If Houston is supposedly ugly and boring.. (Dallas, South Houston: refrigerator, to buy)

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

You lost me here.

Don’t know how to help you. Perhaps you can reread my posts.

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

I see that your initial statement was really only referring to historic pre-war cities and not all tourist cities in general.

No. I used those three cities as examples. NYC and London didn’t set themselves up as tourist destinations. They were founded centuries back as commercial centers. Their arts and museum scenes began as amenities for locals. For example, NYers didn’t sit down one day and decide to create Broadway so people would fly in from Cleveland. Over time, the amenities created for the locals developed cache and prestige significant enough to appeal to a society that could afford to travel for culture and entertainment.

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

Houston has apparently never cared much to appeal to visitors and that's why it is the city it has become.

I see it differently. Underpinning it all is that I don’t think Houston’s setting offers much to work with in terms of natural beauty. Then the climate is not very inviting for much of the year. With that as a start, there’s a big hole to fill when it comes to tourist appeal.

But I do agree that people in Houston made things worse. It’s not that the city leaders never cared to appeal to tourists, however. It’s that for too long, they never cared about much more than money. Developers made an already unattractive setting uglier. And homegrown politicians who had never lived anywhere else didn’t appreciate that once you tear down your heritage, it is lost forever. Houston’s history is generally limited to a dozen or so houses moved to a park on the edge of downtown.

Tourists are simply not attracted to sprawling cities with 12 lane highways leading to gated communities. Houston has many positive attributes, but tourist appeal is not one of them.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Don’t know how to help you. Perhaps you can reread my posts.

Did that, and I still find you making a sweeping generalization of all tourist oriented cities.

No. I used those three cities as examples.

...after I took issue with your initial statement.

NYC and London didn’t set themselves up as tourist destinations. They were founded centuries back as commercial centers. Their arts and museum scenes began as amenities for locals. For example, NYers didn’t sit down one day and decide to create Broadway so people would fly in from Cleveland. Over time, the amenities created for the locals developed cache and prestige significant enough to appeal to a society that could afford to travel for culture and entertainment.

Agreed, but both these cities are still very old and influential places. We've already established that historic cities have an edge here, but not all tourist oriented cities have historic or "local" attractions. Newer cities such as Vegas, Miami, Orlando, etc. definitely worked to attract visitors. This fact is at odds with your first post.

I see it differently. Underpinning it all is that I don’t think Houston’s setting offers much to work with in terms of natural beauty. Then the climate is not very inviting for much of the year. With that as a start, there’s a big hole to fill when it comes to tourist appeal.

But I do agree that people in Houston made things worse. It’s not that the city leaders never cared to appeal to tourists, however. It’s that for too long, they never cared about much more than money. Developers made an already unattractive setting uglier. And homegrown politicians who had never lived anywhere else didn’t appreciate that once you tear down your heritage, it is lost forever. Houston’s history is generally limited to a dozen or so houses moved to a park on the edge of downtown.

Tourists are simply not attracted to sprawling cities with 12 lane highways leading to gated communities. Houston has many positive attributes, but tourist appeal is not one of them.

Personally, I appreciate the natural terrain of Southeast Texas and don't find it to be unattractive at all. It's the infrastructure laid on top of it that makes it unsightly. The U.S. still has lots of flat and humid cities that are considered beautiful.

Again, it was never my point that simply planning Houston to be a more attractive city would have made it some famous city; only a more appealing place to visit.

[Taksan]

I ... LIKE ... Houston’s climate.... I’m from Florida it’s actually really similar

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by AcresHomes44

Houston wasn't designed to be a dense, urban city. Houston has always been car-dependent, why do people think we have so many freeways here? I like Houston's no zoning because it means you can have ghetto areas in NE, NW, SE, SW, North & South Houston. The hoods aren't confined to one side of the city. I like Houston's affordable cost of living, that means my money goes further than it would if I lived in possibly Dallas or any other major city. The 4th largest city in the US boring? Negative. You just need to know where to go.

