[citykid09]

I didn't create this topic to rag on Houston, but I created it so that maybe Houston would get its act together. I was twice this past week and noticed trash all along many of the freeways, many run down buildings that still are used for business. How do these businesses distingish them self from one another when there are miles and miles of other junky looking businesses? Its like they don't care how the businesses look or how they make the city look. And why do businesses that go into locations were another business was and just past their sign right over the spot where the old one was? Don't they see that it needs to be fixed to where you can't see the faded spots where the old sign was? And its made worst when they are the large off the building signs that are ment to be seen from the freeway. And then there are the messed up parking lots with the weeds growing through, etc.

Why does i-45 to the Woodlands have a wiggly dividing wall with a extra large shoulder lane that is cluttered with trash?

There are nice areas though, the West loop and its businesses are pretty nice, and much of beltway 8 and its businesses are nice. Also parts of the inner 610 portion of 59 are nice.

Do people just not care how their city looks? The city keeps the above areas looking nice a fresh, but neglect the other areas, why? With all the trash just thrown everywhere and the miles and miles of ugly generic looking businesses seen from the freeways someone should tell the city that it needs to clean up its act and be stricter on codes about littering, and the keepup of properties and the exterior buildings.

This post has been edited by citykid09: Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 2:40 AM

[RedScare]

How would you say Houston looks compared to, say, Atlanta?

[citykid09]

musicman, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 1:40am, said:

it's obvious you have no idea who has responsilbilty for certain tasks.

Well it's obvious whom ever is is not doing their job.

RedScare, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 1:42am, said:

How would you say Houston looks compared to, say, Atlanta?

Atlanta freeways are forested, so its much different.

[Subdude]

citykid09, on Friday, January 2nd, 2009 @ 11:48pm, said:

I didn't create this topic to rag on Houston, but I created it so that maybe Houston would get its act together. I was twice this past week and noticed trash all along many of the freeways, many run down buildings that still are used for business. How do these businesses distingish them self from one another when there are miles and miles of other junky looking businesses? Its like they don't care how the businesses look or how they make the city look. And why do businesses that go into locations were another business was and just past their sign right over the spot where the old one was? Don't they see that it needs to be fixed to where you can't see the faded spots where the old sign was? And its made worst when they are the large off the building signs that are ment to be seen from the freeway. And then there are the messed up parking lots with the weeds growing through, etc.

Why does i-45 to the Woodlands have a wiggly dividing wall with a extra large shoulder lane that is cluttered with trash?

There are nice areas though, the West loop and its businesses are pretty nice, and much of beltway 8 and its businesses are nice. Also parts of the inner 610 portion of 59 are nice.

Do people just not care how their city looks? The city keeps the above areas looking nice a fresh, but neglect the other areas, why? With all the trash just thrown everywhere and the miles and miles of ugly generic looking businesses seen from the freeways someone should tell the city that it needs to clean up its act and be stricter on codes about littering, and the keepup of properties and the exterior buildings.

I would agree that Houston has large stretches of ugly areas, although it would be impossible to make a meaningful comparison to other cities on that count. A neat visual appearance just has never been a big priority here. Littering has always been a problem. The problem is the "broken windows" theory kicks in. When people see an ugly trashed up environment they are more likely to trash things up themselves.

Easy to pick out the problem, but hard to think of how a solution could be implemented.


Note a long series of off topic replies and personal remarks was cleaned up.

[Jeebus]

Citykid, can you give more specific examples of where these areas were? Perhaps some were the City of Houston's responsibly, where as some might be Harris County's.

As for the rundown buildings, sometimes thats all the space a small business can afford.

[citykid09]

Jeebus, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 10:17am, said:

Citykid, can you give more specific examples of where these areas were? Perhaps some were the City of Houston's responsibly, where as some might be Harris County's.

As for the rundown buildings, sometimes thats all the space a small business can afford.

The Southwest freeway, 290, 1-45, people need to stop "MESSING WITH TEXAS."

I think the west loop through the Bellaire area is a good example of how clean the freeways and there surroundings should look. The center wall it a solid one piece, you don't see trash everywhere etc.

[Jeebus]

Well, its probably a lot easier for smaller municipalities with only small stretches of freeway frontage to keep them clean. You'll find that Sugar Land has clean frontage as well.

