Does Houston, DFW, or ATL metros feel about their size or bigger? (live, cost)

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by dtownboogie

Dallas metro division blah, blah, blah, you and I both know that DFW is one area so you can take that lame argument with someone else, as far as Houston being an internationally known city, you are kidding right? There are only a handful of cities in the U.S. known internationally and let me tell you Houston aint one of them, the only cities that are truly known globally are NYC, LA, Miami, and DC, sorry to burst your bubble Htown but your city is not really known outside of the U.S. in fact hasn't there been a thread already on this where Houston was ranked lower than Dallas

DFW may be one area because development is pretty much consistent, but it doesn't operate as one. It's still two different and distinct metro areas, with some overlap here and there. Just look at the jobs. The Dallas side gets all the new white collar jobs, while the Fort Worth side gets the blue collar jobs. It's still long distance to call from Dallas to Fort Worth and vice versa. If your zip code starts with "75---" you're on the Dallas side. If it starts with "76---", you're on the Fort Worth side.

Plenty of differences between the two still.

And as far as Houston being more internationally known....ever heard of the energy industry? Houston is so little known internationally that it has so few foreign consulates. You are so right.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

In urban areas, you need consistent density (not sure what the figure is, but I'm sure someone knows) for the area to be counted in. All people are saying is that Atlanta does the worst out of metro areas its size. So what if most of the population lives in the core counties. Atlanta is no different than most cities if you look at it like that. That doesn't change the fact that Atlanta is still the most sprawled and least dense out of metro areas its size. Look at the link I posted from the ARC.

I understand what people are saying, what I am saying is that people are not taking the further leap to see why it is that way.

You speak of consistent density, and that exists here. Fulton, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Clayton form a gigantic circle. Then around those counties are 10 other countries that all touch parts of this gigantic circle. Then around those 10 counties are another 10 counties touching them. However, in those outer counties, the development is mostly along the edges that touch the core counties and along ...leaving the rest of the county to be rural.

One, not accepting that fact, may jump to the conclusion that development is not even an is just a mish mash over the whole of all of those counties. actually, there is no may about it. That is exactly what is happening and people keep trying to explain why that isn't so while having people stick to their guns and just go with the "poster child of sprawl" moniker without digging deeper to what that means exactly.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

I understand what people are saying, what I am saying is that people are not taking the further leap to see why it is that way.

You speak of consistent density, and that exists here. Fulton, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Clayton form a gigantic circle. Then around those counties are 10 other countries that all touch parts of this gigantic circle. However, in those outer counties, the development is mostly along the edges that touch the core counties...leaving the rest of the county to be rural.

One, not accepting that fact, may jump to the conclusion that development is not even an is just a mish mash over the whole of all of those counties. actually, there is no may about it. That is exactly what is happening and people keep trying to explain why that isn't so while having people stick to their guns and just go with the "poster child of sprawl" moniker without digging deeper to what that means exactly.

I see what you're saying, but how is this different than any other metro area? Houston and Dallas, for example, have similar areas, where small parts of a development touches the core county, but the rest of it is rural. It's just the way Atlanta is built. Not sure if it's the hills, the way the roads are laid out, or what.

[dtownboogie]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

DFW may be one area because development is pretty much consistent, but it doesn't operate as one. It's still two different and distinct metro areas, with some overlap here and there. Just look at the jobs. The Dallas side gets all the new white collar jobs, while the Fort Worth side gets the blue collar jobs. It's still long distance to call from Dallas to Fort Worth and vice versa. If your zip code starts with "75---" you're on the Dallas side. If it starts with "76---", you're on the Fort Worth side.

Plenty of differences between the two still.

And as far as Houston being more internationally known....ever heard of the energy industry? Houston is so little known internationally that it has so few foreign consulates. You are so right.

On your first ridiculous comment, name me one large metro where all of the zipcodes are similar to one another
As for your second comment, only people in the know would know about that, like lets say x-city would prosper in nano technology internationally, would that mean that it is somehow now known internationally? Of course not, it is only people who are in the industry or people like you who are trying to prove how international Houston is that would even know that, so you to can take your lame argument with someone else because in the end NYC, LA, DC, Miami, Dallas, SF, Philly, Boston, San Diego etc., are all more internationally known by your average person than Houston, name me one thing besides that lame nasa complex (that NYC does much better of putting it together for tourists BTW) that your average tourist would want to go visit that muggy, swamp-smelling, unbearably humid city for?

