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.
Good point about the sports teams — and it's worth noting here that in the Bay Area, Oakland has its own baseball team (and had an NFL team before it moved to Las Vegas). But I'd say that there, it's more like New York, Chicago and LA, where the one metro has two teams in baseball and football (and New York has two hockey and basketball teams as well).
But as Dallas and Fort Worth both sprawl, I think the city center-to-city center distances still somewhat relevant, though yes, the territory between the two cities is pretty urbanized now where it was not before D/FW Airport was built. (Edited to add: And the city that sits in between the two on I-30, the freeway/former toll road connecting the two centers, is Arlington rather than Irving, and the MLB team serving the metro plays in a stadium located there.) But the same thing can be said for the 40 or so miles that separate San Jose from both Oakland and San Francisco. The distance between Baltimore and Washington is probably less uniformly developed than any of these, though I think all of it falls within the urbanized area of one city or the other.
Baltimore and DC are both much more densely built and populated than anything in the Bay Area or DFW, with the exception of SF proper. The density is then quite light in-between the two cities. The Bay Area and DFW on the other hand have a medium, to medium-high density is completely uninterrupted.
Additionally the Bay Area and DFW both have tons of economic activity and amenities between the two cities, whereas there isn't much of note between DC and Baltimore. (I guess there is College Park? But that's on the DC metro system).
it's funny how people almost never talk about the SF metro but always talk about the Bay Area. I think the definition of the SF metro area should be changed to cover the entirety of the Bay Area, whereas the CSA can stay the same, which includes Merced, Modesto, etc.
Good point about the sports teams — and it's worth noting here that in the Bay Area, Oakland has its own baseball team (and had an NFL team before it moved to Las Vegas). But I'd say that there, it's more like New York, Chicago and LA, where the one metro has two teams in baseball and football (and New York has two hockey and basketball teams as well).
But as Dallas and Fort Worth both sprawl, I think the city center-to-city center distances still somewhat relevant, though yes, the territory between the two cities is pretty urbanized now where it was not before D/FW Airport was built. (Edited to add:And the city that sits in between the two on I-30, the freeway/former toll road connecting the two centers, is Arlington rather than Irving, and the MLB team serving the metro plays in a stadium located there.) But the same thing can be said for the 40 or so miles that separate San Jose from both Oakland and San Francisco. The distance between Baltimore and Washington is probably less uniformly developed than any of these, though I think all of it falls within the urbanized area of one city or the other.
The distance of 12 miles between city limit to city limit is along Airport Freeway (183). That runs North of Arlington and Grand Prairie through Irving.
There is quite a bit of distinction between DC and Baltimore, the fact that's not one MSA makes total sense. I will say that FW is closer to Dallas than Baltimore is to DC. There's around 12 miles separating the Dallas city limits to FW city limits at their farthest points, only separated by the suburb of Irving. DFW shares the same media and sports markets, etc.
Theres is distinction but it entierly depends on which ways you take to get to the cities.
If your on I95 it's essentially walled the entire way until you get within each cities Beltways (19 miles apart). If you take 295, it's a parkway with trees so the foliage hides all of the development in between the two cities until you literally withen 3-4 miles of their downtowns. If you take Route 1 it's urbanized the entire way so it feels like one giant arterial road. 29 is a mix of off all 3.
Dallas & Fort Worth have massive city limits compared to DC/Baltimore which is why they are so much "closer".
Downtown to downtown, Baltimore & DC are only 3-4 miles further apart than DFW whether it be as the crow flies or by shortest road route so the distances between the urbanized areas of each set of cities is more or less identical.
The distance of 12 miles between city limit to city limit is along Airport Freeway (183). That runs North of Arlington and Grand Prairie through Irving.
That's more like 12 miles corner-to-corner than center-to-center, but okay — D/FW is a major traffic generator — definitely the biggest traffic generator located between the two cities — and the rail lines from both Dallas (DART) and Fort Worth (Trinity Railway Express) serve it from their respective downtowns.
Traffic between the two downtowns and not headed for the airport, however, will use I-30.
Theres is distinction but it entierly depends on which ways you take to get to the cities.
If your on I95 it's essentially walled the entire way until you get within each cities Beltways (19 miles apart). If you take 295, it's a parkway with trees so the foliage hides all of the development in between the two cities until you literally withen 3-4 miles of their downtowns. If you take Route 1 it's urbanized the entire way so it feels like one giant arterial road. 29 is a mix of off all 3.
Dallas & Fort Worth have massive city limits compared to DC/Baltimore which is why they are so much "closer".
Downtown to downtown, Baltimore & DC are only 3-4 miles further apart than DFW whether it be as the crow flies or by shortest road route so the distances between the urbanized areas of each set of cities is more or less identical.
Definitely massive, probably a few hundred square miles verses maybe well under a 100 for each Baltimore and DC.
Theres is distinction but it entierly depends on which ways you take to get to the cities.
If your on I95 it's essentially walled the entire way until you get within each cities Beltways (19 miles apart). If you take 295, it's a parkway with trees so the foliage hides all of the development in between the two cities until you literally withen 3-4 miles of their downtowns. If you take Route 1 it's urbanized the entire way so it feels like one giant arterial road. 29 is a mix of off all 3.
Check out the satellite view of these areas. DC to Baltimore has a thin stretch that is continuously developed with lots of green space surrounding that. With DFW it is continuously developed, period. There is no green space outside of a few small lakes and flood plains.
I love my city, but Atlanta is losing its appeal to the big Texan metros. To live in the the “desirable” areas of Atlanta, you will be renting at over 2k for 2 beds.And going up 100 every cycle. Dallas, Houston and Charlotte much more affordable than Atlanta right now.
Maybe Houston is "much more" affordable than Atlanta right now but Dallas has gone up pretty significantly as well I don't think it's that much less expensive than metro Atlanta and prior to these most recent cost of living increases the average house in DFW was more than Atlanta.
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.
