What makes Texas so appealing?

[COtoOC]

I lived in SA for a couple years in the military and had fun, but was ready to leave. To me, the relentless heat/humidity was just miserable (winter was pleasant) and not being a native Texan, the culture was overwhelming. I didn't find it to be a very interesting city. I've been to the other TX cities and to me, they all seem rather similar. The freeways with frontage roads and huge, ugly billboards everywhere. But yeah, it's cheap to buy a house. Austin was the most interesting city to me, with more nightlife and the Hill Country nearby for some geographic interest.

We have offices in DFW and many of the people I work with are just there for the job, not exactly their dream location. But it's a big, cosmopolitan city with plenty to do.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

You have to clarify what part of the O&G industry you're talking about. They are all affected in one way or another by the O&G industry because all of the major Texas cities have significant direct and indirect connections to it... probably on a scale greater than any other state. Drilling, production, drill equip manufacturing/engineering, pipelines/distribution all on the upstream and midstream sides are in a direct relationship with O&G pricing. But on the downstream side, like petrochem manufacture, ag products, refined fuels, construction, logistics, etc, there is an inverse relationship (even Houston experiences this). This is one of the reasons why Texas is a very economically successful state with booming cities... they can play both sides of the O&G price card very well.

Houston is 'all of the above' in the industry and the local economy was hammered pretty hard when oil prices went sideways a few years ago tanking much of the upstream sector.

[mello]

Why don't the Texans want to comment on the "aesthetic" of Texas cities that others have brought up. All the billboards, frontage roads, over rampant capitalism feel with always something new and to be sold. This fascinates me. Do huge swathes of Texas metros just feel like vapid soulless places simply existing to make money for money making sake?

I'm not saying all of San Diego is pretty or anything like that and maybe we do just get used to ugly surroundings as Americans because it is where we live and just say "oh well". I guess people are happy as long as their suburban street and home looks decent. However, when you go out to stores or commute and see crap all the time does it begin to bother you at all?

Also Texas being Coastal: What percentage of Texans actually interact with the coast on a Weekly, monthly, quarterly basis (The Texas Coast not vacation to Mexico or Carribean) vs. Floridians and Californians? Technically TX is coastal but it really isn't the same as the other two states I would guess.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mello

vs. Floridians and Californians? Technically TX is coastal but it really isn't the same as the other two states I would guess.

I mentioned Galveston is one of the two places in Texas I could live. That's because it IS similar to other coastal areas. Much of the Louisiana and north Texas coast is either marshy or industrial but as you move southward towards Galveston, Corpus Christi and Padre Island it get nicer and more "beachy". Still hot as blazes in summer but at least large areas where you feel like you're at the beach and not in an industrial zone or a swamp (note--not to disparage swamps which I actually like but they are a different thing from "the beach").

[spoonman]

I like Texas, but completely understand what Mello is saying about the built environment in Texas. California spends lots of time planting flowers, manicuring lawns, etc. This is not seen in a lot of other places, but I'm not sure that it isn't simply because people don't care. I believe that the weather plays a large role in this. For example, when you have tons of rain, floods, snow, you aren't going to spend a lot of time and money on landscaping that is going to be destroyed.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by mello

Why don't the Texans want to comment on the "aesthetic" of Texas cities that others have brought up. All the billboards, frontage roads, over rampant capitalism feel with always something new and to be sold. This fascinates me. Do huge swathes of Texas metros just feel like vapid soulless places simply existing to make money for money making sake?

To me, huge swathes of Texas feel like ordinary folks are living their lives. Overall Texas doesn't look good from the highways with Houston and San Antonio being the worst offenders. However, off the highways a lot Houston is very green with subtropical vegetation that is almost year round.

Austin is a different beast with one major hwy having very few frontage roads (Mopac) and the other (I35) looking typical Texas.

I'm not saying all of San Diego is pretty or anything like that and maybe we do just get used to ugly surroundings as Americans because it is where we live and just say "oh well". I guess people are happy as long as their suburban street and home looks decent. However, when you go out to stores or commute and see crap all the time does it begin to bother you at all?

