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 personally think Houston is more beautiful than Dallas due to the tall pine trees. There are some areas in northern and northwestern Houston metro that feel very much like Georgia, just much flatter.
I feel somewhat indifferent about the trees in most of Houston. I think it's the built environment with the natural setting in Houston that makes the overall setting unimpressive to me. I do think there's exceptions where the natural setting compliments the built environment. Areas such as Humble/Atascocita/ Kingwood/ pockets of Northwest(pockets of neighborhoods north of FM 1960)/ The Woodlands. The Woodlands imo is the best example on how to incorporate and compliment the natural setting with the built environment.
I feel somewhat indifferent about the trees in most of Houston. I think it's the built environment with the natural setting in Houston that makes the overall setting unimpressive to me. I do think there's exceptions where the natural setting compliments the built environment. Areas such as Humble/Atascocita/ Kingwood/ pockets of Northwest(pockets of neighborhoods north of FM 1960)/ The Woodlands. The Woodlands imo is the best example on how to incorporate and compliment the natural setting with the built environment.
There is a reason for that.
The natural setting you attribute to Houston is not natural. These were either planted or invasive new-comers.
You get more natural settings in the areas you mentioned so I think that contributes to the better looks.
The vast majority of the area before it was settled was prairie with stands of magnolia, Pine, Cypress and a variety of Oaks such as Pin Oak, Post Oak, Shumard and other Red Oaks. Buffalo Bayou is named Buffalo bayou for a reason. The area was said to be lined with Buffalo for as far as the eye could see. The constant grazing and stomping of their hoofs prevented many trees from growing.
I do prefer the look of the more natural areas around Houston. I think Live Oak is overused in Houston. I think Houston would look a ton better if the bayous were left natural like Armand Bayou and they didn't rely so heavily on Live Oak
Maybe I have a bias, but Houston is my pick. I love our downtown, and the bayou...all of our parks and bayous. But this was the first truly major city I ever visited when I was just 18 and it was instant love.
That said, I think San Antonio is a wonderfully historic and beautiful city too and if we moved anywhere like for work or for the hell of it...I would choose SA at this point. I have been really kind of thinking about it lately.
Never been to El Paso or Austin but I would like to visit both; Amarillo too. I have never really cared for DFW. I do like their freeways and that's about it.
I vote Austin, but I don't really think any of the cities in Texas are "beautiful." Not saying they are ugly, they are just meh, when it comes to beauty.
There is a reason for that.
The natural setting you attribute to Houston is not natural. These were either planted or invasive new-comers.
Most trees we see in urban and suburban American neighborhoods were planted, and I think Houston along with the other Texas cities doesn't plant enough. It's already one of the greenest major cities in the country and would be exceedingly so if more of its naturally forested landscape had been preserved. It's partially prairie but not unlike the Midwest and areas of the Deep South. The soil is rich and rainfall is abundant so just about any tree can grow well.
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.