Atlanta vs Houston vs Dallas, Which City will be more urban at the end of the decade? (living, best)
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.
Yes, Houston has more high-rise, a larger skyline, denser population in the core, more diverse culture. Yes Atlanta has the larger Airport but Houston has the shipping port.
Atlanta does have some advantages. It is the Capital city, has very good Universities, Iconic things like World Of Coke and the Georgia Aquarium, CNN, CDC and a great Nascar culture of rednecks with mullet haircuts wearing flannel shirts (larry the cable guy types) outside the perimeter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL_Expert
Is there any proof Atlanta is ahead in terms of the urban core? My understanding was Houston has a greater number of high rises, and probably should with a million more people than Atlanta.
I’m not necessarily saying Houston is more urban, it feels about the same to me as Atlanta. Looking at the data, I’d have a hard time proving Atlanta is the most urban of the 3 although I agree it’s the most walkable.
This goes back to what I said yesterday. Here’s the way the 3 compare.
In terms of biggest urban core to smallest it goes
Houston
Atlanta
Dallas
In terms of most connectivity throughout the core it goes
Dallas
Atlanta
Houston
Connectivity doesn’t equal walk ability. Miami is also behind Dallas in terms of connectivity. When you’re in Brickell, you notice inconsistency of sidewalks and suburban style buildings nestled between urban high rises. But the environment as a whole is an inviting walkable area. Atlanta is not Miami. As a matter of a fact, it’s far behind Miami. But it has the most urban environment of the 3. Part of that is the fact it has heavy rail part of it is just how many attractions it has downtown. Even the NFL stadium is righf downtown which is unusual.
Atlanta is closer to the Texas cities in terms of how urban its core is, but the gap is definitely noticeable.
Where Atlanta comes behind though is how fast the suburban and rural off begins from its core. In this, Atlanta is definitely behind the others. Though that’s not necessarily a bad thing because it does give a nice small town illusion
That all sounds pretty accurate. You could argue ATL is the most urban since it offers a better blend of things and gives it a more urban feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas100
Yes, Houston has more high-rise, a larger skyline, denser population in the core, more diverse culture. Yes Atlanta has the larger Airport but Houston has the shipping port.
Atlanta does have some advantages. It is the Capital city, has very good Universities, Iconic things like World Of Coke and the Georgia Aquarium, CNN, CDC and a great Nascar culture of rednecks with mullet haircuts wearing flannel shirts (larry the cable guy types) outside the perimeter.
I see the various advantages like this:
Atlanta: Best climate, best recreation, good public transit, growing film industry.
Dallas: Largest of the 3, best public transit, no state income tax, Texas triangle synergy, growing financial sector.
Houston: Most high rises currently and 4th best skyline in the U.S., no state income tax, Texas triangle synergy.
If memory serves, Atlanta is actually growing the slowest of the 3.
That all sounds pretty accurate. You could argue ATL is the most urban since it offers a better blend of things and gives it a more urban feel.
Dallas: Largest of the 3, best public transit, no state income tax, Texas triangle synergy, growing financial sector.
.
If memory serves, Atlanta is actually growing the slowest of the 3.
Correct. DFW and Houston are the 2 fastest growing metros numerically speaking.
On Dallas having best public transport, I have to give that to Atlanta and not just because Atlanta is heavy rail. Though Dallas spans a lot of miles, it’s not a very efficient network. There’s a running joke that the Dallas light rail is a homeless shelter on rails. And Dallas is far from the only city with those kind of issues on their transit, it is noticeable emptier than most systems. Atlanta doesn’t have the miles that DART has but it does have a comparably efficient system
Atlanta: Best climate, best recreation, good public transit, growing film industry.
Dallas: Largest of the 3, best public transit, no state income tax, Texas triangle synergy, growing financial sector.
Houston: Most high rises currently and 4th best skyline in the U.S., no state income tax, Texas triangle synergy.
If memory serves, Atlanta is actually growing the slowest of the 3.
Although I agree with most of these advantages, most have little bearing on urban hierarchy.
Sure Atlanta has the best natural recreational amenities of the 3 by far, but that just speaks to the more natural nature of the surroundings which is the opposite of urban.
The growing industry is a feature of urban centers, but overall Houston and Dallas are bigger commercial centers so just because that industry is growing doesn't mean much.