All depends on the person. I like the scenery better commuting in Austin, but the traffic is still probably the worst in the state.

Also Texas being Coastal: What percentage of Texans actually interact with the coast on a Weekly, monthly, quarterly basis (The Texas Coast not vacation to Mexico or Carribean) vs. Floridians and Californians? Technically TX is coastal but it really isn't the same as the other two states I would guess.

Not sure, probably depends on income. I'm sure the weekend road trip is popular among the middle income families plus Texas beaches are almost all public. South Padre (+7 hour drive from the Texas Triangle) has that Caribbean water/beaches but it's easier to catch a cheap flight/cruise.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by spoonman

I like Texas, but completely understand what Mello is saying about the built environment in Texas. California spends lots of time planting flowers, manicuring lawns, etc. This is not seen in a lot of other places, but I'm not sure that it isn't simply because people don't care. I believe that the weather plays a large role in this. For example, when you have tons of rain, floods, snow, you aren't going to spend a lot of time and money on landscaping that is going to be destroyed.

They do in Florida.

It's about rules--zoning and other rules like beach access etc. Texans just don't seem to believe in limiting what individuals can do regardless of the effect on the rest of the population.

But substantial parts of urban Florida are as manicured as anywhere in CA. In both cases it's mainly the wealthy parts.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I mentioned Galveston is one of the two places in Texas I could live. That's because it IS similar to other coastal areas. Much of the Louisiana and north Texas coast is either marshy or industrial but as you move southward towards Galveston, Corpus Christi and Padre Island it get nicer and more "beachy". Still hot as blazes in summer but at least large areas where you feel like you're at the beach and not in an industrial zone or a swamp (note--not to disparage swamps which I actually like but they are a different thing from "the beach").

The Upper Texas coast is industrial and suffers from brown water due to the Mississippi. This is as pretty as it gets when all the conditions are just right in Galveston:

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Overall Texas doesn't look good from the highways with Houston and San Antonio being the worst offenders.

I have a weakness for San Antonio because, after all, it IS in or near the Hill Country which, besides the southeast coast, is the other part of the state I kinda like. But also, and mainly, it has the River Walk which really is nice and would be an asset anywhere in the world.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by spoonman

I like Texas, but completely understand what Mello is saying about the built environment in Texas. California spends lots of time planting flowers, manicuring lawns, etc. This is not seen in a lot of other places, but I'm not sure that it isn't simply because people don't care. I believe that the weather plays a large role in this. For example, when you have tons of rain, floods, snow, you aren't going to spend a lot of time and money on landscaping that is going to be destroyed.

It all depends on the area in Texas. I think DFW is the most manicured/clean/disneyified metro in Texas as they have a lot of ordinances/zoning relatively speaking.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I have a weakness for San Antonio because, after all, it IS in or near the Hill Country which, besides the southeast coast, is the other part of the state I kinda like. But also, and mainly, it has the River Walk which really is nice and would be an asset anywhere in the world.

SA is underrated and NW SA has become Austin Hill Country lite- not as pretentious and not as wealthy.

[N90]

Originally Posted by mello

Also Texas being Coastal: What percentage of Texans actually interact with the coast on a Weekly, monthly, quarterly basis (The Texas Coast not vacation to Mexico or Carribean) vs. Floridians and Californians? Technically TX is coastal but it really isn't the same as the other two states I would guess.

Obviously the TX coast isn't going to be as packed as the CA and FL coasts because unlike those states only one city in TX is actually directly on the coast and that is Corpus Christi.

