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.
I think the lack of density as well as adequate mass transit is what hurts Houston including Dallas. Usually what grabs the attention of people to major cities is a long burst of high dense attractions whether it be shopping, museums, nightlife, arts, etc., and Houston doesn't do that yet. It's also easier to get around these cities because they have multiple areas of high dense attractions around the rest of the city instead of getting in a car. Right now, the only option Houston has as of now is the car even with the rail system they have now. The only city in the country that has been able to pull it off without an adequate transit system is Miami for obvious reasons. They are blessed with a great locations and used it to its advantage. Right now, Houston is creating islands of high dense attractions which is a nice start and many of them are impressive. Now the connectivity and cohesion on these attractions, and let me add, neighborhoods, are what needs to be worked on.
Austin is seen as a tourist trap in Texas but there is also a reason why Austin is always mentioned as one of the most overhyped and overrated cities in the country (and I love Austin). Austin has a nice downtown and probably the best in Texas but the rest of the city underwhelms in comparison to what people have experienced in bigger towns with better transit options. But Austin gets away with it because of festivals and again, its downtown. Which is why I personally say that if your downtown is healthy and vibrant, your city is healthy and vibrant and most people will look past the problems of the a city if your downtown is a magnet for people to visit. San Antonio to a lesser extent goes through the same thing. Lots of people love Downtown San Antonio but the rest of the city is suburban and i guess ok for a tourist.
Weather I don't think is a factor. People still visit cold cities in cold seasons and hot cities in hot seasons. Maybe these cities could learn to use being outdoors in hot weather to their advantage. How about a large swimming hole.
Great points. Density and neighborhood character are definite draws to travelers.
No, not saying that at all. I was merely answering the post that oddly claimed Houston had some sort of parity with SF or LA as a tourism destination because one could fly to Colorado in the same time I can drive to the Sierra. Pointing out that this was no reason to visit Houston. Nor was running in the park a reason to visit.
Good for quality of life for residents? Sure. But in the topic of Houston as a tourist destination, it didn't make sense.
I did point out earlier that bad weather is not necessarily a deal breaker for a city to be a tourism destination. Look at New Orleans or Chicago. Both have, arguably, worse weather than Houston.
You have trouble with reading comprehension. Or you are one of those who can't stand not having the last word. Try reading the 1st paragraph of my post.
You called mountains a tourist attraction and I pointed out that only a couple cities in the country had mountains. And you said there were no outdoor activities you could do in Houston which is an idiotic claim.
I think the lack of density as well as adequate mass transit is what hurts Houston including Dallas. Usually what grabs the attention of people to major cities is a long burst of high dense attractions whether it be shopping, museums, nightlife, arts, etc., and Houston doesn't do that yet. It's also easier to get around these cities because they have multiple areas of high dense attractions around the rest of the city instead of getting in a car. Right now, the only option Houston has as of now is the car even with the rail system they have now. The only city in the country that has been able to pull it off without an adequate transit system is Miami for obvious reasons. They are blessed with a great locations and used it to its advantage. Right now, Houston is creating islands of high dense attractions which is a nice start and many of them are impressive. Now the connectivity and cohesion on these attractions, and let me add, neighborhoods, are what needs to be worked on.
Austin is seen as a tourist trap in Texas but there is also a reason why Austin is always mentioned as one of the most overhyped and overrated cities in the country (and I love Austin). Austin has a nice downtown and probably the best in Texas but the rest of the city underwhelms in comparison to what people have experienced in bigger towns with better transit options. But Austin gets away with it because of festivals and again, its downtown. Which is why I personally say that if your downtown is healthy and vibrant, your city is healthy and vibrant and most people will look past the problems of the a city if your downtown is a magnet for people to visit. San Antonio to a lesser extent goes through the same thing. Lots of people love Downtown San Antonio but the rest of the city is suburban and i guess ok for a tourist.
Weather I don't think is a factor. People still visit cold cities in cold seasons and hot cities in hot seasons. Maybe these cities could learn to use being outdoors in hot weather to their advantage. How about a large swimming hole.
Transit is not a factor in tourist destinations.
How good is transit in Las Vegas or Orlando? Or Miami? Or San Diego? Who takes it to get to tourist attractions in LA? Who takes it to go to the Cascades or Olympic National Park in Seattle? Or who takes it in Rome for that matter?
How good is transit in Las Vegas or Orlando? Or Miami? Or San Diego? Who takes it to get to tourist attractions in LA? Who takes it to go to the Cascades or Olympic National Park in Seattle? Or who takes it in Rome for that matter?
Now density of attractions is a factor.
I said the actual city, not necessarily the entire metro area so for Seattle, I wasn’t thinking of Cascades or Olympic National Park. I also did say Miami is a special case because of its oceanfront. Most of Miami’s attractions are right along the beach in Miami and Miami Beach. For Orlando and Las Vegas, you’re only in general areas in both those cities. If you’re in Orlando, you’re at the theme parks. You’re not really going around the city. Same with Las Vegas. You’re at the strip. Hardly anyone wants to go to Vegas to downtown. I also should have mentioned Los Angeles as a unique city that gets away with along with Miami. Notice though they are expanding their transit system and they already had an extensive light rail system.
Yes transit matters because you have options to get around while visiting a city.
You have trouble with reading comprehension. Or you are one of those who can't stand not having the last word. Try reading the 1st paragraph of my post.
You called mountains a tourist attraction and I pointed out that only a couple cities in the country had mountains. And you said there were no outdoor activities you could do in Houston which is an idiotic claim.
