# What is your favorite US city that is not located in....



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

What is your favorite American city that is not located on the West Coast (CA, OR, WA, AK, HI) or FL. Individual cities also excluded are NYC, New Orleans, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Boston. Go!


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Philadelphia.


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

Really? Why so?


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Mainly because you excluded every other city that I have some interest in. But Philadelphia have some awesome pieces of historic architecture from the 19th/20th century, have a nice skyline and have certain "edge" to it with stuff like the Italian Market. Of course I realize that they city suffer from violence and poverty too which is a shame, but that don't mean much when I'm located in Norway and choose my favorite.


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

The places I excluded may be popular and glamourous but there is so much more to the US than just those places that are always in the spotlight. I created this thread to see what cities people are familiar with that are outside the "spotlight"


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

^^ That might very well be possible, but Philadelphia is still my favorite of the rest. But then again I'm of course not familiar with _every_ town and city in the US.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Milwaukee.


----------



## kwoldtimer (Jan 18, 2011)

Washington DC for me. Then Savannah GA.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

Wichita, KS. Really loved hanging out next to Arkansas River and had some great time in the Old Town.


----------



## myuswadi (Nov 24, 2011)

Really loved hanging


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Philadelphia or Minneapolis.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

Easily Philly (which is actually tied most favourite US city with Chicago for me).

Has history (for a US city), lots of old style neighbourhoods, good density (atleast within the city proper). Also like it's edginess and that it's retained much of its working-class personality which is not so much the case with the more prominent and "glamorous" cities.

When I make that trip to the NE US I've been wanting to make for so long now, Philly will be right up there on my to-visit list for sure.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

Cities in Texas.. for many reasons I'm more into lifestyle in Houston or Dallas.


----------



## pbrdpbrd (Jun 8, 2009)

*Phoenix*

^^I moved to Phoenix in 1994 coming from Los Angeles. At that time I did not think much of Phoenix but after having lived here since then I can say that I love the place, Why?

1- It is relatively modern and clean.
2- The price of housing is very affordable.
3- Traffic is not that bad.
4- There are mountains to hike inside and around the city.
5- Love the hot wheather and the abundant sunshine.


----------



## krnboy1009 (Aug 9, 2011)

Chicago all day.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Some of my favorite US cities as with the description.

1) Washington DC - The nation's capital, centre of political affairs in the US plus a number of attractions and museums. And it's street grid pattern has the masonic influence.

2) Memphis - Elvis, FedEx

3) Kansas City - World famous BBQ, greeting cards plus a football team that beat Manchester United.

4) San Antonio - The Alamo, Riverwalk, Spurs, Tejano Music.

5) Atlanta - My favorite within this category. Southern hub, Coca Cola, classic skyline, rich African-American history.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

krnboy1009 said:


> Chicago all day.


Did you not read the OP's first post? :doh:



musiccity said:


> What is your favorite American city that is not located on the West Coast (CA, OR, WA, AK, HI) or FL. Individual cities also excluded are NYC, New Orleans, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Boston. Go!


Anyways for me I would say either Baltimore, Washington DC, or Philadelphia.

That being said I am perfectly fine living in Houston, as it is pretty laid back compared with most large cities and I can pretty much find anything I would ever want or need, plus the low cost of living is another added advantage.


----------



## Acosta (Jan 15, 2012)

_Philadelphia, Milwaukee or Minneapolis. _


----------



## LuisClaudio (Sep 13, 2011)

Denver,Houston,Dallas and Washington.


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

I am inclined to say Minneapolis but I live here so I will exclude it.

Other than that Philadelphia is my favorite. In terms of urbanity it is a real city. It was once the second largest city in the British empire so it has been around for a while. A lot of really big stuff has happened there; things that helped shape the entire western world, not just the US. It is pretty gritty and run down but is probably poised for a rebound. It is one of the best mural cities in the US. A once and future great city.

Honorable mentions to Baltimore, St Louis, Savannah, Richmond and Milwaukee.