TX has 371 miles of coastline, the majority of it is state or national park located between SPI and Corpus. HOU and RGV are major coastal metros but in both cases the bulk of the population in both metros live in the inland portion of the metro and not in the coastal portion. For the RGV, SPI one of its only coastal communities and it is a small island, I think Port Isabel and Boca Chica are the only other coastal communities in the RGV. RGV has 1.4 million people but 1.35 million live inland. HOU has more coastal frontage with Galveston, Surfside, the Bolivar Peninsula, Pelican Island, etc but only Galveston is an actual city. The others are small communities. Galveston from spring to fall is jam packed. I was visiting my family in TX last month (I live in ATL) and went to Galveston on Saturday. It was too crowded. We couldn't find any decent streetside parking so had to pay a lot to park. We wanted to take the ferry around noon to Bolivar Peninsula but the wait times for the ferry was 120 minutes with the line 1.4 miles long, by 6 PM the line was shorter and the wait time was 60 minutes, still crowded. The beaches were crowded with people all over and so were the stores. After 6 PM Galveston's downtown became crowded and bustling with live musicians, events that caused streets to be closed, and what felt like half of metro HOU there. The West side of the island where it's all residential was much less crowded but finding a public beach is harder because most a private beaches for residents that live there.

Beaches and coastline in TX is for the residents that live there to enjoy. TX doesn't really seem to care whether outsiders are interested in it or not and with the way SPI and Galveston get crowded that may just be a good thing. Beaches are at their worst when they're crowded and teeming with people IMO.

Texas coastline is 371 miles long. I would say that the first 100 miles is not pretty water quality, the middle 150 miles is decent and average water quality, and the southern 121 miles is pretty good often great.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by mello

Why don't the Texans want to comment on the "aesthetic" of Texas cities that others have brought up. All the billboards, frontage roads, over rampant capitalism feel with always something new and to be sold. This fascinates me. Do huge swathes of Texas metros just feel like vapid soulless places simply existing to make money for money making sake?

I'm not saying all of San Diego is pretty or anything like that and maybe we do just get used to ugly surroundings as Americans because it is where we live and just say "oh well". I guess people are happy as long as their suburban street and home looks decent. However, when you go out to stores or commute and see crap all the time does it begin to bother you at all?

Also Texas being Coastal: What percentage of Texans actually interact with the coast on a Weekly, monthly, quarterly basis (The Texas Coast not vacation to Mexico or Carribean) vs. Floridians and Californians? Technically TX is coastal but it really isn't the same as the other two states I would guess.

The feeder roads started so the highway department could save money on ROW acquisition and give affected landowners direct access to the new road. As much as I would love a widespread billboard ban statewide along all major highways, it wouldn’t be fair to business owners who spend their money leasing them to promote their companies. Especially in rural areas that’s the best publicity you could hope for.

The coast has been covered so I’ll get to the ugly. Houston is very ugly, less so lately but still. The shitty billboards and sleazy looking retail along the freeways used to annoy me but now I recognize that they’re mostly small business owners hustling as hard as they can, and I respect that. I have really grown to love the ugly and most other cities I go to now feel sterile. So it grows on you and before long you appreciate it for its uniqueness and it feels like home.

[jd3189]

I've learned a lot about Texas by reading this thread. More than anywhere else in SSP. Who agrees?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by jmanc

nyc is becoming less "new york" by the day with real ny'ers moving out and transplants moving in pretending to be new yorkers.

this!!!!!

[Marv95]

"It's the economy, stupid." If you're looking for work you'd have a better chance of landing a blue collar job there than the Northeast. It's also less aggravating to start a business there vs other areas.

No income tax, tho their property taxes and fees for DMV-type stuff are no picnic.

Weather ain't a factor. People should know what they're getting themselves into: welcome to the land of ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, unrelenting heat/humidity, snakes, bugs, etc.

Visited Dallas in 2016 for WrestleMania. Didn't really like the city proper(I only traveled between downtown and Northpark). But I did enjoy Las Colinas.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by spoonman

I like Texas, but completely understand what Mello is saying about the built environment in Texas. California spends lots of time planting flowers, manicuring lawns, etc. This is not seen in a lot of other places, but I'm not sure that it isn't simply because people don't care. I believe that the weather plays a large role in this. For example, when you have tons of rain, floods, snow, you aren't going to spend a lot of time and money on landscaping that is going to be destroyed.

