Financial Times article on Houston

[Subdude]

Car-dominated Houston is starting to learn new city tricks

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: September 30 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 30 2009 03:00

In Houston, driving is so much a part of life it is said if people do not have a car they are probably homeless.

A willingness to fuel the economy on petrol, a sprawling freeway system, no zoning and lax air quality standards mean the capital of the US petroleum industry regularly ranks among the most polluted US cities. It fails to meet national air quality standards on ozone, for example.

In terms of the environment, Houston - the archetypal gas-guzzling American city - best illustrates both the groundswell for change in the US and the obstacles to achieving it.

This centre of 2.2m people developed rapidly without zoning laws typical of a city of its size and is "deficient in public space", notes Stephen Fox, a Houston architectural historian.

"There is a powerful, ideological block against systematic planning,'' Mr Fox says. The result is a hotchpotch of nondescript, air-conditioned towers spread over seven city centres.

However, there are signs that this opposition to planning is giving way to an awareness of the need for a better quality of life.

Link to the rest of the article

[crunchtastic]

Hmm. Suppose I was expecting something different from this article. It seemed to be all over the place yet not really say anything. Yet it still felt sort of negative aobut Houston.

The underground public space idea is certainly weird to me. I have not been to Montreal, but have a hard time imagining a Houstonian who would choose to make a special trip to congregate at an underground downtown 'public space'. If our atmosphere could no longer sustain human life, that's one thing. But otherwise, underground? How depressing.

I am curious about Peter Brown -- when was the last time he personally designed or built something? What was it? I need to go check out his campaign website. Curious too about the Channel 11 poll. Wonder how the questions were worded, to get 80% even loosely pro-planning.

[kylejack]

Underground gathering place sounds good to me as some of our summer months feel rather inhospitable.

[citykid09]

Underground gathering place sounds good to me as some of our summer months feel rather inhospitable.

Why underground though? Why not have these spaces above ground. I was thinking large glass indoor/outdoor type buildings, where you feel like you are outside because there is grass and trees, but you are protected from the humidity.

[august948]

Underground gathering place sounds good to me as some of our summer months feel rather inhospitable.

Isn't that what an ice house is for?

[kylejack]

Why underground though? Why not have these spaces above ground. I was thinking large glass indoor/outdoor type buildings, where you feel like you are outside because there is grass and trees, but you are protected from the humidity.

Because Financial Times is dumb and thinks that downtown Houston doesn't have empty parking lots to spare.

[august948]

Why underground though? Why not have these spaces above ground. I was thinking large glass indoor/outdoor type buildings, where you feel like you are outside because there is grass and trees, but you are protected from the humidity.

Wouldn't we then be knocked because of the huge energy cost of air conditioning an above-ground glass structure?

[barracuda]

I'm glad to see the writer points out some of the positive developments in the city. But I agree, the underground plaza idea isn't a fit for Houston. We don't have six months of frigid weather like Montreal. I think Discovery Green, Tranquility Park, and Sam Houston/Buffalo Bayou Park's can be considered public plazas accessible from downtown without a car. Add Hermann Park to the list too since it's on the light rail line.

...regularly ranks among the most polluted US cities. It fails to meet national air quality standards on ozone, for example.

Ugh...I get so tired of blanket statements that infer Houston as among the "most polluted cities" just because of ozone. Houston does have an ozone problem, but that is significantly dictated by the weather. And ozone is just one pollutant. Many other cities are far worse off when you look at the total range of pollutants. Just from my personal experience, I've found Denver, LA and New York to have far worse air quality overall than Houston.

[editor]

The underground public space idea is certainly weird to me. I have not been to Montreal, but have a hard time imagining a Houstonian who would choose to make a special trip to congregate at an underground downtown 'public space'. If our atmosphere could no longer sustain human life, that's one thing. But otherwise, underground? How depressing.

Doesn't sound all that different than how the average Houstonian lives.

• Wake up in air conditioned house.
  
• Get in car in air conditioned garage.
  
• Drive air conditioned car to parking garage.
  
• Work in air conditioned building.
  
• Return to air conditioned car.
  
• Return to air conditioned garage and home.
  

Rinse. Repeat. Wipe hands on pants.

I am curious about Peter Brown -- when was the last time he personally designed or built something? What was it? I need to go check out his campaign website. Curious too about the Channel 11 poll. Wonder how the questions were worded, to get 80% even loosely pro-planning.

Let us know when you get those answers. Wait... you are going to find out, aren't you? Or are you just making rhetorical statements?

Why underground though? Why not have these spaces above ground. I was thinking large glass indoor/outdoor type buildings, where you feel like you are outside because there is grass and trees, but you are protected from the humidity.

I see you've never paid a Houston summer air conditioning bill.

Ugh...I get so tired of blanket statements that infer Houston as among the "most polluted cities" just because of ozone. Houston does have an ozone problem, but that is significantly dictated by the weather. And ozone is just one pollutant. Many other cities are far worse off when you look at the total range of pollutants. Just from my personal experience, I've found Denver, LA and New York to have far worse air quality overall than Houston.

