141.78 sq mi of land is undeveloped in Dallas — more than any other city, 197.824 sq mi of land is developed (Houston: low income, apartments)

[Dallaz]

Dallas tops cities with room to grow, boasting 90,000 acres of vacant land

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...-room-to-grow/

“Dallas led with a whopping 90,739 acres across more than 30,000 parcels with an average size of 2.72 acres,” Yardi Systems analysts found. “Since 2012, the city has added more than 40 million square feet of new office and industrial space to its inventory.

“Not to be outdone, Dallas’ sister city, Fort Worth, Texas, boasted 74,835 acres of undeveloped land.”

While the study didn’t list specific locations, most available land in Dallas historically has been in the southern sectors.

Looking at other Texas metros, San Antonio has 48,834 acres left to build on, and in Houston there are 46,168 acres of vacant land. Yardi Systems estimates only about 25,117 acres are available in Austin.

[ChristieP]

Not all of that land would be able to be developed. For example, the Trinity River watershed is huge, and most of it would not be able to be developed.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by ChristieP

Not all of that land would be able to be developed. For example, the Trinity River watershed is huge, and most of it would not be able to be developed.

Trinity River Floodplain is 10,000 acres and the Great Trinity Forest is 6,000 acres. That’s 25 sq mi in total. But this isn’t very surprising, I’m just shocked at the amount of undeveloped land. I’ve always thought that Dallas (as a whole) is underdeveloped. Especially, Southern Dallas. Parts of this city literally look like you’re in the country. But it’s also a good thing too. That means that Dallas isn’t built out and could possibly focus more on urban development with the remaining 100+ sq mi.

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by ChristieP

Not all of that land would be able to be developed. For example, the Trinity River watershed is huge, and most of it would not be able to be developed.

I don't think undevelopable land is counted.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Garland is more densely populated than Dallas.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

Garland is more densely populated than Dallas.

A lot of factors led to it too. White flight and redlining caused all of Southern Dallas to be viewed as undesirable. Even some Dallasites still feel that way to this day. People don’t realize how much prejudice and racism shaped the way Dallas is today. Many think it just happened naturally, but it didn’t. No other city has a “no build zone” for an entire section of town like Dallas. Crime spiked in those areas due to decades of no investment. Which resulted in no jobs and created a vacuum for drugs and gangs in the 80s and 90s. Many areas like this will take 50 years or more to catch up to the rest of Dallas. No joke, some parts of South Dallas literally look like 1940s/1950s style development. It’s just rundown and dilapidated. The Accommodation by Jim Schutze talks about this very thing. It’s a great book if anyone is a history buff.

Good clip of Oak Cliff during the early stages of white flight and desegregation in the mid 70s


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGX4F...ature=youtu.be


The Accommodation by Jim Schutze featured on CBS Morning News in 2021


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jL9f67...ature=youtu.be

[aggie972]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

Garland is more densely populated than Dallas.

This is what's weird to me about the fact that I "moved to suburbia". I grew up in east of white rock lake, and there were no hotels nearby and no office buildings more than a couple stories tall. The only apartments were 1-2 story low income housing. At the time we didn't even have any chain restaurants like Chick-Fil-A or Starbucks. It took me 15 minutes to get to Target and about as long to get decent frozen yogurt like TCBY. I could throw a stone and hit about a dozen churches. Now I live one exit away from 121/DNT, and from my neighborhood I can see mid rise office buildings, apartments, and hotels.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

A lot of factors led to it too. White flight and redlining caused all of Southern Dallas to be viewed as undesirable. Even some Dallasites still feel that way to this day. People don’t realize how much prejudice and racism shaped the way Dallas is today. Many think it just happened naturally, but it didn’t. No other city has a “no build zone” for an entire section of town like Dallas. Crime spiked in those areas due to decades of no investment. Which resulted in no jobs and created a vacuum for drugs and gangs in the 80s and 90s. Many areas like this will take 50 years or more to catch up to the rest of Dallas. No joke, some parts of South Dallas literally look like 1940s/1950s style development. It’s just rundown and dilapidated. The Accommodation by Jim Schutze talks about this very thing. It’s a great book if anyone is a history buff.

