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.
. Yes especially the junk around the commercial building. If it didn't say it was in Houston, I would've guessed Altoona or Wilkes-Barre. Pretty much any town or small city there. I know southwestern PA receives a lot of transplants from Texas for fracking. Maybe they brought PA back to Texas with them.
I think some developers are trying to mimic cities in the East and Midwest to sell to new residents moving down from these regions and cities. Especially in Houston. You look at the older inner neighborhoods there, getting loads of infill and whole blocks with old ranches-homes being replaced by new close-knit singles to multi-residence Complexes and mini-gated developments.
Some you think they picked up a block from a city in the East or Midwest. So I'm not surprised they would try to imitate a Brownstone block. Lack of zoning tells developers they can build whatever they believe will sell.
They actually look like 100+ year old homes. But brand new.
Heck, this NEW development in Houston. Could pass for a old Coal mining village in PA. I'm serious too.
That's actually really impressive how they're infilling like this all across this area! I've never seen such a thing from a BUILT-OUT city before! It's amazing that there is a.) that much developable space to build, and b.) enough demand to satiate that style of housing in a city/area that is known for its space/sprawl. The clash of zoning and architecture is hard on the eyes, but I like the effort and infill!
You do realize there's a ton of similar architecture in every single Northeastern city? There's housing in DC that can be found in Alexandria, Baltimore, Philly, etc. The coal mining towns of PA & WV look practically identical to one another. The architecture in Cleveland can be found in Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo, etc. They have a lot more character now due to age but they were the cookie cutter housing back in their day.
We have all seen them, those Mayors that run off to other Cities to see what other Cities are doing and the next thing you know they are back home trying to get it built in their City to compete. I can't say its a bad or good thing, all a matter of Opinion but its definitely Unoriginal and can sometimes make Cities look way over done. Next thing you know you have a City that looks like every other Major City in America, all thrown together in one big Mixing bowl.. I think my main problem with this is when we see our basic infrastructure not up to par or basic amenities not getting taken care of, Citizens suffering but something New and Shinny pops up in the house. It's almost like keeping up with the Jones's with something we really don't need or is a waste of Money when we can't even get our regular bills paid at home. Which Major American Cities do you see falling into this Category the Most??
You can build something original, while neglecting your basic amenities. Likewise, you can build something unoriginal but also take care of the basics. Some of the unoriginal developments, especially high density/mixed use ones, have generated a ton of revenue for cities so that they can pay for the basics.
That's actually really impressive how they're infilling like this all across this area! I've never seen such a thing from a BUILT-OUT city before! It's amazing that there is a.) that much developable space to build, and b.) enough demand to satiate that style of housing in a city/area that is known for its space/sprawl. The clash of zoning and architecture is hard on the eyes, but I like the effort and infill!
Charlotte. It's nice and I'd rather live there than several of these cities, it's just sort of generic and lacking in original character. Orlando and Vegas are cheesy, suburban tourist traps, but they're too unique to garner my vote.
NOLA, Memphis, Miami, San Antonio, and LA shouldnt even be in the poll.
I think LA and Chicago as the most PUT TOGETHER Big cities. LA defined the Ranch and California Craftsmen Bungalows other cities copied. Chicago defined its Chicago Craftsmen Bungalows Frank Lloyd Wright inspired features and defied a more Attached notion of urban housing chose NOT to copy NYCs tenement-style.
Most Chicago style homes are unique to it or was adopted in other cities. Same with LA's. One can say LA's sprawling concept hurt cities that copied it? But I do believe those that copied Chicago's street-grid of standard set-backs of housing for green-frontage? But kept it close-knit narowish lots with alleys in back. Could have did much worse and ALLOWED much more sprawl allowed to evolve? As like LA., had plenty of flat land to sprawl or allow it to come in.
Alley's housing garages and a place to put the power-lines and poles. I don't see as a outdated concept? Giving how some cities build whole new neighborhoods today - and keep big ugly poles in front of a beautiful new home or development.
The worst are those cities that really did not define a housing variety it's known for and did not plan at all---> the kind of city they wanted to become. Those that didn't even build a complete street-system of curbing and drains also.
I think some developers are trying to mimic cities in the East and Midwest to sell to new residents moving down from these regions and cities. Especially in Houston. You look at the older inner neighborhoods there, getting loads of infill and whole blocks with old ranches-homes being replaced by new close-knit singles to multi-residence Complexes and mini-gated developments.
Some you think they picked up a block from a city in the East or Midwest. So I'm not surprised they would try to imitate a Brownstone block. Lack of zoning tells developers they can build whatever they believe will sell.
They actually look like 100+ year old homes. But brand new.
Heck, this NEW development in Houston. Could pass for a old Coal mining village in PA. I'm serious too.
I wouldn't say these new constructions in Houston are a bad thing. In fact, they're great. I love them. They're a natural way of densification. Houston is growing and new construction like this is how cities were originally built, grown and densified. The hodgepodge of various little townhomes here and there give Houston the feel of a real, organic city.
Dallas' construction, on the other hand, is in the hands of a smaller number of much larger developers, building a bunch of monolithic apartment complexes that take up whole blocks. And those are popping up in a lot of cities. I am not a fan of those, at all.
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.
. Yes especially the junk around the commercial building. If it didn't say it was in Houston, I would've guessed Altoona or Wilkes-Barre. Pretty much any town or small city there. I know southwestern PA receives a lot of transplants from Texas for fracking. Maybe they brought PA back to Texas with them.