I am not a big fan of the postwar sunbelt boomtowns, nothing against the people who live there but their urban form leaves a lot to be desired. Many (but not all) are cultural lightweights.


----------



## Acosta (Jan 15, 2012)

Somnifor said:


> I am inclined to say Minneapolis but I live here so so I will exclude it.
> 
> Other than that Philadelphia is my favorite. In terms of urbanity, it is a real city. It is also old and historic, at least in New World terms. It was once the second largest city in the British empire, so it has been a city for a while. It is pretty gritty and run down but is probably poised for a rebound. It is one of the best mural cities in the US.
> 
> ...


I feel the same. And the funny is that Georgia has got a incredibly boring city like Atlanta, but also the fantastic Savannah...


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

I haven't been to all of them. But Philly, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and MSP are all good.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Probably Philadelphia or St. Louis


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

Acosta said:


> I feel the same. And the funny is that Georgia has got a incredibly boring city like Atlanta, but also the fantastic Savannah...


Atlanta and Savannah - proof that bigger isn't always better.:yes:


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Acosta said:


> I feel the same. And the funny is that Georgia has got a incredibly boring city like Atlanta, but also the fantastic Savannah...


Dude, no offense but if you get so easily bored in Atlanta then you must be one boring person. Atlanta has alot of amenities such as theme parks, museums, etc that many other cities can only dream of having. It's one thing to say that you don't like the urban form of the place (which is fine), but to make a baseless statement like that just shows your lack of maturity.

Just my two cents. :cheers:


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

It's a legitimate opinion. 

Personally, I find most spread out cities boring...if you have to drive everywhere or take bad transit, that's a lot of wasted time at best. If you can walk there it's easier and more fun.


----------



## jabroni (Mar 24, 2011)

Hmm, I love Albuquerque, but it's more for what's around the city than the city itself. I also love the atmosphere of Pittsburgh. I'll have to go with Philly first, then Pittsburgh. I also like Portland, ME and Washington. I've never been to Minneapolis or Austin or Denver, but they look pretty cool.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

mhays said:


> It's a legitimate opinion.
> 
> Personally, I find most spread out cities boring...if you have to drive everywhere or take bad transit, that's a lot of wasted time at best. If you can walk there it's easier and more fun.


Even in the most "sprawled" out cities, most visitor attractions are in a small contained area so in reality you would not really be spending any more time to go in between places than say more dense cities such as New York or San Francisco. In Atlanta's case nearly every visitor attraction is concentrated in walkable neighborhoods that are accesible via the MARTA rail system so if one did not feel like driving, then they don't have to. Same scenario with Houston since the light rail system connects nearly every visitor attraction from Downtown to the Museum District with other major areas of interest frequented by busses that run every few minutes.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Philadelphia and Madison.


----------



## corredor06 (Oct 13, 2008)

Denver,Minneapolis,philadelphia.


----------



## apinamies (Sep 1, 2010)

Philadelphia and Washington. Baltimore is also nice. Detroit is also fascinating.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

I love Denver , great vibe , although I am very happy here in Orlando , Florida and well established , if I were to start again I would pick Denver , great place to visit as well with a lot outdoor activities and culture 
my personal 2 cents


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Santa Fé, Savannah, Minneapolis, Austin, Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.....


----------



## roe5745 (May 24, 2010)

Cincinnati, Salt Lake City and Denver


----------



## ManRegio (Jul 6, 2005)

Minneapolis, San Antonio, Austin and Dallas.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

diablo234 said:


> Even in the most "sprawled" out cities, most visitor attractions are in a small contained area so in reality you would not really be spending any more time to go in between places than say more dense cities such as New York or San Francisco. In Atlanta's case nearly every visitor attraction is concentrated in walkable neighborhoods that are accesible via the MARTA rail system so if one did not feel like driving, then they don't have to. Same scenario with Houston since the light rail system connects nearly every visitor attraction from Downtown to the Museum District with other major areas of interest frequented by busses that run every few minutes.


I partially agree. But even in the biggest cities I'd rather walk vs. take transit, aside from really long trips. And when I walk, I want urbanity that Atlanta and Houston don't provide, even as they improve. 

