Why do people think that the Southern areas of Houston are treeless? (Pearland: suburbia, trees)

[soletaire]

Originally Posted by mega man

Exactly. Coastal plains. So even if you're in a part of town where there are literally no trees, one couldn't even describe it as barren, because you'll still be in an area with ample humidity and above average rainfall.

Tall trees or no trees, Houston is lush all over.

Perfectly stated

Ive long noticed that even the most sparsely treed areas of Houston are extremely verdant. I personally like that about Houston...you hardly ever just encounter that yellowish brown landscape you find in other parts of Texas

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by soletaire

Perfectly stated

Ive long noticed that even the most sparsely treed areas of Houston are extremely verdant. I personally like that about Houston...you hardly ever just encounter that yellowish brown landscape you find in other parts of Texas

Clearly the coastal plains of Houston cannot be compared to the Blackland Prairies seen further inland in the state, not even down to the soil; with all the rainfall Houston gets, over the years, even some of the clay soils have been leached to the point of having an acidic pH, in contrast to the usual basic pH of clay soils seen in the Blackland Prairie. The cracks in Houston's clay soils aren't open for long either. Just watch Southeastern vegetation become even more ubiquitous than it already is over the years.

I started this thread because before I visited the Houston area, I had people telling me that Sugar Land was a field...

[soletaire]

Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA

Clearly the coastal plains of Houston cannot be compared to the Blackland Prairies seen further inland in the state, not even down to the soil; with all the rainfall Houston gets, over the years, even some of the clay soils have been leached to the point of having an acidic pH, in contrast to the usual basic pH of clay soils seen in the Blackland Prairie. The cracks in Houston's clay soils aren't open for long either. Just watch Southeastern vegetation become even more ubiquitous than it already is over the years.

I started this thread because before I visited the Houston area, I had people telling me that Sugar Land was a field...

Its a field in the sense that its flat as a pancake...but Sugarland is very green almost year round and heavily treed in its undeveloped areas.

[atlbraves49]

A lot of people in Houston are transplants from other parts of the country, including states where there are vast forests everywhere you drive. The areas south of Houston just don't have that. Sure you'll have some trees here and there, but not the forests that non-Houstonions are used to.

Source: Have lived in the Northeast US, and southern areas of Houston. Everything south of the woodlands is barren compared to a lot of the US.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

A lot of people in Houston are transplants from other parts of the country, including states where there are vast forests everywhere you drive. The areas south of Houston just don't have that. Sure you'll have some trees here and there, but not the forests that non-Houstonions are used to.

Source: Have lived in the Northeast US, and southern areas of Houston. Everything south of the woodlands is barren compared to a lot of the US.

I'd venture to say that the "vast forests" part of the country is a minority share of the total land area of the lower 48. Even the coastal plains part of Houston doesn't seem any less lush than what you'll find from Illinois westward (northwest U.S. coast and high elevation mountains excepted, but those are pretty small areas relative to the whole country).

Of course, many of the more densely populated areas of the U.S. do correspond to well-treed areas, so as far as the share of the population goes, I can see that a large number of people might be more used to that.

Still, they may not be continuously forested, but the southern and western portions of the Houston metro hardly feel "treeless." There are vast areas of the country where that adjective is much more apt.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

A lot of people in Houston are transplants from other parts of the country, including states where there are vast forests everywhere you drive. The areas south of Houston just don't have that. Sure you'll have some trees here and there, but not the forests that non-Houstonions are used to.

Source: Have lived in the Northeast US, and southern areas of Houston. Everything south of the woodlands is barren compared to a lot of the US.

Inside the loop is not "barren" compared to most other cities.

Most cities don't have vast forests. LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, DC, just don't recall any forests.

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by atlbraves49

A lot of people in Houston are transplants from other parts of the country, including states where there are vast forests everywhere you drive. The areas south of Houston just don't have that. Sure you'll have some trees here and there, but not the forests that non-Houstonions are used to.

Source: Have lived in the Northeast US, and southern areas of Houston. Everything south of the woodlands is barren compared to a lot of the US.

I think "Everything south of the woodlands" is an overstatement--especially considering the area I live in (Spring Branch Woods). There are a lot of trees in Houston in a lot of areas. There are also a lot of flat, ugly areas without very many trees.

[bu2]

Atlanta is pretty unique in being forested in the city, not the rule.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by bu2

Inside the loop is not "barren" compared to most other cities.

Most cities don't have vast forests. LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, DC, just don't recall any forests.

If any of you have ever been fairly high in one of the towers downtown, you would know that you don't see anything but other towers and trees.

[atlbraves49]

Originally Posted by bu2

Inside the loop is not "barren" compared to most other cities.

Most cities don't have vast forests. LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, DC, just don't recall any forests.

You're comparing large Urban densely populated areas for trees? Um.. really?

Refer back to the OP. The premise is areas south of Houston and the woodlands. No one mentioned downtown Houston.

Once you leave the city of NYC, you're surrounded by forests (likewise with Philadelphia or DC). You go south of Houston, you're surrounded by majority open plains with the occasional trees.