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.
My husband and I know firsthand that oil is a boom and bust industry. We've been through 2 busts so far. I agree that Houston needs to diversify. It's a terrible industry for a city to have as it's main source of employment.
The latest decline of oil that lasted a few years certainly didn’t end up being a bust for Houston
Well Dallas has the tornado issue to contend with. During Harvey, Pete Delkus was chuckling a little bit about EF-0 and EF-1 tornadoes that formed along Galveston Bay. Dallas usually has EF-3 and EF-4s. (I already thought the "joke" tornadoes were bad after seeing those two houses devastated.)
San Antonio and Austin are always on the edge of running out of water since they are dependent on the aquifer. Groundwater dependence also correlates with subsidence. Houston has been transitioning away from ground to surface water, but the Hill Country has less rainfall for it to depend on surface water.
Also the Balcones Fault line runs along I-35 from San Antonio to Dallas. This is where the majority of the population and growth are occurring in Texas. Just one major earthquake would force Houston to become the standard bearer of Texas and would have to handle survivors (à la Katrina).
There is no perfect place--every place can somewhat become a hard sell for various reasons. Outside of Texas, New York City is on the open water and California is earthquake prone. Usually these places would be a hard sell, but these are the two most popular places in the country.
Dallas doesn't really have a big "Tornado issue" There is a long list of cities in the midwest and south that are much higher risk, including The Twin Cities, Indianapolis, KC, Memphis, Little Rock, OKC, Tulsa, Birmingham and down the line.
Also, consider that even the worst tornado outbreaks kill way less people than hurricanes, and the average one does less damage on an order of magnitude and causes alot less loss of life.
Side note on the Balcones Fault, if it did have an earthquake large enough to destroy the 35 Corridor, who is to say Houston wouldn't be under water from such a large moment? Who knows. Anyway, its a pretty low risk fault line, actually one of the lowest risks in the whole US. Odds are Houston will face many more large floods before anything ever happens on that effectively inactive fault line.
I think people who are worried about running out of water are alarmists, or simply uneducated. There are many, many places in the US and around the world where they have less water than San Antonio/ Austin and support larger populations. There are not many places west of the Mississippi with more water available. Yes, of course this needs to be managed, but if Austin and San Antonio run out of water it would be because of basically an unseen level of mismanagement, not lack of resources.
Finally, I don't think that NYC's natural disaster risk (or general lack there of) is hard to sell. It's located on one of the best harbors in the world and has very few dangerous storms. It just isn't prone to hurricanes in the same way the gulf is. Of course no place is safe, and they did have Sandy, but NYC is not prone to many natural disasters.
In the case of coastal California yes, it certainly is prone to natural disasters, fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc and everyone knows that, but California also offers incredible weather and scenery to to along with it so the sell is alot easier because of that, you only have to show people pictures.
With the humidity, and "Bad Press" of flooding from Harvey, Houston is just a harder sell because it clearly has some natural disaster risks without the apparent benefits of California.
Is that fair? Prob not, Houston is a really cool city, but it has to overcome a lot to sell itself for relocations outside of particular industries (Energy, for example).
Dallas and Austin have alot less to overcome for relocation (even if they both also have rough weather) because 1) they had better marketing to begin with and 2) there isn't news footage of half of their city underwater.
It caused a lot of pain if you were employed by the oil and gas industry. We know of lots of people living in the Houston area who were struggling during the last o&g downturn. The article ended with the following two sentences" It's not clear that those conditions will be present the next time the oil and gas sector goes into a tailspin. Houston got off easy this time. But it's not safe forever." That doesn't sound good to me.
The article ended with the following two sentences" It's not clear that those conditions will be present the next time the oil and gas sector goes into a tailspin. Houston got off easy this time. But it's not safe forever." That doesn't sound good to me.
That's just the writer's opinion. Another person can write the same article and at the end say "after each oil bust, Houston gets off easier and easier as the economy continues to diversify". I think the area has done a better job and Amazon leaving it off it's list was a nice eye opener to do even better. Houston is still an attractive place for corporate relocations / expansions, even after Harvey, and has gotten a quite a few this year. It just really hasn't been as name-brand as what's been happening in DFW.
