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.
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.
Nope, they've been revealing themselves as such (often without even knowing it). I then take the time to highlight such circumstance.
Nope, they've been revealing themselves as such (often without even knowing it). I then take the time to highlight such circumstance.
You mean the fact that I find Nola more scenic than Chicago? Yeah. I do. I prefer Chicago as a city, but Nola is more scenic. That said, Houston is still not Nola no matter what you say. Houston is an inland city with little topography or cool features. Chicago has a whole damn lake.
You mean the fact that I find Nola more scenic than Chicago? Yeah. I do. I prefer Chicago as a city, but Nola is more scenic. That said, Houston is still not Nola no matter what you say. Houston is an inland city with little topography or cool features. Chicago has a whole damn lake.
Right. On top of that while different NOLA and Chicago also have amazing architecture that blends in with the natural scenery. Houston doesn't have that great of natural scenery and its architecture is even worse! AH!
You mean the fact that I find Nola more scenic than Chicago? Yeah. I do. I prefer Chicago as a city, but Nola is more scenic. That said, Houston is still not Nola no matter what you say. Houston is an inland city with little topography or cool features. Chicago has a whole damn lake.
So why would New Orleans be more scenic than Chicago to you? Chicago has "a whole damn lake," whereas New Orlean's waterfronts are smaller. Again, your incongruity reveals itself.
Houston is inland, but Savannah is a bit inland as well.
Right. On top of that while different NOLA and Chicago also have amazing architecture that blends in with the natural scenery. Houston doesn't have that great of natural scenery and its architecture is even worse! AH!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZanZeBar
So why would New Orleans be more scenic than Chicago to you? Chicago has "a whole damn lake," whereas New Orlean's waterfronts are smaller. Again, your incongruity reveals itself.
Houston is inland, but Savannah is a bit inland as well.
Kinda answered it there. Nola is an actually beautiful city. Tons of unique architecture. A city built for the pedestrian. The river is really pretty to sit on the banks of. The entire city is full of nice old streets and old architecture and it all fits together really well. It just doesn't fit together well. I think Nola has more charm than Chicago. I like the narrower streets. I love the FQ and how it feels like an international destination. It has definitely the most unique culture in the country, and one of the most unique cultures in the world that plays in with all of its architecture and scenery. While Chicago has a beautiful lakefront and beautiful neighborhoods with amazing architecture, the streets are wider, and it's not as unique as Nola. It's hard to completely describe a feeling, but a think a lot of die-hard Chicagoans and residents of other cities would agree with me. There is something about Nola that is just too unique. Being there feels like you're not in the US and that's due to the mixture of buildings and architecture. Houston may have SOME of that, but it's laughable to say it can equal the charm and feeling of Nola. Houston is as American as they come. Built for the car and suburbia.
There aren't many major American cities that use their waterfront like Chicago does. The only ones I can think of would be Seattle and South Florida (many cities along the coast with downtowns near the beach). LA doesn't utilize it to its full advantage. SD does a better job. SF focuses on the bay but doesn't do much with it besides build apartments and food halls. Nothing like the shores of Lake Michigan. I won't leave off river cities, but what cities even fully utilize their riverfront? San Antonio maybe? Austin? I think Nola does a good job of creating a public space along the Mississippi. NYC's riverfront is mostly apartments or docks, not actual usable riverfront. Philly does an ok job and is improving, but there are only a few things along the river around the Ben Franklin Bridge. Maybe Baltimore could be in the running for utilizing its waterfront well. Cincinnati is building up its riverfront.
Yes, water plays a very important role in determining scenery. Houston just doesn't do a good job of utilizing the bayou. The other cities I mentioned like LA, SF, and SD have beautiful topography and mountains and hills through their regions that they can be excused for not utilizing their waterfronts to the best of their abilities. Chicago realized its biggest asset was the river and the lake, and utilized tf out of it. Houston did not. Many others did not either. Houston is not alone. Chicago is unique in this aspect IMO.
Kinda answered it there. Nola is an actually beautiful city. Tons of unique architecture. A city built for the pedestrian. The river is really pretty to sit on the banks of. The entire city is full of nice old streets and old architecture and it all fits together really well. It just doesn't fit together well. I think Nola has more charm than Chicago. I like the narrower streets. I love the FQ and how it feels like an international destination. It has definitely the most unique culture in the country, and one of the most unique cultures in the world that plays in with all of its architecture and scenery. While Chicago has a beautiful lakefront and beautiful neighborhoods with amazing architecture, the streets are wider, and it's not as unique as Nola. It's hard to completely describe a feeling, but a think a lot of die-hard Chicagoans and residents of other cities would agree with me. There is something about Nola that is just too unique. Being there feels like you're not in the US and that's due to the mixture of buildings and architecture. Houston may have SOME of that, but it's laughable to say it can equal the charm and feeling of Nola. Houston is as American as they come. Built for the car and suburbia.
