Jump to content

AnTonY

Full Member
  • Posts

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AnTonY

  1. It's not that challenging or complicated. The main challenge when it comes to landscaping here is the soil. Address that, and all the vision desired is free for the having. Another big problem is equating "natural" with "better" (A.K.A. appeal to nature). Wiping the entire prairie out, and replacing it with subtropical jungle forests would go against conserving nature, but would ultimately benefit the landscape here. Both objectively and aesthetically. The climate has indeed become more temperate and equable, all thanks to tropics expansion, with the Hadley cell expanding northwards. While there have been quite a few snow/ice events recently, winter severity has been on an overall declining trend compared to the 20th century. Before 1989, the Houston would seen temperatures in the teens with quite some regularity, but since the 90s, such temperatures have only happened once (Jan 2018). The stronger Hadley cell is slowly, but surely, reducing the severity of the jet stream swings that result in these severe cold snaps. Springs and falls are becoming much drier and sunnier, El Nino events not-withstanding. Houston and Texas used to see more regular severe weather threats during those shoulder seasons, but activity has since shifted north and east towards the Mid-South "Dixie Alley." The same reduction in jet stream swings during winter also carry through spring and fall, leaving stronger geopotential heights in the Houston area during these transition seasons. This, combined with stronger influence from the Mexican Plateau, kills off the threat of severe weather events, including supercells and squall lines. And summers have been rainier here since the 2000s compared to previous decades, even when factoring in that 2011 dry spell. The expanded Hadley Cell takes the apex of geopotential heights further north from Texas during summer, allowing stronger influence from the tropical easterly belt.
  2. I despise the suburban design, and everything associated with them, including lawns. You'll hear no argument from me when it comes to abolishing them.
  3. @Avossos I have already accounted for all the concerns that you brought up. Hence why I specified SE US flora in the original post. Perhaps if you refrained from the knee-jerking, you would have seen that.
  4. I'd say landscaping in this city is better off sticking with the tropical/subtropical look. The coastal SE US flora is more than enough to satisfy this, with species such as magnolias, various green oaks, and pines. Very lush, and quite eye-catching when combined with graceful palms and colorful flowers. The plants do very well in the humid climate. It goes well with the bayou landscape. Deciduous trees are okay under certain context, especially the cypress species, or semi-evergreen warm-climate types. Otherwise, they largely are ugly and white-bread, and are better off being wiped out. Same goes for scrubby stuff like Chinese Tallow, mesquite, and huisache.
  5. How far east would you guys wish for Houston to spread? In terms of cohesive urban fabric, I personally can see the city getting at least to present-day Brady's Landing. As time goes on, I'm just growing less and less interested in western/northern areas: it just makes for a scene not much different than Dallas 😜
  6. I don't think his idea was to "copy Miami Beach or Hamptons" in so much as its just advocation of general growth/improvement of Galveston.
  7. @Reefmonkey, I've already mentioned before that your science was sound, and your points valid. However, they either are minor details in the grand scheme of the circumstance, or they otherwise don't refute my point.
  8. I mean, you were being strangely defensive and obstinate about this topic given your educational standing. There's literally evidence word-for-word that the Mississippi is the major contributing factor to Galveston's turbidity. The local rivers aren't heavy contributors because they already are filtered out by the bays, and those bays are nearly enclosed from the Gulf except for tiny passes (not wide enough for significant sediment dispersal).
  9. They must have had low standards back then. And again, those teeny-tiny passes are clearly minimal factors in causing Galveston's turbidity compared to the mighty Mississippi. Nope, the article refers to conditions for one specific year. The exact extent from the Mississippi varies year-by-year, but it often does extend towards to Upper Texas shoreline: Point being, that the Mississippi River does indeed have influence on the water quality of the Texas coast, including the turbidity. That is fact, and no amount of your defensive posturing will change that.
  10. Funny you say this, considering that the paper you linked earlier references material just as old, even older. Not to mention your genetic fallacy, given that the empirical findings as seen with the paper still would stand regardless of how long ago they were recorded. But even if we stick with the paper you provided, this is what it has to say about Texas: So yeah, it's best that you ask your university for your money back, because they did not do a good job at all.
