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.
Wow - tough call between Atlanta and Phoenix. I wouldn't even consider Dallas and Houston, as I don't like flat terrain. The more limited tree cover in Dallas would put it in last place for me. I can't imagine a more boring landscape than the southern Plains. Neither Dallas nor Houston have any aesthetic appeal to me, though. Houston reminds me a lot of the seedy looking suburbs around New Orleans (ever been to Metairie or Kenner... very ugly places).
Phoenix has drama and proximity to stunning landscapes; but from a daily living point of view, Atlanta has the greenery and the hills I really like. Living in Phoenix would take a lot of adaptation for me as someone who has lived almost all of my life in the Southeastern U.S.
I felt the same way you describe here when I lived out East, having spent most of my life in mountainous areas the relative flatness out East was hard to get used to. I also missed the more dramatic landscape I was surrounded by in the Southwest. And the sunsets, it's really hard to beat Arizona sunsets.
My overall ranking of the four cities has Houston on top and Phoenix on the bottom. It is based on my analysis of both their natural and built features.
Natural:
1. My preferences lean towards evergreen landscapes with significant water present, as seen in the coastal South (i.e Savannah, New Orleans, Mobile, etc). As a result, Houston is first, since it is the only city here offers such features (waterfront on the bayou, with the bay/gulf nearby). It has the highest precipitation of all these cities, and has mild winters overall, so vegetation grows quite robustly.
2. Atlanta's canopy doesn't have the diversity/presence in evergreens that Houston does (due to the colder winters); however the sheer presence of the forestry (more than Houston), along with the topography, is enough to solidify second place.
3. Phoenix has the most significant topography of all these cities, and has the best ability of cultivating evergreens/tropicals (as it has the most reliably warm winters); however, the dryness in the climate prevents a lush aesthetic form, so it lands in third place for this field.
4. Dallas is last because it lacks the superlatives seen in the other cites on this front. It doesn't get the rain for respectably lush vegetation, the winters (although milder than Atlanta's) are still too cold for great frontage of evergreen, and the topography is lacking.
Built:
1. Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston honestly tie in this category for me; each have their superlatives over the other to even this feature out. Atlanta has the best urban form out of the three cities, and has a solid amount of historic buildings. Dallas has the best organization/geometry of the skyline of the three cites, and Houston's individual buildings are the most integrated to a natural feature (bayous), and carry the most interesting aesthetic (lots of award-winning designs in that skyline). All these cities have designed efficient parks for the public, and carry good landscaping.
2. Phoenix is dead last; not much in the way of interesting architecture and/or urban form, unlike the rest of these cities.
Overall:
Based on scores in the two fields, Houston is on top, while Phoenix is last. Dallas overtakes Phoenix for the overall ranking because while it was last in landscape for me, it had enough superlatives in the built form field to make up for it; additionally, Phoenix didn't score first in any category for me, while all the other cities did:
1. Houston (1,1)
2. Atlanta (2,1)
3. Dallas (4,1)
4. Phoenix (3,2)
The architecture in Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston is pretty boring though, nothing actually stands out.
(?) Houston was founded around the same time as Atlanta (although Atlanta attained a higher population at an earlier time); if this thread considers metro areas as a whole, then Houston has perhaps the largest stock of 1800s buildings of all the cities here (a significant part by virtue of Galveston).
The Atlanta modern skyline doesn't look significantly different than that of Dallas or Houston; it just has a building or two more with a spire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder
Meh. Just recently visited Dallas a few days ago, and every time I'm there I'm struck by just how similar it is to Atlanta. If pine trees and a few big hills makes the difference between ugly and beautiful to you, then to each his own, I guess. I'm not so easily impressed. And I refuse to believe that most posters in this thread have spent any significant time observing each of these at street level.
Texyn, I have disagree with you on the skylines. Both Dallas and Houston look dominated by 70s/80s architecture, while most of Atlanta's prominent buildings were built in the 90s and onward. It has a slightly more modern look and there are definitely more crowns and spires.
Texyn, I have disagree with you on the skylines. Both Dallas and Houston look dominated by 70s/80s architecture, while most of Atlanta's prominent buildings were built in the 90s and onward. It has a slightly more modern look and there are definitely more crowns and spires.
While the Houston/Dallas buildings are older, they do offer aesthetics that help keep a "modern" look. With Dallas, the skyline has good geometric arrangement, not to mention, it lights up at night with neon. Houston has plenty of individual buildings that are quite shiny (i.e. Enron Tower, William's Tower, Heritage Plaza, etc), granting a modern appeal as well.
My overall ranking of the four cities has Houston on top and Phoenix on the bottom. It is based on my analysis of both their natural and built features.