Overlapping topic...I like to visit cities that are worth visiting even if you never walk into an "attraction." That takes scenery, ambiance, urbanity, flavor, whatever. The "attractions" are what you do for a break between long walks.

That's why I picked cities like Pittsburgh and Philly.


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

Ive not been to the states (although I will be going there this year) but for me it would have to be Philadelphia. Mostly because of the Rocky films. Those steps must be amongst the most famous places in all of the US just because of the film. Another appealing factor of Philadelphia is that there is a WW2 battleship (USS New Jersey i think) which i would also love to visit. Add to all that a great skyline as well and you have a city that appears to have a lot to offer


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Washington, DC., especially its architecture. :drool:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

musiccity said:


> What is your favorite American city that is not located on the West Coast (CA, OR, WA, AK, HI) or FL. Individual cities also excluded are NYC, New Orleans, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Boston. Go!


Denver, Salt Lake City, Houston and Phoenix. In that order.

Denver and Salt Lake City for the sheer scenery (mountains on the background, canyons nearby etc), weather and ambiance.

Houston for having the most impressive transportation network in the World, arguably.

Phoenix for being very dry, having some of the best subdivisions in America and also being a desert city without the tourism-effect like Las Vegas.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Philadelphia and Washington DC would be my two favourites. I'd be very inclined to visit both.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Even if it's "tiny", it's nowhere near the point of being built out. There is plenty of land to develop and sprawl on.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

The Twin Cities see a similar pattern:










Still, I think this past decade will go down as the demographic turning point for Chicago, where the old impoverished districts finally broke down but the influx of yuppies had yet to reach critical mass like Boston and New York. I expect less than a two percent change in either direction for 2020, and then the start of a slow growth beyond then. (Especially if peak oil finally makes the suburbs unsustainable.) Zooming in on the city, you can see a close collaboration between poverty and population loss, and the city's average income is spiking upwards as gentrification takes an increasingly broad effect.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Don't see any discernible pattern in my ends, more like a patchwork.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

New York:


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

One of the most noticeable thing about the map of population change in the Twin Cities is that large swathes of the established suburbs posted population declines. This is driven by demographic change - fewer families and more old people.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Xusein said:


> Even if it's "tiny", it's nowhere near the point of being built out. There is plenty of land to develop and sprawl on.


Are there any zoning regulations to speak of in Connecticut? I know New Jersey has created a sort of a "green zone" or rather a "agricultural zone" in between the suburbs of NYC in the north and the Philly suburbs in the south, and elsewhere.

http://www.njlandlaw.com/


We don't have anything like that here.





Dralcoffin said:


> Still, I think this past decade will go down as the demographic turning point for Chicago, where the old impoverished districts finally broke down but the influx of yuppies had yet to reach critical mass like Boston and New York. I expect less than a two percent change in either direction for 2020, and then the start of a slow growth beyond then.


See, 2020 is too soon. Before you have Chicago's population growing again, you have to stabilize it. By 2020, there will probably be an additional 200,000 African Americans exit the city, but also we will probably see for the first time in the city's history the Hispanic population contract. Maybe by 25,000+. There is nowhere near enough gentrification going on to off set those losses. Mark my words Chicago's population will be under 2.5 million in 2020. I say stabilization will happen but not until the city flattens out at around 2.3 million.



> (Especially if peak oil finally makes the suburbs unsustainable.) Zooming in on the city, you can see a close collaboration between poverty and population loss,.


Peak oil isn't going to change anything, and it probably wont even come. First and foremost, most of the job growth today are not happening in the city center to begin with. As with most of the population, most of the jobs are in the suburbs. If you think about it, gas prices nearly doubled this past decade and that didn't stop sprawl.





