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.
If I am inferring correctly, your plan is to create a Development Czar that tells people "I don't care how you want to live, you will live in a tiny, cramped high rise hovel in a location I determine, because I am far smarter than you, better looking, and am the God of Development decisions". Good luck with that. Once you start, I will need some notice to open my torches and pitchfork store.
The "sprawl" horse is out of the gate for Houston at this point. It's not going away. Deal with it.
Actually you have only commented on the fact that "it's walk able" and thus makes it all good for the environment. However you fail to acknowledge when you spout off that Houston "needs to get denser and more urban", that urban development is not good for earth, environments, ecosystems, climate...etc.
Quote:
Sure they did...you are claiming that urban development is walk able and therefore wonderful for the environment...I am simply showing how urban development is not as eco friendly as you are trying to sell.
Quote:
This again? LOL
Quote:
No this thread was started so you could tell all of us how Post-Harvey Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban. Population growth is what drives Urban development...so yes it's actually related to the topic.
Quote:
Your claims are nothing more than your opinion. You fail to look at the facts surrounding the damaging effects of Urban development. You think your opinion is simply common sense but it has nothing to do with common sense.
You are getting too hung up on the semantics. Yes, "urban" relates to anything characteristic of cities/towns, regardless of build pattern. But it can also refer to build patterns that are pedestrian friendly, as used in the title, and often on City Data and other city-based forums.
Again, I've already acknowledged that any type of urban growth will impact the environment. So that is why I'm advocating for the form that provides least impact: dense walkability.
Quote:
This has nothing to do with my point.
Quote:
Does it really matter what contributes to a population increase? The fact that a population is increasing is the point.
Overpopulation is a worldwide issue, with much of the problem going beyond US borders, as shown with places like India.
People entering a country from another area (immigration) is not the same type of growth as creating more people in the first place (births); the former contributes only to growth for the area, while the latter actually adds to the worldwide population.
Since overpopulation is a worldwide issue, it would obviously be beyond the scope of Houston, and so would not really have much to do with the thread. Thus, there is no need to discuss overpopulation in this thread anymore: go start a thread about it in the Great Debates forum if you want to discuss the issue further.
Quote:
That's only a part it it. You left out a whole slew of other pollutants the US spews around such as chemicals, pesticides, drugs, farmland runoff, etc.
Quote:
The key is pushing for finding better energy sources...not pushing for living conditions of being stacking on top of each other surrounded by concrete.
And there's no disagreement with that. But the goal is to maximize health and sustainability of the land. So yes, better energy sources will help out tremendously...but better energy sources and efficient development patterns (dense walkable urbanity) would help out even more so.
Quote:
This is nothing more then your skewed opinion.
Quote:
High density is an efficient way to manage high populations? Exactly how are these high populations being managed?
High density is a more efficient way than sprawl to manage any issues associated with high population.
Quote:
Never claimed otherwise.
You brought up filth supposedly going "hand in hand" with urban living, and I showed that this isn't necessarily the case. These are two different circumstances.
Overpopulation is a worldwide issue, with much of the problem going beyond US borders, as shown with places like India.
It's also a problem right here in the US. The reason China and India have such high populations is due to the fact those countries are large and have been around for centuries.
China has been the world's most populous nation for many centuries.
The United States has the largest population in the developed world, ***and is the only developed nation experiencing significant population growth***.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
People entering a country from another area (immigration) is not the same type of growth as creating more people in the first place (births); the former contributes only to growth for the area, while the latter actually adds to the worldwide population.
This is not very logical. For a person to immigrate to the US they would have to be born right? So yes these immigrants are contributing to an increased world population and the fact that they move to the US means they are contributing to our significant population growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Since overpopulation is a worldwide issue, it would obviously be beyond the scope of Houston, and so would not really have much to do with the thread.
Again not very logical. Do you realize the population of Houston has been increasing? Yes that's right as the world population increases so will the population of all major cities. Just good ole common sense here.
Houston is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States and its population in 2016 is estimated to be 2,303,482. Houston's population density is estimated to be 3,662 people per square mile. Houston is the most crowded city in Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Thus, there is no need to discuss overpopulation in this thread anymore.
Houston's growing population intertwines with Urban development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
go start a thread about it in the Great Debates forum if you want to discuss the issue further.
I recommed you do the same with your unsubstantiated opinions about how Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
And there's no disagreement with that. But the goal is to maximize health and sustainability of the land. So yes, better energy sources will help out tremendously...but better energy sources and efficient development patterns (dense walkable urbanity) would help out even more so.
LOL at your only one argument "it's walkable" therefore it's good for the environment while ignoring that urban development destroys environments, increases flooding, destroys ecosystems, as well as the following:
Intensive urban growth can lead to greater poverty, with local governments unable to provide services for all people.
Concentrated energy use leads to greater air pollution with significant impact on human health.
Automobile exhaust produces elevated lead levels in urban air.
Large volumes of uncollected waste create multiple health hazards.
Urban development can magnify the risk of environmental hazards such as flash flooding.
Pollution and physical barriers to root growth promote loss of urban tree cover.
Animal populations are inhibited by toxic substances, vehicles, and the loss of habitat and food sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
High density is a more efficient way than sprawl to manage any issues associated with high population.
I will ask you now a second time. Exactly what issues are being managed and how are they being managed more efficiently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
You brought up filth supposedly going "hand in hand" with urban living, and I showed that this isn't necessarily the case. These are two different circumstances.
Yes it typically follows urban living. SF and NYC are great examples of this.
