What if Houston or Dallas eventually became the largest cities in the US?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

In SF, the surrounding communities don't have some "museum city" to retain, so what gives?

Not really hard to understand. People don't want highrises and density in their suburban locales. They want high-end SFH. I don't agree with the mindset, but it's clearly a common perspective.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not really hard to understand. People don't want highrises and density in their suburban locales. They want high-end SFH. I don't agree with the mindset, but it's clearly a common perspective.

That's where the city councils and officials need to get some balls and force such change into those communities.

I just wonder how bad it has to get for them to do so.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by LA21st

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.

No the real reason is because LA grew up earlier on than Houston and some other sunbelt cities. Houston, Dallas, etc., all had interurban rail systems in the inner city. LA's was more extensive due to SoCal being a more populated area. They still have districts where you can tell were hubs. The rails got ripped up for the same reasons they were ripped up in LA. You can go look at pictures of Houston or Dallas from the early 1900s up until about the 50s and they had packed downtowns with rail rolling through. Until the early 90s, LA was the largest US city without a rail line. It has a lot of bones of an older city (even some rust belt), but it was definitely a lot more suburban and somehwat similar to how a lot of the sunbelt is today in a lot of ways.

[LA21st]

Thats basically what I said?? Jmanc said the same thing too.
Because LA grew up in a older time, it has more walkable than other sunbelt cities. A huge chunk of LA (and its suburbs) were built before 1950s.
I was just in Long Beach, and that city is probably more walkable than any other sunbelt city. It's consistently dense and has several walkable districts on it's own.

Of course it looks more suburban than the older east coast and midwest cities, in general. Nobody says different. But like LA can never be NYC, these other cities can't build LA"s old areas. It's the same thing.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Thats basically what I said?? Jmanc said the same thing too.
Because LA grew up in a older time, it has more walkable than other sunbelt cities. A huge chunk of LA (and its suburbs) were built before 1950s.
I was just in Long Beach, and that city is probably more walkable than any other sunbelt city. It's consistently dense and has several walkable districts on it's own.

Of course it looks more suburban than the older east coast and midwest cities, in general. Nobody says different.

The question was whether LA was like Houston is today. I took that as saying when LA had it's initial growth spurts, the development was still more suburban in nature than the older NE or MW cities, but over time it has gotten denser. Today, it's as dense (or more) than many of those places. Houston is in the same situation. It may not be as urban/dense as LA because it's initial growth spurt was later on, but it's following the same path towards increase density, ie the development of parking lots, 3-story+ townhomes, decreased parking minimums, etc. I don't think Houston will be as dense as LA overall, but it can get close in a few areas in the inner loop + west and southwest sides of town.

[LA21st]

And that's wrong. LA didn't look like Houston in the 1970s or whatever. People like to think that for some reason, but it's never made sense.

Some parts of LA might resemble other sun belt cities (the Western SFValley, newer sections of West LA) but the rest? No. Not even back then.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by LA21st

And that's wrong. LA didn't look like Houston in the 1970s or whatever. People like to think that for some reason, but it's never made sense.

I never said it looked like Houston, but it was more suburban than the NE/MW cities even though it had urban characteristics back then. Same thing today with Houston or Dallas. They may be more suburban in nature than LA due to when they were built, but they've been changing that appearance for decades now. So in the city's life, they're following along the same path.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

And that's wrong. LA didn't look like Houston in the 1970s or whatever. People like to think that for some reason, but it's never made sense.

Some parts of LA might resemble other sun belt cities (the Western SFValley, newer sections of West LA) but the rest? No. Not even back then.

There is a passing resemblance of some older Inner Loop neighborhoods and some areas around LA but otherwise, there's very little in common outside palm trees and the mess of freeways.

[TexasPlaya]

There's a certain organized chaos and transitory feeling that inhabits LA and Houston in my opinion. I grew up on the fringe of older Houston development (pre 80s oil bust), these areas that boomed during the 70s and 80s still remain the most consistently dense. Southwest Houston, where I grew up, reminds me a little of west LA; like meeting the cousin of a close friend, there's something in the DNA. There was always a sprawling skyline right over the horizon.

[Centropolis]

this isn't the optimal timeline of metropolitan america, is it.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

There's a certain organized chaos and transitory feeling that inhabits LA and Houston in my opinion. I grew up on the fringe of older Houston development (pre 80s oil bust), these areas that boomed during the 70s and 80s still remain the most consistently dense. Southwest Houston, where I grew up, reminds me a little of west LA; like meeting the cousin of a close friend, there's something in the DNA. There was always a sprawling skyline right over the horizon.

when you actually get out of a car and walk, you notice that LA is rife with 1920s/30s infrastructure more reminiscent of kansas city than houston across colossal areas. but i can see what you mean.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

when you actually get out of a car and walk, you notice that LA is rife with 1920s/30s infrastructure more reminiscent of kansas city than houston across colossal areas. but i can see what you mean.

LA certainly has considerably more historic infrastructure, but I doubt many on here have walked in west LA and SW Houston.

There’s something about the culture and feel that shares DNA. No one would ever confuse Houston and LA.

[LA21st]

Why wouldn't you walk in West LA? That's a very general statement to make, given West LA has many walkable districts. Even Brentwood and Pacific Palisades have walkable business districts.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Why wouldn't you walk in West LA? That's a very general statement to make, given West LA has many walkable districts. Even Brentwood and Pacific Palisades have walkable business districts.

He's saying not many have walked West LA because unless you had to spend time there, most people casually visiting LA will probably never really explore it behind the touristy areas. People drive to Venice or Santa Monica, take selfies and get back into their cars and drive off to their next stop.

[LA21st]

I mean, that's true. But how many people do that for other cities?
Not many tourists/visitors strolling around Albany Park or Rogers Park in Chicago.


West LA is massive. Melrose , Westwood, Beverly Hills, 3rd, Fairfax, and West Hollywood are part of West LA for most people.

[badrunner]

Houston today has that chaotic dystopian feel of LA in the 80s

Remember that movie Falling Down? If they made that movie today it would take place in Houston.

[LA21st]

His walk through Macarthur Park would still be the same today though.


Such a bizarre area.

[badrunner]

True about MacArthur Park, but a character like D-FENS, does that guy even exist in LA anymore?

I could see totally see his character in Houston though.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I mean, that's true. But how many people do that for other cities?
Not many tourists/visitors strolling around Albany Park or Rogers Park in Chicago.


West LA is massive. Melrose , Beverly Hills, 3rd, Fairfax, and West Hollywood are part of West LA for most people.

Obviously I didn’t walk over all of West LA like I haven’t walked over SW Houston...

SW Houston is huge geographically: major business districts like Galleria/Uptown, Greenway, and Texas Medical Center with major neighborhoods like Bellaire, W. University, Meyerland, Sharpstown, and Westbury. Obviously lesser known neighborhoods....

I’m not arguing they are facsimiles, just they have more in common than your average person would think.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Obviously I didn’t walk over all of West LA like I haven’t walked over SW Houston...

SW Houston is huge geographically: major business districts like Galleria/Uptown, Greenway, and Texas Medical Center with major neighborhoods like Bellaire, W. University, Meyerland, Sharpstown, and Westbury. Obviously lesser known neighborhoods....

I’m not arguing they are facsimiles, just they have more in common than your average person would think.

I mean those one's I named are very well known and pretty vibrant. Beverly Hills and West Hollywood have a few distinct walkable districts on their own.
To say nobody really walks there is just strange. But LA draws these kinds of comments like "five pedestrians in one hour" stuff, so it's not surprsing.