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.
From a stand point Chicago is an amazing city no doubt. It has a beautiful waterfront, vibrant downtown, great restaurants, nice architecture. But it seems that it's going downhill or should I say has been downhill for some time. Gang violence, high unemployment rate etc. Not sure why Chicago can't get it's crime under control.
You can find that in pretty much EVERY city in the US & Canada, what exactly makes Chicago's natural scenery stand out? I'm also sure you can find those exact same things inside the city limits of flat cities such as Dallas, Indianapolis, and Oklahoma City.
I mean just googling "Chicago Scenery" all you get are pictures of it's skyline.
Repeat after me. Lake. Michigan. Lake Michigan. There! You got it! Now say the whole answer with me. Lake Michigan is what makes Chicago's natural scenery better than Houston's. Great job! Congratulations! You're smart now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by naners1
I'll take Houston any day, there is no way I could survive Chicago's grim and wretched winters.
All its scenery goes down the drain when it's covered with ice and frozen snow.
I am sorry I just love eternal summers with lakes and beaches that I can swim in.
Remind me again where anyone asked about weather? Oh, that's right, nobody did. Nobody is discussing weather but you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX
From a stand point Chicago is an amazing city no doubt. It has a beautiful waterfront, vibrant downtown, great restaurants, nice architecture. But it seems that it's going downhill or should I say has been downhill for some time. Gang violence, high unemployment rate etc. Not sure why Chicago can't get it's crime under control.
Here we go again. This thread is not about the crime rate or unemployment rate or the population growth of Chicago and Houston. This is about which is more scenic. Why is it impossible for people to stay on topic here? Also, if you wanna go there:
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not ok
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not ok
In a purely general fashion, the natural landscape in/around Chicago vs Houston isn't really much different; both are relatively flat, have many winding waterways, have large water bodies, and lush vegetation, with many of these scenic features presenting themselves through parks. So really, it is all an effect of how the nature of build of a city can influence the beauty (man-made or natural) that people perceive of it.
Chicago was more efficient in integrating the natural features into its city fabric, in a way that they serve as a QOL asset for the residents; the downtown has a strategic location right by the lake, allowing for a dynamic urban core which not only has the general major city offerings, but also areas of recreation and play by the lake. Additionally, the urban fashion/cohesive streets-cape is charming to many individuals, especially with the strong historic fabric, and the city, with its time of development, was able to develop its parks/public spaces to maturity, to the point that few parks in the country can compete.
In contrast, Houston (or rather, investors on the Texas Coast) didn't build as strategically as Chicago; investors seemed to have shied away from the water. The Buffalo Bayou presents a decent-sized waterfront, especially going east of downtown; it is about as wide as the Spree through central Berlin in Germany. Original developers know about this nature, as well as the appropriate accommodating developments; to this day, this influence can still be seen, in that the angles of Houston's street grid follow the flow of the bayou. The waterside areas of Houston (La Porte, San Jacinto, Galveston, etc) had strong connection with the city back them, with direct connection via street train. But, by time of mid-century urban sprawl, all the sensible development ideals left the window, and developers cared only about utility, function, and spreading out, with no care about how people would perceive the environment. While sprawl can be built in natural scenes, and come with lots of vegetation, the fundamental design aspects (large lots, parking lots, etc) ensure lots of concrete is around, making for a lay of the land that takes people's focus off the natural scene. This combination of lost focus of the natural features, as well as sprawling development, makes people confused (Where's the nature? Where's the waterfront?), causing them not to view Houston as scenic.
As said within the thread, neither Houston nor Chicago has anything spectacular when it comes to natural scenery. You Chicago boosters are trying to spin Chicago as this great scenic location but can only post a couple of blocks lined with trees and the downtown area. lmao
No one is spinning. You posted a photo off topic of another city. I merely noted it. Stick to Chicago and Houston and check the poll score. Then ask yourself why?
Repeat after me. Lake. Michigan. Lake Michigan. There! You got it! Now say the whole answer with me. Lake Michigan is what makes Chicago's natural scenery better than Houston's. Great job! Congratulations! You're smart now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine to Vine
Dude! Look at that poll! Houston's getting slammed. I'm not seeing too many here buying that "greenery = scenery" stuff you're trying to sell.
And? lol the poll doesn't still change what Chicago is. I've said it from the jump Chicago nor Houston are THAT attractive when it comes to scenery. Trust me, No one goes to Chicago for it's natural scenery; on a list of major US cities, Chicago is at the VERY bottom of the list. I gave Lake Michigan it's props, but it's only accessible in one particular direction of the city. It's not like other scenic cities where you can experience great scenery anywhere you drive, walk, or run.
