Houston (and San Francisco) To Become America's Next Dominant Cities (Austin: private school, colleges)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by bu2

Not sure what criteria they used for selecting these 24 cities, but it includes most of the major cities (Dallas, Tampa, Philly left out)
Parkland per person in the United States

Houston ranked 6th at 977.
Boston was 16th at 371. LA 20th at 271. Chicago 24th at 182.

This point has been brought up before. Houston has a lot of public land but it's not all developed into anything reall attractive. There aren't discovery greens everywhere.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cBach

Most of the parkland in Houston is George Bush Park, which is an undeveloped flood plain. Sure there are some soccer fields, but that's about it.

NYC has Central Park, Boston has Boston Commons. If you look in the South, only New Orleans has park space akin to Northeast cities. Think Audubon Park or City Park. Take a road trip to New Orleans in the next few weeks, maybe go to Voodoo Fest around Halloween in City Park to see what I'm talking about.

George Bush bumps up the average, but Houston has Memorial Park, Moody Park, McGregor Park and Hermann Park as major parks inside the loop. And you see tons of people exercising, picnicking, kiting, etc. in addition to hundreds playing soccer at George Bush.

Houston has Discovery Green, Tranquility Park and the linear park along Buffalo Bayou downtown (and several others surrounding downtown). There are fountain parks near MD Anderson and Texas A&M's Institute in the medical center in addition to Hermann. The Galleria area has the Water Wall, in addition to Memorial Park bordering it.

The Festivals in Houston are mostly scattered around the city, not concentrated in one place, but there are large ones in downtown, such as the International Festival or the Art Car Parade (which seems like something you would find in Austin instead of Houston).

[bu2]

When people say Houston has no outdoor activities, its totally wrong.

Now if you say Houston doesn't have mountain hiking, that's true.

If you say Houston doesn't have TENS of thousands of people together outside EVERY weekend doing drinking/listening to music, that's true.

Those are specific outdoor activities that may be your preference. But there are plenty of outdoor activities that people do here, some of which aren't available much of the time in Boston, New York, Chicago, or Denver.

[radiolibre99]

It might be that it's just all scattered about. Houston is a city where its amenities aren't just given to you on a platter. You have to actively look for things and when you find them they're amazing.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by curbur

Again, you keep wanting to drag me into the argument you're having with other people on here. I've tried multiple times to explain to you that I'm only arguing with the reasons that you've cited for why Houston is 'uglier' than these other cities, not whether they've progressed more or whose more 'world-class' or that it's better than California. I would suggest if you're going to quote someone and then start arguing topic A, then maybe make sure that the person you quote was also arguing topic A.

By the way, Chicago and Houston were incorporated as cities the same year, 1837, it's just that Chicago had it's boom time long before and now it's Houston's turn. That's not too related to anything, but you keep citing that Chicago has had more time to grow, which isn't necessarily true.

There were already thousands of people in Chicago before it actually incorporated, so it had even more time to develop. Houston was nothing when it incorporated.

[gsmj]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

What? You really need examples? Take Los Angeles. I won't even name the beach or the mountains. You have Hollywood, LA Live, the Getty, the Getty Villa, Third Street Promenade, hundreds of developed parks with outdoor concerts everyday, downtown which has developed nicely, Beverly Hills, Griffith Park and the Observatory, LA County Museums. I could go on.

Seriously what is your criteria? For all practical purposes Houston takes the cake but as far as having a real world class city, Houston is still climbing and has made great strides.

Why is it all it nothing for some of you? Why does Houston have to be the best or its "hating"?

I was only asking for clarification of what you meant by your original statement of "real big city outdoor activities". I'm not going to go down the path of trying to compare what Houston has to what LA, Chicago, NYC, or any other major metro might have. I was just curious what you considered "real big city outdoor activities" as you implied in your first post:

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Houston lacks real big city outdoor activities which is why I would hope the city further develops its public spaces. It's doing a good job but still has a long way to go to match the top other cities.

For what it's worth though, I think Houston does have more than its fair share of things equivalent to those listed in your example. I think it comes down each person's desire to want to find those type destinations in a certain region. Too many times people get hung up on the idea that places like Houston have nothing to do only because what is offered isn't as marquee as similar venues in other metros are.

As for criteria of being a world class city, I'm not really sure how that came up. This thread is about an article stating that San Francisco and Houston are to poised to become the next two dominate cities in the United States.

[curbur]

Originally Posted by Trae713

There were already thousands of people in Chicago before it actually incorporated, so it had even more time to develop. Houston was nothing when it incorporated.

Yea I know, you're right technically, I just left that out to help illustrate my point to radiolibre that it's not like Chicago has been developing for centuries before Houston, which seemed to be the implication.

[elnina]

I agree, the very hot and humid summers make outdoor activities a bit difficult, but there are plenty of things to do for people who can handle the heat. And because of the weather, its crazy to compare the amount of time people spend outdoors in Houston vs NY, Chicago, LA or SF.
While we don't have mountains to climb, or pretty beaches, there are still ways to be active and enjoy it.
Houston rates first among the nation's 10 most populous cities in total acreage of parkland - with 22 acres per 1,000 residents. The national average is 12.4 acres per 1,000 residents.
Houston Parks - Bike Trails - Nature Centers - Wildlife Refuge - Visit Houston Texas
Click on "read more" for listings.

**** BTW: I would like to remind everyone to stay on topic. This thread is about an article stating that San Francisco and Houston are poised to become the next two dominate cities in the United States.****

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by elnina

I agree, the very hot and humid summers make outdoor activities a bit difficult, but there are plenty of things to do for people who can handle the heat. And because of the weather, its crazy to compare the amount of time people spend outdoors in Houston vs NY, Chicago, LA or SF.
While we don't have mountains to climb, or pretty beaches, there are still ways to be active and enjoy it.
Houston rates first among the nation's 10 most populous cities in total acreage of parkland - with 22 acres per 1,000 residents. The national average is 12.4 acres per 1,000 residents.
Houston Parks - Bike Trails - Nature Centers - Wildlife Refuge - Visit Houston Texas
Click on "read more" for listings.

**** BTW: I would like to remind everyone to stay on topic. This thread is about an article stating that San Francisco and Houston are poised to become the next two dominate cities in the United States.****

Do you realize that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which includes a contiguous area extending from the Presidio, the bridge, the Marin Headlands, and up the coast into Stinson Beach and beyond, is 80,000 acres of parkland? It doesn't even include Golden Gate Park, by the way, or any of the other city parks in SF.

Maybe the flaw in your thinking lies in the fact that SF is not among the 10 most populous cities.

[Jack Lance]

Lets not get bogged down in minute bickering over city park space. This thread is about which economic model will win eventual domination over the American economy, or will peace be made at some point? Both have footholds in the others state. Austin is basically a San Francisco outpost and California Energy development is being run from Houston. My guess is there will be enough cross pollination of the two economic models that at some point they meld into one more cooperative synergistic model