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.
Chicago. The city is right on the water (both the river and the lake), Lake Michigan is a beautiful backdrop, the lakeshore parks are fantastic, and the built environment of Chicago is substantially better than Houston.
What's wrong with creating a separate thread to prevent derailing another thread? There was a lot of back and forth in the other thread between Chicago and Houston. This happens here all the time. Seems like the only difference now is you have an emotional attachment to Houston. Not saying that to be rude or anything, I just genuinely don't see a difference.
This stems off basically from the Pittsburgh, Denver, Houston thread because someone found that Houston was more scenic to them or preferred Houston's scenery to the other cities and gave his explanation. The horror. Then was sent down to another thread between flat cities which then became this thread. All three was nothing more than bashing of Houston because of one Houston booster who has created thousands of names spewing the same thing.
Scenic in what way? Are you talking about the skyline and architecture? If so, the answer is obviously Chicago. Chicago does have the lake too which goes in it favor.
That said Chicago is a massive city in what would have otherwise been a corn field. Houston does have lovely pine forests, tropic vegetation (I have a lime, lemon, orange, and fig trees on my property), and is green all year round. So for natural scenery, Houston is the answer.
Not that I would expect CD to see that side. CD loves Chicago and hates sunbelt cities.
This stems off basically from the Pittsburgh, Denver, Houston thread because someone found that Houston was more scenic to them or preferred Houston's scenery to the other cities and gave his explanation. The horror. Then was sent down to another thread between flat cities which then became this thread. All three was nothing more than bashing of Houston because of one Houston booster who has created thousands of names spewing the same thing.
Scenic in what way? Are you talking about the skyline and architecture? If so, the answer is obviously Chicago. Chicago does have the lake too which goes in it favor.
That said Chicago is a massive city in what would have otherwise been a corn field. Houston does have lovely pine forests, tropic vegetation (I have a lime, lemon, orange, and fig trees on my property), and is green all year round. So for natural scenery, Houston is the answer.
Not that I would expect CD to see that side. CD loves Chicago and hates sunbelt cities.
That's not true.....it would have been marshy swampland like Houston was before a city was built on it. Not sure where you get your facts from....
That's not true.....it would have been marshy swampland like Houston was before a city was built on it. Not sure where you get your facts from....
Dude, I lived in Chicago. I know what Illinois looks like. Its flat farm land. Chicago is not a marsh...at all.
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.
