Houston as Tourist Destination (Port Arthur, Galveston: loan, how much, transfer)

[tstone]

Originally Posted by Spade

I wouldn’t call Atlanta a tourist destination city either. I would call Chicago and Philadelphia tourist cities though.

After living in Penn. for a couple of years (albeit the western part), I can say with confidence that Philly is definitely a tourist destination. (It is also the gateway to Lancaster & Hershey.) However that region is too far removed and too different from TX, most people here don't know much if anything about it.

[kwr]

There are only a handful (or two) of cities in the US that are truly tourist destinations. Conversely, the US offers plenty of cities that are better suited for living as opposed to visiting. I believe Houston falls in this category. The city is still worth a visit. Although, you have to live in Houston to fully appreciate the city.

Most of the handful cities that are tourist destinations give an entirely different vibe when living there compared to visiting. There is a reason why the majority of New Yorkers avoid Times Square. Millions of people move to NYC based on a weekend visit to Times Square and end of disappointed after relocating.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by tstone

After living in Penn. for a couple of years (albeit the western part), I can say with confidence that Philly is definitely a tourist destination. (It is also the gateway to Lancaster & Hershey.) However that region is too far removed and too different from TX, most people here don't know much if anything about it.

People know Pittsburgh. They think of it as the soot-caked steel town it was 40 or 50 years ago, generally, and not what it is now. But what it is now, still, is a place that has no efficient means of getting locals around, let alone tourists. Philly is better equipped to do it.

If Pgh ever managed to build this gondola system, though, the game would get changed and that city would have an experience to offer just getting around. Different from the normal experience of getting around taking some rather brave left turns in front of oncoming cars.

Originally Posted by Spade

I wouldn’t call Atlanta a tourist destination city either. I would call Chicago and Philadelphia tourist cities though.

Chicago and Philadelphia also have a culture and history that can't be contrived in a visitors bureau boardroom.

There's also nothing here in Chicago actually purpose-built around tourism. Some will say Navy Pier, but it's not like a decision was made one day along the lines of "hey, if we build this giant concrete plank a half-mile out into the lake, people will come to our city." It only became that after Uncle Sam's intended use for it ran its course. The World War I deserters, AWOLs and draft evaders in the brig there a hundred or so years ago certainly weren't tourists.

Orlando is not a tourist city, itself. Nobody there as a tourist gives an honest **** about Orlando itself. That's the name of the airport where you board a shuttle to go to Universal or Disney or something southwest of Orlando city. In any case, you have a cluster of points of interests in a straight line that shuttle services can get people in and out of what they want to see, then they get on a plane and go home. It's also the epitome of all things banal, bland, Applebee's steak-eating mainstream mediocrity, things for which Houston should not aspire.

What Houston should aspire to be is to be a better city, for the people who live there. Let whatever else happen naturally.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by bu2

I was there about a year ago. And if you had bothered to read before you posted, you would have seen me say I ran and walked between Rodeo Drive and Westwood. Wilshire from Rodeo to Westwood is pretty boring-a golf course and office buildings? Westheimer from Chimney Rock to Gessner is more interesting.

I was being sarcastic with the "if you left your hotel room" part because your views on LA neighborhoods and where they stand today are not accurate especially about Downtown LA. It's become the hotspot for tourists to stay in which is why there's so many highrise luxury hotels there now. Or how Rodeo is "only 3 or 4 blocks" when in reality it's triple that at least, and the wide streets you talk about are more narrow than the roads in DT Houston. The whole Rodeo Drive and Beverly Grove areas are very walkable.

Walkability is what's in nowadays. People want to be able to leave their hotel room or AirBnB and walk to cool stores, nice restaurants, entertainment, parks, etc. Houston is on its way to offering this in parts of the Inner Loop (DT, Midtown, Uptown), but not quite there yet.

[tstone]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Walkability is what's in nowadays. People want to be able to leave their hotel room or AirBnB and walk to cool stores, nice restaurants, entertainment, parks, etc. Houston is on its way to offering this in parts of the Inner Loop (DT, Midtown, Uptown), but not quite there yet.

How the infrastructure is laid out is only half of "walkability". Drivers respecting pedestrians' presence is the other half, and that is where Houston falls into the bottom of the barrel.

Originally Posted by jfre81

People know Pittsburgh. They think of it as the soot-caked steel town it was 40 or 50 years ago, generally, and not what it is now. But what it is now, still, is a place that has no efficient means of getting locals around, let alone tourists. Philly is better equipped to do it.

Well I was talking about Philly and responding to a quote above stating that it was not a tourist destination... which is completely false. But speaking of Pgh, it is still crap in about 2/3rds of its 90 neighborhoods. It should've marketed itself as a tourist destination instead of "most livable" seeing it continues to shed population. But that's what happens when all you do is look inward. BTW that gondola thing will never happen.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by tstone

How the infrastructure is laid out is only half of "walkability". Drivers respecting pedestrians' presence is the other half, and that is where Houston falls into the bottom of the barrel.