[BryanS]

The biggest problem is business and billboard signage, along the freeways, and pretty much everywhere in the city. I would advocate, by marshal law if necessary, a city ordinance that forbids all signage along freeways and all major thoroughfares. Businesses feel the need for excessive signage, as way to exclaim: "Here we are!! Right here!" ... since the dawn of the internet age... all I need to know, to get to a business, is the freeway block number. So once all freeway and business signage has been immediately disposed of... I would, every half mile down all of Houston's major freeways, affix to the freeway light posts a number, indicating what "block" of the freeway you are on. So if I needed to go to the Lowes... and knew what block it was on, I could get on the freeway, know exactly where I am, and what exit I would need to take. Easy. Businesses would be permitted to affix their signage to their buildings, but cannot exceed the roof line. That would clean up a lot around here.

[sarahiki]

BryanS, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 2:08pm, said:

The biggest problem is business and billboard signage, along the freeways, and pretty much everywhere in the city. I would advocate, by marshal law if necessary, a city ordinance that forbids all signage along freeways and all major thoroughfares. Businesses feel the need for excessive signage, as way to exclaim: "Here we are!! Right here!" ... since the dawn of the internet age... all I need to know, to get to a business, is the freeway block number. So once all freeway and business signage has been immediately disposed of... I would, every half mile down all of Houston's major freeways, affix to the freeway light posts a number, indicating what "block" of the freeway you are on. So if I needed to go to the Lowes... and knew what block it was on, I could get on the freeway, know exactly where I am, and what exit I would need to take. Easy. Businesses would be permitted to affix their signage to their buildings, but cannot exceed the roof line. That would clean up a lot around here.

That is a good idea and would make a big difference. I think a big problem though are the frontage roads. If you drive down 288, which does not have frontage roads, you see the difference. It is a much more attractive freeway than any other I can think of locally. None of the nastiness that collects along frontage roads throughout the rest of the city.

[20thStDad]

sarahiki, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 2:16pm, said:

That is a good idea and would make a big difference. I think a big problem though are the frontage roads. If you drive down 288, which does not have frontage roads, you see the difference. It is a much more attractive freeway than any other I can think of locally. None of the nastiness that collects along frontage roads throughout the rest of the city.

I agree. The frontage roads might do well for traffic, but they really fugly up the freeways. I doubt there's any alternative to it now. As for excessive signage, I can't imagine an ordinance like that ever passing. I can see a start-up community trying to pull that from day 0, but the cost and amount of trash it would create to de-sign all the junkiness is astounding.

Litter, however, is something that I think can be addressed. I believe that half, if not more, of it comes out of the back of pick up trucks as they drive. I know some people chuck stuff out the window, but I doubt it's enough to account for all of the trash out there. The city should start a massive volunteer/prisoner (maybe not on the same day!) campaign to clean up what's out there now, and then start fining the dickens out of all offenders. 2nd offense warrants jail time. And this includes the pick up truck litterers. Most purposeful litterers are either kids or poor (just an assumption based on observations of where I've seen the most trash), so a nice $1000 minimum fine is really going to hit home.

As for old buildings, I bet we have a lot fewer run-down areas than, say, Detroit. And I would say most decent sized southern cities are as bad or worse than Houston. The only cities that maybe don't have those areas have geographical limitations, so their space is at a premium and not worth wasting.

[citykid09]

20thStDad, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 2:39pm, said:

I agree. The frontage roads might do well for traffic, but they really fugly up the freeways. I doubt there's any alternative to it now. As for excessive signage, I can't imagine an ordinance like that ever passing. I can see a start-up community trying to pull that from day 0, but the cost and amount of trash it would create to de-sign all the junkiness is astounding.

Litter, however, is something that I think can be addressed. I believe that half, if not more, of it comes out of the back of pick up trucks as they drive. I know some people chuck stuff out the window, but I doubt it's enough to account for all of the trash out there. The city should start a massive volunteer/prisoner (maybe not on the same day!) campaign to clean up what's out there now, and then start fining the dickens out of all offenders. 2nd offense warrants jail time. And this includes the pick up truck litterers. Most purposeful litterers are either kids or poor (just an assumption based on observations of where I've seen the most trash), so a nice $1000 minimum fine is really going to hit home.

As for old buildings, I bet we have a lot fewer run-down areas than, say, Detroit. And I would say most decent sized southern cities are as bad or worse than Houston. The only cities that maybe don't have those areas have geographical limitations, so their space is at a premium and not worth wasting.

I think they should hire people (maybe homeless people) to collect trash off the street and from people stopped at red lights that could also give the person collecting the trash tips. That way everyone could be happy. The homeless make money for doing something, and the city is cleaner. Just a thought.