Yes, the article is a good read, even though I might have a few quibbles. While I can see Houston being weaker in the finance sector compared to Dallas, is it really also dwarfed by Austin and SA? Also, being a center of the global oil biz is why Houston is as impressively international as it is ... which seems to be unrecognized by the authors as well as most people in general.
Going beyond those quibbles, I suspect that Houston will be the weak link in the Texas Triangle as oil declines, unless it gets back to diversifying. That will be tough if it continues to ignore building and maintaining infrastructure to mitigate flooding.
Is there really that much difference in the cost of living in Dallas from Houston?
Housing costs can appear different due to the differences in how residential developments are financed. In Houston, there are a huge number of MUDs. Because the developers can use MUDs to pass bonds to pay for infrastructure, the cost of a comparable house can look cheaper in the Houston area. But you end up paying on the back end with steep MUD taxes.
That said, my perception is that DFW probably is several percentage points more expensive than the Houston area overall. There are many more higher-end smaller cities and developments in DFW than in Houston.
The Texas urbanization model fails to create synergies with economic activity spread out to 2 1/2 metros. Illinois decided to consolidate in Chicago, which has benefited the state immensely despite the region's decline.
Job changes/recruiting and business trips are more difficult between metros than within a metro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92
Dallas doesn't really have a big "Tornado issue" There is a long list of cities in the midwest and south that are much higher risk, including The Twin Cities, Indianapolis, KC, Memphis, Little Rock, OKC, Tulsa, Birmingham and down the line.
Yes, that can and do happen, but they aren't a major worry for most people.
Also, consider that even the worst tornado outbreaks kill way less people than hurricanes, and the average one does less damage on an order of magnitude and causes alot less loss of life. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nado_Alley.svg
The Rowlett tornado formed in the middle of winter during the Winter Solstice, which is very weird. Tornadoes have gone to the south and east parts of the metro, but it only takes one event for an outbreak to hit the populated northern parts to scare away relocations with video of the aftermath and bad press.
Unlike hurricanes, tornadoes form without warning and have an unpredictable path. It's pure 100+ MPH wind once it hits and damage gets magnified with the low atmospheric pressure inside this concentrated cyclone. (Hurricanes are large, spread-out areas of low atmospheric pressure and decrease in wind speed closer to the edge.)
Surprised that there are no basements or tornado shelters, but it's Texas with its substandard building codes and priorities are placed on keeping housing cheap and fast to build. The 1974 outbreak was very scary, yet it could still happen in the 2000s. Those people killed on the interchange were caught off-guard because they were driving, along with the night sky camouflaging the cyclone.
Quote:
Side note on the Balcones Fault, if it did have an earthquake large enough to destroy the 35 Corridor, who is to say Houston wouldn't be under water from such a large moment? Who knows. Anyway, its a pretty low risk fault line, actually one of the lowest risks in the whole US. Odds are Houston will face many more large floods before anything ever happens on that effectively inactive fault line.
The Sylmar, Whitter Narrows, and Reseda earthquakes were on low-risk/unknown faults that were later to be found dangerous. Building codes in Texas also do not include earthquakes.
Worst case scenario would be that there would be an earthquake and turning the I-35 corridor to rubble. Then a cold front comes through Dallas and spawns tornadoes which scattering ruins, and very large hail that grinds up the ruins further and kills survivors. The severity tapers around Waco and heavy rains cause flash floods to the south. Survivors are evacuated to Houston, West Texas, and the Valley and end up settling there due to the catastrophic destruction to infrastructure and aftershocks.
I mentioned earthquake risk because of the fracking around Denton and in Oklahoma. Fracking consumes a gigantic amount of water and those fracking liquids also contaminate underground aquifers. The ingredients in those fracking liquids are still considered a trade secret, despite risks to public health. Sadly, the paid-off GOP Texas Lege pre-empted Denton from using local zoning laws to take action to restrict/ban fracking.