> and the city's average income is spiking upwards as gentrification takes an increasingly broad effect


You can have a smaller more affluent and gentrified city with higher revenues. This is the model Chicago city politicians are banking on. Stupidly.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

See, we have completely different views of the city, so I doubt we'll ever agree on a model of Chicago's future. I may be too optimistic, but I feel you are far too pessimistic. It's easy to say the city is crumbling from the suburbs. Chicago will never drop to below 2,500,000. We won't see 3,000,000 in my lifetime (and I'm twenty) but we're close to bottoming out.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

chicagogeorge said:


> You can have a smaller more affluent and gentrified city with higher revenues. This is the model Chicago city politicians are banking on. Stupidly.


It worked wonders for New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC all of which gained population according to the 2010 census.

Wealthy people and singles don't tend to use many services compared with those with families so the city gains more revenue.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

diablo234 said:


> FYI: Miami's biggest tourist attraction is also a mall (known as Sawgrass Mills).


I _seriously_ doubt that. 

First, they self-report their statistics, and have a strong incentive to brag about high numbers, so they probably fudge them. 

Second, malls usually count everyone who enters, not just tourists. A teenybopper might be 100 visits per yer by herself.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

diablo234 said:


> It worked wonders for New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC all of which gained population according to the 2010 census.
> 
> Wealthy people and singles don't tend to use many services compared with those with families so the city gains more revenue.



^^


One decade of growth doesn't signify a long term trend (DC), and Chicago from 1990-2000. Boston and San Fran are small compact cities, that wont see huge fluctuations. NYC's population growth has slowed dramatically when compared to 1990-2000. Who's to say that there wont be a drop in population in 2020? Plus, NYC had the immigrant pull along with the gentrification factor much larger than Chicago.



Dralcoffin said:


> See, we have completely different views of the city, so I doubt we'll ever agree on a model of Chicago's future. I may be too optimistic, but I feel you are far too pessimistic. It's easy to say the city is crumbling when you flee to the suburbs.



I lived in Chicago for 36 years, and have studied it's trends. I'm not being pessimistic. I'm being realistic.






> Chicago will never drop to below 2,500,000.


I wish we could place a wager on that


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

chicagogeorge said:


> ^^
> 
> I lived in Chicago for 36 years, and have studied it's trends. I'm not being pessimistic. I'm being realistic.



Then the suburbs probably are the place for you. What would a New Yorker in 1981 have said about their city's future, with a city in worse shape than Chicago is now?


----------



## Aaronj09 (Jan 7, 2009)

Anchorage


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

mhays said:


> I _seriously_ doubt that.
> 
> First, they self-report their statistics, and have a strong incentive to brag about high numbers, so they probably fudge them.
> 
> Second, malls usually count everyone who enters, not just tourists. A teenybopper might be 100 visits per yer by herself.


You could be correct but from what I have seen the visitor statistics from other websites including the FDIC, states the same exact info I mentioned earlier.



> http://www.fdic.gov/about/jobs/work_se.html
> 
> More than 25 million visitors flock to the area each year to experience nearby Sawgrass Mills Mall, the state's second-most popular tourist attraction after Walt Disney World.


Also keep in mind that Miami and Houston tend to attract alot of Latin American and European visitors/tourists precisely because of the amount of shopping opportunities available here since most goods in the US tend to be cheaper here than in their own countries.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Dralcoffin said:


> Then the suburbs probably are the place for you.



Well yeah. I have two small children and want them to get a good education, and a safe environment. Chicago is much more dangerous than NYC (per capita).



> What would a New Yorker in 1981 have said about their city's future, with a city in worse shape than Chicago is now?


NYC was not in worse shape even in 1981 (in terms of it's population flux) and really there is no comparison. NYC had only 2 decades in the last 50 years that saw a population loss.











while Chicago had only one decade with a population gain in the last 50 years.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

This argument is going nowhere. I'm out. Let Chicago die and let's see what 2050 brings, when Chicago looks like a big Detroit with a shinier downtown, and the suburbs reach Kankakee and Rockford.


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

Isn't this thread specifically not about cities like Chicago (or New York)?


