Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hear lots of criticism about DFW and Houston for sprawl. I live in TX and tend to focus on threads about Texas so maybe that's why I've seen them. That aside, haters are gonna hate. Atlanta has many positives so people are going to try and bring it down a bit by focusing on traffic and sprawl.
To be blunt, I think it's because there's a lot of trash talk that comes from those cities' posters and then you get rebuttles about how sprawly or chain-oriented those cities are.
Humility would go far on this board, one might say.
Do you have any kind of source that shows that the "majority of the developments happening in Dallas are dense urban developments", or are you talking about JUST the city? This must be happening in the suburbs then, because of the 1-1.5 million people the region has gained in the last 10 years, the city of Dallas has only received a fraction of that (which I don't entirely doubt was more urban in form). It'd be kinda odd if a city center in America did NOT have urban development, but in some places with HUGE city municipalities I suppose it's possible!
Actually doesn't sound too far fetched - of new housing permits obtained in 2011 in the Dallas metro area, 49% percent were for multi-family housing. I would imagine that the majority of that would be in Dallas itself, with some TOD here and there in the outer cities connected by LRT.
The Atlanta metro is at 28%, and the Houston metro is at 27%.
Of course when you compare it to the New York metro (91%) or even the Los Angeles metro (77%), you start to see why they are bashed as being "all sprawl".
Someone mentioned in an earlier post that these cities are accused of being "chain-based" - is that actually true? I imagined that even if the shops were in strip malls, they mostly be locally owned businesses.
Actually doesn't sound too far fetched - of new housing permits obtained in 2011 in the Dallas metro area, 49% percent were for multi-family housing. I would imagine that the majority of that would be in Dallas itself, with some TOD here and there in the outer cities connected by LRT.
The Atlanta metro is at 28%, and the Houston metro is at 27%.
Of course when you compare it to the New York metro (91%) or even the Los Angeles metro (77%), you start to see why they are bashed as being "all sprawl".
Someone mentioned in an earlier post that these cities are accused of being "chain-based" - is that actually true? I imagined that even if the shops were in strip malls, they mostly be locally owned businesses.
I think the chain-based thing is a stereotype more than anything.
I don't think that Dallas, the city, saw the majority of the metro growth though, unless the city grew by well over 500K people last decade. Besides, are townhomes considered "multifamily", because most suburbs have them everywhere but are still widely considered "suburban" development (even if they are on the denser side of that development)?
Do you have any kind of source that shows that the "majority of the developments happening in Dallas are dense urban developments", or are you talking about JUST the city? This must be happening in the suburbs then, because of the 1-1.5 million people the region has gained in the last 10 years, the city of Dallas has only received a fraction of that (which I don't entirely doubt was more urban in form). It'd be kinda odd if a city center in America did NOT have urban development, but in some places with HUGE city municipalities I suppose it's possible!
No, but all the major developments occurring in Dallas are urban. The other cities outgrew Dallas because they have enough land for suburban-style developments. Fort Worth's growth is almost totally suburban. City of Dallas only has a small amount of developable land available.
I think the chain-based thing is a stereotype more than anything.
I don't think that Dallas, the city, saw the majority of the metro growth though, unless the city grew by well over 500K people last decade.
That could be true, I'm not sure about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus
Besides, are townhomes considered "multifamily", because most suburbs have them everywhere but are still widely considered "suburban" development (even if they are on the denser side of that development)?
That was a point I considering making as well - are these multi-family construction permits for car-oriented developments? If the development is something like this mess of a block in Las Vegas, it makes the area no more urban or walkable than if it was single family homes.
I think the chain-based thing is a stereotype more than anything.
I don't think that Dallas, the city, saw the majority of the metro growth though, unless the city grew by well over 500K people last decade. Besides, are townhomes considered "multifamily", because most suburbs have them everywhere but are still widely considered "suburban" development (even if they are on the denser side of that development)?
Honestly I think the chain basis is more true than the sprawl portion. At least on feel and also with many of the mixed use developments, the coporate developers have a higher affinity for chains as tenants (multi store deals among multiple properties etc.). While there are obviously areas with non chains in all areas much of the new development is very chain laden. For better or worse.
Also on sprawl both DFW and Houston develop outward at a more dense clip than does Atlanta; that can be quantified. In fact DFW and Houston grow outward more dense than do traditionally more dense core cities, including NYC and the metro (this I am talking about extension of the UA)
Atlanta actually more mimics a less dense north east model, extending with lower density whereas DFW and Houston are more like a West coast model with more consistent density, albeit lower than a LA, SF, SD
Chicago and LA wer probably the true precursors to this type of more consistent development with LA being the most on the continuum
No, but all the major developments occurring in Dallas are urban. The other cities outgrew Dallas because they have enough land for suburban-style developments. Fort Worth's growth is almost totally suburban. City of Dallas only has a small amount of developable land available.
Dallas the city has a ton of developable land honestly, though growth in the metro it appeared was from the center to the west I belive on the metro basis
Atlanta actually more mimics a less dense north east model, extending with lower density whereas DFW and Houston are more like a West coast model with more consistent density, albeit lower than a LA, SF, SD
I agree that Atlanta seems to follow a model closer to Boston, with low density suburbs increasing in density until they reach the center city (obviously at a much lower peak density than Boston).
Houston and Dallas seem to have taken the LA model and even expanded on it, even as LA has turned its back on highway-style development.
Dallas the city has a ton of developable land honestly, though growth in the metro it appeared was from the center to the west I belive on the metro basis
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
