Are Texas cities bloated?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Contrary to popular belief, the Texas State Legislature virtually stopped Texas cities from annexing populated areas along their borders in 2018. People living in areas to be annexed must vote in favor of being annexed. And that doesn't happen because people don't vote for higher taxes.

interesting. So Texas cities are now more or less frozen in size.

But the state will remain well-represented among the largest land area cities in the US.

With the exception of some low population cities with giant land areas, like Anchorage or Augusta, GA, there are 15 major cities in the US with land areas over 300 Square miles. 5 of them are in Texas - Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin.

[MolsonExport]

why don't they just merge Texas cities into one big blob? Call it Texas, the largest city in the USA. The population dick measuring guys will go into rapture.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

If you think those cities are bloated, look at Oklahoma City and Phoenix.

Or Jacksonville - the worst offender when it comes to bloated city limits.

[Riverranchdrone]

While cities like Houston, San Antonio and Dallas prefer to build out rather than up. Austin seems to not be expanding out as much as it is up.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

While cities like Houston, San Antonio and Dallas prefer to build out rather than up. Austin seems to not be expanding out as much as it is up.

Fun Fact: Dallas is for all intents and purposes a landlocked municipality, and has been for quite some time now.

Austin, until state law changed, was just as annexationist as Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth.

Actually, Austin may be arguably more annexationist than the other three, as the city has used its annexation powers to take control of land for the purpose of protecting it from suburban development.

—————

I would agree with those above that we, in America, often balkanize our jurisdictions more than is necessary. Having a single community under the same jurisdiction usually leads to operational efficiency for services provided by that layer of government. It also does not necessary follow from taking issue with an excess number of municipalities that one is agreeable with the large area that comes along with municipal consolidation. I, for one, both believe that many municipalities should be consolidated by their states into singular governments AND that we should have stronger land-use regulations that keep urban development within strict confines and minimizes new suburban, exurban, and periurban development so that we don’t keep sprawling into oblivion.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

While cities like Houston, San Antonio and Dallas prefer to build out rather than up. Austin seems to not be expanding out as much as it is up.

Austin's suburbs are growing at a hefty rate to the north.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Contrary to popular belief, the Texas State Legislature virtually stopped Texas cities from annexing populated areas along their borders in 2018. People living in areas to be annexed must vote in favor of being annexed. And that doesn't happen because people don't vote for higher taxes.

Well before that I think. Houston annexed Kingwood (unincorporated suburb to the north) in 1996 and it was met with widespread opposition which was the beginning of the end of freewheeling annexations.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

why don't they just merge Texas cities into one big blob?

Why does Houston, the largest of the Texan cities, not simply eat the other cities?

[RobEss]

Something struck me recently as I was planning a trip from my home in NYC to a cabin in the Poconos -

Driving about an hour and a half out of Manhattan in average traffic puts me in leafy, semi-rural towns connected by corridors of forested valleys and streams. An additional half hour of driving, and I'm arriving at a quiet, secluded lake situated along a dirt road.

That same drive-time in a city like Houston would take me from central Houston all the way to....still Houston. It's more suburban of course, but the sheer sprawl and reliance on fibrous, car-reliant transportation systems means that escaping the city for a more natural environment is a much lengthier task than most other cities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by RobEss

Something struck me recently as I was planning a trip from my home in NYC to a cabin in the Poconos -

Driving about an hour and a half out of Manhattan in average traffic puts me in leafy, semi-rural towns connected by corridors of forested valleys and streams. An additional half hour of driving, and I'm arriving at a quiet, secluded lake situated along a dirt road.

That same drive-time in a city like Houston would take me from central Houston all the way to....still Houston. It's more suburban of course, but the sheer sprawl and reliance on fibrous, car-reliant transportation systems means that escaping the city for a more natural environment is a much lengthier task than most other cities.

Houston is so big, you easily could fit two Texas's in it.

[Cirrus]

No. The entire concept of municipal populations is simply invalid as a comparison metric. Every state has a different annexation system and this makes every state's cities equally wrong, but in ways that are unique state-by-state.

Everyone should forget municipal populations even exist, and use (ideally) urbanized areas or (in a pinch) metro areas instead. Anybody who cites municipal populations in a comparison of cities ultimately is just making themselves look ignorant.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by RobEss

Something struck me recently as I was planning a trip from my home in NYC to a cabin in the Poconos -

Driving about an hour and a half out of Manhattan in average traffic puts me in leafy, semi-rural towns connected by corridors of forested valleys and streams. An additional half hour of driving, and I'm arriving at a quiet, secluded lake situated along a dirt road.

That same drive-time in a city like Houston would take me from central Houston all the way to....still Houston. It's more suburban of course, but the sheer sprawl and reliance on fibrous, car-reliant transportation systems means that escaping the city for a more natural environment is a much lengthier task than most other cities.

Can you really drive for 1.5 hours and still be in the city of Houston? The longest distance I'm able to measure across Houston is about 41 miles.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Can you really drive for 1.5 hours and still be in the city of Houston? The longest distance I'm able to measure across Houston is about 41 miles.

Depending on the traffic you can drive 1.5 hours and still be in Manhattan

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Depending on the traffic you can drive 1.5 hours and still be in Manhattan

Yeah, for sure lol.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston is so big, you easily could fit two Texas's in it.

you could fit a whole indianapolis and columbus in houston — and they are known for doing their own versions of houston-lite.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Can you really drive for 1.5 hours and still be in the city of Houston? The longest distance I'm able to measure across Houston is about 41 miles.

you can drive across greater cleveland in half an hour at over 80mph.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

While cities like Houston, San Antonio and Dallas prefer to build out rather than up. Austin seems to not be expanding out as much as it is up.

I'm pretty sure Houston has more tall buildings than only a handful of other US cities.

Houston's "secondary downtown clusters" have more office space than office space in many top 25 cities' main downtown.

[llamaorama]

Is this a debate over population size rankings or about the pros and cons of large core city boundaries?

I disagree very very strongly with those who think a city on Houston’s scale is a reasonable way of structuring local government. It’s just too big. Houston politics is very partisan and not particularly inclusive of all citizens. There is an urban black north side and sunnyside political machine and a rich white river oaks machine and nobody else matters.

I understand the arguments over balkanized municipalities but let’s get real, that pertains to teeny tiny places around St Louis or Cleveland with like 3,000 residents and no tax base. Sure, consolidation would be helpful.

But I think a happy medium exists. 100,000 to 1,000,000. Bigger than that there needs to be more devolution. Like how NYC has boroughs. I also think we have counties and regional entities like transit agencies or airport authorities for a reason.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Is this a debate over population size rankings or about the pros and cons of large core city boundaries?

I disagree very very strongly with those who think a city on Houston’s scale is a reasonable way of structuring local government. It’s just too big. Houston politics is very partisan and not particularly inclusive of all citizens. There is an urban black north side and sunnyside political machine and a rich white river oaks machine and nobody else matters.

I understand the arguments over balkanized municipalities but let’s get real, that pertains to teeny tiny places around St Louis or Cleveland with like 3,000 residents and no tax base. Sure, consolidation would be helpful.

But I think a happy medium exists. 100,000 to 1,000,000. Bigger than that there needs to be more devolution. Like how NYC has boroughs. I also think we have counties and regional entities like transit agencies or airport authorities for a reason.

Does Houston have strong council districts? NYC has local community boards that are able to control almost everything that happens within their zone. It's not even a borough issue, as the boroughs don't have much independent authority.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Austin's suburbs are growing at a hefty rate to the north.

...and south.