7 Comment

• TheNiche November 8, 2011 at 9:26 am

  Having lived there and owned property there, I take issue with the way that Parras depicts the East End. It is as though, in his mind, all that industry is a mark of shame rather than pride.
• Lost_In_Translation November 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm

  Having lived there and owned property there, I take issue with the way that Parras depicts the East End. It is as though, in his mind, all that industry is a mark of shame rather than pride.

  In his mind, I assume he would rather have the working families be crammed into apartments far away from the ship channel to protect them (and simultaneously prevent them the luxury of home ownership and force them to commute long distances)or Houston industry be so choked by regulation way back in the day that it would never have grown the city so.

  And some of the photos have nothing to do with Houston’s chemical energy at all, but are just general ugliness caused from residents that don’t have the sense of cleanliness as other parts. Of course you can find that in other parts too. The east side may not be as appealing as tree lined River Oaks, but it doesn’t mean its not as important to Houston’s vitality.
• veso November 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm

  what’s the lead photo of? What article? Isn’t that off of Clinton Drive?
• markd November 8, 2011 at 6:04 pm

  I saw 1 out of 20 pics that would be considered “toxic”, the EPA warning sign on the fence. The rest look industrial or working class neighborhood-y. Gardens, roaming horses, green grassy areas – if it was truly toxic you wouldn’t see these things.
• Meredith Deliso November 8, 2011 at 6:31 pm

  @veso The photo isn’t attached to any article listed here, just an interesting one I found on Flickr. And good eyes! It’s at Clinton and Jensen.
• veso November 8, 2011 at 9:51 pm

  i took a pic of the same demo from Baron St a few weeks ago:)
• Spoonman. November 9, 2011 at 6:46 am

  “Industrial” does not equal “toxic”.