Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And just like that, you prove your inability to grasp simple nuances. You state that "its been agreed upon" that Houston doesn't offer anything unique (that absolutely nothing about the city sticks out to people, or can be marketed), but then turn around, and name aspects special to Houston, but aren't "known about" in the nation (implying that there are indeed unique things in Houston, just that the nation doesn't know about them).
Make up your mind; There is a huge difference between a place having absolutely nothing unique about it, versus said place having unique things, only that the populace hasn't been exposed to them. This is just what you aren't grasping, along with several others in this thread.
Hardly. You prove your inability to understand other people's argument which you are known for in mostly any thread you visit. I named aspects that YOU mentioned. Not I. Or did you forget that? I didn't say Houston didn't have anything unique. I said it didn't have anything unique for visitors to visit. If people wanted to go visit museums, art galleries, and such, is Houston at the top of this list? If I wanted to go party and experience top notch nightlife that has the best festivals this country has to offer, is Houston at the top of this list? We know what Miami metro can give us. New Orleans metro can give us. Everybody else has said this. What can I get from Houston that is unique to only Houston? You and others haven't showed us this the entire thread.
You mention Texas history. But hardly anyone around the nation knows about it. There's a reason for that.
It is not up to Texas to educate the rest of the country about American history which Texas history is. It is obvious that those you speak of around the country have purposely remained oblivious, ignorant, whatever you want to call it for their own unspecified reasons.
It's neither. No place on earth has "nothing unique" yet just because a place is somewhat generic (like a Houston) doesn't mean marketing is the main issue.
It isn't that people don't know Houston; it's that they know Houston all to well. They don't visit Houston because there's nothing to draw them there.
Which is the greater city the one that nobody wants to visit (I will accept this premise for the purposes of this discussion only) but attracts and retains residence or the city that people like to visit but can't attract or retain new residents?
Last edited by Jack Lance; 08-29-2015 at 03:20 PM..
Which is the greater city the one that nobody wants to visit (I will accept this premise only for the purposes of this discussion only) but attracts and retains residence or the city that people like to visit but can't attract or retain new residents?
Not really a relevant question. Totally subjective, and not related to the thread. You're asking whether it's better to be a place where people live or a place where people visit.
But for the purposes of this thead, Houston isn't overlooked. It's well known, which is exactly why people don't go there. People know there isn't much unique to draw there.
It's neither. No place on earth has "nothing unique" yet just because a place is somewhat generic (like a Houston) doesn't mean marketing is the main issue.
It isn't that people don't know Houston; it's that they know Houston all to well. They don't visit Houston because there's nothing to draw them there.
Most people's knowledge about Houston come from reports that feature the city. The positive reports of Houston focus too much on the city's economic benefits, from the powerful energy industry, to the low COL, in favor of the truly unique aspects that the city has; aspects of Houston, like NASA, or its role in Texas history, ooze with imagery, enough to attract a decent amount of visitors, at least. But, as a result of such disproportionate focus, people are led to believe that those are the only positives the city has, and the city brand never gets promoted. The lack of public transit further aggravates the lack of exposure visitors have to the key amenities of the city. The negative reports of Houston always consist of exaggerations of the place, leading to people falsely believing that the entirety of the city is nothing but "suburban, Walmart sprawl, with refineries all over the place," and is "Anytown, USA."
These issues work to create a large population of the city and suburbs who believe that there is nothing good about Houston other than "low COL and jobs." Thus, there is a quite a distinct lack of connection of the populace with the soul of the city, hindering the promotion of a strong cultural brand that can overturn the stereotypes, and even the addressing of infrastructural issues (lack of mass transit, lots of freeways creating traffic gridlock and sprawl, lack of sidewalks, billboards, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
Hardly. You prove your inability to understand other people's argument which you are known for in mostly any thread you visit. I named aspects that YOU mentioned. Not I. Or did you forget that? I didn't say Houston didn't have anything unique. I said it didn't have anything unique for visitors to visit. If people wanted to go visit museums, art galleries, and such, is Houston at the top of this list? If I wanted to go party and experience top notch nightlife that has the best festivals this country has to offer, is Houston at the top of this list? We know what Miami metro can give us. New Orleans metro can give us. Everybody else has said this. What can I get from Houston that is unique to only Houston? You and others haven't showed us this the entire thread.
