Dallas vs. Houston (Sugar Land, Katy, Cinco Ranch: trip , incomes, housing)

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by TriumphOfTheSprint

Actually, DFW has significantly more traffic than Intercontinental and Hobby combined (and that doesn't take Love Field into account) - http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...commercial.pdf

Houston's IAH has more international traffic than DFW. That should tell you what how Houston is looked at on a world scale.

[Guerilla]

I summary of what I read at another forum:

Is it better to have one more Fortune 500 company spread out amongst Dallas (11), Fort Worth (5), Irving (4), Plano (3), and Grapevine (1) or is better for Houston to have 22 located in the central city? Here's how it breaks down for Fortune 1000 companies;

Greater Houston area with 51 (48 in the city of Houston and one each in The Woodlands, Galveston, and Angelton).

Metroplex area with 46 (21 in Dallas, 8 in Irving, 7 in Fort Worth, 5 in Plano, and 1 each in North Richland Hills, Grapevine, Richardson, McKinney, and Southlake).

Also, is it more important to have a few execs in one city, or many employees? I am willing to be that the thousands of employees in a city do better than a few execs in one. For example, Comerica bank is moving to dallas (with a few execs), BUT the thousands of employees will be staying in the Detroit metro. Another example is Exxon Mobil having a few execs in Irving, BUT most of their employees are in Houston.

The best thing about Houston's Fortune 1000 companies are that they are not all spread out like many in DFW want to believe.


Fifteen of them are located in downtown Houston.
Two more are located just outside of downtown on Allen Parkway.
One company is located in Greenway Plaza.

Additionally, a total of twenty are Inside the Loop. Another nineteen are Inside the Beltway. Two more are on the Beltway. That's 41 total companies on or inside the Beltway. I would take that any day.

A part of Houston's skyline:

[metroplex2003]

Just a quick point on the only metro area with two cities concept:

Minneapolis/St. Paul, no one ever talks a/b those two as individual entities except the locals, Kansas City, MO and Kansas City, KS (also known as the Twin cities of MO/KS). Seattle/Tacoma. Our great nation is filled with cities that have multiple large urban cores. The Bay Area is another example: San Francisco/Oakland. Oakland is a city in its own right, as well as San Jose.

As for the airport, Houston Intercontinental is the primary int'l airport of Houston. HObby only has roughly 20 gates and caters mainly to Southwest only with the other carriers sending combinations of regional jets and smaller main line jets to it. DFW's Love Field is serving a similar role. DFW's Love Field is bigger than Hobby, but will be reduced to 20 gates due to a new Federal Law (which I think personally is ridiculous).

As for DFW versus Intercontinental:
Intercontinental: More int'l destinations, but overall more flights at DFW.


I agree, SF is more of a major city since it's a Beta world class city.

However, we're not comparing DFW to Houston. I dont think Houston can be compared to SF either. The Bay Area not using MSA statistics but including San Jose has more people than Houston area or DFW.

I did not imply Houston annexed for the sole sake of being no. 4, they annexed probably to increase their tax base, but the point I did not clearly get across is that Dallas is bound by suburbs, Houston is not...it's a matter of how you define where a city culturally ends. Atlanta is small, yet it's considered a major world class city. Now if you go to emporis.com, Houston's boundaries are double that of Dallas. If you extrapolate Dallas' boundaries to the size of houston with Dallas downtown being the urban core, all of a sudden you have similar populations.

But again, the preference for DFW versus Houston is most definitely subjective, they share many similarities, but they are different.
Some people like dry heat, some like humidity.

I just happen to be one who feels that DFW has more for me...more sports, more flights, more corporate relocations.
In 2006, DFW ranked only 2nd to Chicago in corporate headquarter relocations. The year before, it was Number 1. DFW has been alternating with Chicago for sometime now.
Pearls of Houston is that it has a cheaper cost of living, but this could be why DFW has added more people than Houston in the first 6 years of this decade as demand is sky rocketing, who knows.
Now I dont deny that Houston is one of the fastest growing MSA's in the country. It joins DFW, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Las Vegas, dont get me wrong, and I'm not trying to put down Houston, I do believe it's a nice city as an objective outsider who is not even from Texas.
But I do believe the points I made are valid. Our DART (light rail) expansion is well on course and will continue to outpace Houston's. We do have more shopping centers per capita than any other place in America...and trust me, I hate to shop, but for whatever reason, my spouse loves it...personally I'd rather eat...and I give Houston kudos for that, but that's besides the point.

It will be interstesting to see over the next decade, but both DFW and Houston are well positioned for continued success with unlimited growth potential and lots of land.

[Guerilla]

No, IAH has more international travelers as well. It was even a big discussion at Dallas' local forum. Dallas has nice rail, but no bus or HOV transit. Dallas-Fort Worth has averaged just a few thousand more than Houston in the past seven years. Since 2000, Atlanta, DFW, and Houston are the fastest growing metros (in that order). Houston annexed land before people resided in it. This was to increase tax base, and stop the suburbs from almost running the metro (a la DFW). Houston will never have a suburb like Arlington, Plano, or Irving. Suburbs that take businesses and companies away from the city center. Sugar Land, The Woodlands, and Katy may be getting large, but Houston owns ETJ (land that it can annex), around all of them, so it doesn't matter how large they get. Houston leaders are praised around the nation for not letting this city become landlocked (like Dallas, Detroit, etc.).

