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.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the inner cores being dense. That was never the case but this notion that the entire city should reflect more density and less exurb sprawl is ridiculous. People in Texas don't like that and don't want that. They flip at the hint of the city creeping in. Urban cores are supposed to be dense. My gripe was that just because it's not as dense as Manhattan it doesn't make it ugly.
Yes I agree that the entire 600 sq. miles of Houston doesn't need to be as dense as Manhattan. Dense development should be built where it's practical, typically the urban core but can also be built in areas near large employment centers away from the core. I see TMC and Uptown Houston as areas that can become more mixed use and pedestrian friendly.
As far as exurban areas, at what point does it become practical to continue to expand further and further away? You do realize there's long term legacy costs whenever you build more roads and add more utilities. You do seem to paint Texans with a broad brush, which I disagree with. I know many native Texans that hate the long commutes and suburban sprawl. You make it seem like it's Texas vs. The Coasts thing, which is way too simplistic. Like everything in life, it's complicated.
Yes I agree that the entire 600 sq. miles of Houston doesn't need to be as dense as Manhattan. Dense development should be built where it's practical, typically the urban core but can also be built in areas near large employment centers away from the core. I see TMC and Uptown Houston as areas that can become more mixed use and pedestrian friendly.
As far as exurban areas, at what point does it become practical to continue to expand further and further away? You do realize there's long term legacy costs whenever you build more roads and add more utilities. You do seem to paint Texans with a broad brush, which I disagree with. I know many native Texans that hate the long commutes and suburban sprawl. You make it seem like it's Texas vs. The Coasts thing, which is way too simplistic. Like everything in life, it's complicated.
It's not a broad brush. If Texans really wanted that we'd have all that and more. There is mix of opinions and I frankly don't understand the commuting, I would just live in the loop but people have choices too. Most of the arguments I've heard though is to expand the freeways, build more but hardly ever to make Houston more dense or drop the exurb planning. People love their MPCs.
It's not a broad brush. If Texans really wanted that we'd have all that and more. There is mix of opinions and I frankly don't understand the commuting, I would just live in the loop but people have choices too. Most of the arguments I've heard though is to expand the freeways, build more but hardly ever to make Houston more dense or drop the exurb planning. People love their MPCs.
In a state that's gerrymandered to the extreme along with low voter turnout, I doubt it's an accurate reflection of most Texans. I'm not saying most Texans value higher density either. We simply don't know what the average Texan thinks, so I avoid going overboard by painting a broad brush. In addition to that, many metros experience the same challenge - expand the freeways vs. more public transit. It's not limited to just Houston or even Texas cities in general. It's actually very recent that many transportation officials, including TxDOT, are rethinking the freeway model to address traffic woes.
Back to the aesthetics -- there are pretty strip malls and ugly mixed used/pedestrian friendly buildings. Aesthetics does not have anything to do with practicality.
It's not a broad brush. If Texans really wanted that we'd have all that and more. There is mix of opinions and I frankly don't understand the commuting, I would just live in the loop but people have choices too. Most of the arguments I've heard though is to expand the freeways, build more but hardly ever to make Houston more dense or drop the exurb planning. People love their MPCs.
So why can't this be solely about the needs of Inner Loop Houston vs. the outer parts of the city then? You're the one who keeps framing this as an argument of The Coastal Cities vs. Houston. While there are posters who unfairly compare Houston to those cities, I'm framing my argument about Houston vs. other Sunbelt Metros in terms of the built environment and what else can be done to improve its aesthetics. And no, practicality does not have to be sacrificed in the name of aesthetics. I've yet to hear an opinion on how they cannot coexist.
I can't speak for other posters, but I found your responses to me to be incredibly defensive and full of strawman arguments about my posts based on things I never said in the first place because you saw other posts saying things about Houston you didn't like and apparently mistook me for those posters.
