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 think we can both agree that the big difference between Houston and LA in terms of ethnic food is that LA is just so much bigger and has such larger populations of each ethnic group. While there are koreans, Jordanians, mexicans, japanese, ethiopians, etc. in both Houston and in LA, LA just has so much bigger populations of everything except Polish, Nigerian, and probably the Caribbean in general--and when you have a larger population you tend to have better food (more demand/competition, more ingredients, etc.).
Houston and LA are both very diverse cities, the main difference is just that LA is so much bigger.
I can agree with that. Like i said before, that it has to be looked at proportionally. We are a metro of 6 million people, a city of 2.1 million...That is 50%+ less then L.A. Theirs a tremendous drop in people after L.A in terms of US cities. many have said this before, Houston is at the stage of its development that LA was at 40-50 years ago. We will continue to grow, develop and change. Its a growing city, and thats exciting in itself.
I think a big problem a lot of Houston and Dallas posters on this forum have is that we are Texans first...and when we discuss our cities, we don't like being second fiddle. We are about bigger, better, stronger....its the states culture as a whole. Its hard for us to swallow at times, but their are other places outside of the great state of Texas. However, Cali better watch its self...Because Texas is an up and coming state in terms of popularity.
If Texas can lose some of the waistline and become less conservative, I can see CA and TX becoming friends. Right now, though, CA looks at TX the way the east coast used to look at CA: a backward, conservative state (remember that CA used to be the land of reagan), with only one stronghold of sanity (SF in CA, Austin in TX).
As Texas and the south has become more of a force in recent years, the coasts have definitely grown together... Although on this site you get a lot of "East Coast/Midwest vs. Sunbelt" arguments, the much more significant divisions are between the coasts and the interior.
i wonder: as the "new south" or whatever you want to call Texas-to-the-Carolinas becomes more urban and diverse (and therefore liberal, as happened in CA), will West Coasters or East Coasters be the first to "welcome them into the fold." I.e. the south is closer to the east but has more of a "western" attitude in terms of newness and optimism. Anyway, just a random thought.
If Texas can lose some of the waistline and become less conservative, I can see CA and TX becoming friends. Right now, though, CA looks at TX the way the east coast used to look at CA: a backward, conservative state (remember that CA used to be the land of reagan), with only one stronghold of sanity (SF in CA, Austin in TX).
As Texas and the south has become more of a force in recent years, the coasts have definitely grown together... Although on this site you get a lot of "East Coast/Midwest vs. Sunbelt" arguments, the much more significant divisions are between the coasts and the interior.
i wonder: as the "new south" or whatever you want to call Texas-to-the-Carolinas becomes more urban and diverse (and therefore liberal, as happened in CA), will West Coasters or East Coasters be the first to "welcome them into the fold." I.e. the south is closer to the east but has more of a "western" attitude in terms of newness and optimism. Anyway, just a random thought.
I don't see Texas becoming liberal outside of urban cores. Its the nature of our state, even our Hispanics tend to be far less liberal then Cali's. As well as blacks in this state. Our Hispanics are more comparable to Florida's Hispanics population. Texans hate government, and no expansion on that will make us "happier".
And to be honest, i don't really want to be Cali. Right now Texas is in better economic health, and is so because of our policies.
We will always be hated by the liberal coasts, because we will always be different. Which is okay....We will be us, and yall will be you....its the beauty of America.
I don't see Texas becoming liberal outside of urban cores.
Ever look at a political party map of california? Dark blue in the coastal metropolises, dark red in the interior.
Mark my word, 15-20 years from now Texas will be considered a blue state.
Also, California had the best education system, a booming economy, great quality of life, etc. for decades when it was in the same growth stage as Texas. You may think there's an underlying political reason for Texas's current success--there's not. Texas just has a good combination of cheap land and growing industries--eventually saturation will be reached in both. There are conservative states doing poorly now and liberal states doing great. Check out msnbc's list of best and worst performing state economies: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...america/64307/ I really can't find any correlation between state "color" and economic health.
We all know California is doing god awful right now, but it has less to do with its politics necessarily, and more to do with its government structure. In fact, a lot of California's problems stem from the conservative taxpayer revolt here in the 1970s led by howard jarvis. We have a totally screwed up system that is incredibly vulnerable to market conditions...
Last edited by dweebo2220; 04-06-2011 at 04:52 PM..
Can't remember if I posted on this thread or not. Anyway,
I lived in SoCal for four years and am fairly familiar with L.A.
Houston is sort of a leaner, younger version of Los Angeles. I take that for what it is.
