Why Californians don't like Texas

[soletaire]

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

Because a walkable city is far more efficient than a car-centric, sprawling city. By far.

That shuffling along the sidewalk provides a strongly palpable exposure to a city's culture and environment. That immense exposure to life is precisely what people desire when they dream about travelling to places: they want to feel like they're immersed in the city and are a part of the experience. And, for obvious reason, things just aren't as memorable if you remained cooped up indoors the entire time in air conditioned homes, venues, and cars.

The efficiency of walkable cities still remains even if you ignore the subjective desirability element: they simply are better for health and environment. More walking strengthens those calf muscles, meaning less obesity and diabetes. A more compact, dense city preserves a larger area of the natural landscape than if the city were sprawled out. With less vehicles comes less need for wide concrete parking lots, as well as less exhaust to pollute our air.

Also note that walkability refers not just to the ability of walking, but also the convenience of it. As you mention, things aren't so great when the sun is beating down on you in 100F heat. It's also quite inconvenient when the sidewalk is broken or when you have to cross large roadways and parking lots, warring with errant drivers just to get to any storefronts and shops you desire. But those are issues that come with car-centric cities: in walkable cities, those shops and storefronts will be built right next to clean, unbroken sidewalks, allowing for an overall more comfortable experience, regardless of climate: easier access for the pedestrian, less danger from traffic, and more shade from the sun due to the buildings being closer in.

Meh...not really buying it, personally. Alot of those walkable cities are canvassed in trash from all of the foot traffic from what Ive seen, which draws hoards of disease carrying rodents..in addition to placing people in much closer contact with vagrants and panhandlers, pick pockets/thieves (especially on public transit, which is almost always highly used in "walkable" cities) etc. But different strokes for different folks. But one doesnt need to live in a compact space to exercise their calf muscles. Its not like living in a compact area will suddenly turn a slob into a fitness model just because theyre walking a few hundred feet to the cornerstore. And many people can easily make great memories indoors or even while traveling in vehicles. I dare say, for many people some if their fondest memories are made on trips, or in cars with family & friends. Thats a personal preference unique to each individual though.

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by soletaire

Meh...not really buying it, personally. Alot of those walkable cities are canvassed in trash from all of the foot traffic from what Ive seen, which draws hoards of disease carrying rodents..in addition to placing people in much closer contact with vagrants and panhandlers, pick pockets/thieves (especially on public transit, which is almost always highly used in "walkable" cities) etc. But different strokes for different folks. But one doesnt need to live in a compact space to exercise their calf muscles. Its not like living in a compact area will suddenly turn a slob into a fitness model just because theyre walking a few hundred feet to the cornerstore. And many people can easily make great memories indoors or even while traveling in vehicles. I dare say, for many people some if their fondest memories are made on trips, or in cars with family & friends. Thats a personal preference unique to each individual though.

You can have your preferences, but walkable cities are simply much better when you look at any objective criteria.

The presence of trash, pests, panhandlers, vagrants, etc, as with anywhere, simply depends on where you are in any given city. They'll be present regardless of if the city is walkable or not. If anything, walkable cities tend to have lower crime rates than their non-walkable peers. Just compare Houston to NYC:
Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site


No one said that walking alone would turn turn you into a fitness model. But you'd indeed be getting much more of a workout than if you were at a sprawling city. Because you'll actually have to be working those calf muscles to get to your destination, rather than wasting long hours sitting inside a car. Ergo, walkable cities force a decent workout for a larger portion of the populace, even those that aren't sporty or hate working out.

And memories can be made in cars during trips, as well as indoors. But when it comes to those formed regarding the enjoyment of the city, walkable areas simply do better. Is it any wonder that all the so-called "boring" cities all happen to be those that are autocentric (i.e. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, OKC, Charlotte, etc).

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

And memories can be made in cars during trips, as well as indoors. But when it comes to those formed regarding the enjoyment of the city, walkable areas simply do better. Is it any wonder that all the so-called "boring" cities all happen to be those that are autocentric (i.e. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, OKC, Charlotte, etc).

Even within those cities, you'll find neighborhoods that are technically geographically small (e.g. Deep Ellum or Bishop Arts in Dallas) that are far more memorable than the larger neighborhoods in that city.

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by DTXman34

Even within those cities, you'll find neighborhoods that are technically geographically small (e.g. Deep Ellum or Bishop Arts in Dallas) that are far more memorable than the larger neighborhoods in that city.

I completely agree that those cities have plenty to offer (hence "so-called").

