Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 04-07-2013, 10:59 AM
Location: Dallas, Texas
4,435 posts, read 6,301,517 times
Reputation: 3827


Originally Posted by vertigo5110 View Post
I think the two are closer in size than these numbers show. Also when most people say "Dallas" they really mean the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex which consists of a much larger number of cities than the Greater Houston Area. Dallas/Ft. Worth is technically one metro area which is why (as far as metro areas go) it's larger than Houston - because the DFW Metro area technically has TWO major cities in it. It can be thought of similarly to San Francisco and San Jose collectively being referred to as The Bay Area although there is much less debate about whether Dallas/Ft.Worth comprise one metro (or should).

Houston on the other hand is it's own stand alone city with a lower number of smaller cities in its metropolitan area (such as Sugar Land, Katy, Baytown, Pasadena and Spring). That is why Dallas/Ft. Worth is the largest metropolitan area in Texas but Houston is the largest city.

Actually, as far as MSA's go, Dallas and Houston are very close w/ the DFW Metroplex edging Houston out by some 300,000 people (according to recent models and data)


Greater Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think that at this point, the two are doing so well economically that as far as growth and size are concerned, they are almost literally neck-and-neck. They also offer two completely different vibes. DFW (as a metro area split b/t two large cities) has a very dichotic air about it. Dallas is very glitzy and Fort Worth is very typical Texas (cowboys, etc.). The whole metroplex has developed like other dual metros (The Bay area, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Miami/Ft.Lauderdale to a lesser extent). Houston on the other hand is more like large, established cities (which isn't to say that DFW isn't established) such as Chicago or Philadelphia (or even NY on a much smaller scale) in that it's all consider part of the same city (and that city is the anchor for the metro area) but there are just different "parts of town" with their own vibes/identities (i.e Montrose, West University, The Heights, Uptown, The Med Center, Bellaire, etc.). I'm sure Dallas has parts of towns w/ their own identities, etc. but I also believe (and correct me Dallasites if I'm wrong) but there are areas of Dallas that have their own culture that don't have counter parts in Ft. Worth (I believe Deep Ellum would be an example) and the same goes for Ft. Worth (ex. The Stockyards), thus as a metro area, Dallas/Ft.Worth is larger and has complimentary/contrasting cultural/societal niches whereas Houston is the metro's main anchor (and only anchor really) and all the same cultural/societal niches are contained within the same city w/in that metro. Wow...I'm not sure if any of this made sense...
I agree with the bolded part as there really isn't much cause for debate on whether or not DFW should be one metro, it just makes sense to be one. I personally think the SF-SJ area should be one but those two cities are further apart than Dallas and FW so i've never thought it was an even comparison since they are still technically two metros and the distance between the core cities. I think of DFW as more like the Miami-Ft Lauderdale area in terms of the culuture of how the area is set up. Both cities feed off of each other and share suburbs. When you throw West Palm Beach in it get's a little iffy though because Miami and West Palm don't directly feed off of each other. Both do feed off and into Ft Lauderdale though. I've never thought Minneapolis-Saint Paul was a good comparison either because they are more connected on an urban level than Dallas and Fort Worth as the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 04-07-2013, 03:44 PM
Location: C.R. K-T
6,202 posts, read 11,449,309 times
Reputation: 3809
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Most of Houston metro is in Harris County which is pretty large in itself and only half of the county is developed. The rest is forest, port, and swamp. Just saying.
Not true. Fort Bend County North of the Brazos will be fully developed by the end of the decade if the growth of sprawl continues at its current rate.

Half of North Fort Bend above 1093 is now developed; contrast it with the recent completion of development along the entire stretch of the Harris-Fort Bend County line. 20-30 years ago, that line was still very rural/semi-rural with only few subdivisions that sprawled out that far from Downtown Houston (notable among them Mission Bend).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top