Because of the fact that unique features of a city correlate strongly with the said city's identity, such aspects are key to forming the brand of the city, whereby visitors are drawn. Thus, unique features of a city, and "unique features of a city for visitors to visit" (your quote), practically go hand in hand.
But, nevertheless, I already mentioned that attractions in Houston like the Astrodome, Space Center, and San Jacinto monument do indeed create enough imagery to form a strong cultural brand for the city, evoking appeals relating to strong ambition/dream-like idealism, futurism/deep-space exploration, and a place in Texas history, respectively. These attractions are enough, in and of themselves, to draw a decent amounts of tourists to the city to visit those attractions, and more. The only hindrance is lack of thorough exposure of such aspects to the populace, owing to both the over-focus on the economic aspects of the city, and the lack of strong public transit/walkable infrastructure connecting to those appeals. The same goes for the city's museums, art galleries, parks, etc, in that there is a distinct Houstonian flair that plays out in these places of the city, that can't be said for other museums, art galleries, parks, etc in the country; the only hindrance, again is lack of walkable infrastructure, that would allow such flair to be palpable to the visitors.
The attractions San Antonio has are not anymore intrinsically better/memorable than those of Houston. The Alamo is no more symbolic of Texas history than the San Jacinto monument is. There is Fiesta Texas, but even when Houston had Astroworld, the city still was spoken negatively of. The experience you get on the Riverwalk, in the end, is not much different that what can be achieved in tours of Buffalo Bayou/Ship Channel in Houston. The only reason San Antonio is said to be this great tourist city, and not Houston, is simply that the nation populace is more exposed to its attractions, by virtue of promotion, and them being connected by a walkable infrastructure, not because the attractions are intrinsically more attractive than those in Houston.
If questioned about unique iconic areas in, say, NYC, that attract tourists, things like 5th Avenue, Empire State building, Statue of Liberty, Time Square, SoHo, and Central Park will be named. But those things all basically boil down to, respectively, a shopping sector, a skyscraper, a monument/statue, an intersection, historic/artsy district, and an urban park. Lots of large cities have each of those things, including Houston, but those things in NYC have, over the years, been areas where the unique culture of NYC played out thoroughly, becoming dynamic, interactive places by virtue of time, and strong public transport. Soon, they became connected with a strong, city brand that reached out to the populace of the nation/world, and allowed them to be known to tourists the world over.
You mention Miami and New Orleans for having known offerings for visitors. For Miami, people will mention such offerings as being South Beach, the metro-area beaches in general, and warm winter weather, while for New Orleans, people mention the cuisine, Mardi Gras, and the historic charm. But see, Miami is not the only city in the country that offers beaches, and warm winter weather (Honolulu, other cities in Florida, So Cal, etc all have that as a claim to fame), and New Orleans isn't the only city with Mardi Gras, and historic charm (Mobile and Galveston say hi; Charleston and Savannah both have strong historic appeal, and unique culture as claims to fame as well). But each of those aspects in Miami and New Orleans have become tied with the respective city brands, which includes the distinct city vibe for each place, allowing the distinctive imagery for those aspects in each place to draw visitors.
The same idea applies to Houston for the city's own appeals; each of the city's attractions, from the Space Center, to its many museums/theaters, display examples of the distinct vibe found only in Houston, and nowhere else. Once such a distinct vibe is allowed to play out, and outsiders are able to experience it easily (via strong, walkable infrastructure, including public transit), the city attractions can indeed become iconic.
