Houston as Tourist Destination (Dallas, San Antonio: construction, to live in, nightlife)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

In Vegas people usually stay in the Walkable Strip....the metro isn't walkable but the touristy areas are and have plenty of shuttles. So yeah, the touristy part of Vegas doesn't require a car.

Orlando is more about theme parks....people don't visit to see the city.

Miami: Miami is fairly walkable....but people largely go for the beach. This is the closest thing you have to a valid point.

You can easily take Transit in Seattle.

Olympic National Park is near Seattle, not in it. This is moronic. Of course, you have to drive or take a bus to a national park, do you know of any that have a metro system? This is a totally different type of tourism than visiting a city.

Rome: I've lived in Rome.

Virtually 0 tourists drive in Rome. The city is incredibly walkable so once you are in the central city there is absolutely no reason to drive. Everything is a 30 min walk from each other...and walking shows you hundreds of cool sites...walking is part of the experience. People take the metro or trams when they visit if they don't want to walk.

Being walkable and historic is literally the reason people visit Rome.

People rarely visit a location for its own sake unless it provides either Natural Wonders you can drive to or man built environments that are walkable and enjoyable to be in. Houston has neither.

I tell you. It seems like noone on this site has an ounce of reading comprehension.

My comment was that transit was irrelevant to whether something was a tourist attraction. You all seem to be trying to disagree with me, but, instead, prove my point. My comment had nothing to do with walkability.

[joseayala77]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

Well this in itself is a troll post. Not saying everything you wrote in your last account was trolling, but this one is.

How is my comment a troll comment? I'm simply pointing out what happened to my account for simply calling out posters with 1-3 history of replies... and this thread further proves my point. It's so obvious when the author of a post joined a week ago and tjis was his genius olidea for a post. He offed 0 value. It's similar to throwing a grenade into a crowed and running away. There's alot of jealousy between certain cities in Texas.

But hey, if Houston wasn't thriving and an awesome place to live, nobody would attack it as much as these fake accounts do. I'm just trying to bring attention to the bias. That you can post a thread meant to diminish a cities attractions by claiming "it's not a touristy city" but you cannot call out the troll.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by bu2

I tell you. It seems like noone on this site has an ounce of reading comprehension.

My comment was that transit was irrelevant to whether something was a tourist attraction. You all seem to be trying to disagree with me, but, instead, prove my point. My comment had nothing to do with walkability.

We are saying transit is relevant to a city being a tourist attraction. The city, not the entire metro. Some cities can get away with it (Miami, LA, even New Orleans). But most cities that are have major efficient transit systems that take people where they want to go. walking and public transit go hand in hand.

[AcresHomes44]

The way Houston is, everything is spread out so you can't get around without a car unless you live and work in Midtown/Downtown inside the loop. To be honest, maybe Houston's public transit will be much better in the not too distant future.

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by Spade

We are saying transit is relevant to a city being a tourist attraction. The city, not the entire metro. Some cities can get away with it (Miami, LA, even New Orleans). But most cities that are have major efficient transit systems that take people where they want to go. walking and public transit go hand in hand.

I do believe efficient transit system plays a part, I mean look what Dallas did by adding the M Trolley. People actually do ride that to get around and especially people visiting the city for the first time. But aside from a good transit system the other problem with Houston is there's not enough CENTRALIZED family friendly attractions for a out of state or international tourist to go to. The "Museum District" is the closest thing to a centralized tourist destination but even that area doesn't have a plethora of restaurants/mass parking/ sidewalks/ and a energy that's inviting to families.

Houston has some cool stuff for a tourist to appreciate but it's just no structure. Discovery Green and the revamped George R. Brown convention center is really nice to hit up. Definitely worth checking out if you book a hotel downtown. Main street is picking up activity. But those attractions downtown are seriously lacking. I'm supposed to take my family to that "Aquarium"? LOL Say what you want about Dallas but they have a world class Aquarium and have added some new attractions over the years that is much more impressive than Houston.

And I think another thing that hurts Houston as a popular tourist destination is it's identity is still unknown in pop culture. Most tourist destinations are popular because we see them on tv shows and films. Houston is more popular when it comes to "Houston we have a problem" or hip-hop music but beyond that you don't see the city a lot in these platforms. Again even Dallas is more popular in that sense because of the Cowboys, Dallas tv show, JFK assassination, hell even Texas Ranger Walker, Debbie Does Dallas. That resonates with the general public and peaks their interest in visiting a city. Even if that city rarely lives up to it's tv or film persona(Miami for me definitely overrated).

[DejaBlue]

Originally Posted by Dartman1

Do you think that Houston will become a big tourist destination itself along the lines of Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio in the near future.

San Antonio is in it's own class. Being built around the San Antonio River. Buffalo Bayou is chocolate milk brown


Plus, I know it's not in SA directly but New Braunfels can claim it and so many (myself included) go there for Schlitterbahn and river tubing when they visit SA and Fiesta Texas.

Originally Posted by Fight Red Light

Maybe when human land on Mars...

If I lived elsewhere, I wouldn't see a need to "visit" Houston. See NASA once and you're good. This isn't a weekend trip city for things to see.

[DabOnEm]

I want to know why SeaWorld picked San Antonio over Houston. The two other SeaWorld parks are near the sea (San Diego right on the water; Orlando less than an hour away). A SeaWorld Houston would have looked great in the Clear Lake area. Would probably boost up the Space Center too, causing it to add/update attractions. That thing is currently a pretty stale attraction.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

I want to know why SeaWorld picked San Antonio over Houston. The two other SeaWorld parks are near the sea (San Diego right on the water; Orlando less than an hour away). A SeaWorld Houston would have looked great in the Clear Lake area. Would probably boost up the Space Center too, causing it to add/update attractions. That thing is currently a pretty stale attraction.

When I was a kid, there was SeaArama Marine World in Galveston.

[hendersj31]

I personally do not feel Houston is a tourist destination. Most of my reasons for feeling this way have been mentioned so I won't repeat all that.
I was in Chicago last week and during 4 days I had 6 people talk about either recently visiting or wanting to visit Houston. None were business travelers except an Uber driver from Morocco who was considering Houston since he prefers hot weather and heard the COL was better than Chicago. The ones that visited described the food and places like Montrose and Rice village. The ones who wanted to visit spoke of all the food, Galveston, affordable neighborhoods, flooding, NASA, ice houses and other things that made it clear they knew something about Houston.
Not sure if that was more coincidence or an indicator that people (in Chicago anyway) are finding some interest in visiting Houston. Could just be they are looking for warmer climate and lower COL, who knows. I didn't take a survey.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by hendersj31

I personally do not feel Houston is a tourist destination. Most of my reasons for feeling this way have been mentioned so I won't repeat all that.
I was in Chicago last week and during 4 days I had 6 people talk about either recently visiting or wanting to visit Houston. None were business travelers except an Uber driver from Morocco who was considering Houston since he prefers hot weather and heard the COL was better than Chicago. The ones that visited described the food and places like Montrose and Rice village. The ones who wanted to visit spoke of all the food, Galveston, affordable neighborhoods, flooding, NASA, ice houses and other things that made it clear they knew something about Houston.
Not sure if that was more coincidence or an indicator that people (in Chicago anyway) are finding some interest in visiting Houston. Could just be they are looking for warmer climate and lower COL, who knows. I didn't take a survey.

While I agree that Houston is not a "tourist" destination, at least it's evolved to what you describe, where folks don't think they deserve combat pay to have to be in town for a couple days - that was the reputation (only partly deserved) for many years. This is a big leap forward.