Atlanta or Houston (Decatur, Boston: subdivisions, cost of living, tree)

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by R1070

People definitely get a lot more excited about Springtime and Fall in Atlanta than in Texas. There is a much greater contrast between then seasons in Atlanta than what you find in the large Texas cities.

You should really take advantage of how close you are to Northeast Texas. That is one thing I envy about Dallas. You have towns like Texarkana, Daingerfield, etc. Beautiful falls are right next door to you.

I still can't get over how unusually colorful our last autumn here in Texas was, even down here in Houston, especially after having such a hot and dry summer.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Give it up, tiki tiki. You've already been proven wrong. It's time to let it go.

Really?

Definition of LUSH1
a : growing vigorously especially with luxuriant foliage
another:
2. characterized by luxuriant vegetation: a lush valley.



Luxuriant foliage? Are you really going to describe Houston to people considering a move there to have luxuriant foliage. Good lord, that is DELUSIONAL. Costa Rica is lush, Houston is NOT. Its not arid, but to call it lush would be a drastic over characterization.

According to your statements so far, Houston is lush, live oak filled city, that doesn't get very hot.

And its statements like that lead to people like me. Visit the city, see selected parts of intown and think, "hey, this isn't so bad". Then move there and realize the rest of the city looks nothing like the pictures you are posting here and the small parts of intown. Then realize its so damn hot in the summer I don't even want to be outside for more than 2 minutes. Then realize there is limited natural features within 100+ miles (yeah i know, bayous/coastline) of the city. I really don't like those things, they are total deal breakers, for me. And i know there are a lot of other people that feel the same. Atlanta has plenty of flaws too, I can just live with them.

There is nothing wrong with Houston, there are probably just as many good things as there are bad. But I brought up valid points about the city and you claim they are false. Guess what, there were 100 days with over 100 degrees. Houston is not full of luxuriant foliage. Its virtually all pines, cherry-pick pictures of live oaks all you want. That is not characteristic of Houston.

I really mean no ill will, I just want to set the record straight.

Houston is nothing like Atlanta. Atlanta is nothing like Houston.

[fly-with-la]

Originally Posted by FDO

I am thinking of moving to Atlanta or Houston. Can someone give me some insights about the 2 cities and what are the pro and cons? Thanks

I am from both cities

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

Really?

Definition of LUSH1
a : growing vigorously especially with luxuriant foliage
another:
2. characterized by luxuriant vegetation: a lush valley.



Luxuriant foliage? Are you really going to describe Houston to people considering a move there to have luxuriant foliage. Good lord, that is DELUSIONAL. Costa Rica is lush, Houston is NOT. Its not arid, but to call it lush would be a drastic over characterization.

According to your statements so far, Houston is lush, live oak filled city, that doesn't get very hot.

And its statements like that lead to people like me. Visit the city, see selected parts of intown and think, "hey, this isn't so bad". Then move there and realize the rest of the city looks nothing like the pictures you are posting here and the small parts of intown. Then realize its so damn hot in the summer I don't even want to be outside for more than 2 minutes. Then realize there is limited natural features within 100+ miles (yeah i know, bayous/coastline) of the city. I really don't like those things, they are total deal breakers, for me. And i know there are a lot of other people that feel the same. Atlanta has plenty of flaws too, I can just live with them.

There is nothing wrong with Houston, there are probably just as many good things as there are bad. But I brought up valid points about the city and you claim they are false. Guess what, there were 100 days with over 100 degrees. Houston is not full of luxuriant foliage. Its virtually all pines, cherry-pick pictures of live oaks all you want. That is not characteristic of Houston.

I really mean no ill will, I just want to set the record straight.

Houston is nothing like Atlanta. Atlanta is nothing like Houston.

I never said Houston doesn't get very hot.

It's your opinion that Houston isn't lush, but as you have seen, that's easily argued. Nowhere in the definition that you yourself posted, does it say that a lush area must be completely covered in tall hardwoods. It's a definition that's open to reasonable observation. Most people would describe Houston as having "luxuriant vegetation", and there's no possible way for you to prove that wrong. All you can do is disagree with it. Hell, we get more rain than Atlanta does.

You accuse me of cherry-picking, but the fact of the matter is, I can find pictures of neighborhoods from every corner of the metro where there are plenty of trees. MOST of the city does not look like whatever empty lot tract home subdivision you are likely speaking of. The southern half of the metro is generally dominated by coastal plain, but even there you have plenty of greenery.

You say that Houston isn't lush like the East Coast, but as I have seen with my own eyes, there are cities on the EC that practically look just like Houston, when it comes to the amount of tree coverage. You clearly don't know either region all that well.

Just the other day, I was driving around the west side when your post came to my head, and I couldn't help but laugh at the ridiculous notion that someone could possibly say Houston wasn't lush. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but just understand that you're in the minority. The only one here giving misleading information is you.

