Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great post. Downtown Houston has literally like 0 urban neighborhoods surrounding it. Midtown Houston is still a joke...people there think 2-3 blocks of midrise apartment buildings is super urban. Okay.
Downtown Dallas has an array of urban neighborhood surrounding downtown like Deep Ellum, Uptown, going NW from there. This is what I discuss earlier on the 1st page.
Who thinks that? Nobody on any of the various similar sites thinks that Midtown is super urban. Anybody that has been to Houston knows what Midtown was and what it is turning into. Midtown cannot compare to anything in Dallas because it honestly is brand new.
What??? There is no question of the boundaries of Downtown Dallas. It has an exact boundary it's just that people here are too lazy to do a little research to look it up. People can sit here and debate the boundary of Downtown Houston but that doesn't make the actual boundary any different. If I say the boundary of Downtown Houston is loop 610 does that make it a worth debating just because I said it? Come on people. Let's go by the actual numbers and not "what I think it looks like".
People like to argue the boundary of Uptown Houston. Does that make the actual boundary any different. Of course not. If you go by some people's estimate of Uptown Houston it would probably dwarf every district in Houston and Dallas. Which of course would be absurd for anyone to actually use in an argument.
The actual boundary numbers don't lie. Actual boundary lines: Downtown Houston > TMC > Downtown Dallas.
By actual numbers yes, nobody is denying it. The problem lies when people confuse boundaries for continues urbanity (or choose to blindly believe in it).
It's kind of like the city vs metro comparison. The city of Indianapolis and Jacksonville are bigger in both population and area than San Francisco, Boston and Atlanta. Some people in those cities choose to believe that they are actually bigger, but we all know they are not really more urban and extensive than those cities.
By actual numbers yes, nobody is denying it. The problem lies when people confuse boundaries for continues urbanity (or choose to blindly believe in it).
It's kind of like the city vs metro comparison. The city of Indianapolis and Jacksonville are bigger in both population and area than San Francisco, Boston and Atlanta. Some people in those cities choose to believe that they are actually bigger, but we all know they are not really more urban and extensive than those cities.
D/FW is only ~400,000 larger than Houston/Galveston in population. Metro density numbers are so close its like splitting hairs.
Even Los Angeles (LA Basin) & NYC are completely flat.
NYC isn't. Several parts of the city are hilly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
