DFW is so divided. Houston isn't. (Dallas, Plano: rent, best school, live in)

[Rakin]

The biggest benefit to many smaller cities is the better school districts. More local control without the problems of a massive population

[R1070]

The way DFW developed could be viewed as a negative by those who don't fully understand the pros of this kind of development. Tends to lead to better quality control, city services, unique character, less crime, better schools. In reality it doesn't matter if an area is actually city of Dallas or one of its suburbs. It's all the Metroplex.

[7ry1an3]

Originally Posted by Rakin

The biggest benefit to many smaller cities is the better school districts. More local control without the problems of a massive population

? The best school districts in Texas are in the H. Cy-Fair being number 1

[HtownLove]

When the annexation laws were passed about 100 years ago it gave jurisdiction to cities based on size.

For example
cities with 25K would get 1miles in all direction
Cities with 50K would get 2miles
100k would get 3miles
and so on and so on.

If you look at the size of cities at the time the biggest cities were Dallas, then San Antonio then Fort Worth then Houston.

While Houston was the biggest thing in the area, it didnt not have anything major around it and suburban neighborhoods for the most part were poping up in a ring around Houston- the one major city.

In North Texas on the otherhand, there were two big cities, both bigger than Houston, and both having suburbs popping up and fighting for jurisdiction.

While Houston's settlements grew in waves around it and was annexed into, in N Texas there were popping up in a more irregular pattern and it was harder for Dallas to skip cities and annex new areas because it was becoming hemmed in by other cities jurisdiction.


In actuality though, if you look at it the smaller cities in NT (even Arlington) had most of the growth in the last 50 years. The suburban population in DFW grew just about the same as in Houston. The non Houston population is about 4M in the metro. The Non Dallas, non FW population in DFW is about 4M.

The only difference between them is that while Arlington gets to claim 400K, Katy has the same population but does not get to claim that,


In terms of size
Katy= Arlington with both having about 400K people living in the area
Pasadena= Plano with both having over 250K people in the area
Cypress= Garland with both having over 200k in the area
Spring= Irving both with 200k
Sugar Land = Grand Prairie w both having about 175 in their respective areas
Atascocita= Mesquite w both having over 100k
Pearland= Mckinney w both over 100k
The Woodlands= Carrollton both over 100K
Missouri City = Frisco, both over 100k
League City= Denton both about 100 K
Baytown = Richardson both around 100K

If Houston releases the almost 2M people in its ETJ then Houston and DFW burbs would look like the list above, with both having just as many large burbs.

The only Difference would be that Houston's burbs would be radiating from one core, While in DFW it is mainly between the two cores and towards the north.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by R1070

The way DFW developed could be viewed as a negative by those who don't fully understand the pros of this kind of development. Tends to lead to better quality control, city services, unique character, less crime, better schools. In reality it doesn't matter if an area is actually city of Dallas or one of its suburbs. It's all the Metroplex.

Originally Posted by Rakin

The biggest benefit to many smaller cities is the better school districts. More local control without the problems of a massive population

Lol, by those who "don't fully understand". The way DFW developed has nothing do to with schools, as those dont follow city limits. Character is opinion, because most say Houston has more character anyway. The better quality control in DFW has lead to less character and more like every city around here trying to be the All American City, so you get a sterile feel.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

When the annexation laws were passed about 100 years ago it gave jurisdiction to cities based on size.

For example
cities with 25K would get 1miles in all direction
Cities with 50K would get 2miles
100k would get 3miles
and so on and so on.

If you look at the size of cities at the time the biggest cities were Dallas, then San Antonio then Fort Worth then Houston.

While Houston was the biggest thing in the area, it didnt not have anything major around it and suburban neighborhoods for the most part were poping up in a ring around Houston- the one major city.

In North Texas on the otherhand, there were two big cities, both bigger than Houston, and both having suburbs popping up and fighting for jurisdiction.

While Houston's settlements grew in waves around it and was annexed into, in N Texas there were popping up in a more irregular pattern and it was harder for Dallas to skip cities and annex new areas because it was becoming hemmed in by other cities jurisdiction.