  11. @Angostura @samagon I agree with the sentiments. It's often said that "people love their cars here," but without the opposite experience (especially through visiting a walkable city), there's no way to tell if that love is intrinsic or extrinsic.
  12. @Elseed, the reactionaries will never understand the ideals that you are aiming for.
  13. Again, nuance. Learn to grasp it. I didn't say that Galveston Bay sediments didn't affect Galveston, I said that they were minimal factors compared to the Mississippi. The Gulf is a micro-tidal environment, and the bay is practically closed off from it with the exception of a small pass. And it's exactly as I said, there was a SW current that day that lead to clear water. Plus, even if the sediment does indeed come from the Ship Channel ... it would still prove a point I made earlier, that the turbidity in Galveston/Galveston Bay has a strong man-made component. No matter how you slice it, I'm right. Yeah, I'd ask your Uni for your money back.
  14. @Reefmonkey, with all due respect, not a single thing you've posted actually refutes the point. At best, they are "flexes" (i.e. superfluous details) that are either adjunct to the point, or besides it. And the point is that the Mississippi, is, in fact, the main factor in causing turbidity along the Upper Texas shoreline, in this present time. It takes a MASSIVE load of sediment to make beach water look so chocolaty, and it doesn't get more massive than the Mississippi. Again, it does not take a grad degree to figure this out, simple satellite images, as well as the direction of the Dead Zone, make it clear which direction the Mississippi effluent goes towards. You also aren't grasping the nuance here. Coastal environments are not static, my dude. So many processes, highly variable in both extent and time of year. A lot has happened over 4500 years. The maps you show refer to ancestral deposits, the discussion is about the causes for Galveston's present day turbidity. The Upper Coast Texas rivers don't actually discharge as much sediment as you think. The rivers are larger, and the climate is wetter, but with wetness comes greater vegetative cover, with forests and streambank cover to anchor the sediment. The area around Galveston is actually marked as "quartz sand." Greater silt discharge from Texas rivers will actually be found in the area between Galveston and Port Aransas: the rivers there run through Texas prairie lands, which still get heavy rainfall for flash floods, but too dry to grow much of the thick vegetation that anchors the sediment.
  15. Again, you're beating around the bush with unnecessary flex. We already know that the two processes are distinct, but it still doesn't change the fact of their relation. The high nutrient freshwater is laden with sediment. It's pretty clear that the Mississippi River effluent drifts west towards Texas, and affects the turbidity. Again, those maps cover thousands of years in time, things weren't the same back then as they are now. But most importantly, the Mississippi sediment won't be shown in the ocean floor around Galveston in those maps, because the sediment IS STILL IN SUSPENSION at that point. It drops offshore near the Lower Texas coast, hence you see that area of purple along that portion of the shore. And I'm well aware the wave-stirred sediment can affect clarity as well, I'm just saying that the Mississippi sediment suspension contributes heavily to the discoloration. Again, nuance. And surface currents are generated largely by the wind. And it's pretty clear that they aren't static, they vary in strength, extent, and even direction depending on the time of year. In Memorial Day of 2018, it wasn't just calm water, the current was also reversed, coming from the SW. The strength was such as to pin the sediment plumes from the Brazos along the mouth, allowing the Galveston water to become quite crystal clear, to a point never before seen by locals. As seen later during the summer, the water had clearer moments during the calm-days, but not quite like it was during Memorial Day: The prevailing current was still there, but lessened by the calm winds. Yeah, you two seemed to be quite up in your feelings. Just look at how @Reefmonkey had his knickers in a twist this entire discussion.
  16. This doesn't actually refute the point because it refers to a wide span of geologic time, over thousands of years. When sea-levels were lower, rivers like the Trinity actually went directly to the Gulf to deposit silt/sand/etc. That sediment is what your map refers to, and is what got reworked by the ocean to become Galveston. But since then, the sea-levels rose, and sediment distribution got altered: most of the Texas rivers got drowned out near the coast, becoming the bays that we see today. The Mississippi also experienced change, naturally shifting course over centuries. Today, it empties near the Port of Orleans, fixed by the levee structure. And alot of the sediment ends up in the Gulf....heading towards Galveston to muddy the waters.