[BryanS]

20thStDad, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 2:39pm, said:

I agree. The frontage roads might do well for traffic, but they really fugly up the freeways. I doubt there's any alternative to it now. As for excessive signage, I can't imagine an ordinance like that ever passing. I can see a start-up community trying to pull that from day 0, but the cost and amount of trash it would create to de-sign all the junkiness is astounding.

No they don't. The road is not what is ugly. It's all the signage along the road. Freeway, frontage, major streets that are off freeways, etc. can all be trashed with signage and billboards. 288 is "pretty" because large stretches of it aren't even developed yet. Has nothing to do with frontage roads, or lack thereof, IMO.

Why would it not pass? I can see zoning not passing, because Houston is way past any hope of being zoned. You'd have to tear down residential from commercial areas and vice versa. That would be a hassle. But why not a bill or ordinance that would require business owners to comply with "no signage" - not within a seven or nine year grace period - but 90 days. The city's trash problem is not what is thrown on the ground; it's what's in the air (signs and billboards). I'd love to vote for a get tough, no-signage ordinance. ... and if something like that does not pass... then what does that really say about the city? If the city can contract to clean up the entire city after a major hurricane... certainly it can deal with all billboards and tacky signage that will need to be disposed of, in short order.

I cannot read, from the freeway, 3" block letters of a business’s address on their door. To remedy that, businesses are compelled to erect signage, because signs can be made much larger than 3” block letters. But instead of the business erecting a huge sign, I'd rather see the block number on the freeway (on a 1 foot by 6 foot “marker,” every half mile or so), eliminating the need for road-side business signage. I wouldn't even need to know the cross street. If I wanted to go some computer repair shop that I found on the internet that is at 10560 SW freeway, all I need to do is get to the SW freeway and just drive to that block marker. No signage required. Cleans up the place and provides a useful system of navigation that is woefully missing in this city.

[TexasVines]

criminals, people on welfare, beggars, people in tax payer financed drug programs, people on probation or parole with no other job.......there are 10s of thousands of people out there to clean up a mess at very little additional cost......we as a society just need to have the guts to force these people to contribute instead of giving them a pass daily

[Trae]

People on welfare?

[20thStDad]

BryanS, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 3:19pm, said:

No they don't. The road is not what is ugly. It's all the signage along the road. Freeway, frontage, major streets that are off freeways, etc. can all be trashed with signage and billboards. 288 is "pretty" because large stretches of it aren't even developed yet. Has nothing to do with frontage roads, or lack thereof, IMO.

Why would it not pass? I can see zoning not passing, because Houston is way past any hope of being zoned. You'd have to tear down residential from commercial areas and vice versa. That would be a hassle. But why not a bill or ordinance that would require business owners to comply with "no signage" - not within a seven or nine year grace period - but 90 days. The city's trash problem is not what is thrown on the ground; it's what's in the air (signs and billboards). I'd love to vote for a get tough, no-signage ordinance. ... and if something like that does not pass... then what does that really say about the city? If the city can contract to clean up the entire city after a major hurricane... certainly it can deal with all billboards and tacky signage that will need to be disposed of, in short order.

I cannot read, from the freeway, 3" block letters of a business's address on their door. To remedy that, businesses are compelled to erect signage, because signs can be made much larger than 3" block letters. But instead of the business erecting a huge sign, I'd rather see the block number on the freeway (on a 1 foot by 6 foot "marker," every half mile or so), eliminating the need for road-side business signage. I wouldn't even need to know the cross street. If I wanted to go some computer repair shop that I found on the internet that is at 10560 SW freeway, all I need to do is get to the SW freeway and just drive to that block marker. No signage required. Cleans up the place and provides a useful system of navigation that is woefully missing in this city.

The feeder roads do ugly up the freeway, because it becomes lined with shopping centers and other crappy types of businesses that don't mind being on freeways. No feeder, no addresses, no businesses right there. Or at least maybe they don't stack up so densely, thus demanding annoying signage to make their business stand out amongst the hundreds of others...

I'm not even talking about billboards, I think a ban on those could pass. Those are pure advertising. But companies who put signs up to indicate their location? Never gonna happen. Fast food joints need that, and those are big companies that will fight the hell out of anything like that trying to get passed.

[Jeebus]

citykid09, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 2:53pm, said:

I think they should hire people (maybe homeless people) to collect trash off the street and from people stopped at red lights that could also give the person collecting the trash tips. That way everyone could be happy. The homeless make money for doing something, and the city is cleaner. Just a thought.

