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.
No, that is exactly what trees, & foliage, (notice, I didnt just say trees) indicate. Trees, access to water and fertile ground are all people used to seek when scouting new territory. As another poster implied, there is no valid geographical reason for a city like DFW to exist. When you talk about great world cities, they are typically going to be located along some body of water or close to it.
The major cities of Europe (London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Milan, Vienna, Prague, Bucharest) are not on the seacoast, but inland, along rivers. DFW is also riverine, located at the inflexion point where several smaller streams converge into the Trinity River. The point where the river broke up and was crossable created a natural focus for a town to develop, and human innovation made that town into a major metro of 6 1/2 million.
On the issue of trees and fertility... if the terrain around Houston actually was that fertile, the forest cover would have been converted to open cropland, due to economic pressure. But that didn't happen, because the soil did not have the fertility to compete economically with places such as North Texas.
I've never seen any part of DFW that could be described as looking like a jungle. That description, however, would be very appropriate to describe much of northern Houston.
This just does so much for me, and Dallas doesn't really come close.
Our trees are just one of the many things that makes Houston unique in the state of Texas.
You must realize, of course, that claiming to be personally ignorant of something is not evidence that it does not exist. I have, in fact, seen many thick, impassable jungle-like areas in the North Texas forests, such as in the Cross Timbers, The Trinity Forest, on the lakeshores, and elsewhere.
No, Houston may be unique, but not because of trees. There are many other towns in Texas wth equivalent tree cover.
As I have mentioned, excessive tree cover is an indicator of two things... excessive and insufferable humidity, and poor soils that do not economically justify clearing forests for farmland.
The major cities of Europe (London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Milan, Vienna, Prague, Bucharest) are not on the seacoast, but inland, along rivers. DFW is also riverine, located at the inflexion point where several smaller streams converge into the Trinity River. The point where the river broke up and was crossable created a natural focus for a town to develop, and human innovation made that town into a major metro of 6 1/2 million.
I figured this would be pointed out, and its duly noted, which is what I meant when I said that they are located along some body of water...being located inland, doesnt mean being landlocked, and likewise seacoasts arent the only way a city can be located along a body of water. Most of those cities contain access to navigable waterways. But they, like Cairo, by necessity originally had to be been located along a body of water (Even if it is only a river), that would not only provide access to a stable watersource, but one also large enough to facilitate commerce.
Quote:
On the issue of trees and fertility... if the terrain around Houston actually was that fertile, the forest cover would have been converted to open cropland, due to economic pressure. But that didn't happen, because the soil did not have the fertility to compete economically with places such as North Texas.
There would have been no practical economic reason for Houston to convert its forest cover to farmland...it already had a natural sugarcane harvest source (Sugarland) and rice agriculture along with its oil production. Investing further resources into converting and clearing its forest cover to farmland just for the heck of it would be a costly measure with little more economic incentive than there would be if they just left it standing and used it for logging; which the far Northern and Eastern reaches of the Houston metro and Deep East Texas did prior to urbanization.
Last edited by soletaire; 07-02-2012 at 07:35 AM..
There's ample greenery in and around DFW to satisfy the preferences of tree lovers. I think some people on this thread are going a bit overboard regarding the greenery topic. Many cities in the Western U.S. have nowhere near the tree cover as anyplace along or east of the I-35 corridor in Texas, and it's not a big issue for most people in those cities.
Said this before, will say it again, I prefer the rolling to hilly terrain in DFW over the flat swampy plains in Houston. The flatness combined with the hap-hazard development (no zoning) and heavily industrialized coastal areas makes much of SE Texas visually unattractive.
Let's face it though, few people are moving to DFW or Houston for the scenery.
There's ample greenery in and around DFW to satisfy the preferences of tree lovers. I think some people on this thread are going a bit overboard regarding the greenery topic. Many cities in the Western U.S. have nowhere near the tree cover as anyplace along or east of the I-35 corridor in Texas, and it's not a big issue for most people in those cities.
Said this before, will say it again, I prefer the rolling to hilly terrain in DFW over the flat swampy plains in Houston. The flatness combined with the hap-hazard development (no zoning) and heavily industrialized coastal areas makes much of SE Texas visually unattractive.
Let's face it though, few people are moving to DFW or Houston for the scenery.
Exactly....Houstonians want DFW to be seen as one big concrete slab with the only greenery being weeds growing through the cracks of the sidewalks.Houston Does have Taller pines on the way out of Houston going north but in the city it looks no different than Dallas. If there is a small difference nobody in the real world cares to point it out. Houstonians need to go climb those tall trees and enjoy them.
There's ample greenery in and around DFW to satisfy the preferences of tree lovers. I think some people on this thread are going a bit overboard regarding the greenery topic. Many cities in the Western U.S. have nowhere near the tree cover as anyplace along or east of the I-35 corridor in Texas, and it's not a big issue for most people in those cities.
Said this before, will say it again, I prefer the rolling to hilly terrain in DFW over the flat swampy plains in Houston. The flatness combined with the hap-hazard development (no zoning) and heavily industrialized coastal areas makes much of SE Texas visually unattractive.
Let's face it though, few people are moving to DFW or Houston for the scenery.
