why is houston so geographically large? (Athens, Post: foreclosures, HOA, employment)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

People will adapt. Aside from shocks to the system, increasing oil prices will cause people to change the order of their preferences to make their lives livable.

People have been saying that for decades now, I don't think it has changed people's minds one bit

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

People will adapt.

You're absolutely right, they will. And they might do things they wouldn't think of doing back in the day.

Some might still be able to afford to drive 30 miles each way to work. Others won't. One way or another, they will learn to do with less, or do without something they want.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by tstone

You'd think the southwest would be screaming for rail as loud as the inner loop. Interesting.

<edit> I just looked up the density for my suburban zip code. 5,441 ppsm. Inner loop at only 6,000 as a whole? Very interesting.

The southwest is served by some of the best bus systems in the country, it does get packed, but so would rail.

public transport is not limited to rail, it works well in the southwest that is why people are not screaming for it.

and all rail did was skyrocket transportation costs. A 24 hr pass used to cost 2 bucks, now a 2hr pass (they just bumped it to 3) cost a $1.25.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

People have been saying that for decades now, I don't think it has changed people's minds one bit

Oil prices have been increasing for exactly 1 decade with consistancy so I don't if they're wrong. We certainly drove less (per person) in the last few years than previously, so it indicates some adaptation.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Oil prices have been increasing for exactly 1 decade with consistancy so I don't if they're wrong. We certainly drove less (per person) in the last few years than previously, so it indicates some adaptation.

don't think it will ever happen. people like the convenience of their cars too much. they will biitch and moan about prices but they still won't hoof it. Plus prices here are still half of what it is in Europe

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

don't think it will ever happen. people like the convenience of their cars too much. they will biitch and moan about prices but they still won't hoof it. Plus prices here are still half of what it is in Europe

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That we can pay for oil infinitely or we would rather drive than eat? Oil is still relatively cheap, yes, but I don't go driving around as much as I used to (just siteseeing). I tend to stick to driving to and from work and just to particular people's houses. I'd even live farther in town if my job wasn't as far out as it is. I think people will start making these decisions when they have to and if it means they'll suffer a little bit more because of it, they'll try and change the place to suit them (gentrification).

[(-)]

Originally Posted by jm02

I am originally from the east cost where I just returned to after living 26 years inside the loop. When I first got to Houston, I had the same question. So let's contrast things, by taking Baltimore as an example. Suburbs such as Essex, Dundalk, Glen Burnie and Catonsville were established and incorporated long before the city began encroaching on them. In fact, what we call suburbs today developed prior to the car, meaning they really weren't even "suburbs" at the time they were chartered - they were their own centers of commerce. As the city grew, because these towns were incorporated, even if Baltimore wanted to annex them, it couldn't. The pattern I described in Baltimore fits for nearly all of what I'll call the "old" cities - the cities "proper" are hemmed in by their incorporated suburbs which were once isolated towns sitting in the nearby countryside (look at cities such as Boston, Philly, DC, SF, Chicago, and St Louis for examples). This restriction on outward growth forced these cites to develop inwardly, resulting in a denser core in the city itself.

Houston, on the other hand, proactively annexed land in anticipation of growth before nearby towns were incorporated. There are a few established incorporated places Houston couldn't annex such as West U, Bellaire and the Villages, but you see they are surrounded by Houston as it annexed the land around those places. You'll find this pattern in the "new" cities from stretching from Anchorage to Jacksonville. This ability to develop outwardly has resulted in these cities having a less dense core.

I know some people on this board will argue that Houston's model of growth is the best. That's not the point of your question, however. There are pros and cons to each. Hope this explanation helps.

thanks for breaking it down for me. props to using towns and cities i'm familiar with to highlight your point.

[(-)]

Originally Posted by astrohip

Texas has something called Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). It was created so cities like Houston would NOT be fenced in by surrounding cities. The early developers saw that often, in the older cities, the central city core was left to rot, while all the growth (and its associated tax revenues) was created in suburban cities. So ETJ prevents unincorporated land within a certain distance from existing (large) cities from incorporating (becoming their own city). They can either stay unincorporated, ask to be annexed, or ask to be released from ETJ (which Houston has done on occasion). Bellaire, West U, Southside, all predate ETJ.

As a result, Houston annexed HUGE tracts of land, especially in the 70's and 80's. Much of the land was barely populated, so there was little resistance. And in the intervening years, as growth has taken hold, this land filled up, and Houston has climbed in population.

Our leaders had incredible foresight, and this is one of the reasons Houston is such a dynamic city. They planned for land growth, they developed water supplies when no one gave it a second thought (Lake Conroe & Lake Houston), and laid the groundwork for the most extensive freeway system of any major city.

Yes, many of them were land developers and made a fortune from all this growth. But we all have them to thank for "sharing" this with us.

why didn't they plan out public transportation with regard to railway's and subways in houston? for a city of it's size and geographic reach, i was a bit underwhelmed at what the city called public transportation. it almost seemed as if it was an afterthought.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by (-)

why didn't they plan out public transportation with regard to railway's and subways in houston? for a city of it's size and geographic reach, i was a bit underwhelmed at what the city called public transportation. it almost seemed as if it was an afterthought.

well there is this thing called the public, and they call for things and have a say in how money is spent. The fact of the matter is there is no public outcry for rail, on the contrary people have been protesting rail expansion for years now.

some people think it will screw up their neighborhood, others were whining about the destruction of trees, and others just don't want to pay for it. Others still think the line we do have should never have been built.

[pach84]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

The southwest is served by some of the best bus systems in the country, it does get packed, but so would rail.

public transport is not limited to rail, it works well in the southwest that is why people are not screaming for it.

and all rail did was skyrocket transportation costs. A 24 hr pass used to cost 2 bucks, now a 2hr pass (they just bumped it to 3) cost a $1.25.

How did you come to that conclusion?