Why doesn’t Houston attract as many Calif businesses as Dallas? (San Antonio: cul-de-sac, 2015)

[Hopeful for Life]

I understand that Austin has the “cool” factor and tech, but DFW is flat and butt ugly. Why can’t we get the biz?

[KerrTown]

Most of the California transplant companies are from the O.C. It's has the same pretentiousness as L.A. County, but without the class! They deny that they are from L.A. and emphasize the O.C. (which no one would have never heard about, except for that famous show 20-years ago on Fox!). It's as if they trying to be a separate major coastal American city between L.A. and San Diego.

O.C. is more suburban/exurban (dense sprawl) and they detest the urbanity (probably a reference to racial diversity) found in L.A. County (and in Harris County). The Collin County suburbs is the area that most closely resembles the O.C.

Also I-40 is much shorter to arrive in Southern California than I-10. Just take US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo to reach the interstate!

[LocalPlanner]

Well, plenty of posters in this forum think Houston is flatter and uglier than DFW (and it definitely is flatter), so if that's real factor, then we're at a disadvantage.

Look, of all Sunbelt cities in the nation, Houston has traditionally had the worst public relations problem in California regarding attractiveness and quality of life. It's improved over the last 10-15 years, but let's face it, Houston had a bigger hill to climb than the other Texas metros.

The nationwide publicity around Harvey and flooding definitely set us back as well. Think about it - if you're going to move away from the threat of wildfires, drought and earthquakes, do you want to move to a place where you face an equal or greater risk from water?

Also, the outsized role of the oil and gas industry here was also seen as a deterrent. Not only for those who harbor a dislike of that industry, but also in terms of educated labor. When times were good in O&G, employers in other industries were afraid of having their people poached through the lure of unmatchable compensation and benefits. A major reason firms locate where they do is quantity and quality of labor, so those who were in the know about Houston were nervous about the competitive labor landscape. Hopefully as knowledge of the O&G industry's problems becomes more widespread, firms won't be as nervous about this.

Lastly, I don't think our economic development leaders in Houston worked hard enough to attract or grow non-O&G businesses over the years. I've only seen major efforts on this since 2016 when it started becoming clear that O&G was unlikely to be as big a growth engine anymore, and DFW was racking up the relocation wins.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Most of the California transplant companies are from the O.C. It's has the same pretentiousness as L.A. County, but without the class! They deny that they are from L.A. and emphasize the O.C. (which no one would have never heard about, except for that famous show 20-years ago on Fox!). It's as if they trying to be a separate major coastal American city between L.A. and San Diego.

O.C. is more suburban/exurban (dense sprawl) and they detest the urbanity (probably a reference to racial diversity) found in L.A. County (and in Harris County). The Collin County suburbs is the area that most closely resembles the O.C.

Also I-40 is much shorter to arrive in Southern California than I-10. Just take US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo to reach the interstate!

The west side of the Austin metro closely resembles the hillier upscale suburbs in SoCal. I think as much or more so than Collin County resembles generic SoCal suburbs.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Look, of all Sunbelt cities in the nation, Houston has traditionally had the worst public relations problem in California regarding attractiveness and quality of life. It's improved over the last 10-15 years, but let's face it, Houston had a bigger hill to climb than the other Texas metros.

Actually all of Texas outside of Austin has the worst PR problem in California. It's stereotypically backwards, anti-American conservative republican, anti-social, ad nauseam.

In contrast, Austin was this affordable magical oasis in flyover Middle America (Why a Californian be destitute enough to consider flyover country is another story!). It's a small town, so it's an escape from congested L.A. and S.F. Apparently the story of being the biggest city and THE economic center of Texas was spun from fibers of thin air.

Apparently these are suburban inland (3-hour traffic jams) Californians, since true coastal Californians embrace the beach and can't live too far away from the coast. Thus the few coastal Californians ended up in Houston, who are more affluent and elite than the bulk of the suburban valley people.

The nationwide publicity around Harvey and flooding definitely set us back as well. Think about it - if you're going to move away from the threat of wildfires, drought and earthquakes, do you want to move to a place where you face an equal or greater risk from water?

Hurricane Irma hit Florida right after Harvey. Did Florida suffer any set backs or deter relocations? Houston eventually grew to 7 million, despite the hurricane.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Actually all of Texas outside of Austin has the worst PR problem in California. It's stereotypically backwards, anti-American conservative republican, anti-social, ad nauseam.

In contrast, Austin was this affordable magical oasis in flyover Middle America (Why a Californian be destitute enough to consider flyover country is another story!). It's a small town, so it's an escape from congested L.A. and S.F. Apparently the story of being the biggest city and THE economic center of Texas was spun from fibers of thin air.

