Houston vs. Dallas (Atlanta, Center, St. Jo: asbestos, accent, advantage)

[Trae713]

Houston actually never annexed cities. They were unincorporated areas. A few unincorporated areas formed cities when Houston started annexing their way, though.

And Lakewooder, you're kidding yourself if you think Dallas is the center of the Metroplex. Far from it. Things are so spread out in DFW, and there are two main cities with large suburbs, etc. Hell, Arlington has two sports teams, Frisco has one, and Dallas has two. That's just one example. Houston is different. It may have different business centers, but as far as cultural amenities go, Houston is the main piece of it's metro area. The suburbs, no matter how small or large, revolve around it and go to it's core for things to do.

[ladarron]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Houston actually never annexed cities. They were unincorporated areas. A few unincorporated areas formed cities when Houston started annexing their way, though.

And Lakewooder, you're kidding yourself if you think Dallas is the center of the Metroplex. Far from it. Things are so spread out in DFW, and there are two main cities with large suburbs, etc. Hell, Arlington has two sports teams, Frisco has one, and Dallas has two. That's just one example. Houston is different. It may have different business centers, but as far as cultural amenities go, Houston is the main piece of it's metro area. The suburbs, no matter how small or large, revolve around it and go to it's core for things to do.

That's why I like DFW better.

[Trae713]

Both layouts have their positives and negatives. I tend to like that Houston is in the center of it's metro more, than like Dallas, where it isn't.

[ladarron]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Both layouts have their positives and negatives. I tend to like that Houston is in the center of it's metro more, than like Dallas, where it isn't.

I Dallas' layout because Dallas do not dominate the metro, like Houston. In North Texas every city has a chance to grow. The cities in North Texas work together, they don't compete against eachother.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by ladarron

In North Texas every city has a chance to grow. The cities in North Texas work together, they don't compete against eachother.

That is exactly false. The cities in the Metroplex do compete with eachother whether you want to admit it or not. That's why Dallas has been fighting with its suburbs for businesses and corporations for years. And forgive me for bringing this up again and again, but it also contributes to the alarming vacancy rate downtown when corporations move to the suburbs for cheaper alternatives.

[ladarron]

Originally Posted by C2H (ComingtoHouston)

That is exactly false. The cities in the Metroplex do compete with eachother whether you want to admit it or not. That's why Dallas has been fighting with its suburbs for businesses and corporations for years. And forgive me for bringing this up again and again, but it also contributes to the alarming vacancy rate downtown when corporations move to the suburbs for cheaper alternatives.

There are large vacancies in Dallas becasue the buildings are very old.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by ladarron

I Dallas' layout because Dallas do not dominate the metro, like Houston. In North Texas every city has a chance to grow. The cities in North Texas work together, they don't compete against eachother.

No, this is completely untrue. In Houston, the suburbs have a chance to grow, as evident by the new city population numbers. By 2015, Houston should have six new suburbs over 100,000. Not a lot compared to DFW, but it's a lot for Houston.

And Dallas' suburbs definitely compete against it. They may work together for things like light rail, but even for the Super Bowl, there was some bickering as to who hosts what. Boeing was going to move to DFW, but chose Dallas because DFW cities were competing against each other for them. Chicago and it's suburbs said "we don't care where you go...just relocate to NE Illinois".

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by ladarron

There are large vacancies in Dallas becasue the buildings are very old.

You're part right. All the new buildings in the DFW area and in Uptown/Victory area look better to do business in by corporations. But that wouldn't be the case if there wasn't so much supply. The over supply is the reason for the vacancies. In the last 3 years, there's been various business that leave downtown Dallas for Uptown or Victory. All that's happening is a shift where businesses are moving from one area to another.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

No, this is completely untrue. In Houston, the suburbs have a chance to grow, as evident by the new city population numbers. By 2015, Houston should have six new suburbs over 100,000. Not a lot compared to DFW, but it's a lot for Houston.

And Dallas' suburbs definitely compete against it. They may work together for things like light rail, but even for the Super Bowl, there was some bickering as to who hosts what. Boeing was going to move to DFW, but chose Dallas because DFW cities were competing against each other for them. Chicago and it's suburbs said "we don't care where you go...just relocate to NE Illinois".

Also you have to remember that Dallas suburbs tend to be larger in land size. I believe Houston possibly has up to 3 or 4 suburbs past the 100,000 mark.

[ladarron]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Also you have to remember that Dallas suburbs tend to be larger in land size. I believe Houston possibly has up to 3 or 4 suburbs past the 100,000 mark.

Dallas-Fort Worth has 7 suburbs over 100,000, 3 over 200,000 and 1 over 300,000.