Houston vs. Dallas --- SMACKDOWN! (Plano, Midland: house, rent, travel)

[Spade]

Well, one could make the same argument about Houston. I mean, Uptown isn't even a CBD.

That's not the point. The point is that Uptown has a great number of buildings. At least over 100 in the area to over 300 in downtown. But 100 in Brooklyn does not compare to 4800 in Manhattan. See the difference? Do you think people would mistaken BK as NY 's downtown over Manhattan as much as people mistaken Uptown Houston as the downtown area over the actual CBD? I'm going to go out on a limb and say...no.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

Natural body of water, but how many unnatural poisons have been dumped in it?

Probably about as much of others that pollute New York Harbor and Lake Michigan.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

Dallas is also the largest banking center in the southwest.

Yeah okay, the Southwest is not known for power cities outside of Houston and Dallas anyway.

It's home to worldwide companies such as American, Exxon Mobil, the North American HQ of Nokia, Pizza Hut, Seven Eleven, Frito Lay, Cadbury Schwepps, Texas Instruments, etc.

Fort Worth is home to American, Irving to Exxon. Plano to Pizza Hut and Frito Lay. Richardson to Texas Instruments.

Dallas and Houston are both important in the world...just different focuses. Dallas is strong in banking and IT. Sorry, it' sjust the case. I banking is bigger in Dallas as well. Houston medical industry is bigger, though to put down Dallas' medical industry is a bit of a stretch, as Dallas is home to UTSW and Baylor Univ Med Center, which offer their strenghths as well: For example, the man who came up with the clinical application of the anion gap is out of Baylor. Also the man who invented go-lytely. world's expert on lipids is at UTSW, so is the diabetes guru. Houston has a great rheumatology program and also obviously a great cancer center. And yes, it's the largest med center in the world.

Still doesn't compare to what has been down at the Texas Medical Center at all. The TMC is in a boom right now. There are so many cranes there.

But both economies have their focuses. DFW has a lot more into retail HQ than Houston. That's why common names like Blockbuster, Pizza Hut, Seven Eleven, Radio Shack, Pier 1 imports...they're all from Dallas.

Houston has the oil, med center, etc.

That is nice. Houston is into energy, oil, medical. You know, those companies that make the world go round. You have a car with gas in it? You have electricity in your house?

Houston has more international consulars, yes that is true.
But again, for those comparing this dallas is smaller than houston thing...I again have to emphasize the importance of thinking regionally instead of city proper. City propers for the most part do not tell the story of the whole area. St. Louis only has a scant 340-350,000 people in its city limts. Atlanta, only 483,000 people. So enough of the Houston is bigger than Dallas and that makes all the difference in the world.

No one is arguing city limit populations anymore. That is a mute point. Houston has far more consular offices than Dallas, too. More than twice Dallas actually. Only NYC and LA have more consular offices than Houston.

In terms of Amenities, both cities are roughly similar. Houston does have more international presence in their population, but Dallas' international crowd I believe is growing at a faster rate. American, though hasnt won any awards, offers more connections than Continental, and more frequency of flights and options. It's the largest carrier in the US and the World. And that matters to people who have time intensive issues...for the leisurly travelers not so much...in which time is not as much of a commodity.

I guess not because Continental is America's fastest growing airline. In other words, Continental is getting big! American is declining, or growing at a VERY slow pace.

Dallas is not a second fiddle city. It's stands tall by itself without Houston or with Houston. It has a diversified economy, it has been #2 or #1 for several years now with Chicago in Corporate relocations (this was out of a business journal I read a/b 1/2 year ago), and just think, it was Boeing who was deciding b/t Chicago and Dallas, Houston was not in the finalist. So DFW is a place to be reckoned with.

Yet, Boeing has over 5,000 employess in the Houston area. Boeing was looking for a city that it had no presence in to expand. I'm tired of hearing about these corporate relocations, too. Show me some links because I have only seen Dallas in that list once. Also, Houston made it to the U.S. Final Four for the Olympic bid. Then just last year, Houston was hand selected by the USOC as a possible host city. Dallas wasn't even considered.

I dont think it's fair to call it second fiddle...it's its own stand alone multipolar metropolis that offers a great quality of living with different flavors to choose from: Western flavor in Ft. Worth, Urban sophistication in Dallas, and nice interesting suburbs to the north and in between. I has great air access as it's headquarters to both American and Southwest, a great rail system that is booming, great housing, a diversified economy that hums along, and it's the 4th largest MSA in the country. To say that's it's a nothing city is a bit of a stretch to me.

It isn't a city, but a nice region. Houston is a city. DFW is a big collection of cities to make up a nice region.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Spade

That's not the point. The point is that Uptown has a great number of buildings. At least over 100 in the area to over 300 in downtown. But 100 in Brooklyn does not compare to 4800 in Manhattan. See the difference? Do you think people would mistaken BK as NY 's downtown over Manhattan as much as people mistaken Uptown Houston as the downtown area over the actual CBD? I'm going to go out on a limb and say...no.

