Why is Houston always downplayed? (Dallas, Paris: loan, to buy, homeless)

[theone33]

Kansas City looks like the boonies in that picture. Maybe put up Chicago, LA or a concrete jungle to better compare.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

I could care less if visitors are too dumb to realize the entire Houston area isn't just like our freeways or that sometimes function trumps form.

However, so many of Houston's major thoroughfares are similar in appearance to the freeways:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7373...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7291...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8085...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6957...7i13312!8i6656

[theone33]

^^so is LA but you dont hear people constantly complaining.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

However, so many of Houston's major thoroughfares are similar in appearance to the freeways:

And?

The reason I chose to live out in the xburbs is to have pretty scenery at home.

I could care less if I see strip centers and gas stations on my way to work or on my way to a gas station or strip center.

BTW, have you driven on a major thoroughfare in LA or San Diego? You get those same types of views. Sure you might not get them on the freeways, but so, you still get them.

What I really find humorous is that a lot of people who comment about this issue are the same ones who make fun of The Woodlands, which is one of the few places that makes a point of hiding commercial structures and signage while keeping the natural facade.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Th...c3df5d!6m1!1e1

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

And?

The reason I chose to live out in the xburbs is to have pretty scenery at home.

I could care less if I see strip centers and gas stations on my way to work or on my way to a gas station or strip center.

BTW, have you driven on a major thoroughfare in LA or San Diego? You get those same types of views. Sure you might not get them on the freeways, but so, you still get them.

What I really find humorous is that a lot of people who comment about this issue are the same ones who make fun of The Woodlands, which is one of the few places that makes a point of hiding commercial structures and signage while keeping the natural facade.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Th...c3df5d!6m1!1e1

A couple of things:

- It's every person's prerogative to live where they want. My point is that Houstonians should not be surprised when so many visitors find the city ugly.
- Personally, I am not drawn to SoCal. I find it ugly and sprawling. To me, it's just Houston on steroids.
- I have zero interest in a debate on The Woodlands. Anyone who wishes to do so, however, should follow the thread link you provided.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

A couple of things:

- It's every person's prerogative to live where they want. My point is that Houstonians should not be surprised when so many visitors find the city ugly.
- Personally, I am not drawn to SoCal. I find it ugly and sprawling. To me, it's just Houston on steroids.
- I have zero interest in a debate on The Woodlands. Anyone who wishes to do so, however, should follow the thread link you provided.

Part of living in the majority of major cities is that they aren't going to be pretty everywhere.

The real reason why Houston is considered ugly is because of geography. It's located in a flat area that was built primarily on a swamp next to a prairie with nothing of interest in the background.

BTW, Houston didn't even make it in these ugly city surveys:

America's 8 Ugliest Cities

America

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The real reason why Houston is considered ugly is because of geography. It's located in a flat area that was built primarily on a swamp next to a prairie with nothing of interest in the background.

BTW, Houston didn't even make it in these ugly city surveys:

America's 8 Ugliest Cities

America

While topography doesn't help, many cities are on flat land and are not judged to be as ugly as Houston, including Dallas, Tampa, Denver, Portland, Tucson, Boston, San Diego, and Miami to name a few. Yes, each of them has their ugly areas but overall, they don't carry the reputation of being ugly. I'm sure others disagree with my list. That's fine.

I don't waste time on these clcik-through lists.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

While topography doesn't help, many cities are on flat land and are not judged to be as ugly as Houston, including Dallas, Tampa, Denver, Portland, Tucson, Boston, San Diego, and Miami to name a few. Yes, each of them has their ugly areas but overall, they don't carry the reputation of being ugly. I'm sure others disagree with my list. That's fine.

I don't waste time on these clcik-through lists.

Well, if you clicked on that first list, you'd see Dallas is ranked as the second ugliest US city.

Let's consider the other cities you've listed.

Tampa is located right on the water.

Denver has the mountains in the background.

Portland has the mountains in the background.

Tucson has the mountains in the background.

Boston is on right on the water.

San Diego is right on the water.

Miami is right on the water.

Do you notice a trend here yet?

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

While topography doesn't help, many cities are on flat land and are not judged to be as ugly as Houston, including Dallas, Tampa, Denver, Portland, Tucson, Boston, San Diego, and Miami to name a few. Yes, each of them has their ugly areas but overall, they don't carry the reputation of being ugly. I'm sure others disagree with my list. That's fine.

I don't waste time on these clcik-through lists.

The subtropical bayou, swamp, coastal plain, and forest landscape of Houston is actually an interesting deviation from the landscape typically thought of when people think of the US. The land may be flat, but its full of feature. Some times people criticize the flat scenery, but, in the end, that's not where a lot of the baggage goes; rather, it is the sprawling, cluttered environment. With that, I agree with you; London, Paris, Chicago, Orlando, NYC, New Orleans, Savannah, etc all are flat, but you never hear talk about how those cities "lack scenery, or are so ugly." New Orleans, which has pretty much the same general landscape as Houston, managed to find itself as the setting of a Disney film.

With that said, I don't think Houston's reputation for "ugliness" is any worse than that for many other sunbelt cities.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Well, if you clicked on that first list, you'd see Dallas is ranked as the second ugliest US city.

Let's consider the other cities you've listed.

Tampa is located right on the water.

Denver has the mountains in the background.

Portland has the mountains in the background.

Tucson has the mountains in the background.

Boston is on right on the water.

San Diego is right on the water.

Miami is right on the water.

Do you notice a trend here yet?

That doesn't matter; London and Paris aren't located by huge bodies of water, nor do they have huge mountains, and they aren't considered ugly. Neither is Orlando. New Orleans sits right on the muddy Mississippi, and yet managed to cultivate the charm to end up as a Disney setting.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Feeder roads are awesome. They offer convenience while allowing continued flow if something happens to close the lanes on the freeway.

Have you driven in cities like Pittsburgh or LA where you have to completely depart the freeway in order to get gas or locate a business? No thank you; the idea of having to exit and wander through side streets in hopes of locating what you need is a horrible idea, IMHO.

They are one of the most contributing factors to sprawl, though, in how they promote extremely low density, linear development, rather close-in infill and density. They also cause as much congestion as they relieve (and pollution) slowing traffic on and off the freeway, and acting as a parallel business route.

Prevailing design theory is against them.