Houston > Chicago (Dallas, Atlanta, Howe: cul-de-sac, condo, townhome)

[TootsieWootsie]

I had the very same experience when I left Chicago for Houston.
The urban decay (which is shockingly much), the road rage, the ridiculous high crime of innercity, the nastiness of the local Police force in innercity--well, I, too, just grew tired of it in Chicago.
Yes, all Chicagoans seem to still feel that they are the #2 in metro size--and don't seem to realize that they are now #3--and Houston will be overtaking Chicago's population thereby slipping Chicago down to #4 within the next 8 years or so. This was televised repeatedly on Chicago t.v. 3 years ago when the study came out, and boy! were they unhappy there. Chicagoans, I think we can agree, are really arrogant about their city.
They need to open their eyes to all the old, dirty urban decay, terrible congestion, slow moving traffic and wake up!
I would take the lifestyle in Houston over Chicago anyday...except for the restaurant scene. There Chicago tops most any city in the nation. We need to catch up Houston!!!!

[Spade]

Houston will not catch Chicago in 8 years. Nobody knows the real city population numbers of each city but the city themselves. The City government puts Chicago over 3 million people and it will probably reflect that in 2010. The Illinois state government also has Chicago nearing 10 million in the metro. For both city and metro, it will take longer than 8 years for Houston to pass Chicago.

I love both cities. But I like Chicago more because I like urban cities. Houston is very suburban in nature that's trying to change that but only inside the loop(which they should anyway). But I like the old-style urban areas a bit more as well as the snow. I would like to move to Houston one day, though. But when I do, it will be inside the loop only.

Oh and the lake is not bad.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Spade

Houston is very suburban in nature that's trying to change that but only inside the loop(which they should anyway).

Why do you keep saying that? Houston is not suburban in nature. It's urban in nature, urban in the core, and partly suburban in its expansion.

It's like one minute you say something that really persuades me to thinking you know what you're talking about, then you say something that makes me believe you've never even been here.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Dallas metro grew over Houston

No what happened is Dallas metro and Fort Worth metro grew together to be counted as one big metroplex. Nothing special. If Houston had a large city like Fort Worth only 30 miles away, their populations would've overlapped too.

Ain't nothing grew over Houston. Notice, it's called Dallas-Ft.Worth metroplex. Dallas isn't even 25% of the total DFW metroplex. Houston holds it down by itself!

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by C2H (ComingtoHouston)

No what happened is Dallas metro and Fort Worth metro grew together to be counted as one big metroplex. Nothing special. If Houston had a large city like Fort Worth only 30 miles away, their populations would've overlapped too.

Ain't nothing grew over Houston. Notice, it's called Dallas-Ft.Worth metroplex. Dallas isn't even 25% of the total DFW metroplex. Houston holds it down by itself!

Well said, even though it's been said a thousand times. Unfortunately, all we can do is keep drumming it into people's heads until they get it.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Why do you keep saying that? Houston is not suburban in nature. It's urban in nature, urban in the core, and partly suburban in its expansion.

.

Because it is. And any person that seeks an urban environment would tell you this. Houston isn't partly suburban. It is mostly suburban because it annexed suburban areas. See this is why I wish Houston's city limits stopped when you pass the loop because I actually believe the inner loop is urban. But the majority of the way Houston is built looks like a suburb. Houston's density levels are equal to that of post world war 2 suburbs around the country. Giant malls, giant parking lots, strip mall galore, good bus system but behind in rail, etc. etc. All of that are areas built around the car. Houston is not an exception to this. Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix (the most suburban out of the sunbelt cities), San Jose, Indianapolis. All of these cities are built the same way around the automobile because it grew in the post WW2 age.

Which city does Houston look more like.
This one....
http://new.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/houston//houston_2704.jpg (broken link)
or this one...
http://new.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/houston//houston_2704.jpg (broken link)

I am not saying this makes Houston less of a city. Because that's false. It's a real city. But the city council realizes how horribly planned it was and are developing all types of way to fix that. Such as creating dense environment areas and building areas with entertainment, retail, and residential units in downtown. Example, discovery park and Houston Pavilions.

Read this thread. Please don't just shut it down but it is a good discussion on how many perceive Houston to be. Take some time out to read it and you'll see where I'm coming from on this one.
Interesting thread about the City of Houston

[Spade]

BTW, let it be known that other cities sprawl too. Especially the older cities. But they make up for it with their very large dense urban core. Houston is developing that and densifying rapidly and it's mostly inside the loop. But Houston, imo, receives a bad rap because of the area outside the loop. But with the new townhomes , condos, rail transportation, entertainment options, and street side retail; I think Houston is going in the right direction. It's something I think Dallas needs to start to work on in it's downtown area and they are slowly starting to do so themselves.

[mpope409]

Okay. So you make very good points. Houston made the mistake of having a lot of suburban areas, but it's not suburban in nature, and there are other cities that have suburban-ish places within their city limits. Look at Staten Island. Why do you think it's the "forgotten borough", and why is its density so low? Plus, there are areas within the city of Chicago that are full of nice big homes.

[Spade]

But those areas are still dense. Staten Island is forgotten because it is not known as much as the other boroughs and it's obviously much smaller than the others as well. But New York and Chicago makes up for it because the MAJORITY of the city is dense. That is not true of Houston. I think you would be hard pressed to find people that say Houston is not suburban in nature. Even Houstonians would say that the city is suburban in nature.

Again, that does not make it a bad city at all. It's just that it was developed that way by developers who built their areas associated with the car.

[Guerilla]

Houston is suburban in nature like most of the Sun Belt. You can easily find urban dwellings in the loop. In fact, Houston's Inner Loop population is well over 500,000 and it is in an area of 48 square miles.