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.
Which, drumroll please.........because they have integrated the waterfronts into their urban fabrics as you say, makes it more scenic.
Never disputed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
So then why do you all keep bringing it up on these boards?
I never brought it up. If anything, it is the Chicago supporters that bring it up, always in an effort to slight Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
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.
Ironic, considering this entire thread is only happening because you were too butthurt over the fact that Houston has elements about it that can be seen as more scenic than Chicago.
Last 2 are unimpressive. I'll give you that the others are nice. But still. The other southern coastal cities are prettier and make much better use of their waterfronts. Houston does not. Why do you think waterfront and coastal towns are usually more expensive? Because water is a bonus. I'm not sure why this is so hard for Houston to understand. The neighborhoods of both Chicago and Houston can be really pretty. I won't deny it and say those Houston neighborhoods were ugly. Because they're not. But still nothing compares to Lake Michigan.
Last 2 are unimpressive. I'll give you that the others are nice. But still. The other southern coastal cities are prettier and make much better use of their waterfronts.
Those are just different vantages from the typical street view links you posted. The first is a public space that is still growing and maturing, while the second is an example of how flora softens the effect of the freeways.
And like I said, if it is about vegetation (which the poster you quoted preferred), then it wouldn't matter if Houston was more sprawled, or wasn't as efficient with its waterfront; he would like the vegetation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Houston does not. Why do you think waterfront and coastal towns are usually more expensive? Because water is a bonus. I'm not sure why this is so hard for Houston to understand. The neighborhoods of both Chicago and Houston can be really pretty. I won't deny it and say those Houston neighborhoods were ugly. Because they're not. But still nothing compares to Lake Michigan.
I never brought it up. If anything, it is the Chicago supporters that bring it up, always in an effort to slight Houston.
Ironic, considering this entire thread is only happening because you were too butthurt over the fact that Houston has elements about it that can be seen as more scenic than Chicago.
Why would Chicagaons constantly bring up that the city's population has declined as a positive? It's the Houston folks saying people are voting with their feet and leaving Chicago. Yeah, cause boosting that another city is going to surpass us in population is something we promote here in Chicago. Sorry, not so much, it's when the Houston peeps see that Chicago is winning in almost every category, they decide to throw in the population card, which is one of Chicago's weak spots.
So nice try, but it's the Houston boosters who bring it up.
Those are just different vantages from the typical street view links you posted. The first is a public space that is still growing and maturing, while the second is an example of how flora softens the effect of the freeways.
And like I said, if it is about vegetation (which the poster you quoted preferred), then it wouldn't matter if Houston was more sprawled, or wasn't as efficient with its waterfront; he would like the vegetation.
Those are just different vantages from the typical street view links you posted. The first is a public space that is still growing and maturing, while the second is an example of how flora softens the effect of the freeways.
And like I said, if it is about vegetation (which the poster you quoted preferred), then it wouldn't matter if Houston was more sprawled, or wasn't as efficient with its waterfront; he would like the vegetation.
You should give up. You've been cornered. You are literally the only person defending Houston at this point. Just roll over and take it. Only a few posters have put Houston above Chicago in their discussions and the poll is a massacre on Houston.
You could end this by taking it like a champ that Houston is a loser in this battle. Then the discussion will be over, thread will move it's way down and disappear, until 5 years from now someone decides to comment.
Showing a freeway as a way to be scenic is a horrible example. Not as bad as a palm tree in front of a use car dealership though.
Not really. It shows how the ugliness associated with a freeway can be hidden, or even overcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
That's great the city is finally doing something about it. But doesn't change the fact that Chicago has Lake Michigan.
And it also doesn't change the fact that the only difference between Houston, and those other southern cities is how the waterfront is integrated.
Be consistent and stop with the double standards. If you take Chicago over Houston, because the lake is larger than a bayou, then you have to take Chicago over New Orleans and Savannah, as their waterbodies are smaller than Chicago's lake.
You should give up. You've been cornered. You are literally the only person defending Houston at this point. Just roll over and take it. Only a few posters have put Houston above Chicago in their discussions and the poll is a massacre on Houston.
It oscillates. People don't post all the time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukua
You could end this by taking it like a champ that Houston is a loser in this battle. Then the discussion will be over, thread will move it's way down and disappear, until 5 years from now someone decides to comment.
But through continued posting, the bias and incongruity of many posters, which resulted in Chicago's win, has been exposed. The more palpable the bias is, the less credible the poll becomes.
But through continued posting, the bias and incongruity of many posters, which resulted in Chicago's win, has been exposed. The more palpable the bias is, the less credible the poll becomes.
85 people voted for Chicago, 14 for Houston. All 85 of those people who voted for Chicago are now biased? Okay Donald Trump. Sounds like a sore loser. Well, continue your fight, it's a losing battle, and you will never win.
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.
