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.
Austin isn't very liberal, actually. It is for Texas, I suppose, but by California standards, I'd put it back in the Sacramento range. I don't move for politics, anyway, remember?
I actually moved to Dallas right before I got married. I moved for a really good job opportunity, but missed Houston and started plotting my exit strategy out of Dallas after about a year.
When i made it back to Houston, my future wife was living in Austin and we spent quite a bit of time there while we were dating. There was a time when every weekend, I would drive to Austin on Friday evening and drive back to Houston for work Monday morning. Austin is nice, but it's a pretty small town for my tastes. I really prefer large city life and despite what you mention, Austin's cultural and lifestyle options are not very refined or varied. It's more of a place for 20-somethings to me and plays well with those "frat boys" you enjoy so much. Houston and Dallas both offer much more in terms of broad professional opportunities, though, if an advertising writer can find his way into the "Austin clique" there is a chance for better exposure there, than in Houston. You have to be willing to work for very little pay for awhile to do this, because the market is limited and thus, competitive, while UT continues to churn out new job seekers. Dallas is a much better market than either Houston or Austin for creative advertising work, but was a tough place to live, offering very few changes or improvements over Houston in terms of quality of life. Sadly, as a native Texan and world traveler for more than 25 of my 42 years, I confidently say that no Texas city meets my standards of urban lifestyle. Not even a little bit.
I have dreamed about living in SF since I was about 15. There is no place like it in the country and only 2-3 cities in the world compare favorably in my eyes. By any measure I can consider, it is worth the price I pay, not because I'm justifying my decision to move here, but because after more than a year I still ride the cable car every night just to hear and feel the vibe of the city. I still walk aimlessly through different neighborhoods, just to get to know them. I still dig into city politics to learn topics for debates with coworkers and people I meet at cafes. I still jump in the car on a whim and drive to Big Sur or Wine Country. I still get jazzed to walk to Giants games and love how the whole city seems to shut down for Opening Day and playoff games--that's another thing--SF is a baseball town. Most people from Texas don't understand why this is a big deal or even how it's different from being a "sports town".
I know it's hard for a numbers guy to understand, but I really love it here. This city becomes part of people who love it in ways that only a few seem to ever do. You, in fact, live in Chicago, which I consider to be one of those places (though perhaps to a lesser degree than many others). Strangers instantly have a story about your city when you mention where you live. It's usually a romantic one or a recount of one of the best times of their lives. This happened to me while showing my ID at Hobby Airport over the recent holiday. The lady checking me in at Southwest saw my address and just gushed about wanting to move to SF and her many trips here.
In the end, I chose to be in Houston for so long, even though it didn't suit me, because my friends were there. They are still the biggest part of the city I miss. If I had a family, it would be hard to imagine a much better place to live than Texas. As a proud liberal DINK, however, its misses on too many measures for me to be happy there. I wouldn't change a thing about my 20+ year journey, though--which must be a pretty good endorsement for Houston after all, right?
A couple of sidetrack questions first. I know you don't live in Oakland, but I always thought the A's were the real heart and soul of the Bay area, not the Giants. Maybe because Oakland is more of a working class town. Also, are you pissed the niners are moving to Santa Clara? That's a pretty big hit the city. If it makes you feel any better, I was a huge 49ers fan growing up with Montana and Rice and crew.
I'm curious now, why do you think you would rather live in Houston if you had a family? If you love SF so much I can't believe you would think Houston is better, at the very least you would be miserable or at least unhappy and might even blame your children later in life for giving up your dream to move them to Houston.
Where did you live in Dallas? It seems the Uptown district in Dallas is very nice and very walkable. And thanks for the laugh on Austin not being that liberal. LOL. Surely you jest. Maybe the area outside Austin like Westlake is not liberal but the city itself is very liberal. UT Austin almost makes sure of that. Also the OWS movement had one of it's largest contingencies in Austin. Plus Austin is kind of famous for that pot smoking hippie culture. Man, you must be REALLY liberal if you think Austin is not. LOL.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,137,259 times
Reputation: 3145
Lifestyle, my friend. The answer to most of your questions is lifestyle. It's different here and honestly, "liberal" has very little to do with it. I'm not exactly sure why you keep drawing that parallel. The Austin lifestyle is completely different from San Francisco. Picking out one neighborhood in Dallas, Houston or Austin that's "walkable" also doesn't work for me.
I like a city where I can very comfortably shed my car. But there's even more to it than that. Cities--entire cities--that function like this develop differently. They aren't "walkable," they are walk-positive. It's "walkable" to live in Montrose and work in downtown Houston, but I'd hate to do it. Conversely, I walk approximately that same distance in SF all the time and pass through more urban development and attractions that interest me than exist within the entire inner loop of Houston. And if I'm in the mood for a change, I pick a different route and it's completely different. I value that a great deal--approximately $12,000/yr, based on numbers being thrown around earlier.
