Why this guy(not me) HATES Houston

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Spade

I was wondering if that video made it on here.

FACTS. To be honest, I think to an extent, they go hand in hand. But I don't disagree with much of what he said about Houston. Terrible planning led to this and it is not sustainable. Even Los Angeles to a smaller extent saw this as LA is pretty dense on its own accord. The thing is this isn't just Houston. This is pretty much any place built in America that saw most of its greatest growth post world war 2. I mean even he thought Houston was better than Phoenix in this regard.

Nah Los Angeles didn't really see this. The LA area was planned with a lot of detail. There are hardly any mistakes in the planning of the area. In fact, many of the arterial streets in SoCal are wide but don't have much traffic because traffic distribution was planned so meticulously. The problem LA had was it was cheap (relatively) and everyone wanted to move there. This caused a rise in the density of people thus creating the traffic jams. If LA had Houston-type planning, it would have been 10x worse.

Houston on the other hand cut a lot of corners. There wouldn't be as much of a mess now had it been planned like LA was, which had a few decades head start on Houston's fast-paced growth. Phoenix is growing like inland LA. It was also planned pretty well so even though it's built post-WWII style, it is more sustainable. There are sidewalks that lead to city centers, that have become centers of the growing bedroom communities out there. The grid layout is also more consistent, and the freeways with better designs like direct HOV-to-HOV connections. Houston can't really say the same.

There's definitely more pedestrian activity in the LA and Phoenix areas when compared to Houston.

Again I say Houston is pretty unique when it comes to this. The only other metro area like it would be Atlanta, but Atlanta has small county sizes and multiple small towns within those counties that have their own local feel, which the Houston area doesn't have much of.

[kwr]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Nah Los Angeles didn't really see this. The LA area was planned with a lot of detail. There are hardly any mistakes in the planning of the area. In fact, many of the arterial streets in SoCal are wide but don't have much traffic because traffic distribution was planned so meticulously. The problem LA had was it was cheap (relatively) and everyone wanted to move there. This caused a rise in the density of people thus creating the traffic jams. If LA had Houston-type planning, it would have been 10x worse.

Houston on the other hand cut a lot of corners. There wouldn't be as much of a mess now had it been planned like LA was, which had a few decades head start on Houston's fast-paced growth. Phoenix is growing like inland LA. It was also planned pretty well so even though it's built post-WWII style, it is more sustainable. There are sidewalks that lead to city centers, that have become centers of the growing bedroom communities out there. The grid layout is also more consistent, and the freeways with better designs like direct HOV-to-HOV connections. Houston can't really say the same.

There's definitely more pedestrian activity in the LA and Phoenix areas when compared to Houston.

Again I say Houston is pretty unique when it comes to this. The only other metro area like it would be Atlanta, but Atlanta has small county sizes and multiple small towns within those counties that have their own local feel, which the Houston area doesn't have much of.

I am in agreement with you for the most part excluding Phoenix. Maybe if you cherry pick in Phoenix, you could make that statement. You could cherry pick in Houston as well.

I am re-sharing a list from D Magazine.

Walkable Urbanism Rankings for the 30 Largest U.S. Metros
(based on percentage of office, retail, and multifamily buildings)

1. New York City
2. Washington, D.C.
3. Boston
4. Chicago
5. San Francisco
6. Seattle
7. Portland
8. Pittsburgh
9. Denver
10. Philadelphia
11. Atlanta
12. Charlotte
13. Minneapolis-St. Paul
14. Cleveland
15. St. Louis
16. Kansas City
17. Los Angeles ***
18. Cincinnati
19. Baltimore
20. Houston ***
21. Detroit
22. Miami
23. Sacramento
24. San Diego
25. Dallas
26. Las Vegas
27. Tampa
28. San Antonio
29. Phoenix ***
30. Orlando

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Nah Los Angeles didn't really see this. The LA area was planned with a lot of detail. There are hardly any mistakes in the planning of the area. In fact, many of the arterial streets in SoCal are wide but don't have much traffic because traffic distribution was planned so meticulously. The problem LA had was it was cheap (relatively) and everyone wanted to move there. This caused a rise in the density of people thus creating the traffic jams. If LA had Houston-type planning, it would have been 10x worse.

