People Say Houston's ugly but not cities like Chicago, NYC, etc? (Dallas: new house, moving to)

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Our little bayous won't ever compete with an ocean, mountains, lakes or rivers.

The point is that other cities with such attributes automatically get points. People will overlook the homeless camps in LA due to the mountains way off in the distance.

You are being a bit over dramatic dont you think?People over look how dirty Paris is because ithas a culture and drop dead architecture.

People over look the homeless in SF because its a beautiful city regardless of how many homeless it has.
L.A. is not a beautiful city .It simply is.It gets away with all the things L.A. is known for because those attributes are stronger than its negatives. That is different for most people but for the average,its the same.
What YOU look for will be not what others find unattractive.

If Houston had a booming nightlife, tons of attractions,a great subway or light rail system,the historic appeal of San Antonio oetc,more people would overlook Houston's lack of character.

If I wanted to see the beauty of each city here is where I would go:

Chicago-Lake Shore,Magnificent Mile
Savannah-Walking the Squares,Riverwalk
D.C. Driving along the Baltimore-Washington Pkwy,Georgetown,
Philadelphia-Main Line,Fairmont Park
Miami-Art Deco District,South Beach
Kansas City-Grand Concourse BLVD(I think thats the name)
Atlanta-The BeltLine,West Paces Ferry RD,Piedmont Park,Stone Mountain
Pittsburgh-Drive coming into city from tunnel
New Orleans-French Quater,City Park

Some cities like Charlotte dont have one particular thing that makes it attractive.Its just has more attention to detail as the city is booming they plan for how each thing should look.
Atlanta has that too but its much bigger and has attractions as well as areas that are being regentrified as it is an older city (as far as development geos)

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by Spade

That's really not the point I was making. I'm saying use what you have naturally and use it to your advantage by fusing it with the city's fabric. Your city's natural wonders is not competing with another city's natural wonders unless you want to do so economically and even then, it really isn't competing that much. It also really doesn't matter if your bayou can't compete with rivers, lakes, sounds, oceans, mountains, hills, w/e. You have no control of that. You do however have the bayous in your backyards. Many of them.

Exactly.Look at San Antonio. Thats a creek running through it now its called the "venice of America".

Look at a city like Greenville SC.It was not attractive at all.Completely ignored the river running right by it for most of its life,It was a place just to go hang out.Now its a part of the fabric of Downtown with paths that go over and connect with downtown shops as well as parks.

[malcorub16]

Originally Posted by EEstudent

This is going to be a fun thread

47 pages later.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Spade

That's really not the point I was making. I'm saying use what you have naturally and use it to your advantage by fusing it with the city's fabric. Your city's natural wonders is not competing with another city's natural wonders unless you want to do so economically and even then, it really isn't competing that much. It also really doesn't matter if your bayou can't compete with rivers, lakes, sounds, oceans, mountains, hills, w/e. You have no control of that. You do however have the bayous in your backyards. Many of them.

Buffalo Bayou is being developed and turned into a real bonus for the city. It's one of those things Radiolibre is talking about when he says we are slowly improving and making headway. That area was a real blight in the not too distant past. Now it has a very nice section that is continuing its advance, slowly.

The key to the bayou will be to develop both sides with pedestrian bridges crossing it and some cafes and restaurants. They will have to design and build those taking into account the massive flooding it undergoes every so often.

The funny thing is that you hear a lot of Houstonians make fun of the Aquarim and its little amusement park without giving any credit for he amount of tourists it does attract.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Othello Is Here

You are being a bit over dramatic dont you think?People over look how dirty Paris is because ithas a culture and drop dead architecture.

People over look the homeless in SF because its a beautiful city regardless of how many homeless it has.
L.A. is not a beautiful city .It simply is.It gets away with all the things L.A. is known for because those attributes are stronger than its negatives. That is different for most people but for the average,its the same.
What YOU look for will be not what others find unattractive.

If Houston had a booming nightlife, tons of attractions,a great subway or light rail system,the historic appeal of San Antonio oetc,more people would overlook Houston's lack of character.

