Interesting HBJ article on new imaging campaign
jjp
Doug Williams
Special to Houston Business Journal
Okay, we've all had our fun.
We've had a good ol' time chuckling at the tongue-in-cheek "marketing
strategy" that highlights all the things we put up with (and
rightfully so) to live in and enjoy Houston.
But clown time is over, folks.
In the past few weeks, the Boston Globe and the New York Times have
both written about the so-called online "Houston: It's Worth It"
campaign under the smirking headlines, "Houston's Flaws Take The
Spotlight" and "Selling Houston Warts and All, Especially Warts,"
respectively.
While that may not dent our sense of independence and swagger, the
fact is we're getting a whole lot of ink for what's bad about the city
-- not what's good.
That's about as funny as a rubber crutch.
If nothing else, this latest ill-advised dip into the self-promotion
pool has renewed the debate about who we are and how we want to be
perceived.
Admittedly, too little thought and too much money has gone into
various "marketing Houston" efforts in the past. The question now is
whether we're going to keep letting the city be defined by others, or
do the defining ourselves.
Assuming that the latter is the case (and understanding that like
everyone else who has participated in this dialogue, I may be shedding
more heat than light on the subject), the following are some thoughts
on how to get started.
Jettison "Space City." It's too limiting, takes too much explanation,
and aligns us too closely with NASA alone. As important as the space
program is to the area, we're about a lot more than that.
Reach for the "sky." When the Greater Houston Convention and Visitor's
Bureau first rolled out "Space City USA," there was a second part of
the tagline -- "Who says the sky's the limit?" -- that has been
largely forgotten.
That's too bad, because it's a perfect theme: Easy to remember,
instantly understood, and a genuine reflection of the city, its
attitudes and its people. We live in one of the few places on the
planet where pretty much everyone thinks pretty much anything is
possible. Why not say it?
Get the convention bureau out of the civic image business. There is a
sense in some quarters that the current "Houston: It's Worth It"
campaign has struck a chord in part because it's just another fun way
to torture convention bureau chief Jordy Tollett.
Still, given that the "Space City" campaign seems to be about as
popular as telemarketers at dinnertime, maybe he -- and the bureau --
ought to get out of the creative image-making mix altogether and work
from someone's script.
Get the city into the civic image business. Mayor Bill White needs to
extend his management-by-volunteer-committee strategy to include a
Marketing Houston group. It should be made up of representatives of
the advertising and public relations community, working pro bono, and
charged with developing a campaign under the new theme for execution
early next year.
Jawbone the players. The mayor ought to secure buy-in from key players
-- including but not limited to the convention bureau and the Greater
Houston Partnership -- and get them to adopt the new theme as part of
their respective marketing campaigns. If there's just one competing
message out there, it'll dilute the strength of the larger effort.
Ask the local media to pony up. The daily newspaper and local
television and radio stations should offer free public service time
and ad space for the campaign.
Not a day passes that we're not deluged with 30-second spots telling
us how much broadcasters care about the city, or see print promos
hawking the paper's community commitment. It's time to put up or shut
up.
Plan for Phase 2. Most of this is focused on a first phase of
communication, aimed at internal (local) audiences. But the key is
what happens afterward. The mayor's volunteer marketing committee
should have a plan in place to target our message beyond Houston --
and somebody needs to figure out a way to pay for it.
It's interesting to note that in the days just before and just after
the Super Bowl, the media -- in and out of Texas -- were fawning over
Houston. It was as if they came expecting a lot of bad things, found a
lot of good things, and were for the most part pretty impressed.
But that was then, as the saying goes. The goodwill is gone, and
nobody's fawning any more.
They're laughing. We need to do something besides laugh with them. And
we need to do it now.
http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/09/20/editorial3.html
ToLo
> That's how the image ball bounces in Houston
> Doug Williams
> Special to Houston Business Journal
>
>
> Okay, we've all had our fun.
>
> We've had a good ol' time chuckling at the tongue-in-cheek "marketing
> strategy" that highlights all the things we put up with (and
> rightfully so) to live in and enjoy Houston.
