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.
Thank you for the correction. Please clarify--the neighborhoods in Houston that you mention "do just fine" in attracting young urbanites--is that fact, or is it your opinion?
It's fact based on the experiences of others. Ask many folks who live inside the loop, and you'll find them saying that they deliberately chose this location for its character, for the walkability of some of its 'hoods, and for its vibrancy. If they weren't looking for these, then they could have easily chosen Sugar Land instead.
Quote:
How many people who love city life (and by this, I mean those who value the things we are debating) would move to Houston based on these criteria alone? I lived in Houston for nearly 20 years and took frequent vacations to cities to experience it, because it just isn't there.
Houston is great at providing jobs and hot weather. It also fosters an environment of personal space and car ownership. Many prefer this. It does not provide even a hint of the dense urban environment that Chicago does.
Some folks might hate the weather and dislike the general culture of the northern cities, and they may decide that they could never live along the West Coast, so they might be willing to take their "inkling" of a desire for urbanity to even the semi-urban (as your elitist attitude would insist I point out) neighborhoods of cities like Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta. Maybe they simply prefer the south.
Living in the Sunbelt does not require that anyone sacrifices all levels of urbanity, despite the fact your hard head is trying to convince everyone otherwise.
Hello everyone,
I'm graduating from college soon and Im trying to decide between
two cities to move to. The cities are Houston and Chicago.
First some info about me. I was born in Dallas but Ive lived
in Minneapolis since I was seven. I have relatives that live in Dallas so
I've gone their for holidays and summer. Dallas is the only Texas city I know
well. I've been to Chicago once about ten years ago on a family vacation.
I really loved the city even though I was only there two days.
I'm thinking of these two cities for many reasons.
I want to live in a city with lots of diversity, a reasonable cost of living,
strong culture(lots of museums and libraries) good restaurants, nightlife and shopping.
So Chicago is the obvious choice but there are some things making me think about Houston.
One being that its in the state I was born in so I'm interested in
living there to reconnect with it. Another reason is I've never been to
Houston nor do I know much about it so its like a mystery to me and I'd want
to go there to see what its like. I know so much about Chicago I think it may
not be that exciting to move their.
Another big factor in this is I don't own a car. I rely on public transportation
to get around which is another reason why I'm considering Chicago because
of its transit system and I don't know what Houston offers as far a mass transit.
If anyone can offer insight on this I would appriciate it.
I'm actually putting my bias aside here and saying that Chicago sounds like it is your best choice. From your description, every thing you said you wanted lined up with Chicago, which you even pointed out. Your only reasoning for Houston was that it was in your home state and that it was a mystery. The home state factor may be important for you, but it's not as important, in my opinion, as the comfort of daily life that you described fit Chicago. The mystery part might sound intriguing, but it also kind of scares me to think that I am moving to a place that I don't know anything about.
Museums and libraries, a good community and culture, diversity, good restaurants, nightlife, shopping, public transportation, etc...these things are what Chicago is known for, so if they are important to you, I think that you should go with that.
Frankly, I say "either/or". You can't go wrong in either city. Both are very diverse, very vibrant. Offer a lot of amenities..... one of the only differences is that Chicago's mass transit system is very well established. Much more useful than Houston's. Houston's is just getting off the ground. The only other question is which kind of climate do you prefer. Houston is a very warm, humid climate. Chicago's is much cooler, with lake-effect cold winters.........
Personally, I think you would do just fine in either city.
I mostly agree with everything.
As I stated earlier, public transportation and the fact that the OP doesn't have a car are really the only thing that makes Chicago the clear winner, IMO. Everything else they require can be found in Houston.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi
I mostly agree with everything.
As I stated earlier, public transportation and the fact that the OP doesn't have a car are really the only thing that makes Chicago the clear winner, IMO. Everything else they require can be found in Houston.
Surprise--two of the four shameless and quite often irrational Houston boosters see eye-to-eye.
Countdown until the other two (they know who they are) pile on begins...now.
Surprise--two of the four shameless and quite often irrational Houston boosters see eye-to-eye.
Countdown until the other two (they know who they are) pile on begins...now.
I'm actually not all that familiar with Queen Palm's posts and wasn't even aware they were a Houstonian. Who are the other two? I don't think they'll be showing up, because I didn't call for reinforcements .
The only numbers that you had in your post were temperatures that apparently occurred when you were in Texas.
Anyway, maybe you should work on something not so pathetic, dementor.
There's nothing to argue about. Had a rental car. Saw big chunks of "Chicagoland." Had a rental car. Saw big chunks of metro "Houston." Neither are in my top 5, or maybe even 10, but it would be Houston. Let it go. People from the coasts don't just move to the Upper Midwest. But, I'm sure LA has a place for you if you want it, and Houston has even more room.
There's nothing to argue about. Had a rental car. Saw big chunks of "Chicagoland." Had a rental car. Saw big chunks of metro "Houston." Neither are in my top 5, or maybe even 10, but it would be Houston. Let it go. People from the coasts don't just move to the Upper Midwest. But, I'm sure LA has a place for you if you want it, and Houston has even more room.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi
I'm actually not all that familiar with Queen Palm's posts and wasn't even aware they were a Houstonian. Who are the other two? I don't think they'll be showing up, because I didn't call for reinforcements .
For the record, I will say that your posts seem much more intelligently crafted (except when trying to insult me) than the other two's, whom I will allow to self-identify, if you don't mind. I simply believe we have a misunderstanding rooted in reading comprehension.
When I remarked about people not choosing Houston based solely on its urban atmosphere, you countered with the indisputable fact that there are people who choose Houston over Sugar Land for this reason. I concede this, but I hope you aren't being purposefully dense. Of course Houston is more urban than Sugar Land, but to a well traveled person who enjoys dense, walkable, non-car-centric city life -- I am not claiming that applies to all young people, but it does seem to be the trend these days -- Houston does not offer very much.
I lived in Montrose, The Heights and The West End for many years. There were a few places to walk, sure, but all these neighborhoods were made up of mostly single family residential buildings (even many of the businesses are in small houses scattered among other residential buildings). It's cool and interesting and absolutely has a character that is fun to explore. It's just not city life to someone who knows the difference and enjoys places like NYC, SF and yes, Chicago.
That is not meant to be a negative judgment. I am very pro-Houston! It is my favorite city in Texas. I found it enjoyable for reasons very different from those that make me enjoy Chicago, though, with almost no cross-over inside the cities-proper. They are hugely different environments. To suggest, as you and the other poster seem to do, that minus public transportation differences, the two are a toss-up makes me wonder if you have ever been to Chicago.
I was in Alameda, CA. visiting friends this past weekend. Almeda is a quiet suburb of Oakland with single-family bungalows, lawns, kids, a few good restaurants and several funky little bars clustered in its early 20th century downtown. My first reaction, coming from San Francisco was, "Wow! this is great! It reminds me a lot of Montrose, with a bit of The Heights in this well-defined retail/restaurant area." I felt no elitism overwhelming me. I really loved it there. I knew I wasn't in SF anymore, though. It reminded me of home in Houston.
If i had listed the above streetview shot as The Heights or Montrose, with the cool little bar on the corner, low-density retail and the SUVs in the street I would bet most Houstonians would not know the difference.
Last edited by dalparadise; 09-24-2012 at 05:15 PM..
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.
.
