Why does Central/East Texas Geography receive so much condemnation when it's not much different than Illinois or Ohio? (pine, suburbs)
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.
Well there you have it. I have heard the bluebonnet blooms, etc. are spectacular. I don't doubt springtime in Texas is lovely. But this does not take away from the fact that Central Texas has just a completely different landscape and climate than Ohio. Not being a desert =/= being as lush as Ohio. Step into a forest in either and you're sure to feel that.
Oh no arguments there. It looks nothing like Ohio.
One of the strengths of being east of the Mississippi is how green it is. One of the weaknesses is how generic the greenery can sometimes look. Texas definitely is more unique looking.
Interesting. I went an hour or so north to this random lake in Central Texas. Looks different, but still not very lush. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Un...!4d-97.5996579
Am I just finding anomalies? Serious question. I actually spent a summer in Austin, TX, and while there were some lush-ish areas, the overall terrain I was exposed to was nothing like Ohio in regards to greenery. But, I didn't go all over Central Texas while I was there, mainly the Austin metro area and the Texas Hill Country.
My comment wasn't suggesting that Central Texas is lush like Ohio. I actually agree that Central Texas is not the most lush-ish area especially when compared to Ohio. I was just stating that area you posted up is actually an anomaly of Central Texas. Bastrop is probably the greenest area of Central Texas. It also has pine trees( even though I think a lot were destroyed due to a big fire some years ago) that's not common at all in Central Texas. But your observation of Central Texas is spot on. It's not the desert but the greenery is lacking compared to other states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas
I guess I was meaning people who have travelled to Dallas, Austin or Houston for work etc, even if briefly, can get a pretty good idea of the terrain of those areas that corresponds pretty well to where TENS of millions of Texans live. Very few of my colleagues in Boston, Chicago think Texas is a desert, because they have all travelled to those cities, even if for a single day business trip, connection flight or layover. What I mean is there's not some secret stash of lushness in DFW that people are misinterpreting when they think about DFW terrain and environment.
They might not think of it as a desert but I've heard quite a few people be absolutely shocked at the amount of tree coverage a city like Houston has. I hear that enough to know people don't understand the variety of terrains that exist within the state. The 3 cities you named are literally in 3 different regions and anyone familiar with these areas can tell that there is a difference. DFW is in the prairies and lakes region. Austin is in Hill Country and Houston is in the gulf coast region.
Here's a map that I think would give you a good idea of how lush and well-watered a place truly is. As you can see it's pretty much only East Texas and the upper Gulf Coast that's on par with the rest of the eastern United States. So I think that would make Central Texas comparable to the interior/plains Midwest but definitely not the Great Lakes region
My comment wasn't suggesting that Central Texas is lush like Ohio. I actually agree that Central Texas is not the most lush-ish area especially when compared to Ohio. I was just stating that area you posted up is actually an anomaly of Central Texas. Bastrop is probably the greenest area of Central Texas. It also has pine trees( even though I think a lot were destroyed due to a big fire some years ago) that's not common at all in Central Texas. But your observation of Central Texas is spot on. It's not the desert but the greenery is lacking compared to other states.
They might not think of it as a desert but I've heard quite a few people be absolutely shocked at the amount of tree coverage a city like Houston has. I hear that enough to know people don't understand the variety of terrains that exist within the state. The 3 cities you named are literally in 3 different regions and anyone familiar with these areas can tell that there is a difference. DFW is in the prairies and lakes region. Austin is in Hill Country and Houston is in the gulf coast region.
Tree coverage in Houston is far higher than it was 100 years ago. As the City expanded and houses were built, more and more trees were planted. If you look at the Google Earth aerials from 1944 as compared to now, the difference is striking.
The trees around the Rice University campus were planted by the founder of Teas Nursery. Before that, Rice pretty much sat on open prairie, except where the remnants of a bayou tributary were located.
Houston sits in an area that is prairie on the far West and NW side and forest on the NE side. However, Houston area mostly is in the Gulf Coastal Plains. By terrain, it looks very little like Austin, SA, and DFW. You can tell by going from Sugarland to Atascocita that the look has changed. I don't think any other Texas metro has that big of a change like that.
