Moving to Dallas: What is considered urban? (Houston, Plano: apartment complexes, condo)

[aceplace]

I posted a few weeks ago soliciting recommendations on where to live -- area that is urban yet family friendly. Well, I'm hopefully coming down this week to check out some areas, but did have an observation, based on photos of various properties posted on Realtor.com, i.e., what is considered urban in Dallas?

Coming from downtown Chicago, I know Dallas won't/can't match that but looking at pictures of various places in the metroplex (love that word!) as diverse as State/Thomas, Knox Henderson, Las Colinas, West Plano, and Addison, I find that most areas are made up various properties that more or less look the same. I don't get the feeling at all that any of them are in a more urban neighborhood than the other. In other words, based on the pictures I see on Realtor.com, a townhome community in Plano-Legacy-Shops area resembles the same in Uptown. Moreover, the surrounding neighborhood, based on Google Earth, doesn't seem more or less urban than the other -- wide streets, sparse trees, no sense of people walking at all to any place nearby. Same goes for some properties I saw in Las Colinas and Addison. Forgive me if this comes across as rather insensitive or premature but wanted to give the Dallasites an opportunity to help me understand what they consider to be an urban environment.

Cheers!

I consider it urban if it has a high density of bodies, and there are life support establishments relatively close by, i.e., within walking distance. The Uptown/downtown area certainly qualifies, and there are additional nodes here and there that are urban within a small number of blocks.

No, we're not trying to duplicate Chicago. You'll have to take it or leave it. But if I got onto the Chicago forum and was a bit critical, wouldn't they tell me the same thing? Chicago is what it is, take it or leave it.

[aceplace]

Perhaps need to define "urban" in Chic as well

Know many financiers in Chic who live in newly-built $5-10+MM houses in LincPk; drive a new Mercedes to offices in Loop; drive to dinner at Alinea or wherever (which all have valet pkg)....a fairly suburban lifestyle w/little to no walking...and plenty of muggings and inept cab drivers in LP make driving self a far safer, more comfortable lifestyle choice, esp in Chic's harsh climate 9mos/yr which is about as non-walking-friendly as Dallas' harsh climate 9mos/yr

Dallas' HP is similar to Chic's GoldCoast/LP; big new houses on no land; HP is its own city, so far safer than LP's mansion corridor, though both have similar physical proximity to various slums....but guys in HP have similarly short drives to offices in Dallas or Irving...or to dinner at Fearings, etc

And outer suburbs of Dallas like Plano are rather similar to OakBrook or Naperville or Barrington or Northbrook....w/similar socio-economics of middle managers and small business owners

You are very apropos... the massive urban density of Chicago, and the way it forces people out of their cars and onnto foot or the El is not an asset, it is a liability.

The rich in Chicago escape it because they can afford to drive where they want. The vast majority of the inner Chicago population does not have that luxury.

But... the vast majority of the Dallas population doeshave that luxury.

If Chicago were to be completely rebuilt, according to the wishes of its people, it would look like Dallas.

[Lakewooder]

Yes Dallas is developed in mostly a suburban manner - the only really urban areas are going to be downtown and nearby in uptown and other similar areas adjacent. However, most of the older parts of Dallas were developed as 'streetcar suburbs' up until the 1930s. Those are more walkable and dense and have a good mixture of apartments, duplexes, fourplexes, eightplexes, single family, small office buildings, shops, theaters, libraries, restaurants, schools in close proximity.

[PanTerra]

Sounds like uptown is the place for you. My niece lived there and it really fit in with her artsy endeavors. It is a high density with new construction of what looks like brownstone-like high denstity urban setting. Plenty of restaurants and things to do. Besides you are right in between the Toll Way and Central Expressway (US75) so easy access to other parts of Dallas. Arts district is very close and experienceing a huge expansion. Museums are close, although they are a far cry from Chicago's museums, which btw are my all-time favorites, Museum of Science and Industry and Chicago's Field Museum, etc. - No comparison to Dallas.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by aceplace

You're comparing a metropolitan area to a municipality? Your point suffers from faulty logic.

Dallas as a whole to other major cities.

[portyhead24]

Originally Posted by aceplace

You're comparing a metropolitan area to a municipality? Your point suffers from faulty logic.

I always suspected that poster suffered from a faulty something

[The Bees]

Aceplace,

I don't agree with what you said.

I lived most of my life in Lincoln Park, the Gold Coast, and Lakeview. I'm reasonably well off and I considered it a great luxury to walk to almost anything I needed or wanted. I loved the CTA.

We will never really "know" but I seriously doubt Chicagoans would rebuild Chicago to look like Dallas.

Have you ever spent a Summer afternoon riding your bike on the Lakefront from Belmont Harbor to McCormick Place? ...........Heaven!

[aceplace]

There will always be exceptions to every rule, The Bees... that's what makes it a rule... the exceptions.

Chicago has its origins as a city in the 19th century, an era when the vast majority of its people were what we would consider today as poverty bracket. Things had to be in walking distance because that was the transportation the urban poor could afford. The luxury of private transportation was beyond their means when they would be spending 60% to 70% of their income on food alone.

The 20th century cities that grew later were auto oriented because the vast majority wanted and could increasingly afford, cars. Being able to drive where you wanted to go when you wanted it was an advance in their standard of living.

If we were building a Chicago at the same time we were building Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, etc., Chicago would be similar to them, mostly because that's what the vast majority of Americans want.

[xS☺B☺s]

Originally Posted by aceplace

There will always be exceptions to every rule, The Bees... that's what makes it a rule... the exceptions.

If we were building a Chicago at the same time we were building Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, etc., Chicago would be similar to them, mostly because that's what the vast majority of Americans want.

Sorry Ace, gotta agree w The Bees today. Sprawl is not necessarily progress and the rule is, well, your rule. Density is, just like sprawl, a lovely and desirable thing - with inherent liabilities. It's chocolate or vanilla. Neither is nirvana, and the other always tastes better when you live on one.

I'm not sure sprawl is really what Americans want. It's ceratinly not what the world wants. The fastest growing city in the USA right now is NYC having gained over 200K since 2k. An if density is anachronism of the 19th century, well they forgot to inform Warsaw and Berlin. After the war, they certainly had the opportunity to "move up and out" as my parents used to say, but despite the obvious adversity, community and energy as well as history triumphed over lebensraum.

That said, I'm enjoying my sprawl FWIW for now. I like the space and the quiet. I just miss my big green chauffeur!

http://www.transitwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/300px-Green-line-e-branch-streetcar-front.jpg (broken link)

[aceplace]

The rule is that the wealthy in Chicago spend the money to drive where they want to go, whereas the rest have to take public transportation. In any society, you recognize what is most desirable by the fact that the rich get it first, or monopolize it, or get more of it.

The exception is The Bees and his preference for walking and trains.

200K since 2000 growth in NYC is small compared to the population increase in auto oriented metros like Dallas and Houston.

That was an interesting factoid about Berlin and Warsaw, but we're talking about the preferences of Americans. And from an American perspective, the Chicago density is a liability, because it does not support high density with automobile ownership. Dallas does. Houston and Atlanta and Phoenix do. Those are places that are attracting the bulk of the people that migrate.