Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: H-Town vs. L.A.
Los Angeles 483 66.53%
Houston 243 33.47%
Voters: 726. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2014, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Austin,Tx
1,694 posts, read 3,624,526 times
Reputation: 709

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmsTown View Post
Looks like new urbanist type stuff that's all over most metro areas. I was thinking more about older commercial districts.

Houston isn't that young. It just didn't build itself up like most cities in the past several decades.

This is what your looking for there's also several old historic neighborhoods/districts in Houston with old houses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strand_(Galveston)

Houston History Association
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2014, 10:55 PM
 
572 posts, read 709,523 times
Reputation: 157
Galvenston isn't a Houston neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Austin,Tx
1,694 posts, read 3,624,526 times
Reputation: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmsTown View Post
Galvenston isn't a Houston neighborhood.

It's as much of one as the Woodlands or Sugar Land considering Galveston is part of the Houston Metro same as the other two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 11:16 PM
 
572 posts, read 709,523 times
Reputation: 157
I don't think the Woodlands or Sugarland meet my definition either. I'm thinking of old, established that are walkable. I don't know if Houston/Texans formers realize that LA city and metro are full of these places. Even the smaller suburbs in the East San Gabriel Valley have quaint little commercial downtowns. Orange County has plenty. The Inland Empire has some. The list for LA would be massive. The quantitiy would beat many older cities, like DC Metro.

Most of LA's suburbs were born before 1950s, and it shows. I had no idea until I went there for the first time and saw all of these "villages". Many of them are seeing redevelopment, the ones near commuter and light rail stations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 11:21 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,773 posts, read 21,512,862 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmsTown View Post
I don't think the Woodlands or Sugarland meet my definition either. I'm thinking of old, established that are walkable. I don't know if Houston/Texans formers realize that LA city and metro are full of these places. Even the smaller suburbs in the East San Gabriel Valley have quaint little commercial downtowns. Orange County has plenty. The Inland Empire has some. The list for LA would be massive. It would beat many older cities, like DC Metro.

Most of LA's suburbs were born before 1950s, and it shows. I had no idea until I went there for the first time and saw all of these "villages".
Why? you are just going to be all critical with everything we show you so what exactly is the point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2014, 11:33 PM
 
572 posts, read 709,523 times
Reputation: 157
I only step in because certain Houston/Texas people said LA is like/built like Houston. LA wasn't built like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Miami/Phoenix etc.

It wasn't built like Chicago, NYC or Philly.

It's a mix of both in a way and it's not fair or make sense to compare to either. Most of LA's suburbs "villages" were built around street cars, not freeways. You can see the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2014, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Fountain Square, Indianapolis
644 posts, read 1,020,048 times
Reputation: 682
I can understand some similarities but L.A. Is and absolute beast. Its density, neighborhoods, topography, diversity (Houston is no slouch in this regard) , glamour, fashion are just out of Houstons league.

LA for me, I love that city!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2014, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,498 posts, read 27,006,609 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieIndy View Post
I can understand some similarities but L.A. Is and absolute beast. Its density, neighborhoods, topography, diversity (Houston is no slouch in this regard) , glamour, fashion are just out of Houstons league.

LA for me, I love that city!
Houston is LA on a budget. Your money stretches much farther in Houston. Its also more family friendly.

If I had all the money in the world & wanted to stay a bachelor for the rest of my life I would choose to live in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2014, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,985 posts, read 4,889,285 times
Reputation: 3419
Not really comparable.

LA is the definition of a large-scale streetcar city. LA developers were in fact very logical with their design of Los Angeles and had planned a masterful city that would operate with a downtown as its nucleus and a sophisticated, expansive streetcar system that would funnel residents into downtown. The entire city is built on a straight, hard grid. You have downtown towards the center and then straight grid streets flowing outwards from downtown with very dense houses built incredibly close together; practically no different that row housing in terms of density. Inspired by Champs-Elysees in Paris, LA planners designed grand boulevards that would run from downtown LA to the beach. If you study a map of LA and imagine streetcar rails running along many streets, it's easy to see the brilliance of LA's design.

But the fall of the streetcar and the rise of the automobile changed the utility of LA's design. However, despite what everyone claims, LA was not built around the automobile. It was built around the streetcar and automobiles were forced upon the city after the eradication of the streetcar lines. That being said, LA is very urban and wonderfully planned.

Houston, conversely, is not dense. Parts of it are built on a hard grid. Parts of it are sprawling webs of car-centered suburbs. Houses are not densely built together. You have abundant spaces of undeveloped land and huge lots taken up by tiny little bungalows. The difference is night and day, no where near as dense as LA and really is nothing like LA at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2014, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,498 posts, read 27,006,609 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
Not really comparable.

LA is the definition of a large-scale streetcar city. LA developers were in fact very logical with their design of Los Angeles and had planned a masterful city that would operate with a downtown as its nucleus and a sophisticated, expansive streetcar system that would funnel residents into downtown. The entire city is built on a straight, hard grid. You have downtown towards the center and then straight grid streets flowing outwards from downtown with very dense houses built incredibly close together; practically no different that row housing in terms of density. Inspired by Champs-Elysees in Paris, LA planners designed grand boulevards that would run from downtown LA to the beach. If you study a map of LA and imagine streetcar rails running along many streets, it's easy to see the brilliance of LA's design.

But the fall of the streetcar and the rise of the automobile changed the utility of LA's design. However, despite what everyone claims, LA was not built around the automobile. It was built around the streetcar and automobiles were forced upon the city after the eradication of the streetcar lines. That being said, LA is very urban and wonderfully planned.

Houston, conversely, is not dense. Parts of it are built on a hard grid. Parts of it are sprawling webs of car-centered suburbs. Houses are not densely built together. You have abundant spaces of undeveloped land and huge lots taken up by tiny little bungalows. The difference is night and day, no where near as dense as LA and really is nothing like LA at all.
Houston is just awful isn't it?


Chuck Greeson on Flickr


Jackson Myers on Flickr


Claudia Gaggett on Flickr


Greener than LA even with all the parking lots, freeways, & "open spaces".

Houston is a mix of LA & ATL.


James Bobowski on Flickr


Kevin Boydston on Flickr

Last edited by Metro Matt; 01-23-2014 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top