  17. I met Jack once, he was an interesting person. The fact that the Dead Zone extends west towards Texas, rather than out into the middle of the Gulf, or east towards Florida, actually disproves your point and proves mine. Again, nuance - those warm core eddies certainly have an effect, but there clearly are other currents at play that influence that westward prevailing direction. While the source material is technically the same, the particle sizes affect the behavior in soil, water, etc, meaning that distinctions aren't arbitrary. The sizes are such that sand tends to be deposited by the beach, while silt and clay are carried farther off-shore before depositing on the water bottom. The bay side of Galveston is where you'll find the silt/clay concentrations, with all those marshes, and that portion is almost entirely separated from the open Gulf by the barrier island itself (the only breaks being the passes). On the other hand, the Gulf-facing composition is largely sand, albeit very fine (which makes it comfortable on the feet, and gets those jeeps stuck at times).
  18. Nope, the Brazos empties southwest of Galveston, and currents closest to shore are often east to west. Therefore, Brazos sediment has little effect on Galveston. Turbidity can carry down the coast to near Mustang Island often. The rivers of Texas dump sediment, but not to as high degree as the Mississippi.
  19. Except that those facts/figures don't actually detract from @Elseed's point.
  20. Nope, no misconception. Look at satellite images, look at the direction of the Gulf Dead Zone, look at the course/nature of Texas rivers, etc, and you'll clearly see that the Mississippi is the major contributor to Galveston's brown water. The fact that you're equating silt with sand (two distinct materials) shows that you still have a lot to learn about coastal geography. So much for that Master's degree.
  21. Not exactly. Sediment-sorting dynamics ensure that sand ends up on the beach, whereas the finer clay and silt eventually deposits on the water flood. Also, the bay as we know it now didn't yet exist when Galveston was first formed. Wow, lot's of defensive posturing here, beating around the bush with technical details that are already understood. And yet, somehow, you still manage to miss the point. There is, in fact, a near-shore current that runs east-to-west along the shores from Louisiana. THAT is what brings a large amount of the Mississippi sediment towards the Texas shoreline. Hence why many aerial shots of Galveston depict a "mud-line," where the water closest to shore is muddy, becoming blue/tropical-like farther offshore. Also why beaches along the Sea Wall and West End have experienced erosion in the advent of jetties, while East Beach accreted. The Loop Current that you refer to tends to be farther offshore closer to Florida, away from the mouth of the MS River. The SW current is temporary, and, in Memorial Day 2018, actually brought the clear water to Galveston. And again, ALL Texas rivers except two empty into bays/estuaries, which are loaded with marsh vegetation. The bulk of sediment, therefore, is anchored away/settled out/etc, and the rivers themselves aren't exactly large in terms of volume. That, combined with the sheer size of Galveston Bay, along the the multiple sub-bays adjoining it (i.e. Trinity Bay, Burnett Bay, etc) ensure that any sediment influence on Galveston presently from nearby rivers is minimal. And the two Texas rivers that DO empty into the Gulf are do so SW of Galveston...where the prevailing near-shore currents drag the sediment away from Galveston. It doesn't take much research to figure this out. Just look at the satellite images. Then consider why else would the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone extends west towards Texas, rather than east towards Florida, or out in the middle of the Gulf? It's obvious that the Mississippi effluent makes it's way towards Texas by virtue of prevailing currents.
  22. @Twinsanity02 It's actually sorting itself out. The types of people that would choose areas in the MSA like Sugar Land and The Woodlands likely wouldn't pick inner city Houston, or vice-versa. And with those large suburbs getting more and more self-contained (i.e. with their own employment centers, town-squares, etc), their auto-centricness will have less and less influence on Houston's development. @H-Town Man My quote was actually directed at the part where you said that the pedestrian lifestyle in Houston would look "very different" from the "by-the-book" urban cities. @Timoric When I think of walkable subtropical cities, I think of all those dense mega-cities springing up in Asia.
  23. If you are referring to car-centricness, then that will depend very much on how much the people here truly love their cars. Do people here truly like their vehicles and having to use them to go anywhere? Or do they only want them in efforts to compensate for the environment (i.e. need for amenities, peer pressure, etc)?
×
×
  • Create New...