But your incongruity still reveals itself. If you want to say that Houston is less scenic than Chicago, just because it doesn't have a Lake Michigan, then you have to concede, and say that cities like NOLA and Savannah (which you said were more scenic than Chicago) aren't as scenic as Chicago either. Instead, you are giving NOLA the nod because of the quaint, foreign-feeling, historic architectural aesthetic that plays on continually through the city, as well as with the front of the Mississippi River (which is smaller and muddier than Chicago's lake). And it all turns out to outweigh Chicago's lakefront.
And that is a similar reason why some posters like OT have given Houston the nod over Chicago. The "palm trees next to strip malls" are just some of many examples of the great floral variety of the South, which lends itself the exotic, evergreen feel to the places that have an abundance of it. The sheer character of the flora has the sufficient niche to overcome many of the sprawling features Houston has (such as the freeway view I showed). While lakefronts/waterfronts are striking, you won't be seeing it unless you are ON the shore; on the other hand, vegetative character is something that can continue playing out through the city, block after block, street after street.
Houston does indeed offer elements very distinct from the "typical America" feel; the southern vegetation is distinct from the usual American character, you have sheer ethnic diversity mixed in with the unique Gulf Coast (manifesting in the architecture, arts, and food scenes). And unlike New Orleans, Savannah, or Charleston, Houston has the chance to take this Gulf Coast character, and implement it on a major-city scale; the city, along with Miami, share the niche of being the only two major metropolis on the humid SE US coast, and since Miami is more tropical/Caribbean in character, it leaves Houston as the sole major city with classic Gulf Coast elements on its hands. And because of this, Houston feels more unique than many cities in the US, even with the handicap of sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
There aren't many major American cities that use their waterfront like Chicago does. The only ones I can think of would be Seattle and South Florida (many cities along the coast with downtowns near the beach). LA doesn't utilize it to its full advantage. SD does a better job. SF focuses on the bay but doesn't do much with it besides build apartments and food halls. Nothing like the shores of Lake Michigan. I won't leave off river cities, but what cities even fully utilize their riverfront? San Antonio maybe? Austin? I think Nola does a good job of creating a public space along the Mississippi. NYC's riverfront is mostly apartments or docks, not actual usable riverfront. Philly does an ok job and is improving, but there are only a few things along the river around the Ben Franklin Bridge. Maybe Baltimore could be in the running for utilizing its waterfront well. Cincinnati is building up its riverfront.
Well, this is a point I have never disagreed with. Numerous times, I have complemented Chicago on just how effective it integrates its lakefront into its urban fabric, in a way that is dynamic to the core.
It still goes into what I've been saying all along, though; the perception of scenery is only a factor of how well the city integrates the natural features into the core. For example, you name San Antonio and Austin as great riverfront cities; that factor has to do with how well they synced their rivers with their cores. The San Antonio River isn't even a truly navigable river, essentially, a pool around the city cut off from the main channel; both Austin's and San Antonio's rivers are slimmer than the Buffalo Bayou in Houston's eastern districts, but the former two cities happen to integrate them better into their fabrics. So, Houston's "ugliness" is merely a technicality from the built environment; the scenery has been shown to be the same as in the other coastal South cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Yes, water plays a very important role in determining scenery. Houston just doesn't do a good job of utilizing the bayou. The other cities I mentioned like LA, SF, and SD have beautiful topography and mountains and hills through their regions that they can be excused for not utilizing their waterfronts to the best of their abilities. Chicago realized its biggest asset was the river and the lake, and utilized tf out of it. Houston did not. Many others did not either. Houston is not alone. Chicago is unique in this aspect IMO.
Houston is an inland city with little topography or cool features. Chicago has a whole damn lake.
That's pretty much Chicago; Chicago has the lake, and Houston has the vegetation, which attracts me more than Lake Michigan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Charleston, New Orleans, and Savannah are all more scenic than Chicago. I love Chicago, but I would never ever say it's prettier than those cities. However, Houston is NOT Charleston, NoLa, or Savannah in terms of beauty. It's an overgrown suburb in a swamp located an hour from the coast with no charm of the other cities you mention. If you consider a few random palm trees in front of strip malls to be "scenic" then wow, you really need to get out more.
No Houston is not those cities, nor did I say Houston were those cities, I simply just gave an example of why I'd have Houston ahead of Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
If you consider a few random palm trees in front of strip malls to be "scenic" then wow, you really need to get out more.
Ha!
You're talking to a guy who'd rather have a roadtrip instead of flying from destination to destination. I've been as South as Miami and as North as Detroit.
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.
Wait, how does a landslide make the poll less credible? What if to most people it isn't even close?
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.
