Houston vs. Dallas (San Antonio, Austin, Abilene: subway, island, Polish)

[TXTwizter]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

I would know more since I "LIVE" in Waco

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/14/12142007wacdwntnbiz.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat= 11 (broken link)

http://www.wacotownsquare.com/residential_students.htm (broken link)

http://www.shopsofriversquarecenter.com/

https://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv251.php <-----This isn't urban?

I have to be frank with you.........that last link IS NOT DOWNTOWN WACO. Although it could be, it isn't Waco, but that photo is very similar to an Austin Avenue view from 4th Street to 10th Street.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

You really have no idea what you are saying. Aside from San Antonio, most people live in the suburban cities surrounding the city (Houston, Dallas, AND Austin). The majority of people in Austin's metro live in the suburbs. Same thing with Houston and Dallas. Hell, places like Summerwood and Kingwood are master planned communities that are completely within the city limits of Houston.

But your complaint is worthless. If you want to live in the city, you can. There is a ton of space in Houston and Dallas (but especially Houston) to still live in the city limits.

And you said Bellaire?! Bellaire is an urban enclave. It is right on Loop 610. It is completely surrounded by the City of Houston.

You are borderline rude....I pointed out that I don't care for Dallas or Houston (emphasis on the word "I") because IN MY OPINION they are too large, and seem TO ME to be small urban centers surrounded by suburbs. "I" prefer San Antonio and Austin because, having lived in both places most of MY life, people there tend to live in neighborhoods rather than suburban cities.

By the way, the population of Austin is about 700,000. The surrounding suburbs of Round Rock, Pflugerville, Cedar Park and Georgetown total about 140,000. That's hardly the majority of Austinites.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

You are borderline rude....I pointed out that I don't care for Dallas or Houston (emphasis on the word "I") because IN MY OPINION they are too large, and seem TO ME to be small urban centers surrounded by suburbs. "I" prefer San Antonio and Austin because, having lived in both places most of MY life, people there tend to live in neighborhoods rather than suburban cities.

Okay, that's fine. I don't see what the problem is when living in a suburban city's neighborhood over the main city's neighborhood.

By the way, the population of Austin is about 700,000. The surrounding suburbs of Round Rock, Pflugerville, Cedar Park and Georgetown total about 140,000. That's hardly the majority of Austinites.

It may have come out as rude, but I stand by what I said. Looks like Austin's metro is at 1.6 million: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa12420.html

[mimimomx3]

Fair enough, I suppose it depends on which areas are considered Austin suburbs.
This was my source :
http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2006_txpopest_place.php (broken link)

I guess I'll just agree to disagree. It's a big state. We can share it.

[sogod]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

I think Houston has more Koreans since Korean Air may be pulling out of DFW in favor of IAH. And yeah, Dallas does have diversity, but it is segregated and does not have as much diversity as Houston. Houston really is "twice" as diverse as Dallas. It isn't oil. If that is the case, then why does Chicago have as many foreign consulars as Houston, when Houston basically equals Chicago in diversity?

Well, it has never seemed segregated to me except on the southern side. Its not like the Woodlands or Katy are breaking down any racial barriers now though

I will say, I used to live in Garland, which is not a nice suburb, but it is very diverse. Across the street from me was a hispanic family, to my left was a white family, to my right was a black family, and to my rear across the alley was an Asian family. Thats pretty diverse. On one of the first trips I made to Houston we were coming down 45 and after we cleared the exceptionally nice wooded areas around The Woodlands (maybe Spring was nice too, I dont remember), the rest of the way until we got to downtown Houston looked a lot like Garland. So maybe you have something there.

Anyways, Houston and Dallas are two of the most diverse big cities in the US. Not as diverse as LA or New York or Chicago, but they are just one level below them. And that actually is a pretty big achievement considering A. This is Texas, B. we get no credit for it, and C. that pretty much means we are two of the most diverse cities in the entire world.

Originally Posted by Guerilla

Yeah, I did say that earlier, then Spade gave me some information that changed my opinion.

My mistake. I respect that.

[sogod]

Originally Posted by mpope409

I already knew you were one of those people who confuse being cosmopolitan with wealth and sophistication. Looking at the definition, neither really have anything to do with the word. Diversity has so much to do with it which is why I was closer to the essence of the word cosmopolitan.

No, you just don't understand that the word barely means anything, and you have interpreted the definition to mean diversity.

But lets say you are right and cosmopolitan = diversity + a tiny bit of something else, then how could cities like Moscow, Tokyo, or Paris be cosmopolitan? Or do you believe they aren't and Houston is more cosmopolitan than them?

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Fair enough, I suppose it depends on which areas are considered Austin suburbs.
This was my source :
http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2006_txpopest_place.php (broken link)

I guess I'll just agree to disagree. It's a big state. We can share it.

Yeah, but there are a lot of unincorporated areas and little suburban towns in Austin's metro area that you probably didn't account for. I think the Census Bureau got it right.

[JamesAbilene]

I just looked at Forbes Magazine's 30 most visited cities in the Us at this link:
http://www.forbestraveler.com/gadgets-gear/road-trip-gadgets-slide-2.html?partner=playlist&thisSpeed=20000 (broken link)

Houston is number 9; Dallas is number 10; San Antonio is number 17; Austin is number 24.

For those who feel that Dallas lacks in arts and urban culture, this is what Forbes says in that link (largest urban arts district in the country):

[SIZE=3]10. Dallas, TX
22.3 million visitors (2005); 15.9 million rooms sold; score: 2.05[/SIZE]
A leading Southwest business and financial center, Dallas offers more than Cowboys—it lays claim to the largest urban arts district in the country, and its boutique hotels and fine dining hotspots, coupled with a slew of family attractions, appeal to a broad range of visitors.

[JamesAbilene]

I think the link I gave was bad. Here is the link again with the information about Houston:

[SIZE=3]http://www.forbestraveler.com/gadgets-gear/road-trip-gadgets-slide.html?partner=playlist&thisSpeed=20000[/SIZE]

Quote:
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
Texas cities dominate the Forbes Traveler 30 Most Visited U.S. Cities list, and Houston is the king of the hill among the state’s urban travel meccas. Its 31 million annual visitors include a million convention guests as well as tourists touching down at the Space Center, Moody Gardens, and other attractions. In 2005, six and a half million of Houston’s visitors came from Mexico.

End quote.

Neither Houston or Dallas are slouches in the tourism/visitor department.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Spade

I'm not understanding this question or statment. could you word it differently.

I couldn't have put it any more simple.

NO. Rancier? LOL. That is not urban. That is more like anti-urban. Narrow sidewalks filled with strip malls with nothing but cars. Killeen is nothing by low density sprawl.Not meant for pedistrians to walk at all. The only thing they got right was the width of the street. Other than that, it is not urban in no way.

There is only one strip mall on Rancier Boulevard. Specifically. But that's beside the point because Killeen is urban. There are no crack houses in the suburbs. lol

Just because you're a city doesn't mean you are urban. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They are urban in a way they are built muncipality. But to urbanists around the world, they would laugh at the thought of Killeen and Waco being urban.

That doesn't mean it isn't urban.

This is urban from a city with the population of about the same size as Killeen and Waco. This is Alexandria.

No, that would be urban from your view point, but as I said before, there's no written rule that says an urban place has to look like that. You're getting nowhere.

Killeen and Waco may not be urbane, but they are urban.