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.
You don't get it. If you are Hispanic, you are NOT European unless you are from Spain. Dallas has very few if any residents from Spain.
Dallas is 28.8% EUROPEAN WHITE.
Sir I didn't create the chart, I just cited and referenced it. Since I haven't done a study of my own, all I can do is hope that the government isn't lying to us about the racially demographics in America.
Well my bias doesn't go as far as you think it does. It's pretty much limited to the things that are exclusive to the Gulf Coast, but there areseveral things I think Dallas is better at.
When it comes to ethnic food options the two cities are pretty close. It's regional and local food is where Houston has a major upper hand. What it really comes down to is the fact that Houston has just about everything Dallas does along with a host of things it doesn't.
Yes, I agree to an extent. That is what gives Houston the edge over Dallas in food. It's the regional cuisine and that is based on geography. Houston is on the coast and faces Souther Louisiana. Dallas is situated on the Plains and Praries.
What I concede is that Houston has an edge in food overall. What I contest is that Houston is somehow on a whole different level.
Isn't this what makes the two different? I mean, you guys are giving reasons on how they are different, but yet, say they are the same or more alike than they are different. The Gulf Coast, Deep South, and Southern Louisiana are different from the Great Plains and prairies.
San Francisco is urban, walkable, and almost akin to a Northeastern city.
Dallas and Houston are both very suburban and sprawl a great deal.
The culture of San Francisco and LA are also far more different.
Both San Fransisco and LA are coastal Californian metropolises with great combinations of natural beauty, and urban offerings, a large presence of Asians, and a culture with large emphasis on coastal activities. The urban areas around both cities also feature quite a bit of sprawl. However, even with such similarities, there exist very distinct differences in both LA and San Francisco. Same with Charleston and Savannah; both are old coastal seaport cities in the South with lots of historic architecture, and walkable design, stemming from their age. However, with such similarities, very distinct differences exist as well.
In much the same way, in spite of the similarities Dallas and Houston may have with each other, such as areas of outward sprawl, there also exists very distinct differences, whether in recreational activity choices, culture, or architecture, perceivable to one who has visited both cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
While their respective regional locations - the southern great plains and the Gulf coast and their differing histories mean that there are differences (obviously) between Dallas and Houston, SF and LA have much less in common with each other than Dallas and Houston do, plus their suburbs are close to identical. When I am in Plano, I could very easily be in Sugarland and vice-versa.
No, Houston and Dallas are just as distinct from each other as San Francisco and LA are from each other, and perhaps can even be more-so just by the difference in regional location alone. Plano and Sugar Land are not interchangeable at all; Sugar Land, for example, has the distinct heritage stemming from commercial sugar operations, tropical sugar cane having been grown in the area for over a century, with refining being done at the Imperial Sugar Factory building (which still stands to this day). Very distinct from the heritage of Plano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
Dallas and Houston are also more similar to each other than either one is similar to any of the other big Texas cities: San Antonio, Austin or El Paso.
I'll agree with you only on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palisades50
No. Los Angeles and San Francisco might as well be in different states. The cultures are very different.
The same applies for both Dallas and Houston in regards to each other as well, and its been stated in multiple instances. Take away the "Texasisms" and Dallas would easily fit in with other states in the southern Great Plains region, such as Oklahoma, or Kansas, while Houston would fit in with the states along the Gulf Coast region like Louisiana (especially the southern portion of the state).
Quote:
Originally Posted by palisades50
Houston and Dallas are very alike. Both have no walkable areas, unattractive, same demographics, same culture.
And as much as Houston and Dallas have in common with each other, there does exist lots of very noteworthy differences, palpable enough to the point that it is completely reasonable to like one, and despise the other.
There are plenty of walkable areas all around both Dallas and Houston, and more and more are developing in both cities as we speak. In such development, differences in both cities are seen. Refer to earlier parts of my post for an idea of such differences.
As far as unnatractiveness, be specific; what are you referring to? If you are talking about infrastructure, then I can see your point, as both metro areas do have quite a bit of the sprawl associated with unattractive aesthetics. However, well-designed walkable areas in both cities are growing to the point of counteracting the association. As far as natural scenery, both cities are well endowed in that department, contrary to popular belief. Dallas has quite a bit of the the varied karst topography, and hilly terrain not too dissimilar to what is seen in Central Texas, and in addition, has lots of woodland areas as it lies in the Cross Timbers region. Houston has a year-round lush, verdant landscape criss-crossed by networks of bayous and waterways, featuring abundant flora in the subtropical jungles, swamps, and coastal plains in the vicinity, all that in proximity to the subtropical coastline, with beaches and barrier islands.
The demographics may be similar, more or less, I'll give you that. Even at that though, there still exists some palpable differences, with Houston being distinctively more cosmopolitan than Dallas, which is very cosmopolitan in and of itself. However, the culture seen in both cities could not be more different; it is Great Plains vs Gulf Coast, essentially, as stated before. Just the location disparity gives rise to very different cultures, activity choices, vibes, etc in both of the cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
Sorry I agree with the rest. Houston and Dallas are more alike than Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Los Angeles and San Francisco both fulfill the image of California, but in very distinct ways. Houston and Dallas take on much the same role for Texas, for reasons mentioned earlier in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy205
Does DFW have anything that looks like the northern half of Greater Houston? Pines? Winding roads? Typical southern appearance?
No, and DFW has nothing like the southern half of Greater Houston either (subtropical coast, lots of palms, life revolving around the coast, etc).
Isn't this what makes the two different? I mean, you guys are giving reasons on how they are different, but yet, say they are the same or more alike than they are different. The Gulf Coast, Deep South, and Southern Louisiana are different from the Great Plains and prairies.
Sure, there are differences. No-one is claiming they are identical, but they are both Texas cities, with relatively high foreign born populations, very similar layout - weak downtowns for MSAs of their size, surrounded by pockets of urbanish neighborhoods surrounded by a veritable sea of suburban sprawl. They are demographically and politically very similar- liberal cores with quite conservative suburbs. Both of them have quite a bit in common with Atlanta, but Atlanta is not one third Latino -mostly Mexican like Dallas and Houston.When a third of your population is of Mexican descent, it is pretty difficult to claim to be only a Deep South city or a Great Plains one. They are both definitively Texas cities, with a a few regional differences. The biggest difference for me is that the DFW MSA is anchored by two large cities- Dallas and Fort Worth, the Houston MSA only one.
They are obviously different from each other, but they are more like each other than either one is like any other city in the country or even the state of Texas and they have much more in common with each other than LA and SF do in terms of their built environment, patterns of growth, demographics, economies, size of population, state pride etc . . .
That's why the rivalry is so intense, they are so similar that everyone has to go into overdrive insisting on the importance of what are mostly minor differences.
Isn't this what makes the two different? I mean, you guys are giving reasons on how they are different, but yet, say they are the same or more alike than they are different. The Gulf Coast, Deep South, and Southern Louisiana are different from the Great Plains and prairies.
Yes but Dallas is still southern and still tied to the Coastal Plain reasons.
I think some exaggerate the differences while others undermine them.
Yes but Dallas is still southern and still tied to the Coastal Plain reasons.
I think some exaggerate the differences while others undermine them.
The OP asked: Is Houston, Texas anything like Dallas, Texas? not "Are Dallas and Houston identical?" The only truthful answer to the OP's question is: YES.
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.