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.
Kansas City and St. Louis are not sun belt, Memphis and Nashville are borderline sunbelt at best. I would replace them with San Diego, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tampa,or Jacksonville.
I voted for Houston, although Atlanta or Dallas could take the top spot.
Sunbelt and south are not interchangeable. A city can be in the South and not be in the Sunbelt like Richmond or Louisville etc. Or a city can not be in the South at all, such as Los Angeles or San Diego etc. and be in the Sunbelt.
Dallas is way bigger, more urban, and more cosmopolitan than Atlanta. But Atlanta has a bigger "cachement" area as "King of the South." Dallas also has Ft Worth, which is not even remotely comparable to anywhere in ATL metro area. It's basically a better, twice as big Birmingham only an hour or less from the Big D.
ATL has marketed itself so well, even though IMO the city leaves lots to be desired for a metro of 5+ million. I have found lots of similar amenities in metros half its size with lower prices and 1/4 the traffic.
Dallas is way bigger, more urban, and more cosmopolitan than Atlanta. But Atlanta has a bigger "cachement" area as "King of the South." Dallas also has Ft Worth, which is not even remotely comparable to anywhere in ATL metro area. It's basically a better, twice as big Birmingham only an hour or less from the Big D.
As someone who is familiar with Dallas/Fort Worth, and travels there three times a year, you're massively overrating FW here. Birmingham anchors the largest metro in AL, and was once one of the largest cities in the South, and has Pre-WW1 architecture that you won't even find in Dallas. Fort Worth is very sprawled, Suburban, flat, full of strip malls, and honestly wouldn't strive without Dallas. Anytime I'm in FW, we end up driving into Dallas for Nightlife and Entertainment.
Dallas has more Urban districts than Atlanta, but Atlanta has more Urban-like housing.
As someone who is familiar with Dallas/Fort Worth, and travels there three times a year, you're massively overrating FW here. Birmingham anchors the largest metro in AL, and was once one of the largest cities in the South, and has Pre-WW1 architecture that you won't even find in Dallas. Fort Worth is very sprawled, Suburban, flat, full of strip malls, and honestly wouldn't strive without Dallas. Anytime I'm in FW, we end up driving into Dallas for Nightlife and Entertainment.
*sigh*
(Ok, biscut_head & a person, THIS has something to do with Ft. Worth.)
As an actual resident of the city, allow me to correct you on some things:
1. Fort Worth is ALSO an anchor city. DFW is multi-polar with two anchor cities, Ft. Worth being the western anchor of the area.
2. EVERY sunbelt city is sprawled, suburban, and full of strip malls. Even the "heavy hitters". Why single Ft. Worth out? (And the city's "flatness" is a bit exaggerated. We have bluffs and hills... it may not be Pittsburgh or San Francisco, but it's also not a complete pancake as those who only spend about 5 minutes here think it is). There's also plenty of pre-WWII architecture here, as well. Our main landmark is the Tarrant County Courthouse and that done in a pre-1900s Beaux-arts style.
3. To say that Fort Worth "wouldn't strive without Dallas" is a slap in the face and historically the most insulting thing you can say about our city. We do not need nor depend on Dallas for anything as we're not another one of their dime-a-dozen suburbs.
I know you may have personal thoughts on what Fort Worth is, but please don't get the basics wrong.
(Ok, biscut_head & a person, THIS has something to do with Ft. Worth.)
As an actual resident of the city, allow me to correct you on some things:
1. Fort Worth is ALSO an anchor city. DFW is multi-polar with two anchor cities, Ft. Worth being the western anchor of the area.
2. EVERY sunbelt city is sprawled, suburban, and full of strip malls. Even the "heavy hitters". Why single Ft. Worth out? (And the city's "flatness" is a bit exaggerated. We have bluffs and hills... it may not be Pittsburgh or San Francisco, but it's also not a complete pancake as those who only spend about 5 minutes here think it is). There's also plenty of pre-WWII architecture here, as well. Our main landmark is the Tarrant County Courthouse and that done in a pre-1900s Beaux-arts style.
3. To say that Fort Worth "wouldn't strive without Dallas" is a slap in the face and historically the most insulting thing you can say about our city. We do not need nor depend on Dallas for anything as we're not another one of their dime-a-dozen suburbs.
I know you may have personal thoughts on what Fort Worth is, but please don't get the basics wrong.
1. Exactly, you can't mention one without the other. Fort Worth is considered a Suburb city, it doesn't stand alone on its own as the main city within a metro like Birmingham.
2. I didn't single out Fort Worth, that guy brought up Fort Wort in relation to Dallas's advantage over Atlanta. Fact of the matter is, Birmingham is a much more developed city, with its own metro, nowhere near Atlanta whatsoever.
1. Exactly, you can't mention one without the other. Fort Worth is considered a Suburb city, it doesn't stand alone on its own as the main city within a metro like Birmingham.
2. I didn't single out Fort Worth, that guy brought up Fort Wort in relation to Dallas's advantage over Atlanta. Fact of the matter is, Birmingham is a much more developed city, with its own metro, nowhere near Atlanta whatsoever.
He didn't say that and most people don't believe that; it is difficult to find data for it but if you search it on, say, Google, most results (on CD and otherwise) treat Fort Worth as a major city, as one with its own suburbs. Fort Worth alone is the center of the third largest metro in Texas and, with a population around two and a half million, is undoubtedly a major city, regardless of whether its growth has been helped by its proximity to Dallas.
Dallas is way bigger, more urban, and more cosmopolitan than Atlanta. But Atlanta has a bigger "cachement" area as "King of the South." Dallas also has Ft Worth, which is not even remotely comparable to anywhere in ATL metro area. It's basically a better, twice as big Birmingham only an hour or less from the Big D.
ATL has marketed itself so well, even though IMO the city leaves lots to be desired for a metro of 5+ million. I have found lots of similar amenities in metros half its size with lower prices and 1/4 the traffic.
Correction: DFW is way bigger than Atlanta, not Dallas on its own. And no, Dallas isn't more urban than Atlanta...I have no clue where you're getting that from. Not that either would top anyone's list for urbanity, but Atlanta does have the edge over Dallas there.
How does Atlanta leave "lots to be desired for a metro of 5 million+" but Dallas doesn't? What unique amenities does Dallas have that can't be found in metros half its size?
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.