Too Utopian..

[Subdude]

20thStDad, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 2:39pm, said:

I agree. The frontage roads might do well for traffic, but they really fugly up the freeways. I doubt there's any alternative to it now. As for excessive signage, I can't imagine an ordinance like that ever passing. I can see a start-up community trying to pull that from day 0, but the cost and amount of trash it would create to de-sign all the junkiness is astounding.

Litter, however, is something that I think can be addressed. I believe that half, if not more, of it comes out of the back of pick up trucks as they drive. I know some people chuck stuff out the window, but I doubt it's enough to account for all of the trash out there. The city should start a massive volunteer/prisoner (maybe not on the same day!) campaign to clean up what's out there now, and then start fining the dickens out of all offenders. 2nd offense warrants jail time. And this includes the pick up truck litterers. Most purposeful litterers are either kids or poor (just an assumption based on observations of where I've seen the most trash), so a nice $1000 minimum fine is really going to hit home.

As for old buildings, I bet we have a lot fewer run-down areas than, say, Detroit. And I would say most decent sized southern cities are as bad or worse than Houston. The only cities that maybe don't have those areas have geographical limitations, so their space is at a premium and not worth wasting.

Good points, although I would guess that the frontage roads make both the visual blight and traffic worse. The latter because they have the effect of steering local trips onto freeways. That is why every other city in the country has avoided them.

like the idea of $1000 fines for littering. Unless we send a strong message that it won't be tolerated it will continue to be a problem.

It's come up before in other topics, but one thing that I really think contributes to fugliness in Houston is the overhead power lines everywhere. IMO nothing does more to give that special cheap third world ambiance. Even my former colleague from Turkey was appalled that a city the size of Houston doesn't bury the lines.

[jmancuso]

hate to say it but houston is just an ugly city and short of bulldozing the entire area and starting over, i don't see that changing. houston already has an ordinance that downed billboards are not allowed to be replaced. plus, it's not just the bill boards, it's the endless amount of strip malls, surface lots and cheap apartment complexes.

when the city/ state/ whoever does try to beautify a stretch of freeway (like 59 near montrose), the walls and bridges are trashed with graffiti.

[kylejack]

Houston jails are overcrowded and cannot afford space for litterers. Every litterer placed in a jail cell is someone worse getting released onto the streets. Do it with fines.

[citykid09]

Now Knowing that feeders are partly the blame for "Ugly" in Houston, I wonder if they will mess 288 up by adding feeders? And in new areas will they go ahead and do underground power-lines and not allow the huge outrages signs and billboards everywhere?

Just how did Houston expect to get the Olympics with the city in the condition its in? Was it planning to clean all of that up and speed up plans for mass-transit? Does it take an Olympics for Houston to clean up?

This post has been edited by citykid09: Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM

[Subdude]

citykid09, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 12:35pm, said:

And in new areas will they go ahead and do underground power-lines and not allow the huge outrages signs and billboards everywhere?

Fat chance I'm afraid.

You would think that after the experience with Ike this year there would be a huge program to start burying the lines. You would think, but you'd be wrong.

Quote

Just how did Houston expect to get the Olympics with the city in the condition its in? Was it planning to clean all of that up and speed up plans for mass-transit? Does it take an Olympics for Houston to clean up?

They obviously knew that the ugliness factor would hurt Houston's chances. True story: when the Olympic selection committee reps were visiting Houston, their drivers were instructed not to drive them downtown via Hardy Toll Road, 59 or 45 so they wouldn't be bowled over by the miles of sprawl. They had to detour on the North Belt to 290 (I think), and make the approach from that direction.

[musicman]

Subdude, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 11:45am, said:

their drivers were instructed not to drive them downtown via Hardy Toll Road, 59 or 45 so they wouldn't be bowled over by the miles of sprawl.

so taking a longer drive helps that?

[musicman]

unless taste can be dictated, eliminating feeders won't stop the problem

[TexasVines]

kylejack, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 8:16am, said:

Houston jails are overcrowded and cannot afford space for litterers. Every litterer placed in a jail cell is someone worse getting released onto the streets. Do it with fines.

fines mean nothing....you do it with fines to cover the cost of administration and mandatory NO BUYING YOUR WAY OUT requirements of picking up litter for one full day and it you don't make a good faith attempt you get to do it again

[C2H]

Denver built a huge noise reduction wall on the main freeway (I-25) with little concrete designs when they expanded their LRT. That helped hide some of their blight. I think if Houston did that it would help. It seems that the only freeways that are cared for are West Loop and I-10 West (Katy Freeway). 59 near Montrose does struggle with gang members who constantly trash it up with Grafitti.