>
> But clown time is over, folks.
>
> In the past few weeks, the Boston Globe and the New York Times have
> both written about the so-called online "Houston: It's Worth It"
> campaign under the smirking headlines, "Houston's Flaws Take The
> Spotlight" and "Selling Houston Warts and All, Especially Warts,"
> respectively.
>
I've spent a lot of time in both cities but live here in Houston. We do
a huge amount of business there in Boston and NYC and have for over 100
years. A lot of their "character", in fact, MUCH, comes from our
current and past projects in both cities.
While I'm not really happy with the recent "sprawl" aspects and growth
characteristics of Houston, I certainly wouldn't think of trading this
city with either of those. If Houston has warts, they, both, have Aids
and Herpes.
Steven M (remove wax and invalid to reply)
>That's how the image ball bounces in Houston
>Doug Williams
>Special to Houston Business Journal
< blah, blah, blah, ... lots of snippage >
>Get the city into the civic image business. Mayor Bill White needs to
>extend his management-by-volunteer-committee strategy to include a
>Marketing Houston group. It should be made up of representatives of
>the advertising and public relations community, working pro bono, and
>charged with developing a campaign under the new theme for execution
>early next year.
>Ask the local media to pony up. The daily newspaper and local
>television and radio stations should offer free public service time
>and ad space for the campaign.
>Plan for Phase 2. Most of this is focused on a first phase of
>communication, aimed at internal (local) audiences. But the key is
>what happens afterward. The mayor's volunteer marketing committee
>should have a plan in place to target our message beyond Houston --
>and somebody needs to figure out a way to pay for it.
>They're laughing. We need to do something besides laugh with them. And
>we need to do it now.
>
>http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/09/20/editorial3.html
Unless you're in the real estate or construction business, WHY?
I remember when the story was that the Astros would be sold and moved
to northern Virginia, unless they got a new ball park. Jeff Bagwell
was asked to speak out about keeping the Astros in Houston. He
replied that it wasn't his place. There was more to it, and he got
some flack, but I respected his position.
To me, this sort of civic promotion is a zero-sum game. You're saying
that Houston is better than some other city, so that some company will
spend its money here instead of there.
I mostly like Houston. I could do with some scenery and, as somebody
said a few weeks ago somewhere on the net, there's no distinctive
architecture to Houston. But Houston has its advantages. One is, the
house that I live in would cost about 5 times as much if it was
located in Berkeley, California, where my sister lives. It's a nice
place, too, but I can't make 5 times more money if I move.
--
Steve M - uns...@hal-pcwax.org.invalid (remove wax and invalid to reply)
"It's a Dog Eat Dog World out there, and we're looking for
a few Dobermans!" -- employment ad in Houston Chronicle
Flashman
"jjp" <jj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e795e9e2.04092...@posting.google.com...
> That's how the image ball bounces in Houston
> Doug Williams
> Special to Houston Business Journal
>
1. If Doug had read the two articles to which he refers, he would have
noticed that they were complimentary.
2. What does this have to do with Houston.Eats?
3. What is interesting about that idiotic article?
OB eats: Just walked to Mai's to have a nice 33 beer. Just like the old
days...
Lou Minatti
> That's how the image ball bounces in Houston
> Doug Williams
> Special to Houston Business Journal
>
>
> Okay, we've all had our fun.
>
> We've had a good ol' time chuckling at the tongue-in-cheek "marketing
> strategy" that highlights all the things we put up with (and
> rightfully so) to live in and enjoy Houston.
>
> But clown time is over, folks.
"Clown time" is what the GHCVB has been working on as long as I
can remember. They keep coming up with lame campaigns that
accomplish nothing except draw a periodic chuckle from the
nation's press. How much did they spend on that campaign in Time,
offering prizes? I recall they had a dozen or so entries.
