People Say Houston's ugly but not cities like Chicago, NYC, etc? (Dallas: beach, cars)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does this apply to the relative attractiveness of Houston when compared with other cities?

The argument was that Houston sacrificed aesthetics for convenience when they decided to construct feeder roads on all major freeways. Apparently, they make the city look cheap with all the billboards and shops on the side.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does this apply to the relative attractiveness of Houston when compared with other cities?

Convenience is more important than attractiveness on the major thoroughfares for many residents including myself.

[LocalPlanner]

The perceived ugliness of feeder roads and other thoroughfares in Houston, IMHO, is primarily due to: (1) pole signs and (2) massive parking lots. I don't think there's anything inherent in feeder roads that should make them ugly. It's that we allow access to commercial development along them, which is also unsafe traffic-wise because feeders are typically moving at 45-55 mph. (The faster the road, the less access adjacent properties should have.)

The reason we have pole signs is because the development is set back behind big parking lots, thus you need the extra signs to tell you what's there as you're driving since the building itself is hard to see. So, it all comes back to parking lots (especially the ones with no landscaping). And the perceived convenience of having fronting parking lots does not outweigh the negative aesthetic consequences from the lots themselves plus the pole signs. Parking lots could generally be located to the side or rear of the buildings to provide a much improved aesthetic result. You can still have landscaping / street trees in front.

And, frankly, all commercial thoroughfares should have max speeds of 35 or perhaps in a few isolated cases, 40 mph. It will not hurt quality of life.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Tell me which major city you find to be pretty.

San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Chicago, Toronto, Vancouver, amongst others.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

The perceived ugliness of feeder roads and other thoroughfares in Houston, IMHO, is primarily due to: (1) pole signs and (2) massive parking lots. I don't think there's anything inherent in feeder roads that should make them ugly. It's that we allow access to commercial development along them, which is also unsafe traffic-wise because feeders are typically moving at 45-55 mph. (The faster the road, the less access adjacent properties should have.)

The reason we have pole signs is because the development is set back behind big parking lots, thus you need the extra signs to tell you what's there as you're driving since the building itself is hard to see. So, it all comes back to parking lots (especially the ones with no landscaping). And the perceived convenience of having fronting parking lots does not outweigh the negative aesthetic consequences from the lots themselves plus the pole signs. Parking lots could generally be located to the side or rear of the buildings to provide a much improved aesthetic result. You can still have landscaping / street trees in front.

And, frankly, all commercial thoroughfares should have max speeds of 35 or perhaps in a few isolated cases, 40 mph. It will not hurt quality of life.

I get this. It would definitely look better if they put the lot behind the businesses instead of fronting the businesses. I wouldn't say Chicago has feeders but they do something like this in spots but mostly keep businesses off of them.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by Spade

Because hardly anyone would classify Chicago as ugly and I never heard Chicago being known to be ugly in the streets. Ever been to Chicago?

So this is your idea of "not" ugly?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ch...297982!6m1!1e1

And I am aware there are touristy/showy parts of town. Just like they exist in Houston.

[radiolibre99]

The hard core urbanists discount any blight a city that lives up to their standards may have. Forever Knight hit the nail on the head.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Spade

San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Chicago, Toronto, Vancouver, amongst others.

Every US city you list is in the top 10 cities of homeless.

The Top 10 U.S. Cities With High Homelessness Rates

Personally, I think the army of panhandlers in San Fransisco is way uglier than feeder roads in Houston.

At least in Houston, you won't be accosted by a store along the highway.

Now, maybe you lived in SF and acquired the gift of seeing them as objects, like bike racks, Which the locals are able to completely ignore. On my trips to SF, I've always been amazed by the number of panhandlers and the ability of residents to completely ignore them.

Nearly 7,000 People in San Francisco Live Without a Home | NBC Bay Area

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

The hard core urbanists discount any blight a city that lives up to their standards may have. Forever Knight hit the nail on the head.

Yeah, here are some shots of beautiful Chicago.

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...-slums-55.html

I guess that since you don't see them directly from the freeway, they don't count.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Convenience is more important than attractiveness on the major thoroughfares for many residents including myself.

So? You can't seem to get it in your head that service station convenience is not the topic of this thread.

And even in this matter, I think your point is debatable. As I said, I've lived in 7 states and didn't find it more difficult to purchase gasoline in those other states than I did during my years in Houston. Was this true for you when you lived in other states?