Talk:Houston/Archive 8

Nickname again

i couldn't really find where to put this, but the old archive page said i should put it on this page. tihs is regarding the "nickname" in the info box. i hate to resurrect a dead horse, but running through this page, i was unable to find the discussion that resulted in the so-called "consensus" that was reached regarding only the official nickname being in the info box; in fact, it seems from reading the discussion on this page that one person suggested "space city," while another suggested "bayou city." now, the former may be the "official" nickname, and furthermore it may be what's painted on the side of the cop cruisers for the downtown pct, but i don't know a single native houstonian who refers to the city as "space city." in fact, being as clear lake is so far outside of the city limits, it seems like "space city" hardly serves to describe the city at all! although, of course, the casual "h-town" has become exceedingly popular in recent years, it still seems as though the preferred nickname among natives is "bayou city" -- and, of course, it's the most historically applicable nickname to boot. just to give an idea of which is apparently more "close to home" to us houstonians, when you put "space city" into google, the first two results are about *seattle,* and the third isn't even about a city, but a website apparently named "space city." when you put "bayou city," of course, you get nothing but hits relating to houston! a number of clubs, organisations, and festivals here in houston all have the "bayou city" moniker in their names. "space city" is a nickname we care so little about that we lose to seattle twice and a raondom tripod website on google. why should it be given as the name in the box, just because of its legislative identity? since a nickname is generally a term of endearment, shouldn't we rather try to reflect the opinions of the people of the city than the official "nickname" (which, if wikipedia's article on "nicknames" is to be believed, is not a nickname at all, but rather an "official title")? just some food for thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.110.210 (talk)

The last discussion on this is here. It includes several links to the other discussions concerning the nickname issue. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, i have already read thru the extensive archives, but i still never found a true and proper "consensus." what i found was *one* person suggesting we use the "official nickname" (which, again, as per the info on wikipedia's page for nicknames, is actually a "title" and not a "nickname") and then maybe one or two others saying "yeah, that's fine." doesn't seem like much of a consensus to me, especially since at least one of the original authors arriving at the "consensus" (here i'm pretty sure i'm talking about none other than you yourself) preferred "bayou city" in the first place. i'm not trying to start some new flame war on the subject by any means, but i'd like to think that the lucid google data i referenced earlier shows more clearly the more widely-used nickname than dose a consensus of two people. if i'm wrong and there was some larger consensus, by all means, disregard me, but otherwise i can't see how "space city" is a more applicable nickname jsut because it's the "official title" that no natives actually use...anyway also i wanted to say that i'm not interested in wasting anyone's time, least of all my own, so feel free to tell me to stfu if this is only doing just that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.110.210 (talk)

I won't tell you to go stuff it. While I do believe a concensus had been reached (having participated in the discussions), consensus can change. It is clear that you read the previous discussions; I just wanted to make sure. Although I personally prefer "Bayou City," I probably use H-Town more often. Nevertheless, for purposes of this article (and the discussions), I agreed that "Space City" deserved the exclusive listing in the info box. Of course, feel free to drum up another discussion. I don't know whether it'd be a waste of time. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

70.138.110.210 (talk · contribs) wrote: "in fact, being as clear lake is so far outside of the city limits, it seems like "space city" hardly serves to describe the city at all!"

The Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and the master-planned community of Clear Lake City are within Houston city limits! "Clear Lake City" was never an incorporated city—it is a master-planned community annexed by Houston in 1977. Additionally, a small eastern portion of Clear Lake City is located within the Pasadena city limits. Just some facts for you to think about... —RJN (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

whoops! i stand absolutely corrected. i guess i just fall into the unfortuante habit of considering the belt to be the "city limits;" with corporate-houston entities like kingwood so far out of the loop, it's obvious that this is not the case! my fault. otherwise, i think the general idea of what i was saying still stands, being that clear lake is right there on the outskirts, just barely withing the corporate limits. it's so generally disconnected from what is usually considered the "city," i suppose, that even natives who've lived here their entire lives, like myself, can make that error somewhat easily! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.110.210 (talk)