If I wanted to see the beauty of each city here is where I would go:

Chicago-Lake Shore,Magnificent Mile
Savannah-Walking the Squares,Riverwalk
D.C. Driving along the Baltimore-Washington Pkwy,Georgetown,
Philadelphia-Main Line,Fairmont Park
Miami-Art Deco District,South Beach
Kansas City-Grand Concourse BLVD(I think thats the name)
Atlanta-The BeltLine,West Paces Ferry RD,Piedmont Park,Stone Mountain
Pittsburgh-Drive coming into city from tunnel
New Orleans-French Quater,City Park

Some cities like Charlotte dont have one particular thing that makes it attractive.Its just has more attention to detail as the city is booming they plan for how each thing should look.
Atlanta has that too but its much bigger and has attractions as well as areas that are being regentrified as it is an older city (as far as development geos)

Aren't a lot of those cities talked in your first list; Paris, SF, LA, etc cities that people talk about as "nice to visit but not to live", mostly due to the COL and the homelessness?

People have different tastes but when it comes to the bare bones, plenty choose cities such as Houston and Dallas because they think they're cities to live in due to the lower COL, decent amenities for cities their size and more. They attract the type of person that isn't into aesthetics for the heck of it but is into crafting our a decent big city living at lower cost. The cities on your second list don't hold a candle to the type of economic footprint a young urban professional can carve out for themselves especially in North Texas.

This is all getting so spurious and it's just gnaws at some of you because many people such as Pedro and I don't tow the line that Houston is ugly and the cities known in the main are so wonderful and whatnot.

One guy living in a shack in LA or SF can say that they have QOL and act like a Buddhist by saying that they don't need a big house, big truck and some land like someone who could gain in Texas all they want, they may look for things outside of that, and it's different strokes for different folks but you can't numerically quantify better weather and cooler vibes and whatever else the person who chooses CA says they have. To people like Pedro and I, that isn't really worth it. So we have different tastes. I could look around LA or SF and acknowledge that it's nice looking but in the back of mind I think of the ridiculous costs, the Nimby-politics, the elitism, the trash, the homelessness and the arrogance behind the mystique and think it's not worth it and it loses it's luster.

For one, Portland Oregon ruined LA for me forever. After a visit up there I was under the impression that CA was the be all end all as far as states but was blown away by Oregon and now when I come home to LA, I think I am getting gipped. The brown hills, the dying palm trees and the skid row encampments all over hold no more sway. I look at Houston's newer development as nicer.

All in all, you just can't stand this stance that you feel is stubborn or iconoclastic for the hell of it when it comes to our preference for Houston or seeing the positive growth. And I know your full of crap by stating that Houston needs better nightlife? Are you mad? Houston has a great nightlife, it's just not all bound in one center like Vegas, NOLA or Austin. Are you sure you've been to Houston? It sounds like your running on straight narrative.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

It's [Houston's] still mixed used development, strip malls and all the stuff urbanists despise. I just happen to think it looks nice.

Thanks for answering ny query. Personally, I don't find strip malls and "all the stuff urbanists despise" attractive.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

I'd say much of Paris isn't pretty.

As the old saying goes: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Buffalo Bayou is being developed and turned into a real bonus for the city. It's one of those things Radiolibre is talking about when he says we are slowly improving and making headway. That area was a real blight in the not too distant past. Now it has a very nice section that is continuing its advance, slowly.

The key to the bayou will be to develop both sides with pedestrian bridges crossing it and some cafes and restaurants. They will have to design and build those taking into account the massive flooding it undergoes every so often.

The funny thing is that you hear a lot of Houstonians make fun of the Aquarim and its little amusement park without giving any credit for he amount of tourists it does attract.

Nothing will convince people who don't know Houston well enough of the positive and continuous growth the city (and Dallas) is experiencing. They run on narrative and think that we are just being stubborn or whatnot. The tastes and biases that they have are largely the typical tastes of the mainstream thinking on the coasts. That things have to be denser, that there has to be perfect public transport, that there has to be a QOL aesthetics even at the costs of practicality. It's a values thing. Many Texans just DON"T value that stuff and it annoys the crap out of urbanist purists.

Get in your car and craft a QOL on your own. Why do you need a city to define you? I personally grew up with the typical values that said why be packed in like sardines. Why this desire for crazy Manhattan style density? Why the desperate need for aesthetics over practicality? Houston has developed just fine without the lot of that and is still relatively nice looking.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Thanks for answering ny query. Personally, I don't find strip malls and "all the stuff urbanists despise" attractive.

I am telling you it goes deeper than just a question about aesthetics. It's about values. Some people don't value all that it requires to be named a cool hip city.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I am telling you it goes deeper than just a question about aesthetics. It's about values. Some people don't value all that it requires to be named a cool hip city.

Yes, but the thread is about aesthetics, not values. Does Kansas City have better values than Houston? How about Detroit? Toronto? Salt Lake City?

Let's stick to the OP.