> In the past few weeks, the Boston Globe and the New York Times have
> both written about the so-called online "Houston: It's Worth It"
> campaign under the smirking headlines, "Houston's Flaws Take The
> Spotlight" and "Selling Houston Warts and All, Especially Warts,"
> respectively.
Yeah, so? Houston already has a lousy image. I like the unofficial
campaign because it DOES get across the good points, and it shows
that we can laugh at ourselves.
I think I read something like this tagline on that site:
"Houston. A lousy place to visit. A great place to live."
That sums things up precisely.
> While that may not dent our sense of independence and swagger, the
> fact is we're getting a whole lot of ink for what's bad about the city
> -- not what's good.
That's always been the case. And unfortunately, our prior mayor was
content to let the bad ink fly because it served a political purpose.
I don't think White will put up with it, despite his party affiliation.
> That's about as funny as a rubber crutch.
>
> If nothing else, this latest ill-advised dip into the self-promotion
> pool has renewed the debate about who we are and how we want to be
> perceived.
>
> Admittedly, too little thought and too much money has gone into
> various "marketing Houston" efforts in the past. The question now is
> whether we're going to keep letting the city be defined by others, or
> do the defining ourselves.
>
> Assuming that the latter is the case (and understanding that like
> everyone else who has participated in this dialogue, I may be shedding
> more heat than light on the subject), the following are some thoughts
> on how to get started.
>
> Jettison "Space City." It's too limiting, takes too much explanation,
> and aligns us too closely with NASA alone. As important as the space
> program is to the area, we're about a lot more than that.
Jordy and his fellow geniuses never figured out that Houston is still
associated with Texas and the western myth. Ft. Worth figured it out
and play it to the hilt. Ft. Worth is a becoming a tourist draw now,
despite the fact that Ft. Worth is about as "western" as Houston is.
I'm certainly not saying that's the direction Houston should go.
However, I do think they should promote the Livestock Show and Rodeo
nationally. I mean, think about it. The one event/thing that is unique
about this city is the LS&R. It's a HUGE event, and it's a lot of fun.
Dallas draws a huge number of tourists into that hellish corner of
little d during the Texas State Fair. We should promote the LSR as
the springtime statewide "bookend" to the State Fair.
> Reach for the "sky." When the Greater Houston Convention and Visitor's
> Bureau first rolled out "Space City USA," there was a second part of
> the tagline -- "Who says the sky's the limit?" -- that has been
> largely forgotten.
> That's too bad, because it's a perfect theme: Easy to remember,
> instantly understood, and a genuine reflection of the city, its
> attitudes and its people. We live in one of the few places on the
> planet where pretty much everyone thinks pretty much anything is
> possible. Why not say it?
Because it's stupid. Because it's abstract gibberish that overpaid
civic promoters could apply to just about any city. "Who says the
sky's the limit?" could apply to Seattle (Boeing), the Florida coast
(NASA), Denver (Rocky Mountains), Montana (Big Sky Country), take
your pick.
> Get the convention bureau out of the civic image business. There is a
> sense in some quarters that the current "Houston: It's Worth It"
> campaign has struck a chord in part because it's just another fun way
> to torture convention bureau chief Jordy Tollett.
No shit. I've been wondering for a long time what the hell Jordy Tollett
actually does to justify his salary. I see him pop up in Shelby Hodge's
"celeb/rich important person" section in the Barnacle every once in a
while, and I see him quoted in these snide "Houston, we have a problem
with your image" articles that show up periodically in the New York Times.
<snip cheerleader shite from people who don't get it>
> They're laughing. We need to do something besides laugh with them. And
> we need to do it now.
What is the big mystery? They want tourists and conventions. But tourists
and conventioneers want to go to places where there are exciting things
to see and do. Outside of the LSR, Houston lacks these things.
Look at St. Louis. It's an ARMPIT, but they get lots of conventions due
to the fact that they spent $30 million about 40 years ago building a
spectacular arch.
Houston lacks an identity because it has nothing noteworthy to identify
with it. The Astrodome fit that bill in the 60s, but domed stadiums are
a dime a dozen now. Until Houston has something truly noteworthy and
exciting, Jordy and his crones will just be pissing our money away.