Natural:
1. My preferences lean towards evergreen landscapes with significant water present, as seen in the coastal South (i.e Savannah, New Orleans, Mobile, etc). As a result, Houston is first, since it is the only city here offers such features (waterfront on the bayou, with the bay/gulf nearby). It has the highest precipitation of all these cities, and has mild winters overall, so vegetation grows quite robustly.
2. Atlanta's canopy doesn't have the diversity/presence in evergreens that Houston does (due to the colder winters); however the sheer presence of the forestry (more than Houston), along with the topography, is enough to solidify second place.
3. Phoenix has the most significant topography of all these cities, and has the best ability of cultivating evergreens/tropicals (as it has the most reliably warm winters); however, the dryness in the climate prevents a lush aesthetic form, so it lands in third place for this field.
4. Dallas is last because it lacks the superlatives seen in the other cites on this front. It doesn't get the rain for respectably lush vegetation, the winters (although milder than Atlanta's) are still too cold for great frontage of evergreen, and the topography is lacking.
Built:
1. Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston honestly tie in this category for me; each have their superlatives over the other to even this feature out. Atlanta has the best urban form out of the three cities, and has a solid amount of historic buildings. Dallas has the best organization/geometry of the skyline of the three cites, and Houston's individual buildings are the most integrated to a natural feature (bayous), and carry the most interesting aesthetic (lots of award-winning designs in that skyline). All these cities have designed efficient parks for the public, and carry good landscaping.
2. Phoenix is dead last; not much in the way of interesting architecture and/or urban form, unlike the rest of these cities.
Overall:
Based on scores in the two fields, Houston is on top, while Phoenix is last. Dallas overtakes Phoenix for the overall ranking because while it was last in landscape for me, it had enough superlatives in the built form field to make up for it; additionally, Phoenix didn't score first in any category for me, while all the other cities did:
1. Houston (1,1)
2. Atlanta (2,1)
3. Dallas (4,1)
4. Phoenix (3,2)
Anyone who disagrees can feel free to critique.
My critique in this re-opened thread is on the bold
I'd rather see HOUSTON do much more TROPICAL lushness. When I see the Oasis of the Aquarium Restaurant in downtown Houston in JANUARY still lush green PALM'S and greens. I think.... why not MUCH MORE all through the Core and city?
Evergreens over Palms and tropical shrubs and flowers? Topical is more special in a city can support it.
As for a tree-canopy? Atlanta and Minneapolis/St Paul take the win. They have in-city forest and in neighborhoods. I boast and defend Chicago. It has a tree-canopy in neighborhoods. But not the in-city forest to match.
As for the Houston bayous? Honestly, ok at best. Brown to rusty water and merely jogging, bike paths w/crisscrossing expressways overhead .... nothing special. If downtown Houston had a better Urban Park that would be great. Houston Core Bayous are ........
My critique in this re-opened thread is on the bold
I'd rather see HOUSTON do much more TROPICAL lushness. When I see the Oasis of the Aquarium Restaurant in downtown Houston in JANUARY still lush green PALM'S and greens. I think.... why not MUCH MORE all through the Core and city?
Evergreens over Palms and tropical shrubs and flowers? Topical is more special in a city can support it.
Trust me, there are many "tropical" plant varieties that should be used more in Houston. The best landscaping I've seen done in the city are by those who have actually been to tropical/subtropical areas around the world, and, thus, have direct knowledge about plants that were previously unknown to the city. Much better than many landscaping divisions that have a strict "native plants" mentality; those won't lead to great variety.
With that said, where it has been done, the landscaping jobs are decent:
Palms are maintained even when the building lots that held them are gone (scroll to see). This shows that the city is warming up to more park-like plantings of palms; that is, planting of palms in open, public parks, beyond just restricting them to homes, medians, and businesses: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6792...7i13312!8i6656
As for a tree-canopy? Atlanta and Minneapolis/St Paul take the win. They have in-city forest and in neighborhoods. I boast and defend Chicago. It has a tree-canopy in neighborhoods. But not the in-city forest to match.
Not sure about Minneapolis, but Atlanta indeed has an extensive tree canopy; I already said that in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
As for the Houston bayous? Honestly, ok at best. Brown to rusty water and merely jogging, bike paths w/crisscrossing expressways overhead .... nothing special. If downtown Houston had a better Urban Park that would be great. Houston Core Bayous are ........
The water color varies depending on depth, as well as sediment carried. Buffalo Bayou is from west and into downtown, but going east, it gets deeper, and the brown starts to diffuse away: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7238...7i13312!8i6656
Cities with narrow streets and old houses bother me.
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.
