Dallas vs. Houston (Jefferson, Franklin: businesses, fit in, move)

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

Atlanta is dependent on its metro area. So is Houston.

Look up and you'll see that I changed it because I meant to say Los Angeles, not Atlanta. Houston is not dependant on its metro. Its metro is largely residential, virtually no big business, and there's only one Fortune 500 company in the area outside of the city limits.

OVerall, I do believe that the few cities in this country that really stand out are NYC, Boston, Chicago, SF, and DC.

LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta in my opinion do not make that list. These cities just do not have the densities that the above mentioned do. Houston and Dallas are more similar to LA than to your SF, NYC, Boston, Chicago, and DC. They tend to mimic the sprawled out American city rather than the dense city. And as for Houston, it's area is twice the size of Dallas, but most urban economist recognize had Dallas not be bound by its suburbs, Houston and Dallas would virtually be the same type of city...sprawled out and not dense relative to the northern counterparts.
Dallas and Houston represent the new american city, SF, NYC, Boston, Chicago, DC the old.

First, let me say that Houston is not twice the size of Dallas.

Well where does this idea that a compact city equals a city that stands out or is more important? Houston is more cosmo than both Boston and D.C.. The only difference is, as you said, that Houston is more spread out. And the city of Houston is only about 130 more sq. miles larger than New York. Not that big of a difference. If and when Houston's transit becomes superb, it will be very navigatable.

And saying that New York is walkable is somewhat of an overstatement to me anyways. You can't even walk across the Brooklyn bridge without your legs falling off. All Houston and Dallas need to do is build things closer together. Houston's working on that. Is Dallas?

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Then why does Dallas have more air traffic than New York. Clearly you're not saying that Dallas is more important. You'd also be saying that if was more relevant than Houston, and I wouldn't like that very much, lol. No just playing, but it still stands that Houston has two int'l airports.

Hence "roughly coorelate"

If you add up NYCs area's major airports, it might add up to DFW plus Love's.

I would have to look up the exact numbers.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Look up and you'll see that I changed it because I meant to say Los Angeles, not Atlanta. Houston is not dependant on its metro. Its metro is largely residential, virtually no big business, and there's only one Fortune 500 company in the area outside of the city limits.

First, let me say that Houston is not twice the size of Dallas.

Well where does this idea that a compact city equals a city that stands out or is more important? Houston is more cosmo than both Boston and D.C.. The only difference is, as you said, that Houston is more spread out. And the city of Houston is only about 130 more sq. miles larger than New York. Not that big of a difference. If and when Houston's transit becomes superb, it will be very navigatable.

And saying that New York is walkable is somewhat of an overstatement to me anyways. You can't even walk across the Brooklyn bridge without your legs falling off. All Houston and Dallas need to do is build things closer together. Houston's working on that. Is Dallas?

Ok, I admit I exagerated to make a point, but Houston's official area is 1398 sq km, Dallas is 887. This makes houston's land area roughly 60 percent bigger than that of Dallas. It's an issue of suburbs versus city proper.
NYC is 800 sq km., which is significantly smaller than that of Houston.

As for the dallas skyline, they are planning on adding 50 brand new high rises to their downtown/uptown area over the next 5-10 years, of which 1/2 of that number is going up now. The Victory Park development which is headed by Perot's group is bridging the gap b/t downtown and uptown Dallas, and account for several of those 50. THe other ones are going up in Dallas' Arts District and also Uptown Dallas, which is connected to downtown Dallas.
Dallas city hall has mandated the stress of density over stip malls in the uptown area creating more more buildings that rise up than strip malls that take up space.

So to answer your question, yes Dallas is.

And to answer your question, I do believe a lot of the world is more in tune with high dense cities. Several of my international connections and polls have demonstrated that. That's why Houston and Dallas are both actively trying to change that in their respective cities. Most of the world views "cities" as high dense locations, mainly b/c of the culture of the rest of the world. I dont think Houston is viewed on the same level or tier as D.C. And nor is Dallas. I would like to think one day that our Texas cities will be..but SF, Chicago, LA are all scoring higher on global city points, and D.C, and Boston which tie Dallas and Houston I guarantee you have much more association with cosmo and city than does our Texas metro areas...but both of our respective cities are working actively to change that image....hopefully it will work.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

Just a quick note: Most airline industry would agree that the 3 major NYC area airports are: NYC JFK, NYC La Guardia, and Newark Liberty.

Yes Love and Hobby are different, though I do believe in the future SWA's announced plans will make Love busier than Hobby. Afterall, Love is the world headquarters of SWA< something that Houston cannot claim.

Here are the destinations that Hobby currently serve, thus it's only international by freight only.

Southwest Airlines (Albuquerque, Austin, Baltimore/Washington, Birmingham (AL), Chicago-Midway, Corpus Christi, Dallas-Love, Denver, El Paso, Fort Lauderdale, Harlingen, Jackson (MS), Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Midland/Odessa, Nashville, New Orleans, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego [begins June 4], St. Louis, Tampa, Tulsa).

AirTran Airways (Atlanta)
American Airlines
American Eagle (Dallas/Fort Worth)
ATA Airlines (New York-LaGuardia) [ends May 7, 2007]
Delta Air Lines (Atlanta)
Delta Connection operated by Atlantic Southeast Airlines (Atlanta)
Delta Connection operated by Shuttle America (Atlanta)
JetBlue Airways (New York-JFK)
Sun Country Airlines (Minneapolis/St. Paul) [seasonal]

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

The airport situations in Houston and Dallas are similar.
Must compare Love field to Hobby, and DFW to Intercontinental.

So let's look at the comparison:
DFW is the 3rd busiest airport in the US and 6th busiest in the World. Only Chicago and Atlanta beat DFW in terms of busiest airports. Houston falls well short of the top 3.

