People Say Houston's ugly but not cities like Chicago, NYC, etc? (Paris: schools, camps)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by DTXman34

That's a stretch. Dallas (city) has no shortage of red tape. Also, some people don't want to drive 25-40 miles to see a football, baseball, and/or soccer game.

Really? I figured that with all the companies the region is acquiring that it's doing something right

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I don't want to knock southern cities down because they're doing well too but ATL and Charlotte seem smaller and offer a bit less in terms of amenities. I'm sure they're great cities though and Chicago is world class, it's up there with nyc and LA. Houston is burgeoning. Overall I agree that Chicago is the last achievable affordable world class city.

Atlanta is smaller only because its city limits are 138sq mi vs 600 Houston.These are just arbitrary lines that dont stop growth where they are.
Houston is not bigger than Atlanta. Even if that were true,it should have more amenities,which as I pointed out does not have a subway.
This is all irrelevant anyway.

Have even been to Atlanta?Its more similar to Dallas but different. Charlotte is much smaller than both by far.

[LocalPlanner]

A lot of this was unfortunate timing here. Much of Houston's development occurred in the 1960s-1980s. This was the period when "quality" commercial development meant mostly low-rise cheap strip boxes with huge un-landscaped parking lots, and unattractive pole signs. At the time neither the city nor the unincorporated areas or most suburbs have any ordinances mandating landscaping or regulating signage, or requiring sidewalks. I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to development regulation, but basic design standards can really make a difference, especially when the actual costs involved aren't huge. And you can really tell the difference in commercial development between that period and more recent stuff - the barren quality of 1960s-1970s parking lots is really off-putting to me now.

Unfortunately, much of this is what still dominates many commercial thoroughfares and feeder roads. Because Houston was booming more than just about anywhere in the 1960s-1980s (well, until 1984 or so), its image was set by the development that occurred on those roads, which are what most visitors experience as they don't usually venture into the more attractive residential areas (most of which built during that period look just fine). It is slowly changing as areas redevelop and infill with higher-standard development, not that even better-landscaped strip centers are exactly beautiful. But at least it's a step up from what was being done in those decades. Plus, the residential neighborhoods built in that period now have lovely mature trees.

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

A lot of this was unfortunate timing here. Much of Houston's development occurred in the 1960s-1980s. This was the period when "quality" commercial development meant mostly low-rise cheap strip boxes with huge un-landscaped parking lots, and unattractive pole signs. At the time neither the city nor the unincorporated areas or most suburbs have any ordinances mandating landscaping or regulating signage, or requiring sidewalks. I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to development regulation, but basic design standards can really make a difference, especially when the actual costs involved aren't huge. And you can really tell the difference in commercial development between that period and more recent stuff - the barren quality of 1960s-1970s parking lots is really off-putting to me now.

Unfortunately, much of this is what still dominates many commercial thoroughfares and feeder roads. Because Houston was booming more than just about anywhere in the 1960s-1980s (well, until 1984 or so), its image was set by the development that occurred on those roads, which are what most visitors experience as they don't usually venture into the more attractive residential areas (most of which built during that period look just fine). It is slowly changing as areas redevelop and infill with higher-standard development, not that even better-landscaped strip centers are exactly beautiful. But at least it's a step up from what was being done in those decades. Plus, the residential neighborhoods built in that period now have lovely mature trees.

Never thought about that but you are absolutely right. Houston definitely has a "eighteens" feel to it.It feels very "Eastern Bloc Architecture".
Of course not so stark but the way many of the buildings are far from the sidewalks reminds one of that.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Othello Is Here

Never thought about that but you are absolutely right. Houston definitely has a "eighteens" feel to it.It feels very "Eastern Bloc Architecture".
Of course not so stark but the way many of the buildings are far from the sidewalks reminds one of that.

Yes one thing I will agree on is that most of the architecture in Texas cities is very Soviet block looking lol. It's so practical looking it hurts. I think of Texas A&M campus looking buildings. It's as though the state was trying to be so practical it laughed at the thought of adding on any aesthetic appeal. Just get her done, none of this fancy stuff.

[tstone]

I went to A&M. I get your point but it does have some semi-interesting older buildings.

If you want Brutalist / Soviet style, check out JSC.

[radiolibre99]

That's the word: brutalist architecture. I mean a lot of that is changing though.

[LocalPlanner]

My point was less about the buildings themselves - you can find those as well in cities considered conventionally attractive - but more about the remaining space (mostly parking lots) and the streetscape.

I know there's a vocal contingent of folks who think parking lots are beautiful and make Houston attractive because they represent cheap land and driver convenience, but frankly I think it's really hard to make parking lots an aesthetic asset.

[lepoisson]

Originally Posted by DTXman34

That's a stretch. Dallas (city) has no shortage of red tape. Also, some people don't want to drive 25-40 miles to see a football, baseball, and/or soccer game.

Most people don't realize how large the DFW and Houston metros are. In most cases, I don't think most people would want to drive 25-40 miles in traffic (which could take over an hour) just to go somewhere.

Interestingly enough, I used to live 60mi from Kansas City and would drive there several times a week without any gripes. Battling traffic for an hour is a lot more taxing than driving an hour down a rural highway with no traffic.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by lepoisson

Most people don't realize how large the DFW and Houston metros are. In most cases, I don't think most people would want to drive 25-40 miles in traffic (which could take over an hour) just to go somewhere.

Interestingly enough, I used to live 60mi from Kansas City and would drive there several times a week without any gripes. Battling traffic for an hour is a lot more taxing than driving an hour down a rural highway with no traffic.

I never liked that either but Texans love it. They think driving is liberty and don't mind living far away from work or the urban core and commuting. They think public transport is socialist and living so close together is a lower standard of living. I agree to a certain extent but I just don't get how so many are comfortable living out in the exurbs of Ft Bend county and committing into Houston.