Houston vs. Dallas (Fort Worth, Irving, The Woodlands: unincorporated, claim, largest)

[First24]

Originally Posted by Angel713

"Hey Fort Worth! Thanks for the help in boosting our population numbers and putting us above Houston. We appreciate it you backwoods cowtown you!"

Love,

Dallas.

^ Good one. I wanna play to.

To Baytown, Texas City and Channelview, thank you for the refinery output that boosts our GDP so we look important.

To Galveston, we appreciate you making us appear interesting and like we have a beach.

To all the would be suburbs that have sacrificed independence to make our city limits nearly 300 square miles larger than Dallas, assuring we can be proclaimed Texas' largest city.

Thank you all.

Sincerely,

Houston

Bada Bing... Bada Boom...

[AK123]

Originally Posted by Dangerfield

To Baytown, Texas City and Channelview, thank you for the refinery output that boosts our GDP so we look important.

But aren't many of DFW's Fortune 500 companies located in the suburb cities, while all but one or two of Houston's are in Houston?

Originally Posted by Dangerfield

To Galveston, we appreciate you making us appear interesting and like we have a beach.

No no, Houston has coastline that is even closer than that of Galveston. Galveston Island just has the bigger, more popular beaches of course.

From my other post https://www.city-data.com/forum/10244249-post1613.html

Coastal Houston metro, view one - Google Maps

Coastal Houston metro, view two - Google Maps

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by AK123

But aren't many of DFW's Fortune 500 companies located in the suburb cities, while all but one or two of Houston's are in Houston?

Yes, but should that really matter?

[feufoma]

Originally Posted by Dangerfield

Which makes it even more amazing that the DFW area has around 600K more residents than the Houston area with a nearly identical ethnic makeup.

Yes, since DFW is landlocked and arguably would have more habitable space on which to grow (i.e., it's not hemmed in by the ocean) then, yes, it makes sense that it would have 600K more residents (thanks Fort Worth) than Houston's metro.

And even if the ethnic makeup were "nearly identical" (which is apparently just your opinion since you don't cite any sources) doesn't make any difference based on whether Dallas is or isn't landlocked. Houston's near the ocean and has a much more international presence-period. If Dallas did then maybe it would have over 90 foreign consulates. But, guess what, it doesn't and it probably never will. How 'bout them apples??

[AK123]

Originally Posted by LAnative10

Yes, but should that really matter?

Only in context to Dangerfield's post mentioning Baytown/Channelview.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by feufoma

Yes, since DFW is landlocked and arguably would have more habitable space on which to grow (i.e., it's not hemmed in by the ocean) then, yes, it makes sense that it would have 600K more residents (thanks Fort Worth) than Houston's metro.

And even if the ethnic makeup were "nearly identical" (which is apparently just your opinion since you don't cite any sources) doesn't make any difference based on whether Dallas is or isn't landlocked. Houston's near the ocean and has a much more international presence-period. If Dallas did then maybe it would have over 90 foreign consulates. But, guess what, it doesn't and it probably never will. How 'bout them apples??

Its not opinion that the ethnic makeup is virutally identical. Please refer to the charts below.

https://pics.city-data.com/craces/21015.jpg (broken link)https://pics.city-data.com/craces/21292.jpg (broken link)

Houston is more international. No arguement. Dallas is still extremely international as well. As I also mentioned, DFW is gaining ground on them. DFW went from 15% foreign born to 17.5% foreign born in 7 years, whereas Houston has remained at just below 21% the whole time. Who knows where DFW will be in the next 10 years? Over 20% foreign born the stats indicate. Then if trends are the same, they will be equal. But we dont know what the future will bring so I wont speculate. Right now, Houston MSA has 1.2 million foreign born residents and DFW has 1.1 million residents.

Also you guys should chill about Dallas and Fort Worth being in the same MSA. If you think Dallas should thank Fort Worth for the population, maybe Houston should thank all those suburbs it swallowed up. Either way, city limit lines are meaningless, only MSA and CSA numbers tell the whole story for the area.

Also, something else you guys should think about is that the Houston MSA has more land area than the DFW MSA. The Houston MSA is 10,062 sq. miles while the DFW MSA is 9,286 sq. miles. That mean there are less people living in a larger amount of land in Southeast Texas and more people living in a smaller area of land in the Metroplex. So city lines mean squat when you guys have more land to work with and still have fewer people.

[First24]

^ Great post LAnative! I would +2 you but I have to spread the love first.

Originally Posted by Angel713

"Hey Fort Worth! Thanks for the help in boosting our population numbers and putting us above Houston. We appreciate it you backwoods cowtown you!"

Love,

Dallas.

It baffles me how some pro-Houston forumers arbitrarily claim Dallas needs Fort Worth for a population boost, yet dismiss the fact that Houston's city limits contain 194 more square miles than Dallas'. Alot can fit into that amount of additional milage; like, the nation's 6th largest city Philadelphia (135 sq miles).

I guess for Houston it's just pure happenstance?