In actuality though, if you look at it the smaller cities in NT (even Arlington) had most of the growth in the last 50 years. The suburban population in DFW grew just about the same as in Houston. The non Houston population is about 4M in the metro. The Non Dallas, non FW population in DFW is about 4M.

The only difference between them is that while Arlington gets to claim 400K, Katy has the same population but does not get to claim that,


In terms of size
Katy= Arlington with both having about 400K people living in the area
Pasadena= Plano with both having over 250K people in the area
Cypress= Garland with both having over 200k in the area
Spring= Irving both with 200k
Sugar Land = Grand Prairie w both having about 175 in their respective areas
Atascocita= Mesquite w both having over 100k
Pearland= Mckinney w both over 100k
The Woodlands= Carrollton both over 100K
Missouri City = Frisco, both over 100k
League City= Denton both about 100 K
Baytown = Richardson both around 100K

If Houston releases the almost 2M people in its ETJ then Houston and DFW burbs would look like the list above, with both having just as many large burbs.

The only Difference would be that Houston's burbs would be radiating from one core, While in DFW it is mainly between the two cores and towards the north.

i agree with this but i'm not so sure Houston was ever smaller than Dallas.

Originally Posted by R1070

The way DFW developed could be viewed as a negative by those who don't fully understand the pros of this kind of development. Tends to lead to better quality control, city services, unique character, less crime, better schools. In reality it doesn't matter if an area is actually city of Dallas or one of its suburbs. It's all the Metroplex.

only a Dallasite would say this.

stoneclaw/C2H (ComingtoHouston)

[First24]

Originally Posted by 7ry1an3

? The best school districts in Texas are in the H. Cy-Fair being number 1

Partially correct.

Cy-Fair is the top-ranked large district in Texas. However, DFW area school districts; Highland Park, Richardson, Coppell, Frisco, Southlake and Allen, consistantly outrank districts throughout the Houston area.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Scout_972

Partially correct.

Cy-Fair is the top-ranked large district in Texas. However, DFW area school districts; Highland Park, Richardson, Coppell, Frisco, Southlake and Allen, consistantly outrank districts throughout the Houston area.

Actually not true. Cy-Fair, along with Katy, Spring Branch, Fort Bend, Klein, Clear Creek, Pearland ISDs (and more) are all just as good as those you named. Katy, Cy-Fair, and Fort Bend are all larger (student wise...not sure on land area) than every single ISD you listed and they all have similar, if not better scores. Houston ISD is so large that it covers areas that would be similar to Plano (especially around West Side High School, which is like two exits from the Katy area).

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

i agree with this but i'm not so sure Houston was ever smaller than Dallas.

1900
San Antonio-53,321
Houston- 44,633
Dallas- 42,639
Fort Worth - 26,668

1910
San Antonio-96,614
Dallas- 92,104
Houston- 78,800
Fort Worth- 73,312


1920
San Antonio- 161,379
Dallas- 158,976
Houston- 138,276
Fort Worth- 106,482


1930
Houston- 292,352
Dallas- 260,475
San Antonio- 231,542
Fort Worth- 163,447


1940
Houston- 384,514
Dallas- 294,734
San Antonio- 253,854
Fort Worth- 177,662



1950

Houston- 596,163
Dallas- 434,462
San Antonio- 408,442
Fort Worth- 278,778


1960
Houston- 938,219
Dallas- 679,684
San Antonio- 587,718
Fort Worth- 356,268

There have been a lot of flip flopping, but Dallas was bigger than Houston from about 1910 to the 1920's. but smaller than San Antonio.

Based on how the population numbers leaped, it seems like Dallas, San Antonio and FW were ahead of Houston in the annexation game. Houston just ended up having the better playing field in the end.

FW was nearly identical to Houston in size in 1910, but by 1960, Houston was 3 times as large and by far the largest city in Texas.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by Trae713

Lol, by those who "don't fully understand". The way DFW developed has nothing do to with schools, as those dont follow city limits. Character is opinion, because most say Houston has more character anyway. The better quality control in DFW has lead to less character and more like every city around here trying to be the All American City, so you get a sterile feel.

That's certainly an opinion.