Talk:Houston/Archive 8

message: The photos have been changed recently. I prefer the previous photos, but wanted to get other opinions. Thanks Postoak (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the photos are okay, but I'm somewhat indifferent to the cityscape photos.  I'm sure a better one is out there, or perhaps from a different view would be better. --Hourick (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox and Cityscape photos

message: I restored the higher quality daytime infobox image that was recently replaced with a nighttime image. The nigttime image is out of focus, composition is not that great (one quarter of the image shows the side of a building) and has the date printed on the image. Postoak (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox image

message: I feel that the reference for the following sentence: A common misconception is that "Houston is Houston" because of the lack of zoning laws doesn't support the claim and that the sentence and the recent additions to the paragraph (to me) are biased. I'm sure that there are others that say that "Houston is Houston" because of the lack of zoning laws. Should both sides be presented? Is the cityscape paragraph the proper place for a detailed discussion of zoning laws or lack of? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cityscape paragraph

message: When people think of Houston, they think, flat hot, humid, swamp, really bad sprawl, no zoning.
Then they conclude that IF no zoning THEN really bad sprawl, which is a huge non-sequitor, for many reasons.  Logically, lets call Zoning "A" and Good City Design with a Healthy Pedestrial Life "B", so allegedly NOT A -> NOT B (lack of zoning is sufficent for absence of good city design) This is the primary association that people make.
The secondary association with Houston and zoning is "Oh they might build a bar next to my house" - lets call this C. So this logic goes: NOT A -> C, (ok so far), but then another logical error arises,  C -> NOT B (bar is sufficent for bad city design).  But as anyone who has been to Paris or Prague could tell you, C -> NOT B is not a true statement, and NOT A -> C -> NOT B fails as does NOT A -> NOT B.
In other words, people conflate the "bar next door" problem with the "auto dependent sprawl" problem.
The main reason Houston's sprawl is so bad is that the bulk of its development happened in the Automobile age.  Houston turned out similarly to Phoenix and Atlanta which both have zoning.  Therefore Zoning is not sufficient for good city design.  A -> B (zoning is sufficient for good city design) is FALSE.  So in one interpretation, Houston is not necessarily to blame, an innocent victim of the age in which it developed, as it turned out no worse than other sun belt cities.
So Zoning is not sufficient for Good City Design, but is it necessary?  No, as Zoning did not 
not exist prior to about 1920, and most of America's most admired urban neighborhoods came into being before this time, and before formal Zoning.
Therefore, Zoning is neither necessary nor sufficient for Good City Design.  Another logical error is that zoning and planning are the same thing.  In reality, Zoning is a subset of "Planning" (this is another reason that A is not sufficient for B, zoning is not the only trick in the Planning bag).  Houston has other forms of Planning than Zoning which affect land use.  Many of these have contributed, and continue to contribute to auto-dependent sprawl.  It is FALSE to say that Houston has NO land use planning because it has no Zoning, just as it is FALSE to suggest that Houston turned out Unwalkable BECAUSE of its lack of zoning.
In conclusion, Houston's lack of formal Zoning has very little to do with how Houston turned out, at least in terms of auto-dependent sprawl.  The sad truth is that most of Houston Was planned, in one way or another.  
The idea that Houston was not planned, and succeeded in being not planned(YEE-HAW COWBOY), is a more comfortable reality than the REAL reality that Houston was indeed Planned, and it was Planned to Suck without concern for basic human needs and psychology, which are things that only faggy northern liberals worry about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.224.165 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Sowell, in his Knowledge and Decisions agrees with you, that a natural separation of commericial, residential, and industrial property occurs regardless of zoning laws.--Loodog (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's all somebody's opinion.  We keep them if they're scholarly opinions, e.g. if it were Alan Greenspan's opinion that the economy was slumping because of the trade deficit, we'd put that in a wikipedia article.--Loodog (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cityscape, Sprawl and Zoning

message: In light of recent revisions directed at citations of "world cities" and "global cities", it may not hurt to open a discussion here on the topic.
Postoak made a step in the right direction by retaining the "gamma" designation under the Culture section (and removing "global city" in the leading).  Because the "global city" designation is at most an academic designation, it is important to refine usage of it within that context.
Under the 1999 report on global cities (GaWC Research Bulletin 5), the primary qualifier for global city distinction -- its presence as an "international finance centre" -- is a collection of academic precedence leading up to the 1999 survey (see Part 4 of "functional approaches" section; and Table 2).  Houston qualified under this criterion per Friedmann (1986, 1995); Knox (1995); Nomura (1991); and Knox & Agnew (1989).  This inventory designated Houston with an index value of 5.  Note that only financial center node value is considered by this criterion. 
Also, per the 1999 report, Houston is designated under Table 3 as a major "global accountancy service centre"; similarly, it is designated under Table 5 as a major "global banking service centre", and the same under Table 6 as a "global legal service centre".  The report concludes that Houston received an index value of 6; while the report was issued almost a decade ago, it also notes that in America, Dallas and Washington, D.C. tie with Houston under the gamma ranking.  It is interesting to ask why Dallas and Houston were ranked at the same index value; one hypothesis could be where Houston's economic engine comes from the Port, Dallas's may come from its placement of the DFW air hub (it will be interesting to investigate this further).
This said, however, the GaWC issued another global cities report in 2004, Research Bulletin 146; in this report, Houston (and several other cities listed on the 1999 global cities graduated index) does not appear.  It seems that on this more contemporary study, the researcher tried to refine the 1999 findings under a wider variety of criteria: globalizations of economics, culture, politics, and social affairs.  Curiously, Houston and Dallas do not appear, but Atlanta and Denver do, while Washington D.C., is re-classed as a "political and social global niche city".
It's up to the editors for the Houston page to ultimately settle on a citation or claim of "global city" as it applies to Houston, but ultimately the claim needs to correctly reflect the criteria and final designation of at least one of these cited reports.  For this reason, because Houston (in the 1999 report) ranked as major in areas of accountancy, banking, and legal services, it would be appropriate to move the "gamma global city" designation to the Economy section of the page.
-- Accozzaglia 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friendly reminder to all (including me) - let's not get into an edit war and violate WP:3RR over this. Thanks! Postoak 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World-Global cities discussion

message: Some people, including natives, pronouce it YOU-stun...
76.17.224.165 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YOU-stun

message: Im adding a sister city list per the Sister cities International webpage.  http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/usa/TX  Kcuello (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already exists as a subarticle. Please see the "Government and Politics" section and note the "See also" link to Sister cities of Houston. This is duplicate information. Postoak (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister Cities

message: Copied from User talk:Postoak...
Hi, I recently added a piece of information in regards to Houston's Sister Cities. I was curious as to a specific rule in wikipedia that discounts why a subarticle such as houston sister cities not be integrated with the main article of the relevant city? Just about every major city in the world listed on wikipedia has a list of their sister cities within the article. A city as large and influential as Houston should promtly have it displayed in its flagship article. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Kcuello (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the work to get the article to featured article status was to move all embedded lists (including Sister cities of Houston} to prose or to subarticles. If you notice, we don't have any lists in the article. Many city articles have the sister cities list within the article and many do not, but I agree with you that that this really should be part of the main article. I will re-introduce your edits. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister cities houston