Some seem to think Houston doesn't take pride in its appearance. Thoughts? (Austin: fit in, renter)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by TexasTheKid

But, you must admit that the areas we got right, the pretty parts, we got more right than most other cities have with their cohesive sameness. Sure there are some unattractive areas, but when coupled with an area like the Museum District, they sorta cancel each other out and make the city more neutral than ugly. The Museum District looks like it could be in Madrid. Downtown can stack up against all others CBDs but the biggies. Montrose is as unique and eclectic as a neighborhood can get.

It seems to me that the issue most people have with Houston is not that there are ugly parts. Every city has ugly parts and low-income housing. People who don't make scads of cash have to live somewhere too. No, the issue seems to be that many of you are just concerned that we don't conceal our scars better. Rather than sweep the picked scabs under the rug, we place them alongside the freeway. I guess it doesn't bother me because I most often don't drive along the freeways. People who live in the farthest flung 'burbs have no choice but to take the freeways everywhere. That was their choice. They could have moved near to work like any sane person would, but they chose to live 100 miles out. I don't see why the city should go to any great lengths to appease these people either. They don't contribute to the tax base. Why should those of us who do, and are aware of the beauty this city has, pay to beautify their freeways? Chances are if we even did do that, they'd just find something else to complain about anyhow.

I think what makes people have this image of Houston is what is outside the loop. Let's face it, most, if not all of the outer loop, is the epitome of suburban. The inner loop is what I really consider the real city of Houston and even that needs improvement in urbanity. But I can feel the character in those neighborhoods more than I can any most neighborhoods outside the loop.

Honestly, I'd have no problem is there was more apartment complexes such as Post Midtown Square. However, a good apartment community is only as good as it's residents and it's management. I wish more apartments like again, Post Midtown go up and they are when you see the renderings of West Ave and Regent Square.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Like Midtown? Or is there a socioeconomic thing we're missing here?

Most people in NYC are renters. Does this mean most New Yorkers don't care how the city looks?

I thought there were lots of condo owners around Midtown.

Houston can't be compared to an expensive island like Manhattan and surrounding area.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by AK123

I thought there were lots of condo owners around Midtown.

Houston can't be compared to an expensive island like Manhattan and surrounding area.

There are some, just like you have some homeowners in Sharpstown. And renters live in condos too.

I'm not comparing cities. The common denominator here is that they're renters, and you claim renters don't care about their surroundings.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by jfre81

I'm not comparing cities. The common denominator here is that they're renters, and you claim renters don't care about their surroundings.

In general, for the renters here (where it's easier to buy a home) as compared to places like NYC or Bay Area CA where it's a way of life for even high-earners because of the outrageous housing prices.... yes.

[TexasTheKid]

Originally Posted by AK123

In general, for the renters here (where it's easier to buy a home) as compared to places like NYC or Bay Area CA where it's a way of life for even high-earners because of the outrageous housing prices.... yes.

Manhattan isn't all of NYC, and not all of NYC is safe and pretty. Oakland, which is a big chunk of the Bay Area, has some pretty sketchy areas as well. If you're just discussing Manhattan (and not even all of that as there are still bad areas in Harlem) and just San Francisco, it wouldn't be fair to compare it to Sharpstown. Midtown maybe, but definitely not Sharpstown. High rent areas will indeed have more civic pride than low rent areas, but this is, as jfre was pointing out, a socioeconomic issue, not a rent/own issue.

[randian]

Originally Posted by N. Buck

Philly only has 2 major freeways. No loops, No US Highways, No toll roads (close to the city) No HOV lanes.

Philly also lacks expressways through the city, so you must often drive around the city to get anywhere. No, Roosevelt doesn't count, it has way too many stoplights. As a result, it takes ages to drive about Philly. Buses are even slower. And by the way, driving through Philly isn't exactly a beautiful sight either. Most of Philly is quite ugly, actually, compared to what I've seen of Houston.

Originally Posted by N. Buck

BEEF UP METRO!

Why would anybody want to beef up the overpriced boondoggle that is Metro? Rail is an insane, stupid, awful, crazy way to move people. Metro should be shut down.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by AK123

In general, for the renters here (where it's easier to buy a home) as compared to places like NYC or Bay Area CA where it's a way of life for even high-earners because of the outrageous housing prices.... yes.

They still don't own their property. To hear you tell it, people seem to have to own property to feel a connection with a place. So as it turns out it's economics after all.

Well, I rent - and not expensively - and I somehow have a connection with the city. I am not, unless I'm unaware of something, engaging in activities that adversely affect the quality of aesthetics and/or life in general. I care at least as much as the rest of the people sitting around posting message board comments on city-data.com about the issue. So anyway, I'm reading a lot of people pointing out problems but not really offering solutions. The city government can't just take property, whether it's cut-rate apartments or billboards, willy-nilly for no other purpose than to make the city look more appealing to outsiders, the ones who seem to make the biggest deal about it.

What the city could do is be more aggressive in enforcing the codes that are on the books, but this is easier said than done. It's no small undertaking to maintain 600-something square miles and cover all that ground in enforcing ordinances, cleaning up litter etc.

Maybe, if we really had "pride" we could help pay for this and a general sprucing up of the city so it can glimmer for the tourists who will be flocking into Houston after every strip mall and billboard is brought down. How about a tax hike?

Was that a groan I heard back there?

Maybe sprawl isn't as cheap as people thought it was.

[EasilyAmused]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Well, I rent - and not expensively - and I somehow have a connection with the city.

Actually, I think you have one of the strongest connections with the city on this board. Keep it up too.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

Actually, I think you have one of the strongest connections with the city on this board. Keep it up too.

I've got connections indeed, but you know, where I come from, you don't snitch.

Originally Posted by Randian

Rail is an insane, stupid, awful, crazy way to move people. Metro should be shut down.

I wouldn't exactly shed a tear over METRO being dismantled for a broader regional transit authority with more oversight. But, especially since we're in a topic about Houston's aesthetic quality which harps on over several pages mostly because of the blight around the freeways...never mind, this has gone off-topic enough.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by N. Buck

BEEF UP METRO!
.

Well, i'm not sure if METRO is the complete answer. Even riding the redline through Midtown between downtown and the Museum district, the store fronts look decayed, old, and unused. Many of them are boarded up or either contain hideous buglar bars. Not very inviting for someone trying to get to know Houston.