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.
Ok what about coming in totown from Katy along the Katy Freeway, all the way in to downtown, it looks very nice. And west loop, although not sparkling "nice", is not bad looking either. North Freeway (Northside) is still below par between downtown and Greenspoint, and Gulf Freeway between downtown and BW8 South could be better. But I'm with Radiolibre, Houston has really stepped it up with all the new infill and parks. It's actually quite nice. Midtown, East downtown, Buffalo Bayou Park (west of downtown), River Oaks, Upper Kirby,West U/Bellaire, Medical Center, Uptown/River Oaks District. You can't tell me those aren't nice. Just remember, every city has their shabby, unkept parts.
You should give credit where credit is due and recognize.
I guess it would have to be a matter of taste. The Katy Freeway is a cool drive, but not what I would consider nice or attractive. Instead, it's one big river of cars lined with power lines, billboards, office parks and chain establishments. Texans are used to our freeways looking like this, but they can be very off-putting to those from other places.
Houston does have its gems, but you have to dig through a lot of mess to find them. I don't like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Feeder roads are extremely convenient, and I'd rather have businesses on the main arteries than grouped on the roads outside of neighborhoods. I'm more concerned about the asthetics close to home than on the freeways carrying people through our city.
Next time you're in Pittsburgh or LA and heading across town while needing gas, tell us how wonderful it is.
I'll take feeder roads any day of the week.
Living without feeders is a breeze for me. I really don't need them at all and they simply aren't worth the eyesore they create in our state. Historically, Houston (and Texas in general) has not been a city that values aesthetic appeal and it truly shows. It's a great city but it's not great to look at.
I guess it would have to be a matter of taste. The Katy Freeway is a cool drive, but not what I would consider nice or attractive. Instead, it's one big river of cars lined with power lines, billboards, office parks and chain establishments. Texans are used to our freeways looking like this, but they can be very off-putting to those from other places.
Houston does have its gems, but you have to dig through a lot of mess to find them. I don't like that.
Living without feeders is a breeze for me. I really don't need them at all and they simply aren't worth the eyesore they create in our state. Historically, Houston (and Texas in general) has not been a city that values aesthetic appeal and it truly shows. It's a great city but it's not great to look at.
How long has it been since you've been to Houston? You don't have to dig that far to find some nice areas. The inner loop is almost all nice. Galleria, upper Kirby, museum district, rice u, west U, etc. Even downtowns improved.
It's a much more practically designed city than most but it's not totally devoid of nice areas and you don't have to dig to find them. Again you're outlook is outdated. You'd have to be blind to not appreciate the changes Houston has made.
Feeder roads are extremely convenient, and I'd rather have businesses on the main arteries than grouped on the roads outside of neighborhoods. I'm more concerned about the asthetics close to home than on the freeways carrying people through our city.
Next time you're in Pittsburgh or LA and heading across town while needing gas, tell us how wonderful it is.
I'll take feeder roads any day of the week.
Agreed. They're the best. I don't know how someone can deny this. To sacrifice convenience for aesthetics is just being pretentious.
Have you actually been to Chicago? No, it is not ugly in the streets except in the very poor segregated black neighborhoods on the south and west sides (where no tourist ever goes, btw).
I lived in Rogers Park and in Uptown - there are a few ugly areas, but most are quite nice. Chicago is a place where you can walk around the streets - you can live there without a car and take the *el* or the metra. It is a very clean city - much more so than NYC because it has alleys where the trash and garbage are put out.
It also has a wonderful lakefront that is walkable and bikeable.
Yes, actually. And I don't agree that neither Chicago nor Houston are classified as ugly. Both cities have very ugly parts to them. And both cities have parts that are far from ugly. I'm just saying what the "mainstream opinion" is.
How long has it been since you've been to Houston? You don't have to dig that far to find some nice areas. The inner loop is almost all nice. Galleria, upper Kirby, museum district, rice u, west U, etc. Even downtowns improved.
It's a much more practically designed city than most but it's not totally devoid of nice areas and you don't have to dig to find them. Again you're outlook is outdated. You'd have to be blind to not appreciate the changes Houston has made.
Nope, not blind, and my most recent excursion to Houston was in May, so my outlook is quite current.
I agree with the poster who said that Houston isn't necessarily ugly but it is the least attractive major city, with the possible exception of Detroit. I'm glad that steps are being taken to improve the image, but its too little too late, in my opinion. The damage has been done and its made Houston what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
Agreed. They're the best. I don't know how someone can deny this. To sacrifice convenience for aesthetics is just being pretentious.
How is it being pretentious? The rest of the world gets by just fine without having a gas station and a McDonalds at every exit, but I suppose Texas is the only place that got it right? C'mon, now.
I'll say that it's not so much the feeders themselves as it is what Houston allows to go alongside those roads.
Lack of zoning isn't that much of a problem. Zoning is only a 20th century concept, with NYC being the first to implement such a code in 1916; that means that many cities in this country (including NYC) have substantial parts of their urban fabric built without zoning.
In terms of aesthetics, any district built before 1916 is going to be too compact and architecturally rich for zoning to matter. You can't really compare that to post-WW2 development built without zoning.
Nope, not blind, and my most recent excursion to Houston was in May, so my outlook is quite current.