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Philadelphia

Center City's boom and North East growth just cancels out the bleeding out of North and West Philly.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Dralcoffin said:


> Yes, think of the children. They are the future after all, and our big cities clearly have no future compared to the sanctuary of the suburbs. I'm out. Let Chicago die and let's see what 2050 brings, when Chicago looks like a big Detroit with a shinier downtown,



Go tell that to the nearly 200,000 African Americans who left Chicago (and for good reason) this past decade. Or do you give them a pass for exiting the city that failed to provide a decent living environment. They had a reason to move out, but I didn't? What about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that are now bypassing the city all together for the suburbs? Are they at fault too?:sleepy:

No, I should sit there and expose my children to the same shit I was exposed to growing up... Why? Just to say they won't abandon the neighborhood? F that. I fought the good fight for 36 years. Sorry, I had enough. Most *schools suck*. I should know, since I am a teacher. Property taxes way too high for the real estate. City fees getting out of hand. Crime, not as bad as when I was young, but still unacceptably high. 




> and the suburbs reach Kankakee and Rockford.


Suburbs have already reached Kankakee. It's part of the CSA. Rockford in about 10-20 years.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

I really don't care any longer, George. You win. Maybe I'll just settle for New York; there's a city that people are proud to live in.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

^^

Good luck to you. May I ask, do you have kids? And, what part of the "heart of the city" do you reside in?





> I'll just settle for New York; there's a city that people are proud to live in.


No, I'm not at all proud to be from Chicago.:sleepy:











But, pride is put aside when it comes to the best interests of your family. Maybe this kind of thinking comes with age. I'll be 40 this year.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Atlanta, Orlando, Nashville, Columbus, Charlotte, Austin, Dallas, Cleveland.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

diablo234 said:


> So are such cities as Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc but to most people here those cities are anything but "bland". Houston is no different since you still have plenty of neighborhoods that predate the post WWII era with a history to match.
> 
> FYI: Miami's biggest tourist attraction is also a mall (known as Sawgrass Mills).


Please don't compare Houston to Miami. That's just ridiculous. Miami has beautiful beaches, Art Deco architecture, amazing nightlife... South Beach alone has got probably more fun crammed into it than in all of Texas. Which is why Miami is an international tourist hotspot. 

What does Houston have that could possibly appeal to a tourist? A nice art museum? 

Houston might be a nice place to live and raise a family (for the right person) because it is very cheap, has a good job market and has the amenities of a large city. But it's not the most exciting or visually appealing place.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Somnifor said:


> I grew up an hour west of Albany and Troy (and Schenectady). They had a great 19th century and have the urban fabric and architecture to prove it, but unfortunately these places are dead today. They have stagnant economies and an insular culture. They are the sorts of places intelligent, ambitious or creative types leave.


Well, there are more people and life on the streets of Albany then in some other bigger US cities that you would claim to be more prosporous in the immages I can see on street vieuw... Everything looks well maintained, no bad spots. I don't think those cities are doing bad at all...


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

Good, we're back on topic.


----------



## Cloud92 (Jul 26, 2011)

Austin Texas for me. the music and local food are great and nice people all around

Washington D.C is another I've only visited but I like how architecturally beautiful it is.


----------



## Orionol (Feb 13, 2009)

I would say:

1. Cleveland
2. Washington D.C
3. Philadelphia
4. Buffalo
5. Milwaukee
:cheers:


----------



## Daniel.Lucas (Apr 20, 2011)

1-Phoenix
2-Memphis
3-Atlanta
4-Orlando
5-St. Louis


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> Please don't compare Houston to Miami. That's just ridiculous. Miami has beautiful beaches, Art Deco architecture, amazing nightlife... South Beach alone has got probably more fun crammed into it than in all of Texas. Which is why Miami is an international tourist hotspot.
> 
> What does Houston have that could possibly appeal to a tourist? A nice art museum?
> 
> Houston might be a nice place to live and raise a family (for the right person) because it is very cheap, has a good job market and has the amenities of a large city. But it's not the most exciting or visually appealing place.