Short term: Play up the LS&R. Create a memorable centerpiece to the event
that people remember fondly. Look at Big Tex. Stupid, but he's an icon.
Create a sense of permanence there at Reliant.
Long term: Don't bother until something noteworthy graces our skyline,
and/or we have a pedestrian-friendly district on par with the River Walk,
or at the very least the Faneuil Hall area in Boston.
Lou Minatti
> Doug Williams
> Special to Houston Business Journal
> Get the convention bureau out of the civic image business. There is a
> sense in some quarters that the current "Houston: It's Worth It"
> campaign has struck a chord in part because it's just another fun way
> to torture convention bureau chief Jordy Tollett.
I just checked to see what the Jordy Bunch believes are the Big
Houston Attractions that will draw in the tourists and conventioneers.
The attractions are, in order:
> Moody Gardens
Very good attraction, but it's 50 miles away. If George Mitchell had
built this on South Main somewhere in the Museum District, we would
have had a major tourist draw.
>Sam Houston Race Park
Wow. Gambling on race horses. Casinos and race tracks are available in
just about any semi-large metro area. If I want to gamble I'll go to
Las Vegas. At least there I'll get free watered-down booze and have
access to good shows.
> Gulf Greyhound Park
Ditto.
> Trader's Village
You have GOT to be kidding me. It's a flea market. It's fun to go to
once in a while, but there is nothing unique about flea markets.
> Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavillion
Big deal. A concert pavillion.
> Six Flags AstroWorld
ROFL. AstroWorld is the most decrepit park owned by Six Flags. What
metro area doesn't have an amusement park?
> SplashTown Waterpark
It's a good water park, but so what? Any city with hot summer weather
has one.
> Downtown Aquarium
Good for 2 hours maybe, but it doesn't make me want to spend a
vacation in Houston.
> Space Center
Very interesting to visit the first time you're there. The problem is
it's 30 miles from Houston and it's not exactly a convenient place to
visit if you're attending a convention.
> Visitor Center
OK, I've lived here all my life and I've never even noticed it. I
guess they have a lot of brochures there.
> Bayou Place
An improvement over what was there, but it isn't much of an
attraction. Why would someone visit Houston just to see a movie and
then go play pool upstairs?
> Lone Star Flight Museum
Nice little attraction if you like old planes, and God bless the folks
down there for the work they do. But like Moody Gardens, it's 50 miles
away.
> San Jacinto Battlefield
Underutilized, neglected, and will never become the tourist attraction
it should be because of the filthy refineries. San Jacinto is more
important to Texas history than the Alamo. But it's 20 miles from nice
accomodations and it's surrounded by grunge.
(see http://www.houston-guide.com/guide/attract/frameattract.html)
Instead of promoting stuff that's available just about everywhere, why
not capitalize on things unique to Houston? For instance, why doesn't
this city have a Howard Hughes museum? Howie was born here. He died in
the air over Houston. He is buried here, in a remarkably unremarkable
site near downtown off Memorial. Howard was rich and successful and
was ultimately a freak. He is a great representative of Houston, and
the man deserves a museum. Done right, lots of people would visit.
vonroach
wrote:
>Ft. Worth is a becoming a tourist draw
Sure, it's where Kennedy spent his last night before moving over to
Dallas to get shot. Folks around Dealy Plaza have a cottage industry
taking care of tourists. And about half way between you can still see
America's wrecks clown-up a football game. Disney should turn DFW into
a theme park - `Has Been World'.
Rick Russell
Lou Minatti <loumi...@myway.com> wrote:
> Good for 2 hours maybe, but it doesn't make me want to spend a
> vacation in Houston.
And what would make you take a vacation in Houston? Let's face it,
Houston is a large industrial city with a diverse, mostly
working-class population. The sea port, chemical refineries and NASA
are the backbones of the local economy. We're never going to compete
with New York for culture. We're never going to compete with Boston
for history. We're never going to compete with San Francisco for real
estate prices.
