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.
I don't think that's necessarily true in the U.S. (it certainly doesn't appear to be the case in Europe or Latin America), especially if "a great deal" isn't quantified. It's merely a reflection of the era in which a city grew up. If Houston was a big, important city in the pre-war era along the lines of a Philly or even a New Orleans, it would likely have a lot more historic architecture.
Not necessarily. San Antonio is a very old city, and was once the major city in the state, but doesn't exactly have as much historic architecture as one might think it should.
Think of all the cities out west that are younger and have even less historic architecture. The core of the average American city looks more like Houston than Philly.
Not necessarily. San Antonio is a very old city, and was once the major city in the state, but doesn't exactly have as much historic architecture as one might think it should.
San Antonio is indeed an old city but it wasn't a major city in the pre-war era. In 1880, it cracked the 100 largest cities list at 96th with a population of only 20K (for the sake of comparison, Philly was 847K and New Orleans was 216K in that year) and by 1930, Houston at 292K had already surpassed San Antonio at 231K.
Quote:
Think of all the cities out west that are younger and have even less historic architecture. The core of the average American city looks more like Houston than Philly.
I'm not sure if I agree with that. Houston's core is very new while Philly's is very old. The "average" American city is somewhere in between, and much of that will depend on size and the part of the country the city is in.
Again, I share his views, but I am not from Houston, so it makes no sense to suggest that it is a "Houstonian" ideal he holds.
I have developed my hypothesis on Houston based on friendships and business relationship I held during my 26 years there - with Texans and non-Texans. You do not share my hypothesis. That's fine - it's not worth my time to bicker over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder
Cities with a great deal of historical preservation are the exception and not the rule.
That's what makes those that are such fantastic places to explore. Take a look at this article: 10 irresistibly charming World Heritage cities. I've been to 7 of these cities and am going to my 8th (Bergen) in June. Each has been a memorable treat. Philly has recently joined this list as the first and only UNESCO Heritage City in the US. Compared with the generic urbanity repeated across the sunbelt cites, rendering them indistinguishable from one another, a tourist to Philly will find an urban environment unique to this city, alone.
San Antonio is indeed an old city but it wasn't a major city in the pre-war era. In 1880, it cracked the 100 largest cities list at 96th with a population of only 20K (for the sake of comparison, Philly was 847K and New Orleans was 216K in that year) and by 1930, Houston at 292K had already surpassed San Antonio at 231K.
I'm not sure if I agree with that. Houston's core is very new while Philly's is very old. The "average" American city is somewhere in between, and much of that will depend on size and the part of the country the city is in.
Houston was a city before Texas was a state. In 1837, when Houston was incorporated, much of the west hadn't even been settled. The city is older than the likes of Los Angeles, Seattle and Miami.
Quite frankly, I think people vastly overstate how new Houston looks compared to the rest of the US. Downtown has seen much of its old architecture disappear, but surrounding that you still have entire neighborhoods made up of pre-WWII homes and other buildings. Does it look as old as Philly? No, but , again, only a handful of cities do.
I have developed my hypothesis on Houston based on friendships and business relationship I held during my 26 years there - with Texans and non-Texans. You do not share my hypothesis. That's fine - it's not worth my time to bicker over.
That's what makes those that are such fantastic places to explore. Take a look at this article: 10 irresistibly charming World Heritage cities. I've been to 7 of these cities and am going to my 8th (Bergen) in June. Each has been a memorable treat. Philly has recently joined this list as the first and only UNESCO Heritage City in the US. Compared with the generic urbanity repeated across the sunbelt cites, rendering them indistinguishable from one another, a tourist to Philly will find an urban environment unique to this city, alone.
I respect your opinion, as long as you understand that it is only that. Picking on people's posts for being Houstonians that don't know any better doesn't help your argument, though.
Houston was a city before Texas was a state. In 1837, when Houston was incorporated, much of the west hadn't even been settled. The city is older than the likes of Los Angeles, Seattle and Miami.
Which are all young cities. The point I was making is that San Antonio wasn't a major city in the pre-war era, nor was Houston and it overtook San Antonio in population in the early 20th century. As a general rule, cities that were fairly large in the pre-war era have more of their historic urban fabric intact. It's a consequence of age and historical stature.
Quote:
Quite frankly, I think people vastly overstate how new Houston looks compared to the rest of the US. Downtown has seen much of its old architecture disappear, but surrounding that you still have entire neighborhoods made up of pre-WWII homes and other buildings. Does it look as old as Philly? No, but , again, only a handful of cities do.
I think it's pretty common, even in Sunbelt sprawling cities, to have a good bit of the historic neighborhoods relatively intact (although architectural styles differ from region to region). But looking at CBDs, I think the "average" American city is somewhere between Philly's "historicness" and Houston's newness.
I respect your opinion, as long as you understand that it is only that. Picking on people's posts for being Houstonians that don't know any better doesn't help your argument, though.
We each bring our unique perspective with us. I have visited all 50 states, and have lived in 7 of them, as well as the 2 cities being compared in this thread. You bring your own perspective.
Let's each tend to our own fences. I stand by my posts in this thread, including the one I think you may be referring to. If you feel it doesn't help my argument, that's your opinion, which I respect.
Stop placing pseudo-importance on trivial internet polls.
This forum is far some scientific. There are over 310 million people in the US.
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.