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.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,838,516 times
Reputation: 3672
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldbfree007
Downtown Houston is pretty dense. Plus, Houston has a much more expansive skyline. Houston is my choice.
True that it's hard to see in these photos because the taller buildings (which are even taller than is obvious in the photos) obstruct many of the shorter ones.
Also most of the photos are older and don't include the new construction.
boston defntly, it has the density the nice architechture (and i love how a lot of the buildings are brown) and its right on the water. Houston has no density at all no natural settings, it basically looks like a bunch of tall buildings just thrown in random spots
Kill the whole "Houston has no density" thing. It's overused and wrong.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...e-posting.html
Ok, folks. So far we've had two issues where folks are posting pics that contain copyright watermarks from pics that were taken by OTHER photographers, that folks are using here. Please read, re-read, and read again the room sticky link above. It's been at the top of the room for going on a year, now. It contains photo posting guidelines that are enforced in this room.
Both are nice. But Houston has better diversity in buildings, and taller buildings, so Houston.
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.