Great places to live and raise a family will never dominate the
national media. Happy middle-class families don't make interesting
news.
Rick R.
Frank F. Matthews
much like Chicago's. However, is Houston Middle-class or Working-class?
You appear to claim both?
Jim Casey
> And what would make you take a vacation in Houston?
If I happened to live in, oh, say, Nacogdoches, I might want to spend a few
days in Houston to go to a baseball or basketball game, a symphony concert,
and some good restaurants. I can't see someone coming from out of state
just to visit Houston. If you're going to fly, you might as well go to one
of the sexier places mentioned.
However, if the PTB can get conventions to come here, the accommodations
are equal to those of any U.S. city and there's plenty to do outside the
convention for a few days. The winter weather is better than anywhere
north of the Mason-Dixon line. I have the impression costs are lower in
Houston than in cities like New York and San Francisco.
- Jim
jjp
You make some great points, Lou. I agree, what justifies Jordy's
salary? And no wonder no one entered that contest about visiting
Houston, the prizes/attractions were all things you could get
elsewhere, and not that great anyway.
If Houston wants to promote things that would bring tourists and
conventions, I think that would be our winter weather (i.e. for
golfers), our performing arts, museums and culture that are very
accessible and inexpensive (not NYC quality, but not that far behind
either), ditto for restaurants, and things unique to Houston like NASA
and the Livestock Show & Rodeo.
I lived in Austin for several years. Other than the state Capital,
there's not anything there that's truly unique either (there are many
similar mid-sized college towns in this country, and Austin's music
scene is very overrated). But somehow, they still manage to attract
lots of good attention. For example, someone with the city must have
gotten in with Fine Living, because I've noticed a lot of promotion of
Austin on their cable channel and website.
jjp
> In article <fc2fd83e.04092...@posting.google.com>,
> Lou Minatti <loumi...@myway.com> wrote:
> > Good for 2 hours maybe, but it doesn't make me want to spend a
> > vacation in Houston.
>
> And what would make you take a vacation in Houston? Let's face it,
> Houston is a large industrial city with a diverse, mostly
> working-class population.
I don't know that I'd generalize that description to Houston. That's
more representative of the east side than of Houston in general.
> The sea port, chemical refineries and NASA
> are the backbones of the local economy.
While the sea port is a backbone of the economy, I don't know that the
refineries and NASA are. NASA is important to Clear Lake/League City
etc, and the refineries are important to Channelview, Baytown,
Pasadena, etc. As far as Houston, the economy is probably about half
energy industries (which encompasses a lot more than refineries in
east-side suburb cities), and the largest employer is the Texas
Medical Center.
Randy
> loumi...@myway.com (Lou Minatti) wrote in message news:<fc2fd83e.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>jj...@yahoo.com (jjp) wrote in message news:<e795e9e2.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>Instead of promoting stuff that's available just about everywhere, why
>>not capitalize on things unique to Houston? For instance, why doesn't
>>this city have a Howard Hughes museum? Howie was born here. He died in
>>the air over Houston. He is buried here, in a remarkably unremarkable
>>site near downtown off Memorial. Howard was rich and successful and
>>was ultimately a freak. He is a great representative of Houston, and
>>the man deserves a museum. Done right, lots of people would visit.
It's not essential that some aspect of Houston be unique to Houston for it to be
promoted. In fact, I'd say that the reasons that people want to live in places
like Austin, Portland (OR), Ann Arbor (MI), Asheville (NC), San Fran, Boston,
Boulder, etc, are not because they're unique in any way, but because they offer
an appealing collection of services and attractions. IMHO, these include:
- an educated professional population base (including good colleges)
- white collar jobs (esp. young single professionals)
- culture (not museums/symphonies, but excellent TV/radio stations, bookstores,
live music, diverse nightclubs, outdoor cafes, etc)
- active lifestyle (not pro sports teams, but walking/bicycling/skiing,
intramural sports, lake/river activities)
- attractive surroundings (parks, streams/rivers/lakes, trails)
- young people who are upwardly mobile (not rich, but improving themselves)
- high tech support (wireless hubs, DSL/cable to most/all homes)
- appealing neighborhoods that are not insulated from life and are don't
discourage walkers and bicyclists
- neighborhoods with historic or innovative architecture, or at least cool shops
But few of these features occur naturally. They're the result of long term
planning, commitment, and execution. Sprawl (unplanned development) must be
constrained or it will overwhelm everything in its path. Developers must be
guided into making livable spaces, not monolithic shopping malls (e.g. Galleria)
that discourage residents from gathering or lingering.