I personally think a noise reduction wall which is tall enough to hide the ugliness of the city is what is needed. I was very frustrated and embarrased when I was driving my mother around while she was visiting for Thanksgiving. She was born and raised in Houston but said she understands why people think Houston is ugly when we were driving on South Loop between 288 and 45. She did say that the Katy Freeway was gorgeous and progressive looking but that's only a small portion of this gigantic city. Trees for Houston is a good attempt to beautify the freeways but its not enough to hide the ugly stretches off I45, East Freeway, 610E, and 290. The Palm Trees they planted on I-45 are not working. Half of them are dying and dried up making it look even worse.

I think a wall is the only answer to the problem since it doesn't appear that the shabby businesses off 45 aren't going anywhere. SOMETHING definitely needs to be done!!!

[skyphen]

20thStDad, on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 @ 4:40pm, said:

I'm not even talking about billboards, I think a ban on those could pass. Those are pure advertising. But companies who put signs up to indicate their location? Never gonna happen. Fast food joints need that, and those are big companies that will fight the hell out of anything like that trying to get passed.

Maybe one solution is to use highway signs like you see once you leave the city, like on the way to Conroe, that announce the exit number with the list of restaurants and gas stations coming up? It could just be a matter of having uniform signs like these that are tasteful and not so noticeable and gaudy, instead of business having all different shapes, sizes, fonts, designs like now. Or just have no signs at all. How do other cities solve this problem?

This post has been edited by skyphen: Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM

[memebag]

skyphen, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 6:49pm, said:

Maybe one solution is to use highway signs like you see once you leave the city, like on the way to Conroe, that announce the exit number with the list of restaurants and gas stations coming up? It could just be a matter of having uniform signs like these that are tasteful and not so noticeable and gaudy, instead of business having all different shapes, sizes, fonts, designs like now. Or just have no signs at all. How do other cities solve this problem?

Totalitarian dictatorships.



You folks should move to The Village. Not Rice Village.

[jayshoota]

C2H, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 6:22pm, said:

59 near Montrose does struggle with gang members who constantly trash it up with Grafitti.

This area has always had problems with grafitti but over the past month or so it has gotten really bad. Looks horrible.

[BryanS]

skyphen, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 6:49pm, said:

Maybe one solution is to use highway signs like you see once you leave the city, like on the way to Conroe, that announce the exit number with the list of restaurants and gas stations coming up? It could just be a matter of having uniform signs like these that are tasteful and not so noticeable and gaudy, instead of business having all different shapes, sizes, fonts, designs like now. Or just have no signs at all. How do other cities solve this problem?

Even around Houston, we have that.

When you look in the yellow pages... what do you see? Addresses. Not exit numbers. Not mile markers. No signs that show what is at the exit... Addresses.

I just randomly turned to page 190 in the CL yellow pages. There is an ad for Sprint. Location: 12804 Gulf Freeway. That's all it says. But where is that on the freeway??? If I could see a block number... sure would make it easy. But no. I must go to google maps... look at the cross street... and then exit and see their ugly signage on the side of the road. In this case, probably a giant sign, with all the businesses that are in that strip mall. When I go to a strip mall, I never look at the big sign... I am looking at the actual building... "Casa Ole... no.... Mr. Gattis... no... 24 hour fitness... I really need to go there... but no... Specs... maybe later... Sprint... That's it!"

We are never going to get rid of frontage roads. The next best thing is to eliminate all signage, billboards along the freeway. And businesses would not be footing the bill for block markers. COH would cover that.

This post has been edited by BryanS: Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 10:49 PM

[Fringe]

jmancuso, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 8:02am, said:

hate to say it but houston is just an ugly city and short of bulldozing the entire area and starting over, i don't see that changing. houston already has an ordinance that downed billboards are not allowed to be replaced. plus, it's not just the bill boards, it's the endless amount of strip malls, surface lots and cheap apartment complexes.

when the city/ state/ whoever does try to beautify a stretch of freeway (like 59 near montrose), the walls and bridges are trashed with graffiti.

Gotta agree with you. I love Houston but it is freakin ugly. Especially to newcomers. I just try to tell them that it has it's good points and nice areas, you just have to look over the general ugliness. I can only imagine the first impression visitors driving into downtown from the airport must have.