So, according to your logic, Houston has the ingredients to be a tourist destination, right?
I wont argue with 95% of this. Its really preference. Maybe its because Im from LA, but I dont really care for SF. I like the South/East Bay a lot more.
You mention that "Cities that are great tourist draws usually have great, eclectic, vibrant, walkable districts and neighborhoods for shopping, dining and sightseeing that authentically portray the local character.". Id argue that LA doesnt have that in its entirety. LA is just as suburban as Houston or Atlanta, its just suburban sprawl on steroids. Yet, after NYC, LA gets more tourists than any other place. Id also argue that LA doesnt really do anything authentically except ethnic food and again, Im from there. I just see the positive and negative in it.
Sounds like you just prefer SF which I totally respect. Good luck to you!
The area has alot more to do as a tourist destination than Houston, even if it isn't terribly walkable...and even then, LA has quite a bit more walkable areas than Houston....Just consider the area between the Santa Monica Pier and Venice Beach (yeah I know it isn't technically LA.) or Sunset Blvd.
Even if LA isn't that dense, it is still easily twice as dense as Houston, and there is quite a bit more to see walking around.
Both Sprawl, but not all sprawl is the same. Mexico city "sprawls" but is much denser than either.
LA is a much more walkable Sprawl than Houston considering the much higher density and better grid.
I would also say that LA has a stronger "Local Culture and self Identity" than Houston or Dallas because it has been a big city longer.
As stated earlier you really have to spend more than a weekend in Houston to get its charms and you don't really hard to "Get into" unless you live there or visit frequently.
How good is transit in Las Vegas or Orlando? Or Miami? Or San Diego? Who takes it to get to tourist attractions in LA? Who takes it to go to the Cascades or Olympic National Park in Seattle? Or who takes it in Rome for that matter?
Now density of attractions is a factor.
In Vegas people usually stay in the Walkable Strip....the metro isn't walkable but the touristy areas are and have plenty of shuttles. So yeah, the touristy part of Vegas doesn't require a car.
Orlando is more about theme parks....people don't visit to see the city.
Miami: Miami is fairly walkable....but people largely go for the beach. This is the closest thing you have to a valid point.
You can easily take Transit in Seattle.
Olympic National Park is near Seattle, not in it. This is moronic. Of course, you have to drive or take a bus to a national park, do you know of any that have a metro system? This is a totally different type of tourism than visiting a city.
Rome: I've lived in Rome.
Virtually 0 tourists drive in Rome. The city is incredibly walkable so once you are in the central city there is absolutely no reason to drive. Everything is a 30 min walk from each other...and walking shows you hundreds of cool sites...walking is part of the experience. People take the metro or trams when they visit if they don't want to walk.
Being walkable and historic is literally the reason people visit Rome.
People rarely visit a location for its own sake unless it provides either Natural Wonders you can drive to or man built environments that are walkable and enjoyable to be in. Houston has neither.
The area has alot more to do as a tourist destination than Houston, even if it isn't terribly walkable...and even then, LA has quite a bit more walkable areas than Houston....Just consider the area between the Santa Monica Pier and Venice Beach (yeah I know it isn't technically LA.) or Sunset Blvd.
Even if LA isn't that dense, it is still easily twice as dense as Houston, and there is quite a bit more to see walking around.
Both Sprawl, but not all sprawl is the same. Mexico city "sprawls" but is much denser than either.
LA is a much more walkable Sprawl than Houston considering the much higher density and better grid.
I would also say that LA has a stronger "Local Culture and self Identity" than Houston or Dallas because it has been a big city longer.
As stated earlier you really have to spend more than a weekend in Houston to get its charms and you don't really hard to "Get into" unless you live there or visit frequently.
Im definitely not trying to argue Houston could be a tourist city in its current form, it really cant. Houston is great for a short visit if you know someone who lives here and can show you around. I wouldnt just blindly show up here. Id need a reason.
What draws people to LA has nothing to do with its urban qualities. Its that the city's identity which is exceptionally strong. That is something Houston really lacks. People know what LA is, people know where Houston is but not what it is. That said, no I wouldnt consider LA walkable. It has walkable pockets, but ground transportation is necessary there. To me, LA is the worlds biggest suburb and again I grew up there. I dont say that as an insult, but it is what it is. Is it more dense than Houston? Of course but Houston is also super suburban. The sprawl in LA is simply not urban.
Hey guys, i had to create a new account because someone flaged me as a "troll" and banned me till feb 2020. why? because i dared to speak on the hate houston gets in this texas forum. and once again im proven right with this troll thread. the REAL trolls Make several accounts to talk negative on houston. somehow its ok to do that but its not okay to call them out.
texas CD treats houston like the media treats trump. they will say everything negative and nothing good.
this thread is an obvious houston hater and TROLL. why is it allowed to reach 8 pages of replies?
Hey guys, i had to create a new account because someone flaged me as a "troll" and banned me till feb 2020. why? because i dared to speak on the hate houston gets in this texas forum. and once again im proven right with this troll thread. the REAL trolls Make several accounts to talk negative on houston. somehow its ok to do that but its not okay to call them out.
texas CD treats houston like the media treats trump. they will say everything negative and nothing good.
this thread is an obvious houston hater and TROLL. why is it allowed to reach 8 pages of replies?
just wanted to point out the hypocrisy
Well this in itself is a troll post. Not saying everything you wrote in your last account was trolling, but this one is.
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.
