Not your average Dallas v Houston thread (Fort Worth, Arlington: insurance, mortgage)

[FreeVilley]

I'm a longtime lurker, first-time poster to this board and I've yet to see this topic considered:

Dallas has been surrounded on all sides by very strong suburban townships with large populations for over half a century (Irving, Garland etc), whereas Houston apparently has so much ETJ (extraterritorial jurisdiction) that it could freely absorb land and population against the will of residents whenever fit (Clear Lake, Kingwood etc).

My assumption is an anti-government sentiment in South Texas that may have resisted incorporation despite the lack of services vs a strong "King of the Hill" territorialism that may have prevailed in North Texas where the entrepreneurial spirit may have caused every town to want to compete with the Dallas to become the county seat.

I've mused over the differences all my life, but I know some enlightened posters on this thread can help me understand.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by FreeVilley

I'm a longtime lurker, first-time poster to this board and I've yet to see this topic considered:

Dallas has been surrounded on all sides by very strong suburban townships with large populations for over half a century (Irving, Garland etc), whereas Houston apparently has so much ETJ (extraterritorial jurisdiction) that it could freely absorb land and population against the will of residents whenever fit (Clear Lake, Kingwood etc).

My assumption is an anti-government sentiment in South Texas that may have resisted incorporation despite the lack of services vs a strong "King of the Hill" territorialism that may have prevailed in North Texas where the entrepreneurial spirit may have caused every town to want to compete with the Dallas to become the county seat.

I've mused over the differences all my life, but I know some enlightened posters on this thread can help me understand.

Interesting topic and one I've wondered about as well. My hypothesis for why they turned out this way (with very little proof either way) revolves around two primary factors. The first is that before the 1950s, Dallas was generally a more mature city than Houston was and its taxable commercial property was generally closer to the core of the city. Houston before the suburban age was more of a collection of self-contained villages spread throughout the area of what is now the city and I believe a lot of the highly taxable industrial properties (think refineries, factories, etc.) were closer to the edge of the metro area, as remains the case today to some extent. Houston had a need to tax those areas, so it annexed them to capture that, which led to a more spread out city and less early suburbs.

I think the second factor was directly related to the first and took place after the growth of suburbs in the 50s, primarily in the 60s and 70s. Since Dallas had not annexed as much as Houston did earlier in the 20th century, it quickly was surrounded by fast-growing suburbs. I think Houston continued to make huge annexations in the 60s, 70s, and 80s to avoid what it saw happening to Dallas and to continue to grow its tax base, considering large parts of the city remained undeveloped back then and could easily be skipped over (thus depriving the city of income) if large suburbs began incorporating en masse.

I think Houston felt it had to do what it did to capture regional growth back then, considering it was a far less established and important city until the 70s or so. While I think the area would probably be governed a bit better if the city was smaller and other cities had been allowed to grow, it would also be developed in a more suburban fashion, similar to how DFW is developed today. Pluses and minuses to both models, but interesting how they both diverged so much back then and it basically remains that way today.

Just a guess though, I'd be happy to hear others perspectives on this.

[Johnhw2]

I think you are over complicating this question it is luck or random factors over history Ive experienced over my 70 years. Back in the 1950s Carrolton, McKinney, Irving, Arlington, Frisco, etc were incorporated and few realistically expected those cities which had undeveloped land between them and Dallas to be connected by the incredible growth the area has seen. When I moved to Houston in 1970 the area had incorporated towns other than Baytown, Conroe, Missouri City and Sugarland, Humble, Friendswood etc. Developers bought up the massive land masses and built planned developments without incorporating. They bought land in small suburban school districts that they could change for the better demographically with a rapid growing community. Had their been towns incorporated there like Dallas had decades earlier, it would not have had the large tax base that was not in a city already so houston gobbled them up, though the trend stopped with Kingwood when Woodlands cut a deal to not become part of Houston city.


I think the growth both DFW and Houston metros have seen would surprise even the most visionary, area booster from back in those days.


I will concede an anti zoning biase in the developer ranks would have opposed Houston annexation of their communities earlier if Houston had strong zoning. So OP"s theory has a role in all this too just not the largest in my view

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

I think you are over complicating this question it is luck or random factors over history Ive experienced over my 70 years. Back in the 1950s Carrolton, McKinney, Irving, Arlington, Frisco, etc were incorporated and few realistically expected those cities which had undeveloped land between them and Dallas to be connected by the incredible growth the area has seen. When I moved to Houston in 1970 the area had incorporated towns other than Baytown, Conroe, Missouri City and Sugarland, Humble, Friendswood etc. Developers bought up the massive land masses and built planned developments without incorporating. They bought land in small suburban school districts that they could change for the better demographically with a rapid growing community. Had their been towns incorporated there like Dallas had decades earlier, it would not have had the large tax base that was not in a city already so houston gobbled them up, though the trend stopped with Kingwood when Woodlands cut a deal to not become part of Houston city.


I think the growth both DFW and Houston metros have seen would surprise even the most visionary, area booster from back in those days.


I will concede an anti zoning biase in the developer ranks would have opposed Houston annexation of their communities earlier if Houston had strong zoning. So OP"s theory has a role in all this too just not the largest in my view

I would like to think having a strong core city would lead to efficiency in planning for an area, however, my impression of the Metroplex is that the competition among cities results in superior output.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by FreeVilley

I would like to think having a strong core city would lead to efficiency in planning for an area, however, my impression of the Metroplex is that the competition among cities results in superior output.

Actually your business centres are spread too far apart. Galleria, Greenway, and Medical Center are within 10 km radius of Downtown Houston. Fort Worth and Dallas are 50 km apart and the secondary business districts are along DNT to Frisco and the north loop of I-635. Arlington plays a factor also. Southlake to Stonebriar must be a hellish commute comparable going through the Westside of L.A. during rush hour.

Personally, I would prefer to eliminate the bigger secondary business districts and consolidate them into Downtown Houston to build a skyline and a bustling city core rivaling Chicago.

[Johnhw2]

I think having differences in cities planning approaches is healthy. Houston's no zoning or zoning uber lite allows down troden areas to evolve faster as their location advantage soars. We can lean from all cities, no one size fits all and all shoud be of that model. Man is just not smart enough to model the perfect solution as market conditions and varying market demands change over time.

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Actually your business centres are spread too far apart. Galleria, Greenway, and Medical Center are within 10 km radius of Downtown Houston. Fort Worth and Dallas are 50 km apart and the secondary business districts are along DNT to Frisco and the north loop of I-635. Arlington plays a factor also. Southlake to Stonebriar must be a hellish commute comparable going through the Westside of L.A. during rush hour.

Personally, I would prefer to eliminate the bigger secondary business districts and consolidate them into Downtown Houston to build a skyline and a bustling city core rivaling Chicago.

I love a nice vibrant downtown and beautiful skyline. But having multiple business districts spread apart works because you can live in the burbs, but be 10 minutes away from multiple employers. For example, Las Colinas/Irving is a hotbed of mortgage companies. Richardson has a lot of Insurance companies. If I am a mortgage prof, i can buy a house in NW and even if i ever change jobs, my commute wont change much.

So there are two sides to decentralization.

[FreeVilley]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

I think having differences in cities planning approaches is healthy. Houston's no zoning or zoning uber lite allows down troden areas to evolve faster as their location advantage soars. We can lean from all cities, no one size fits all and all shoud be of that model. Man is just not smart enough to model the perfect solution as market conditions and varying market demands change over time.

Agreed.