A couple *world renowned* art museums in fact (including the Menil Collection, Museum of Fine Arts-Houston, and Contemporary Arts Museum – Houston among many others) and Houston also has a beach nearby and several other striking architectural noteworthy buildings including the Orange Show, Chapel of St. Basil, Menil Collection, and Cullinan Hall, among many others.

Houston as a whole isn't catered to tourists, but like many business orientated cities (ie Frankfurt, Zurich, Brussels, etc) that does not mean that it does mean that it is devoid of anything that is culturally unique. 

Here is a thought, maybe you should actually visit the city before you make an ass out of yourself by saying these things about a city (and state) that you obviously have not even visited? :nuts: :doh:


----------



## Professor L Gee (Aug 10, 2009)

Atlanta
Raleigh
Washington (in retrospect)

And I gotta say my current city of Athens is pretty cool too. Especially downtown.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Professor L Gee said:


> Atlanta
> Raleigh
> Washington (in retrospect)
> 
> And I gotta say my current city of Athens is pretty cool too. Especially downtown.


Raleigh? Can I ask why? I live here and I'd definitely say it's overrated. A great place to live, but to visit, or to really enjoy living in and having a life full of excitement... eghhhhh not so much.


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

What's everyone's obsession with 'excitement' and 'nightlife' on this forum. Does anyone just like a nice, quiet, laid back city to live in? :cheers:


----------



## Professor L Gee (Aug 10, 2009)

royal rose1 said:


> Raleigh? Can I ask why? I live here and I'd definitely say it's overrated. A great place to live, but to visit, or to really enjoy living in and having a life full of excitement... eghhhhh not so much.


I've visited quite a few times, as my wife has family in the area. Downtown has definitely come up over the past few years as far as highrise development and density. Outside of downtown, I had pretty good impressions of the Crabtree and Millbrook areas in the northern reaches of the city. Also, the trees everywhere are a nice touch and something I've not seen in a city of near 400K.

That said, I dislike Capital Boulevard. South of 540, I avoid it as best I can... which is not easy.

ETA: I'm also a family man, so my excitement has a lot more to do with "what's my daughter getting into now" these days. :lol:


----------



## Professor L Gee (Aug 10, 2009)

musiccity said:


> What's everyone's obsession with 'excitement' and 'nightlife' on this forum. Does anyone just like a nice, quiet, laid back city to live in? :cheers:


Me, I like living in one while having the other nearby.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Why are so many places called "world renowned"? 

I don't mean to pick on Houston. Lots of places are called "world famous" or world renowned but relatively few really are, almost by definition. I certainly wouldn't claim that any of my city's arts organizations are at that level of fame...


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

mhays said:


> Why are so many places called "world renowned"?
> 
> I don't mean to pick on Houston. Lots of places are called "world famous" or world renowned but relatively few really are, almost by definition. I certainly wouldn't claim that any of my city's arts organizations are at that level of fame...


Fair enough, what I actually meant is that they are relatively well known in art circles in the North America, but my response was mostly directed to Fitzrovian's and that other person's earlier response who said that Houston was culturally devoid and that there are no "tourist" attractions, etc which was just flat out bullshit no matter which way you point it. No, Houston is not a touristy city when compared with NYC, DC, San Francisco, etc but as in any city over two-three million people, there are plenty of things to see and do, if one is not lazy and actually puts in the time and effort to be adventorous.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

diablo234 said:


> A couple *world renowned* art museums in fact (including the Menil Collection, Museum of Fine Arts-Houston, and Contemporary Arts Museum – Houston among many others) and Houston also has a beach nearby and several other striking architectural noteworthy buildings including the Orange Show, Chapel of St. Basil, Menil Collection, and Cullinan Hall, among many others.
> 
> Houston as a whole isn't catered to tourists, but like many business orientated cities (ie Frankfurt, Zurich, Brussels, etc) that does not mean that it does mean that it is devoid of anything that is culturally unique.
> 
> Here is a thought, maybe you should actually visit the city before you make an ass out of yourself by saying these things about a city (and state) that you obviously have not even visited? :nuts: :doh:


I have been to Houston (albeit for a business trip) and I have no interest in coming back. It is as flat as a pancake and almost entirely suburban. It has been designed for cars, not pedestrians. Its downtown is embarrassingly lifeless for a metro area of 6 million - a mishmash of corporate boxes and parking lots. LA shares some of the same urban characteristics, but at least it has plenty of cool neighborhoods, interesting architecture and beautiful topography. With Houston there really isn't much to like.