But that's neither here nor there - I'm certainly not advocating that the inner loop should be a hyper-dense environment full of skyscrapers as far as the eye can see, but advocating for things like improvements to the streetscapes (more sidewalks/curbs/gutters, underground utilities, less billboards, etc.) and the ongoing improvements to the Buffalo Bayou and things like that. Since Houston is a city that depends on the whims of the free market a lot more than other cities, I'm sure there are some market forces that can come into play in terms of what will be built in Houston. But I think that as the Inner Loop is a desirable location within Houston, there will be more demand for housing in that area, many of whom are transplants from areas accustomed to density. Families will obviously go for the MPCs in the unincorporated areas.
What's wrong with having more mid-size density within the Loop? Do you think that the three environments of Houston (Inner Loop vs. Outside the Loop/Inside the Beltway vs. Outside the Beltway) can coincide in the future? If so, what kind of overall vision can make sure the needs of each sector of the city are addressed? The only other cities I can think of that have had to address these issues are Los Angeles up until the 80s when they ran out of room, Chicago (which is older but has a variety of densities within its city limits) and Toronto, which was consolidated from different environments). What can Houston do to improve on what it has and maintain its identity and Texan ethos?
Last edited by biscuit_head; 10-13-2016 at 10:04 AM..
In a state that's gerrymandered to the extreme along with low voter turnout, I doubt it's an accurate reflection of most Texans. I'm not saying most Texans value higher density either. We simply don't know what the average Texan thinks, so I avoid going overboard by painting a broad brush. In addition to that, many metros experience the same challenge - expand the freeways vs. more public transit. It's not limited to just Houston or even Texas cities in general. It's actually very recent that many transportation officials, including TxDOT, are rethinking the freeway model to address traffic woes.
Back to the aesthetics -- there are pretty strip malls and ugly mixed used/pedestrian friendly buildings. Aesthetics does not have anything to do with practicality.
Nothing wrong with rethinking certain aspects of sprawl considering the growth Texas experienced but I still don't think most people in Texas would care for a lot more than needs to be. We are in the same boat that CA was in in the 70s, 80s as a sunbelt sprawl state. Politicians, mostly state not city, conjure up the boogeyman of California to warn about the dangers of designing the city as a vanity project rather than for practical purposes. If it serves a purpose to reflect change then who would be against it? That's always been my point.
As far as aesthetics, are you talking about he design of the building or that you just find strip malls and mixed used town "centres" ugly? Because the arguments we mostly encounter on this forum are complaints as to why another mixed use with the same stores is being built and that they're ugly just because they're mixed use; i.e. cookie cutter, fake, etc. it's almost like a principle thing to people sort of like McMansions. Now if you're talking about the aesthetics of the building itself that's something else entirely
So why can't this be solely about the needs of Inner Loop Houston vs. the outer parts of the city then? You're the one who keeps framing this as an argument of The Coastal Cities vs. Houston. While there are posters who unfairly compare Houston to those cities, I'm framing my argument about Houston vs. other Sunbelt Metros in terms of the built environment and what else can be done to improve its aesthetics. And no, practicality does not have to be sacrificed in the name of aesthetics. I've yet to hear an opinion on how they cannot coexist.
I can't speak for other posters, but I found your responses to me to be incredibly defensive and full of strawman arguments about my posts based on things I never said in the first place because you saw other posts saying things about Houston you didn't like and apparently mistook me for those posters.
Anyway, back on topic, I'm certainly not advocating that the inner loop should be a hyper-dense environment full of skyscrapers as far as the eye can see, but advocating for things like improvements to the streetscapes (more sidewalks/curbs/gutters, underground utilities, less billboards, etc.) and the ongoing improvements to the Buffalo Bayou and things like that. Since Houston is a city that depends on the whims of the free market a lot more than other cities, I'm sure there are some market forces that can come into play in terms of what will be built in Houston. But I think that as the Inner Loop is a desirable location within Houston, there will be more demand for housing in that area, many of whom are transplants from areas accustomed to density. Families will obviously go for the MPCs in the unincorporated areas.