This post has been edited by LunaticFringe: Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 9:04 PM

[BryanS]

LunaticFringe, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 8:02pm, said:

Gotta agree with you. I love Houston but it is freakin ugly. Especially to newcomers. I just try to tell them that it has it's good points and nice areas, you just have to look over the general ugliness. I can only imagine the first impression visitors driving into downtown from the airport must have.

...or if you live and work here... go for skiing vacation, or some other destination... come back... it's kinda depressing, making that drive. You get a "fresh look" at just how ugly it is...

[sarahiki]

BryanS, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 8:01pm, said:

Even around Houston, we have that.

When you look in the yellow pages... what do you see? Addresses. Not exit numbers. Not mile markers. No signs that show what is at the exit... Addresses.

I just randomly turned to page 190 in the CL yellow pages. There is an ad for Sprint. Location: 12804 Gulf Freeway. That's all it says. But where is that on the freeway??? If I could see a block number... sure would make it easy. But no. I must go to google maps... look at the cross street... and then exit and see their ugly signage on the side of the road. In this case, probably a giant sign, with all the businesses that are in that strip mall. When I go to a strip mall, I never look at the big sign... I am looking at the actual building... "Case Ole... no.... Mr. Gattis... no... 24 hour fitness... I really need to go there... but no... Specs... maybe later... Sprint... That's it!"

We are never going to get rid of frontage roads. The next best thing is to eliminate all signage, billboards along the freeway. And businesses would not be footing the bill for block markers. COH would cover that.

So, how to make this happen? I would guess that Peter Brown is your best mayoral choice if you harbor any hope that something like urban aesthetics will be in any way a priority. But though I like what he stands for, I have no idea how effective he would be as mayor. Bill White has been incredibly effective and seems to know how to get things done; I am not optimistic we'll get so lucky twice in a row.

[musicman]

sarahiki, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 8:52pm, said:

So, how to make this happen? I would guess that Peter Brown is your best mayoral choice if you harbor any hope that something like urban aesthetics will be in any way a priority. But though I like what he stands for, I have no idea how effective he would be as mayor.

what has he done as councilmember?

[sarahiki]

musicman, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 9:04pm, said:

what has he done as councilmember?

I really don't know. This is what HE says he has done:
http://peterbrownfor....com/experience

[musicman]

don't know? go listen to him speak sometime and report back.

[sarahiki]

musicman, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 9:12pm, said:

don't know? go listen to him speak sometime and report back.

Why are you giving me a job? I'm not advocating for him. If you want to know, you go listen.

[TheNiche]

sarahiki, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 9:15pm, said:

Why are you giving me a job? I'm not advocating for him. If you want to know, you go listen.

I know that Musicman knows what Peter Brown is all about because Musicman frequently attends the same meetings as does Brown, and Brown usually gets a few words in whether he's the featured speaker or not. The words are always inane, transparent, well-spun politicized crap. He always makes an appearance then leaves the event well before it is over; it is insulting to the host as well as to the keynote speakers.

I've spoken to him on numerous occasions; he knows me by now. He's a politician. He does not care for the subject matter. He only cares about furthering his agenda. He is arrogant. He is insulting. He is presumptuous. And his policy is shallow, poorly-thought-out tripe rife with unintended consequences.

I endorse his opponent, whomever it may be.

[BryanS]

TheNiche, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 10:10pm, said:

I endorse his opponent, whomever it may be.

Annise Parker thanks you.

[musicman]

BryanS, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 10:35pm, said:

Annise Parker thanks you.

don't make me go here either. ask her about the civic art program she was pushing several yrs ago.

This post has been edited by musicman: Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM

[sarahiki]

TheNiche, on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 @ 10:10pm, said:

I know that Musicman knows what Peter Brown is all about because Musicman frequently attends the same meetings as does Brown, and Brown usually gets a few words in whether he's the featured speaker or not. The words are always inane, transparent, well-spun politicized crap. He always makes an appearance then leaves the event well before it is over; it is insulting to the host as well as to the keynote speakers.

I've spoken to him on numerous occasions; he knows me by now. He's a politician. He does not care for the subject matter. He only cares about furthering his agenda. He is arrogant. He is insulting. He is presumptuous. And his policy is shallow, poorly-thought-out tripe rife with unintended consequences.

I endorse his opponent, whomever it may be.

This is what I was afraid we'd get in terms of mayoral candidates.

Anyway, I didn't mean to threadjack this into a political discussion; I do think it's worth talking about HOW to make changes like the ones proposed above, regarding signage etc., happen.