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by soletaire

Meh...not really buying it, personally. Alot of those walkable cities are canvassed in trash from all of the foot traffic from what Ive seen, which draws hoards of disease carrying rodents..in addition to placing people in much closer contact with vagrants and panhandlers, pick pockets/thieves (especially on public transit, which is almost always highly used in "walkable" cities) etc. But different strokes for different folks. But one doesnt need to live in a compact space to exercise their calf muscles. Its not like living in a compact area will suddenly turn a slob into a fitness model just because theyre walking a few hundred feet to the cornerstore. And many people can easily make great memories indoors or even while traveling in vehicles. I dare say, for many people some if their fondest memories are made on trips, or in cars with family & friends. Thats a personal preference unique to each individual though.

Sure, I've made lots of great memories on road trips. I love road trips, but road trips arent the same thing as commuting via car to work, having to get into a car to go to the grocery store, to CVS, etc and having to use your car for literally everything. Granted, if you do spend all you time in a car, you are sure to have some memorable experiences.

Lots of people who live in walk-able areas still road trip....

No, it won't make you a fitness model, but obesity rate are lower in walk-able areas.

The only time I've ever been a victim of a crime was in Houston, in a non walkable area. I most cases the walkable cities are safer.

Also, driving is in credibly dangerous. If you are afraid of being killed by strangers, areas with suburban style roads are the most likely to kill you.

I drive alot for work, 3 or 4 hours a day. It's significantly more dangerous than living in a "Bad" neighborhood here in DFW.

Rational Urbanism | 2 is Enough for 22

Pan Handlers and homeless folks tend to hang out in the CBD and tourist areas. If your only experience in walk-able cities is those locations, then I can see why you might think that, but in cities that are largely walk-able you don't find them hanging out in the less busy neighborhoods. Pan Handling is a Downtown issue not a walkable issue.

You are more than welcome to prefer non walkable areas, but the compare poorly on objective metrics.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

I completely agree that those cities have plenty to offer (hence "so-called").

I agree that cities like Dallas and Houston have alot more to offer than some people think, but this is why the way the city is laid out matters.

You could have two different cities with identical amenities.

City A) offers the amenities in a walk-able setting, over smaller geographic area and makes the space between the amenities a pleasant place to be.

City B) has the amenities spread out over a larger area and there isn't a coherent or pleasant 3rd place between the destinations, which are served by large parking lots. You have to drive between the two.

Even if the drive times between Amenities for City B are shorter than City A, it will be perceived as having less going on and more boring.

Now of course I don't think Dallas is city B, it's alot more complicated than that, but even if you put aside all the inefficiencies and dangers of a car based city, experience matters.

You could serve the same burger to someone in a white room with no windows or pictures, or you could serve it in an interesting environment like a cool burger joint. Without exception, most people will think the burger tastes better in the better environment. It might actually taste better there.

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

I agree that cities like Dallas and Houston have alot more to offer than some people think, but this is why the way the city is laid out matters...

Of course, never disagreed with this either.

[MustermannBB]

Originally Posted by soletaire

As a heart attack.

Then I guess we must have very different definitions and opinions as to what are "walkable cities".

[C24L]

Originally Posted by MrJester

I myself greatly admire Texas, but here are some reasons why many Californians don't.

1. "Texas is desert!" I can't tell you how many Californians think Houston is sand dunes and cacti. I keep having to explain it's just as green, rainy, hot, and humid as Florida, with bayous, 85 degree Gulf of Mexico waters, and longleaf pine forests in The Woodlands and Kingwood.

2. "Houston is pancake flat! I'd rather have dead, brown hills in California than lush green forests and bayous in Houston!" This really puzzles me; I never missed the hills when I went to the Gulf Coast. Who needs brown barren hills when you can have lush, Florida-like subtropical greenery?

If you miss the hills, you can always go to Austin.

3. "Texans are religious conservatives! Can't imagine living in ultra-conservative places like Dallas or Austin!" News flash: Many states are more Republican than Texas. Many states are more religious than Texas. Austin is more liberal than San Diego or Sacramento, and is solidly liberal even by national standards. Even Dallas is more liberal than San Diego. In fact, every major Texas metro is blue, maybe not as blue as Hollywood or Silicon Valley or San Fran, but still.

Once again, if you miss liberal high-tech Californicated hipster land, you can always go to Austin, as if Dallas or Houston were not Californicated enough. Surprise surprise, Whole Foods was founded in Austin, not in California.

4. "Texas is white man's land! No diversity!" Houston is often ranked as the nation's most diverse city. It's got large Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese populations. The Chinese supermarket 99 Ranch, and Chinese bakery 85 Degree C may have started their U.S. operations in California but they're also in Houston and Dallas.

5. "I couldn't move to somewhere without In-N-Out!" Ahem, Dallas, Waco, and Austin all have In-N-Out. They're opening in Houston, too.

Oh, and Texas has Waffle Houses...far better than Ihop, and there's no Waffle Houses in the entire state of California!

What other complaints do you notice that Californians have about Texas?

ya it shocks me that a lot of people in California think were all desert but in reality only the Trans-Pecos is desert.