Cant disagree with that...although Dallas' mildly rolling terrain hardly compensates for its gross lack of greenery to me, personally. But I agree that the flat swampy land in Houston makes it somewhat unattractive in its own right. I dont mind flat, much, but it is swampy with patches of poorly drained soil. But its flatness is one of the reasons that Houston is able to have one of the best street grids in the nation. Street development historically followed the natural valleys that streams carved out, forcing most hilly cities to build streets around its hills. Houston doesnt really have hills to navigate around so its street design is able to be relatively straight forward. Some people dont mind that, but some would rather have the varied elevations that other regions offer.
Cant disagree with that...although Dallas' mildly rolling terrain hardly compensates for its gross lack of greenery to me, personally. But I agree that the flat swampy land in Houston makes it somewhat unattractive in its own right. I dont mind flat, much, but it is swampy with patches of poorly drained soil. But its flatness is one of the reasons that Houston is able to have one of the best street grids in the nation. Street development historically followed the natural valleys that streams carved out, forcing most hilly cities to build streets around its hills. Houston doesnt really have hills to navigate around so its street design is able to be relatively straight forward. Some people dont mind that, but some would rather have the varied elevations that other regions offer.
When it comes to the terrain of both cities, I will pick Houston over Dallas... Houston has a different look on each side. The southeast side has the south Florida look to it (including swamp lands like south Florida and palm trees)... the North side has a foresty look to it... the west and northwest sides have the praire lands... east side has the southern Louisiana look... southside has the gulf plain marshy areas.
You must realize, of course, that claiming to be personally ignorant of something is not evidence that it does not exist. I have, in fact, seen many thick, impassable jungle-like areas in the North Texas forests, such as in the Cross Timbers, The Trinity Forest, on the lakeshores, and elsewhere.
I have seen these areas. I have seen the most that the DFW area has to offer, when it comes to trees. Just because you would describe these areas as being jungle-like doesn't mean that everyone else would. I certainly would not.
Quote:
No, Houston may be unique, but not because of trees. There are many other towns in Texas wth equivalent tree cover.
Other towns in East Texas? Sure. Other larger cities in the state? Not a chance. I should have specified. It's what makes us unique amongst other major Texas cities, and what makes East Texas, as a whole, unique amongst the rest of the state.
It's not just tree cover, but tree height that makes a world of difference, in my opinion.
Quote:
As I have mentioned, excessive tree cover is an indicator of two things... excessive and insufferable humidity, and poor soils that do not economically justify clearing forests for farmland.
Not necessarily. There are parts of the upper Piedmont and Appalachian areas of the southeast that have more trees than Houston, yet similar or even lower relative humidity and dew point averages than DFW. In Houston's case, though, it does indeed mean a considerable amount of added humidity. It may be insufferable to you, but it's inconsequential to me.
Said this before, will say it again, I prefer the rolling to hilly terrain in DFW over the flat swampy plains in Houston. The flatness combined with the hap-hazard development (no zoning) and heavily industrialized coastal areas makes much of SE Texas visually unattractive.
Meh. If those flat and swampy plains are filled with lush scenery, I'd easily take them over any rolling terrain that wasn't. Hills come second to trees, for me. To each his own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallasboi
Exactly....Houstonians want DFW to be seen as one big concrete slab with the only greenery being weeds growing through the cracks of the sidewalks.Houston Does have Taller pines on the way out of Houston going north but in the city it looks no different than Dallas. If there is a small difference nobody in the real world cares to point it out. Houstonians need to go climb those tall trees and enjoy them.
I can ascertain one of two things from this post. You're either just acting out because you don't want to face facts, or you have actually never been to Houston, as you have previously claimed you have. No one with good eye sight visits both cities and doesn't notice a remarkable difference in the amount of greenery. "In the city it looks no different than Dallas"? LMAO. I've already posted great proof to the contrary, and I'm sure that not even you believe that lie.
Cant disagree with that...although Dallas' mildly rolling terrain hardly compensates for its gross lack of greenery to me, personally. But I agree that the flat swampy land in Houston makes it somewhat unattractive in its own right. I dont mind flat, much, but it is swampy with patches of poorly drained soil. But its flatness is one of the reasons that Houston is able to have one of the best street grids in the nation. Street development historically followed the natural valleys that streams carved out, forcing most hilly cities to build streets around its hills. Houston doesnt really have hills to navigate around so its street design is able to be relatively straight forward. Some people dont mind that, but some would rather have the varied elevations that other regions offer.
Flatness doesn't bother me. Some of America's most beloved cities are flat as a board: New Orleans, Chicago, Miami, etc. Houston is in pretty good company.
Hills without tall trees do nothing for me, and Dallas is NO San Francisco, so I agree that their terrain hardly makes up for their lack of lush scenery.
As I said before, the North Texas prairies have their own beauty, but they aren't the ideal setting for me.
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.
....Houstonians want DFW to be seen as one big concrete slab with the only greenery being weeds growing through the cracks of the sidewalks.Houston Does have Taller pines on the way out of Houston going north but in the city it looks no different than Dallas. If there is a small difference nobody in the real world cares to point it out. Houstonians need to go climb those tall trees and enjoy them.