Apparently these are suburban inland (3-hour traffic jams) Californians, since true coastal Californians embrace the beach and can't live too far away from the coast. Thus the few coastal Californians ended up in Houston, who are more affluent and elite than the bulk of the suburban valley people.



Hurricane Irma hit Florida right after Harvey. Did Florida suffer any set backs or deter relocations? Houston eventually grew to 7 million, despite the hurricane.

The problem is any negative publicity tends to "stick" to Houston more so than Florida or other metros period. And Irma didn't drown a huge metro. Also the nation became aware of the whole series of major floods that had happened from 2015 onward thanks to Harvey publicity. "See? Proof of Houston's out of control development!"

Maybe I'm conditioned a bit by my time spent in the Bay Area - I never lived in SoCal, just visited several times. But Bay Areans were downright disdainful and even fearful of (Anglo) people anywhere east of Mt. Diablo and west of DC. And Houston was considered the epitome of everything wrong with the U.S. It was the default stand-in for the description of a place where the quality of life was horrible, attitudes were primitive and evil, and the environment was something to be destroyed. The association with oil and gas was a huge part of that. DFW wasn't viewed positively at all either (and Dallas' reputation for consumerism and conformity definitely was known), just not as negatively as Houston. Of course Austin was viewed much as you describe. San Antonio was largely unknown except for the Alamo.

SoCal folks (viewed quite condescendingly by Bay Areans themselves) may not have as much animus toward Houston and suburban middle America generally. They may just be more likely to prefer their brand of beaches and pleasant weather more than anything.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

The problem is any negative publicity tends to "stick" to Houston more so than Florida or other metros period. And Irma didn't drown a huge metro.

Actually there were many Floridians stuck on I-75 and I-95 to leave the Peninsula. The pictures the TV networks outputted rivaled Hurricane Rita evacuations. It wasn't just one metro trying to leave, it was almost the entire state trying to evacuate. Evacuees and reporters described the interstates as giant cul-de-sacs and (peninsular) Florida as a big trap.

Maybe I'm conditioned a bit by my time spent in the Bay Area - I never lived in SoCal, just visited several times. But Bay Areans were downright disdainful and even fearful of (Anglo) people anywhere east of Mt. Diablo and west of DC. And Houston was considered the epitome of everything wrong with the U.S. It was the default stand-in for the description of a place where the quality of life was horrible, attitudes were primitive and evil, and the environment was something to be destroyed. The association with oil and gas was a huge part of that. DFW wasn't viewed positively at all either (and Dallas' reputation for consumerism and conformity definitely was known), just not as negatively as Houston. Of course Austin was viewed much as you describe. San Antonio was largely unknown except for the Alamo.

SoCal folks (viewed quite condescendingly by Bay Areans themselves) may not have as much animus toward Houston and suburban middle America generally. They may just be more likely to prefer their brand of beaches and pleasant weather more than anything.

I side with SoCal more than NorCal because most of my relatives lived in northern L.A. The sunshine and climate are much nicer in the South than the fogged-up North. Also the South is the closest part to Texas and the most accessible part to enter the state (I-10 and I-40 vs. 1-80) on a road trip.

Actually DFW is still the default stand-in for extreme conservatism and evangelical/fundamentalist religiosity (the Buckle of the Bible Belt); what is wrong with red America. S.F. is the default stand-in for poor QOL (due to tech) and far-leftist public policy/PC-pretentiousness (SoCal is not that whacky!). The political extremism and activism explains why they make similar pairs.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by Hopeful for Life

I understand that Austin has the “cool” factor and tech, but DFW is flat and butt ugly. Why can’t we get the biz?

wow...

[SanJac]

DFW markets itself for corporate relocations and Houston does not. It’s that simple and the State of Texas spends a ton of its incentive dollars on DFW.

It has nothing to do with DFW being more attractive than Houston. The only thing DFW has over Houston is better suburbs. Houston has stronger cultural institutions, better food scene, proximity to the coast, diversity, Texas Medical Center, port of Houston. Don’t buy into the nonsense some people spew on CD.

[Hopeful for Life]

Originally Posted by ColdBrewz

For whatever reason, Texas legislators have been funneling the tax breaks used to lure companies into this state into North Texas.

It even shows with our highways. The stretch of I 35 from (is it Hillsboro?) to San Antonio is a beautiful 6-lane highway. The stretch of 10 between Houston and San Antonio is a rinky dink 4-lane piece of doody that they are just now modernizing. DFW does seem to be more central smack dab in the middle of the country with the large DFW with its array of flights.