Precedence for this case: Houston v. Clear Lake City Water Authority, dba. Robert T. Savely Water Reclamation Facility, 708 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist], 1986). Accozzaglia 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, please recheck your Google search. There are many Houston based groups, clubs, organizations and corporations that reference the name. Try an alternative search engine(s). I feel that this discussion could be a waste of time, especially when you feel that space city "hardly serves to describe the city at all". Remember, the first words after landing on the moon mentioned Houston, not Seattle, or even Clear Lake City. However, I'm open to discussion. Postoak (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

you know, that's too bad; everyone was being civil until you decided to bring in your supercilious and domineering attitude. =( it baffles me that you in the one breath completely derogate any opinion contrary to yours that "space city" describes houston very well and in the next claim to be open to discussion. it's rather unfortunate that you feel that "space city" serves to describe houston well enough to condescend to someone who doesn't, but i guess the facts speak better for themselves than do your opinions about houston necessitatively being "space city." we may have nasa here, but if ANY texas city should be legitimately called "space city," it's dallas, the centre of the us aerospace manufacturing industry, and a more technologically-centric city that houston will ever be to boot. what makes houston at all a "space" city, besides the incidental location of the jsc? i went ahead and "rechecked" (?) my google search. apparently a few things have been reordered, so now the unofficial, blog-based reference to houston is in the 2nd spot. howbeit, i'll delineate EXACTLY the ten websites on the google search (notwithstanding your incomprehensible suggestion that i use another search engine -- making me wonder if you aren't perhaps too old for new media in the first place -- to humour you, i did msn and aol searches too, and each of those return *less than half* of the first page hits for houston, with still strong showings for seattle in each case): [1] seattle, [2] a BLOG about the houston club scene, [3] seattle, [4] random website unrelated to houston by any means, [5]"Space City Ice Rink," [6] titusville fl, [7] cityspace, [8] another random, [9] another blog, and [10] a uk advertising company. out of 10, we have a random blog unrelated to the city at large and an ice rink that is actually outside of the corporate limits. needless to say, every hit on "bayou city" is about houston. as for the VAST importance of "houston" being mentioned in the lunar landing...well, being as mission control is indeed in houston, after all, it would only seem natural that apollo address mc as "houston" rather than "seattle." mission control is in houston. what, exactly, is your point? does mission control embody everything houston stands for -- or, indeed, is it even representative of houston AT ALL? it happens to be here, but *hardly* defines or describes the city, which is the case you seem to be making by suggesting that any thought otherwise is a "waste of time." finally, in the interest of propriety, i would have you address the assertion of the wikiepdia page on nicknames that "space city" (like "heart of america") is a title, and *not* a nickname. shouldn't we at least have internal consistency across the pages of the wiki? at the very least, either the "nickname" qualifier in the infobox should be changed to "title" or the "nicknames" page amended as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.110.210 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk about incivility. If you don't like my response then that's really too bad also. Sorry. If you recall, I didn't say that "Bayou City" was unacceptable, derogate your opinion or condescend to you. I asked you to review your google search, that's all. It appears that you are extremely sensitive about the nickname in the infobox or you're looking for drama. You asked if it was a waste of time and I responded that it *could* be. I say this because we (the editors who frequently maintain the article) have been through this discussion many times before. Not that it is important, but my observation is these periodic discussions are usually started by "drive by" editors that haven't contributed a single edit to the Houston article, or very much to Wikipedia. You remark that you don't know a single native Houstonian who refers to the city as "space city." Well, that is your opinion and obviously quite false. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears the point you are making is that Houston is not (or should not be) known as "Space City" because the result of your google search? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Probably the Seattle link displays first because the name is part of the url. The Seattle site describes a single architectural firm (established in 1997) in that city. So, by using your google hit logic, you feel the nickname is not used by Houstonians or is more appropriate for Seattle or even Dallas? That doesn't make much sense. Besides the location of the mission control center, Houston is historically known as the center for US manned spaceflight programs and activities, astronaut training, the management and coordination of the space shuttle, the International Space Station and Project Constellation. Wouldn't you agree that the space industry is very much part of Houston's history and heritage? You claim you are a native Houstonian and you honestly don't associate "Space City" with Houston? Concerning your silly remark about me being "too old for new media in the first place". Don't worry, you're wrong. Perhaps you are too young to remember or be aware of history or historical events of our city? Anyway, the decision to limit the infobox to a single official nickname was more related to article maintenance. Every day new nicknames (appropriate, inappropriate, highly vulgar, etc.) were added to (and removed from) the infobox. We created Nicknames of Houston afterwards so that all appropriate nicknames had representation. However, as I said before your tirade, I'm open to discussion. BTW, feel free to update the nickname on the Dallas article to "Space City" or "Aerospace City" if you wish. Postoak (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the U.S. Department of Commerce also considers and promotes Houston to be "Space City, USA". [1] --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And here [2], [3], [4],[5], [6],[7],[8],[9],[10], [11], [12],[13], even the New York Times [14], and New Zealand [15]. Just a fraction of the numerous articles and references that reference "Space City" and Houston. But I suppose a google seach is what counts and references are invalid. Postoak (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The resurgence of this discussion speaks volumes about the wide range of opinions on the topic. I suppose the "Space City" vs. "Bayou City" issue is of more concern than ongoing, raging debates like "Pecan Tree" vs. "Pine Tree", "Bluebonnet" vs "Indian Paintbrush", or what *is* the official hamburger of the Houston Astros (anyone?). I do remember participating in the discussions, months ago, and the fact of the matter remains Houston's official nickname is "Space City". We also decided that if there is enough evidence that goes beyond current spoken usage of nicknames, a whole new article about Houston nicknames might be created. With enough research, this could certainly be done.

