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.
Houston has a much better skyline but Boston has a much better backdrop with the rivers and shoreline. Combine the strengths of both cities and you would have a tremendous skyline to tout.
To me this is the intangible you get with Boston not replicated in houston, i love skylines and love the feel of them when I am actually in the city wlaking on the street.
Try any street in Main street square or try going along Walker, Main, Travis, Milam, Smith, Fannin, Dallas, etc etc. all of them have those Concrete canyons you posted in your pics
Try any street in Main street square or try going along Walker, Main, Travis, Milam, Smith, Fannin, Dallas, etc etc. all of them have those Concrete canyons you posted in your pics
I'm not sure that I know the point KidPhilly was trying to make, but when I compare the street views you posted with his, I don't see equivalence. They are fairly different streetscapes, and I think the issue is which one appeals more to the viewer. For me, it's the Boston streetscape for a few reasons:
more varied architecture
more pedestrian level engagement
more sense of the next block over or what lurks around the corner (due to greater height variance)
Those are the things that jump out to me. As for the Houston pictures, I see a lot of tall, non-differentiated buildings stretched out to the end of the view frame. Don't get me wrong, I think there's something cool about that, too, because it implies a really impressive scale, and that is indeed how Houston's skyline is best known. To be honest, I think each one is a right and proper reflection of the city it serves. Boston is a walking city, Houston is a car city, the downtown areas reflect this.
I'm not sure that I know the point KidPhilly was trying to make, but when I compare the street views you posted with his, I don't see equivalence. They are fairly different streetscapes, and I think the issue is which one appeals more to the viewer. For me, it's the Boston streetscape for a few reasons:
more varied architecture
more pedestrian level engagement
more sense of the next block over or what lurks around the corner (due to greater height variance)
Those are the things that jump out to me. As for the Houston pictures, I see a lot of tall, non-differentiated buildings stretched out to the end of the view frame. Don't get me wrong, I think there's something cool about that, too, because it implies a really impressive scale, and that is indeed how Houston's skyline is best known. To be honest, I think each one is a right and proper reflection of the city it serves. Boston is a walking city, Houston is a car city, the downtown areas reflect this.
Sorry, an earlier poster claimed DT Houston was 1.5 mile diameter, which would be roughly 2.5 sq miles, and the Loop, the greater DT houston is roughly 50 sq miles.
anyhow CBD's exclude Back Bay, Becon hill (all the state complexes) and Longwood, all add to the skyline. For Houston it excluds atleast Uptown.
The Loop is not DT Houston!
Houston's inner loop has 3 separate skylines & business districts...Downtown proper, Texas Medical Center, & Greenway Plaza.
The Houston skyline for me. Much taller, more color, more varied height, much more interesting post modern skyscrapers. Also much more dense than you think and suprisingly a lot more pre 1940s bldgs which I found to be very attractive especially the 2 taller ones(don't know their names).
In terms of skyline, it's got to be Houston. Don't get me wrong, Houston has nothing that compares to the Custom House Tower or the view of the city from Memorial Drive, or Boston Harbor (looking at Rowes Wharf), but it does have a better skyline. Boston's strengths are in its streetscape. Boston is a much more pleasant city to get around without an automobile. In my own opinion, Boston blows Houston out of the water in almost every category, but skyline isn't one of them (nor is cost of living).
I've lived in both of these towns. Houston has a dynamic, ultramodern skyline that is quite impressive from all angles, but my vote goes to Boston because of more architectual diversity and the presence of water, which accentuates any skyline. I will never understand why all these huge southern towns like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Charlotte did not put their city centers on a signifigant body of water. Houston could have been on the gulf coast, Atlanta could have been on the Chattahoochee, Dallas on the Red.....etc., etc......
I wonder how you lived in Houston but failed to learn its history and geography. Galveston was a major port on the the Gulf coast prior to the 1900 storm which essentially destroyed the city. In 1909, the business leaders of the region decided it was safer to locate the port in-land from the Gulf in Houston, which in fact, prove correct. Downtown Houston does sit on a body of water called Buffalo Bayou. It is not scenic in the traditional sense, but the view of downtown over looking the skyline from the banks of Buffalo Bayou is pretty spectacular, IMO:
All sizes | Houston Skyline from Allen Parkway | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybertoad/103688956/sizes/z/in/photostream/ - broken link)
All sizes | Houston Skyline from Eleanor Tinsley Park-4 (HDR) | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidfross/3540460110/sizes/z/in/photostream/ - broken link)
All sizes | Houston River of Fire | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobrosenberg/241421773/sizes/z/in/photostream/ - broken link)
In the end, I have to split my vote here. Houston, with its concentration and variety of very tall post-modern buildings (featuring many by Philip Johnson) gets the nod on architecture. On the other hand, Buffalo Bayou is no match for the setting of Boston's skyline on the harbor:
In the end, I have to split my vote here. Houston, with its concentration and variety of very tall post-modern buildings (featuring many by Philip Johnson) gets the nod on architecture. On the other hand, Buffalo Bayou is no match for the setting of Boston's skyline on the harbor:
I agree with you totally. I think Boston has the win for more beautiful setting, but it pisses me off when they say Houston doesn't have the architectural beauty. Houston has everything from the late 1800 up to designs of today. the buildings from inside out are gens. My favorite are the Esperson Buildings. Love the exterior design and the inside finishings. Love those terrazzo and lapis lazuli floors
Other favorites:
Old Chase building : View from Niels Esperson Tempietto | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msanderson/4519023067/in/photostream/ - broken link)
I agree with you totally. I think Boston has the win for more beautiful setting, but it pisses me off when they say Houston doesn't have the architectural beauty. Houston has everything from the late 1800 up to designs of today. the buildings from inside out are gens. My favorite are the Esperson Buildings. Love the exterior design and the inside finishings. Love those terrazzo and lapis lazuli floors
Other favorites:
Old Chase building : View from Niels Esperson Tempietto | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msanderson/4519023067/in/photostream/ - broken link)
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.