Originally Posted by feufoma

So, how is Dallas's seaport doing? Oh wait...that's right it's completely landlocked. (BTW: Ray Hubbard doesn't count.)

The importantance of a seaport for fueling growth is dwindling. The Port cities of today are those with major air, highway and railroad transit hubs. The nation's top two population growth metros over the past decade; DFW and Atlanta, are testament to this fact. Both "landlocked".

Originally Posted by feufoma

Yes, since DFW is landlocked and arguably would have more habitable space on which to grow (i.e., it's not hemmed in by the ocean) then, yes, it makes sense that it would have 600K more residents (thanks Fort Worth) than Houston's metro.

And even if the ethnic makeup were "nearly identical" (which is apparently just your opinion since you don't cite any sources) doesn't make any difference based on whether Dallas is or isn't landlocked. Houston's near the ocean and has a much more international presence-period. If Dallas did then maybe it would have over 90 foreign consulates. But, guess what, it doesn't and it probably never will.

Never will? Whoa podner... You're making some big assumptions. Consulates expand, relocate and close on occassion. DFW's population is already distancing itself from Houston's.

We'll see.

Originally Posted by feufoma

How 'bout them apples??

Apples?

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by Dangerfield

The importantance of a seaport for fueling growth is dwindling. The Port cities of today are those with major air, highway and railroad transit hubs. The nation's top two population growth metros over the past decade; DFW and Atlanta, are testament to this fact. Both "landlocked".

The only reason we aren't the top of the population growth metros is that we had our growth in the '80s, way before Dallas and Atlanta were even a thought in people's minds. Of course the other two cities big industry--headquarters location--is a very volatile industry, very fickle with moving around the world. Corporate Headquarters can be done anywhere. Look for ExxonMobil to move from Irving to Downtown Houston in a few years.

Never will? Whoa podner... You're making some big assumptions. Consulates expand, relocate and close on occassion. DFW's population is already distancing itself from Houston's.

I guess Filipinos like to live in the avant-garde cities. There are no Philippine consulates in the South, but when there was one it was in Greenway Plaza in Houston.

[CanTex]

Originally Posted by LAnative10

I will comment on the DFW vs. IAH situation because I work for the airlines, and frankly its a subject on which Im fairly well versed.

DFW is a much larger and busier airport than IAH, but IAH is more Internationally focused. Basically, AA's hub at DFW and CO's at IAH mirror each other except that IAH has more service to Mexico and Central America and DFW has alot more service domestically.

AA has 4 European destinations nonstop from DFW (London, Paris, Frankfurt, and Madrid) and CO has 4 European destinations from IAH (London, Paris, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam). They both have about the same amount of capacity by plane size.

AA at DFW has three destinations in deep South America (Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Santiago, Chile) and CO at IAH has three deep South American destinations (Sao Paulo, Rio de Janiero, and Buenos Aires). AA at DFW has more capcity to the reigion because they use larger aircrafts for the flights.

AA at DFW has two flights daily to Tokyo and CO at IAH has one flight daily to Tokyo. All flights are operated by 777.

In Central America and Northern South America is where IAH has quite a bit more. DFW has flights to Guatemala City, San Jose, Costa Rica, Panama City, Panama, Belize City, and Carracas, Venezuala. IAH has all the above mentioned destinations plus Bogata, Lima, Tegusegalpa, Managua, San Pedro Sula, and Roatan.

In Mexico, they both have extemely extensive networks, but IAH has about 5 more destinations.

As for foreign carriers, IAH attracts more because of the oil industry.

They both have:

British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa, TACA, Areomexico

IAH has:

Air France, Emirates, Qatar, Singapore Airways

DFW has:

Korean Air, Mexicana

Overal in capacity to the reigions of the world:

IAH has more capacity to: Europe, Central and Northern South America, and Mexico

DFW has more capacity to: Asia, deep South America, and domestically

In terms of Cargo, DFW handles quite a bit more than IAH.

Hope that helps.

Excellent summary and comparison!

AA certainly gives DFW a strong edge over IAH since it is a much larger carrier than CO.

Where IAH is stronger is with the non-hub airlines. KLM and BA each have two flights a day to IAH (1 for KLM is all business class) vs. 1 per day to DFW, and Lufthansa flies a 747 to IAH vs. an A-340 to DFW. Air France has two flights per day between IAH and CDG, none to DFW.

What is very telling is that when Emirates, Qatar and Singapore Airlines were looking at where to expand their operations in the U.S. in recent years, they chose Houston over Dallas... and they're all premiere airlines too.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by Dangerfield

The importantance of a seaport for fueling growth is dwindling. The Port cities of today are those with major air, highway and railroad transit hubs. The nation's top two population growth metros over the past decade; DFW and Atlanta, are testament to this fact. Both "landlocked".

Not!

Houston is the largest seaport in the nation in terms of foreign tonage & its only expanding. Next time you see that swanky new BMW, Mercedes, or Audi in front of you at the light in Highland Park just remember it came from Houston.