So you like no zoning because of the randomness of poverty stricken communities all over the metro? Nah that's not a good look at all. One of the reasons why people tend to think Houston is ugly because the freeways cut through large portions of different ghettos. Btw it some nice looking areas in what some may consider ghettos (3rd Ward and Acres Homes definitely comes to mind) but by and large nope. Most major cities because of zoning laws do a better job of hiding their plight atleast from the freeways. Either way we should be pulling for no lower income areas but you know Capitalism. Also Dallas is isn't that much expensive than Houston. Much more similar to Houston when it comes to how far your dollar goes. I agree with you though that Houston definitely isn't a boring city. There's even more to do for locals than some of America's favorite tourist cities.

[Frustratedintelligence]

San Antonio has zoning but has the same problem as Houston with its freeways cutting right through old, low income areas.

Honestly, I don't think that urban blight necessarily needs to be hidden, but simply beautifying the areas visible to the public makes all the difference.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

San Antonio has zoning but has the same problem as Houston with its freeways cutting right through old, low income areas.

Honestly, I don't think that urban blight necessarily needs to be hidden, but simply beautifying the areas visible to the public makes all the difference.

What you have in Houston is commercial development right on the freeway, instead of set back on cross roads like in the other interstate suburbia in the country. So it's 10-12 mainlanes and 4-6 feeder lanes all lined with parking lots. Not sure how you put lipstick on that pig.

In itself, freeways built through urban areas tend to have had the effect of destroying the neighborhood that was there. It's happened several times in Houston as well as in most large American cities. 288, for example, cut Third Ward off from Almeda which was its primary commercial strip. 59 and 45 separated what had been a cohesive grid through the Second and Third wards before.

And there's no accident that the adjacent five blocks around the Pierce Elevated have been and largely remain a dump despite the resurgence of Midtown and Downtown as a whole. When the Pierce is gone, it can only mean good things as these areas get better accessibility.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by jfre81

What you have in Houston is commercial development right on the freeway, instead of set back on cross roads like in the other interstate suburbia in the country. So it's 10-12 mainlanes and 4-6 feeder lanes all lined with parking lots. Not sure how you put lipstick on that pig.

In itself, freeways built through urban areas tend to have had the effect of destroying the neighborhood that was there. It's happened several times in Houston as well as in most large American cities. 288, for example, cut Third Ward off from Almeda which was its primary commercial strip. 59 and 45 separated what had been a cohesive grid through the Second and Third wards before.

And there's no accident that the adjacent five blocks around the Pierce Elevated have been and largely remain a dump content://media/external/file/489269 the resurgence of Midtown and Downtown as a whole. When the Pierce is gone, it can only mean good things as these areas get better accessibility.

Planting more trees is always my first thought. I've always felt that a little clever landscaping can go a long way. Make the area look as green and natural as possible. Good for people and the environment.

And it's not that Houston doesn't do this. The problem is that it's typically those tiny little oaks that take a lifetime to reach a decent height and don't really do much to obscure the commercial ugliness.

[AcresHomes44]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

So you like no zoning because of the randomness of poverty stricken communities all over the metro? Nah that's not a good look at all. One of the reasons why people tend to think Houston is ugly because the freeways cut through large portions of different ghettos. Btw it some nice looking areas in what some may consider ghettos (3rd Ward and Acres Homes definitely comes to mind) but by and large nope. Most major cities because of zoning laws do a better job of hiding their plight atleast from the freeways. Either way we should be pulling for no lower income areas but you know Capitalism. Also Dallas is isn't that much expensive than Houston. Much more similar to Houston when it comes to how far your dollar goes. I agree with you though that Houston definitely isn't a boring city. There's even more to do for locals than some of America's favorite tourist cities.

So would you rather have the ghettos concentrated on one or two sides of the city? Given Houston's size, that's not feasible. Houston is more what you see is what you get, these are the hoods, we're not trying to hide them to make Houston look more glamorous, that's what it is. Acres Homes is strategically close to 249, 290, 45 and 610.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

Planting more trees is always my first thought. I've always felt that a little clever landscaping can go a long way. Make the area look as green and natural as possible. Good for people and the environment.

Trees don't grow very well in asphalt or concrete.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Trees don't grow very well in asphalt or concrete.

Or underneath power lines where they'll usually just put crape myrtles or some other kind of scrubby plant. But I've noticed that in some of those grassy medians along North Freeway for example, there would just be a bunch of bushes planted, and I couldn't understand why they didn't put trees there instead.