[SpeedyAZ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, IAH has more international travelers as well. It was even a big discussion at Dallas' local forum. Dallas has nice rail, but no bus or HOV transit. Dallas-Fort Worth has averaged just a few thousand more than Houston in the past seven years. Since 2000, Atlanta, DFW, and Houston are the fastest growing metros (in that order). Houston annexed land before people resided in it. This was to increase tax base, and stop the suburbs from almost running the metro (a la DFW). Houston will never have a suburb like Arlington, Plano, or Irving. Suburbs that take businesses and companies away from the city center. Sugar Land, The Woodlands, and Katy may be getting large, but Houston owns ETJ (land that it can annex), around all of them, so it doesn't matter how large they get. Houston leaders are praised around the nation for not letting this city become landlocked (like Dallas, Detroit, etc.).

I haven't heard about this annexing issue, do you have any links? I'd like to read more about it...

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

Beautiful. The three prominent skylines of the U.S.: New York, Chicago, and Houston. And it's only getting better.

[GoPadge]

Originally Posted by JJP

All I care about with the airports, is that now I can actually get direct, international flights to places we've gone like London, Cabo, and so many others. When I lived in Austin that was a big drawback, not being able to get those direct flights out of the city. So any traffic differences between DFW and Houston, I could really care less about.

Eh, I've lived in a city without an International Airport (Columbia, SC). I found it was usually a lot cheaper to fly out of Columbia than to drive to Charlotte and catch the same connecting flight.

[KerrTown]

Don't even get me started about Neiman-Marcus! It is so snobby--so, so Dallas--and so expensive. Typical Dallas attitude. No wonder there are so many $35,000 credit card millionaires there.

The difference between Dallas and Houston: Neiman-Marcus is where Dallas shops; Macy's (Foley's) is where Houston shops. Don't even bring up the fact that Foley's got swallowed up by Macy's because Foley's was just a knockoff of Macy's anyway. Remember Sanger-Harris got swallowed up by Foley's! Thats why there are Houston stores in Dallas. The Dallas store is struggling to keep a presence here cuz its too freaking overpriced. In fact, the Galleria store is the first store outside of DFW and they are struggling to have a second location in Houston. Its nice to have the famous New York store have so many more locations in Houston and across Texas. Houston finally has New York style! Dallas, well, has their own style that they peddle around the country and no-one except the snobby elite person bothers to buy there. At least our store is more affordable!!!

From comparing both stores, Houston is less pretentious than DFW!!

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Don't even get me started about Neiman-Marcus! It is so snobby--so, so Dallas--and so expensive. Typical Dallas attitude. No wonder there are so many $35,000 credit card millionaires there.

The difference between Dallas and Houston: Neiman-Marcus is where Dallas shops; Macy's (Foley's) is where Houston shops. Don't even bring up the fact that Foley's got swallowed up by Macy's because Foley's was just a knockoff of Macy's anyway. Remember Sanger-Harris got swallowed up by Foley's! Thats why there are Houston stores in Dallas. The Dallas store is struggling to keep a presence here cuz its too freaking overpriced. In fact, the Galleria store is the first store outside of DFW and they are struggling to have a second location in Houston. Its nice to have the famous New York store have so many more locations in Houston and across Texas. Houston finally has New York style! Dallas, well, has their own style that they peddle around the country and no-one except the snobby elite person bothers to buy there. At least our store is more affordable!!!

From comparing both stores, Houston is less pretentious than DFW!!

Well I actually love the Neiman's flagship store in Dallas, and I'm not ashamed to say it! Now as far as them being snobby, you have to let them know that it's you who is helping them and not them helping you. They want your money and nothing makes them more upset if they can't have it. Neiman's rival isn't Foley's or Macy's, though. It's Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, Barney's (Houston doesn't have one yet), and often times, Bloomingdale's. These are where I shop. Foley's and Macy's are more the stores for moderate incomes. Dallas has more of the fancy stores, but Houston has the fancier stores.

[nunusguy]

I've not lived in N.Texas for an extended period of time, but worked in the area on employment contracts of weeks or months and have visited my wifes family there on several occasions, and my very strong impression was that Dallas and Ft. Worth were 2 distinct cities, each with their own set of suburbs.
I know nationally (for marketing purposes mainly I suppose), the area is often called Dallas or the metroplex, but Dallas & Ft.Worth are 2 different cities that have some shared experiences and even partnerships on some projects, but for the most part they are 2 cities each with their own history, achievements, and identity. And they have certainly been fierce competitors in some areas, the Wright Amendmend being the most contemporay example that comes to mind for those who follow the aviation industry ?
Thoughts from those who know N.Texas better than I do, maybe my perception is not correct ?