Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say they had zero appeal, I'm saying it's not on the level of the Pacific Coast. That's inarguable.
Even if so, that has nothing to do with the fact that the coastal areas of the Houston, and its metro, can have the appeal and desirability to make living in said areas popular, as well as incorporating a stronger resort-like atmosphere to its vibe.
Even if so, that has nothing to do with the fact that the coastal areas of the Houston, and its metro, can have the appeal and desirability to make living in said areas popular, as well as incorporating a stronger resort-like atmosphere to its vibe.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Gulf Coast is perfectly beautiful in its own right, but all I'm saying is it's not what most people find attractive.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Gulf Coast is perfectly beautiful in its own right, but all I'm saying is it's not what most people find attractive.
But if the Houston area progresses, it will catalyze progress in the coastal parts of the metro, which in turn can lead to investments to beautify the Gulf Coast around Houston, negating, even erasing, the negative aesthetic image.
Besides, if experience serves me correct, most of those people conflate natural beauty with just mountains. Its quite unfortunate to see such limitations.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Gulf Coast is perfectly beautiful in its own right, but all I'm saying is it's not what most people find attractive.
I'm going to start by saying the ocean water and sand of California will ALWAYS be much more appealing than the water and sand/mud of Galveston. That is indisputable. But, for most people, the actual water and sand aren't necessarily the big draw.
I believe one of the major reasons the beaches by LA are so appealing is how they are structured. You have the winding side sidewalks cutting through the sand relatively close to the water. Galveston has a nice wide sidewalk on the seawall; however, it is right next to the traffic and up away from the sand.
I've posted many times how I enjoy walking and riding bikes up along the seawall in Galveston, but it's not the same as the pathways on the beaches in SoCal.
Additionally, many of the beaches in SoCal will have the shops, restaurants and bars bunched up in areas that don't require you to drive from one to another that are right by the beach and aren't sitting on a major road with heavy noisy traffic.
I defend Galveston on CD all the time. I enjoy going to Galveston. The thing is that it's just not set up for enjoyment nearly as well as a place like Hermosa Beach. IMHO, that is the prototype beach hangout area.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,704 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
I'm going to start by saying the ocean water and sand of California will ALWAYS be much more appealing than the water and sand/mud of Galveston. That is indisputable. But, for most people, the actual water and sand aren't necessarily the big draw.
I believe one of the major reasons the beaches by LA are so appealing is how they are structured. You have the winding side sidewalks cutting through the sand relatively close to the water. Galveston has a nice wide sidewalk on the seawall; however, it is right next to the traffic and up away from the sand.
I've posted many times how I enjoy walking and riding bikes up along the seawall in Galveston, but it's not the same as the pathways on the beaches in SoCal.
Additionally, many of the beaches in SoCal will have the shops, restaurants and bars bunched up in areas that don't require you to drive from one to another that are right by the beach and aren't sitting on a major road with heavy noisy traffic.
I defend Galveston on CD all the time. I enjoy going to Galveston. The thing is that it's just not set up for enjoyment nearly as well as a place like Hermosa Beach. IMHO, that is the prototype beach hangout area.
I'm not trashing here. But I am curious as to why it seems Houston's Gulf coast is privately owned with homes along it? Perhaps there are some small stretches not? Maybe a few beaches? But when I thought of the Gulf coast ...... I think of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. Their whole coastline is BEACHES. Also I do understand why Houston's downtown is further inland. Perhaps due to Hurricane risk? But MOST Coastal cities downtowns, are right along its coast? LA and Houston are exemptions.
I lived in Chicago in the past. Though it is on a Great Lake. It appears as a ocean. The city has harbors and PUBLIC BEACHES AND PARKLAND. Along its 20-something miles of shoreline. The early city leaders had foresight to fight to keep the shore from industry and set aside for the public.TOO BAD HOUSTON'S DID NOT?
Though Chicago's shoreline may have had some natural beaches in the past? All today are basically MAN-MADE and restored if major storms cause damage.
I would have hoped Houston preserved its shore, or at least a decent portion? For public use with decent sized Parkland? Also if it had little in the way of natural Beaches? It created them and yacht harbors and being far enough south? Planted Palm trees?
Guess it's too late now? Being most seems to be privately owned now? But if Chicago could create a Shoreline on a huge lake? Houston could have too, on a ocean? Too bad some Oil Barons did not have the foresight to buy the land and donate it to the city in the past perhaps too?
Some city planning is good and important. Then anything goes?
Chicago CREATED this on its shoreline, much was landfill. Some still being developed like a former lakefront airport to a wildlife sanctuary in the 3rd picture.
I'm going to start by saying the ocean water and sand of California will ALWAYS be much more appealing than the water and sand/mud of Galveston. That is indisputable. But, for most people, the actual water and sand aren't necessarily the big draw.