As for Hobby vs. Love Field, the lifting of the Wright amendment should make Love Field a busier airport than Hobby. Love Field is actually bigger than Hobby with 32 gates vs. Hobby's 20 gates, but that will change as Love Field will shrink to 20 gates. However, Love Field caters to a bigger metropolitan area...DFW has 6.2 million to Houston's 5.4 million. Love Field also is the world Headquarters of Southwest, and Southwest has announced its plans to expand and grow Love field to its biggest hub in Texas over the next decade as the Wright Amendment gets loosened up.
Now international flights, Houston tops DFW in that category, I give Houston that, however, now that American has gotten a better financial footing, and with open skies agreements in the horizon, they will be in a better position to get the One World carriers to feed into the DFW hub, which is more centralized than the Houston Continental hub. Plus, Continental is a much smaller airline and has fewer resources and political muscle than American does. And with Continental still focusing on building up its international operations at Newark, Houston may continue to take a back seat to the New York City area airport Newark Liberty, which is appropriate since NYC is clearly much more of a world destination than Houston.
American's market share in NYC is less prominent despite their presence at JFK.

But make no mistake, now that Wright is loosened, DFW area has two airports as well, and there traffic is growing at both airports. Houston has essentially two area airports, at which both are growing, and the secondary one serves primarily Southwest at both airports.

The DFW Airport is actually behind Los Angeles now. It is ranked fourth busiest in the U.S., and is behind Atlanta, Chicago, London, Tokyo, and Los Angeles on a world scale. The DFW Airport was at 60 million and grew by 1% the year before. Houston's big airport grew by 7% the year before, and is now at 43 million passengers a year.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/22/wor...hisSpeed=15000

Love Field will never be larger than Hobby. It doesn't matter that Dallas-Fort Worth is larger than Houston. Houston is at 5.7 million and DFW is at 6.2 million. Not too far apart to make that big of a difference. Hobby Airport is also under an expansion.

[metroplex2003]

This actually depends on how you define busiest.
DFW still is 3rd busiest in terms of aircraft movements.

Aircraft movements and passengers are the two criteria used.

As for the 500,000 person lead, what is your source.

U.S. Census rates Houston at 5.5 million, DFW at 6.2 million, giving DFW a 700,000 person lead, or 12.7% This as of July 1, 2006...which is the latest and most up to date figures. Unless Houston magically grew by 200,000 people, which it's not growing at that fast of a rate per year, then those figures listed above are correct since DFW and Houston's growth rates are roughly parallel. Most US boomtowns do not add more than 100,000-150,000 people per year
If DFW and Houston are both booming Metro areas, then their leads shouldnt change drastically.
Thus, DFW has roughly a 12.7% lead over Houston.

[metroplex2003]

Actually Love field is bigger than Hobby in number of gates, but you're right, that's a/b to change as Love Field will be shrinking to 20 gates (Hobby's current size) and Hobby will be expanding.

However, DFW Airport clearly is much larger than Intercontinental.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

Ok, I admit I exagerated to make a point, but Houston's official area is 1398 sq km, Dallas is 887. This makes houston's land area roughly 60 percent bigger than that of Dallas. It's an issue of suburbs versus city proper.
NYC is 800 sq km., which is significantly smaller than that of Houston.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Houston's square mileage is about 600, New York's is about 470, and Dallas' is 385.

So to answer your question, yes Dallas is.

I mean the entire city, not just central Dallas.

And to answer your question, I do believe a lot of the world is more in tune with high dense cities. Several of my international connections and polls have demonstrated that. That's why Houston and Dallas are both actively trying to change that in their respective cities. Most of the world views "cities" as high dense locations, mainly b/c of the culture of the rest of the world. I dont think Houston is viewed on the same level or tier as D.C. And nor is Dallas. I would like to think one day that our Texas cities will be..but SF, Chicago, LA are all scoring higher on global city points, and D.C, and Boston which tie Dallas and Houston I guarantee you have much more association with cosmo and city than does our Texas metro areas...but both of our respective cities are working actively to change that image....hopefully it will work.

I've said time and time again on this site that dense does not equal cosmo and urban. If that were the case, Los Angeles would be nothing. Which we all know is not true. And no, Boston and D.C. are not more cosmopolitan than Houston. Houston is (and I hate this word) "hipper." It's younger and bigger business. More international and with more to do.

And Houston isn't trying to become more dense just in order to fit in with the older cities. They're doing it to become accessible. And this is without transit.

Here are the destinations that Hobby currently serve, thus it's only international by freight only.

International nonetheless. But like I said, air traffic has very little to do with a city's importance, so I don't know why this has become a drawn out discussion.

[SpeedyAZ]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Houston's square mileage is about 600, New York's is about 470, and Dallas' is 385.

He was using kilometers, not miles.

And Boston is definetly more cosmo than Houston. Ask anyone not from either of the cities and I bet that 90% say Boston as the more cosmopolitan.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

He was using kilometers, not miles.

Oops! , my bad...

And Boston is definetly more cosmo than Houston. Ask anyone not from either of the cities and I bet that 90% say Boston as the more cosmopolitan.

Nehhh...they might be around the same, but Houston without a doubt in my mind is the more cosmopolitan. I've been to both, and I found that Houston is more culturally enhanced. To me, Boston was in a way like a small New York, but with less nationalities, it seemed. Houston's international restaurants are rated better and it has more to do. Boston is just set in the style of a compact, walkable, transit city, yadda yadda. But it's not more cosmopolitan in absolute terms.

I feel that a city needs to hit culture on all levels for it to suit a cosmopolite. The only cities that I have found to do this are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and D.C.