Basically, all these famous areas people name when describing unique, tourist draws for a city are not intrinsically better than other such areas in other cities. The unique draw for those areas come from the imagery and ideals associated with such areas; Houston's lack of tourist draw is because the populace hasn't thoroughly been exposed to the interesting/distinctive traits of the city, a combination of both lack of effective marketing for such areas, and the lack of infrastructure that would allow those appeals to pop-out. If Houston isn't top of the list, or at least highly rated, for good nightlife, great festivals, or great museums/galleries, why is that? Is it because those things in Houston aren't great? Or is it because the greatness of such things in Houston aren't known to the populace? I basically am arguing that it is indeed the latter. And all this ignores the fact that best is indeed entirely dependent upon individual taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Not really a relevant question. Totally subjective, and not related to the thread. You're asking whether it's better to be a place where people live or a place where people visit.
But for the purposes of this thead, Houston isn't overlooked. It's well known, which is exactly why people don't go there. People know there isn't much unique to draw there.
And the "knowledge" is coming more from oft-said stereotypes of the city than from actual, honest exploration, and discourse of the city.
Not really a relevant question. Totally subjective, and not related to the thread. You're asking whether it's better to be a place where people live or a place where people visit.
But for the purposes of this thead, Houston isn't overlooked. It's well known, which is exactly why people don't go there. People know there isn't much unique to draw there.
Who are these people you speak of ? I have posted links showing 10's of millions of visitors annually come to Houston. Others have also posted similar links ? Your post reminds me of the Yogi Barra quote when he said " Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore it's too crowded". It contradicts reality and is ultimately nonsense, and nowhere near as humorous.....
The negative reports of Houston always consist of exaggerations of the place, leading to people falsely believing that the entirety of the city is nothing but "suburban, Walmart sprawl, with refineries all over the place," and is "Anytown, USA."
So this is the issue, and the source of our disagreement. You don't know Houston, hence you don't get why tourists don't come to Houston.
Houston is exactly as you described it isn't. You wrote "leading to people falsely believing that the entirety of the city is nothing but "suburban, Walmart sprawl, with refineries all over the place," and is "Anytown, USA".
That's actually a fantastic description of Houston, and a good summary of why people don't come for leisure purposes. Houston is essentially entirely suburban, it is essentially entirely Walmart sprawl, and it does have refineries all over the place. You summarized it perfectly. It's a good place to work but will never be a leisure destination, because most Americans already live in boring sprawl, they aren't going to visit a city that is 99% boring sprawl for leisure purposes.
You can be right outside downtown, and you are already in endless generic suburban sprawl. Even downtown is built in a suburban format, to a major extent. The office towers are built suburban-style, even downtown, with lawns and parking platforms and no street level anything. Why would Americans travel to see the same office parks you can find anywhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA
But, nevertheless, I already mentioned that attractions in Houston like the Astrodome, Space Center, and San Jacinto monument do indeed create enough imagery to form a strong cultural brand for the city,
No, actually they don't. Every single major city in the U.S. has sports arenas, science centers and historic monuments. Perfect illustration of why people don't visit. No one is going to be planning grand vacations around abandoned sports arenas or minor historical attractions or some 1960's space museum.
Who are these people you speak of ? I have posted links showing 10's of millions of visitors annually come to Houston. Others have also posted similar links ? Your post reminds me of the Yogi Barra quote when he said " Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore it's too crowded". It contradicts reality and is ultimately nonsense, and nowhere near as humorous.....
No, no one has posted any data showing that Houston is a major destination for leisure visitors; you made that up.
For those that say Houston lacks festivals which draw people to it I would counter that the Rodeo is a pretty big draw. If you have never been to the Houston Rodeo, you should come check it out.
No, no one has posted any data showing that Houston is a major destination for leisure visitors; you made that up.
I didn't say leisure visitors, you made that up didn't you !? But come to think of it the Houston Galveston area is a regional draw for leisure visitors....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
