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.
Last time I checked, Houston was all grassland for the most part before it became a city, so I wouldn't consider the vegetation, especially those palm trees, you showed on the concrete landscape to be "natural". The beautiful vegetation you talk about actually isn't natural to that area, it was brought in when they were building the city. Houston's natural scenery was altered by man. It was mostly grasslands before that. So I guess in that sense what you have shown shouldn't count right? It's something that can't be altered by man per your definition.
Once again, as I mentioned before the Flora such as Sabal Minors, Oak Trees, Spanish Moss, Sabal Palms, Longleaf Pines, etc. are natural to the area, and especially East Texas, let alone the Gulf Coast. Not to mention the Swamps/Bayous...
To rephrase my previous post, If you haven't traveled through the Gulf, especially through West Louisiana and East Texas you wouldn't understand. Outside of the Washingtonias, most of the vegetation currently being imported in Houston was already grown or natural to the area.
Once again, as I mentioned before the Flora such as Sabal Minors, Oak Trees, Spanish Moss, Sabal Palms, Longleaf Pines, etc. are natural to the area, and especially East Texas, let alone the Gulf Coast. Not to mention the Swamps/Bayous...
To rephrase my previous post, If you haven't traveled through the Gulf, especially through West Louisiana and East Texas you wouldn't understand. Outside of the Washingtonias, most of the vegetation currently being imported in Houston was already grown or natural to the area.
Don't assume anything. I have been all around Louisana and Texas, including your beloved Houston.
you honestly can't believe that Houston is a more scenic city...
I never said it was more scenic than Chicago in aggregate terms (see my post on the first page of this thread). Pay attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate
Chicago easily has one of the best and attractive cityscapes.
I only talked about Houston being scenic vs Chicago in regards to certain aspects (namely vegetation and biodiversity); I already acknowledged the fact that Chicago was more efficient in integrating its natural features into its urban fabric (numerous times, in fact), allowing it to have the more pleasing city-scape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate
I cannot believe that someone would post a kroger and a strip mall and say it is scenic in any way.
Houston's a nice city, but it has to be the worst when it comes to scenery
It depends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
But to the Houston boosters, it doesn't matter. Even though Chicago has a 20 mile shoreline, because it has winter it cannot be more scenic than Houston.
You know you are desperate when you are trying to fight that Houston is a more scenic city than places like Chicago or Denver. One of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Houston has a good qualities, scenery is not one of them. Chicago may be flat, but it has pretty great scenery for a flat city.
On the contrary, it may be that you simply lack the capacity to grasp what is truly being said; seems like the points are all flowing right over your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
That's beautiful! But as the Houston booster suggest because it's not green all year long, it's not as scenic as Houston.
So much salt from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
If you haven't noticed, everyone EXCEPT for the Houston boosters, have all said Houston is NOT scenic and NOT more scenic than a city like Denver. You need a reality check. When everyone else outside the Houston boosters is saying so, maybe that should tell you something.
They have, you are just being pig-headed.
Either Houston or Denver are chosen for scenery depending on the aspect in question: topography for Denver, water/vegetation for Houston. Someone who truly likes mountains would pick Denver, whereas someone who likes lush environments would choose Houston. Simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
Sorry that wasn't intended towards you at all, haha. This was meant for two other posters that are saying Houston is more scenic than places like Chicago, Toronto or London, because it doesn't have cold winters and its vegetation stay green all year. They were also saying that buildings, architecture and urban design don't count as scenery.
I've never made such a claim. You just keep going at it with these straw-mans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini
Lol, when I saw that link I was legitimately confused. If that's the best scenery Houston has to offer I don't want to see the worst.
Learn to read; that was clearly a facts and figures link, not meant to show scenery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
Last time I checked, Houston was all grassland for the most part before it became a city.
Seems that you need to check again:
Quote:
The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas.
so I wouldn't consider the vegetation, especially those palm trees, you showed on the concrete landscape to be "natural". The beautiful vegetation you talk about actually isn't natural to that area, it was brought in when they were building the city. Houston's natural scenery was altered by man. It was mostly grasslands before that. So I guess in that sense what you have shown shouldn't count right? It's something that can't be altered by man per your definition.
Much of Houston's beautiful vegetation is iconic to the Deep South and it all grows naturally in the city/metro area. Here are some examples:
Southern magnolia: http://bonap.net/MapGallery/County/M...randiflora.png
Additionally, a recent exploration of forested area south of Houston yielded discovery of a unique palm hybrid species found nowhere else in the US (which goes back to the biodiversity/endemism I talked of earlier): http://www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/con...t00027p025.pdf
Now, many other plants in Houston come from other parts of the world as gardeners, by nature, like to try exotic things. Thanks to the climate, all of these exotic plants grow and thrive in the city/metro, including date palms, camphor laurels, loquats, citrus, oleanders, etc; same goes for other warm climate areas of the country (SoCal, SE US coast, etc). You know a palm is thriving when it grows through even freeway cracks: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7270...7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7275...7i13312!8i6656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
Ok I was wrong then. The point is the Houston boosters can't use the argument that it's current scenery is Houston's natural scenery. That's all.
Only except much of the current scenery is, in fact, natural to the area.
I never said it was more scenic than Chicago in aggregate terms (see my post on the first page of this thread). Pay attention.
I only talked about Houston being scenic vs Chicago in regards to certain aspects (namely vegetation and biodiversity); I already acknowledged the fact that Chicago was more efficient in integrating its natural features into its urban fabric (numerous times, in fact), allowing it to have the more pleasing city-scape.
I don't care about Kroger's or strip malls. I look at things like these when talking of scenic areas of Houston:
Glad a block or 2 or pieces of Old Houston survived your city's NO Zoning allowing of so much of old Houston demolished. Like NO Preservationist existed there to save more. LIKE YOUR ABOVE PICTURE SHOWS A BIT ON MAIN STREET.
I mean really, they tore down old Houston for just HUGE BLAND PARKING GARAGES. That is the worst part. These garages hurt Houston's chance for street-level cohesiveness.
As for some scenic Houston parks. You have the Buffalo Bayou Park new.
City of Houston did not worry about planting original FLORA here? Just grass and trees.
Nice and decent. Nothing special and certainly no flowers or anything tropical.
They could have added some MONGOLIAS.
Glad a block or 2 or pieces of Old Houston survived your city's NO Zoning allowing of so much of old Houston demolished. Like NO Preservationist existed there to save more. LIKE YOUR ABOVE PICTURE SHOWS A BIT ON MAIN STREET.
I mean really, they tore down old Houston for just HUGE BLAND PARKING GARAGES. That is the worst part. These garages hurt Houston's chance for street-level cohesiveness.
As for some scenic Houston parks. You have the Buffalo Bayou Park new. City of Houston did not worry about planting original FLORA here? Just grass and trees. Nice and decent. Nothing special and certainly no flowers or anything tropical.
The photo isn't of one block; the entire half of downtown Houston has historic buildings like that, with the newer buildings following though with the aesthetic. Yes, many historic buildings were torn down in Houston, just as they were in other cities across the country.
The garages aren't permanent; the buildings can always be revitalized for urban living once things kick to full gear.
And Buffalo Bayou Park is a new park; things/features are still being installed (including many plantings).
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.
Parking with nothing at street-level. 
