Why is Houston Better Than Dallas? (Austin, Fort Worth: job market, estimate, car)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by justme02

I think the next census is going to show both.

Even if the "Mexicanization" (if you want to call it that) is slowing on a national trend, at least the last few years, it hasnt slowed at all in Dallas. Dallas is going to continue to trend Hispanic for a while anyway. The only difference we are seeing is that Hispanics in Dallas are now starting to move into the burbs as well. That happened in Houston about 10 years ago or so and its just now starting here.

I also think the gentrification is going to continue somewhat. Look at the stats Trae posted. The areas Dallas is bleeding are not in the very center of town, but roughly 2-10 miles from Uptown. Eventually, those areas will backfill with gentrification. How long that will take is anyones guess.

I think what has happened to Dallas is the same thing that happened to Chicago. Dallas will be better off in the long run. They have the bones to support other a big uptake in population.

[stoneclaw]

So basically Uptown Dallas has only really grown in an area of 1-2 miles. No wonder why the developers have to squeeze everything into a tiny area.

Advantages: It provides a very dense scene for those few blocks.
Disadvantages: Outside of this area is very sparse until you reach other municipalities.

Love the optimism though!

[RayStokes]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

Advantages: It provides a very dense scene for those few blocks.
Disadvantages: Outside of this area is very sparse until you reach other municipalities.

That would actually be cool if true, and more reminiscent of the image of Dallas I grew up having.

What you're describing is Ft. Worth, where I live. And some may fault it, but I like that you can leave a bustling downtown in Ft. Worth and 2 or 3 miles north on the interstate it still looks country with wide open spaces. It's a nice contrast. Dallas, like Houston, is pavement in every direction. Dallas may not have east coast density, but sparse is not a word I would use to describe it.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by RayStokes

That would actually be cool if true, and more reminiscent of the image of Dallas I grew up having.

What you're describing is Ft. Worth, where I live. And some may fault it, but I like that you can leave a bustling downtown in Ft. Worth and 2 or 3 miles north on the interstate it still looks country with wide open spaces. It's a nice contrast. Dallas, like Houston, is pavement in every direction. Dallas may not have east coast density, but sparse is not a word I would use to describe it.

Maybe sparse was a bad description, but i was really talking more about population than land. But it is clear that once you leave the glistening Uptown/Downtown and even part of Oak lawn area, the population decreases quite a bit.

[RayStokes]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

Maybe sparse was a bad description, but i was really talking more about population than land. But it is clear that once you leave the glistening Uptown/Downtown and even part of Oak lawn area, the population decreases quite a bit.

I can see that, but that density is always going to come to an abrupt stop north of Uptown since that's where Highland Park begins. It's not there yet, it may not be for a long time, but Dallas is set up nicely for long, continuous density in the future with a string of distinct but connected urban neighborhoods. The Cedars, the Design District, the Hospital District, Deep Ellum, Fair Park, and Knox-Henderson all connecting around Downtown/Uptown. There are also isolated pockets of high density like around Mockingbird Station and Valley View.

[Chantelle_Lesar]

Hi there,

Have you moved to Houston?

[Spider-Man 2099]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

So basically Uptown Dallas has only really grown in an area of 1-2 miles. No wonder why the developers have to squeeze everything into a tiny area.

Funny how that's perceived as being bad when it comes to Dallas, but it's cool and acceptable when it's done in New York City, or somewhere else. It sure beats having to drive back and forth all over town through 45+ minutes worth of traffic each way just to get to everything.

[jmonroy1973]

Houston ranks as North America's fastest-growing economy - Houston Chronicle

America's Fastest Growing Cities - Forbes

Houston has fastest growing economy in the US, according to the federal government's numbers | abc13.com

When we are by far the largest city and still get ranked as one of the fastest growing...you don't have to be a statistician to realize that we are way ahead of the pack and staying that way.

No hype, just reality. No apologies here.

JM

[First24]

^^ Houston may be the largest "city" but it's not the largest metro area in Texas. DFW is, by far.

Your links are somewhat dated. Economic data is evaluated monthly. Your links are from late 2012 to early 2013. Houston has been the first metro area in the state to show some signs of a slowing economy. Austin and DFW are still churning along. Austin being the constant.

The "On Numbers" series launched by Bizjournals.com illustrates this precisely. They use monthly economic data collected from various government agencies, to determine economic strength based on 18 different components. (On Numbers Economic Index - The Business Journals)

The most recent data (July 2013)
Provo pushes into first place in economic rankings, as Dallas slides into second - The Business Journals

Historical (Aug 2012 through June 2013)

The On Numbers Economic Index was launched in August 2012, providing a monthly snapshot of the economic vitality of 102 major markets.
These were the top five markets in previous months:

June 2013

• 1. Austin
• 2. Provo, Utah
• 3. Dallas-Fort Worth
• 4. Oklahoma City
• 5. Salt Lake City

May 2013

• 1. Austin
• 2. Provo, Utah
• 3. Dallas-Fort Worth
• 4. Oklahoma City
• 5. Houston

April 2013

• 1. Austin
• 2. Provo, Utah
• 3. Dallas-Fort Worth
• 4. Houston
• 5. Oklahoma City

March 2013

• 1. Austin
• 2. Provo, Utah
• 3. Houston
• 4. Oklahoma City
• 5. Dallas-Fort Worth

February 2013

• 1. Austin
• 2. Oklahoma City
• 3. Houston
• 4. Columbus
• 5. Tulsa

January 2013

• 1. Oklahoma City
• 2. Austin
• 3. Houston
• 4. Columbus
• 5. Tulsa

December 2012

• 1. Austin
• 2. Oklahoma City
• 3. Houston
• 4. Columbus
• 5. Omaha

November 2012

• 1. Oklahoma City
• 2. Austin
• 3. Tulsa
• 4. Houston
• 5. Omaha

October 2012

• 1. Oklahoma City
• 2. Austin
• 3. Tulsa
• 4. Houston
• 5. Omaha

September 2012

• 1. Oklahoma City
• 2. Austin
• 3. Omaha
• 4. Pittsburgh
• 5. Denver

August 2012

• 1. Oklahoma City
• 2. Austin
• 3. Houston
• 4. Pittsburgh
• 5. Columbus

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by First24

^^ Houston may be the largest "city" but it's not the largest metro area in Texas. DFW is, by far.

Your links are somewhat dated. Economic data is evaluated monthly. Your links are from late 2012 to early 2013. Houston has been the first metro area in the state to show some signs of a slowing economy. Austin and DFW are still churning along. Austin being the constant.

The "On Numbers" series launched by Bizjournals.com illustrates this precisely. They use monthly economic data collected from various government agencies, to determine economic strength based on 18 different components. (On Numbers Economic Index - The Business Journals)

The most recent data (July 2013)
Provo pushes into first place in economic rankings, as Dallas slides into second - The Business Journals

So basically you're going by a few months of data that puts DFW ahead. Using those links, you should know each metro will trade off at different times. But it makes sense that DFW is larger than Houston by 500-600k people. Isn't that about the population of Ft Worth?