AnTonY

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

I actually very much agree with @Avossos I used to think that there should be just one "ideal aesthetic" for Houston, but we are one of the most challenging landscapes to design for in terms of climate/environment. I would recommend driving the entire length of the Grand Parkway to get a sense of just how complicated our environment is. Houston sits on maybe 3 different biomes (wetlands, sub-tropical, grasslands) with many sub-categories within them. To the SE we have a lot of depressions with a lot of wetlands, to the SW / W we have a lot of grassy flatlands with very few actual wild trees that are very short, to the NW we start to get some sloping and intermix of Oaks and Pines, to the North we get a little more hills and pines, to the NE we get Pines mixed with sub-tropic groundcover / wetlands, and to the E we get more wetland/marshy terrain. The flatness of the landscape and its possible exposure to radical temperature changes, hard rains, and hurricanes makes even more of a challenge. Instead we have to be more pragmatic with landscape solutions here that lean functional than aesthetic. Luckily, there is a large variety of native plants that are incredibly function, but also aesthetically pleasing. In the end though, each project is going to be different depending on where you are at above. Context is key.

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.

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

Yeah lets not forget that some people like to retroactively come up with some "romantic" notions of what our aesthetic should be. Most people would be surprised that about 90% of the live oaks that line our streets (or even most of the trees we have in general) were all planted. Most of the landscape here was completely flat and almost entirely absent of trees until you got to the edge of the piney woods. Any natural trees in these parts lined the bayous. Just randomly and subjectively choosing a "moment" in history and deeming it "natural" is one of the biggest problems that I have with the environmental movement today. Do we have an affect on the climate? yes. Could we be better stewards? yes. Do we know what is the best climate for us and for others.....hell no haha.

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.

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

By the way I'm wondering looking at that map if you think we are actually slowly moving to a more temperate climate. I've been making this argument recently. The climate is definitely shifting. We are getting more well defined springs and falls than we used too.

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.

1 hour ago, dbigtex56 said:

I agree. 

For some reason, people believe that "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence", and tend to dismiss native plants as ordinary and unattractive.
Kate ("McMansion Hell") Wagner wrote a thought-provoking article for Curbed called "The Case Against Lawns" which also emphasizes the role that native species play in defining a sense of place. Trees are only part of the equation; we should also be questioning whether acres of St. Augustine grass is necessary, or even desirable. 

55 minutes ago, s3mh said:

I have always wondered whether we could solve or at least significantly mitigate our flooding problems if we converted everyone's lawns to mini bioswales planted with prairie grasses and other long rooted/spongy plants.  The runoff rate from St. Augustine is pretty dismal.  

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.

@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.

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.

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 😜

On 3/19/2019 at 8:18 AM, Reefmonkey said:

We understand them very well, enough to realize they are unworkable and irresponsible. Trying to convert Galveston into an artificial shadow of the Hamptons or Miami Beach makes far less sense than playing up its natural similarities to Savannah or Charleston, which is a hot destination right now.

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. 

 @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.

On 3/19/2019 at 7:11 AM, Reefmonkey said:

This  is now the fourth time you’ve made an unprovoked attack on my education, this most recent one being  in response to nothing other than me brushing off your immediate previous attack without responding in kind. How about we do this without  the childish personal attacks, ok? If you’ll agree to stop, I’d be happy to go through the science with you, help you understand it better in a civil and collegial manner, but otherwise I’m not going to continue with a discussion with someone who carries on such behavior. 

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).

8 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

Good grief, are you still at it? There's no money to ask for, I was a National Merit Scholar, full ride (and in grad school, they pay you, with a stipend).

They must have had low standards back then.

8 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Here, since you're all about satellite images, let me show you again that NWS satellite imagery that shows the sediment plumes coming out of Bolivar and San Luis passes that NWS says are responsible for the usual color of Galveston water:

And again, those teeny-tiny passes are clearly minimal factors in causing Galveston's turbidity compared to the mighty Mississippi.

8 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

And I know that next to satellite imagery, your favorite thing to talk about is the Mississippi River dead zone, so you should read this:

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/explainer/article/dead-zone-hypoxia-gulf-of-mexico-hosuton-8316093.php

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:

Quote

The zone occurs between the inner and mid-continental shelf in the northern Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Mississippi River delta and extending westward to the upper Texas coast.

https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html

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.

