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.
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
Houston natives don't find this strange because it's part of the city's culture.
See what I mean:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
Historic architecture doesn't make a city any less awesome unless your a history junkie.
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.
While Tokyo destroys a lot of old for the new, there is plenty of preservation throughout the city (don't forget that WWII brought a ton of destruction throughout the city). And the Japanese tend to preserve their culture and traditions much better than the USA, which makes a big difference.
It doesn't take a history junkie to appreciate the history in a place. Without looking back, you cannot see very far forward. The idea that something that is new is automatically better than the old is a poor viewpoint, perhaps worse than being unable to adopt the new that is better than the old. This is probably one of the bigger differences between the two cities that span infrastructure, economy, etc.
EDIT: New construction is not a bad thing, but I think what people often times love about the older stuff is that it's more intimate (pedestrian-designed) and better built. While many in our society like something shiny, new and fast; people visit places with history because it more often represents something aged, older and a bit more right-sized. Part of what makes Tokyo so amazing to visit is that it has a ton of new construction while maintaining small pedestrian streets where walking and biking is a norm of life, with so many traditions of Japanese culture and life...all intertwined with temples and other history. Japan as a country has done an amazing job of preserving tradition and culture while adopting the new.
I agree but using only history to judge things can lead to people saying things like Timbuktu, Mali is better than Lagos, Nigeria (It might be safer though). Although Timbuktu has fantastic history it is a little more than a dusty town being eaten up by the desert sands. Lagos is a bustling city with 90% post 1950's buildings, and the best areas of Lagos aren't the historical areas either although Lagos Island is nice, the best areas are the new developments such as Eko Atlantic City, Victoria Island, Lekki, Ikeja and Ikoyi (semi-historic area).
Even Philly improves and moves towards Modernity although the buildings are old the infrastructure is very modern, if London and New York had truly kept all their historic buildings they would lack magnificent skylines, good portion of those cities would be nasty, covered in human feces, have overhead wires every etc. As pre-1800 most large cities were extremely dirty and nasty industrial places.
I agree but using only history to judge things can lead to people saying things like Timbuktu, Mali is better than Lagos, Nigeria (It might be safer though). Although Timbuktu has fantastic history it is a little more than a dusty town being eaten up by the desert sands. Lagos is a bustling city with 90% post 1950's buildings, and the best areas of Lagos aren't the historical areas either although Lagos Island is nice, the best areas are the new developments such as Eko Atlantic City, Victoria Island, Lekki, Ikeja and Ikoyi (semi-historic area).
No doubt. Unfortunately, this forum gets pretty myopic in its arguments. Maybe that's the nature of a forum and the written form.
While I prefer Philly's layout, I wouldn't mind if Houston could send some of its food up here (e.g. TexMex)!
^^^^
Agreed and people are forgetting also how modern these historic neighborhoods are. For example many of these neighborhoods have very modern infrastructure and materials on and around the buildings have been changed to be less poisonous, so it isn't like these buildings are completely historic, if they were they would have been closed due to their danger.
He might be a Houstonian, but I'm not, so I don't see your point.
The point is that Houston places great value on the new over the old. In that process, it's pretty much destroyed its history in favor of ever new development. There's a book with pictures of Houston from the 1930s which show a rich array of architecture - all of it lost. People reared in Houston grew up under these circumstances, so don't have a sense of holding onto our pasts while we build our future.
The point is that Houston places great value on the new over the old. In that process, it's pretty much destroyed its history in favor of ever new development. There's a book with pictures of Houston from the 1930s which show a rich array of architecture - all of it lost. People reared in Houston grew up under these circumstances, so don't have a sense of holding onto our pasts while we build our future.
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. His main point was simply that it's possible to be a world class city without a lot of old architecture, and he is not wrong.
Cities with a great deal of historical preservation are the exception and not the rule.
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. His main point was simply that it's possible to be a world class city without a lot of old architecture, and he is not wrong.
Cities with a great deal of historical preservation are the exception and not the rule.
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.
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.