Dallas being largest of the 3 also isn't definitive for me. It's the same as saying Houston is the biggest city. It is all just government defined boundaries and doesn't really speak to which is more urban. If anything, going by government boundaries it would make more sense to go by the one with urban in its name.
Urban area uses connectivity and density. And by urban area Houston and Dallas are dead even but about 25% larger than Atlanta. Atlanta feels just as spread out as DFW and Houston but the tree cover and irregular growth patterns make it seem less consistently developed. Houston and Dallas urban area definitely feels more expensive than Atlantas
The 4th best skyline is highly subjective and I doubt there's much agreement on that. I would bet more people would rank NY, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami and Seattle all ahead of Houston in best category. 4th tallest, yes, 4th best is highly doubtful.
No state income tax also isn't very useful.
In determining which is more urban, the strengths I would use would be:
1. How much commerce is concentrated there.
Dallas has the biggest economy but it probably is the core with the least economic might as business is spread all over the 4 main counties.
Atlanta and especially Houston is a lot more concentrated in the core.
2. Peak density. Dallas again is surprising in that it is the biggest metro but doesn't get near the peak density of Atlanta and Houston.
3. Sustained Density/Development.- Dallas sustains it's density far longer than Atlanta but doesn't match Houston's. This is one area that Houston clearly outshines the other two. When leaving downtown Houston heading west on I10 you glance around downtown and you see that missing middle is not missing in Houston. Houston is packing in more dense residential for much further out than the other two. Far more townhomes, condos and multi-family buildings going further out from downtown than Dallas and especially Atlanta.
4. Finally urban amenities is my last qualifyer strength. And I'm this one there are lots of sub categories but on here we focus on one too heavily and that's transportation. Focusing on the transportation aspect of amenities and ignoring others is like judging a movie based solely on cinematography and ignoring the bad acting, the poor story, the horrible score....
But to be honest these 3 are close in the amenity department. I think Atlanta is the easiest to get around without a car city wide. All three have lots of different types of entertainment in its core. Atlanta gets points for more activities clustered in its core. Houston gets points for all 4 sports stadiums in the core with each access between them. All 3 have nice clusters of Fine Arts districts. Dallas gets points for close in active neighborhoods. ATL also has the edge in Universities around the Core. Houston is pretty good too. Dallas isn't really good in terms of large colleges in the core. ATL colleges especially give the core a more active feel.
So ranking would be like this:
1. Economic Strength in core:
A. Houston
B. Atlanta
C. Dallas
2. Peak Density
A. Atlanta
B. Houston
C. Dallas
3. Sustained Density
A. Houston
B. Dallas
C. Atlanta
4. Amenities in and around core
A. Atlanta
B. Houston
C. Dallas
Giving 3 points for As, 2 for Bs and 3 for C's we get:
1. Houston 10
2. Atlanta 9
3. Dallas 5
In the end Atlanta has higher big city peaks, Houston more consistent big city peak energy over a wide area and Dallas has might in its expanse.
But at it it's simplest form Houston should definitely be a forerunner in sheer population lead over a similar sized areas:
Population in 3km radius
Houston 84,220
Atlanta 80,163
Dallas 60,439
Population in 10km radius:
Houston 738,427
Dallas 595,169
Atlanta 521,766
Population in 15km radius
Houston 1,611,189
Dallas 1,205,752
Atlanta 933,684
Population in 20km radius
Houston 2,501,262
Dallas 2,005,285
Atlanta 1,520,567
Population in 30km radius
Houston 4,420,576
Dallas 3,634,784
Atlanta 2,869,241
Houston's population and built area is understated in this thread and public transit is given too much weight.
Miami is the only urban area in the south that outpaces Houston in the built up area department and sustained density.
It's probably why they are the 4th and 5th biggest urban areas in the US.
Correct. DFW and Houston are the 2 fastest growing metros numerically speaking.
On Dallas having best public transport, I have to give that to Atlanta and not just because Atlanta is heavy rail. Though Dallas spans a lot of miles, it’s not a very efficient network. There’s a running joke that the Dallas light rail is a homeless shelter on rails. And Dallas is far from the only city with those kind of issues on their transit, it is noticeable emptier than most systems. Atlanta doesn’t have the miles that DART has but it does have a comparably efficient system
Interesting point on Dallas. It’s the only one I’ve not personally visited so I’ll take your word for it on their public transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KinBueno
Although I agree with most of these advantages, most have little bearing on urban hierarchy.