Good clip of Oak Cliff during the early stages of white flight and desegregation in the mid 70s


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGX4F...ature=youtu.be


The Accommodation by Jim Schutze featured on CBS Morning News in 2021


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jL9f67...ature=youtu.be

I'd take strong issue with your, "no build zone" comments.

1. Per your redlining comment. If you are talking about official Fedgov./FDR/New Deal HOLC map "red" zones the areas south of The Trinity River Basin in Dallas were overwhelmingly rated A, B or C with something like 17% of that area marked red or hazardous.

Places like Memphis, Nashville and many others had more relative area deemed red. Sioux City Iowa was overwhelmingly red. Brooklyn NY was much, much more red than "South Dallas."

https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/re...c=5/37.8/-97.9


2. If you are talking about banks and credit card companies etc. not lending in certain areas....that did happen.

3. If you are talking about any time over the recent past it is just does not happen at least not in the pop-culture sense. Banks are forced to do two things in context. A. market loans into previously underserved areas. B. still required to maintain lending standards in these areas. The yield is banks spend incredible amounts of money marketing loans into areas than can support very little lending on the merits.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by EDS_

I'd take strong issue with your, "no build zone" comments.

1. Per your redlining comment. If you are talking about official Fedgov./FDR/New Deal HOLC map "red" zones the areas south of The Trinity River Basin in Dallas were overwhelmingly rated A, B or C with something like 17% of that area marked red or hazardous.

Places like Memphis, Nashville and many others had more relative area deemed red. Sioux City Iowa was overwhelmingly red. Brooklyn NY was much, much more red than "South Dallas."

https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/re...c=5/37.8/-97.9


2. If you are talking about banks and credit card companies etc. not lending in certain areas....that did happen.

3. If you are talking about any time over the recent past it is just does not happen at least not in the pop-culture sense. Banks are forced to do two things in context. A. market loans into previously underserved areas. B. still required to maintain lending standards in these areas. The yield is banks spend incredible amounts of money marketing loans into areas than can support very little lending on the merits.

I didn’t mean “no build zone” literally. I’m referring to whenever minorities move into a community, economic development/investment slows down considerably or stops completely. Even in Oak Cliff where it was not even meant to be lower income. Blacks moved into South Oak Cliff and by the early 70s, retailers moved further south to Red Bird Mall, where the demographics were still solidly white. Even when the surrounding community could still support the retailers. I’ve seen archival footage, old newspaper articles, etc from that era saying the same thing. I’ve heard from people that lived in Southern Dallas, particularly Oak Cliff that have said the area was planned to be much more developed, but white flight changed all of that. No major city at the time had white flight out of a newly developed suburban area like Oak Cliff in the 60s and 70s. Usually, it was older sections of cities that experienced white flight. Just about everything in South Oak Cliff was less than 10 years old when white flight started, and by the mid 70s the area was being redlined. That’s like Frisco, Prosper, etc suddenly having a huge racial flip and investment stops in the area for the next 50 years.

I will try to post all my sources once I get the time…

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

I didn’t mean “no build zone” literally. I’m referring to whenever minorities move into a community, economic development/investment slows down considerably or stops completely. Even in Oak Cliff where it was not even meant to be lower income. Blacks moved into South Oak Cliff and by the early 70s, retailers moved further south to Red Bird Mall, where the demographics were still solidly white. Even when the surrounding community could still support the retailers. I’ve seen archival footage, old newspaper articles, etc from that era saying the same thing. I’ve heard from people that lived in Southern Dallas, particularly Oak Cliff that have said the area was planned to be much more developed, but white flight changed all of that. No major city at the time had white flight out of a newly developed suburban area like Oak Cliff in the 60s and 70s. Usually, it was older sections of cities that experienced white flight. Just about everything in South Oak Cliff was less than 10 years old when white flight started, and by the mid 70s the area was being redlined. That’s like Frisco, Prosper, etc suddenly having a huge racial flip and investment stops in the area for the next 50 years.

I will try to post all my sources once I get the time…

My FIL took his first job as an engineer with Ling Electric (LTV) IIRC in 1960. As a young man he lived all over the country and flat out said Oak Cliff was his favorite neighborhood fun, bars, jazz, blues etc.


My point about all this is pretty simple. Non-governmental redlining has been expressly illegal since 1968 per the fair housing act. However, banks, except per special government approved programs, are not allowed to make loans to customers who are not creditworthy.