What's wrong with having more mid-size density within the Loop? Do you think that the three environments of Houston (Inner Loop vs. Outside the Loop/Inside the Beltway vs. Outside the Beltway) can coincide in the future? If so, what kind of overall vision can make sure the needs of each sector of the city are addressed? The only other cities I can think of that have had to address these issues are Los Angeles up until the 80s when they ran out of room, Chicago (which is older but has a variety of densities within its city limits) and Toronto, which was consolidated from different environments). What can Houston do to improve on what it has and maintain its identity and Texan ethos?
Those are tough questions but my point has always been for Texas cities to develop to reflect change. If that means better transit and more density in the urban cores than no one is against that. What frightens a lot of Texans, not all so I won't paint with a brush, is when a city starts constructing solely for vanity and creating a QOL aesthetic with no real practical purpose. People start to think oh no, COL will rise, here comes the regulations, more people, more congestion, more activist government, and gasp plastic bag bans.
The way I see Texas cities developing and incorporating both practicality and aesthetics is great. I think they have a great combo and have maintained the ethos. More improvement should be welcomed.
As far as aesthetics, are you talking about he design of the building or that you just find strip malls and mixed used town "centres" ugly? Because the arguments we mostly encounter on this forum are complaints as to why another mixed use with the same stores is being built and that they're ugly just because they're mixed use; i.e. cookie cutter, fake, etc. it's almost like a principle thing to people sort of like McMansions. Now if you're talking about the aesthetics of the building itself that's something else entirely
My whole point was that practicality and aesthetics are not the same thing. A building can be subjectively beautiful, but also practical. The same is true in reverse. Here's an example of what I consider an attractive looking strip mall in Uptown Dallas, although I'd argue it's completely "impractical" for that location:
^^ It's out of place for an urban and pedestrian friendly neighborhood, but the aesthetics are decent.
Also, cities such as Chicago, NYC, Boston, etc. were built on practicality during their era the same way Houston was/is during its growing stage. NYC faced many problems with hyper density in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so efforts were made to correct that. There is such thing as too much density! The same problems are occurring in Houston but in reverse... way too spread out. So the question becomes, at one point does our building and infrastructure design become impractical? That goes for both sprawl and density.
Good questions and good points. All I'm saying is to build practically to reflect change but keep it nice looking too. I don't have any arguments against your post. There are just so many in here that just hate the concept of mixed use and strip malls and what not.
Both sides make good arguments. Throughout the internet, I've seen comments against density, public transport, and urban living that radiolibre99 brought up in post #497. But both the city of Houston and city of Dallas is working hard to build density. Look at what they want to do with their freeway systems. Dallas wants to demolish 345 and want to expand Klyde Warren Park over the Woodall Rogers freeway. Houston wants to demolish the pierce elevated and trench 69. Both want to reconnect their downtown areas with the rest of the city instead of choking it around freeway loops.
All density is not the same density. You don't have to be Manhattan. SF isn't Manhattan. Chicago isn't San Francisco or Manhattan. Neither is Paris. You might can find similarities but you will find as many differences as well. In regards to Houston, the inner loop IMO is best place where density can occur. Even high density. Because it has the bones to pull it off. Outside of the loop is pretty much all suburbia and will remain so. Houston even inside the loop looks like a city fighting to become a urban city or remaining a suburban city. That's why articles like this are written:
“In cities like Houston that are contemporary, you drive there, and then you do your urban thing, and then get back in your car and drive home,” says Susan Rogers, the director of the University of Houston’s Community Design Resource Center. “It’s a curious kind of urbanism to me.”
No what it says is that Houston wants urbanism but wants to hold onto suburbanism. Interesting to see how that works out but I don't think it can to be honest. Houston to me needs to work on cohesiveness and connectivity with it's neighborhoods. That's part of what is holding it back. Also sense of place does the city? What makes one think Houston is Houston. Like people say "I Love New York", or "You don't know what it means to miss New Orleans", or "Chicago - My kind of Town", or " I left my heart in San Francisco" and on and on. Something that makes people have some sort of affection with a cits. Residents or visitors.
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.