And yes, Austin seems very liberal to non liberal people who like to label things in that regard. In reality, it is a little left of center. Your impression of SF liberal attitudes seems similarly skewed by what you hear in the media and your own misconceptions. Most of us in SF think OWS was a joke. We work hard and enjoy our city. We do care about protecting the environment (radicalism, to Texans), challenging political conventions (anti-American, to Texans), and trying to take care of the less fortunate (socialism, to Texans) but its really not the naked, hippie free-for-all Fox News would have you believe it is.
To the Niners moving, it's not really a big deal. Lifestyle, remember? Because of where the Stick is located and the terrible access to the place, people in the city spent about 45 minutes getting there by "express" bus. It was not much better for fans from the South Bay who drove and fought for the limited parking. The move to Santa Clara makes it closer to a 1:00 ride by CalTrain, which will have alcohol and be a lot more comfortable. To me, it seems like a step up. Football is 8 events per season. A drive or train ride equivalent to going to The Woodlands that small number of times is no big deal. I actually think its part of a conscious effort to better unify the Bay Area as a more cohesive city, with regard to outsiders' perceptions and unifying the employment centers.
Lifestyle, my friend. The answer to most of your questions is lifestyle. It's different here and honestly, "liberal" has very little to do with it. I'm not exactly sure why you keep drawing that parallel. The Austin lifestyle is completely different from San Francisco. Picking out one neighborhood in Dallas, Houston or Austin that's "walkable" also doesn't work for me.
I like a city where I can very comfortably shed my car. But there's even more to it than that. Cities--entire cities--that function like this develop differently. They aren't "walkable," they are walk-positive. It's "walkable" to live in Montrose and work in downtown Houston, but I'd hate to do it. Conversely, I walk approximately that same distance in SF all the time and pass through more urban development and attractions that interest me than exist within the entire inner loop of Houston. And if I'm in the mood for a change, I pick a different route and it's completely different. I value that a great deal--approximately $12,000/yr, based on numbers being thrown around earlier.
And yes, Austin seems very liberal to non liberal people who like to label things in that regard. In reality, it is a little left of center. Your impression of SF liberal attitudes seems similarly skewed by what you hear in the media and your own misconceptions. Most of us in SF think OWS was a joke. We work hard and enjoy our city. We do care about protecting the environment (radicalism, to Texans), challenging political conventions (anti-American, to Texans), and trying to take care of the less fortunate (socialism, to Texans) but its really not the naked, hippie free-for-all Fox News would have you believe it is.
To the Niners moving, it's not really a big deal. Lifestyle, remember? Because of where the Stick is located and the terrible access to the place, people in the city spent about 45 minutes getting there by "express" bus. It was not much better for fans from the South Bay who drove and fought for the limited parking. The move to Santa Clara makes it closer to a 1:00 ride by CalTrain, which will have alcohol and be a lot more comfortable. To me, it seems like a step up. Football is 8 events per season. A drive or train ride equivalent to going to The Woodlands that small number of times is no big deal. I actually think its part of a conscious effort to better unify the Bay Area as a more cohesive city, with regard to outsiders' perceptions and unifying the employment centers.
I'm more of a Texans fan, anyway.
Thanks for the response. But what about the children thing? What am I missing here. You have said it now two or three times with a little bit of authority in your tone that you would choose Houston over SF to raise your kids. I'm still curious why?
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,137,259 times
Reputation: 3145
I have decided not to have children, so my speculating where I would raise them if I had any seems a little pointless.
However, I think Houston's more suburban lifestyle probably agrees with raising kids more than SF's urban lifestyle. There aren't a lot of kids in this city, especially in the part where I spend most of my time (north of Market and east of Divisadero). Perhaps out in The Richmond or The Sunset, it would be better. Places are larger and proximity to the park makes things easier on kids. I do see parents with their kids at parks in North Beach in the evenings, but honestly, I can't really wrap my head around what that must be like. Now, in the East Bay, Marin and down the Peninsula, there are tons of kids. So, maybe they would be an even better than Houston for raising kids.
But like I said, I have built my whole lifestyle around not having children, so I'm a pretty poor judge of this.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,449,471 times
Reputation: 8955
Yes of course the Bay Area is a great place to live.
But not in a 250 square foot place for 3K/month.
However home is home and I find that Houston is so friendly compared to folks in the Bay Area...yes there are friendly folks here as well but not as many as you will find in TX.
You will notice it as soon as you get off the plane
No, I was agreeing that you see things from a liberal point of view. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. But this is kind of sad. Seriously. Why don't you move? You say you put value over desires but wtf. The only alternatives are not NY or SF. Jesus son, there is a lot of land out there in good old USA. You really need to get out and travel more. There are many great places to live in this country. It's not NY or Houston.
