cincinnati or Cleveland and Akron-Canton.
The other areas may indeed be incorporated into different cities with a separate identity, they still would fall under the Houston metropolitan area like how Galveston is.
Much like how Dayton is figured in the Cincinnati MSA and Akron-Canton is figured in the Cleveland MSA.
While these areas may end up being under different local government jurisdictions if Houston was only 60 square miles, they would still be Houston's market. Houston's metropolitan would remain unchanged.
You are correct. People who live outside of a city made that decision. But, there are other factors into play, mainly price and availability. Houston could have chosen to build more densely as well, but they made the choice of just annexing land instead, which the other cities can not do because of legal reasons.
In the case of DC, there just isn't any land to annex unless Maryland or Virginia is willing to give up land since it is a city state. Also, there is a federal law limiting the height of buildings in DC to a meager 130 feet. You can't stack another level of high rises because there are no high rises within the city.
I understand that much of the population in Houston's metropolitan area is actually in the city of Houston itself. But, that just means the city of Houston encompasses much of the Houston metropolitan area. If Houston's city proper was only 60 square miles, the Houston metropolitan area would still be the same.
Couldn't have said it better my self.
Wow, that sucks. Talk about dead end! People best keep filling up those burbs.
You are correct. People who live outside of a city made that decision. But, there are other factors into play, mainly price and availability. Houston could have chosen to build more densely as well, but they made the choice of just annexing land instead, which the other cities can not do because of legal reasons.
In the case of DC, there just isn't any land to annex unless Maryland or Virginia is willing to give up land since it is a city state. Also, there is a federal law limiting the height of buildings in DC to a meager 130 feet. You can't stack another level of high rises because there are no high rises within the city.
I understand that much of the population in Houston's metropolitan area is actually in the city of Houston itself. But, that just means the city of Houston encompasses much of the Houston metropolitan area. If Houston's city proper was only 60 square miles, the Houston metropolitan area would still be the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bymendipside
Couldn't have said it better my self.
Wow, that sucks. Talk about dead end! People best keep filling up those burbs.
True, but not getting your point.
I think I get the point; let me try. The Houston metro would be the same size regardless of the size of the city, yes? Interestingly, in geographically smaller cities, the city people complain that the suburban folks have all the advantages of the city with the lower taxes of the suburbs. At least in Houston, most people are paying taxes to support Houston's infrastructure, arts facitlites, etc.
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.