>
> If Houston wants to promote things that would bring tourists and
> conventions, I think that would be our winter weather (i.e. for
> golfers), our performing arts, museums and culture that are very
> accessible and inexpensive (not NYC quality, but not that far behind
> either), ditto for restaurants, and things unique to Houston like NASA
> and the Livestock Show & Rodeo.
I strongly agree that Houston's weather is a one of its greatest strengths.
Houston has eight months of good weather, which is the inverse of most northern
cities. More should be made of this, although to do so would probably mean
shutting down or throttling some streets so that outdoor cafes could be
insulated from cars and trucks that otherwise thunder by.
>
> I lived in Austin for several years. Other than the state Capital,
> there's not anything there that's truly unique either (there are many
> similar mid-sized college towns in this country, and Austin's music
> scene is very overrated). But somehow, they still manage to attract
> lots of good attention. For example, someone with the city must have
> gotten in with Fine Living, because I've noticed a lot of promotion of
> Austin on their cable channel and website.
I think the difference between Austin and Texas' other large cities is their
greater success at promoting their white collar lifestyle. By attracting more
professionals, Austin has brought in tax revenues that all large cities need in
order to thrive (and not just grow bigger).
I've seen the same trend in some parts of Houston. Those areas with high
property taxes are becoming attractive (West U, Bellaire, Montrose, etc). But
it's a cycle. Only those areas that are becoming attractive can raise their
taxes. (Obviously other neighborhoods have high taxes for other reasons, like
building better schools (e.g. Pearland, Sugar Land, Spring, Woodlands, etc.)
IMHO, the general lack of appeal of these burbs proves that high taxes alone
cannot make a community attractive. You gotta *think* before you spend.)
If I were to suggest any one thing that Houston do to improve itself, it'd be to
discourage cars and encourage walkers and bicyclists, as far as possible. If
there were more Allen Parkways, other parts of town might attract the upwardly
mobile, which IMO, is the road to better living. Attractive shops and housing
developments spring up only after people care what is being built on their doorstep.
Another interesting possibility would be for Houston to actively purchase and
develop a path from the museum district to UH, perhaps sending the light rail
along that same improved road. If a safe attractive road to UH existed (between
yuppidom and the university), it could better integrate UH with the town, and
encourage folks to develop 77004, which could become another Montrose. But this
won't happen until the city commits to improving the area somehow. And a slogan
(like 'Bayou City') isn't going to do that.
Randy
Jim Casey
> In fact, I'd say that the reasons that people want to live in places
> like Austin, Portland (OR), Ann Arbor (MI), Asheville (NC), San Fran, Boston,
> Boulder, etc, are not because they're unique in any way, but because they offer
> an appealing collection of services and attractions. ...
You're talking about immigration and getting businesses to locate in a
city, right? This discussion started with promoting tourism, which is a
lot different.
The Houston area absorbed the entire population of all the cities you
mentioned in the 1990s. Most people move here because of jobs, period.
That's why I'm enjoying the balmy breezes instead of freezing my ass off in
Chicago.
At the moment, Houston doesn't need to persuade people to move here -- it
needs to persuade businesses other than retail to locate here. There's a
big pool of unemployed and underemployed skilled people now.
> .... Pearland, Sugar Land, Spring, Woodlands, etc.)
> IMHO, the general lack of appeal of these burbs proves that high taxes alone
> cannot make a community attractive.