There are people who actually have "BART" clothing to wear to and from home due to the BART being so fifthly. They ware their BART cloths over their work clothing and some even have BART shoes.
That's one thing I miss about living in Houston...how clean downtown is.
Release of Addicks Dam to alleviate overflow - cheap McMansions swamped because they were sprawled in the way.
Concrete all over upstream that decreases perlocation, increasing the amount of runoff to the bayous to flood downstream.
List goes on. All these deaths, and all these property damage instances would easily have been avoided if Houston were a dense walkable city.
Nonsense. Lots of pompous talk but neither you nor anyone else can provide a real example of such a "dense walkable city" handling 50" rain in a few days without flooding. Blah blah blah, lots of sidetracking and bloviating, but no example. Not interested in another word out of your mouth until you name the place, date of the event, with references.
Most deaths were from people attempting to evacuate rather than stay in place. In a denser area you would have more people doing this in one place and more people getting stuck and drowning. Evacuation becomes the logistical nightmare of Katrina. And forget the silly idea that multi-story apartments means you just stay in the upper floors. The upper floors may be dry but they are not habitable without power, water, food, etc.
The comments about the dam are disenginuous. That has nothing to do with density or sprawl. That's an issue of building in the wrong place not building the wrong way. A dense walkable zone built in the same place would have flooded the same way. Plenty of blame to go around there. Lots of maps depicting flood zones so people know the risks of building in a location or the need to insure such building. Show me one map depicting the projected flood zones of controlled dam releases. I'll bet most people had no idea that authorities would open the dams and knowingly flood hundreds of homes.
Ground percolation is a factor in moderate rainfall but makes no difference in the kind of rain we have in tropical events. After 10" or so the ground is saturated and is running off bare earth. Concrete does decrease resistance and allow faster runoff so why aren't the bayous concrete-lined like the channels in LA?
The solution to flooding isn't denser walkable (as if mode of transportation has anything to do with it) development but better drainage systems, wider and deeper bayous that are concreted with pumping stations. I promise the ocean can take as much runoff as we throw at it.
I think it's pretty obvious to most here that you are just pushing an agenda for "walkable" development. You probably couldn't care less about flooding but you think you can use it to sneak in your agenda.
I think it's pretty obvious to most here that you are just pushing an agenda for "walkable" development. You probably couldn't care less about flooding but you think you can use it to sneak in your agenda.
The OP reminds me of this guy reincarnated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise
Not disputing that at all.
The context of the discussion is primarily concerned with the idea that increased urban fabric and more dense, walkable connectivity among attractions, neighborhoods, etc. is it what will help Houston from being overlooked. I don't know if that will work or if it's even possible in Houston, given the points that have been discussed.
It's also a problem right here in the US. The reason China and India have such high populations is due to the fact those countries are large and have been around for centuries.
China has been the world's most populous nation for many centuries.
The United States has the largest population in the developed world, ***and is the only developed nation experiencing significant population growth***.
Quote:
This is not very logical. For a person to immigrate to the US they would have to be born right? So yes these immigrants are contributing to an increased world population and the fact that they move to the US means they are contributing to our significant population growth.
The overpopulation issue involves the entire world, beyond just the US. Far from being a Houston-specific issue. It's off tangent from the thread, therefore, there will be no further discussion on it. Take it to Great Debates.
Quote:
Again not very logical. Do you realize the population of Houston has been increasing? Yes that's right as the world population increases so will the population of all major. Just good ole common sense here.
Houston is one of the fastest growing in the United States and its population in 2016 is estimated to be 2,303,482. Houston's population density is estimated to be 3,662 people per square mile. Houston is the most crowded city in Texas.
Quote:
Houston's growing population intertwines with Urban development.
Quote:
I recommend you do the same with your unsubstantiated opinions about how Houston Needs To Get Denser And More Urban.
Quote:
LOL at your only one argument "it's walkable" therefore it's good for the environment while ignoring that urban development destroys environments, increases flooding, destroys ecosystems, as well as the following:
Intensive urban growth can lead to greater poverty, with local governments unable to provide services for all people.
Concentrated energy use leads to greater air pollution with significant impact on human health.
Automobile exhaust produces elevated lead levels in urban air.
Large volumes of uncollected waste create multiple health hazards.
Urban development can magnify the risk of environmental hazards such as flash flooding.
Pollution and physical barriers to root growth promote loss of urban tree cover.
Animal populations are inhibited by toxic substances, vehicles, and the loss of habitat and food sources.
Quote:
I will ask you now a second time. Exactly what issues are being managed and how are they being managed more efficiently?
Houston is a fast growing city and management of land and resources will obviously be important. This is especially the case given the city's storm-prone location. That is exactly why I advocate for the urban growth form that causes least impact to the environment: dense walkability.
Dense walkability is more ideal than sprawl for reasons I've provided to you numerous times already:
Quote:
Walkable urbanity constitutes far less of a energy usage, ecological impact, and footprint compared to suburban sprawl. Less automobiles required as there would be greater public transit, more intact natural landscape since there will be less sq miles of land built up, etc.
There are people who actually have "BART" clothing to wear to and from home due to the BART being so fifthly. They ware their BART cloths over their work clothing and some even have BART shoes.
That's one thing I miss about living in Houston...how clean downtown is.
Chicago is a large, urban city as well, with a very clean downtown. Even in places like SF, the filth is only in key areas, not spread all over the city.
So filth and urbanity certainly don't go hand in hand.
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.
