What activities do you do in Dallas? (Plano, Magnolia: theatres, shop)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by zatires

Talking about films. If you want to see foreign films, DFW is not better than NY, Chicago, LA, SF. Just in Manhattan there are more indie/foreign film theaters than the whole DFW metro. So we should conclude DFW is doing a bad job in indie/foreign film showings with its 6 million population, compared to the 2 million population of Manhattan?

The New York metro area has 20 million people. Chicago has 9 million and change. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Fran Bay Area are the only metros in the USA with a better screen count than DFW. There are well over 300 metros in the USA.

Oh I just remembered Seattle, which has a lot more indie movie theaters than Dallas, with a much smaller population. Seems like Dallas is again falling behind, also against Boston as well.

Dallas is far ahead of Seattle. Dallas has 21 screens for indie/foreign/specialty films, plus 9 or 10 for Bollywood movies from India.

Did any of you know that Dallas is the only metro with a 24 hour FM station for music from India and Pakistan?

[rdfw]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Another obvious example is the King Tut exhibit.

While it's very good that DFW got that exhibit, it is a travelling exhibit and this isn't the first time it's made it's way around the US anyway. So it's a good thing, but not spectacular.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by rdfw

While it's very good that DFW got that exhibit, it is a travelling exhibit and this isn't the first time it's made it's way around the US anyway. So it's a good thing, but not spectacular.

I think it's a pretty spectacular thing to see... and you can't see it in the smaller metros of America, just in the big behemoths like DFW.

The experience of traveling from your small city with its limited range of urban offerings to a big city like DFW is that you can live large for a while. See exhibits you won't find back home, shop in places you won't find back home, experience the urban culture you won't find back home.

[rdfw]

Originally Posted by aceplace

I think it's a pretty spectacular thing to see... and you can't see it in the smaller metros of America, just in the big behemoths like DFW. The experience of traveling from your small city with its limited range of urban offerings to a big city like DFW is that you can live large for a while. See exhibits you won't find back home, shop in places you won't find back home, experience the urban culture you won't find back home.

Quote from yourself on page 6, with proper substitutions:

Originally Posted by aceplace

your claims about Dallas vs "some small city" are not credible or material because of the gross disparity in population. A metro with 6 million people such as Dallas will be more active than a metro like "some small city" with 500,000.

So what's the point? You knock down comparisons of DFW to other cities based on the fact that larger population implies more activity, so why use the same comparison to boost DFW over smaller cities if that's such a strong point?

DFW and Houston are the largest "behemoth" (ugh, in your words) metro areas in a very large region of the US, the Tut exhibit didn't come to this region last time it was here, so it's a natural fit. Of course it's a spectacular thing to see, but the fact that it came to DFW isn't quite a selling point for people to choose to visit here over other similarly large metros.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by rdfw

Quote from yourself on page 6, with proper substitutions:

So what's the point? You knock down comparisons of DFW to other cities based on the fact that larger population implies more activity, so why use the same comparison to boost DFW over smaller cities if that's such a strong point?

DFW and Houston are the largest "behemoth" (ugh, in your words) metro areas in a very large region of the US, the Tut exhibit didn't come to this region last time it was here, so it's a natural fit. Of course it's a spectacular thing to see, but the fact that it came to DFW isn't quite a selling point for people to choose to visit here over other similarly large metros.

No, I believe that people who want to see it will choose DFW over a city that doesn't have it.

Yes, the larger a city in population, the more appealing will be its list of urban attractions.

[rdfw]

Originally Posted by aceplace

No, I believe that people who want to see it will choose DFW over a city that doesn't have it.

Makes sense!

[zatires]

Originally Posted by aceplace

No, I believe that people who want to see it will choose DFW over a city that doesn't have it.

Duh;

I mean really DUHHHH!

Of course a person will go to a city that actually has the exhibit.

If I want to see the King Tut exhibit, why would I go to a city that does not have it????

I will go to one of the two cities that are hosting it now, Dallas or Atlanta.

But if I want to see th exhibit in 2010 I will not come to Dallas, because Dallas will not have the exhibit anymore, so I will need to go to SF or Indianapolis.

So aceplace, according to your argument, Indianapolis is as good as Dallas. Maybe even better. Because they will get the exhibit of King Tut in 2009.

So this means with a population of only 1.8 million people, Indianapolis is getting the King Tut exhibit, thus it must be a few steps ahead of DFW. DFW has 6+ million people, but this is the first time they had the King Tut exhibit.

Considering the King Tut exhibit has been around since 1970s, and it took about 30+ years to reach DFW, speaks something. But the same exhibit will reach Indianapolis with a population of 1/3 of DFW.

What does it tell? Is Indianapolis in the same level as entertainment as DFW with a much smaller population? Or maybe Indianapolis is a few steps ahead? With 1.8 million people, they can get a big name exhibit, imagine if they had the 6 million population.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The experience of traveling from your small city with its limited range of urban offerings to a big city like DFW is that you can live large for a while. See exhibits you won't find back home, shop in places you won't find back home, experience the urban culture you won't find back home.

There are many cities that are smaller (some much smaller) than DFW but offer the same type of living experience, urban culture, sports, cost of living, shops etc.

For example;
Indianapolis
Nashville
Milwakuee
Denver
Seattle
St Louis
Minneapolis
Kansas City
Boston
Phoenix

etc.

Dallas is not any years ahead of smaller cities that do exist in the US.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by zatires

There are many cities that are smaller (some much smaller) than DFW but offer the same type of living experience, urban culture, sports, cost of living, shops etc.
etc.

Dallas is not any years ahead of smaller cities that do exist in the US.

No, the smaller cities do not offer equivalent urban culture, sports, shopping, cultural opportunities.

[TrueDat]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The New York metro area has 20 million people. Chicago has 9 million and change. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Fran Bay Area are the only metros in the USA with a better screen count than DFW. There are well over 300 metros in the USA.

Dallas is far ahead of Seattle. Dallas has 21 screens for indie/foreign/specialty films, plus 9 or 10 for Bollywood movies from India.

Did any of you know that Dallas is the only metro with a 24 hour FM station for music from India and Pakistan?

Actually, Seattle probably has us beat in indie movie screens. Landmark Theaters in Seattle alone has some 20-plus screens (spread across some eight separate theaters). Landmark - Seattle

Granted, some of those are showing mainstream fare like Seven Pounds but then so do the two Landmark Theaters in Dallas (Inwood, Magnolia). Then Seattle has other places like SIFF Cinema (www.seattlefilm.org)