Sure Atlanta has the best natural recreational amenities of the 3 by far, but that just speaks to the more natural nature of the surroundings which is the opposite of urban.
The growing industry is a feature of urban centers, but overall Houston and Dallas are bigger commercial centers so just because that industry is growing doesn't mean much.
Dallas being largest of the 3 also isn't definitive for me. It's the same as saying Houston is the biggest city. It is all just government defined boundaries and doesn't really speak to which is more urban. If anything, going by government boundaries it would make more sense to go by the one with urban in its name.
Urban area uses connectivity and density. And by urban area Houston and Dallas are dead even but about 25% larger than Atlanta. Atlanta feels just as spread out as DFW and Houston but the tree cover and irregular growth patterns make it seem less consistently developed. Houston and Dallas urban area definitely feels more expensive than Atlantas
The 4th best skyline is highly subjective and I doubt there's much agreement on that. I would bet more people would rank NY, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami and Seattle all ahead of Houston in best category. 4th tallest, yes, 4th best is highly doubtful.
No state income tax also isn't very useful.
In determining which is more urban, the strengths I would use would be:
1. How much commerce is concentrated there.
Dallas has the biggest economy but it probably is the core with the least economic might as business is spread all over the 4 main counties.
Atlanta and especially Houston is a lot more concentrated in the core.
2. Peak density. Dallas again is surprising in that it is the biggest metro but doesn't get near the peak density of Atlanta and Houston.
3. Sustained Density/Development.- Dallas sustains it's density far longer than Atlanta but doesn't match Houston's. This is one area that Houston clearly outshines the other two. When leaving downtown Houston heading west on I10 you glance around downtown and you see that missing middle is not missing in Houston. Houston is packing in more dense residential for much further out than the other two. Far more townhomes, condos and multi-family buildings going further out from downtown than Dallas and especially Atlanta.
4. Finally urban amenities is my last qualifyer strength. And I'm this one there are lots of sub categories but on here we focus on one too heavily and that's transportation. Focusing on the transportation aspect of amenities and ignoring others is like judging a movie based solely on cinematography and ignoring the bad acting, the poor story, the horrible score....
But to be honest these 3 are close in the amenity department. I think Atlanta is the easiest to get around without a car city wide. All three have lots of different types of entertainment in its core. Atlanta gets points for more activities clustered in its core. Houston gets points for all 4 sports stadiums in the core with each access between them. All 3 have nice clusters of Fine Arts districts. Dallas gets points for close in active neighborhoods. ATL also has the edge in Universities around the Core. Houston is pretty good too. Dallas isn't really good in terms of large colleges in the core. ATL colleges especially give the core a more active feel.
So ranking would be like this:
1. Economic Strength in core:
A. Houston
B. Atlanta
C. Dallas
2. Peak Density
A. Atlanta
B. Houston
C. Dallas
3. Sustained Density
A. Houston
B. Dallas
C. Atlanta
4. Amenities in and around core
A. Atlanta
B. Houston
C. Dallas
Giving 3 points for As, 2 for Bs and 3 for C's we get:
1. Houston 10
2. Atlanta 9
3. Dallas 5
In the end Atlanta has higher big city peaks, Houston more consistent big city peak energy over a wide area and Dallas has might in its expanse.
But at it it's simplest form Houston should definitely be a forerunner in sheer population lead over a similar sized areas:
Population in 3km radius
Houston 84,220
Atlanta 80,163
Dallas 60,439
Population in 10km radius:
Houston 738,427
Dallas 595,169
Atlanta 521,766
Population in 15km radius
Houston 1,611,189
Dallas 1,205,752
Atlanta 933,684
Population in 20km radius
Houston 2,501,262
Dallas 2,005,285
Atlanta 1,520,567
Population in 30km radius
Houston 4,420,576
Dallas 3,634,784
Atlanta 2,869,241
Houston's population and built area is understated in this thread and public transit is given too much weight.
Miami is the only urban area in the south that outpaces Houston in the built up area department and sustained density.