Again, people are paying $250,000 and up (way up), plus the high taxes, to
live in those places. I wouldn't, but many people do.
There are only so many people who want to live in places like Montrose and
the Heights. The majority of the population wants its 4,000-sq. ft. house
with a 3-car garage and no homeless people or gang graffiti.
> If I were to suggest any one thing that Houston do to improve itself, it'd be to
> discourage cars and encourage walkers and bicyclists, ...
I'd love to see that, but in a city where the walk from the parking lot to
the store is too long for many people, discouraging cars is going to be a
hard sell with the voter-taxpayers. I've never seen a place racing to
build roads like the Houston area (not so much the city itself). Maybe
Shanghai or Beijing.
Jim
jjp
news:St%5d.21735$Gk4....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> Randy wrote:
>
> > In fact, I'd say that the reasons that people want to live in places
> > like Austin, Portland (OR), Ann Arbor (MI), Asheville (NC), San Fran,
Boston,
> > Boulder, etc, are not because they're unique in any way, but because
they offer
> > an appealing collection of services and attractions. ...
>
> You're talking about immigration and getting businesses to locate in a
> city, right? This discussion started with promoting tourism, which is a
> lot different.
This is something I noticed as well.
> > .... Pearland, Sugar Land, Spring, Woodlands, etc.)
> > IMHO, the general lack of appeal of these burbs proves that high taxes
alone
> > cannot make a community attractive.
>
> Again, people are paying $250,000 and up (way up), plus the high taxes, to
> live in those places. I wouldn't, but many people do.
I wouldn't say all these places have a lack of appeal *if* the suburban
lifestyle is what you want. For example, Sugar Land has made itself very
appealing by having strict zoning and building codes, lots of attention to
aesthetics and urban planning, and making outdoor recreation and parks,
especially around natural resources, very available (all of these unlike
Houston). For those with families who don't mind being out in the 'burbs,
these are very attractive things.
Jim Casey
>>>.... Pearland, Sugar Land, Spring, Woodlands, etc.)
>>>IMHO, the general lack of appeal of these burbs ...
> I wouldn't say all these places have a lack of appeal *if* the suburban
> lifestyle is what you want. For example, Sugar Land has made itself very
> appealing by having strict zoning and building codes, ...
Just for the record, you're responding to comments posted by Randy
<j...@burgershack.com>. I don't find suburbs appealing, but I understand
why the majority of the U.S. population lives in suburbs. (I prefer a
little grunge and variety.)
Sugar Land is better than many. One of my friends lives in the New
Territory (or maybe it's Territories) on U.S. 90. Neat as a pin, and the
homeowners association reportedly is not oppressive.
- Jim
Steven M (remove wax and invalid to reply)
skribis:
I'm not sure about costs in general, but housing and food costs
definitely are lower. It's been a few years but there was a survey
published in the paper. The median housing price in Houston was about
$80,000, Dallas was over 90K, Austin was 100K, and San Francisco was
over 200K.
--
Steve M - uns...@hal-pcwax.org.invalid (remove wax and invalid to reply)
"It's very hard to explain bad taste to someone who has it."
-- Gene Wilder
Steven M (remove wax and invalid to reply)
skribis:
>But few of these features occur naturally. They're the result of long term
>planning, commitment, and execution. Sprawl (unplanned development) must be
>constrained or it will overwhelm everything in its path. Developers must be
>guided into making livable spaces, not monolithic shopping malls (e.g. Galleria)
>that discourage residents from gathering or lingering.
You make some good points, but I disagree about shopping malls. A lot
of malls around town have become the place where local people go to
hang out, including (a) families with young children, and (b)
teenagers. The Galleria in particular is packed full of people. West
Oaks Mall and Memorial City, the closest ones to my house, are usually
the same way.
I can see why people hate the roadway system and the lack of nice
looking places to hang around outdoors. But aside from that, malls
make a lot of sense; air conditioned, comfortable, and there's a lot
to do (Not for me, but for some people).