[tikigod311]

Yes, you can cherry pick pictures of trees from some parts of town. But to give the impression that Houston is a city of trees is misleading. Sure, lush is relative. Relative to San Antonino, it is lush. Relative to most cities east of the Mississippi, that would be a stretch. The landscape taken as a whole around Houston metro is bland and repetitive. That may be an opinion, but I seriously doubt I am in the minority on that one.

But forget lush, forget trees. Your comment about cities on the east coast practically looking just like Houston, that is the core of the gist of your comments that bothers me. Houston is dead flat. The city of Houston has no, or very very lax, zoning laws (except for certain communities). Houston has an abundance of highways, with feeder roads that allow a non stop string of businesses along the side of every highway in Houston. Including the feeder roads, most highways are 14 - 16 lanes wide. I'm sorry, that is not a common sight through out the metros of most east coast cities. They allow buffers zones for trees. Roads are plotted out on an older system on the east coast that follows old property lines and natural features.

This adds significant character to the overall makeup of these cities. Look at a map of Houston, the roads are generally straight for very long sections, the metro is largely made up of grids. That shows there therewere very limited natural features, including old growth trees, that they had to engineer around in the Houston metro. Atlanta has small sections of grids with mostly curvy roads. That is what I am talking about. That is not an opinion, it is a fact, verifiable by Google Maps.

There are terms for the two types of plotting I am referring two and they are slipping my mind. East of the Mississippi, boundaries are determined by nature and history. West of the Mississippi, boundaries were generally set up as grids due to the fact there was not much to work around, so grids were the most efficient way to build a city. So my "opinion" that Houston is different isn't much of an opinion at all. Houston is much more like a Midwestern city than anything on the east coast.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but people should know before they are mislead in to thinking it will look just like the east coast when they move there.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

Yes, you can cherry pick pictures of trees from some parts of town. But to give the impression that Houston is a city of trees is misleading. Sure, lush is relative. Relative to San Antonino, it is lush. Relative to most cities east of the Mississippi, that would be a stretch. The landscape taken as a whole around Houston metro is bland and repetitive. That may be an opinion, but I seriously doubt I am in the minority on that one.

I pretty positive you that you are, but you're welcome to take a poll. Still, as long as you recognize that it is just an opinion, then we're good.

But forget lush, forget trees. Your comment about cities on the east coast practically looking just like Houston, that is the core of the gist of your comments that bothers me. Houston is dead flat. The city of Houston has no, or very very lax, zoning laws (except for certain communities). Houston has an abundance of highways, with feeder roads that allow a non stop string of businesses along the side of every highway in Houston. Including the feeder roads, most highways are 14 - 16 lanes wide. I'm sorry, that is not a common sight through out the metros of most east coast cities. They allow buffers zones for trees. Roads are plotted out on an older system on the east coast that follows old property lines and natural features.

This adds significant character to the overall makeup of these cities. Look at a map of Houston, the roads are generally straight for very long sections, the metro is largely made up of grids. That shows there therewere very limited natural features, including old growth trees, that they had to engineer around in the Houston metro. Atlanta has small sections of grids with mostly curvy roads. That is what I am talking about. That is not an opinion, it is a fact, verifiable by Google Maps.

Not the best reader are you? I said specifically that there are EC cities that are similar to Houston when it comes to the TREES (i.e. Orlando, Tampa, etc.) I said absolutely nothing of the infrastructure. I'm not even from the East Coast, but it seems clear that I'm more familiar with it than you are.

There are terms for the two types of plotting I am referring two and they are slipping my mind. East of the Mississippi, boundaries are determined by nature and history. West of the Mississippi, boundaries were generally set up as grids due to the fact there was not much to work around, so grids were the most efficient way to build a city. So my "opinion" that Houston is different isn't much of an opinion at all. Houston is much more like a Midwestern city than anything on the east coast.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but people should know before they are mislead in to thinking it will look just like the east coast when they move there.

You're going off on a tangent, sir. I never challenged your opinion that Houston was different. I was simply contesting your remarks about Houston not being lush, and honestly, it seems you're pretending to know more than you really do.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but people should know before they are mislead in to thinking it will look just like the east coast when they move there.

Well, cherry pick some bad spots for us from Google maps. I just remember flying in to Houston recently and seeing huge fields of green. It definitely doesn't have the topography of Atlanta, nor the tree cover, but it's not hurting for vegetation either. And I saw a lot of trees other than pine, and Atlanta also has A LOT OF PINE.

[Nairobi]

Tiki would likely try to convince us that this is what "most" of Houston looks like:

houston tx - Google Maps

^ That's far southwest Houston, by the way.

[1908WAGY]

Wow, you guys really know how to ruin a thread. I've visited both cities extensively and each has their own qualities. In Houston, TX in general, there is more space per person, and that translates to home lots as well. Atlanta is on the East coast which makes it more familiar to me. Houston has Rice University and Atlanta has Emory...I like both cities personally.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Tiki would likely try to convince us that this is what "most" of Houston looks like:

houston tx - Google Maps

^ That's far southwest Houston, by the way.

Atlanta is too "lush" for a major city. Houston has a good mixture of vegetation and I love the coastal feel down there.