On 3/16/2019 at 9:07 PM, Reefmonkey said:

Nope, scrounging around for an obscure nearly 50 year old report that doesn't say what you obviously think it says isn't a "checkmate", maybe if you had actually gotten a decent education instead of disdaining those of us who did, you'd understand why.

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:

Quote

The inner shelf off the Texas coast will extend to depths of about 15 m (50 ft). The sediments here have various origins but two are major contributors—the Mississippi River and reworking of older sediments as the sea level rose over the past 8,000 years or so. Shells and shell debris are another significant component. The influence of the river diminishes from northeast to southwest along the Gulf. 

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_3#Sec2

So yeah, it's best that you ask your university for your money back, because they did not do a good job at all.

@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.

@Elseed, the reactionaries will never understand the ideals that you are aiming for.

Quote

Alongshore currents carry sediments from the Mississippi, which drains most of the interior of the continent, for considerable distances along the Texas Coast. In these sediments, one finds much of the waste materials produced in the Central United States. Mississippi sediments have been identified as far to the west as the continental shelf off Rockport.

Checkmate

38 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

Oh, and looking into the reason for the Memorial Day 2018 beach water clarity, the National Weather Service's West Gulf River Forecast Center explained that on that Monday there were two factors, first, that there was not the typical outgoing tide that dumps large amounts of sediments from the bay system into the Gulf, and second, that Tropical Storm Alberto pushed a large plume of clear water that flushed the existing sediments up the coast and away from the island.

 

But clearly, the National Weather Service identifies sediments coming from the bay system as the main culprit of Galveston's usual turbidity, and even has satellite imagery showing the usual plumes and where they originate from.

 

 

But NWS's satellite imagery clearly must be wrong, because AnTonY says this is impossible:

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.

38 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

I think we're done here.

Yeah, I'd ask your Uni for your money back.

@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.

3 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

You’r hanging your hat on the dead zone, but it is a layer of stratified high nutrient freshwater floating on top of the denser saltwater below and is a separate issue from sediment distribution. The fact that it stays where it is and doesn’t get dispersed westward demonstrates this. 

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.

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

And another figure showing sediment distribution showing that Mississippi sediment gets distributed toward the southeast, and Texas river sediment predominant, especially along our stretch of the coast. 

 

 

Figure 3.17

Map showing Gulf of Mexico sediment distribution along with sample sites (from Balsam and Beeson 2003: reprinted from Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, Vol 50, Seafloor sediment distribution in the Gulf of Mexico, Figure 4, Copyright 2003, with permission from Elsevier). Contrast this map with that in Figure 3.10

 

Beachwater turbidity is primarily influenced by wave action, this is why those of us who fish offshore know that the gulf water is very clear just a few miles out. It is why Galveston’s beachwater can get surprisingly clear on very calm days, like it did last Memorial Day weekend. The Mississippi doesn’t stop flowing nor do nearshore currents grind to a halt just because the wind dies down on the Texas coast. When Galveston beach water is brown, that’s because waves are stirring up local sediments, and as the figures I posted show, those sediments are predominately from Texas rivers. Our brown beach waters are NOT from the Mississippi. 

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.

2 hours ago, Ross said:

@Reefmonkey, it's 2019. We no longer use logic, facts, and science, it's all about teh feelz, because science is so...harsh and unforgiving and doesn't comport with everyone's worldview. Bwahahaha

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.

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

For anyone who is interested, this is a great paper explaining sediment patterns in the Gulf. If you have the patience to read through the entire paper, it will become clear that the dominant contributors to sediments in nearshore Texas Gulf waters are Texas rivers.

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_3

 

For a “quick and dirty” snapshot, this figure of mineral group distribution showing Central Texas origin minerals dominating in the Gulf adjacent to our portion of the coast is pretty persuasive. 