Adam Weiss
<<snipped>>
>
> I think I read something like this tagline on that site:
>
> "Houston. A lousy place to visit. A great place to live."
>
It's precisely what I've been saying all along.
It's true on two levels.
The first, quite simply, is affordability. The term is entirely foreign
to the New Yorkers and Bostonians who write the articles that down our
city. These people think it's normal for a 1 bedroom condo to sell for
$300,000! Even in distant suburbs of their cities, you're hard pressed
to find a liveable house for under $250,000.
And affordability matters to more things than simply quality of life.
New Yorkers love their art district - SoHo. But the artists have long
since left SoHo in New York, replaced by high-priced galleries and rich
stockbrokers who fancy themselves artistic. I like to think that the
warehouse districts just north and east of downtown Houston are much
closer to the SoHo of the 1960s than the SoHo of today is, and it's
because artists can afford to lease those warehouses and make art in them.
The second thing is that Houston is a city whose beauty is more than
skin deep. You really do have to scratch the surface to find it. And
most visitors to our city don't.
Jim Casey
> I'm not sure about costs in general, but housing and food costs
> definitely are lower.
No question about housing, but tourists rarely buy houses. :^)
Try visiting somewhere like New York City or San Francisco and you're
shedding $20 bills like an oak tree sheds leaves. Downtown parking in
those cities is so expensive, it's cheaper to take a taxi -- and the taxis
aren't cheap, either. Houston doesn't have as many people like doormen
with their hands out.
I suppose someone has done a survey of the cost of visiting cities as a
tourist, but I'm too lazy to look for it.
- Jim
Lou Minatti
> If Houston wants to promote things that would bring tourists and
> conventions, I think that would be our winter weather (i.e. for
> golfers), our performing arts, museums and culture that are very
> accessible and inexpensive (not NYC quality, but not that far behind
> either), ditto for restaurants, and things unique to Houston like NASA
> and the Livestock Show & Rodeo.
The thing is, the attractions have to be accessible. Realistically, a
convention-goer or tourist would need a car to visit NASA. (Yes, I
know Metro runs a bus down there, but few (if any) tourists are
willing to city on a city bus for 90 minutes, then wait in the hot
humid sun for the bus to return.)
The LS&R should be a major tourist draw, rather than being limited to
people in southeast Texas and ranchers. One thing I haven't figured
out is why the GHC&VB doesn't promote it like Alberta's tourism board
promotes the Calgary Stampede. Ours is identical, only much larger.
It's much easier to get to for most of the US. I think they need to
dress up Reliant Park. Make it more pleasant and give the LS&R a sense
of permanent presence. There's not much going on there the rest of the
year anyway.
We do have good museums, but not good enough to attract the monied
visitors from out of state. Our museums aren't on par with the Getty,
or the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.
> I lived in Austin for several years. Other than the state Capital,
> there's not anything there that's truly unique either (there are many
> similar mid-sized college towns in this country, and Austin's music
> scene is very overrated).
You know that, I know that. But the people who promote Austin are
better at promoting their city than Jordy is at promoting ours.
Austin's music "scene" consists primarily of the same shitty cover
bands that play in Houston. The only difference is these shitty cover
bands play in one area, Sixth Street, allowing people to walk between
bars. If that makes them a "live music capital", live music is in
pretty bad shape. (Who knows. Main Street is coming alive. Perhaps
we'll have a similar scene here in a few years.) People like that
Bourbon Street feeling.
> But somehow, they still manage to attract
> lots of good attention. For example, someone with the city must have
> gotten in with Fine Living, because I've noticed a lot of promotion of
> Austin on their cable channel and website.
The west side of Austin is a nice place to live if you have the money.
Nice hills, nice lakes. If you didn't have to drive to work, it would
be ideal. Unfortunately, most of Austin has lost a lot of its charm
over the past 20 years. It used to be a nice college town. Now it's a
traffic-clogged hellhole, plagued by the same things we gripe about.
Too many people moved there.