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 see no reason for this thread to get ugly. After years and years of Dallas vs. Houston discussions, nothing surprises me.
Between the two, Dallas will always be the city that the general American populace will have better first impressions of. It's glitzy, well-planned, and is just an overall people pleaser.
Houston is just different. In virtually every way imaginable, it challenges you to reconsider your preconceived notions about what makes a great city (at least, this is what most people discover when they get off of the freeways). Just when you think you've got Houston figured out, it surprises you in a way you didn't think it ever could. It still surprises me, even as a native. This is why I and so many others feel that it is the Texas town on its way to world class status. Even if we can't win anyone's beauty pageant.
And the whole "ugly city" title honestly never bothered me that much. There are more than enough attractive neighborhoods and people here that gives me plenty of wonderful stuff to look at. That balance gives this city a very jolie laide vibe.
Economy: Tie, Houston has a lot of engineers in the petrochemical and bio-medical fields, Dallas has more finance, insurance, and tech companies. Personally, I prefer Houston's blue collar focus, but I'm sure other people prefer banking.
In the spirit of beating a dead horse, I slightly disagree about this one - Houston unquestionably has a larger and wealthier economy that has grown faster. It is also tethered to the energy industry, for better or worse (as of now, for better). In terms of GDP per capita (a proxy of wealth creation), Greater Houston stands at $75,100, and the DFW Metroplex is at $62,700. That's 17% more produced net economic value per person. Simply put, far more economic activity occurs in Houston, despite having a smaller population. An interesting argument can be made observing the distribution of that wealth, as the median household incomes of the two regions are much closer, despite Houston having significantly more millionaires (well over 100,000 total).
I mentioned in a previous post that there is some impression that Dallas is a center of finance, and it is - for the region of North Texas and some Midwestern tributaries. It is mostly "low finance". Houston has arguably the third biggest Investment Banking sector in the United States and has a far, far larger "high finance" sector of Investment Banking, trading and Private Equity activity - all aimed at the energy industry. Nobody in Wall Street sees Dallas as the center of Texas finance, but DFW probably does churn out more mortgages, auto loans, savings accounts and insurance policies than Houston, and perhaps has more people overall working in that industry.
Both DFW and Houston have among the strongest economies in America, they continue to grow, and are well-equipped for the future. DFW is a very strong and diversified economy that is a regional leader in many respects for great swaths of Texas and the Midwest - centrally located in America and a natural place to capture the pro-business environment of Texas. Houston is a bit of a different animal; it is to the energy industry what the Bay Area is to tech or New York is to finance - the central city with all the know-how. Slap an ugly ship channel and some refineries into it, and you have an economic apparatus that far exceeds the DFW metroplex and will only remain so. The numbers don't lie.
In the spirit of beating a dead horse, I slightly disagree about this one - Houston unquestionably has a larger and wealthier economy that has grown faster. It is also tethered to the energy industry, for better or worse (as of now, for better). In terms of GDP per capita (a proxy of wealth creation), Greater Houston stands at $75,100, and the DFW Metroplex is at $62,700. That's 17% more produced net economic value per person. Simply put, far more economic activity occurs in Houston, despite having a smaller population. An interesting argument can be made observing the distribution of that wealth, as the median household incomes of the two regions are much closer, despite Houston having significantly more millionaires (well over 100,000 total).
I mentioned in a previous post that there is some impression that Dallas is a center of finance, and it is - for the region of North Texas and some Midwestern tributaries. It is mostly "low finance". Houston has arguably the third biggest Investment Banking sector in the United States and has a far, far larger "high finance" sector of Investment Banking, trading and Private Equity activity - all aimed at the energy industry. Nobody in Wall Street sees Dallas as the center of Texas finance, but DFW probably does churn out more mortgages, auto loans, savings accounts and insurance policies than Houston, and perhaps has more people overall working in that industry.
Both DFW and Houston have among the strongest economies in America, they continue to grow, and are well-equipped for the future. DFW is a very strong and diversified economy that is a regional leader in many respects for great swaths of Texas and the Midwest - centrally located in America and a natural place to capture the pro-business environment of Texas. Houston is a bit of a different animal; it is to the energy industry what the Bay Area is to tech or New York is to finance - the central city with all the know-how. Slap an ugly ship channel and some refineries into it, and you have an economic apparatus that far exceeds the DFW metroplex and will only remain so. The numbers don't lie.
The numbers are interesting. My gestalt of Houston is definitely colored by growing up in the eastern half of the city, which was near enough to the port that a lot of people worked in the plants off of 225. If I grew up on the west side I would probably have a different view of the city. That being said, despite their differences, I think DFW and Houston probably have more in common with each other than they do with any other city, and they are much more alike than they are different.
You can find parallels between all three cities, but, overall, I agree that Dallas is a bit more like Atlanta.
The one thing that Houston and Atlanta have is that they are solely Southern cities, whereas Dallas feels more like a Midwest-South-Southwest hybrid. Houston is not a Southwestern city in the way El Paso is.
Dallas metro is better. Houston may have a better upscale feel to it . Dallas is prettier than Houston, but Houston downtown maybe the biggest in the south. I choose dallas tho, better to raise a family there.
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.