I believe one of the major reasons the beaches by LA are so appealing is how they are structured. You have the winding side sidewalks cutting through the sand relatively close to the water. Galveston has a nice wide sidewalk on the seawall; however, it is right next to the traffic and up away from the sand.
I've posted many times how I enjoy walking and riding bikes up along the seawall in Galveston, but it's not the same as the pathways on the beaches in SoCal.
Additionally, many of the beaches in SoCal will have the shops, restaurants and bars bunched up in areas that don't require you to drive from one to another that are right by the beach and aren't sitting on a major road with heavy noisy traffic.
I defend Galveston on CD all the time. I enjoy going to Galveston. The thing is that it's just not set up for enjoyment nearly as well as a place like Hermosa Beach. IMHO, that is the prototype beach hangout area.
If Galveston can take care of the murky water situation, the beaches on the island would actually be just as appealing as those in much of California, perhaps even more so, in terms of just sand and water. This can already be seen, in a way, on the beaches on Galveston's West End. Really, the edge in California's beach destinations arise from the juxtaposition of varied topography right next to the beach and coast.
Anyways, you do have a great point about the kinds of developments made on the beach hangouts of California; they really do encourage enjoyment of the beach. A sidewalk like that of Hermosa Beach can be built in certain areas along Galveston's West End, along with certain shops. However, there are people who like the privacy that can be garnered in that section of the island, in contrast to the Sea Wall portion. Also, the Sea Wall itself can be beautified to become a draw in and of itself; the paintings on the Sea Wall are a step in the right direction.
And these developmental needs apply to the Texas Coast as a whole, from Galveston to South Padre; much of the money in the state is inland, and not on the coast, unlike California and Florida, where the largest cities are coastal. As a result, touristy/recreational beach culture is not as big in Texas as it is in the former two state, and not as promoted and known. If the beaches of South Texas, for example, were more well known to the nation, then people would actually see that Texas does indeed have beautiful beaches, and that not all the water along the coast is murky like it is at the Galveston Sea Wall. Developments can include the construction of boardwalks, and bigger attractions in places like South Padre, and the revitalization of the coastal areas around Houston, including Galveston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps
I'm not trashing here. But I am curious as to why it seems Houston's Gulf coast is privately owned with homes along it? Perhaps there are some small stretches not? Maybe a few beaches? But when I thought of the Gulf coast ...... I think of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. Their whole coastline is BEACHES. Also I do understand why Houston's downtown is further inland. Perhaps due to Hurricane risk? But MOST Coastal cities downtowns, are right along its coast? LA and Houston are exemptions.
Yes, it is the hurricane risk; it was Galveston, right on a barrier island, that was meant to become the large city that Houston is now, but the hurricane of 1900 made people fearful of Galveston's location, and they invested in Houston instead. Of course, such fears made no sense, seeing as cities like Corpus Christi, Tampa, and Miami were able to be built right on the Gulf/South Atlantic waterfronts in positions just as precarious, or even more so, when compared to Galveston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps
I lived in Chicago in the past. Though it is on a Great Lake. It appears as a ocean. The city has harbors and PUBLIC BEACHES AND PARKLAND. Along its 20-something miles of shoreline. The early city leaders had foresight to fight to keep the shore from industry and set aside for the public.TOO BAD HOUSTON'S DID NOT?
Though Chicago's shoreline may have had some natural beaches in the past? All today are basically MAN-MADE and restored if major storms cause damage.
I would have hoped Houston preserved its shore, or at least a decent portion? For public use with decent sized Parkland? Also if it had little in the way of natural Beaches? It created them and yacht harbors and being far enough south? Planted Palm trees?
Guess it's too late now? Being most seems to be privately owned now? But if Chicago could create a Shoreline on a huge lake? Houston could have too, on a ocean? Too bad some Oil Barons did not have the foresight to buy the land and donate it to the city in the past perhaps too?
Interesting. I never knew that the shoreline beaches in Chicago are man made; regardless, they are still quite fantastic. I really like the juxtaposition of skyline right next to the large lake. Very clean cut, and picturesque. Part of a reason why Chicago is one of my favorite cities.
In any rate, yes, the shoreline of the coastal area in the Houston Metro was alot more beach-filled than what is seen today; there were beaches even in what is now one of the grittiest, most industrial places in the metro, La Porte. On Galveston Island, beaches extended well out from the sea wall, and had sand dunes 20ft+. Those areas were great tourist attractions for people across the nation, but as industry picked up in the metro, the tourism of those areas decreased, and, along with other factors, such as erosion, contributed to the disappearance of the beaches. Today, in parts of Galveston along the sea-wall, the beach does not exist anymore; water literally touches the wall. In addition, La Porte's beachfront was wiped out as well. Recently, however, investments were made to help restore the natural, sandy beach-fronts these areas of Houston once had.
