Houston as Tourist Destination (Dallas, San Antonio: rent, shops, gardens)

[Chanteuse d' Opéra]

I am born & raised in Houston & cannot see it as a tourist destination compared to cities like Miami, LA, or even NYC. It's still a cosmopolitan, industrial, sunbelt city though w/ tons to offer.

[justthemust]

No, no, no. You saying Houston is a tourist destination is like saying Jupiter is the biggest planet so it has the most people. No, Houston is not known for being a tourist destination. The "visitors" in Houston or "tourists" usually go to see their family per se, not to view downtown. And what I meant earlier was that just because Houston is a big city doesn't mean it's known for tourism. Maybe nothing other than the Space Museum. That's just it. The tourist attractions in Houston are well-known and more popular in other cities. Houston isn't my favorite place to live, either. Like, look at New Orleans. That is a tourist destination. Ain't no Houston tourist! Downtown is not a place to hang out. Look, if you ever find someone visiting Houston, it's usually because they have relatives there.

[theurbanfiles]

Houston does not have the tourist or destination cache of Miami, San Francisco, Chicago, due to the unique amenities/identity/attractions of said places.

But, the comparison to other Texas cities seems to be an obvious attempt to stir the pot.

I would agree that San Antonio and Austin are more known for tourism than Houston or Dallas. Part of that is the unique attractions such as Alamo/Riverwalk in San Antonio, or the Music/Hipster scene of Austin. Those are identities those cities have carved. That said, part of that also is that Houston and Dallas are larger cities, and thus have broader identities in general. Not necessarily saying that San Antonio or Austin are deficient, but while they may have certain unique/it factors, there are certain things you can do as a tourist in a Houston sized city that you can't in an Austin or San Antonio. I also wonder if there are actually large differences as people in number of visitors both attract, I would assume due to frequency of visits (even yes, partially or fully for family), and accessibility-Houston probably doesn't have that many fewer visitors than Austin or San Antonio does.

I mean, Asheville probably overshadows Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham as being a "Tourist Destination" for NC, however, it would be difficult to say that it necessarily offers more as a result. While that isn't exactly the same, the same is sort of true here, I think, at least on certain levels.

As per Dallas, I really don't perceive it as being any more or less a tourist destination than Houston itself. Perhaps there are differences and strengths that one has that the other doesn't and vice versa, but by and large, I consider them in the same boat. Fort Worth on the other hand, as cities go, might have more of a unique niche/culture with the Texas western/cowboy aspect present there compared to anywhere in Houston itself. OTOH though, it would be disingenuous to say that Galveston doesn't up Houston's national appeal significantly either. It makes it the only major city in the Continental US outside of Florida where one can combine a beach and city break (and key factor-actually swim) for more than a few months out of the year. That sort of thing appeals to tourists when weighing where to visit-to be sure.

That isn't to say Houston can't stand on it's own though. Frankly, the comment on the first page about a Mars visit might actually be somewhat true-honestly, I think that the level of significance of the NASA sites, even if catered to kids (as honestly, they should to a degree be), is really, really understated in terms of our global heritage.

I could see that (and perhaps even more, KSC in Florida) a couple hundred years from now being considered on the same level of global historical/cultural significance as the renaissance sites/art in Florence, and the Great Wall/Forbidden City of Beijing. Though to be fair, tourism that is based around human innovation, industry, etc. is sadly something that is undertouristed in general.

[kemahkami]

As referenced earlier in this thread, tourism in any given city really is just a direct relationship with the density and pedestrian-friendliness. That is, cities that are more dense and pedestrian-friendly happen are also more appealing to tourists, whether in defined, specific districts (i.e. Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando), or across the jurisdictions at large (i.e. NYC, and other large, dense cities with good transit).

Even with cases involving great natural beauty, you'll find that the areas with higher density feature more vibrant tourism, whereas the less dense areas take role as quiet vacation retreats - you can note this as the difference in tourism styles seen with Miami/South Beach compared to Sarasota/Siesta Key.

