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.
None of these cities are gonna approach NYC, LA, or Chicago in influence or grandeur. These southern states just cater to businesses
Which is precisely how NYC, LA, and Chicago became as influential and grand as they are in the first place. Without a foundation of economic prosperity in place, you're not getting anywhere.
Cities like NY, Boston, Chicago, and Philly can replicate the suburbia and sprawl of the sunbelt, but these sunbelt cities will never be able to replicate the urban landscape of these legacy cities.
Oof that urban landscape was so prized then sunbelt cities would be replicating it
Yall keep pushing a legacy lifestyle on a public that isn't too crazy about it
Which is precisely how NYC, LA, and Chicago became as influential and grand as they are in the first place. Without a foundation of economic prosperity in place, you're not getting anywhere.
True but imo few people are moving to these cities, especially the Texas ones, absent lower cost of living. Miami and maybe Atlanta are the exceptions but not completely. I know quite a few former Angelenos in Texas and they all say that they'd prefer LA if costs were equal. Certainly exceptions but likely universally true.
Cities like NY, Boston, Chicago, and Philly can replicate the suburbia and sprawl of the sunbelt, but these sunbelt cities will never be able to replicate the urban landscape of these legacy cities.
I don’t think they’re trying to be and yet they somehow have managed to appeal to most Americans. Sunbelt cities have more than enough room for change. Many major sunbelt cities aren’t even built out and could density further if they ever decided to do so. That’s the major advantage that sunbelt cities have with the growth that’s occurring. Legacy cities are largely built out and have been for generations. Dallas Leads Big U.S. Cities in Vacant Land, Fort Worth Is 2nd, Survey Shows. That’s 141.78 sq mi of land in Dallas proper that’s undeveloped out of 339.6 sq mi of land. Downtown Dallas alone would make Dallas a completely different place, if it was built out. Dallas Has More Vacant Land Downtown Than Any Other Major U.S. City. Those stats would be depressing if Dallas was in a region that wasn’t experiencing dynamic growth. There’s so much potential for Dallas to change into whatever, if the city acts accordingly. The city is already planning to eliminate parking minimums to allow for more development in places like downtown.
I don’t think they’re trying to be and yet they somehow have managed to appeal to most Americans.
How do you know what most Americans want? What survey are you looking at?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallaz
Big U.S. Cities in Vacant Land, Fort Worth Is 2nd, Survey Shows[/url]. That’s 141.78 sq mi of land in Dallas proper that’s undeveloped out of 339.6 sq mi of land.
141 sq. miles of undeveloped land is a testimony of flat out irresponsible planning has been in the DFW area.
A majority of Americans (57%) say they would prefer to live in a community where “houses are larger and farther apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away,” according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted March 27-April 2, 2023. About four-in-ten (42%) would prefer a community where “houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance.”
Quote:
141 sq. miles of undeveloped land is a testimony of flat out irresponsible planning has been in the DFW area.
It’s much deeper than that and it is historically race related. Southern Dallas has been historically underfunded, so there’s A LOT of vacant land there. It’s easier to build in other areas, where the infrastructure is already in place. The infrastructure to support development doesn’t exist or is so old that it cannot support development. The city is now installing the infrastructure to allow for development to happen. That’s a major reason why the growth has been heavily lopsided to the North. There were parts of Dallas proper (until the infrastructure upgrade project started recently) that still used septic tanks and had to use water connections from the neighboring suburb — Lancaster, TX
EDIT: I'd say Dallas could fit (very rough guesstimation) prolly nearly a million more people within its city limits. There's already 1.3 million people occupying 197.82 sq mi of land. The City Manager (Chief Executive) said that the future of the city is in Southern Dallas and I agree with him. I can't even imagine what the city would be like if North Dallas and Southern Dallas mirrored each other, in terms of development.
Unfortunately I don't think S. Dallas can mirror N. Dallas.
There would have to be a seismic shift in land use laws and that would take going against a tsunami of nimbyism.
It would probably take generational change just to get the south on the path to building like north Dallas. It's been a struggle for a place like LA, with much higher land values and much more congestion, so it's going to be doubly hard for Dallas.
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.
