6 ms·

> places like Dallas ...and Houston which is further south and has a subtropical climate. It boomed in population after A/C became a standard thing. > I think

> places like Dallas ...and Houston which is further south and has a subtropical climate. It boomed in population after A/C became a standard thing. > I think there is a stigma people have that heating is essential for life, but A/C is optional. Yes, and A/C is a public health issue. In subtropical climates it keeps people indoors and away from disease carrying insects such as mosquitos.

Sharlin 8y ago
But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston? It's not like the US lacks places with a temperate climate.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  Can you have it both ways? You could also say "is there really a need for people to live in places like Africa? India? Indonesia?"
  - angersock 8y ago
    You could even extend that argument to include "is there a need for people to live in a place where they can't grow enough food to sustain their population". I wouldn't pull too hard on that thread here, though.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    But the GP’s argument was that AC is good because it made populating places like Texas possible. But was it worth it to populate those places in retrospect if it depended on a technology with known negative externalities? Similarly, the personal automobile made urban sprawl possible. But is sprawl and ensuing car-dependency a good thing all things considered? Many would say no.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheBeardKing 8y ago
      It's market forces at work with little regulation, especially in places like Houston. Real estate prices are much more appealing in places with extreme temperatures. We all couldn't afford to live in temperate climates like the bay area without some extreme zoning density regulations.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Or basically anywhere not the west coast, within a few miles of the water? In Chicago you have heating in the winter and AC in the summer. Same with NYC. In the California central valley, your AC will be running a lot of the time. Wyoming, some serious heating, Etc.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston? No, if we can all live without food. Plants love the hot parts of the world. The prairies bake in the summer. I'm reminded of President Bush visiting the John Deere factory. He asked a worker about the most important innovation for combination harvesters. Without hesitation: "Enclosed cabs with air conditioning".
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    I’m pretty sure though that a large majority of people nowadays living there are neither farmers nor work in jobs directly supporting said farmers.
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      Where exactly would you draw the line? Should farmers live alone in bunkhouses like loggers do? Farming and farmers are tied to land for years, decades. They need innumerable support services, from pilots and engineers to kindergartens and dentists for their kids. I'm hard pressed to point to any job in Iowa that doesn't in some degree support farmers and farming. Then add all those involved in resource extraction, mining/oil. Their jobs are location dependent too. They also need services. I type this while at work (military) with two doors open to outside. There is a pleasant breeze passing through the office. This weather holds for more than half the year. But if one more person moves here, driving up my rent again, I'll start running the AC just to speed up climate change.
- angersock 8y ago
  It's a good port city in land (swamp) that is otherwise undesirable, so yes. (I'm posting from Houston.)
  - ryanmarsh 8y ago
    There's a popular Houston real-estate blog called... Swamp Lot. Can't make this stuff up. http://swamplot.com/ http://swamplot.com/
- giardini 8y ago
  Sharlin says> "But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston?" Houston _is_ a hellhole part of the year. But ports are necessary and, while they needn't be cities, they usually are. Two things about that: - Regardless of climate, cities are too often built in regions that are prime river-bottom farmland. It would have been better if such lands were left for farming (since they flood easily and harbor disease) and the cities located at higher elevation. Houston was built literally in a swamp. Part of this is it's use as a port city, but it didn't have to be that way. Thanks to storms and flooding the city is slowly moving to whatever higher ground there is (honestly there isn't much). But as long as the government provides flood insurance at bargain rates, developers will build new homes in flood-prone areas and sell the homes to suckers who don't know any better. The developers sell out and move on to new projects, the homeowner gets flooded and the government(taxpayer) pays for the stupidity and inefficiency of it all. - Houston's humidity is high, so the usual pressurized A/C system is required. Dallas in contrast has low humidity so that evaporative A/C systems, which are much cheaper to build and to operate, can be used very effectively: http://www.air-conditioner-home.com/best-evaporative-cooler-locations/ http://www.air-conditioner-home.com/best-evaporative-cooler-...
  - wwweston 8y ago
    It seems like you could keep flood insurance and provide the right incentive for developers if as part of the permitting process for developers, they'd have to put up an insurance bond (or otherwise pay into a risk pool).
    - briandear 8y ago
      Is the net gain better than the net loss from flooding? For example, Houston doesn’t have to salt roads, plow snow or mitigate against earthquakes. You don’t have a wildfire risk, nor mudslides. So even if you have periodic floods, it would seem that the positives outweighs the negatives. You also rarely have airport closures or delays due to weather. It’s simplistic to cite flood risk as a reason not to build somewhere. If the cost of a flood is offset by the savings in many other areas, it could be a net positive. There is, however a hurricane risk, but even New York City and most of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast faces those risks. In the Midwest, you have tornado risk plus blizzards and snow, in California, you have fires, droughts and earthquakes. We could argue, under the same logic of not building in Houston, that the Netherlands ought not be developed given their elevation.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  What? Where? Your only option is the West Coast and literally the coast. If you go 50+ miles inland you'll burn up in the summer.

