What cities in Texas would you consider to be a major cities? (Houston: land, metro area)

[jluke65780]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

I didn't realize how diverse Killeen was until I looked up the demographics, and I just completely spaced out Baylor.
I'm not sure what you mean by the whole location thing. Every city that exists is successful because of its location. Lubbock is the center of the South Plains. M/O sits right on top of an oil field. Waco grew because of its location on the Brazos River. Killeen is right next to Fort Hood.

The Panhandle lacks major cities like Dallas and Austin. Cities like Waco, Tyler, and Killeen are considered nothing when compared to these cities.

Who's Lubbock competition???

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by Mark-Tyler is Special

The list of the many ways T/L are connected you didn't respond to. But as I've said on this topic before, yes Tyler and Longview are not growing toward each other. Longview is growing more North, Tyler mostly South, Marshall is Harrison County was taken of the Longview Metro Area. Shreveport/Bossier City is not a magnet for job growth as you can tell buy their census figures, but sure many in Tyler do go to "The Boats" in Shreveport lol Tyler/Longview people shop in each city but people in both cities take off to DFW for "real" urban activity. Shreveport has little "alure" other than "The Boats". More people come to Tyler hospitals rather Tyler to Longview, however Longview is improving, but many more specialists in Tyler. I think I'm thru with this topic. Have a good one, everyone !!

I agree with virtually everything in this statement...Tyler/Longview shares the same relationship that Lufkin/Nacogdoches shares...In that they are often referred to as one area.. They may not individually be large enough to have their own CMSA, but Tyler/Longview has long been understood to share the same general area and interests. Tyler/Jacksonville (whatever thats worth..lol)/ Longview is often referred to as encompassing shared interests. I think if Tyler/Longview wasnt saddled between Dallas and Shreveport, but rather out in West Texas with hundreds of miles to the next town, it would probably be considered a major area. Although Tyler, is already considered the "Hub" of East Texas as it is.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

The Panhandle lacks major cities like Dallas and Austin. Cities like Waco, Tyler, and Killeen are considered nothing when compared to these cities.

Who's Lubbock competition???

There aren't any major cities here like in the rest of Texas because this area wasn't even settled permanently until about 100 years ago. There hasn't really been enough time for a dominant city to develop. At one time, Amarillo, Abilene, Lubbock and M/O were all areal hubs of similar sizes. Only now is Lubbock beginning to emerge (not quite there yet) as the regional hub for all of West Texas and Eastern New Mexico.
As I understand it, Dallas, Waco, Tyler, and maybe even Sherman were at one time all potential major cities, and Dallas won out. Now I don't see Lubbock becoming anywhere as large as Dallas, but I could see it growing to around 500K much like Albuquerque or OKC.

[case44]

Here is my list of the places in Texas that I consider major cities:


Houston
Dallas
Austin
San Antonio
El Paso
Fort Worth
Amarillo
Lubbock
Abilene
Tyler
Beaumont
Wichita Falls
Odessa
Midland
Corpus Christi
McAllen
Brownsville
Harlingen
Waco
Bryan
San Angelo
Laredo


And there you are.

[jluke65780]

Originally Posted by case44

Here is my list of the places in Texas that I consider major cities:


Houston
Dallas
Austin
San Antonio
El Paso
Fort Worth
Amarillo
Lubbock
Abilene
Tyler
Beaumont
Wichita Falls
Odessa
Midland
Corpus Christi
McAllen
Brownsville
Harlingen
Waco
Bryan
San Angelo
Laredo


And there you are.

I agree!

[Scarface713]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

There aren't any major cities here like in the rest of Texas because this area wasn't even settled permanently until about 100 years ago. There hasn't really been enough time for a dominant city to develop. At one time, Amarillo, Abilene, Lubbock and M/O were all areal hubs of similar sizes. Only now is Lubbock beginning to emerge (not quite there yet) as the regional hub for all of West Texas and Eastern New Mexico.
As I understand it, Dallas, Waco, Tyler, and maybe even Sherman were at one time all potential major cities, and Dallas won out. Now I don't see Lubbock becoming anywhere as large as Dallas, but I could see it growing to around 500K much like Albuquerque or OKC.

Dallas won out because the city leaders were able to get two railroads through the city (stole it from Corsicana; North-South and East-West railroad lines). Also, Lubbock may be the "regional hub", but Midland-Odessa may not be larger (yet), but it is growing faster than Lubbock.

But Tyler was never up there, and neither was Sherman. Waco kind of was, but no where near Dallas. San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, and Fort Worth were the major Texas cities. Fort Worth was the same size as Houston in the early 1900s.

[jluke65780]

Originally Posted by Angel713

Dallas won out because the city leaders were able to get two railroads through the city (stole it from Corsicana; North-South and East-West railroad lines). Also, Lubbock may be the "regional hub", but Midland-Odessa may not be larger (yet), but it is growing faster than Lubbock.

But Tyler was never up there, and neither was Sherman. Waco kind of was, but no where near Dallas. San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, and Fort Worth were the major Texas cities. Fort Worth was the same size as Houston in the early 1900s.

Waco was around the same size as Dallas, Dallas and Houston just had acquired more land.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Angel713

Dallas won out because the city leaders were able to get two railroads through the city (stole it from Corsicana; North-South and East-West railroad lines). Also, Lubbock may be the "regional hub", but Midland-Odessa may not be larger (yet), but it is growing faster than Lubbock.

But Tyler was never up there, and neither was Sherman. Waco kind of was, but no where near Dallas. San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, and Fort Worth were the major Texas cities. Fort Worth was the same size as Houston in the early 1900s.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Scarface713]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Waco was around the same size as Dallas, Dallas and Houston just had acquired more land.

Do you have a link?

[BillyH]

Originally Posted by Spade

Eh. Again, these are city population numbers. If you brought somebody out of state that's never been to either dallas or san antonio, they will tell you dallas is obviously the much larger area. To me and most other urban enthusiasts, Dallas is the 2nd largest city even though the arbitrary definition says otherwise.

Dallas/FT Worth (the Metroplex) is obviously a much larger area than San Antonio. The Metroplex is the largest metro is the state but San Antonio is still the second largest city in the state behind Houston.