So, because Houston excels at just one specific type of pollution, it's not polluted?

[rsb320]

New idea for the Astrodome - A GIANT playground

Speaking of ozone, I don't think we had any alerts this summer. When we were alerted on the posibility of high ozone, I monitored this site regularly and never saw any problems.

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/ozone_animation.pl?12

[TheNiche]

I am curious about Peter Brown -- when was the last time he personally designed or built something? What was it? I need to go check out his campaign website.

I don't know how involved he is in his firm, but that was the one that came up with the zany concept for Westchase having a bunch of shallow water-filled channels that don't go anywhere.

[TheNiche]

So, because Houston excels at just one specific type of pollution, it's not polluted?

Actually, the point that seems like was being made is that we only suck at one specific type of pollution. And it's not even the really hazardous stuff like particulate matter; that's a form of pollution where Chicago has serious problems; and it does lead to a direct and observable increase in the mortality rate. Chicago is on par with Los Angeles, Detroit, Cincinatti, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Atlanta, and Birmingham.

Houston is on-par with San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Kansas City and Boston.

The cleanest parts of the country seem to be the Pacific Northwest, central and west Texas, the Great Plains, and Florida.

See map.

[barracuda]

So, because Houston excels at just one specific type of pollution, it's not polluted?

Haha...of course not, but the writer does make an awfully broad statement. There seems to be a tendency to use ozone as the one and only barometer for describing a city's air pollution.

How about just writing, "Houston regularly ranks among the most polluted US cities in terms of ozone" instead of the more general statement that it "regularly ranks among the most polluted US cities." One describes the actual, specific problem, while the other leaves readers with a much worse impression.

[gto250us]

Haha...of course not, but the writer does make an awfully broad statement. There seems to be a tendency to use ozone as the one and only barometer for describing a city's air pollution.

How about just writing, "Houston regularly ranks among the most polluted US cities in terms of ozone" instead of the more general statement that it "regularly ranks among the most polluted US cities." One describes the actual, specific problem, while the other leaves readers with a much worse impression.

What do you all expect from someone who hails from the great metropolis of London. I am not sure that any city in America would get a fair reporting from this bunch.

[AtticaFlinch]

The cleanest parts of the country seem to be the Pacific Northwest, central and west Texas, the Great Plains, and Florida.

In other words, places with a lot of rain to wash away pollution or places with a lot of wind to blow away pollution have less pollution than places without a lot of wind or rain to clean the pollution. Hmmm... I'm no pollutiologist, but I think I detect a pattern.

[TheNiche]

In other words, places with a lot of rain to wash away pollution or places with a lot of wind to blow away pollution have less pollution than places without a lot of wind or rain to clean the pollution. Hmmm... I'm no pollutiologist, but I think I detect a pattern.

Exactly. I'm sure that Houston generates its own fair share of course particulates (mostly from land development as opposed to from dirty industry, though, as my understanding is that things got pretty bad in the suburbs back in the boom town days of the 70's and early 80's), but our weather dissipates the effects pretty quickly. What can I say except that we got the long end of the stick on that one.

[Subdude]

I was curious about the statement in the article that the light rail will connect 65 neighborhoods. Is that true? It struck me as something from the Department of Dubious Statistics. Does anyone know the source?

What do you all expect from someone who hails from the great metropolis of London. I am not sure that any city in America would get a fair reporting from this bunch.

I really don't think that Londoners have any blanket prejudice against Houston.

[editor]

What do you all expect from someone who hails from the great metropolis of London. I am not sure that any city in America would get a fair reporting from this bunch.

The writer lives in Houston, not London. You see, large media companies have these things called "reporters" that sometimes go places. Sometimes they even live and work in other cities so they can know what things are like from an insider's point of view and correspond that information. They're called "correspondents." When there's a bunch of them together they can sometimes form a "bureau." it's all very technical.

Or you could just have read the very first line underneath the headline.

[LTAWACS]

Why underground though? Why not have these spaces above ground. I was thinking large glass indoor/outdoor type buildings, where you feel like you are outside because there is grass and trees, but you are protected from the humidity.

But thanks to our diminishing ozone layer, you're not protected from the cancer-causing UV rays.

[editor]

But thanks to our diminishing ozone layer, you're not protected from the cancer-causing UV rays.

Actually, the ozone layer is getting better. In fact, the ozone layer is getting much better much faster than scientists predicted, which means the scientists don't really understand how it works.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm?list832167

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM6MD7H07F_index_0.html (I think that's the first time I've linked to a .int domain)

[LTAWACS]

Actually, the ozone layer is getting better. In fact, the ozone layer is getting much better much faster than scientists predicted, which means the scientists don't really understand how it works.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm?list832167

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM6MD7H07F_index_0.html (I think that's the first time I've linked to a .int domain)

Interesting. Let's hope it does get better.