True. I'm reminded of this one time on Westheimer. A woman and her son (maybe about 9 yrs old) were trying to cross on their walk signal. Four cars made right turns in front of them as they passed the median even though they were sprinting across the road so they decide to back up and just stand there in the middle. People didn't have the patience to wait 8 seconds to let them cross. I come up next in line and stop behind the crosswalk and motion them to finish crossing. I was in disbelief because people would rather "beat them" than allow them to cross safely even when they had the walk sign.

Houston is at a dangerous point in its history in my opinion because traffic is still light enough to use a vehicle, but at the same time Houston is getting dense enough to where many are choosing to walk along these roads where vehicles are flying down. There's hardly enough pedestrian crossings, sometimes too much greenery blocking views of people sprinting from behind landscaping, and impatient drivers who are also clueless about pedestrian/vehicle laws.

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

True. I'm reminded of this one time on Westheimer. A woman and her son (maybe about 9 yrs old) were trying to cross on their walk signal. Four cars made right turns in front of them as they passed the median even though they were sprinting across the road so they decide to back up and just stand there in the middle. People didn't have the patience to wait 8 seconds to let them cross. I come up next in line and stop behind the crosswalk and motion them to finish crossing. I was in disbelief because people would rather "beat them" than allow them to cross safely even when they had the walk sign.

Houston is at a dangerous point in its history in my opinion because traffic is still light enough to use a vehicle, but at the same time Houston is getting dense enough to where many are choosing to walk along these roads where vehicles are flying down. There's hardly enough pedestrian crossings, sometimes too much greenery blocking views of people sprinting from behind landscaping, and impatient drivers who are also clueless about pedestrian/vehicle laws.

Yeah my wife's friend daughter got hit in a hit and run walking from school last year. She survived but being that close to someone involved in a hit and run makes you look at a cities infrastructure a lot different. I'm wondering could that accident have been avoided if Houston wasn't so car dependent?

[As Above So Below...]

Houston is a city you can truly enjoy if you have a reason to be here. I cant imagine what would make a tourist come here for no other reason than tourism. Maybe NASA? Shoppers from Latin America?

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

Yeah my wife's friend daughter got hit in a hit and run walking from school last year. She survived but being that close to someone involved in a hit and run makes you look at a cities infrastructure a lot different. I'm wondering could that accident have been avoided if Houston wasn't so car dependent?

I have a coworker here in LA who has family in Houston. His sister was killed years ago by someone in a pickup. Unfortunately she was walking very close to the road because there were no sidewalks and only muddy grass for pedestrians. Even worse there wasn't even a curb so she was walking level with the truck who veered just a bit to the right and hit her. He stayed and wasn't charged with anything but to think if sidewalks were a priority, she'd have been elevated walking along it instead of straddling the line and be alive today.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by jfre81

People know Pittsburgh. They think of it as the soot-caked steel town it was 40 or 50 years ago, generally, and not what it is now. But what it is now, still, is a place that has no efficient means of getting locals around, let alone tourists. Philly is better equipped to do it.

If Pgh ever managed to build this gondola system, though, the game would get changed and that city would have an experience to offer just getting around. Different from the normal experience of getting around taking some rather brave left turns in front of oncoming cars.



Chicago and Philadelphia also have a culture and history that can't be contrived in a visitors bureau boardroom.

There's also nothing here in Chicago actually purpose-built around tourism. Some will say Navy Pier, but it's not like a decision was made one day along the lines of "hey, if we build this giant concrete plank a half-mile out into the lake, people will come to our city." It only became that after Uncle Sam's intended use for it ran its course. The World War I deserters, AWOLs and draft evaders in the brig there a hundred or so years ago certainly weren't tourists.

Orlando is not a tourist city, itself. Nobody there as a tourist gives an honest **** about Orlando itself. That's the name of the airport where you board a shuttle to go to Universal or Disney or something southwest of Orlando city. In any case, you have a cluster of points of interests in a straight line that shuttle services can get people in and out of what they want to see, then they get on a plane and go home. It's also the epitome of all things banal, bland, Applebee's steak-eating mainstream mediocrity, things for which Houston should not aspire.

What Houston should aspire to be is to be a better city, for the people who live there. Let whatever else happen naturally.

Yeah nobody goes to Orlando to go to the city. It’s all about the themed attractions over there. Same with Vegas to a smaller extent. You visit the strip. Not Las Vegas as a whole. Mentioned this earlier. I agree with your last point. Houston should continue to build a better city naturally. That will draw the tourists and catch the eye of people outside the region. I still think an efficient transit system and high dense attractions that are cohesive with each other are needed.