[TheNiche]

sarahiki, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 9:25am, said:

This is what I was afraid we'd get in terms of mayoral candidates.

Anyway, I didn't mean to threadjack this into a political discussion; I do think it's worth talking about HOW to make changes like the ones proposed above, regarding signage etc., happen.

I think there's more merit in discussing the worthiness of change. I myself would prefer to see sign ordinances loosened up, or at least providing some more wiggle room for cool signs. Signs can be an art form.

I also consider signs (even those categorized as commercial signs with no artistic merit) to be an issue related to free speech. Unless they pose a threat to the public health or encroach upon somebody else's property, they shouldn't be regulated. And no, I don't buy the idea that drivers might be distracted by them. If someone is so easily distracted, that person's driving habits need to be regulated. There are plenty of other far more unregulatable and distracting things than signs along a road, after all. Really, can you imagine a conversation where someone gets pulled over for weaving in and out of their lanes or after a fender bender and they're talking to the cop and explain themselves by saying that they were distracted by a billboard!? BS. People trying to use that argument seem more likely just to be looking for a palatable way of arguing, discretely, to restrict free speech in the name of the taste police.

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM

[sarahiki]

TheNiche, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 12:44pm, said:

I think there's more merit in discussing the worthiness of change. I myself would prefer to see sign ordinances loosened up, or at least providing some more wiggle room for cool signs. Signs can be an art form.

I also consider signs (even those categorized as commercial signs with no artistic merit) to be an issue related to free speech. Unless they pose a threat to the public health or encroach upon somebody else's property, they shouldn't be regulated. And no, I don't buy the idea that drivers might be distracted by them. If someone is so easily distracted, that person's driving habits need to be regulated. There are plenty of other far more unregulatable and distracting things than signs along a road, after all. Really, can you imagine a conversation where someone gets pulled over for weaving in and out of their lanes or after a fender bender and they're talking to the cop and explain themselves by saying that they were distracted by a billboard!? BS. People trying to use that argument seem more likely just to be looking for a palatable way of arguing, discretely, to restrict free speech in the name of the taste police.

Yes, this is where the debate is. I think Houston generally operates on the principles you espouse... free speech, and freedom of commercial endeavors. Certainly it can be argued that Houston has benefitted, economically, from a generally unregulated atmosphere. But the downside is described above: an ugly city that is not admired or respected by the rest of the country/world, and as a result of the ugliness also does not attract the tourism or business that it should.

I would argue that while free speech and expression are great, when they detract from the majority's sense of what is nice to live around, and from the majority's bottom line (by repelling tourists and big events like Olympics etc), they should be regulated. We do this all the time in other arenas.

So, it's a matter of which side has more support. I think we may, as a city, be moving toward more regulations and more beautification. I hope so.

[TheNiche]

sarahiki, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 1:01pm, said:

Yes, this is where the debate is. I think Houston generally operates on the principles you espouse... free speech, and freedom of commercial endeavors. Certainly it can be argued that Houston has benefitted, economically, from a generally unregulated atmosphere. But the downside is described above: an ugly city that is not admired or respected by the rest of the country/world, and as a result of the ugliness also does not attract the tourism or business that it should.

I would argue that while free speech and expression are great, when they detract from the majority's sense of what is nice to live around, and from the majority's bottom line (by repelling tourists and big events like Olympics etc), they should be regulated. We do this all the time in other arenas.

Admire us for who we are and what we do, not for how we look. And if we cannot be admired by outsiders for those aspects which are admirable, then ____'em. I don't want admiration from those who are not themselves inherently worthy of admiration.

sarahiki, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 1:01pm, said:

So, it's a matter of which side has more support. I think we may, as a city, be moving toward more regulations and more beautification. I hope so.

No, it's a matter of which side has better reasoned arguments or whether their opinions are even valid. Right now, I'm still arguing that the 'public health' argument lacks validity and that the aesthetic argument is not particularly compelling.

If your point is that might makes right, well ultimately it does. But that's not a very effective way to hold an online debate or a compelling reason for me to abandon my position.

[sarahiki]

TheNiche, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 1:29pm, said:

Admire us for who we are and what we do, not for how we look. And if we cannot be admired by outsiders for those aspects which are admirable, then ____'em. I don't want admiration from those who are not themselves inherently worthy of admiration.



No, it's a matter of which side has better reasoned arguments or whether their opinions are even valid. Right now, I'm still arguing that the 'public health' argument lacks validity and that the aesthetic argument is not particularly compelling.