As far as a lot of people are concerned, Brooklyn is its own city. Thus, a major part of New York with a seperate skyline in a seperate area.

The only reason the Manhattan skyline is so well realized is because of the media. If Houston had the same media coverage, no one would mistake the Uptown area for Downtown, because they would know what DT looks like; furthermore, the only reason visitors think Uptown is DT is because they entered the city on that side of town and see that area first. If Houston was very very popular, no such mistake would be made.

The downtown district of Brooklyn borough is very big and larger than a lot of cities' CBDs. The average grass-roots individual who knows very little about New York City, let alone the fact that it's separated into islands, when driving amongst DT Brooklyn could easily think that they are in Manhattan. I doubt you'll find many people outside of the City-Data forum that know the set up of New York. But we have strayed away from the point. The point is that Brooklyn holds a lot of New York City's highrise buildings that contribute to the skyline AND this skyline is in a different area, so no Houston is not one of those cities and neither is NYC.

The skyscraper in Queens, as well. Sure, you can see it from Manhattan and with Manhattan, but you know what? You can't get to it in Manhattan. Pal, you have to cross a major river, so how in the world is that in the same area? Things like this work on technicalities, not formalities. Saying that Uptown is a crucial part of the Houston skyline, but DT BK isn't a crucial part of the New York skyline is your opinion, but it's not set in stone.

[Synopsis]

[houstoner]

Originally Posted by Synopsis

LOL!!!!!!!!!! My sentiments exactly.

[mpope409]

Lol, whatever. I had a point to prove.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

Yeah okay, the Southwest is not known for power cities outside of Houston and Dallas anyway.



Fort Worth is home to American, Irving to Exxon. Plano to Pizza Hut and Frito Lay. Richardson to Texas Instruments.



Still doesn't compare to what has been down at the Texas Medical Center at all. The TMC is in a boom right now. There are so many cranes there.



That is nice. Houston is into energy, oil, medical. You know, those companies that make the world go round. You have a car with gas in it? You have electricity in your house?



No one is arguing city limit populations anymore. That is a mute point. Houston has far more consular offices than Dallas, too. More than twice Dallas actually. Only NYC and LA have more consular offices than Houston.



I guess not because Continental is America's fastest growing airline. In other words, Continental is getting big! American is declining, or growing at a VERY slow pace.



Yet, Boeing has over 5,000 employess in the Houston area. Boeing was looking for a city that it had no presence in to expand. I'm tired of hearing about these corporate relocations, too. Show me some links because I have only seen Dallas in that list once. Also, Houston made it to the U.S. Final Four for the Olympic bid. Then just last year, Houston was hand selected by the USOC as a possible host city. Dallas wasn't even considered.



It isn't a city, but a nice region. Houston is a city. DFW is a big collection of cities to make up a nice region.

Never said Houston wasnt a nice city, but DFW area is a nice area, and that's what I've been comparing all along...DFW area to Houston area. B/c as you've said, city limits is a mute point. You pointed that nicely by listing the cities that house our area companies.
But my point is that you cannot just look at Dallas. you have to look at the region. The region is among the most competitive in the states.

AS for Continental, it's a fast growing airline, but rate wise, not the fastest. That goes to Skybus out of Columbus, OH. Of the Legacy carriers, it's the fastest growing, but the problem with Continental is that it only has 2 major hubs with one minor hub: Newark (NYC area) and Houston, and a minor hub in Cleveland.
American has already solidified the major gateways along with United, and unless they go under, they will always remain 1 and 2 respectively...hence the reason why American's two flagship carriers got targeted on 9/11.
American Hubs in order of size: 1) DFW 2) Chicago 3) Miami, 4) St. Louis.
Smaller hubs: 1) San Juan, 2) NYC's JFK and LGA 3) LA, 4) Raleigh/Durham

It's scope and size is huge, anyone who has studied aviation history will agree. There will be no Continental catching up. And now that NWA is out of bankruptcy, most analyst agree NWA will soon be overtaking Continental once again as the 4th largest carrier in the country.

American is the 2nd strongest of the "so called " legacy carriers financially speaking, and is the only airline among the big 6 to have never entered into bankruptcy in order to stay afloat. Continental cannot even make that claim..as the 90's were a turbulent time for the airline that once had a major hub in Denver's Stapleton.

Now times are great for both Texas airlines. American is starting to expand in certain markets again. But the biggest factor is labor cost and oil. IT's always been that way. Continental is not immune either, as althougth they did not declare bankruptcy, their labor costs are by no means the lowest in the industry...