It's probably why they are the 4th and 5th biggest urban areas in the US.
My points about each city’s advantages only speaks to future urbanization, not the current level of urbanity.
Initially, I think a lot of people assumed Atlanta was the answer here. As we’ve discussed it further though, I think there’s becoming a consensus that Dallas is #3 and it’s not clear who’s currently #1 between Atlanta and Houston. I suspect at the end of the decade it will still be a toss-up between those two.
This goes back to what I said yesterday. Here’s the way the 3 compare.
In terms of biggest urban core to smallest it goes
Houston
Atlanta
Dallas
In terms of most connectivity throughout the core it goes
Dallas
Atlanta
Houston
Connectivity doesn’t equal walk ability. Miami is also behind Dallas in terms of connectivity. When you’re in Brickell, you notice inconsistency of sidewalks and suburban style buildings nestled between urban high rises. But the environment as a whole is an inviting walkable area. Atlanta is not Miami. As a matter of a fact, it’s far behind Miami. But it has the most urban environment of the 3. Part of that is the fact it has heavy rail part of it is just how many attractions it has downtown. Even the NFL stadium is righf downtown which is unusual.
Atlanta is closer to the Texas cities in terms of how urban its core is, but the gap is definitely noticeable.
Where Atlanta comes behind though is how fast the suburban and rural off begins from its core. In this, Atlanta is definitely behind the others. Though that’s not necessarily a bad thing because it does give a nice small town illusion
I mean, I feel that. Dallas urban core (as in the area where the highest intensity density would be) is kind of limited to where it can grow to. The Park Cities, which are independent cities in North Central Dallas, really keeps any continuation of urban development from going up further north. That's easily the most desirable area of the city. It's mostly made up of mansions and estates. That's why high-rises border it a long Central Exwy on the Dallas side and to the North where the Dallas city limits picks back up again on Loop 12/NW Highway. That's where Preston Center is and the city is trying to make it more urban/walkable there. It is the only area in that part of town where high-rises/mid-rises are and it's still within Loop 12 (the core of the city).
Also, The Trinity River Floodplain and Great Trinity Forest is in the middle of the city. It covers 10,000 acres or 15 sq mi. A small sliver between The Katy Trail/border of Highland Park and Central Exwy that can get urban development. That's Knox-Henderson, where a lot of new high-rise development is taking off at. The Other areas that is seeing urban development is Old East Dallas. It's a mixture of 5 over 1s, townhomes, duplexes, historic mansions, etc. I doubt it will ever be high-rise filled. Ok...maybe around the Baylor Hospital Campus on Gaston Ave. A lot of historic districts within the area, but I think it will be low rise and dense. I can see more high-rises going up in Deep Ellum.
South Dallas, particularly the section around Fair Park has potential. Gonna take a lot of work though. TxDOT removed the SM Wright Fwy in South Dallas after building a quicker connection in an area that was basically undevelopable. The old section of US 175-SM Wright is being turned into a boulevard. MLK Jr Blvd - is getting a complete streets makeover as well. It intersects with SM Wright and leads into Fair Park. MLK (originally Forest Ave) use to also be a streetcar node as well. The remaining storefront portion of it is getting restored and so is the Forest Theater. NGL the area got rough as hell since its peak but it's moving in the right direction.
The Cedars in South Dallas is more gentrified. That's where the convention center deck park will connect to. That's where the city really is trying to add denser development at. So, in the distant future, if everything pops like they hope, The Cedars through Downtown to Oak Lawn will be the continuous high rise core.
Already mentioned Oak Cliff, specifically North Oak Cliff. Oh yeah, West Dallas where the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge is being gentrified. Defiantly see high-rises coming there in the future. I think some years back, I seen a master plan of the area with a lot of high-rises.
And because the distance isn't super duper long. It's not as difficult to connect them or grow them together. I am not gonna do the most and annoy y'all with screenshot pics, but just go to Google maps (preferably Google earth and switch to the historical imagery tab to see the most recent image) and you can see what I am talking about. Downtown Dallas to Uptown via KWP, Cole/McKinney Aves (which is getting a complete streets makeover) through Uptown to Knox-Henderson (Knox St side will get complete streets redo too) to Lower Greenville to Ross Ave through Old East Dallas back to Downtown. The Henderson Ave side still has a lot of empty lots, but that will be turned into mixed development, that will serve the thousands of units that have been built in the area in the last couple of years. Here's the renderings and a map on the 2nd page showing Knox St side connecting to Lower Greenville via Henderson Ave. Ross Ave was rezoned over a decade ago and was controversial when the city forced the auto related businesses to close for urban redevelopment. As of now, a lot of residential projects have popped up along Ross.
