U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
 
Old 07-04-2007, 04:24 PM
 
150 posts, read 645,490 times
Reputation: 89

Advertisements

The reason i said Atlanta is the Detroit of the South, is because its black and white, with very little diversity. DFW and Houston are very diverse cities which IMO are great factors that will fuel their growth in the future. Diversity is the driving force of many world cities, London, Paris, NYC, LA, Chi..., this is one area in which Atlanta is behind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2007, 04:37 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,723,783 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkcapitaloftheworld View Post
The reason i said Atlanta is the Detroit of the South, is because its black and white, with very little diversity. DFW and Houston are very diverse cities which IMO are great factors that will fuel their growth in the future. Diversity is the driving force of many world cities, London, Paris, NYC, LA, Chi..., this is one area in which Atlanta is behind.
FYI, you have proven my point again. Paris is also not on the ocean...and has done well in the last half of the 20th century

Going back to the Atlanta argument, I do agree it's not as diverse as DFW, and certainly not as diverse as Houston.
But it has been successful....afterall, it was successful in attracting the olympics, which is a world event.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2007, 05:09 PM
 
150 posts, read 645,490 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
FYI, you have proven my point again. Paris is also not on the ocean...and has done well in the last half of the 20th century
FYI Paris has access to the ocean through the Seine River, read my earlier posts, i never said it the cities have to be coastal, but i said they have to have access to the ocean. So actually i didnt prove your point but in fact you helped me solidify my point further. thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2007, 09:48 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,723,783 times
Reputation: 140
[quote=NewYorkcapitaloftheworld;1004366]FYI Paris has access to the ocean through the Seine River, read my earlier posts, i never said it the cities have to be coastal, but i said they have to have access to the ocean. So actually i didnt prove your point but in fact you helped me solidify my point further. thank you.[/QUOTE

Well that depends also. One could argue that any city built on a river has access to the ocean. But it depends which river.

Largest port in mainland europe is actually Antwerpen in Belgium, hardly a world class city, though a very nice town though as I have friends there.

I strongly believe that land locked cities are not automatically ruled out for being successful. But again, just my opinion. I think Beijing, XiAn, Frankfurt all have their merits. I do buy into the fact that having a port is beneficial too, but I dont think it's necessarily going to be the deciding factor in this century on a city's success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2007, 10:14 PM
 
150 posts, read 645,490 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
I strongly believe that land locked cities are not automatically ruled out for being successful. But again, just my opinion. I think Beijing, XiAn, Frankfurt all have their merits. I do buy into the fact that having a port is beneficial too, but I dont think it's necessarily going to be the deciding factor in this century on a city's success.
Very true, but its a strong possibility it will, as history has told us every major city in the past had access to the ocean. DFW is by Trinity river and Trinity does eventually reach the Gulf, but the river is too small so its not a factor at all. All I am saying is that Houston has everything lined up for itself to becoming an alpha city very soon, while DFW has some obstacles, like lack of access to ocean, and lack of pure dominance in any one industry. One interesting fact is that if it wasnt for the year 2001 DFW would be behind Houston in population growth. IT was huge then and DFW was growing very fast. for 4 out of 5 years Houston has lead DFW is population gains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2007, 10:29 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,723,783 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkcapitaloftheworld View Post
Very true, but its a strong possibility it will, as history has told us every major city in the past had access to the ocean. DFW is by Trinity river and Trinity does eventually reach the Gulf, but the river is too small so its not a factor at all. All I am saying is that Houston has everything lined up for itself to becoming an alpha city very soon, while DFW has some obstacles, like lack of access to ocean, and lack of pure dominance in any one industry. One interesting fact is that if it wasnt for the year 2001 DFW would be behind Houston in population growth. IT was huge then and DFW was growing very fast. for 4 out of 5 years Houston has lead DFW is population gains.
LIke I say, it will be difficult to predict at this stage which MSA will be out on top...but under all 3 scenarios DFW is projected to be competitive. And that's using various different growth rates including that of b/t 2004-2006, which is very recent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2007, 10:36 PM
 
