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.
Is this thread going to stick to the topic of what each city has that the other doesn’t or are we going to go into what is better in one city or the other? If it’s the later, it should be shut down.
I like Houston a lot but it has to have the most insecure residents of any place I've ever been.
Be confident enough in your city to say "Yeah, we get flooding, and yea our natural disaster scene is worse than Dallas, but it's worth it because we love our city and Houston is better than Dallas"
No one in California goes "Actually the big one could happen any time but Dallas gets tornadoes so if we fall into the pacific it isn't a big deal because 70 years ago 10 people were killed by a tornado in Dallas."
The 1953 Tornado killed 10 people and caused 4 million in damages. An online calculator says that's about 38 million in today's dollars.
I'm sorry but hurricanes do much more damage than that.
I agree with a lot of what your saying here. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere simply to avoid the risk that a hurricane is going to disrupt your life for a few days every 20 years or so, please don't move to any coastal location on the Gulf Coast or Southern Atlantic coast, btw Dorian recently blew through Nova Scotia , so maybe we need to include the entire Atlantic seaboard.
In Europe very few cities are situated on their coast with the exception of the Netherlands which by virtue of it's small size is almost entirely coastal. But in the USA for whatever reason Americans tend to be drawn to our coast. Most of our population lives within a hundred miles of our coast and 40% of us actually live in "Coastal counties"
Top Five Coastal Populations
California tops the coastal populations chart with 26 million people living in coastal counties, followed by New York with 16 million, Florida with 14 million, New Jersey with 7 million, and Texas with 6 million.5
Does Dallas have anything like "THE BEAN" OR the Menil collection or Rothko Chapel, Miller Theater, China Town, The Orange Show, Art Car Parade, how about all the Mardi Gras Krewes. Houston even has a maritime culture.
I could go on but does Dallas have as much cultural diversity as Houston does? I know Dallas has a Mardi Gras celebration in Bishop Arts. Houston has so many festivals during the year there are too many to list.
He Houston "Bean" is stupid. Why be Knockoff Chicago? Like I don't even know why anyone would brag about that.
Dallas has the Eyeball and KW Park. The Eyeball is stupid, but at least is isn't a Chicago ripoff.
In addition to the largest St Patrick's Day Parade in Texas, Dallas also has Bastille on Bishop, the State Fair, the biggest Pride in Texas and a bunch of other stuff.
In the Nearby burbs you have at least half a dozen Oktoberfests, and places like Grapevine have grapefest and is the Christmas Capital of Texas.
Both Cities have great natural History museums.
Honestly both cities have alot of festivals and I don't think there is a clear winner.
In Europe very few cities are situated on their coast with the exception of the Netherlands which by virtue of it's small size is almost entirely coastal. But in the USA for whatever reason Americans tend to be drawn to our coast. Most of our population lives within a hundred miles of our coast and 40% of us actually live in "Coastal counties"
See this is where you are actually wrong. London and Rome are just as "Coastal" as Houston is. Actually, most of the major Italian Cities are Coastal. Marseille, the 2nd largest city in France is coastal.
You can see the Mediterranean from hills in Albano, one of the southern burbs of Rome.
Dublin? Port. Athens? Port.
Major European cities are on navigable rivers. They are "Coastal" in the same sense that Philly or DC are "Coastal"
The reasons Americans live closer to to the ocean has alot do with the size, age and economics of the country. Almost every part of Europe is close to a river that is navigable to the sea. The US is just much bigger. Also out economy has depended on trading with the rest of the world.
Last edited by Treasurevalley92; 09-08-2019 at 12:17 PM..
See this is where you are actually wrong. London and Rome are just as "Coastal" as Houston is. Actually, most of the major Italian Cities are Coastal. Marseille, the 2nd largest city in France is coastal.
You can see the Mediterranean from hills in Albano, one of the southern burbs of Rome.
Dublin? Port. Athens? Port.
Major European cities are on navigable rivers. They are "Coastal" in the same sense that Philly or DC are "Coastal"
The reasons Americans live closer to to the ocean has alot do with the size, age and economics of the country. Almost every part of Europe is close to a river that is navigable to the sea. The US is just much bigger. Also out economy has depended on trading with the rest of the world.
First off I said "most" not all major European cities are inland.
If we are going to include any city that is on a river as being coastal, then most of the worlds cities are coastal and cities like DFW are even more of an outlier unless you consider a river that you can canoe your way to a coast as navigable. Berlin, Moscow, Paris, Warsaw, Madrid, I won't even list the cities in the land locked countries of the continent, are not coastal. And Europe is just as dependent these days, or even more so on trade as America is. There was a time when we had a export dependent economy but those days are long gone.
Calling London and Rome coastal cities is a stretch, but even if they were, My basic point was most Europeans live inland whereas Americans tend to gravitate to our coast or at least near large natural bodies of water despite what natural hazards that may entail.
Calling London and Rome coastal cities is a stretch, but even if they were, My basic point was most Europeans live inland whereas Americans tend to gravitate to our coast or at least near large natural bodies of water despite what natural hazards that may entail.
Yeah, and I'm saying your basic thesis is incorrect.
I've lived in Rome, if you are going to count Houston as "Coastal" Rome is Coastal. Heck, their international airport is right next to the sea. You can ride the train to the airport from the central city in 30 min and the sea is right in front of you. Drive from the Vatican to Ostia, a beach, 45min drive, or about an hour via public transit.
Actually the town of Ostia is part of the Metropolitan City of Rome...so it is actually literally politically part of Rome.
Most Americans live near the water because of logistics.
It's really a function of geography, economics, and history.
Same with Australia which has similar development pasterns in alot of ways. Same with Canada and Brazil.