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

okay. well if you put it that way...

But what about the other big cities?

PHilly is not even in the top 20 of the big 37.
And Boston is only 3 spots away from ATL

Boston 33
Cincinnati 34
Indianapolis 35
Pittsburgh 36
Atlanta 37

Well I'm sure I'm going to be called a homer for this, but I feel like this is an area where Boston and Philadelphia are different. This isn't to say that their metros don't sprawl--because they definitely do. However it's not the same as the typical Sunbelt sprawl seen in many cities due to their age.

While their urban cores are obviously extremely large and dense (Philadelphia has over 1.5mil in 135 sq miles, with expanded borders Boston gets 1.5mil in about 150 sq miles), there are also several very dense satellite cities.

In Boston's case, the core 250 square miles has about 1.85 million people. There are also cities like Lowell and Lawrence located about 35 miles away. Combined they have a population nearing 185,000 with densities of of 7,719ppsm (Lowell) and 10,911ppsm (Lawrence). By adding Lowell, Lawrence, and Brockton the total population goes to almost 2,150,000 in about 300 square miles. That's over half the population in roughly 17% of the urban area.

Conversely, the typical layout of Sunbelt "sprawl" cities tends to be very consistent density throughout the entire metropolitan area. This may have happened to Boston if it weren't for the ring of old, historic, wealthy suburbs which surround most of the city (particularly to the West). These areas include parts of Newton, Brookline, and Milton, and the towns of Wellesley, Newton, Weston, Dover, Lexington, Concord, and Lincoln, among others. Those towns often combat any form of major development which intrudes into their area. I can't speak for Philadelphia, but I would imagine there would be a similar layout.

So while these cities certainly do sprawl...the low densities of their urban areas doesn't really make them comparable to some of the newly-developed cities.

Originally Posted by testa50

It's perfect if you look at a map at 40,000', but look closer and there are big problems:

- The GWCC is pretty much a brick wall between the neighborhood and downtown. You have to walk around the thing through all sorts of desolate places to get anywhere besides the Dome.
- It's actually pretty far from stuff. 3/4 mile from the Park (which is only a so-so park; Piedmont Park is where it's at). 1.25mi+ from the heart of downtown (Peachtree & International), and again, not a pleasant walk.
- There used to be significant housing projects in the area. They were torn down a few years ago, but the reputation lingers.
- It's separated from Downtown by Northside Dr, a major, lifeless corridor that's typically three lanes in either direction as well as a left turn lane, and is connected to the south with one of Atlanta's most notorious roads. Even in nicer areas further north Northside Drive doesn't look great.
- It's also separated from Downtown by a major rail corridor. By major, I mean one of the busiest in the nation.
- Downtown hasn't seen most of Atlanta's business growth. Midtown and parts north have (Midtown is now approaching Downtown in total office space). Certain areas close to downtown have grown rapidly (Old Fourth Ward, Inman Park, Grant Park, etc) because they have attractive historic attributes. Nearby areas will hopefully begin to build on this growth, but it will take time.

It might see an uptick from the AUC and a new shopping center that is being built (or will be soon). There actually have been a few significant developments in the area. MARTA helps (although many people in the Atlanta forum would disagree with me on this point). But there are many, many tenement-style buildings that have fallen into disrepair, and there's still a whole lot of poverty, crime, and drugs.

In general, inner neighborhoods on the east side fare a lot better than ones on the west side.

Good point. Looking at it from Google Maps and seeing how close it appears to have tons of "Blank Slate" potential, without knowing how it actually feels. I do remember going to the Florida-Arkansas SEC Championship game a few years ago ('06?) and seeing what looked like run-down houses right next to the Georgia Dome and thinking "wtf?". If they are indeed blighted housing projects/former projects I can understand why some may avoid the area.