 

 

Figure 3.15

General map of heavy mineral group distribution in the Gulf of Mexico (from Davies and Moore 1970: reprinted with permission from The Journal of Sedimentary Research). Province I is from the Appalachians; kyanite and staurolite dominate. Province II is from the Mississippi River; augite, hornblende, and epidote dominate. Province III is from Central Texas with hornblende and epidote dominating. Province IV is Rio Grande; epidote, augite, and hornblende are dominant, and Province V is in Mexico; little is known about the heavies in Province V

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.

35 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

Nope, you don’t know jack —— of what you’re talking about. The position of the dead zone, influenced by the warm core eddies’ deflection of the loop current actually proves my point and disproves yours. And sand and silt are just gradations on a spectrum of the same material based on particle size. Texas’s beaches are colloquially sand, though technically silt.  So much for your nursery school level understanding of ocean hydrology. 

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).

7 hours ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the Brazos River has more to do with the muddy look of the Gulf near Galveston. It's clear blue south of the Brazos's mouth.

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.

On 3/15/2019 at 12:26 AM, dbigtex56 said:

In summary: on one side, we have Reefmonkey, an environmental engineer, who has provided both his expertise and facts and figures to support his observations.
On the other, we have someone who seems to believe that mentioning the Hamptons and referring to people as "bud" (while providing absolutely nothing of substance) makes him One Cool Dude.
Who should I believe?
Tellin' you, I'm torn....torn. 

Except that those facts/figures don't actually detract from @Elseed's point.

On 7/27/2007 at 11:28 AM, Reefmonkey said:

It is a popular, nevertheless wrong misconception that Galveston is muddy because of the Mississippi. If we were muddy because of the Mississippi, then the water out in the Gulf would be muddy too. I can tell you from paddling my surfski just a mile or two off the beach out on West Beach that the water clears up and turns blue pretty fast. It is our own Texas rivers that do it, and it is completely natural. Galveston's water is muddy because of the silt that comes out of it from rivers like the Trinity, Brazos, etc. It is this silt that built up the Island. No silt, no Galveston. The silt makes the water muddy, and the silt becomes beach sand, so it is going to be fine and clumpy?

So how exactly are we supposed to clean up Galveston's beachs when they are naturally supposed to look like that?

As for the sargassum (seaweed) that washes up on the beach, scraping it off would also scrape off a lot of sand, which would contribute to beach erosion, which is a bad thing. Leaving it on not only does not harm the beach, it actually helps build the beach back up, because the seaweed provides a matrix that holds the sand in place and keeps so much of it from blowing away or being washed away.

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.

Deleted.

On 9/20/2018 at 3:42 PM, Reefmonkey said:

 

The island itself was formed by buildup of the same sediment that is suspended in the bay. And that same sediment extends out into the Gulf (which the bay is hydrologically part of).

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.

On 9/20/2018 at 3:42 PM, Reefmonkey said:

And the waters from the Trinity and San Jacinto keep on going through Bolivar Pass (and San Luis Pass to a lesser extent). Remember what I said about fine sediment taking a long time of still water to settle out? Well not only does the sediment from the rivers NOT have time to settle out, the currents the rivers create stir up sediment that has previously settled. 

 

Rivers also create plumes of sediment that fan out beyond a simple straight line out of their mouths. This is how deltas form. So just because the Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado rivers don't "empty at Galveston", doesn't mean their sediment can't make its way to Galveston.

 

And you're contradicting yourself here, you're saying the Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado, three rivers that are fairly close to Galveston can't affect Galveston water clarity because they don't empty at Galveston, but you are saying the Mississippi River, which is much farther away, can.

 

You're also not factoring in the longshore current, which runs parallel to the coastline, and which, in Galveston's case, happens to run West-Southwesterly (ie, from southwest to northeast), pulling sediment from the Colorado and Brazos towards Galveston.

 

No, it doesn't, you're wrong, this has been definitively dealt with. The shear bulk of discoloration in Galveston comes from Texas rivers, NOT from the Mississippi. The Loop Current carries Mississippi water AWAY from Texas, not toward it. It makes no sense that you are so invested in the Mississippi source misconception.

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.

@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.

8 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

I am with you 100% on abolishing parking minimums, and I very much want to see pedestrian life take off in Houston, and life without a car to be possible. But even if this happens, it's going to look very different in Houston from our more by-the-book urban cities.

 

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)?