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.
Houston is a pretty ugly city...honestly. I don't hear too many people calling Houston attractive. Not very well planned and sprawling.
There is no city in Texas that is well planned, and all the major metros sprawl. I don't hear too many people calling either of the Metros that this thread deals with attractive. So what is your point ?
Last edited by Jack Lance; 04-29-2014 at 08:00 AM..
There is no city in Texas that is well planned, and all the major metros sprawl. I don't hear too many people calling either of the Metros that this thread deals with attractive. So what is your point ?
Dallas is pretty well planned; just not in an urban way.
Dallas is pretty well planned; just not in an urban way.
Really Nairobi , do tell. Is that why the street pattern in DT Dallas is so symmetrical and orderly ?
And exactly what does "well planned" mean to you ? I have a feeling we are talking about a very low bar here. Dallas may be getting well remolded, but it was never "well planned"
None of the Texan Cities are probably what you'd consider "pretty", and yes that includes Dallas. Dallas may be a little bit better looking than Houston, but it is by no means an "Attractive" city. At night its attractive but during the daytime, the scars show just like any other city.
The highest point in the city limits of Los Angeles is over 5,000 feet. Within the county, it is over 10,000 feet. I own (and lived in) a house which is at 800' above sea level, is smack in the middle of coastal LA county, and share this high elevation with over 100,000 other people. Untold hundreds of thousands more live in the Hollywood Hills, San Fernando hill communities, Santa Monica Mountains, Signal Hill, Chino Hills, Pasadena, Altadena...... the list is just too numerous too count. The city is split by a mountain chain! Like almost every American city outside of Appalachia, Metro LA is situated primarily on a plain, one that is sedimentary infill of the surrounding mountains - to call it flat would be like calling the base-camp of Mt. Everest flat. When compared to places like Houston or Dallas, that statement is both comic and inaccurate. My backyard (built on a hill) literally has as much elevation change as the entire city of Houston - 120 feet. Even a drive from LAX to Disneyland will encounter more elevation change than anywhere in Houston (and for the love of God, everyone, please stop posting obscure google map pictures - they are completely unconvincing). And did I mention DFW is built on a flat prairie?
This whole tangent was derived from comparing the natural beauty and "flatness" of DFW and Houston. I'll break it to you - they are both very, very flat, and not particularly attractive in any mass-appeal sense. Sparse prairie or subtropical forest, neither city really has a leg up on the other or can claim geography as fundamentally attractive part of living there. Comparing the two places (they are more alike then different) can be fun, but please, lets all mutually admit that they were not blessed with anything topographically interesting or noteworthy. That is how the rest of America sees it, anyways......
Easy there Hoss.
You can stop your gloating now. I could care less about what property you own or used to own in that place.
I said the LA BASIN is flat, which it is.
Are you denying this is not flat?
For 50 miles long & 25 miles wide that's a very large swath of flatness in a place most commonly thought to be hilly & mountainous.
How about this? Its just as flat as Houston or Dallas.
None of the Texan Cities are probably what you'd consider "pretty", and yes that includes Dallas. Dallas may be a little bit better looking than Houston, but it is by no means an "Attractive" city. At night its attractive but during the daytime, the scars show just like any other city.
This is BS! Name one drive in DFW that can compare to Memorial heading into DT Houston, or Main Street through Herman Park, or the 146 Bridge between Seabrook and Kemah or even Seawall Blvd in Galveston. You like many others have allowed yourselves to be bullied into making these subtle concessions in order to deflect flame away from yourself. I will not be bullied I promise you that.
This is BS! Name one drive in DFW that can compare to Memorial heading into DT Houston, or Main Street through Herman Park, or the 146 Bridge between Seabrook and Kemah or even Seawall Blvd in Galveston. You like many others have allowed yourselves to be bullied into making these subtle concessions in order to deflect flame away from yourself. I will not be bullied I promise you that.
No, but you are being completely irrational. Neither I or stoneclaw are saying that Dallas is completely more attractive than Houston, but the shrewd design and organization of the city, along with the slightly more appealing architecture, makes it easier on the eyes for most people. If you can't tell the difference between cities that are zoned and those that are not, then that's a problem neither of us can solve for you.
Personally, for aesthetics, I'll take Houston easily, but I understand why many feel that Dallas has an edge.
No, but you are being completely irrational. Neither I or stoneclaw are saying that Dallas is completely more attractive than Houston, but the shrewd design and organization of the city, along with the slightly more appealing architecture, makes it easier on the eyes for most people. If you can't tell the difference between cities that are zoned and those that are not, then that's a problem neither of us can solve for you.
Personally, for aesthetics, I'll take Houston easily, but I understand why many feel that Dallas has an edge.
What the heck are you talking about, please explain how there is a basic design to Dallas much less it being shrewd and "organized"
Ah and now we get to the nitty gritty. This Houston bashing is about zoning or the lack of it for some people. BTW is it the lack of zoning that makes the Houston architecture inferior in your opinion?
I think it is telling that my main opposition in these threads always seems to be from apologist from Houston.
What the heck are you talking about, please explain how there is a basic design to Dallas much less it being shrewd and "organized"
Ah and now we get to the nitty gritty. This Houston bashing is about zoning or the lack of it for some people. BTW is it the lack of zoning that makes the Houston architecture inferior in your opinion?
I think it is telling that my main opposition in these threads always seems to be from apologist from Houston.
The only bully I see here is you, with your ad hom attacks based solely on the fact that I don't agree with you. If, in your mind, it makes me an "apologist" for not thinking that Houston is perfect and that we fall short in some areas, then so be it. And if you want to believe that it makes you a better Houstonian for pretending this city has no flaws, you're welcome to that belief, as well.
Since you're so convinced that there's something invalid at work here, what do you think the real reason is that many people say Dallas is nicer than Houston?
Context, my good man. You made a point of these places (New York in particular) being flat "compared to Dallas, which has some decent rolling terrain in some spots". Well, I would argue that LA has quite a bit more "spots" of "descent rolling terrain". Ironically, your quick Wikipedia search of pictures only prove that point (especially the last one, and the one that conveniently cuts off the SF valley does too). Do you think perhaps you could scour wikipedia or google and post a topographic map of DFW or Houston and compare? Probably not - it would have no terrain to show.
The majority of mankind lives on flat terrain. In Southern California, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people live on the hundreds of hills and foothills your pictures clearly show (in a region that almost has the same population as Texas ). Of course most people live on flat parts - that is a basic product of physics and human development. The reason LA is so big is because there is a basin to support a large population. And much like your underdeveloped comment that Dallas has some hills and is therefore not flat, LA has mountains and is not flat either. Los Angeles, by city boundary, encompasses more than just a basin. I'm afraid your logic meets its sad end there.
It is not a great insight to declare a basin flat. It is equally uninsightful to take a city of millions, only note the gerrymandered and defined flat part of the whole, and declare the city to be flat (especially compared to cities that actually are flat). I'm not sure where you get your assumption that LA is commonly thought to be "hilly and mountainous", but lets be honest - it is a mega-city with some very highly elevated parts. I'm sure you think you are correct in your mind, and that's great, but feel free to open a CD poll asking "Is LA flat" for some closure. Anybody who has left the airport would probably disagree, but if it makes you feel better about Houston or Dallas, I'm all for it.
And thanks for the cherry-picked wikipedia pictures. I'm breaking my own rule and adding to your collection.
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.