Lots of palm trees, and tropical plants abound on Houston's coastline. Its funny, because in Houston right now, there are people who come to a surprise when I tell them that Galveston has palm trees. The reason for such surprise, and the general lack of knowledge of palm trees on Galveston, is because while there are palm trees planted all over the city, and of various kinds to, not much landscaping is done on the beaches themselves. For example, like this picture of Venice Beach in LA: http://thumbs.****/z/calif...es-3510122.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps
Some city planning is good and important. Then anything goes?
Chicago CREATED this on its shoreline, much was landfill. Some still being developed like a former lakefront airport to a wildlife sanctuary in the 3rd picture.
Again, quite interesting. It really proves that anything is possible when the can-do spirit is had. Like in Dubai, for instance, they literally created ISLANDS. Houston, and the metro, can certainly work out the situation regarding the beaches if bright minds are up to the task.
I mean seriously, this isn't one of those threads trying to lift Houston up by tearing down another city, but why don't people call every spade a spade? Houston is a giagantic city with freeways, some lined with atrocious billboards and run-down buildings, and some others lined with lush green trees and towering old and new skyscrapers. Some areas where you can see the many skylines in Houston that can make you feel like you're in a New York City or L.A. Other freeways offer views of the smoke stacks from the industrial factories while others offer a different view that a lot of cities lack... Water (gulf).
So clearly Houston can't be classified as one thing. Why doesn't Chicago catch as much heat for having that big rusty old el train bridge runing right through it's downtown? Or Philladelphia's narrow raggedy streets and run-down buildings, or NYC's dirty streets? It brings me to wonder why "Life" as people live it in Houston is only viewed as ugly? The last time I checked, NYC, Chicago, or LA, were not pretty cities either. True LA has mountains in its backdrop but the thick smog covering the mountain herizon hardly makes it an art painting. NYC has the dirtiest streets where you don't see the roaches like in Houston, but hairy rats running across the street. Oh add some of the dirty bums you see walking up and down, not just the ones you see hanging out at gas stations in Third Ward.
So what is it? People have a natural stigma with the word "Houston". It gets downgraded for everything it's not. It gets credit for all things negative but none positive? Mens fitness magazine has Houston with the number 6 fattest city in the nation, Surpassed by NYC, Chicago, and a few others, yet people still refer to Houston as the fattest in the nation. It's also said not to have any beauty or characther.
If you want Beauty, go to Colorado. Clean pristine air, blue skys but don't expect much character out of the people. Why can't Houston get love for the character it has? The museums, shopping, restaurants, theater district? What's the deal?
You lost all credibility with that statement in bold. NOTHING in Houston makes you feel like you're in New York City, don't even try to go there. I'm surprised an Austin homer is here trying to prop up Houston. All cities receive flack, Houston isn't special.
I mean, let's be real. How many of these do you see running around Houston:
(note to Mod - all pix mine)
I mean, Houston has many great assets but beauty isn't one of them. Just accept it and move on.
Plenty of areas in Houston just as aesthetically beautiful as those pics of Philly you provided (a beautiful city by the way), perhaps even more-so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
You lost all credibility with that statement in bold. NOTHING in Houston makes you feel like you're in New York City, don't even try to go there. I'm surprised an Austin homer is here trying to prop up Houston. All cities receive flack, Houston isn't special.
People in Houston, along with some outsiders, need to understand that the city has its own dynamic, and unique vibe, which no other city contains, and stop forever limiting the city to just being a "version" of some major world city; you are not going to get an NYC vibe from anything in Houston, neither the buildings, nor the culture. The vibe is distinctly Houstonian, and the city should own up to it.
Well it looks like I'm going to have to break out my camera and get some pics posted. Houston may not have areas that look EXACTLY like the photos you posted, but I can find areas around Houston that are just as aesthetically pleasing in Houston such as: Discovery Green, Herman Park/Museum district, Memorial Park, and Buffalo Bayou Park.
There's been quite a few changes since 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
You lost all credibility with that statement in bold. NOTHING in Houston makes you feel like you're in New York City, don't even try to go there. I'm surprised an Austin homer is here trying to prop up Houston. All cities receive flack, Houston isn't special.
First of all, I'm in Austin right now on business, so I'm hardly an Austin homer. But try standing looking from east along the ship channel and you get a nice panoramic view of the skylines all lined up to make it look like you're looking at one continuous skyline. Try driving through the city and looking at the skyscrapers and multiple skylines throughout the city.
At street level, no, but from the freeway, the multitude of skylines and random skyscrapers scattered around can make one feel like they're in a NYC. That's all I was saying
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
