Actually, didn’t some things happened? Didn’t the 2nd city title led to LA being compared more to NYC not only nationally but globally? Chicago is still in the picture of course, but in this era, if you were to ask a foreigner or random person on the street which two cities are the top ones in the US, most would tell you NYC or LA.

I will admit though that Hollywood and the media in general may be largely responsible for that. However, these comparisons probably weren’t happening as much before the 80s. If Houston or Dallas were to theoretically reach that status, it may not lead to any artificial status change unless they gain more influence over how the world sees them beyond being economic powerhouses.

Granted, a city’s global popularity and status may shoot itself far beyond what is expected of it in terms of its physical size, population, and even level of urban density and infrastructure. It’s probably why I would say more people now know more about Houston, Atlanta, and Charlotte than they know about Galveston, Savannah, and Charleston.

Hollywood (and to a lesser extent, the media) put Dallas directly in the spotlight big time during the 80's.

The Summer Olympics did so for Atlanta in '96.

Both shows/events are to be largely credited for any global awareness either of those cities might have.

^^^Exactly, although Atlanta may have had some clout due to MLK being from there along with Coca Cola and CNN.

no doubt the TV show and the olympics boosted the profile of dallas and atlanta...

but ask someone in china or india or south africa about cities in the united states, and you’ll get new york and los angeles and then maybe san francisco, miami, orlando, las vegas, etc. chicago is well known but not for any specific reason. DC, of course, has a unique status as the capitol. seattle is now well known thanks to amazon and microsoft.

phoenix, dallas, houston, atlanta are just not globally prominent outside of specific industries they may have ties to.

As someone who lives in Houston. If it became the largest city (metro) in the US, it would become an overcrowded hellscape of epic proportions.

In the current form, yes..but NOBODY thinks it will develop in the same way as it has in the past. In fact, the evidence that it is developing differently is all around...the city is developing with mixed use infill projects and with vertical projects. We do need more mass transit but Houston has a chance to be way less of a "hellscape" than NYC , especially if it focuses on urban nodes, density, and connectivity. I'm actually pleased with many of the infill projects and we have more land (way more land area) and blank spaces to accommodate both a healthy urban core and a suburban periphery, which is something I can't say for ALL of the northeast cities.

But i do strongly believe we need some sort of city or regional plan to make sure we head in the right direction.

Texas is going to dominate the 21st century. Just start saying “y’all” now folks.

As mentioned in the Texas thread... Houston and Dallas have some levers to pull to increase density, especially if auto ownership decreases.

As many metros do.

Yea...I don't think so. LA is more or less where we would be with 10 million more people and better transportation and getting around LA is a bear compared to NY. Houston also is in Texas is no California or New York as far as attitudes on transportation and sustainable development.

Houston is not built to be an easy place for those looking for a typical urban lifestyle. Only a few of those cities exist, as a matter of fact, in North America. Have most of what you're looking for within 2 square miles or 5 with public transportation. Houston by default can't be like that.

Does Houston have any walkable commercial districts? I'm not trolling here. I've become increasingly curious about Houston and have tried to explore the city on streetview. It has some really pretty residential neighborhoods, but I haven't been able to find a single cohesive commercial corridor that isn't totally auto-dominated. I've been able to find a fair number of such districts in Dallas, but literally not one (outside of downtown) in Houston.

If any city in Texas becomes the largest city in the US, then it can be safely assumed the US as we understand it today would no longer exist; the Northeast would have already broken away, the West Coast most likely too. We’d be living in Richard Morgan’s future. West Coast mega-city states and their massive free ports, the North Atlantic Union, and a whole lotta Jesusland in between.

I've considered the Museum District and Downtown, so they exist. Much of what's along the rails.

Can you provide some streetview links? I've poked around the Museum District and haven't been able to find a commercial district.

This is the closest thing I have been able to find to a walkable commercial district, and there is parking in front of all the buildings:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7174...7i16384!8i8192

I'm genuinely perplexed. Nashville, which gets a lot of shit from urbanists, appears to have more pedestrian-centered commercial districts than massive Houston. All this talk of Houston densifying is great, but how dense can you really be if everything, and I mean really almost everything, is developed around the car? As auto-oriented as LA is portrayed, it has TONS of walkable commercial districts all over town. Its transition from a driving city to a walking/transit one is ongoing, but at least the bones are in place for such a transition. How can Houston be retrofitted in a more urban way when it lacks the very ingredients that create high-density urban neighborhoods? Dallas seems to have much more going for it on this front than Houston.

I don't get it either. It reminds me of DC/NOVA posters who think Tysons Corner will be some urban/walkable place one day.

There really isn't any because the city had excessive mandatory parking minimums outside of downtown. It wasn't until this past July they exempted Midtown and East Downtown as well so we'll see how new development shapes up in the coming years.

The parking garage in that streetview is relatively new (in relation to the rest of the 'village') because so it is such a congested area and there was (and still is) no place to park and transit ins't really an option.

Wasn't Los Angeles at one time like Houston is today? Isn't it possible that it can mature density like LA has?

No.
LA was built around the red car lines first, and thats when many of it's walkable districts formed, even in far flung areas like Van Nuys.

No other sun belt city was built like that, so it can't be duplicated with them.

the inner loop seems pretty walkable or at least bikable to me.

At the risk of derailing this thread (I know it'll get locked because I'm pretty much confronting you) do you have to make a comment like that in every thread like this? We get that you think people in places like Texas have an unrealistic or simplistic view of urbanity. Then, as I assume you're addressing me indirectly, I'm 100% sure I said Houston's not built to be a walkable city overall on this same page.

You currently have a weird fascination and complex with that lately and it's ruining a number of threads.