I agree with the poster who said that Houston isn't necessarily ugly but it is the least attractive major city, with the possible exception of Detroit. I'm glad that steps are being taken to improve the image, but its too little too late, in my opinion. The damage has been done and its made Houston what it is.
How is it being pretentious? The rest of the world gets by just fine without having a gas station and a McDonalds at every exit, but I suppose Texas is the only place that got it right? C'mon, now.
I'll say that it's not so much the feeders themselves as it is what Houston allows to go alongside those roads.
Least attractive? Philly has a lot of blight, I would consider Houston to be nicer mostly because it's a newer city. I can respect the urbanist outlook and appreciate the city's older architecture but there's only so much you can take. I also think Houston looks better than non-West LA.
At the end of the day it's all subjective but at the same time anyone who doesn't think Houston has vastly improved is in denial. Too little too late? That is ridiculous. Gunion, you have your opinions and I have mine but this is beyond the pale. This is just being iconoclastic for the hell of it.
Feeder roads VERY convenient. Other cities make do without them but not eliminating that extra bit of hassle for aesthetic appeal is not worth it. Houston freeways are known to be easily navigable and are engineering achievement.
Do you feel as though you need to counter any level of perceived boosterism? It seems as though you have beef with those that champion the positive things about the cities and state of Texas. I mean calling Houston utterly irredeemable and that feeder roads ain't all that, it takes the cake.
Least attractive? Philly has a lot of blight, I would consider Houston to be nicer mostly because it's a newer city. I can respect the urbanist outlook and appreciate the city's older architecture but there's only so much you can take. I also think Houston looks better than non-West LA.
At the end of the day it's all subjective but at the same time anyone who doesn't think Houston has vastly improved is in denial. Too little too late? That is ridiculous. Gunion, you have your opinions and I have mine but this is beyond the pale. This is just being iconoclastic for the hell of it.
Feeder roads VERY convenient. Other cities make do without them but not eliminating that extra bit of hassle for aesthetic appeal is not worth it. Houston freeways are known to be easily navigable and are engineering achievement.
Do you feel as though you need to counter any level of perceived boosterism? It seems as though you have beef with those that champion the positive things about the cities and state of Texas. I mean calling Houston utterly irredeemable and that feeder roads ain't all that, it takes the cake.
Oh, that's definitely me. I'll own it. But, I stand by every opinion I've shared in this thread. You don't have to agree with them, but we both know I'm not the only person who feels this way about Houston.
1. Lack of zoning
2. Formulaic, office park architecture
3. Insanely wide roads and parking lots
4. Lack of a street grid outside of downtown
5. Feeders on most freeways, lined with billboards, pole signs and...oh, look, more parking lots
6. Monotonous or nonexistent landscaping
7. Demolition of most historic buildings
8. Main public transit system designed a street car
...
Lots of cities can claim to have a few of these issues. Houston has all of them. That's why it's regarded as especially ugly by many people.
True, but either way, it shows that zoning/lack thereof isn't a big deal to aesthetics as commonly thought. "Pawnshops next to strip clubs" was the norm in the US for the first centuries of the country's existence. 40% of Manhattan could not have been built today.
But cities like New York are the exception, rather than the rule, which applies to most American cities that saw the bulk of their development mid-century and beyond.
Oh, that's definitely me. I'll own it. But, I stand by every opinion I've shared in this thread. You don't have to agree with them, but we both know I'm not the only person who feels this way about Houston.
1. Lack of zoning
2. Formulaic, office park architecture
3. Insanely wide roads and parking lots
4. Lack of a street grid outside of downtown
5. Feeders on most freeways, lined with billboards, pole signs and...oh, look, more parking lots
6. Monotonous or nonexistent landscaping
7. Demolition of most historic buildings
8. Main public transit system designed a street car
...
Lots of cities can claim to have a few of these issues. Houston has all of them. That's why it's regarded as especially ugly by many people.
Again you'd have to be an utterly insufferable urbanist to think Houston has all those problems or that that your list is an even an issue. I mean you'd have to be find Uptown Park, Galleria, Upper Kirby, The Museum District, discovery green, etc all boring. Most of the development is for practical purposes. Big box stores are usually the ones that can afford the rent, non retail companies don't care what the office park looks like they just want a practical set up. Business parks out in the Bay Area not SF look exactly the same as the ones in Houston. Visiting Silicon Valley I thought I was going to run into stunning new age architecture but found boring old office parks.
What Houston had done to its green spaces had been remarkable the last decade. You'd have to be a fool not to recognize that. The feeders are incredibly navigable and add to the practicality of the city.
Last, you can't build historical looking buildings with modern codes and keep things practically and economically efficient for developers. Urbanists who whine about that know jack about construction. Or even economics or planning. And thank God there is minimal nimbyism in Houston too. All the new development I see here in LA matches that of Houston's, only thanks to the lack of nimbyism Houston is a decade ahead of LA in that regard.
So the list is spurious to all except the most strict urbanist who's stubborn enough to not admit the positive changes the city has made. But then again this goes in line with your attitude to try to prove to us Texans that nothing in the state is ever good enough. That you think we are boosting out of some perceived pride which you have such disdain for.
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.