If your point is that might makes right, well ultimately it does. But that's not a very effective way to hold an online debate or a compelling reason for me to abandon my position.

I have no expectation that you will abandon your position. And my point about where the most support lies has to do with what direction the city is going, and what measures City Council is likely to take, not with what direction an online debate is going.

You, personally, may not want admiration for Houston from outsiders, but perception of Houston, and its ability to attract tourists, DOES matter economically. This is my point.

[musicman]

sarahiki, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 2:03pm, said:

I have no expectation that you will abandon your position. And my point about where the most support lies has to do with what direction the city is going, and what measures City Council is likely to take, not with what direction an online debate is going.

You, personally, may not want admiration for Houston from outsiders, but perception of Houston, and its ability to attract tourists, DOES matter economically. This is my point.

when the city doesn't enforce other ordinances regarding similar aesthetic issues currently, what changes do you expect?

[sarahiki]

musicman, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 2:25pm, said:

when the city doesn't enforce other ordinances regarding similar aesthetic issues currently, what changes do you expect?

To which ones do you refer?

[GovernorAggie]

TheNiche, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 12:44pm, said:

I think there's more merit in discussing the worthiness of change. I myself would prefer to see sign ordinances loosened up, or at least providing some more wiggle room for cool signs. Signs can be an art form.

I also consider signs (even those categorized as commercial signs with no artistic merit) to be an issue related to free speech. Unless they pose a threat to the public health or encroach upon somebody else's property, they shouldn't be regulated. And no, I don't buy the idea that drivers might be distracted by them. If someone is so easily distracted, that person's driving habits need to be regulated. There are plenty of other far more unregulatable and distracting things than signs along a road, after all. Really, can you imagine a conversation where someone gets pulled over for weaving in and out of their lanes or after a fender bender and they're talking to the cop and explain themselves by saying that they were distracted by a billboard!? BS. People trying to use that argument seem more likely just to be looking for a palatable way of arguing, discretely, to restrict free speech in the name of the taste police.

Niche is right on this one. The idea of getting rid of these signs is DOA because of the First Amendment, but sometimes there's so many signs that you can't see the basic freeway informational signs. I think that reducing sign heights would be more doable. I like Bryan's ideas about using signs to ID the block numbers, but I would just combine it with the existing signs. For example, on the Southwest Freeway, instead of the sign just saying "EDLOE/WESLAYAN 1/2 MILE", you put a sign that says "US59 3000-4000" above the exit signs (maybe a white sign with black letters like the speed limit signs) similar to how the interstates have the exit number above the sign or how some signs say "EXIT ONLY" and so on. That way, the freeway block is ID'd and it would say to the driver, "exit here for the 3000-4000 block of US 59."

TxDOT could test it for a while like they did with the pavement markings at freeway-to-freeway interchanges (which are EXTREMELY helpful)

Another thing about the litter--I can't stand two things while I'm driving; people throwing out cigarettes and stuff flying off the back of a truck. I personally would support a covered truck bed being required equipment. If a truck's bed isn't covered, police can pull them over and ticket them just as they would for a tail light or headlight. Just as every other traffic ticket is about safety, this one definitely would be. How much garbage comes out of people's trucks because they made a sharp turn, stomped on the brakes, or were just driving and the wind got to a loose bag in their truckbed?

[musicman]

sarahiki, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 2:40pm, said:

To which ones do you refer?

bandit sign ordinance, limiting garage sales so a house doesn't look like a store every weekend, cutting weeded lots, etc.

[skyphen]

GovernorAggie, on Monday, January 5th, 2009 @ 2:46pm, said:

Niche is right on this one. The idea of getting rid of these signs is DOA because of the First Amendment

I don't understand this argument. Did other cities that don't have this issue violate the first amendment in getting rid of the signs? That doesn't seem likely.

[tierwestah]

I get kind of embarrassed to drive my friends from Phoenix and Las Vegas through this ugly sprawling city. If drivers are required to take routes out of the way when Superbowl and the Olympics are in town then that's should turn the light on that something needs to be done. They did that in Superbowl 04. Why in 5 years couldn't they come up with a plan to beautify the freeway. I'm with C2h that the trees do jack to hide the ugly buildings and billboards cluttering the freeway. Why can't more of the freeways look like Katy FWY? I guess the city doesn't care about the eastside, southeast side, and southwest side because all the money makers are out in West Houston.

I'm almost encouraged to write the Mayor on this. Would he be the proper person to address this issue to?