Houston vs. Dallas (San Antonio, Austin, El Paso: houses, live in, zoning)

[TootsieWootsie]

This arguing about which is better between Houston and Dallas is just like I heard all the time when I was in Italy: Rome or Florence? And one hates the other's city just like Dallas and Houston. It's hysterical...

[NewYorkcapitaloftheworld]

Think of it this way, its actually Dallas,Arlington,Fort Worth VS Houston, and Houston still beats DFW in most ways! Thats amazing to me, Houston is ONE city, ONE metro, not three major cities adding up to be a metropolitan area. Just this Fact alone tells you how significant Houston is. Houston IS THE CAPITAL OF THE SOUTH!

[sweetclimber]

Originally Posted by NewYorkcapitaloftheworld

Think of it this way, its actually Dallas,Arlington,Fort Worth VS Houston, and Houston still beats DFW in most ways! Thats amazing to me, Houston is ONE city, ONE metro, not three major cities adding up to be a metropolitan area. Just this Fact alone tells you how significant Houston is. Houston IS THE CAPITAL OF THE SOUTH!

Houston, I would agree is the cultural leader in the south as well as a great world city. But, Dallas is only one step behind with lots going on too. My experiences in Dallas have been positive but I would give Houston the advantagein almost every area

[graffixjones]

Keep in mind, people, that trailer parks cause tornadoes.
So, to determine a city's susceptibility to a tornado attack, simply multiply the number of trailer parks times the number of cars sitting on jacks in the front yard, and you'll arrive at the Tornado Coefficient, that determines the likelihood of a tornado striking your area.

It's a little known fact that since the 70's, trailer manufacturers have included a 'mobility' clause in their contracts, that states at least once every 15 years your trailer will be moved for free to a remote location about 20 miles away from where it currently sits... what they don't say is that it'll be moved via a tornado.

So, if you want to be safe from tornadoes, simply do the math and move to the safest area you can find.

I also speak from experience... in California, tornadoes are as rare as hen's teeth, but we had one here a few years back, and where did it hit? I bet I don't even have to say...

Oh, and my vote is Houston, simply because that's the area I'm looking to move, plus it's closer to San Antonio than Dallas is. Houston has culture, proximity to the beach, and a catch-phrase: "Houston, I think we have a problem".

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

San Antonio's city limits may be big, but the metro is really small compared to Houston and Dallas. Also, I wouldn't say Austin-San Antonio would become a Baltimore-DC-Philly. Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Paul.

I don't think so. The only thing that divides Minneapolis and St. Paul city limits is a river. They are literally right next to each other. Much closer than Dallas and Ft. Worth. Austin to San Antonio is 80 miles apart downtown to downtown. I would guess it's about 70 miles from city limit to city limit. But that's still a far cry from MSP. I am one that hopes that Austin and San Antonio never merges into one metro. Both are already sprawling enough. It would be simply horrible to have it continuous and destroy the Texas countryside with strip malls, giant big box stores with endless parking, and giant mcmansions.

[Linson]

i wouldnt want to live in either. they're too big.

is that what you are basing "real city" status on? size and population? because i dont really think that there is anything one would need that they can get in Houston or Dallas that they cant get in San Antonio, Austin, or even El Paso. well, maybe not El Paso.

[Spade]

That depends if you want a more or not. Austin and San Antonio probably does have the amenities that Dallas and Houston provide. But Dallas and Houston has those same amenities and more.

[Linson]

more what? traffic? crime? people. i'll give 'em that. professional sports teams. i'll give 'em that too. not to be too arguementitve, i just dont agree with the original poster's premis that only those cities with (metropolitan) populations over a million are "real cities."

if it were up to me, i would probably live in Eugene, Oregon or somewhere like that.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Linson

more what? traffic? crime? people. i'll give 'em that. professional sports teams. i'll give 'em that too. not to be too arguementitve, i just dont agree with the original poster's premis that only those cities with (metropolitan) populations over a million are "real cities."

if it were up to me, i would probably live in Eugene, Oregon or somewhere like that.

You have a point.

[catman]

Linson: Good point.

Fort Worth and Dallas should not be considered a single unit. They have a considerably different feel. I think of Dallas as an Eastern-style city, and Fort Worth as a big Western-style town, more different than their 35-mile separation would suggest. I much prefer Ft Worth to Dallas, and I've lived in both places.

Dallas isn't all ugly. It has some beautiful areas, such as the Swiss Avenue area. I think that the bigger a city gets, the less individuality it seems to have, somewhat like Interstate highways as opposed to the older routes which still pass through small towns and less homogenized terrain.

I'm thinking of moving west for a drier climate and less traffic, not to mention cleaner air and scenery. The climate of Houston I find extremely unpleasant. Sure, you can play golf 365 days a year. You can also sweat 365 days a year.

I do NOT consider a professional sports franchise to be a determining factor in deciding where to live!