But at the end of the day, it's the same argument you can use for Downtown Dallas vs. Houston. Dallas' highrise construction in their urban core is growing faster than Houston, but it's way behind. Same with Continental, it's way behind...and unless American and United gives up slots at its prize hub airports, Continental will not be able to push into the high density traffic spots outside of Newark and Houston. They're more of a niche carrier that serves to higher end business people of NYC area and Houston/Texas cities, and has a fairly strong international route network. They're good at what they do...they're one of the few carriers that will give complimentary "snacks" on board for longer flights...but they tend to be more expensive on average than other US carriers...
But they wont catch American or United unless they both go under. If United buys out Continental, then Houston loses a major corporate HQ. But now that Delta/US Air failed, merger talks have died down. If it passed, then American would have made a play for NWA.
Overall, Continental should stick to what it does best...offer premium service...the only downside is that it doesnt have as many flight options...and that's what companies do look at especially in adverse weather situations.



American is the number one carrier to latin America, the carribean and has a small presence in Asia and a sizable one in Europe. But the advantage is American is partners with British Airways, which more people will be able to make use of when the Heathrow connections come to both Dallas and Houston....given BA's lack of partnership with Continental, Continental will need to find another carrier like British Midland,etc to compete effectively with the DFW hub. DFW was named the first US city to get Heathrow service outside of the traditional Miami, Chicago, NYC, and Boston. Houston became the second with BA offering two flights. American and BA are teamed up in DFW and will offer 2 flights to Heathrow and one to Gatwick.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by mpope409

As far as a lot of people are concerned, Brooklyn is its own city. Thus, a major part of New York with a seperate skyline in a seperate area.

The only reason the Manhattan skyline is so well realized is because of the media. If Houston had the same media coverage, no one would mistake the Uptown area for Downtown, because they would know what DT looks like; furthermore, the only reason visitors think Uptown is DT is because they entered the city on that side of town and see that area first. If Houston was very very popular, no such mistake would be made.

The downtown district of Brooklyn borough is very big and larger than a lot of cities' CBDs. The average grass-roots individual who knows very little about New York City, let alone the fact that it's separated into islands, when driving amongst DT Brooklyn could easily think that they are in Manhattan. I doubt you'll find many people outside of the City-Data forum that know the set up of New York. But we have strayed away from the point. The point is that Brooklyn holds a lot of New York City's highrise buildings that contribute to the skyline AND this skyline is in a different area, so no Houston is not one of those cities and neither is NYC.

The skyscraper in Queens, as well. Sure, you can see it from Manhattan and with Manhattan, but you know what? You can't get to it in Manhattan. Pal, you have to cross a major river, so how in the world is that in the same area? Things like this work on technicalities, not formalities. Saying that Uptown is a crucial part of the Houston skyline, but DT BK isn't a crucial part of the New York skyline is your opinion, but it's not set in stone.

You know, Manhattan by itself has a larger skyline than Houston's Uptown, Med Center, Downtown, and Midtown combined. Not sure why there is such a debate to comparing Houston's skyline with NYC's skyline.
But since you're comparing the whole city of houston as one big skyline instead of downtown only, then you have to include the city limits of NYC: Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, etc. And the whole area is basically one big skyline...it's just that the other boroughs have relatively shorter buildings on average than NYC, but my grandparents, who used to live in the Bronx lived in a 30 story building...which is just average for NYC buildings....
I guess my point is, highrises are everywhere in NYC...so it's something you just cant compare...it's just that manhattan stands out due to its status as NYC's main financial district...but to illustrate again, manhattan alone has more than Uptown, Downtown, Midtown, Med Center combined in Houston...so where is the debate? Now if you want to debate architecture, that's a different story. I happen to like modern over old. So therefore, I think Houston's looks nicer per building
But if you want to compare skylines, cant do it. Nobody puts Houston on the same level as NYC's skyline. ONly Chicago gets compared, and Chicago gets slammed down fairly quickly when compared to NYC despite Chicago on the world stage having a nice skyline in its own right...they say the concept was born in Chicago...others say NYC...

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

You know, Manhattan by itself has a larger skyline than Houston's Uptown, Med Center, Downtown, and Midtown combined. Not sure why there is such a debate to comparing Houston's skyline with NYC's skyline.
But since you're comparing the whole city of houston as one big skyline instead of downtown only, then you have to include the city limits of NYC: Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, etc. And the whole area is basically one big skyline...it's just that the other boroughs have relatively shorter buildings on average than NYC, but my grandparents, who used to live in the Bronx lived in a 30 story building...which is just average for NYC buildings....
I guess my point is, highrises are everywhere in NYC...so it's something you just cant compare...it's just that manhattan stands out due to its status as NYC's main financial district...but to illustrate again, manhattan alone has more than Uptown, Downtown, Midtown, Med Center combined in Houston...so where is the debate? Now if you want to debate architecture, that's a different story. I happen to like modern over old. So therefore, I think Houston's looks nicer per building
But if you want to compare skylines, cant do it. Nobody puts Houston on the same level as NYC's skyline. ONly Chicago gets compared, and Chicago gets slammed down fairly quickly when compared to NYC despite Chicago on the world stage having a nice skyline in its own right...they say the concept was born in Chicago...others say NYC...

This has nothing to do with what Spade and I were discussing. Besides, I thought we put that to rest? We agreed to disagree.