So in the case of Houston, it just needs to build more density and pedestrian friendliness in order to support greater tourism. The process of change revolves strictly around urban fundamentals, although the length of time will vary based on interplay of city policy, construction execution, as well as the rate of perception change. The change in urbanity can indeed affect whether or not features of the area like Allen's Landing, San Jancinto Monument, Astrodome, Johnson Space Center, etc, remain mediocre, or evolve to become more special highlights of great vacation times.

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by justthemust

No, no, no. You saying Houston is a tourist destination is like saying Jupiter is the biggest planet so it has the most people. No, Houston is not known for being a tourist destination. The "visitors" in Houston or "tourists" usually go to see their family per se, not to view downtown. And what I meant earlier was that just because Houston is a big city doesn't mean it's known for tourism. Maybe nothing other than the Space Museum. That's just it. The tourist attractions in Houston are well-known and more popular in other cities. Houston isn't my favorite place to live, either. Like, look at New Orleans. That is a tourist destination. Ain't no Houston tourist! Downtown is not a place to hang out. Look, if you ever find someone visiting Houston, it's usually because they have relatives there.

Houston is not a tourist “destination” in comparison to other cities but to say people only visit Houston for family is just silly and outdated. I put money on it you probably reside in some far out suburb to not even be in tuned of how many people legitimately visit the city as tourist. Also not a lot of cities period can compare to New Orleans as a tourist destination, however Houston is a much better city to live in than New Orleans. New Orleans charm is center around its history preservation and it’s culture. Nothing Houston can do about that. It’s a much younger city and experienced a ever growing population growth Post WW2.

As far as Downtown Houston not being a place to hang out, man you clearly need to get out more. When I first moved to Houston back in 09 DT was pretty much a ghost town well up into about 2013. There were pockets of activity but nothing to write home about. For about 5 years now that started to change. DT Houston definitely is more cohesive with its vibrant nightlife and is a spot now that attracts transplants. It still has a ways to go but it’s far from dead now. Anybody denying that doesn’t get out much.

[Dopo]

Yes,
for the people that like to visit people with no rail system and lots of traffic = nobody

[AcresHomes44]

Houston is the 4th largest city in the US. There's plenty to do here, but you gotta know where to go. I don't think Houston was designed to be a tourist city, and I'm fine with that. Houston was built on oil, and what you see today is a result of that.

[mkwensky]

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

As referenced earlier in this thread, tourism in any given city really is just a direct relationship with the density and pedestrian-friendliness. That is, cities that are more dense and pedestrian-friendly happen are also more appealing to tourists, whether in defined, specific districts (i.e. Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando), or across the jurisdictions at large (i.e. NYC, and other large, dense cities with good transit).

Even with cases involving great natural beauty, you'll find that the areas with higher density feature more vibrant tourism, whereas the less dense areas take role as quiet vacation retreats - you can note this as the difference in tourism styles seen with Miami/South Beach compared to Sarasota/Siesta Key.

So in the case of Houston, it just needs to build more density and pedestrian friendliness in order to support greater tourism. The process of change revolves strictly around urban fundamentals, although the length of time will vary based on interplay of city policy, construction execution, as well as the rate of perception change. The change in urbanity can indeed affect whether or not features of the area like Allen's Landing, San Jancinto Monument, Astrodome, Johnson Space Center, etc, remain mediocre, or evolve to become more special highlights of great vacation times.

I don't think density and pedestrian friendliness alone can build tourism. At the end of day places become tourist destinations because they have unique attractions. Aside from Johnson Space Center, which really needs to be updated with newer relics, Houston doesn't really have anything with international or even national appeal. There isn't anything wrong with that. Having to fight for amenities with tourists suck, and most Houston family attractions are already packed to the gills on weekends.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Yes,
for the people that like to visit people with no rail system and lots of traffic = nobody

Right, that's why San Antonio and Austin (whose rail doesn't count) have no tourists.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Right, that's why San Antonio and Austin (whose rail doesn't count) have no tourists.

San Antonio has the Riverwalk, missions and a festival every weekend
Houston has nothing like that