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.
I dont think its anything one way or another,yet its been discussed over ad over as if it is "ugly". Ive heard a lot of negative things about Atlanta but thats not one of them. In fact I dont hear many other cities described physically like that other than Dallas
And interestingly enough, you hear the same about Houston but mainly regarding the industrial landscape. It seems that Austin is the big city in Texas blessed with the best natural beauty.
And interestingly enough, you hear the same about Houston but mainly regarding the industrial landscape. It seems that Austin is the big city in Texas blessed with the best natural beauty.
San Antonio would disagree with you and Id argue its better situated to access the best parts of the Hill Country.
Then if you drive 45 minutes west of Fort Worth youre in the northern parts of the Hill Country near Mineral Wells.
San Antonio would disagree with you and Id argue its better situated to access the best parts of the Hill Country.
Then if you drive 45 minutes west of Fort Worth youre in the northern parts of the Hill Country near Mineral Wells.
Well both Austin and San Antonio are in the same part of the state so you might as well lump both of them together. You just seem to hear more about Austin's natural setting probably because you hear more about Austin period. Also its river seems to be more prominent and acts as more of a natural backdrop.
Overall though, it appears El Paso and Corpus Christi are tops for having the best immediate natural scenery in the state. Would that be correct?
Well both Austin and San Antonio are in the same part of the state so you might as well lump both of them together. You just seem to hear more about Austin's natural setting probably because you hear more about Austin period. Also its river seems to be more prominent and acts as more of a natural backdrop.
Overall though, it appears El Paso and Corpus Christi are tops for having the best immediate natural scenery in the state. Would that be correct?
Corpus to me has been flat, but it's not like I've explored extensively. El Paso is in a mountain valley so it probably wins.
San Antonio it really depends, Northern San Antonio and western Austin are about equal imo, But southern San Antonio seems flatter, than any part of Austin.
As a proud Houstonian, Houston is definitely the 2nd ugliest city in the state, after Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange, which might as well be Houston so we win that anyways.
Austin is Central TX and SA is the Northern part of South TX, but they aren’t that far apart. The scenery and natural features in Austin seems to be more noticeable out of the two.
Luckily our metro area is not as forested, we wouldn’t be able to build the density or infrastructure we’ve been able to. Sometimes you can’t see the forest for the trees.
It’s nice being somewhere with diversity in landscapes in a transitional zone rather than in one big pine/hardwood forest for hundreds of miles in every direction. That has to get boring.
Since this is a Atlanta/Dallas/Houston thread, it may be appropriate to discuss job losses between the three. This is comparing April of 2019 to April of 2020. The percentage is the current unemployment rate:
-265,700 Houston -8.5%
-267,200 Atlanta -9.4%
-283,000 Dallas -7.6%
Since this is a Atlanta/Dallas/Houston thread, it may be appropriate to discuss job losses between the three. This is comparing April of 2019 to April of 2020. The percentage is the current unemployment rate:
-265,700 Houston -8.5%
-267,200 Atlanta -9.4%
-283,000 Dallas -7.6%
Comparatively speaking, all three are doing better than several others, staying under 10%. I'm not surprised that Atlanta's is the highest as it has the biggest tourism sector of the three but it's not quite as bad.
Comparatively speaking, all three are doing better than several others, staying under 10%. I'm not surprised that Atlanta's is the highest as it has the biggest tourism sector of the three but it's not quite as bad.
All three of them are doing far better than the national average yes.
Its just that Ive had many conversations with people on here that swore up and down that Houston would be the next Detroit. Truth is, the city is proving to be far more dynamic and economically diversified than given credit for.
All three of them are doing far better than the national average yes.
Its just that Ive had many conversations with people on here that swore up and down that Houston would be the next Detroit. Truth is, the city is proving to be far more dynamic and economically diversified than given credit for.
I agree that Houston is a resilient city but I won't be making any sort of long-term pronouncements about cities' performances based on this early data. We probably won't get an idea of how extensive the economic damage is until towards the end of the year/beginning of next year. Some sectors are going to be hit harder on the front end whereas others will lag as the effects ripple through the entire economy.
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.