This thread all stemmed from that Pittsburgh/Houston/Denver thread in which a member was spewing occasionally Houston hate, got owned in that thread, then started another thread pertaining to Flat cities, got upset about personal preferences in that thread to thereafter start up this thread lol. He's been DM'ing me all day thinking I'm going to run to a mod, lol I could care less, I'm just telling it like it is. *kanyeshrug*
The forests, prairies, and other ecosystems in/around Houston are indeed more biodiverse/spectacular than the equivalent in Chicago. Houston's southerly latitude allowed it to escape the Ice Age glaciation that struck the land where many northern US cities are located today, allowing for many of the ecosystems to remain more intact; this allows for many complex ecosystem niches, food webs, etc to develop, giving way to high species richness. Researchers are only recently beginning to realize just how huge the biodiversity is in/around Houston and the South: https://gulfcoastprairielcc.org/news...the-southeast/
As public land efforts become more and more common, more of these landscapes will be accessible to Houstonians, which can be a huge game changer in regards to outdoor friendliness and recreation associated with the city.
You can find that in pretty much EVERY city in the US & Canada, what exactly makes Chicago's natural scenery stand out? I'm also sure you can find those exact same things inside the city limits of flat cities such as Dallas, Indianapolis, and Oklahoma City.
I mean just googling "Chicago Scenery" all you get are pictures of it's skyline.
And when you Google "Houston Scenery" it's pretty sad and actually just show's Houston's bland skyline as well. What's your point then?
Anyone voting Houston is the biggest homer on this entire thread. How in THE WORLD can you compare anything in Houston to a skyline being right on Lake Michigan?? Don't forget to add in the river.
Even people who don't live in Houston have voted for it over Chicago, so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackin12
Okay natural scenery, Houston has that.
But besides that Houston is one of the ugliest big cites in the US. The no zoning law really doesnt help (a sex store, a skyscraper, and a mall is literally right next to each other.)
Chicago is very beautiful. I don't have to say much here there's been plenty pics posted here and on other threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
Chicago -- for many reasons. The zoo, parks, museums. lake front...architecture.
Houston -- nothing. My impression was that those high rises will get old all at once and be uglier than they are now. There's no character to Houston. I know there's no zoning there. Do you need an architect's license in Houston?
People have the misconception that Houston is all unorganized when the hear "lack of zoning." However, the city still has requirements/regulations dictating what goes where; it just isn't labelled as "zoning" on paper. Furthermore, substantial areas that are part of the cohesive urbanity in many old US cities today were constructed before zoning was officially put forth (NYC being the first in the early 20th century): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oday.html?_r=0 Are Cities Over Regulated? | Urbanoceros
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean
Galveston is anywhere from 45 to 70 miles from Houston...not exactly a part of the neighborhood. Also, it's interesting that someone would prefer a swamp over a lake that you can't see across. Oh well, to each their own.
No, but it is another city within the metro, which can be accessed in under an hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
The second one is really pretty, but there are plenty of neighborhoods in Chicago with beautiful tree-lined streets. As for the others, yeah if you like palm trees more, then Houston is more appealing. I just don't see a palm tree on a small patch of grass in front of a used car dealership behind an apartment complex as "scenic." Maybe I'm missing something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackin12
How is this scenic?? Palm trees in patchy grass next to empty parking lots, a car dealership, and some strip mall???
Someone show streetview links of Chicago
Whereas Chicago's canopy offers fall color, Houston's canopy offers greater variety (lots of plants that can't be grown in Chicago, due to the cold winters), and evergreen subtropic character.
The palm trees and manner of floral growth in those street-views certainly do a lot to soften the impact of the concrete sprawl. And if it can be done above and beyond, then it can be a sight to behold; all freeways in Houston should look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7315...8i6656!6m1!1e1
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTL63
i'm shocked that this discussion even reached this far. Houston has like nothing aesthetically pleasing about it except maybe its skyline and a few large parks. The rest is flat and nothing but boring strip malls. No lakes, hills, historical architecture...nothing. It's not uncommon knowledge...Chicago easily.
There are lakes, hills, and historical architecture in and/or around Houston. Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackin12
^Are you guys seeing the pics of Chicago??? How can you say Houston is more beautiful??
Because they have preferences for assets (evergreen foliage, southern architectural character, etc) that Chicago sorely lacks in.
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.