Deatonjr (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See Nicknames of Houston. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and Cityscape photos

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)

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)

Infobox image

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)

Cityscape paragraph

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)

Cityscape, Sprawl and Zoning

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)

So in another interpretation, Houston is worse than other sun belt cities because it refuses to take responsibility for its own planning and development and hides in this phoney cowboy-town ideology that "Houston just Happened" How on earth do you get a city of a thousand square miles, provide water and sanitary and storm sewer service, massive freeways and "spaghetti bowl" interchanges without lots and lots of planning based on and shaping certain patterns of land use.

To sum things up once more, the lack of formal zoning is one part of a much larger superset of planning failures that led to "Houston being Houston" But "they don't have zoning, those weirdos" is one thing that people might know about Houston and thus the lack of zoning gets unfairly blamed for all of the city's other planning ills.

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)

"A common misconception is that "Houston is Houston" because of the lack of zoning laws.[52] However, large cities throughout the Sun Belt are newer than more urban US cities like New York and San Francisco and consequently the sun belt cities had the bulk of their development in the automobile age.[citation needed] These cities, such as Los Angeles, Phoenix and Atlanta, all experienced sprawl similar to Houston despite having zoning.[53][54][55] Also, many private properties in Houston have legal covenants or "deed restrictions" which limit future uses of land and have an effect similar to zoning.[56][57] Houston's municipal code also contributed to auto-dependent sprawl by requiring large minimum residential lot sizes and commercial parking lots. Large road widths and long blocks further discourage walking in the city.[58]"

To me, a lot of this part is opinion. Sgvalenti (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

For the record, I'm pro zoning. The above paragrapgh is blatently anti-zoning. I feel that the Houston entry would be better off without,

""A common misconception is that "Houston is Houston" because of the lack of zoning laws.[52] However, large cities throughout the Sun Belt are newer than more urban US cities like New York and San Francisco and consequently the sun belt cities had the bulk of their development in the automobile age.[citation needed] These cities, such as Los Angeles, Phoenix and Atlanta, all experienced sprawl similar to Houston despite having zoning.[53][54][55]"

Sgvalenti (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

World-Global cities discussion

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)

For RJN, "commercially" is an adverb form of "commerce" root. Per New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd edition):

commercial |kəˌməːʃ(ə)l| (abbr.: comm.) adjective 1 concerned with or engaged in commerce : a commercial agreement. 2 making or intended to make a profit : commercial products.

Again, academic sources used for the world cities page are also the basis for the discussion immediately preceding this one, and forms the basis for the corrections on the Houston page. It is urgently recommended to always refer to the original academic, peer-reviewed source over another Wikipedia entry, since only the former is credited as academically reliable (e.g., can be used in academic thesis, essay, or dissertation citations). Thanks. Accozzaglia 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Understood. Per Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden to revert from an assertion of a peer-reviewed source falls upon the editor reverting away from these references.

An additional academic reference herein follows:

Pacione, Michael. (2005). Urban Geography: A Global Perspective (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

On Table 14.5, "Roster of World Cities", Houston is listed (Pacione, 2005, 298). Specifically, it is listed under "third-rank" (or gamma). This supports the GaWC cited research published in 1999. Other American cities listed as third-rank include: Boston, Dallas, Atlanta, Washington, Miami, and Minneapolis (ibid., 298). American cities listed as "second-rank" (beta) include: San Francisco (ibid., 298); "first-rank" (alpha) include: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles (ibid., 298). Pacione (297) adds that this table, assembled from a 2000 study published by Beaverstock, et al., "derived a roster of fifty-five world cities plus another sixty-seven cities showing evidence of world city formation (Table 14.5)".

Hopefully this helps remove further ambiguity. I can prepare other academic references published between 1986 and 2007, should these be needed to settle this matter.

Accozzaglia 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

YOU-stun

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

??? really? ive never heard anybody say it like that. ive heard hoostun but never youstun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.46.210 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

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)

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)

Sister cities houston

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)

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)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate your patience and help! Kcuello (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)