why is houston so geographically large? (Dallas, Atlanta: foreclosure, bankrupt, construction)

[astrohip]

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.

In addition to HtownLove's reply, which is true, I'm guessing it might also be (and this is pure conjecture) because some of the people involved in all this planning were big land developers, and preferred freeways over mass transit. Public transit generally leads to density, and freeways lead to sprawl. Developers love sprawl.

Emphasis: pure conjecture.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by pach84

How did you come to that conclusion?

reports,

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by astrohip

In addition to HtownLove's reply, which is true, I'm guessing it might also be (and this is pure conjecture) because some of the people involved in all this planning were big land developers, and preferred freeways over mass transit. Public transit generally leads to density, and freeways lead to sprawl. Developers love sprawl.

Emphasis: pure conjecture.

Absolutely agree. The Texas cities such as Houston are the only places I know of extensive "feeder roads." Ostensibly, I presume they are about providing good freeway access. But elsewhere in the country, people have no issue getting on and off the interstates. What feeder roads do foster is endless miles of sprawling storefronts, parking lots, signs, plastic banners, etc., which developers must love.

The Chronicle reported this was one of the key reasons why Houston didn't land its 2016 Olympics bid. When the Olympic officials came to visit, local promoters underwent much consternation pondering which route to bring them in on from IAH. They ultimately selected the Hardy Toll Road since it had less of this sprawl than 45 and 59. Despite being told it had superior venues over much of the competition, Houston lost a chance to progress to the next stage nonetheless. I believe the quote of a member of the selection committee was literally something like this "We just can't bring the world to all this ugliness."

I know there are those who are strong advocates of unfettered development. While there are some pros, there are cons, as well.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by astrohip

In addition to HtownLove's reply, which is true, I'm guessing it might also be (and this is pure conjecture) because some of the people involved in all this planning were big land developers, and preferred freeways over mass transit. Public transit generally leads to density, and freeways lead to sprawl. Developers love sprawl.

Emphasis: pure conjecture.

Not to mention the massive subsidies that went towards highways and roads so there was essentially no chance for public transit to gain much of any traction once the all mighty car became mass produced.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by jm02

Absolutely agree. The Texas cities such as Houston are the only places I know of extensive "feeder roads." Ostensibly, I presume they are about providing good freeway access. But elsewhere in the country, people have no issue getting on and off the interstates. What feeder roads do foster is endless miles of sprawling storefronts, parking lots, signs, plastic banners, etc., which developers must love.

The Chronicle reported this was one of the key reasons why Houston didn't land its 2016 Olympics bid. When the Olympic officials came to visit, local promoters underwent much consternation pondering which route to bring them in on from IAH. They ultimately selected the Hardy Toll Road since it had less of this sprawl than 45 and 59. Despite being told it had superior venues over much of the competition, Houston lost a chance to progress to the next stage nonetheless. I believe the quote of a member of the selection committee was literally something like this "We just can't bring the world to all this ugliness."

I know there are those who are strong advocates of unfettered development. While there are some pros, there are cons, as well.

LOLz. Link? I've read what the Chronicle wrote about that and to my recollection, your account is far more negative than what was written. However, you are more than welcome to link the article and prove otherwise.

[dv1033]

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.

SW Houston is probably the best served portion of the city by public transit. Furthermore, inner Houston has our metro's largest and densest employment centers which are more than worthy for light rail.

[cheryjohns]

Originally Posted by jm02

Absolutely agree. The Texas cities such as Houston are the only places I know of extensive "feeder roads." Ostensibly, I presume they are about providing good freeway access. But elsewhere in the country, people have no issue getting on and off the interstates. What feeder roads do foster is endless miles of sprawling storefronts, parking lots, signs, plastic banners, etc., which developers must love.

The Chronicle reported this was one of the key reasons why Houston didn't land its 2016 Olympics bid. When the Olympic officials came to visit, local promoters underwent much consternation pondering which route to bring them in on from IAH. They ultimately selected the Hardy Toll Road since it had less of this sprawl than 45 and 59. Despite being told it had superior venues over much of the competition, Houston lost a chance to progress to the next stage nonetheless. I believe the quote of a member of the selection committee was literally something like this "We just can't bring the world to all this ugliness."

I know there are those who are strong advocates of unfettered development. While there are some pros, there are cons, as well.

I totally agree we need better public transit and less freeway.

The fact that we lost the 2016 Olympics is the only good thing to have come out of that. I have always read that the event cost the cities much more than they made. We seem to be a city based more on business, rather than tourism and/or prestige.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jm02

I believe the quote of a member of the selection committee was literally something like this "We just can't bring the world to all this ugliness."

And on they went to the '08 games in Beijing. Go figure.

[pach84]

Originally Posted by cheryjohns

I totally agree we need better public transit and less freeway.

The fact that we lost the 2016 Olympics is the only good thing to have come out of that. I have always read that the event cost the cities much more than they made. We seem to be a city based more on business, rather than tourism and/or prestige.

I never understood this line of thinking.

Where did you read or hear this? From a blog? Someone on CD? At a HOA meeting?

Since everyone is comparing Houston to LA of the past, the 84' games revenues were over 1.1 billion...in 1984. After operating costs and other investments, they came away with 335 million. In the US, it seems like every city hasn't lost money that hosted.

On top of the sorely needed infrastructure the city will gain, the local jobs in construction, tourism, media, advertising, retail, etc--at all levels will benefit greatly. Plus, we have cheap labor for construction--just like LA with huge influx of latinos back then--this was key to the LA games as well.

But how does it affect me directly? What do I get out of it? I don't want to pay a damn dime outta my pocket! It's like dealing with people who solely rely on their SS payments.

You have be forced to do something, so people here should be on board. Like the Super Bowl. You'll get the extension of the rail, commuter rail and an airport line. It will be great for real estate--with these new lines they will build out further post-olympics. If you say whatever to real estate--a big reason why this city is in the red is because of lost property tax revenues from foreclosures and fleeing investors.

Reminds one of crabs. Hermit crabs. When the tide comes rollin' in...

[ethanw]

AMEN I actually was in Greece for 9 months during the Olympics in Athens 2004... They were working on stuff until the minute olympics started. And as always they're now in a financial hole, the city never makes money.
I was aslo in Beijing right before olympics started and all I can say, what sh*tie hole. They will build something pretty in front of some wrecked and old buildings, basically covering stuff up. The pollution was just HORIBLE. Again no money were made.
I worked directly with some of the people in the olympic committee.

I am glad Houston didn't get it. We will be paying and suffering for it forever. Screw the prestige and all that, let's keep the money for our own people...

Originally Posted by jfre81

And on they went to the '08 games in Beijing. Go figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02
I believe the quote of a member of the selection committee was literally something like this "We just can't bring the world to all this ugliness."
And on they went to the '08 games in Beijing. Go figure.