Houston vs. Dallas (San Antonio, Austin, Atlanta: rank, metropolitan, counties)

[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by TheDeep

if nothing else, texans like to argue much? I dunno, I browsed through the first 15 pages of this thread and my head hurts already. Can't believe this thread is 85 pages long...!!

Nah, just a good natured rivalry. Both Dallas and Houston are great places with much going for them. It's like a sibling rivalry, all is good.

[TheDeep]

ok so let me understand.

Dallas has slightly better weather than Houston.
Dallas is cleaner than Houston.
Dallas is zoned, Houston is not.
Dallas has more jobs (corporate) than Houston.

Houston has more culture.
Houston isn't as flat/treeless as Dallas.
Houston is near the ocean but Dallas is landlocked.

I see Dallas winning.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by TheDeep

ok so let me understand.

Dallas has slightly better weather than Houston.

In the winter, maybe.

Dallas is cleaner than Houston.

I'd say the cleanliness is about the same between the two cities. Neither one is all that dirty.

Dallas has more jobs (corporate) than Houston.

I don't know where you heard that Dallas has more corporate jobs than Houston. That's not the truth. They're either equal or Houston has more, but Dallas definitely does not have more.

Houston has more culture.

I'd say so, but that's arguable.

Houston isn't as flat/treeless as Dallas.

While Houston has much taller trees, it is not less flat than Dallas. It's more flat.



.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by mpope409

In the winter, maybe.

I think you meant the opposite. Ice storms are scary. Last year's black ice feature on the KHOU news about I-35 near Denton(?) was very scary. That semi-truck didn't know what slipped it.

Summer might be a stretch especially when last summer was fodder for David Letterman jokes about Dallas. "It was so hot that..."

[mimimomx3]

Austinite votes...'neither'....are ya'll surprised?? Both Dallas and Houston are just too suburban to be considered a 'city' for me. Cities are NY, Chicago, SF, Paris,London, Milan... a real city has excellent mass transit that will take you everywhere in that city where you want to go. Cities are old. Cities have 'neighborhoods' that are well defined. Sorry, Dallas and Houston.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Austinite votes...'neither'....are ya'll surprised?? Both Dallas and Houston are just too suburban to be considered a 'city' for me. Cities are NY, Chicago, SF, Paris,London, Milan... a real city has excellent mass transit that will take you everywhere in that city where you want to go. Cities are old. Cities have 'neighborhoods' that are well defined. Sorry, Dallas and Houston.

Well for your information, Dallas and Houston are not too suburban, they have their very dense areas, their mass transit is coming along (give it a chance), they have age to them, and they have neighborhoods that are well defined. Both Dallas and Houston are cities 100%.

Seems to me this Austinite doesn't know what she's talking about.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Well for your information, Dallas and Houston are not too suburban, they have their very dense areas, their mass transit is coming along (give it a chance), they have age to them, and they have neighborhoods that are well defined. Both Dallas and Houston are cities 100%.

Seems to me this Austinite doesn't know what she's talking about.

And I agree.

Houston's core is denser (way denser) than Austin's and is somewhat denser than Dallas'. 600,000 people (and counting) and 96 square miles. The Ship Channel takes up some of that land in the Inner Loop, too.

[Spade]

While Houston and Dallas do have dense pockets it it's core. Both cities are still suburban in nature. Both Dallas and Houston's density levels are about the same around 3500 per sq mile. But that is nothing compared to the older more denser cities of the NE and Midwest. Both cities as a whole are very low in density and thus have the reputation as being suburban styled cities in which they are. Especially compared to the cities he just named.

However, both are more dense than Austin but Austin is a baby when it comes to being a city compared to these two. Austin is learning from the mistakes that Dallas and Houston made in the last few decades.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Spade

While Houston and Dallas do have dense pockets it it's core. Both cities are still suburban in nature. Both Dallas and Houston's density levels are about the same around 3500 per sq mile. But that is nothing compared to the older more denser cities of the NE and Midwest. Both cities as a whole are very low in density and thus have the reputation as being suburban styled cities in which they are. Especially compared to the cities he just named.

However, both are more dense than Austin but Austin is a baby when it comes to being a city compared to these two. Austin is learning from the mistakes that Dallas and Houston made in the last few decades.

Density and urban are not dependant qualities. Many parts of urban Houston and Dallas appear like suburbs, but they definitely are not. And there are many places in both cities that have absolutely no traits of a suburb.

And for the thousandth time, HOU and DAL are not suburban in nature, they're suburban in expansion. Saying that they're suburban in nature is to say that they began as a suburb, which is not true.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Density and urban are not dependant qualities. Many parts of urban Houston and Dallas appear like suburbs, but they definitely are not. And there are many places in both cities that have absolutely no traits of a suburb.

And for the thousandth time, HOU and DAL are not suburban in nature, they're suburban in expansion. Saying that they're suburban in nature is to say that they began as a suburb, which is not true.

I agree. Miami is dense, but I wouldn't call it the most urban of cities at all. Same with Phoenix which is actually denser than Houston and Dallas. However, low density sprawl is what makes up most of Houston and Dallas and they do not resemble what most think of urban dense environments such as cities in the NE, Midwest, Europe, and San Francisco. Urban and Dense are not dependant but it sure does help.

Speaking for Houston and Dallas. You know I've stated this many times already. These cities are suburban in nature. Does not mean it is bad at all. But it's just the way it was built. Houston and Dallas look more like Naperville, Illinois than it does Boston, Massachusetts. Saying they're suburban in nature is not saying they began as a suburb. Saying they're suburban in nature means they were built in a time when living in suburbs became popular.

Look it up, suburban living became popular when Houston and Dallas experienced it's greatest growth and it mirrored that time. When people moved out of those dense environments and moved into large huge planned communities with little public transportation, giant strip malls and shopping malls, etc. etc. Basically environments built for the car in mind.