Last edited by Dallaz; 04-20-2024 at 12:25 AM..
Reason: Typo
Let me remind people what OP was asking for when it came to subject of urbanity with these 3 cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonta4
These three southern metros have had a lot of progress building more walkable and transit accessible cores in the 2010s. Which will come out on top for density, walkability, and transit access by 2030? What current or upcoming development projects are most important for these metros this decade?
density, walkability and transit access by 2030. Not only does Atlanta have more neighborhoods with peak density, walkability and transit access than Houston and Dallas now but by 2030 they'll have even more of that combination compared to the other two.
Houston has more density throughout it's metropolitan area but doesn't peak as high as Atlanta in it's more urban areas. Houston also lacks walkability and has way too many suburban style development even in it's urban core so it'll never be as urban as Atlanta if were defining urban as "walkable, dense, transit friendly areas".
Houston has more density throughout it's metropolitan area but doesn't peak as high as Atlanta in it's more urban areas. .
I think this is very misleading. Atlanta does peak a wee bit higher than Houston, but it's negligible
Based on the 2020 census, most dense census tract:
Atlanta's - Census Tract 12.06 is 54,889 ppsm
Houston - Census Tract 4214.02 is 52,749 ppsm
Not wildly different. But those are just a few blocks
The radial population I posted show that there is no radius that Atlanta has a higher density than Houston. Not in the respective cores or otherwise. It's close under 3km but Houston keeps building a lead after that.
In the end Atlanta may be more urban in the core but it's not as major as you guy make it seem.
City wide though Houston is noticeably more built up than Atlanta.
I know your point is more on the walkability etc, but you can still make that point without the misleading bits.
Although the densest zip code in Houston is Gulfton, Houston does have high peaks in and around Downtown.
I think this is very misleading. Atlanta does peak a wee bit higher than Houston, but it's negligible
Based on the 2020 census, most dense census tract:
Atlanta's - Census Tract 12.06 is 54,889 ppsm
Houston - Census Tract 4214.02 is 52,749 ppsm
Not wildly different. But those are just a few blocks
The radial population I posted show that there is no radius that Atlanta has a higher density than Houston. Not in the respective cores or otherwise. It's close under 3km but Houston keeps building a lead after that.
In the end Atlanta may be more urban in the core but it's not as major as you guy make it seem.
City wide though Houston is noticeably more built up than Atlanta.
I know your point is more on the walkability etc, but you can still make that point without the misleading bits.
Although the densest zip code in Houston is Gulfton, Houston does have high peaks in and around Downtown.
You missed the part where I say Atlanta has more neighborhoods with the COMBINATION OP was looking for such as density, walkability and transit access. I've lived in both. I'm not saying Atlanta is worlds apart from Houston but there's a noticeable difference and that's in large part due to Houston having more suburban style development within it's core.
By definition even an inner suburb of Atlanta such as Chamblee can be considered URBAN by simple definition.
Atlanta has committed to more pedestrian friendly style development within their core for decades and is still continuing that while Houston lags in that department. The sheer amount of big parking lots and strip centers in Houston's urban core kill that urban feel that OP is looking for.
Take for example the East Blocks project in EADO. Once that area is built it'll feel completely different than any other neighborhood in the loop outside of Downtown. Why? Because it's a designated area of 10 blocks committed to pedestrians. They're not allowing developers in that area to build development catering to cars but they emphasize walkability.
That's a good sign and I bet this will become a lot of Houstonians favorite neighborhood once built out. Atlanta already has neighborhoods like this though throughout their urban core. This is the type of development OP was looking for.
We're not just talking density here. Yes Gulfton is dense but it's not built with pedestrians in mind. It's filled with sidewalks in bad conditions with people having to walk in front of parking lot after parking lot just to get to the their destination on foot.
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.
