Dallas vs. Los Angeles (Boston, live, better, largest)

[Gunion Powder]

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

In any case, how is this thread serious? LA is the entertainment capital of the world, the nation's second biggest city, and the only place in the nation that goes head-to-head with NYC in terms of food, diversity, and the amount of things to do/cultural amenities. Dallas is a sprawling oil-industry-based city known for JR Ewing.

Maybe you should look at the 7 year old original post and answer your own question. What's your point anyway?

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

Austin is more comparable to Portland.


In any case, how is this thread serious? LA is the entertainment capital of the world, the nation's second biggest city, and the only place in the nation that goes head-to-head with NYC in terms of food, diversity, and the amount of things to do/cultural amenities. Dallas is a sprawling oil-industry-based city known for JR Ewing.

Dallas is the 4th largest metropolitan area in the US after Chicago.

Very little of its economy revolves around oil anymore. This isn't the 1980's. Mostly high tech companies, finance, insurance, wholesale, retail, distribution, & transportation.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

Austin is more comparable to Portland.


In any case, how is this thread serious? LA is the entertainment capital of the world, the nation's second biggest city, and the only place in the nation that goes head-to-head with NYC in terms of food, diversity, and the amount of things to do/cultural amenities. Dallas is a sprawling oil-industry-based city known for JR Ewing.

You dont have a clue about Dallas if thats your opinion.

Dallas is NOT an oil based city. Thats Houston. We have very little to do with the oil industry going on here.

Hate to break it to you but LA wrote the book on Sprawl. Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. just followed.

[Bobloblawslawblog]

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

You dont have a clue about Dallas if thats your opinion.

Dallas is NOT an oil based city. Thats Houston. We have very little to do with the oil industry going on here.

Hate to break it to you but LA wrote the book on Sprawl. Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. just followed.

Actually, these days that's Midland. The O&G sector is currently about 40% of Houston's economy. That's still a significant chunk, but it is no longer the majority of the local economy, and MUCH less than what it was in the 80's, when Houston was truly dependent on O&G. Houston is continuing to diversify. Expect that percentage to shrink even further.

Now, Midland truly is almost entirely based in O&G.

[kretsch]

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

Austin is more comparable to Portland.


In any case, how is this thread serious? LA is the entertainment capital of the world, the nation's second biggest city, and the only place in the nation that goes head-to-head with NYC in terms of food, diversity, and the amount of things to do/cultural amenities. Dallas is a sprawling oil-industry-based city known for JR Ewing.

gotta disagree with the oil industry based tidbit

[Hawaii4evr]

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

You dont have a clue about Dallas if thats your opinion.

Dallas is NOT an oil based city. Thats Houston. We have very little to do with the oil industry going on here.

Hate to break it to you but LA wrote the book on Sprawl. Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. just followed.

Exactly--those cities just copied and couldn't think for themselves. Even now, LA is starting to become more walkable with better public transit. The other cities listed above are far behind.

[Bobloblawslawblog]

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

Exactly--those cities just copied and couldn't think for themselves.

Wow. What a childish, simple-minded way to look at it.

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

Even now, LA is starting to become more walkable with better public transit. The other cities listed above are far behind.

Dallas already has public transit that isn't too far beneath what L.A. has, and Houston is catching up. Dallas and Houston are also densifying and urbanizing at the core level, the same as L.A. has been. Houston is densifying at a very rapid pace, actually. They're just smaller cities than L.A. and slightly further behind.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Bobloblawslawblog

Wow. What a childish, simple-minded way to look at it.



Dallas already has public transit that isn't too far beneath what L.A. has, and Houston is catching up. Dallas and Houston are also densifying and urbanizing at the core level, the same as L.A. has been. Houston is densifying at a very rapid pace, actually. They're just smaller cities than L.A. and slightly further behind.

Having lived in LA and spent considerable amounts of time in Dallas, I would mostly agree, with additional points. In many ways Dallas and LA are nothing alike - mostly in terms of demographics. Dallas will never have the sort of wealth a place like LA attracts. Dallas will never have a Beverly Hills or a Malibu or a Santa Monica or a Venice Beach or a Hollywood or even a Pasadena.

They're both sprawly cities but Dallas I think sprawls more. On the other hand, LA's density is a little off for me. It makes it not only feel sprawling, but overcrowded and sprawling. Like yeah, it's dense, and that means I have to sit in an egregious amount of traffic, and then can't find a parking spot at the strip mall or grocery store I have to drive to for my daily needs. It's not an organic density so to speak the way NYC or even Chicago and SF are. Those cities grew up to accommodate masses of people. LA hasn't gotten it down yet but soon they will, I hope.

Dallas is more of the conventional low density sprawl. Sure there are trafficky areas but it doesn't approach the critical mass that is LA. You can still enjoy the sprawl (can't believe I just said that) for its qualities - finding a parking spot for one. But the fact that Dallas is already mindful about densifying makes me think it has a bright future - in some ways maybe it has learned from the mistakes cities like LA have made.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr

Exactly--those cities just copied and couldn't think for themselves. Even now, LA is starting to become more walkable with better public transit. The other cities listed above are far behind.

LA will never be walkable. Period. I spent 24 years in and around that city. No amount of public transit will make it walkable on the whole. There are some neighborhoods that are walkable and most that aren't.

By the way, we to try to agree with me when my post was to point out your lack of knowledge.

[pwright1]

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

LA will never be walkable. Period. I spent 24 years in and around that city. No amount of public transit will make it walkable on the whole. There are some neighborhoods that are walkable and most that aren't.

By the way, we to try to agree with me when my post was to point out your lack of knowledge.

LA is big but very walkable. I walk more here and drive less than I did in DC and Seattle, which are the last two cities I lived in. Sometimes it's the people who lived here for many years who thought LA wouldn't change, and indeed it has. Public transportation is growing at a rapid rate. More are biking. The city is getting more dense than ever before. The air is much cleaner. LA has changed like night and day since I first started coming here back in the 80s.