Houston has, I'd say about 90% of the diversity of L.A., just in a proportionately smaller number. Still, Houston with 90% of L.A.'s diversity is still more diverse than other metros like Tampa Bay, San Diego, Indianapolis, Austin, Seattle, Boston, Miami, Phoenix, and so forth.
But Los Angeles streets and attendant entertainment districts, look...mostly UNIFORM. There is not much difference in basic streetscape for me with, say, Robertson Blvd, Colorado Ave (Pasadena), Santa Monica, Sunset, Melrose and the like. Yes, there's good density...but there's kind of a plastic uniformity that developed with me..."ah, that's so L.A."
L.A. has diversity of topography but uniformity of streetscapes. I mean, Whittier looks like Melrose without the gaudy storefronts. Valley Blvd is just Century Blvd with Chinese storefronts. Downtown Santa Ana is just a poorer, Hispanicized version of Old Town Pasadena in terms of basic street look.
Now, Houston...there's a funkiness with the variety of streetscapes and city angles. Everything from clapboard cottages (Old Town Spring) to Mayberry on acid (funky mix of COMMERCIALIZED bungalows, mini Victorians in the Montrose) to ultramodern style centers (City Centre, Sugar Land, Woodlands with their own unique angles) to the oddball backstreets and sidestreets (Mid Lane, Fairview) to, yes, even the faux SoCal vibe of the Rice Village to the open sea cafe/bar porch houses of Kemah Lighthouse District.
I love the NARROW sidewalk intimacy of Main St. (Midtown to Downtown) where the METRORAIL runs. In this car crazy city, it's just cool to have a TOTALLY PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY street like that. There's a genuine intimacy that I get from walking from Art Bar Lounge down to Continental Club that I do NOT get from the more plastic and Disneyfied Santa Monica 3rd St. or such.
There's the sharp style of Sage and W. Alabama, I like that upscale strip center style there, very vibrant with action. The open flair of Richmond Ave with abundant and HUGE PATIO bars/clubs that Los Angeles cannot offer like that.
So if you like "density" go with L.A. If you like diversity of varying street looks with varying types of commercial structures, I'd go with H-town.
But I love both towns, they just offer something that the other does not. I personally like living in Houston better than SoCal.
^^ I'm sorry, man, but WHAT? Granted, I've only been to Houston once, but the architectural/streetscape diversity was nowhere near LA. How can you say that abbot kinney, colorado blvd., spring st., Hollywood blvd., Pico, Main St., Ventura, Wilshire, and 3rd street are the same?? Sure Lincoln feels like Santa Monica Blvd feels like Sunset feels like whatever in parts, but that's true wherever you go in the world: streets are usually pretty similar in every city.
Please post pictures, because when I visited Houston I definitely saw nothing that seemed that out of the ordinary. I've also never seen pictures that demonstrate this varying street style that you talk about, so I can't imagine that I just missed it somehow.
The weird thing about the debate in this thread is that everyone's making claims of why Houston is better than Los Angeles, by using traits that LA is especially known for! LA is the most architecturally diverse city in the US if not the world. If you don't agree, you obviously have no understanding of architecture or you might just not have functioning eyes.
also, comparing main street houston with 3rd street promenade is absolutely ridiculous. Try Main st. or Spring st. or maybe, I don't know, Broadway in LA which is of course the actual accurate counterpart.
You've obviously gotten around a lot of LA so I really can't understand your perspective...
The weird thing about the debate in this thread is that everyone's making claims of why Houston is better than Los Angeles, by using traits that LA is especially known for!
haha i was just thinking the same thing. up until now, i didn't want to say anything because i don't have firsthand experience in houston, nor do i want to come across as shortchanging or dismissing the city in any way. i mean, i'd rather tout LA's strengths than try to poke holes in houston's offerings.
but some of the things that a couple of the posters are claiming as special or better in h-town have done nothing but give me a case of deja vu - as in, "hey, that sounds like los angeles - and something that's one of several defining characteristics of the city, to boot."
again, i don't want to come across as disparaging houston, because i'm not. but i do think some of the posters here are really selling LA short while at the same time doing the exact opposite for their town.
I want to be on the side of the underdog, seriously. I wanted to believe you. I streetviewed every intersection looking for something eclectic, diverse, etc. I hate to be a jerk but when you make such a bold claim as "All the streets look the same in LA compared to Houston" I really have to come back with this: every street I looked at in streetview looked like dull brown houston suburban crap, except some small parts of montrose and that old town spring place, which is just an old town like you find all over northern california.
Yes the streets look different for the most part than LA. They feel more like country town roads. If that's your thing, then fine. But don't conflate that with "diversity" somehow and say that every street in LA is the same just because there's more than 4 things on it.
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.
