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.
Philly is an old, forgotten city. Houston is modern, new, bursting at the seams. Even in this downturn, Houston still added more people than any other city in the country. There's a reason for that and the city is finally beginning to get the recognition it deserves.
^^^^
That isn't all progress but doing things like that leads to advanced cities and societies for example most of Tokyo compared to Kyoto.
I wouldn't consider it "progress" at all since there are plenty of advanced, historic cities out there. Obviously tearing down a bunch of historic buildings for new ones isn't a necessary precursor for progress at all.
Philly is an old, forgotten city. Houston is modern, new, bursting at the seams. Even in this downturn, Houston still added more people than any other city in the country. There's a reason for that and the city is finally beginning to get the recognition it deserves.
Philadelphia a "forgotten city"? Really??
How about the 4,100,000 people that use 30th Street Station annually (Amtrak's 3rd busiest RR station)
or
the annual "Made in America" outdoor music festival that attracts 150,000 people from up and down the East Coast over Labor Day weekend
or
The Democratic National Convention which will be in town this July. The world will be watching
or
the 1,000,000+ people from all over the world who were in Philly last September for Pope Francis and the World Meeting of Families
or
The designation of Philadelphia as America's only World Heritage City by UNESCO
Houston should be so "forgotten"--LOL.
Last edited by VTinPhilly; 05-04-2016 at 10:53 PM..
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,180,320 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTallest
Dallas has a "much bigger profile than the city of Houston"? Thats an interesting opinion.. A mediocre TV show from the 1980s might of helped it gain exposure, but I don't see how that gives it a much bigger profile than Houston.
What don't you understand about Houston clearly being the premier city of Texas?
Yes. It was a wrong opinion to feel TM would possibly feel slighted if Dallas wasn't included. Everyone in Texas knows Houston is the premier food city.
Now Dallas has a "much larger cultural profile (both nationally and internationally)" than Houston..? How do you figure that? Houston has the premier museums, performing arts, and national/global influence over Dallas. Most of the culture "Dallas" has comes from Fort Worth on the other side of the metroplex. How do you figure DFW has a bigger GMP than Houston? Houstons GMP is almost $50 billion higher..
Yes, it most certainly is a stretch to try and call Dallas the more premier city in Texas. Premier metro could be argued. Again, why would a Texas publication lament Dallas not making a foodie list? They didn't lament San Antonio not making the list.. what don't you understand?
No, it isn't just "Dallas" (although you're seriously downplaying the recognition factor that very popular show, regardless of your personal feelings on quality, has given Dallas). There's also the Dallas Cowboys, the most valuable sports franchise in the world. Oh, you'll try to downplay the "cultural" and economic impact of that business (and yes, it is a business), which is hilarious because you live in Texas, the most football-obsessed state in the country, but fact is is that the Cowboys, who also play in the division (NFC East) with by far the most eyeballs and dollars attached, give Dallas a huge profile--much bigger than Houston's. Because let's face it, football is more important and more popular to Americans than NASA. How you can argue Houston having more national/global influence over Dallas in light of these facts is quite entertaining. *waits for the inevitable energy argument
I'll concede that Houston has the larger GMP, but it's a $21 billion gap, not $50 billion, and Dallas has significantly caught up to Houston just in the past 2-3 years.
And again, a Texas publication would lament Dallas not making the list because a)it's a renowned foodie city in its own right and b) it is the premier city of Texas (or at least on the same level as Houston). San Antonio isn't anywhere close to being the premier city of Texas.
Historic, European charm goes to Philadelphia for sure. No argument from me there. Still, that's what Galveston, San Antonio and New Orleans are for. Most people don't care about that stuff for everyday living.
As far as food goes, Houston as a whole hasn't reached an innovative level just yet. The city gets it rep by having a wide variety of incredible tasting food.
That's likely a large part of this comparison: the fact that Philadelphia(because of it's age and roots) more closely resembles what Europeans settlers thought cities/towns should look like during the colonial period and certainly what those places looked like before the dominance of motor vehicles.
As to whether people care about that kind of "old world" charm, I'd argue that millions do since lots of them come to Philly as tourists just to sample, first hand, that charm just because it's not part of their every day living.
For me personally, as an American, it's a profound experience that I can walk, daily, on the same streets that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams did and, later, Lincoln did. Something that, obviously, I could not do in Houston.
But remarkably, Philadelphia, is, in many ways, just as vibrant, or more so, than it was 200+ years ago. It's not a semi-fake colonial landscape like Williamsburg.
Congrats on being a city hundreds of years older than Houston that focuses on preservation more than progress (not necessarily a bad thing, I appreciate historical preservation).
It's not a matter of choosing between preservation or progress. Smart cities can balance both.
Uhh.. Did I just watch a video with a bunch of doors?
Interesting perspective I guess. Congrats on being a city hundreds of years older than Houston that focuses on preservation more than progress (not necessarily a bad thing, I appreciate historical preservation).
These cities are as different in built form as they are in political and economic form. The notion that our ideas of preserving history in built form means we as a city have decided against being progressive is ridiculous; perhaps just as ridiculous as the suggestion that Houston = progress and Philly /= progress.
What holds Philly back is what holds so many older cities back. Centuries of being a top 5 city has its benefits and drawbacks. We don't need to go through the de-industrialization discussion again, because I think everyone knows it. However, it doesn't change the fact that a very large city tends to see the taxes go up over time because of aging infrastructure, political corruption and challenges, and economic ebbs and flows. Think Houston will be new and shiny forever? Nope. Will it be cheap forever? Only if it stops growing and demand dies. Think the industries that make Houston successful will make them successful in 2050? Maybe, maybe not.
While a video of the different doors may seem silly, I see it as a wide representation of people, places and time. The artistic representation of what makes the city interesting certainly lies in the simpler things. To be able to hold onto that for hundreds of years is pretty progressive IMO.
While a video of the different doors may seem silly, I see it as a wide representation of people, places and time. The artistic representation of what makes the city interesting certainly lies in the simpler things. To be able to hold onto that for hundreds of years is pretty progressive IMO.
Houston favors the new. To make room for progress, examples of homes representing different eras were moved to a downtown park, so that the rest of their neighborhoods could be bulldozed for development: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston_Park. Houston natives don't find this strange because it's part of the city's culture.
Gunion Powder is the only one who got what I mean. Tokyo mostly destroys old for the new and is still world-class. Kyoto although it has very few new buildings is also a world class city IMO. Historic architecture doesn't make a city any less awesome unless your a history junkie. Their are lots of great cities that are mostly modern and just because a city doesn't have history doesn't mean it isn't great city. Also all the cities you mention all take down old buildings for new buildings which is part of Progress London has a CBD around The Shard, Paris has the impressive La Defense. Tearing down old buildings is also part of progress.
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.