It is obvious that you haven't seen much of the world (or your blind homerism is getting the best of you) if you can even mention Houston in the same sentence with Brussels and Zurich.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

diablo234 said:


> Fair enough, what I actually meant is that they are relatively well known in art circles in the North America, but my response was mostly directed to Fitzrovian's and that other person's earlier response who said that Houston was culturally devoid and that there are no "tourist" attractions, etc which was just flat out bullshit no matter which way you point it. No, Houston is not a touristy city when compared with NYC, DC, San Francisco, etc but as in any city over two-three million people, there are plenty of things to see and do, if one is not lazy and actually puts in the time and effort to be adventorous.


Wow you went from "world renowned" to "relatively well known in art circles in the North America" in a NY minute. LOL... Says something about your credibility. 

Almost every city (big and small) has "plenty of things to see and do, if one is not lazy and 
actually puts in the time and effort to be adventorous". That doesnt mean there are no bland cities in the world. It's a relative scale. We are comparing Houston to other cities in North America, not to the Saharan desert.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

diablo234 said:


> Just so you guys know Houston is expanding their light rail network with three lines already under construction which will open around 2015.
> 
> The rail system will eventually look like this once it is completed, probably by 2025 although no date is set.
> 
> And regarding your criticism of the city as "bland", I would advise you to at least visit the city first before making such assinine comments.


I've visited Houston several times. Of course it is not bland but I find it less vibrant compared to lets say San Antonio when it comes to Texas cities.

The only areas I find vibrant would be Downtown Houston, Six Flags Astro World, Uptown where The Galeria Mall is located.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Fitzrovian said:


> I have been to Houston (albeit for a business trip) and I have no interest in coming back. It is as flat as a pancake and almost entirely suburban. It has been designed for cars, not pedestrians. Its downtown is embarrassingly lifeless for a metro area of 6 million - a mishmash of corporate boxes and parking lots. LA shares some of the same urban characteristics, but at least it has plenty of cool neighborhoods, interesting architecture and beautiful topography. With Houston there really isn't much to like.
> 
> It is obvious that you haven't seen much of the world (or your blind homerism is getting the best of you) if you can even mention Houston in the same sentence with Brussels and Zurich.


American cities are designed for cars including New York City. But the downtown areas or city centres where you can find pedestrian activity at least in cities like New York, Chicago, Washington DC., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, etc.

The reason why Houston does not have much pedestrian activity in the downtown area is because most of them are *underground* especially with its tunnel system of shops, restaurants and various entertainment areas.

LA on the other hand has a vibrant Downtown and pedestrian activity is high. And LA has its walkable neighborhoods such as around Hollywood Boulevard, Melrose, Santa Monica, Westwood Village, Rodeo Drive, the beach and more.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> Wow you went from "world renowned" to "relatively well known in art circles in the North America" in a NY minute. LOL... Says something about your credibility.
> 
> Almost every city (big and small) has "plenty of things to see and do, if one is not lazy and
> actually puts in the time and effort to be adventorous". That doesnt mean there are no bland cities in the world. It's a relative scale. We are comparing Houston to other cities in North America, not to the Saharan desert.


LOL, it says alot about your credibility when you said that there were no beaches nearby (which is false, try looking at a map). Again your responses make me doubt you even visited the city especially regarding the fact that you did not even elaborate on which sights you have visited here.

Even if we are just comparing other North American cities, Houston still has alot to offer when you compare other cities. 

Is it New York, or Chicago? 

No, but it definately isn't bland as there are things I have found here that are not found anywhere else such as the Orange Show, Beer Can House, and Art Car Parade. Maybe if you bothered to actually get out of your hotel room (that is if you visited) you would realize that.


----------