Sharlin 8y ago

But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston? It's not like the US lacks places with a temperate climate.

kalleboo 8y ago
Can you have it both ways? You could also say "is there really a need for people to live in places like Africa? India? Indonesia?"
- angersock 8y ago
  You could even extend that argument to include "is there a need for people to live in a place where they can't grow enough food to sustain their population". I wouldn't pull too hard on that thread here, though.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  But the GP’s argument was that AC is good because it made populating places like Texas possible. But was it worth it to populate those places in retrospect if it depended on a technology with known negative externalities? Similarly, the personal automobile made urban sprawl possible. But is sprawl and ensuing car-dependency a good thing all things considered? Many would say no.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheBeardKing 8y ago
    It's market forces at work with little regulation, especially in places like Houston. Real estate prices are much more appealing in places with extreme temperatures. We all couldn't afford to live in temperate climates like the bay area without some extreme zoning density regulations.
njarboe 8y ago
Or basically anywhere not the west coast, within a few miles of the water? In Chicago you have heating in the winter and AC in the summer. Same with NYC. In the California central valley, your AC will be running a lot of the time. Wyoming, some serious heating, Etc.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston? No, if we can all live without food. Plants love the hot parts of the world. The prairies bake in the summer. I'm reminded of President Bush visiting the John Deere factory. He asked a worker about the most important innovation for combination harvesters. Without hesitation: "Enclosed cabs with air conditioning".
- Sharlin 8y ago
  I’m pretty sure though that a large majority of people nowadays living there are neither farmers nor work in jobs directly supporting said farmers.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Where exactly would you draw the line? Should farmers live alone in bunkhouses like loggers do? Farming and farmers are tied to land for years, decades. They need innumerable support services, from pilots and engineers to kindergartens and dentists for their kids. I'm hard pressed to point to any job in Iowa that doesn't in some degree support farmers and farming. Then add all those involved in resource extraction, mining/oil. Their jobs are location dependent too. They also need services. I type this while at work (military) with two doors open to outside. There is a pleasant breeze passing through the office. This weather holds for more than half the year. But if one more person moves here, driving up my rent again, I'll start running the AC just to speed up climate change.
angersock 8y ago
It's a good port city in land (swamp) that is otherwise undesirable, so yes. (I'm posting from Houston.)
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  There's a popular Houston real-estate blog called... Swamp Lot. Can't make this stuff up. http://swamplot.com/ http://swamplot.com/
giardini 8y ago
Sharlin says> "But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston?" Houston _is_ a hellhole part of the year. But ports are necessary and, while they needn't be cities, they usually are. Two things about that: - Regardless of climate, cities are too often built in regions that are prime river-bottom farmland. It would have been better if such lands were left for farming (since they flood easily and harbor disease) and the cities located at higher elevation. Houston was built literally in a swamp. Part of this is it's use as a port city, but it didn't have to be that way. Thanks to storms and flooding the city is slowly moving to whatever higher ground there is (honestly there isn't much). But as long as the government provides flood insurance at bargain rates, developers will build new homes in flood-prone areas and sell the homes to suckers who don't know any better. The developers sell out and move on to new projects, the homeowner gets flooded and the government(taxpayer) pays for the stupidity and inefficiency of it all. - Houston's humidity is high, so the usual pressurized A/C system is required. Dallas in contrast has low humidity so that evaporative A/C systems, which are much cheaper to build and to operate, can be used very effectively: http://www.air-conditioner-home.com/best-evaporative-cooler-locations/ http://www.air-conditioner-home.com/best-evaporative-cooler-...
- wwweston 8y ago
  It seems like you could keep flood insurance and provide the right incentive for developers if as part of the permitting process for developers, they'd have to put up an insurance bond (or otherwise pay into a risk pool).
  - briandear 8y ago
    Is the net gain better than the net loss from flooding? For example, Houston doesn’t have to salt roads, plow snow or mitigate against earthquakes. You don’t have a wildfire risk, nor mudslides. So even if you have periodic floods, it would seem that the positives outweighs the negatives. You also rarely have airport closures or delays due to weather. It’s simplistic to cite flood risk as a reason not to build somewhere. If the cost of a flood is offset by the savings in many other areas, it could be a net positive. There is, however a hurricane risk, but even New York City and most of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast faces those risks. In the Midwest, you have tornado risk plus blizzards and snow, in California, you have fires, droughts and earthquakes. We could argue, under the same logic of not building in Houston, that the Netherlands ought not be developed given their elevation.
almost_usual 8y ago
What? Where? Your only option is the West Coast and literally the coast. If you go 50+ miles inland you'll burn up in the summer.