Houston thoughts from someone who lives in DFW

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by DaBears02

They both suffer from being spread out. Granted Houston is more centralized than Dallas but I couldn’t imagine one feeling super spread out and the other being super compact.

Yeah I would never argue that Houston isn't spread out. That's a tough case to make.

The major difference I see is that the more affluent areas of Houston are spread out around almost all sides of the metro (except east), so it makes sense for businesses and institutions catering to them to be centralized, especially if they're only going to have a single location. Or, adjust the organization to support multiple locations that can survive on just a single portion of the metro (just the Bay Area, just Sugar Land / Mo City, just Cypress, just inside or near the Loop etc.).

In places like Dallas and Atlanta, the affluence clusters in just one quadrant of the metro, so high-profile destinations may have more freedom to have just a single location that might be in the suburbs rather than the urban core. This can might give the impression of things being more "spread out", if you're focused on affluent-oriented destinations. Plus, the suburbs in DFW have been more aggressive about garnering one-in-the-metro types of destinations - most notably Frisco.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Yeah I would never argue that Houston isn't spread out. That's a tough case to make.

The major difference I see is that the more affluent areas of Houston are spread out around almost all sides of the metro (except east), so it makes sense for businesses and institutions catering to them to be centralized, especially if they're only going to have a single location. Or, adjust the organization to support multiple locations that can survive on just a single portion of the metro (just the Bay Area, just Sugar Land / Mo City, just Cypress, just inside or near the Loop etc.).

In places like Dallas and Atlanta, the affluence clusters in just one quadrant of the metro, so high-profile destinations may have more freedom to have just a single location that might be in the suburbs rather than the urban core. This can might give the impression of things being more "spread out", if you're focused on affluent-oriented destinations. Plus, the suburbs in DFW have been more aggressive about garnering one-in-the-metro types of destinations - most notably Frisco.

I wonder if this is particular to the sun belt (minus Cali) and Houston just happens to be the exception. Because LA, SF, NY also have affluent areas in most quadrants. Chicago, however, not as much

[Need4Camaro]

To be fair, Atlanta does have Peachtree City, Newnan, parts of Fayetteville (Pinewood Forest) and 'Eagles Landing' on the south side. Stockbridge, McDonough and Conyers / Covington (east side) also used to be pretty good back in the 90's into the early 00's but they've degraded alot since then.

Dallas also has Mansfield, Western Cedar Hill, and a mixed use development going up in Waxahachie so they aren't entirely lopsided.. ..but I agree that wealth in Houston is more evenly spread out than either of those cities.

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by WRM20

The Hardy is tough, with the railroad that runs alongside or in the middle, and the string of beautiful junk yards and such.

Yeah, the railroad doesn't bother me too much but the blight on the sides does. I hope something can be done in time for the World Cup in 2026.