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.
Montreal definitely, I have been to both. I was just in Houston in June and sure enough, we did a direct flyover very low to the inner ring and I was not impressed at all. It looked very poor urban planning, lots of random buildings that were 30-40 stories high in the middle of nowhere throughout the city. You might have a several impressive high buildings but the layout is awful and lots of gap space. It doesn't flow.
I actually chuckled about it when flying over and thought of boosters on this board making it seem muchhh bigger.
Montreal definitely, I have been to both. I was just in Houston in June and sure enough, we did a direct flyover very low to the inner ring and I was not impressed at all. It looked very poor urban planning, lots of random buildings that were 30-40 stories high in the middle of nowhere throughout the city. You might have a several impressive high buildings but the layout is awful and lots of gap space. It doesn't flow.
I actually chuckled about it when flying over and thought of boosters on this board making it seem muchhh bigger.
those pictures are kinda old, grapico and yes we know the faults of Houston's urban planning. Doesn't change the fact that it has great height and from all the other sides besides from the North, it's density is underrated.
those pictures are kinda old, grapico and yes we know the faults of Houston's urban planning. Doesn't change the fact that it has great height and from all the other sides besides from the North, it's density is underrated.
well show me a new aerial.. I know what I saw from the plane flying in and I've been down on the ground level several times... I said you have some impressive individual buildings, no doubt. The super talls over 200m are much better than what Montreal has. As a skyline though, I just don't buy it.
This is straight from Emporis. "Houston is unique for its lack of zoning restrictions, a situation which has permitted major skyscrapers to be built all over the city. In fact, Houston claims the tallest building - by far - in the United States outside a major downtown, the 901 ft. http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/green.gif (broken link) Williams Tower in the Galleria District."
They are not just saying that just to say it... it is because it is poor urban planning and I remain with my original statement, nice individual buildings but not so much on the skyline front. To me it is just aesthetically unpleasing to the eye.
I have nothing against Houston, just calling it like it is.
You do know that the North consists of more than that corridor, right?
Are you referring to ChiPitts? if so... I think although it is classified as a corridor... it is nothing like the continuous flow of urban area along the dc/boston coast. There are huge gaps in it, lots of farmland, etc. While it is definitely a big region over 50 mil... It doesn't have the same connections or feel at all imo.
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.
None of this makes sense whatsoever.
