Census: D-FW adds more residents than any other U.S. metro area (Houston: condos, houses)

[Exult.Q36]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Being very flat and devoid of much vegetation and any real significant geological features, I'm sorry but beautiful is not an adjective I'd use in deccribing North Texas. But if you think it is, OK fine but I'm not talking any area that is natural appealing, I'm talking about areas that are in the path of growth for the metro area and that's just not Oakcliff.

The trend of growth has been in Tarrant County period rather it Mansfield South Arlington and Crowley or Burleson to the south or South Lake, North Fort Worth and Keller to the north.

[Dallas native]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Being very flat and devoid of much vegetation and any real significant geological features, I'm sorry but beautiful is not an adjective I'd use in deccribing North Texas.

The poster wasn't describing all of N. Texas. He/she was accurately describing Oak Cliff.

[Exult.Q36]

Originally Posted by Dallas native

The poster wasn't describing all of N. Texas. He/she was accurately describing Oak Cliff.

You are a native of Dallas, Texas why want Oak Cliff not see any growth since the poster is accurate?

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Being very flat and devoid of much vegetation and any real significant geological features, I'm sorry but beautiful is not an adjective I'd use in deccribing North Texas.

I agree with this statement for the most part, but in all fairness there are some gently rolling hills southwest of Dallas.

[D-Towner]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

I agree with this statement for the most part, but in all fairness there are some gently rolling hills southwest of Dallas.

Some people seem to think that a flat topography means that Dallas isn't that much to look, but I think that many people who have lived around the area will disagree.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

Some people seem to think that a flat topography means that Dallas isn't that much to look, but I think that many people who have lived around the area will disagree.

Most areas of Dallas do have some nice looking, fairly dense, medium sized trees for being located on black soil prairie land, especially inside of Loops 12 & 635. The parts that give Dallas a reputation as being a wide open, treeless wasteland full of cookie cutter neighborhoods, strip malls, & liquor stores are along highways 80 & I-20 in sparsely populated, but growing Dallas County.

[Dallas native]

Originally Posted by kdogg817

You are a native of Dallas, Texas why want Oak Cliff not see any growth since the poster is accurate?

Kdogg817, I think you misconstrued my response to Nunusguy. I was defending your comment that Oak Cliff is naturally beautiful. It is that way. I was not commenting on his remark that Oak Cliff had no chance for development as I had already done that in a previous post. I do think that Oak Cliff has great potential for future development. It's already started happening.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

METRO MATT

What's up Metro Matt! i was hoping i would get a response from what i asked you in post #154. Oh well!

[DWong]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

Most areas of Dallas do have some nice looking, fairly dense, medium sized trees for being located on black soil prairie land, especially inside of Loops 12 & 635. The parts that give Dallas a reputation as being a wide open, treeless wasteland full of cookie cutter neighborhoods, strip malls, & liquor stores are along highways 80 & I-20 in sparsely populated, but growing Dallas County.

Not that I completely agree w/ everything being said, but come on.... no one is going to EVER say DAllas (yes, dallas itself, not some far off sparsely inhabited area is much to look at). Dallas is what it is. If we surveyed people who've traveled throughout major US cities, does anyone really think they'd put Dallas in any category for scenery?

It's a working class town - not something people far and wide travel to expecting to see something memorable (scenery wise).

[DWong]

Originally Posted by C2H (ComingtoHouston)

I agree that the dense urban developments do happen in Dallas and have happened in Dallas first in the past. But recent developments in Houston are no sleeping giant when talking about urban developements. Are you suggesting that Houston isn't densifying itself either all the developments going inside of the 610 loop such as: West Av, Houston Pavilions, Camden Midtown, Mix @ Midtown, Houston Pavilions, Discovery Green, all the developments happening downtown, and etc? If we only counted the 610 loop, it's probably be the most densest area in the state.

Also the argument that Dallasites make about Houston's annexation of land is weak. Those were small communities with very low populations anyway. Its amazing that even after all of that, Houston is still actually denser than Dallas (although not by much) but its still denser as far as ppsm. In a way, Dallas boosters do the same thing, they use any surrounding cities around them to boost themselves up, even if its a major city 30 miles away including its suburbs and just coin it as "Dallas".

Here's the thing about DFW and Houston.... the density thing really isn't gonna fly here. Allthough the metros are building up, ever so slowly..... they are still spreading out and in much faster rates than the upward buildings are.

People around the US have flocked there for that reason. Look at the major US cities along the east coast and even Chicago/Detriot. Their populations are stagnant or decreasing. People have left urban areas for low density areas where they can have a HOME w/ a yard and NOT live in some 2 bedroom apt that cost 5x as much.

Density is nice and urban development is too if the citizens really favor it, but as of now people want their 3000sq ft homes they can afford, period.