150 posts, read 645,490 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
I think Beijing, XiAn, Frankfurt all have their merits
Beijing like Houston is not right on the coast but the metro is, you gotta understand Beijing is HUGE and the metro does reach a bay that connects to the pacific, and quite frankly Xian is not a world city even though it has a large population, Frankfurt though is landlocked so it is a good example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2007, 01:07 AM
 
1,816 posts, read 5,189,150 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
Really, the only things I saw in Houston that reminded me of Chicago was pro sports teams and the population stats. Downtown Houston is ok, nice light rail system, but nothing compared to Chicago. I really cant compare the two areas because I didnt spend any time in Houston's burbs for comparison. I do however love Chicago's burbs, theyre my fave.
I don't like Chicago's suburbs except for Evanston and Oak Park. ....nothing West of 294 is interetsing at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2007, 01:11 AM
 
1,816 posts, read 5,189,150 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by metroplex2003 View Post
This goes back to my argument of the traditional northern cities with urban cores and the sunbelt cities (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, LA). These cities are designed differently. Not as dense, not as compact. THese cities rely on freeways rather than rail. It depends on what you want. Houston is great for its low cost of living, buying large houses. Population wise, it's the 4th largest city in the country in a just barely above 2 million people, but the 6th largest MSA in the country in at 5.5 million.
Atlanta just clears 5 million people in its metro, but only has 480,000 people in the city limits. DFW has 6.04 million with Dallas proper having roughly 1 million.

Chicago proper in at 2.8 million, but metro Chicago raises up to 8-9 million.

But at the end of the day, it comes to preferences, do you like the urban core, walking city? or do you like the low cost of living, nicer weather, great freeway infrastructure, and the convenience of strip malls?

The sunbelt cities are nice b/c of weather and b/c people prefer that type of living as opposed to the cities like NY, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Wash DC...the traditionally built cities.

There's positives to both....personally I prefer the sunbelt. I just plainly do not like subzero temps or extended winters. I'm originally from the Midwest...been there done that....now in DFW for 4 years and quite happy. Both DFW and Houston have one of the strongest economies in the country. Cost of living compared to our northern cities with similar populations are hands down cheaper. Both cities have 20+ Fortune 500 companies headquartered here. Both have great air access...DFW is the world headquarters of both Southwest and American. Houston is the world headquarters of Continental, the number 1 rated legacy carrier.
Both are adding roughly 1 million per decade to their MSA's...Houston should overtake Philly by the end of the decade, and DFW will continue to inch up and close the gap between Chicago MSA and DFW MSA.

I do like Chicago...of the traditional northern cities, I probably rate Chicago the best (if weather is not a factor). This would include DC, NYC, Boston, SF, Philly, Detroit, St. Louis, Seattle, Cleveland. CHicago is clean, and if you like the walkable high dense urban core, then Chicago is a nice place.

But for sunbelt cities, all of them are nice....I do prefer Texas though...so DFW and Houston are up there...
good post..................
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2007, 01:13 AM
 
1,816 posts, read 5,189,150 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank the Tank View Post
Houston has more of a boom-and-bust type of economy. When the energy industry is on an uptick, as it is now, then Houston's growth is extremely fast. On the other hand, hiring will slow down considerably if the energy industry is in a down-cycle. Chicago has a diversified economy, meaning that it won't have the boom periods that you'll see in Texas with energy or California with tech but the down periods aren't as pronounced.

All in all, though, I don't see how Houston is really comparable to Chicago. Atlanta, Charlotte and even Dallas (although I'm sure Houston natives don't want to hear that) are much more applicable comparisons as decentralized Sunbelt cities. I've always thought that Chicago is more comparable to East Coast cities than even other Midwestern cities, much less those in the Sunbelt.

Chicago is definitely a Midwestern city, nothing like the East Coast.
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:

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 > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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