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.
It's the metro area that counts. Not city limits. Look at Miami for example, standing at 400,000 because of such small city limits, far smaller than Jacksonville but ultimately the biggest metro in the state. And that includes standalone cities like Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.
Houston's limits are so arbitrarily large, that who cares? If Dallas redrew it's boundaries to include Fort Worth, would that change anything on the ground? The answer is no unless you're a city employee.
The flaw in this logic is that you're still treating Fort Worth as if it's some common suburb, which it isn't. Dallas could not simply "redraw its boundaries" to include an entirely separate major city that's 30 miles away from its own core.
If the OP had asked "which is the first metro" then you might have a valid argument, but instead he's asked which is the first city. And so far the only argument you have for Dallas is the fact that its more popular.
If the OP had asked "which is the first metro" then you might have a valid argument, but instead he's asked which is the first city. And so far the only argument you have for Dallas is the fact that its more popular.
To me, it's clear that the 'area' is what counts. Otherwise, Miami would not be the primary city in Florida, if you just included the small city limits, and everyone knows that's ridiculous. The core city draws and feeds off her metro area. For example Galveston benefits from being in Houston's metro area, all those filled parking spots in the summer are from people living in Houston.
And everything counts to make it the second city, popularity, size, amenities. I contend that since Dallas-Fort Worth is part of an larger metro area it has a bit more of everything (except a Port ofc).
Now don't take this as me bashing Houston. I lived there for an year. And if given a choice again to live in either Houston or Dallas, it would be Houston without hesitation. I love the ocean, the climate, and just about most things of Houston over Dallas.
Well from a pure history standpoint San Antonio is the historic city in Texas. But I think from a economically stand point Houston is the leader in Texas.
This is a good example of how people miss the point of this thread. San Antonio has the Alamo which is a more popular historical reference in most peoples minds . However the San Jacinto battleground was the more important historical event. Without the victory at San Jacinto the romance of the Alamo would have been lost to history because I doubt the Mexicans would have held those defenders in such high regard and the building itself may not have survived. The first time the battle cry "Remember the Alamo" was heard was at San Jacinto
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPMiami
City limits are arbitrary political lines on a map. Houston's metro includes separate cities like Galveston and Sugarland. However they're part of Houston's statistical area.
Likewise, Fort Worth is part of Dallas'.
I lived in Houston, never lived in Dallas. I've been to Dallas maybe twice. However as an outsider (non-Texan) I can say is
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Is the city that comes to mind when you think of Texas. Not Houston. Dallas is Texas' first city. Houston is not terribly far behind, but it is definitely behind.
You are talking about name recognition here which is not the essence of the OP. This name recognition has come from mostly pop cultural and fictional icons and has little if no bearing on the true socio-economic import of the two Metro's. This is about gravitas not a High School popularity contest
The metros of both contain multiple cities. Isn't Galveston a city? Isn't Sugarland a city?
Correction, I've been to Dallas twice. And to Fort Worth, once.
These population figures you keep eluding to are insignificant in relative terms . Houston has more visitors, a higher international business and political profile, a bigger economy, and greater historical value.
Like several posters earlier have stated Greater Houston has a considerably larger economy than D&FW combined. The population difference does make DFW a larger media market which seems to be your sole criteria in your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPMiami
To me, it's clear that the 'area' is what counts. Otherwise, Miami would not be the primary city in Florida, if you just included the small city limits, and everyone knows that's ridiculous. The core city draws and feeds off her metro area. For example Galveston benefits from being in Houston's metro area, all those filled parking spots in the summer are from people living in Houston.
And everything counts to make it the second city, popularity, size, amenities. I contend that since Dallas-Fort Worth is part of an larger metro area it has a bit more of everything (except a Port ofc).
Now don't take this as me bashing Houston. I lived there for an year. And if given a choice again to live in either Houston or Dallas, it would be Houston without hesitation. I love the ocean, the climate, and just about most things of Houston over Dallas.
It's clear you are using popular references as your sole criteria for your choice, but even with that in mind "Houston does not have a problem", "for the Eagle has landed". In other words when the manned space program gets back on track you will again have more popular references for Houston. I guess the more you hear the name Houston on TV the more credit you will give it, oh well..
BTW Houston has the 4th largest economy in the country DFW is 6th !
San Antonio has been around much longer than Houston and Dallas. A lot of events important to Texas happened there not just the Alamo. If I remember correctly Texas got its name from there. Where's TexasReb when you need him lol.
You are talking about name recognition here which is not the essence of the OP.
How do you know, do you read her mind?
One of her criteria is 'cool' what is 'cool' other than name recognition and media popularity? Also being a prominent city is largely about image. If people think of you as the biggest shot on the block, they treat you as the biggest shot on the block, and you are the biggest shot on the block.
One of her criteria is 'cool' what is 'cool' other than name recognition and media popularity? Also being a prominent city is largely about image. If people think of you as the biggest shot on the block, they treat you as the biggest shot on the block, and you are the biggest shot on the block.
That doesn't necessarily reflect reality though. Even so, "cool" is but one criteria. I understand the argument for Dallas to an extent since it is the largest anchor city in the state's largest metro area, but I think some may be making too much of the "cool" factor, which is subjective anyway. Heck, Austin is really the cool kid on the block anyway--at least for right now.
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.
