Jump to content

AnTonY

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    127

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AnTonY

  1. AnTonY
    But those posters were correct in that city actions play a huge role in how the landscape factors as an attraction. Just imagine if SF focused itself away from all the interesting scenery, and, instead, built wide suburban sprawl, chopping down all trees in sight along the way? Or imagine if Chicago and Miami built themselves well inland from their respective waterfronts? Without such connections and cohesions, the landscape wouldn't be able to radiate into the city vibe as strongly, and the resulting tourist appeal would be less dynamic. Houston's land may be flat like the Midwest, but that's where the similarities end. The Midwest does not have Houston's loblolly pines, live oaks, southern magnolias, etc. They cannot grow azaleas, camellias, bougainvillea, palms, etc that flourish in Houston. SF certainly has an attractive and world class location that aided tremendously in its tourist appeal. But I have zero doubt that Houston's landscape too can be advantageous to tourism. It just has to show and not tell.
  2. AnTonY
    Old thread, I know. But the article is highly spot on when it comes to the perception issues that Houston has. And this "missing media" gene plays a huge role in Houston's supposed lack of iconic landmarks: is it that the city truly is lacking in structures that could offer such integrity, or is it just a matter of the lack of exposure that ensured people never saw these landmarks? And by exposure, it goes well beyond media coverage of various forms (i.e. poems, songs, TV series, books, etc) to include connection with the urban fabric (to allow people to easily explore it). I'd imagine that many visitors to Houston don't even know that the San Jacinto monument exists, simply by virtue of how unconnected the site is with the city.
  3. AnTonY
    Not that Glenbrook is bad, but Gus was a FAR superior location for this thing. If there's still opportunity, then they really should switch back to Gus. @bobruss, luckily, the east/southeast sides of Houston have more mature trees and natural lushness compared to areas farther west. That should provide more than enough sight to look at while the garden is growing in.
  4. AnTonY
    Actually, the muddiness in Galveston Bay may not always have been: https://www.chron.com/opinion/king/article/Galveston-Bay-s-muddy-waters-solely-our-fault-5610001.php
  5. AnTonY
    This refers to Galveston Bay, not the actual island. If it's suspended sediment, then the water should be clearer on calmer wind days. The Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado rivers don't empty at Galveston. The Trinity and San Jacinto go through Galveston bay before reaching Galveston, so much of the sediment should be deposited. The sheer bulk of discoloration clearly comes from the Mississippi River.
  6. AnTonY
    Of course that depends on the view. Someone looking in at the skyline from the west (which, honestly, is quite a tired, unattractive shot to me) would not see much change. On the other-hand, looking in from the north across the bayou, one sees quite a change to the skyline, both from that building, and the 609 Main.
  7. AnTonY
    If you'd have just read previous pages of this thread (or even just scrolled further up), you'd have seen that you are quoting someone who clearly supports the use of palms in landscaping, even reviving the thread just to defend their use: Anyways, "tacky" was clearly in reference to the style of planting, not to the palms themselves. I support palms in landscaping, I just feel that their presentation is better as components of a sort of "vegetation wall," well blended with trees, shrubs, and flora that are evergreen (bolded because I dislike deciduous trees, my problems with them going beyond just annual mass leaf-litter issues), rather then just them lining streets by themselves. Basically, something like Gulf Freeway: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7403574,-95.354988,3a,37.5y,177.3h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC9aVuu94Gr4wwB5Y_8eGsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 And as I said in another previous post, I also feel green-belts, parks, etc (and even medians) are better areas than sidewalks for en-masse plantings of palms:
  8. AnTonY
    It's just the palm-boulevard type of landscaping. It's quite tacky when the palms are just by themselves, without any trees (or even shrubs) in the mix, and also when they are used on the sidewalks. Medians serve as better areas to line with palms.
  9. AnTonY
    I understand your viewpoint, I just showed why the requirements aren't necessarily neglected.
  10. AnTonY
    That's only a problem if they are the only type of landscaping being used. But in most cases, various types of broad leaf trees are planted with the palms, so the shade requirement is never neglected. The sidewalks aren't even where I would favor as a place for palms; they look best when they spread (en-mass) across green-belts and parks, like in the photo below. Hermann Park seems like an ideal place for it: Prado in Montevideo https://www.cruisebe.com/parque-prado-montevideo-uruguay . The problem with deciduous trees is that they can make a landscape look quite dull when they have gone bare. But, I can accept certain varieties of subtropical/tropical origin, like the crepe myrtles, or the bald cypress. Luckily, many far ranging varieties in the US become more "semi-evergreen" in warmer climates like the South.
  11. AnTonY
    Thanks. Now, don't get me wrong, it can be quite tacky if palms are the ONLY plants used for landscaping. However, I see nothing wrong with planting them along with other types of flora. In all honesty, I prefer if many landscaping features of the city not shy away from non-native plants. Not only are there obvious aesthetic benefits, it also is another way/mean through which the city can demonstrate its "worldliness." I also have preference for evergreen plants, although deciduous trees are good in certain contexts (i.e. those that are more "semi" in nature, those from subtropical/tropical dry climates, etc).
  12. AnTonY
    I'm not sure why people have a problem with palm trees being planted. While SE/coastal areas of the metro feature the most optimal growing climate (and with the largest varieties of species), everywhere in the Houston has a climate warm enough to support the planting of many types of palms. There are two native palm varieties specifically to the Houston area (sabal minor and sabal brazoria), but even if there weren't, it doesn't matter, since many palms have been shown to do well in Houston's climate, from dates to washingtonias to sabals. No palm is native to coastal California, doesn't stop places like LA from planting loads of them. It really doesn't matter if a plant is native or not; if it can grow well, then there is no problem using it. Crape myrtles aren't native to the US, yet they grow just fine in Houston, and no one throws a fit at their presence.
×
×
  • Create New...