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.
In all honesty, most Chicagoans don't even think or talk about Houston. They foreget it exists. Not because they don't care, but to us Houston is like San Antonio, Jacksonville, Atlanta, or Oklahoma City, cities that Chicago has no real connection to and cities where few Chicagoans move to or visit. For example, Phoenix is a city that you hear a lot in Chicago because a lot of people from the Chicago metro have parents that live there as retirees.
But Houston? Doesn't ever come up on Chicagoans radars. Not important to us. I can confidentally say that the MAJORITY of Chicagoans have not been to Houston and have no desire to see it, which makes sense, why would they?
spot on, Nukua: we simply don't give Houston much thought. I hardly ever hear it mentioned. And truthfully, I don't think any of us Chicagoans give a damn if Houston were to pass up Chicago in population. Who cares. City population means very little; metropolitan population does. Both San Francisco and Boston are small in population only....in every other way, they come across as huge, major global cities. SF and Boston may be small, but the Bay Area and Metro Boston are quite large. And both does cities are very much on our Chicago radar screens; we very much see them as peer cities.
They might not be on the coast, but their waterways are much bigger than Houston's and add more to the scenery. I mean I wouldn't say the Buffalo Bayou = the Mississippi or the Savannah River. Houston doesn't really have an impactful waterway in the city that really changes the dynamic and scenery of the city. Buffalo Bayou would be considered a subpar creek in most cities.
The only difference is that both cities were better in integrating their waterfronts into their urban fabrics than Houston was. However, as Houston urbanizes, the waterfront will be integrated better: http://www.greatereastend.com/wp-con...n-Report-3.pdf
This is precisely the double standard Houston has against it, and why I don't take many of the arguments against it seriously. Too much incongruity.
For example, the poster you are quoting clearly prefers the vegetative beauty the South offers, so it doesn't matter if Houston lacks the historic charm (whatever) that NOLA, Savannah, or Charleston have. The "random palm trees in front of a strip-mall" are part of this vegetative character the poster prefers; they just happen to be fronting strip-malls, rather than old architecture.
Also, Savannah isn't directly on the coast either; it fronts a river, and is buffered from the coast by several marshes/barrier islands. New Orleans is on the coast, but just barely (it fronts a lake that is an inlet of the Gulf).
spot on, Nukua: we simply don't give Houston much thought. I hardly ever hear it mentioned. And truthfully, I don't think any of us Chicagoans give a damn if Houston were to pass up Chicago in population. Who cares. City population means very little; metropolitan population does. Both San Francisco and Boston are small in population only....in every other way, they come across as huge, major global cities. SF and Boston may be small, but the Bay Area and Metro Boston are quite large. And both does cities are very much on our Chicago radar screens; we very much see them as peer cities.
Yup, I could care less if Houston passes us up in size. I rather be a city like Chicago, SF, Boston than Phoenix, Dallas or Houston, even if it means that we lose population.
spot on, Nukua: we simply don't give Houston much thought. I hardly ever hear it mentioned. And truthfully, I don't think any of us Chicagoans give a damn if Houston were to pass up Chicago in population. Who cares. City population means very little; metropolitan population does. Both San Francisco and Boston are small in population only....in every other way, they come across as huge, major global cities. SF and Boston may be small, but the Bay Area and Metro Boston are quite large. And both does cities are very much on our Chicago radar screens; we very much see them as peer cities.
And Houstonians don't care about passing up Chicago in population either.
The only difference is that both cities were better in integrating their waterfronts into their urban fabrics than Houston was. However, as Houston urbanizes, the waterfront will be integrated better: http://www.greatereastend.com/wp-con...n-Report-3.pdf
Which, drumroll please.........because they have integrated the waterfronts into their urban fabrics as you say, makes it more scenic.
Geez, guys...an argument between a handful of people, does not speak for the millions in each city. SO, when you are "speaking" for Chicago or Houston, please check with the rest of us, first, because we may have our own opinion. I'm guilty of doing the same, but when you read this thread, it's getting silly.
Geez, guys...an argument between a handful of people, does not speak for the millions in each city. SO, when you are "speaking" for Chicago or Houston, please check with the rest of us, first, because we may have our own opinion. I'm guilty of doing the same, but when you read this thread, it's getting silly.
It could end if the Houston boosters, just rolled over and accepted the facts. Nothing wrong with admitting that it's a less scenic city. It certainly has lots of pros over Chicago, like warm winters, a good place if you like to drive everywhere, and enjoy suburban living.
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.