Houston as Tourist Destination (Dallas, San Antonio: living, shop, moving)

[Surfer Guy]

Originally Posted by Dartman1

Do you think that Houston will become a big tourist destination itself along the lines of Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio in the near future.

Dallas and Houston are about the same as far as appeal to tourists go, which is not much at all.

Austin and San Antonio are quasi-tourist destinations, mainly for people who live in Texas.

I can't see that changing anytime soon.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by Surfer Guy

Dallas and Houston are about the same as far as appeal to tourists go, which is not much at all.

Austin and San Antonio are quasi-tourist destinations, mainly for people who live in Texas.

I can't see that changing anytime soon.

I have to agree. San Antonio is probably the most likely to become the tourist destination of Texas (like Orlando and Las Vegas) as its economy is heavily dependent on it. Right now the Hill Country cities are weekend getaways for Texans, but San Antonio already has two of the three major theme parks and needs to work on its marketing to attract Americans.

Galveston always comes (hands-down) second, even in its current state.

[Surfer Guy]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Galveston always comes (hands-down) second, even in its current state.

Galveston is mainly a weekend getaway for Houstonians, as muddy as the water is, because that's as good as it gets around here. People in the rest of the country think of Florida, California, or Hawaii for U.S. beach destinations.

[DeanoSF]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Funny coming from a current S.F. resident. Sunny and cheaper (and more populous) L.A. is what people envision when they visit California. The decrepit yet expensive and bad climate of slowly depopulating S.F. and the Bay Area usually turns up in the back burner. Sadly most SoCalers would rather visit Vegas for the weekend instead of keeping their money in their own state by visiting NorCal.



Actually L.A. has been on a tourism boom since the middle of the decade (recovery from the Great Recession).

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...507-story.html

Anaheim enacted an ordinance banning Airbnb and other short-term rentals due to neighboring residents' complaints on quality-of-life issues.

Disneyland's Hometown Is Banning Short-Term Rentals | Fortune

You're pretty comically misinformed about San Francisco.

Depopulating? Both SF and the Bay Area are at their highest populations ever recorded. Bad climate? That's subjective, of course. Most people find sunny and 63-70 to be near perfect t-shirt and shorts weather and the ideal climate for enjoying our active, outdoor lifestyle. If you must have hot weather, you can with just a 10-15 minute drive in any direction. It's ideal!

Even objectively, SF is noted as one of the sunniest cities in the country, while being cool and pleasant year-round. Additionally, the Bay Area in general has a climate almost identical to LA's, which I also love--I spend 5-7 weeks per year there for work.

Incidentally, many of my best friends here are transplants from LA who visited and wanted to make this their home. SoCal is one of the top origins for relocations to the Bay Area--so many that, even despite a large number of people being priced out of this region, our population is still a net gain.

Back on topic, so is our count of visitors.

[Fight Red Light]

I know even homeless population there is growing pretty fast too...

[elnina]

Originally Posted by Fight Red Light

I know even homeless population there is growing pretty fast too...

That's a pretty strange revelation. Of course homeless don't go to Alaska or Minnesota. They sleep outdoors, so they prefer warm weather, soft beach sand, parks, and an opportunity to make a buck is much higher there. They are more visible than, say in NY, because a higher proportion of homeless people are unsheltered. And the reason isn’t drug use, mental health problems or weather. Rather, it is due to the extreme shortage of affordable housing. It also reflects differing government priorities.
Young people go there hoping to get a line in a flick or be noticed, discovered. Of course, that's a dream that almost never gets true, but we as a nation are constantly fed with the "you can be anything you want to be", "this is the land of opportunity", "you just need to want and you could be the next millionaire"...
All that explains why the "homeless population is growing pretty fast" there.

But, yes - please - back to the topic.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by DeanoSF

You're pretty comically misinformed about San Francisco.

Depopulating? Both SF and the Bay Area are at their highest populations ever recorded. Bad climate? That's subjective, of course. Most people find sunny and 63-70 to be near perfect t-shirt and shorts weather and the ideal climate for enjoying our active, outdoor lifestyle. If you must have hot weather, you can with just a 10-15 minute drive in any direction. It's ideal!