California and many other areas build things to last, they didn't here in Texas. Why when land is cheap. When a shopping center, apartment complex or smallish office building was planned, it was thrown up with cheap materials overnight and under the assumption something new would replace it in a couple of decades. As a result, you wind up with an ugly cityscape. Houston, Dallas and Austin are now getting more expensive in their cores driving up costs thus meaning better and nicer developments but this is a very recent phenomenon.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Ok, I get what you were saying, and don't necessarily disagree. I know that Houston, above all other Texas cities, is much more reliant on the energy (specifically oil and gas) industry. I just had to take issue with the characterization of Houston being the only Texas city tied to, or with significant connection to, that industry. Having lived in Texas... both Dallas and Houston... and worked indirectly in the industry, I just know that not to be true.

It has much more to do than just having HQ operations in a specific city. While DFW energy and energy-related companies (and the metro region itself, as a result) certainly feel both the positive and negative effects of oil and gas fluctuations on the upstream and midstream sides, the downstream portion does as well. Which is to your point about Dallas still booming during oil busts... because Dallas' vast wholesale trade sector in petroleum/petroleum products/petrochemicals/etc (which employs hundreds of thousands of people) booms when input prices (oil/natural gas) are low. Fort Worth has much more exposure to upstream drilling/production operations... like Houston does, not as severe, but still there. All major Texas cities are tied to the energy industry, maybe not reliant on it, but without a doubt tied to it.

Well that's the same for Houston. One thing people often forget about during the recent oil bust was that, while west Houston/white-collar energy industry hit a slump, the blue-collar/East side of the Houston metro boomed during this time. The petrochemical refineries and the Port of Houston greatly expanded during those years with billion dollar investments from various companies. This resulted in new homes, retail, etc., for a side of town that didn't feel the growth as much during the boom between 2010-2014. Outside of the energy industry consolidating offices in Houston during the bust years, the growth of the East side is what helped the Houston jobs numbers (which have shown some healthy growth over the past year actually).

Ironically, I left the Houston area during the oil bust years (for LA) because as a recent grad, I was having a hard time finding a well-paying job. All of these companies were laying off and the only places hiring (to me) felt like insurance companies.

Oil made Houston so fat monetary wise that city leaders never took the time to really diversify. They let Continental Airlines go (didn't put up a fight until it was too late), Compaq went away, bad planning meant Amazon left Houston off its list, etc. I feel like if the metro area had been more planned out, particularly if most of the suburbs were incorporated cities rather than unincorporated areas, Houston would be way more attractive for corporate relocations outside of energy. There is no reason why it couldn't have some of the industries that Austin and DFW have since the industries in those cities don't necessarily have to be there.

Originally Posted by JManc

^ East Texas is ugly as sin. Central (Hill Country) and West Teas are beautiful. The panhandle (sans Palo Duro Canyon) is flat and smells like shit. Literally. And the Northeast is full of wilderness. It's not New York city from one end to the other. The Adirondacks/ Catskills/ Finger Lakes/ Poconos/ Berkshires/ White Mountains put most places to shame.

Say what? I live in Texas and am from New York. This is factually incorrect. Texas is full of New Englanders and New Yorkers.

I really don't think the dense pine forests and hills of East Texas are ugly, but to each their own.

The area that Houston sits in isn't ugly either. The city just had terrible planners and no zoning.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by spoonman

I like Texas, but completely understand what Mello is saying about the built environment in Texas. California spends lots of time planting flowers, manicuring lawns, etc. This is not seen in a lot of other places, but I'm not sure that it isn't simply because people don't care. I believe that the weather plays a large role in this. For example, when you have tons of rain, floods, snow, you aren't going to spend a lot of time and money on landscaping that is going to be destroyed.

California plants more flowers and manicured lawns? Are you talking about home owners or city-governmental services?

Rain is generally better for landscaping than irrigation. Some of the hardest hit blizzard areas are absolutely stunning in the summer months.

I would agree that the urban built environment of California is generally more appealing than that of many Texas cities.

[Pioneer]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Hot, cheap, and no rules.

Just like a good hooker

oh my. chuckle.