Dallas and fort worth have many trees it is not the desert

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by gokctx

The poster is right on the dot. Compared to Arizona Dallas is a forest. Compared to the dense forests in Maine, Mass, NH, etc. it is pretty sparse. For cities in those states you cannot see buildings off the exits due to all the tree cover. Heck, I lived in Kansas City and it was more heavily forested than Dallas. Anyway yes there are pockets of trees in Dallas as shown by the carefully selected photos, but not the dense forests or large trees that you need to associate Dallas with forest. The majority is prairie.

This has always been my contention as well...I have never seen the 'natural forest' Dallas has; even while observing its creek beds & rivers. And I actually do make note of what vegetation I do see there everytime I visit the city...

I would by no means describe Dallas as a "desert", but sparse, barren, shrubby, or prairie do come to mind when I visit Dallas. Thats not to say that there is not an appeal to those topographic qualities as well. But I havent seen a photo yet, when used for showing its vegetation, that adequately represents what I see when I actually travel the various parts of DFW.

As previously noted by another poster -- compared to Albequrque, or Phoenix, Dallas is a veritable rainforest. But compared to a place like Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina or Atlanta, or even Shreveport, Dallas looks almost treeless by comparison. And zooming in and taking snapshots of the few "Heavily Forested" areas of Dallas, only makes the contrast even more apparent; because the pics that some use to vouch for the tree density/size that Dallas possesses, would be absolutely laughable if shown to a North Carolinian. Heck even East Texas doesnt have quite the tree density found in a place like Atlanta or Raleigh. The closest thing Texas has to a true and comparably heavily forested region is the Big Thicket, obviously.

Originally Posted by gokctx

Not including the northern burbs as part of the greater Dallas area is silly. You can split straws all day spewing about why Plano is not Dallas, but at the end of the day 99% of America would lump Plano with Dallas-- I sure don't see a separate forum for Plano.

I struggle with this as well...Ive grown accustomed to getting "checked" [I mean that in a lighthearted manner of course] by Dallasites for referencing Richardson or Plano, or Mesquite when discussing DFW. Im not a Dallasite, so I cant relate to the fury that might build within Dallasites, when a once naive poster, such as myself, would lump the entire Metroplex in with Dallas. But I agree that at times it does seem as though it is just splitting hairs as to which points and at which times the natives of Dallas want to include or exclude all of its surrounding suburbs

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by solytaire

As previously noted by another poster -- compared to Albequrque, or Phoenix, Dallas is a veritable rainforest. But compared to a place like Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina or Atlanta, or even Shreveport, Dallas looks almost treeless by comparison. And zooming in and taking snapshots of the few "Heavily Forested" areas of Dallas, only makes the contrast even more apparent; because the pics that some use to vouch for the tree density/size that Dallas possesses, would be absolutely laughable if shown to a North Carolinian. Heck even East Texas doesnt have quite the tree density found in a place like Atlanta or Raleigh. The closest thing Texas has to a true and comparably heavily forested region is the Big Thicket, obviously.

I'd question the premise of your question... who says that the number or size of trees, the extent of forest cover has any relative value?

If North Carolina has a thicker forest, why is that supposed to be an advantage?

In reality, all vegetative regions, whether pine forest, mixed hardwood forest, Mediterranean scrub, true desert, etc., all have equal value and interest.

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by aceplace

I'd question the premise of your question... who says that the number or size of trees, the extent of forest cover has any relative value?

If North Carolina has a thicker forest, why is that supposed to be an advantage?

In reality, all vegetative regions, whether pine forest, mixed hardwood forest, Mediterranean scrub, true desert, etc., all have equal value and interest.

From my previous post: "I would by no means describe Dallas as a "desert", but sparse, barren, shrubby, or prairie do come to mind when I visit Dallas. Thats not to say that there is not an appeal to those topographic qualities as well."

I never claimed either or any has an advantage or disadvantage over the others. I have my preferences, based on what Ive become acclimated to -- as does each of us -- but I was just illuminating the disparity that does exist between what we Texans consider heavily forested, and the perspective that someone from a different area of the country may have.

I wholly acknowledge that each type of topography can be beautiful to different people.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by solytaire

From my previous post: "I would by no means describe Dallas as a "desert", but sparse, barren, shrubby, or prairie do come to mind when I visit Dallas. Thats not to say that there is not an appeal to those topographic qualities as well."

Exactly

Some people may prefer the sparse, rolling prairie grasslands of North Texas versus a heavily forested region like East Texas & the deep South.

Different stroke for different folks. I grew up in East Texas around trees so naturally thats what I feel comfortable being around, but a change of scenery is always welcome. Dallas being on a prairie has no negative affect of how I feel about the place as I can find some beauty in that as well. Wide open spaces & being able to look out over a vast prairie at night with the twinkle of city lights can be pretty.