The same is true of Europe, but because it is small and there are numerous rivers it can be dispersed a little more evenly...but even then, the vast majority of major European cities have access to the sea.
Philly is pretty similar to alot of European cities in that it is on a navigable river but a little inland, closer to where more food is grown etc. Not at all unlike Hamburg in Germany. Hmm and yeah, like Houston.
NYC and SF are right where they are because they have remarkably good natural deep water harbors.
Most Texans do not live on the Gulf BTW. Thats mostly a feature that Texas doesn't have good deep water ports...that and the serious issues of diseases were a big part of why the Gulf was historically under developed until about 100 years ago.
Yeah, and I'm saying your basic thesis is incorrect.
I've lived in Rome, if you are going to count Houston as "Coastal" Rome is Coastal. Heck, their international airport is right next to the sea. You can ride the train to the airport from the central city in 30 min and the sea is right in front of you. Drive from the Vatican to Ostia, a beach, 45min drive, or about an hour via public transit.
Actually the town of Ostia is part of the Metropolitan City of Rome...so it is actually literally politically part of Rome.
Most Americans live near the water because of logistics.
It's really a function of geography, economics, and history.
Same with Australia which has similar development pasterns in alot of ways. Same with Canada and Brazil.
The same is true of Europe, but because it is small and there are numerous rivers it can be dispersed a little more evenly...but even then, the vast majority of major European cities have access to the sea.
Philly is pretty similar to alot of European cities in that it is on a navigable river but a little inland, closer to where more food is grown etc. Not at all unlike Hamburg in Germany. Hmm and yeah, like Houston.
NYC and SF are right where they are because they have remarkably good natural deep water harbors.
Most Texans do not live on the Gulf BTW. Thats mostly a feature that Texas doesn't have good deep water ports...that and the serious issues of diseases were a big part of why the Gulf was historically under developed until about 100 years ago.
You have it exactly backwards Treasure. 100 years ago Houston/Galveston was the main population center in Texas and its been over the past 100 years the population of Texas has been shifting more inland towards what is now the I-35 corridor.
I don't see how you could argue with the thesis that most major European population centers are not coastal or are inland. Like I said in an earlier post if we are going to include cities on rivers that give them access to the sea as coastal, then pretty much everybody in the world lives in a coastal city. Chicago is a coastal city Detroit is a coastal city Milwaukee ect….The city or Metro needs to have some interaction with salt or brackish water to be considered coastal IMHO.
As far as Rome is concerned I still wouldn't call it a coastal city, they put the airport near the coast because there was nothing else there. There is nothing about the history, culture, or development of Rome that would indicate they themselves consider Rome coastal. They may be near the Sea but Rome really doesn't interact that much with the coast....
Are you saying that Dallas matches Houston in the area of Cultural Diversity? Hmmmmm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92
He Houston "Bean" is stupid. Why be Knockoff Chicago? Like I don't even know why anyone would brag about that.
Dallas has the Eyeball and KW Park. The Eyeball is stupid, but at least is isn't a Chicago ripoff.
In addition to the largest St Patrick's Day Parade in Texas, Dallas also has Bastille on Bishop, the State Fair, the biggest Pride in Texas and a bunch of other stuff.
In the Nearby burbs you have at least half a dozen Oktoberfests, and places like Grapevine have grapefest and is the Christmas Capital of Texas.
Both Cities have great natural History museums.
Honestly both cities have alot of festivals and I don't think there is a clear winner.
You have it exactly backwards Treasure. 100 years ago Houston/Galveston was the main population center in Texas and its been over the past 100 years the population of Texas has been shifting more inland towards what is now the I-35 corridor.
I don't see how you could argue with the thesis that most major European population centers are not coastal or are inland. Like I said in an earlier post if we are going to include cities on rivers that give them access to the sea as coastal, then pretty much everybody in the world lives in a coastal city. Chicago is a coastal city Detroit is a coastal city Milwaukee ect….The city or Metro needs to have some interaction with salt or brackish water to be considered coastal IMHO.
As far as Rome is concerned I still wouldn't call it a coastal city, they put the airport near the coast because there was nothing else there. There is nothing about the history, culture, or development of Rome that would indicate they themselves consider Rome coastal. They may be near the Sea but Rome really doesn't interact that much with the coast....
Wrong. San Antonio was.
I actually challenge you to look at the settlement patterns of Texas. The Gulf has almost always been sparsely populated, even when only the native Americans lived in Texas.
The interior has always been where settlement is the densest.
The French had a failed collany on the coast. Most Europeans stayed away from the Texas coast because of its reputation for diseases due to mosquitos. It also was a danger to ships.
The first Anglo Colonies were east of modern 35, also known as the tree line, also known as the farm line. If you look at a map of Texas it is where the state turns from Green to Brownish.
The Area around College Station was the most densely populated place for a long time. This is where the old line Anglo families lived. Think Stephen F Austin.
Galveston Existed before the revolution but remained small for a long time even though it was the only good deep water port. It really only boomed after the Civil War. The only reason it was a "Major City" at 40k when the hurricane hit was that Texas was one of the most rural states and the population centre was still very much in East Texas to the treeline.
Even in 1900 San Antonio was 50% bigger than Galveston.
Now no doubt Houston has been the largest city in Texas since the 30s, when it passed San Antonio, and yes, Galveston and it's predecessor the Port of Houston is easily the most important port in Texas...really the only important one, but even with Houston being where it is, Texans are not a coastal people, not as a whole. Most live inland and always have.
If Houston is a coastal City, Rome is too. It literally is where it is because that is how far inland "Big Ships" back in the day could go. If Philly or Houston are "Coastal" so is Rome.
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.
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.
Cultural diversity?