And what is the deal with this anger? You keep saying this over and over that surburbia is pathetic. Then you even trash the young crowd that lives in the loop. Are you OK? I don't get the hostility. Look, Houston is not trying to be bland. The problem is Houston is growing so fast that people are just building to keep up. So everything is new and sterile looking. Most of the northeast is built out. Those cities are 100's of years old. Houston is really only a few decades old for the most part. Atlanta and Charlotte and even Nashville have the same issue. These cities experienced urban flight from the north and had to grow very fast to adjust. Most cities grow slowly over decades. Houston had no such luxury. I don't think this is a bad thing. I just am puzzled by the hatred over the lack of civil engineering. It baffles me. It really does.
I never said that I am annoyed by things that are new.
But why the homogeneous attitude? are we so sure that Houston lacks creativity?
I love your choice of words, "lack of civil engineering", but to me that seems like the city and developers went for nothing exciting or different, just the cheapest and biggest place they can find and build on.
Like I've said a million times before, these developers and subsequent real estate agents, are running the creativity and sense of community within this city to the ground.
Houston you're such a lovely, kind, albeit large and ugly, princess thats poised to lead the nation into the next few decades, why do you let these developers have their way with you? It hurts me to see this.
And as far as Houston not having any history, I will have to completely disagree, Houston used to have amazing block parties on Westheimer, the Houston Rockets were amazing, NASA was putting this city on the map, the Astro's played in an iconic dome, etc. etc.
I think people that spent their youth in Houston in the late 80's could agree that Houston was not this stale and bland, something changed along the way.
And it was the population, which boomed in the early 90's. But that doesnt mean that city-planners couldn't have built this city much more intellegently, they could have put together a cohesive cityscape.
Im not asking to imitate the cities up north, I'm just asking for logic, for something that works for people that will use the venues that are being built and not something that improves developers bottom line.
The Galleria for example, the worst possible place to put it, where the infrastructure cant support the influx of people in and out of that area. Why did they put it there? nobody seems to have a clear cut answer. Energy Corridor, what the hell is that? A bunch of companies that decided that they need their name on a building, so they ask their employees to not come to a centralized location, but to somewhere outside of that.
And since you're into labeling things, I guess I can be allowed to label this type of thinking as the "conservative" thought process. Where the common people get screwed but the corporations get rewarded with a greener bottom line, and of course everything will "trickle" down
Yes, Houston expanded quickly, but that doesnt mean it couldn't expand smartly, instead of worrying about have the anything goes, open business model, and start doing things that you know, make sense.
One positive thing that Houston did do in the late 90's, they diversified and now we have one of the best Medical Centers in the country, along with scores of other business that dont rely on natural resource availability.
And dont get me started about the lack of public transportation, there is no excuse for that, another victim of the "conservative" mindset. There are much smaller and "newer" cities with something that has public transportation, that isn't a complete embarrassment.
By the way, the "liberal" mindset that you seem to think the northern, and cali cities have. Most of the rest of the world is actually built for people to walk and minimize the use of a personal car. But I guess anything that imitates most of the rest of the world is considered "unamerican" by the "conservative" types and something that America is far and above.
I guess if you live a southern or boring lifestyle where you sit in the house all day the. You need 900sq apartment.
The difference between California and NYC is people have many more option and activities to have a life and things to get into in those places then Houston or other cheap places to live. You pay a premium to live in a fun exciting place that will keep you OUT of the house.
Houston doesn't offer what San Fran or NYC does. That means its cheaper becuase not as many people willing to a lot to live in Houston. The walk ability, density,mass transit and weather alone make San Fran more desirable than Houston without even getting to culture and activities.
The bottom line is you get what you pay for. Houston does not have the culture and activity to justify San Fran rent costs.
I understand SF just outlawed public nudity excepting on High Holy Gay Days. Doesn't that devalue some of the allure of SF? And does seem NYC just took a livability hit as well.
I never said that I am annoyed by things that are new.
But why the homogeneous attitude? are we so sure that Houston lacks creativity?
I love your choice of words, "lack of civil engineering", but to me that seems like the city and developers went for nothing exciting or different, just the cheapest and biggest place they can find and build on.
Like I've said a million times before, these developers and subsequent real estate agents, are running the creativity and sense of community within this city to the ground.
Houston you're such a lovely, kind, albeit large and ugly, princess thats poised to lead the nation into the next few decades, why do you let these developers have their way with you? It hurts me to see this.
And as far as Houston not having any history, I will have to completely disagree, Houston used to have amazing block parties on Westheimer, the Houston Rockets were amazing, NASA was putting this city on the map, the Astro's played in an iconic dome, etc. etc.