Houston on the other hand cut a lot of corners. There wouldn't be as much of a mess now had it been planned like LA was, which had a few decades head start on Houston's fast-paced growth. Phoenix is growing like inland LA. It was also planned pretty well so even though it's built post-WWII style, it is more sustainable. There are sidewalks that lead to city centers, that have become centers of the growing bedroom communities out there. The grid layout is also more consistent, and the freeways with better designs like direct HOV-to-HOV connections. Houston can't really say the same.

There's definitely more pedestrian activity in the LA and Phoenix areas when compared to Houston.

Again I say Houston is pretty unique when it comes to this. The only other metro area like it would be Atlanta, but Atlanta has small county sizes and multiple small towns within those counties that have their own local feel, which the Houston area doesn't have much of.

I honestly don't know how much "planning" was done for L.A. Most of its growth happened 1910 - 1960, with the SFV I guess still growing into the 60s and 70s. While there was a whole lot of vertical building after 1960, the layout / framework of the city was pretty established by 1960. And frankly very large areas of the city were built before WWII. So I view places like L.A. and Detroit as archetypal 1920s cities - lower density than cities of the earlier era but still with a highly connected street grid or network. The buildings constructed after 1960 were still built within that framework.

Houston, on the other hand, except for portions of the core inside the Loop (and only portions of it), is largely a 1955 - 1985 city in terms of street framework. Connectivity of streets wasn't a big consideration. The emphasis was rather on freeways and highways. Superblocks became common. A lot of city layout errors were made during that era.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

I honestly don't know how much "planning" was done for L.A. Most of its growth happened 1910 - 1960, with the SFV I guess still growing into the 60s and 70s. While there was a whole lot of vertical building after 1960, the layout / framework of the city was pretty established by 1960. And frankly very large areas of the city were built before WWII. So I view places like L.A. and Detroit as archetypal 1920s cities - lower density than cities of the earlier era but still with a highly connected street grid or network. The buildings constructed after 1960 were still built within that framework.

Houston, on the other hand, except for portions of the core inside the Loop (and only portions of it), is largely a 1955 - 1985 city in terms of street framework. Connectivity of streets wasn't a big consideration. The emphasis was rather on freeways and highways. Superblocks became common. A lot of city layout errors were made during that era.

That's still planning. It's not like Houston didn't exist then, so those running the city could have planned it out more using LA as a model once it was apparent growth was coming to Houston. But even post-WWII SoCal was planned better if you look at areas like the South Bay, San Gabriel Valley, or north Orange County. They didn't build where they were going to live cheaply. There was much more care taken.

Originally Posted by kwr

I am in agreement with you for the most part excluding Phoenix. Maybe if you cherry pick in Phoenix, you could make that statement. You could cherry pick in Houston as well.

I am re-sharing a list from D Magazine.

Walkable Urbanism Rankings for the 30 Largest U.S. Metros
(based on percentage of office, retail, and multifamily buildings)

1. New York City
2. Washington, D.C.
3. Boston
4. Chicago
5. San Francisco
6. Seattle
7. Portland
8. Pittsburgh
9. Denver
10. Philadelphia
11. Atlanta
12. Charlotte
13. Minneapolis-St. Paul
14. Cleveland
15. St. Louis
16. Kansas City
17. Los Angeles ***
18. Cincinnati
19. Baltimore
20. Houston ***
21. Detroit
22. Miami
23. Sacramento
24. San Diego
25. Dallas
26. Las Vegas
27. Tampa
28. San Antonio
29. Phoenix ***
30. Orlando

Rankings differ. I think a lot of the western cities are underrated as far as walkability goes. Whereas I think places like Atlanta are overrated in this list because they lack sidewalks in many areas, so how can it be walkable?

[ultright]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Lets see: vast unincorporated areas, strip annexations by the major city, little incorporated cities due to those annexations, MUD district scams, and letting the developer decide is why Houston looks like that still shot on 1960.

The only real industries the town has: oil and building housing


The minority-majority status means that all government is corrupt and criminal.


The flat topography allows people to expand in any direction, so now it's bigger than Austria (or something).


There's a lot of good about Houston, and then some real problems. We should also mention the Hanoi-esque climate here.