U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Dallas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:29 AM
 
16,092 posts, read 35,775,631 times
Reputation: 6264

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TX75007 View Post
Dallas has just 1.2 million people. The DFW MSA has 6.4 million people. That means the inner core cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are increasingly irrelevant to the area.

If the inner core were socially and economically "sustainable" then the suburbs never would have gotten traction.

If Dallas were functional compared to other regions, then we would have all the major sports teams still in Dallas.

If Dallas was responsive, then the Trinity project would be done.

If Dallas was supportive, then you would see major industrial plants still downtown and along the river, rather than moved to the suburbs.

I could go on and on.

Sustainable means self-propagating over time, renewable, revitalized. Dallas is anything but that. It IS getting better, but it is not what it used to be and a far cry from what it could be.

And don't get me going about "environmental sustainability" as the master planned suburbs are way ahead here.
"Increasingly irrelevant" somes across to me as a very arrogant statement. Maybe "less relevant" but not "irrelevant". Apparently you are forgetting that the truly wealthy don't live in Allen, Plano or Frisco or McKinney.

Name a major sports team which has left Dallas in the last 40 years. The soccer team? I don't know that it's excactly major.

The Trinity River Project is overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It has taken several congressional actions to get as far as we have. I would agree that the proposed Trinity Tollroad (which would have benefited the suburbs more than the city) has thrown a bit of a wrench into things. Dallas does things big and sometimes that takes a lot of time. The new Central Expressway and DART had similar controversies and delays. I guess you ascribe no credit to Dallas and Fort Worth for DFW Airport....

Actually we have gotten rid of some major industrial plants by design.

As far as renewable and revitalized I guess you haven't seen the cranes all over Dallas, old apartment complexes going down with new ones replacing them or the epidemic of McMansions in many if not most north and east side neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:32 AM
 
Location: North Texas
23,599 posts, read 31,135,299 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX75007 View Post
Look at google earth sometime of the area.

Count the green pixels in each city as well as the length and width of greenbelts.

There is more open space in the suburbs on a per capita or basis than in Dallas.

The large amount of open space and greenbelts are wildlife corridors. You cannot get this low density land use in city cores.

IMHO higher density along the major roads interspersed with suburbia interlaced with greenbelts is MUCH more ecologically sound than a major city core. And there are all kinds of social reasons why suburbia, even with zero lot developments, as long as there are greenbelts and parks, is much more desirable. Every day people get to see ducks, squirrels, hear coyotes, and - as they come back in N Texas - deer. Kids can play and run around. Families can go for walks. There is space between traffic and human powered travel.
That doesn't mean they are environmentally friendly or sustainable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
I get all of that. Most little villages in England were plotted out centuries ago when cars weren't even on the radar.
I know that, and said as much in my post. It's in there.

I also said that relatively modern housing estates there are still less car-dependent than ours are here. Might want to re-read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:46 AM
 
7,283 posts, read 8,112,371 times
Reputation: 5371
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX75007 View Post
Dallas has just 1.2 million people. The DFW MSA has 6.4 million people. That means the inner core cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are increasingly irrelevant to the area.

If the inner core were socially and economically "sustainable" then the suburbs never would have gotten traction.

If Dallas were functional compared to other regions, then we would have all the major sports teams still in Dallas.

If Dallas was responsive, then the Trinity project would be done.

If Dallas was supportive, then you would see major industrial plants still downtown and along the river, rather than moved to the suburbs.

I could go on and on.

Sustainable means self-propagating over time, renewable, revitalized. Dallas is anything but that. It IS getting better, but it is not what it used to be and a far cry from what it could be.

And don't get me going about "environmental sustainability" as the master planned suburbs are way ahead here.
First off Dallas has 1.241 million people it grew by ~25,000 over the last year. That's among the very top in the country. DFW has 6.7 million people.

I disagree with most all of your analysis. For a few.

Dallas grew faster than the metroplex as a whole during 2012. (2.03% v. 1.96%)
The Jets and Giants play in New Jersey, LA does not have a pro-football team, San Diego is in peril of losing their NFL team most every year. I'd certainly prefer that The Cowboys and Rangers played downtown but its not unusual for teams to play outside the core.

Dallas is by far and away the leader in industrial jobs around here. Bands of industry can be found all over south Dallas, from Mary Kay near Loop 12 south to downtown, north of 635 between the tollway and Midway, the area around Harry Hines and Royal etc. Fort Worth is second. Then the burbs.

You might take note that many companies that moved some or all of their employees out of the core years ago are returning in significant part.

Most people who move here with serious money chose Dallas, HP or Fort Worth not Allen or Pantego.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,062,828 times
Reputation: 3357
The problem with suburban sprawl isn't that it's suburban, it's that it's sprawl. You CAN design suburban developments in such a way that they can be easily served by mass transit, are walkable, etc. But most consumers and local governments are too ignorant/stupid to demand better suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 10:11 AM
 
7,283 posts, read 8,112,371 times
Reputation: 5371
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
The problem with suburban sprawl isn't that it's suburban, it's that it's sprawl. You CAN design suburban developments in such a way that they can be easily served by mass transit, are walkable, etc. But most consumers and local governments are too ignorant/stupid to demand better suburbs.