Central Texas is a transition zone. It's drier than East Texas but has more moisture than West Texas. That's partly why it looks that way. Aesthetically, it's ok except for a couple spots but it is not that bad. I agree with the person that pointed out the region where Amarillo down to Fort Stockton isn't all that pleasant. But I bet once you get west of Pecos, it probably starts to look better as the transition is complete and you're no longer in the humid "eastern" part of the US.
It's disappointing that movies and shows are still using outdated stereotypes to portray Texas.
Young Sheldon for example is supposed to be set in Texas( East of Houston ) and the opening credits showed them in an area with wheat brown grass, mountain vistas in the background, and they threw in a cow to complete the stereotype..
Where are they getting mountain backdrops in Southeast Texas?
Its interesting that during the cretaceous period the Rockies and the Appalachian mountains were completely separated by sea. So everything from New Mexico to Arkansas (originally part of the Appalachian range) was under water. So the great plains down to Texas and Texas east to Florida was under the ocean. Texas and Florida were two of the last states to fill in. It's also interesting that the Red River to this day is slightly brackish because of salt deposits from salt deposits that remained from way back then.
It's disappointing that movies and shows are still using outdated stereotypes to portray Texas.
Young Sheldon for example is supposed to be set in Texas( East of Houston ) and the opening credits showed them in an area with wheat brown grass, mountain vistas in the background, and they threw in a cow to complete the stereotype..
Where are they getting mountain backdrops in Southeast Texas?
Its interesting that during the cretaceous period the Rockies and the Appalachian mountains were completely separated by sea. So everything from New Mexico to Arkansas (originally part of the Appalachian range) was under water. So the great plains down to Texas and Texas east to Florida was under the ocean. Texas and Florida were two of the last states to fill in. It's also interesting that the Red River to this day is slightly brackish because of salt deposits from salt deposits that remained from way back then.
During the Cretaceous, much of Texas that exists today did not exist. The part that was underwater is now under 30,000 feet of sediments deposited since the Cretaceous
Texas on the whole is uglier than it should be - and that essentially boils down to the prevailing attitude of the state, seeking $$$ over set aside spaces. Literally every state bordering Texas: New Mexico, Coahuila, Louisiana, Arkansas... has better public land and natural assets.
Now one could say, well that's just because they have better geography and stuff to work with - and that's partially true, but Texas isn't Nebraska. There used to be jaguars roaming through there and the native forests were probably pretty cool before they were logged. That aside, there simply isn't any consistent large chunks of public land and big trail networks to use what they do have, the whole state is barb wired off, and that's a huge problem for QOL. I think Missouri is a good counter example - it's a state with about a similar natural potential (worse weather but a little cooler geography). But Missouri has a greater focus on developing an outdoor experience, and it shows, it's one of the more outdoorsy states despite not having a defining feature like the a great lake shore or a Glacier NP.
To the OPs point though, I think Indiana and Texas are at similar levels of underperformace. Illinois was kinda destined to be farming central, Indiana not so much.
Georgia has the wall of trees too, but there's a world of difference between a healthy hardwood forest and a pine plantation. Hardwood forests don't generate nearly the same amount of $$ revenue though.
I was born and raised in the arid West (in Southern California, to be exact), so I’m used to more barren and dry landscapes. Sure, the mountains surrounding the LA area have beautiful forests and green areas, but the flatlands are fairly barren, save for a few pockets of oak woodland that still exist and of course the artificial landscapes that predominate the area.
But I absolutely love trees and forests and natural grasslands and the fauna that exists in such areas. I’m currently in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and this area is very nice. It’s so very forested and green out here, especially compared to Southern California. The woods surrounding the Chattanooga metro are thick and vast. It’s awesome.
Also, the drive from Chattanooga down into Atlanta is very pretty too; it’s like cutting a narrow swath down a big, gigantic forest, one that doesn’t really open up and widen until
you reach the Atlanta suburbs.
I’m loving being down South so far!
As for Texas — I’ve only really experienced the northern panhandle (through Amarillo); I’ve driven I-40 numerous times over the years, and I don’t particularly like anything about the Texas panhandle. It could be Kansas for all I know. Same look and feel.
I also flew into El Paso one time years ago, and I didn’t like that area all that much, either. El Paso sort of resembles the Inland Empire of Southern California (the Riverside/San Bernardino area), which is to say that it’s rather dry and barren looking, so nothing much to see in my opinion.
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.
