AnTonY

On 4/26/2014 at 6:21 AM, livincinco said:

I wasn't trying to imply that Houston was ugly and I don't think it is. It was to point out that SF has a huge advantage based on its natural setting. The natural environment of Houston does not provide it any advantage related to tourism, it is similar to any number of other Midwestern cities. However, SF has one of the most unique locations/settings in the world. There is nothing that city planning could have done or can do to change that.

On 4/27/2014 at 8:38 PM, livincinco said:

 

You've got to be joking.  My comment was that SF has a natural advantage in tourism because it has a very unique setting that most people find extremely beautiful.  Saying that's not a factor is about the same as denying that Miami draws a lot of its tourism from its natural surroundings (oh wait, you said that too).

 

I didn't say it was the only factor, I said it was an advantage.  By the way, I hear that Hawaii's tourist numbers are good because of "what they have done", not the stupid beaches and volcanos.

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.

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.

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.

On 2/21/2007 at 5:33 PM, TJones said:

(HUGE BUZZER NOISE) WRONG !

Here Puma my friend, this gives a better explanation.

http://www.lazy-pelican.com/keeping-live-bait-alive.html

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

On 2/21/2007 at 5:33 PM, TJones said:

(HUGE BUZZER NOISE) WRONG !

Here Puma my friend, this gives a better explanation.

http://www.lazy-pelican.com/keeping-live-bait-alive.html

This refers to Galveston Bay, not the actual island. If it's suspended sediment, then the water should be clearer on calmer wind days.

On 2/22/2007 at 7:37 AM, brerrabbit said:

Not necessarily the Mississippi river but certainly the Sabine, the Trinity, the San Jacinto, the Brazos, and the Colorado all add to the problem. That combined with the fact that the Gulf is very shallow comparitivly speaking to other gulfs and oceans. It takes almost ten miles off shore to get past the hundred foot depth mark. Add it all up and you get murky water that deposits darker sand onto the beaches giving it a "dirty" look.

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.

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

More because it really isn't very big relative to the Houston skyline (it's about the 31st tallest building downtown, for now).  34 story buildings are just not likely to stand out in a skyline as big as Houston's.  

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.

On 4/10/2017 at 6:38 AM, iah77 said:

 

 

Maybe look glamorous, don't require much water, can grow surrounded by concrete without lifting it up, are ever-green, create focal points and don't litter a parking lot with 4 tons of leaves annually? 

 

How can a tree be tacky lol? 

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 hours ago, kdog08 said:

 

Fair enough. Highland Village on Westheimer is a place that actually gets some foot traffic that is lined with just palm trees. Just never understood that type of streetscape. 

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.

5 minutes ago, kdog08 said:

 

Well yes obviously as I was referring to just palm trees

I understand your viewpoint, I just showed why the requirements aren't necessarily neglected.

On 4/5/2017 at 5:46 PM, kdog08 said:

 

They just don't provide much shade in a city that needs shade along sidewalks. 

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

.

On 4/6/2017 at 7:59 AM, Twinsanity02 said:

In Houston we can grow a decent variety of palm trees from Pindos, Queens, to several varieties of fan palms some more cold hardy than others. They are beautiful and give a feeling of the tropics. For shade purposes I would think deciduous trees are better. They leaf up during the hot season and un-leaf during winter ( as brief as ours is)  allowing sunlight through. The crepe myrtle if turned into a "tree shape"  would look beautiful in our area. If is shade is what one wants can't beat the live oak or the magnolias that grow around here. Either way shading our streets and sidewalks would make the city a more pleasant place.

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.