The Haggard family establish what would become Plano ~150 years ago. Then Dallas and Plano were disparate little towns so was Fort Worth. There was no way to envision a need for mass transit when the town were established.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Dallas
2,084 posts, read 2,447,065 times
Reputation: 3400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
You have this completely wrong. Setting aside the ridiculous issue of corruption (there is corruption in the suburbs every bit as hair curling) the higher taxes of the inner city are the result of higher land values. There is an order of magnitude greater value capture in the core than there is in the suburbs and since we tax by property value and not land area - the taxes are far greater.

Having all that additional revenue BTW is precisely what makes the inner city more sustainable. In fact, on their own, almost all suburbs would fail. There is simply not supportable tax base to maintain the infrastructure passed the first life-cycle. The only, and I mean, the ONLY reasons suburbs exist at all is because they are MASSIVELY subsidized by core cities.
This is what really got me interested in urbanism, and agree with your whole post. There will be a time when funding for these massive highways, and large roads come to an end. There is not enough ROI to keep up this type of post wwII Keynesian "growth".

There's already warning signals if you keep up with transportation news. Right now the state is trying to toss the hot potato to Dallas because it can't keep up with funding. This will become more and more common, and eventually you'll see cities pass the potato to to homeowners in residential areas.

TxDOT Wants Cities To Maintain Certain State Roads; Cities Say No CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 10:39 AM
 
408 posts, read 532,896 times
Reputation: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Wait you are comparing villages and towns in The UK with suburbs and cities in Texas?
I'm not comparing as much as stating a preference in how places are built and land is used. Regardless of whether you live in a city, town, or village in the UK, you can easily get around on foot. It really doesn't matter how old the town is because they still build new neighborhoods in a similar fashion. I won't go into more detail since BigDGeek already did a good job.

My only point was that you don't have to live in a big city in a loft on the 12th floor for a place to be walkable. Other countries effortlessly create walkable environments while we increasingly create less walkable environments with gated neighborhoods or neighborhoods with one way in and one way out. The way we still build and zone communities in this country is utterly stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 10:50 AM
 
Location: North Texas
23,599 posts, read 31,135,299 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayStokes View Post
I'm not comparing as much as stating a preference in how places are built and land is used. Regardless of whether you live in a city, town, or village in the UK, you can easily get around on foot. It really doesn't matter how old the town is because they still build new neighborhoods in a similar fashion. I won't go into more detail since BigDGeek already did a good job.

My only point was that you don't have to live in a big city in a loft on the 12th floor for a place to be walkable. Other countries effortlessly create walkable environments while we increasingly create less walkable environments with gated neighborhoods or neighborhoods with one way in and one way out. The way we still build and zone communities in this country is utterly stupid.
I need to spread reps before I can rep you again...but I'd rep you for this one if I could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Southlake. Don't judge me.
2,810 posts, read 3,564,894 times
Reputation: 3600
"Suburban Sprawl" will end when individual transport (read "cars on roads") becomes too expensive for it to make any sense. Right now, that shows no signs of happening. Yes, gas prices have generally increased over the last 20+ years, but cars have also become more efficient and we're now seeing transformational changes in the engines (hybrids are no longer novelties but have gained acceptance as just another type of car, and all-electric cars are rapidly advancing into the marketplace).

In addition, newer cities that have largely developed around the automobile (like Dallas) are far less "hub & spoke" than older cities that developed with railroads but rather have multiple, smaller centers scattered around the area. Yes, there's downtown Dallas...but there's also downtown Ft. Worth, Arlington, and Plano and points north. Dallas may be the largest but the center of gravity is less.

Many people want single family detached residences with a bit of land around them, but still have access to amenities. (Also, they obviously need jobs to pay for all that). That's why we have suburbs.

There are ways to develop that are more "sustainable" or "eco-friendly", but they usually require more expense upfront, with that cost borne by one party (developers. say) and the benefits accruing to another party (homeowners and the community in general), so they often don't happen. I'll note as an aside that that sort of thing is why "government" can sometimes help - you could offer incentives/payments/whatever to developers to diminish their expense, and the community as a whole (which the government represents) can then accrue the benefits. I get that the trick is knowing when the expense justifies the benefit and all those details, just kicking out the general idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,062,828 times
Reputation: 3357
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
The Haggard family establish what would become Plano ~150 years ago. Then Dallas and Plano were disparate little towns so was Fort Worth. There was no way to envision a need for mass transit when the town were established.
No you misunderstand. The town of Plano is good for mass transit because it's an actual old town, and the street grid makes it easier to walk to bus and train stops.

It's the new suburban developments since the 50s have been designed to INHIBIT walking, cycling, and using mass transit.

The alternative is new urbanism, but that hasn't gained a foothold in Texas. AFAIK there is only ONE new urbanist development in Texas, in the town of Kyle. They had to get special exemptions from ordinances to build an old fashioned town with gridded streets and alleys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Dallas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top