It's a shame we don't live in China. If someone saw potential, the area would be bulldozed at noon, architectural plans would be finished at 2, and they'd be pouring concrete by 5.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

Good point. Looking at it from Google Maps and seeing how close it appears to have tons of "Blank Slate" potential, without knowing how it actually feels. I do remember going to the Florida-Arkansas SEC Championship game a few years ago ('06?) and seeing what looked like run-down houses right next to the Georgia Dome and thinking "wtf?". If they are indeed blighted housing projects/former projects I can understand why some may avoid the area.

It's a shame we don't live in China. If someone saw potential, the area would be bulldozed at noon, architectural plans would be finished at 2, and they'd be pouring concrete by 5.

On the good news front though, the days of that area looking that way it does currently are indeed numbered. Prince Charles and his foundation are currently working with the City of Atlanta to redevelop that entire are directly to the west of the Dome a la Poundbury in Dorchester, with an American flair of course.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/16675551-post4.html

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by dtownboogie

On your first ridiculous comment, name me one large metro where all of the zipcodes are similar to one another

It was an example to show yet another divide between the Dallas and Fort Worth side. Don't know why that is so hard to understand. And no, not all metro areas are like DFW. For example, all of the Houston area zip codes begin with "77---".

As for your second comment, only people in the know would know about that, like lets say x-city would prosper in nano technology internationally, would that mean that it is somehow now known internationally? Of course not, it is only people who are in the industry or people like you who are trying to prove how international Houston is that would even know that, so you to can take your lame argument with someone else because in the end NYC, LA, DC, Miami, Dallas, SF, Philly, Boston, San Diego etc., are all more internationally known by your average person than Houston, name me one thing besides that lame nasa complex (that NYC does much better of putting it together for tourists BTW) that your average tourist would want to go visit that muggy, swamp-smelling, unbearably humid city for?

First thing is first, NYC does not have a NASA complex. Second, in every space movie, Houston is mentioned (it is Mission Control after all). Another is Yao Ming, especially in China. Being that Houston has much more international flights/traffic than Dallas, I'm not sure you can say Dallas is more well known. You're immature rant is very telling though.

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

On the good news front though, the days of that area looking that way it does currently are indeed numbered. Prince Charles and his foundation are currently working with the City of Atlanta to redevelop that entire are directly to the west of the Dome a la Poundbury in Dorchester, with an American flair of course.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/16675551-post4.html

That's great to hear! I hope it turns out well.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

It was an example to show yet another divide between the Dallas and Fort Worth side. Don't know why that is so hard to understand. And no, not all metro areas are like DFW. For example, all of the Houston area zip codes begin with "77---".



First thing is first, NYC does not have a NASA complex. Second, in every space movie, Houston is mentioned (it is Mission Control after all). Another is Yao Ming, especially in China. Being that Houston has much more international flights/traffic than Dallas, I'm not sure you can say Dallas is more well known. You're immature rant is very telling though.

He's just steadily impressing me with this 6th grade logic.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

In urban areas, you need consistent density (not sure what the figure is, but I'm sure someone knows) for the area to be counted in. All people are saying is that Atlanta does the worst out of metro areas its size. So what if most of the population lives in the core counties. Atlanta is no different than most cities if you look at it like that. That doesn't change the fact that Atlanta is still the most sprawled and least dense out of metro areas its size. Look at the link I posted from the ARC.

See that’s the thing your so competitive your not listening, And I trying highlight the straw man. I said countless times Atlanta is amongst the most dense I never said Atlanta the most dense. Atlanta may be the least dense of the metro it’s size no one is arguing against that but all metros it’s size including Atlanta are generally dense at their core 3.2m in 1,800 sq mi. Posters exaggerated Atlanta low density to the point it’s a talking point to compare Atlanta to metros like Tampa and Charlotte when Atlanta in about half there metro has twice the pop. But you would never know that because it’s so common to talk about low density, posters don’t talk about how dense and populated 1,800 sq mi in metro Atlanta is. If you pay attention you would have notice a few posters trying to compare Atlanta to metros way smaller because they didn’t how dense and populated Atlanta is at the core, and they went by talking points.

I’m testing posters, every poster dodge and haven’t agree to it yet. Ok in 1,800 sq mi or in 3m Atlanta is the least dense amongst the most dense. I don’t know if poster can’t bare to bring themselves to agree to it or what? Posters have no problem saying the blue though but if you don’t have the red in the mind the blue is misleading.