Even objectively, SF is noted as one of the sunniest cities in the country, while being cool and pleasant year-round. Additionally, the Bay Area in general has a climate almost identical to LA's, which I also love--I spend 5-7 weeks per year there for work.

Incidentally, many of my best friends here are transplants from LA who visited and wanted to make this their home. SoCal is one of the top origins for relocations to the Bay Area--so many that, even despite a large number of people being priced out of this region, our population is still a net gain.

Back on topic, so is our count of visitors.

Houston is not a big tourist destination, but there are things to do.

But you are the one comically delusional about San Francisco. The climate is not like LA and the southern California desert at all. And its overcast and dreary several months a year in San Francisco.

[DeanoSF]

Originally Posted by bu2

Houston is not a big tourist destination, but there are things to do.

But you are the one comically delusional about San Francisco. The climate is not like LA and the southern California desert at all. And its overcast and dreary several months a year in San Francisco.

I said as much about Houston (I lived there for about 30 years) in a previous post.

Another poster and now you inexplicably steered the conversation to SF. I mentioned nothing about it other than to correct the misconceptions. BTW--SF is cool, clear and sunny-to-partly-cloudy on average, 260 days per year. It's admittedly not a beach climate (cold water and coastal fog at the western edge of the city) but for all other outdoor activities and year-round comfort, it is near perfect. I use neither heat nor AC in my home and leave my windows open all year round.

The greater Bay Area (which I mentioned is more like LA, (not SF)) is between 5-30 degrees warmer depending on location relative to the Bay and hills) and sunny, to partly cloudy about 275 days per year. Also nice, but often hotter than I like.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weath...f-sunshine.php

For a Texas comparison:

https://www.currentresults.com/Weath...f-sunshine.php

Of course, in Texas, you must also factor in heat and humidity.

Back to the OP's question: Beyond sights and specific attractions, weather and pleasant access to outdoor activities plays a huge role in the allure of some places over others. In SF, you can hike in Redwoods in 65 degree sunshine, see an outdoor baseball game, drive an hour away, it's a low-humidity 85 degrees in wine country or head east for a couple of hours and ski in the Sierra... in June.

Houston does not fare well in any of these regards. So, it's tough for me to ever envision Houston as much of a tourist destination. But as I stated, it is a great place to live. The city has always seemed able to comfortably make its peace with this.

[kwr]

Originally Posted by DeanoSF

Of course, in Texas, you must also factor in heat and humidity.

Of course you must pack a jacket and a wet suit to visit San Francisco in the middle of summer. It’s always chilly and the ocean is never warm enough to swim. Forget about jumping in a non-heated pool as well.

San Francisco is one of a handful of cities in the US good only for a visit. Living there is a completely different story. I’d live in Houston any day over San Francisco. Visiting a city is entirely different from living there. You live in Houston!

[DeanoSF]

Originally Posted by kwr

You live in Houston!

No, I live very comfortably in San Francisco, where it’ll be 68-74 and sunny for as far out as my weather app will predict. Why do you people keep defensively bringing up SF?

Houston weather was one of the big factors in my move away from there and is, in my opinion, a major factor in its poor performance as a tourist destination. There are no real opportunities for outdoor recreation worth traveling to do in Houston.

Another is its lack of interesting neighborhoods or points of interest. Houston is a great shopping destination for travelers, but that shopping happens in a mall (again, due to weather). Cities that are great tourist draws usually have great, eclectic, vibrant, walkable districts and neighborhoods for shopping, dining and sightseeing that authentically portray the local character.

Surroundings are another factor. Houston is a suburban style sprawler that sits in miles or uninteresting coastal prairie. There’s just not much to see either in the cityscape or the surrounding area. Interesting little villages and towns? Nope. Mountains, or outdoor recreation? Not really. Galveston is polluted and not very attractive at all. Anything like Wine Country, Yosemite, Lake Tahoe, Monterey, Pebble Beach or Carmel? No way.

Houston’s a great place to live, though. I will never deny that. I’ve loved it all my life and enjoyed its urban amenities, if not its self-consciously suburban construct. It has character that reveals itself to residents over time and visitors don’t ever see. It’s just not a very interesting place to visit for a short time.

I visit it often—for the people, though, not the place