Quote:
I think people who are worried about running out of water are alarmists, or simply uneducated. There are many, many places in the US and around the world where they have less water than San Antonio/ Austin and support larger populations. There are not many places west of the Mississippi with more water available. Yes, of course this needs to be managed, but if Austin and San Antonio run out of water it would be because of basically an unseen level of mismanagement, not lack of resources.
Besides triggering earthquakes and subsidence similar to fracking, pumping out too much water from the Edwards Aquifer creates sinkholes with the karst geology. I would not want my house to end up in the bottom of the ceñote, like what happened in Tampa recently.
California's experience was a lack of rainfall, not mismanagement, that exacerbated the situation. You can only do so much with so little and the sewers were starting to clog because of conservation.
Quote:
Finally, I don't think that NYC's natural disaster risk (or general lack there of) is hard to sell. It's located on one of the best harbors in the world and has very few dangerous storms. It just isn't prone to hurricanes in the same way the gulf is. Of course no place is safe, and they did have Sandy, but NYC is not prone to many natural disasters.
Storm surge is actually the most dangerous part of the hurricane. Houston and Philly are slightly inland. Galveston and NYC are on the coastline. Staten Island was heartbreaking to see on that PBS documentary; it reminded me of Galveston after Hurricane Ike.
Quote:
In the case of coastal California yes, it certainly is prone to natural disasters, fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc and everyone knows that, but California also offers incredible weather and scenery to to along with it so the sell is alot easier because of that, you only have to show people pictures.
With the humidity, and "Bad Press" of flooding from Harvey, Houston is just a harder sell because it clearly has some natural disaster risks without the apparent benefits of California.
Actually all of Texas is a hard sell. It's cheap but probably undesirable due to severe weather and natural disasters. Besides hurricanes and tornadoes, there are also hail storms, derechos, etc. that happen in different parts of this giant state.
Quote:
Is that fair? Prob not, Houston is a really cool city, but it has to overcome a lot to sell itself for relocations outside of particular industries (Energy, for example).
Dallas and Austin have alot less to overcome for relocation (even if they both also have rough weather) because 1) they had better marketing to begin with and 2) there isn't news footage of half of their city underwater.
You do downplay the fact that Houston is Texas' only globally-focused city. Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio (to a lesser extent) are domestically-focused hubs. The Energy industry opened up Houston and Texas to globalization.
And I do remember footage from both San Antonio and Austin during the 2015 Memorial Day floods. Dallas also flooded back in February. Still looked terrible!
If you are worried about the Balcones Fault going off, you better include Yellowstone erupting and wiping out most of the midwest. The BF was 'active' 20-25 million years ago, and may have had a movement about 1 million years ago.
For comparison, Yellowstone:
Quote:
The term “supervolcano” implies an eruption of magnitude 8 on the Volcano Explosivity Index, indicating an eruption of more than 1,000 cubic kilometers (250 cubic miles) of magma. Yellowstone has had at least three such eruptions: The three eruptions, 2.1 million years ago, 1.2 million years ago and 640,000 years ago, were about 6,000, 700 and 2,500 times larger than the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State.
If you are worried about the Balcones Fault going off, you better include Yellowstone erupting and wiping out most of the midwest. The BF was 'active' 20-25 million years ago, and may have had a movement about 1 million years ago.
For comparison, Yellowstone:
Actually the New Madrid fault shockwaves could rupture the Balcones Fault. The escarpment is a big shift between the coastal plain and the plateau right behind it. The Mississippi River would definitely change course into the Atchafalaya from this, leaving Baton Rouge and New Orleans in a sinking bog with no river access to the sea.
If you are worried about the Balcones Fault going off, you better include Yellowstone erupting and wiping out most of the midwest. The BF was 'active' 20-25 million years ago, and may have had a movement about 1 million years ago.
For comparison, Yellowstone:
Yeah seriously. I would probably kill a ton of people down here too. My Grandparents got an inch or so of ash from Mt St Helen about 400 miles away as the crow flies in Sandpoint, ID.
If the Smallest one is 700 times larger than that we are screwed lol.
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.
Sadly, the paid-off GOP Texas Lege pre-empted Denton from using local zoning laws to take action to restrict/ban fracking.