I think people that spent their youth in Houston in the late 80's could agree that Houston was not this stale and bland, something changed along the way.
And it was the population, which boomed in the early 90's. But that doesnt mean that city-planners couldn't have built this city much more intellegently, they could have put together a cohesive cityscape.
Im not asking to imitate the cities up north, I'm just asking for logic, for something that works for people that will use the venues that are being built and not something that improves developers bottom line.
The Galleria for example, the worst possible place to put it, where the infrastructure cant support the influx of people in and out of that area. Why did they put it there? nobody seems to have a clear cut answer. Energy Corridor, what the hell is that? A bunch of companies that decided that they need their name on a building, so they ask their employees to not come to a centralized location, but to somewhere outside of that.
And since you're into labeling things, I guess I can be allowed to label this type of thinking as the "conservative" thought process. Where the common people get screwed but the corporations get rewarded with a greener bottom line, and of course everything will "trickle" down
Yes, Houston expanded quickly, but that doesnt mean it couldn't expand smartly, instead of worrying about have the anything goes, open business model, and start doing things that you know, make sense.
One positive thing that Houston did do in the late 90's, they diversified and now we have one of the best Medical Centers in the country, along with scores of other business that dont rely on natural resource availability.
And dont get me started about the lack of public transportation, there is no excuse for that, another victim of the "conservative" mindset. There are much smaller and "newer" cities with something that has public transportation, that isn't a complete embarrassment.
By the way, the "liberal" mindset that you seem to think the northern, and cali cities have. Most of the rest of the world is actually built for people to walk and minimize the use of a personal car. But I guess anything that imitates most of the rest of the world is considered "unamerican" by the "conservative" types and something that America is far and above.
Man, I don't know what to say. I just have never seen someone in my life with a passion for complaining about city development. Traffic? Weather? Cost? People even? Sure, all those things. But city planning? Never. LOL. OK, let me try this again, why don't you just move somewhere else? I'm serious. You seem young, mobile and ready to explore. I've lived all over. It was hard making the first move because you never want to leave your hometown. But once you move once, it's gets really easy. Why not give the east coast a try? Or go hang out with Dal out in SF. I'm dead serious. What's the worst that can happen? You hate it and you can move back. You're too young to be this mad and have your whole life ahead of you where you are just going to be mad everyday about city planning or lack there of. Whatever you do for work I'm sure you can find in another city. Go for it man!
Man, I don't know what to say. I just have never seen someone in my life with a passion for complaining about city development. Traffic? Weather? Cost? People even? Sure, all those things. But city planning? Never. LOL. OK, let me try this again, why don't you just move somewhere else? I'm serious. You seem young, mobile and ready to explore. I've lived all over. It was hard making the first move because you never want to leave your hometown. But once you move once, it's gets really easy. Why not give the east coast a try? Or go hang out with Dal out in SF. I'm dead serious. What's the worst that can happen? You hate it and you can move back. You're too young to be this mad and have your whole life ahead of you where you are just going to be mad everyday about city planning or lack there of. Whatever you do for work I'm sure you can find in another city. Go for it man!
Well there are somethings that cannot be changed, such as weather, geography, and the type of people is very dependent on an individuals experience. I've met great people in the NE and Chicago, and I've met some horrible people in Houston and the south.
Theres no point in complaining about things beyond our control.
Traffic, Cost, CITY PLANNNING, Architecture, Development, those things are completely controllable. The decisions that a city makes can either improve, or hamper these types of attributes. And as a taxpayer, I absolutely have the right to complain about things that my money is spent on. Those that dont say anything and just take the environment as it is given to them are obviously the ones who are never heard.
Oh but wait if anybody protests or says anything against their surroundings thats considered "liberal" or "a hippie movement".
I'm sure I'm not the only individual who finds the city planning and developers as kings mentality a bit sad and it minimizes creativity and maximizes profitability.
But I will be moving pretty soon, the company is going to transfer me to a chemical plant here pretty soon. And to be honest, there is a chance I could be in La Porte. Which, according to the other possible sites I could be in, wouldn't be a bad situation. And if I do end up in some small podunk town, I will be missing Houston almost every weekend, I'm very sure of it. There are people in a much more dire situations than I, and to be honest I am thankful for the life I've been given, just see things that annoys me and I feel compelled to say something. Unlike people who dont see anything but their own life and are in utter bliss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscgto
My sister bought a 30 yr old 1200 sq ft condo for 1M in Palo Alto. H.O.A = $6000 / yr
I bought a brand new 5000 sq ft home with 15k sq f lot in one of the best areas in Houston sub urbs for $500k, H.O.A = $975 / yr/
Enough said.
So do you think you've made some genius decision?
Obviously your sister values the environment and the area in which she lives in each and everyday over money and square footage.
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.
