Why did Houston and DFW develop so differently? (Dallas, Austin: real estate, buying)

[spacecitytx]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

I've taken drives in the southwestern part of the metroplex (Mtn Creek) that I have witnessed to be much more hilly than this. Sorry, but those videos do not do it justice on displaying how hilly Dallas is.

AT ALL. There was nothing intriguing about that video, although I get his point.

[walker1962]

Originally Posted by SanJac

Walker, how often do you get to Houston? The city is changing every day... Have you seen the new additions to the skyline? I like this view...

I'm a Houston native, and was just there last weekend for a family gathering. I have several siblings still in Houston. Because I work in financial services, and my company has offices in Houston, when I visit, I like to drive around and check out new development. I can see how the Kirby district has add several hi-rises, and how much better Garden Oaks and Washington Ave look. I remember the redevelopment of Gulfgate mall awhile ago and drove my alma mater, UofH. This trip, I took a drive over to my old Sunnyside neighborhood the south loop and Cullen. Sadly, its in need of a makeover. BUT that said, i saw pockets of redevelopment, i.e. two new home going up on my block!

[walker1962]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

My favorite areas to drive is Spur 408 and I-20 (near Clark Road). That whole area is pretty hilly and it continues all the way to Cedar Hill. You can really see the escapement coming into Dallas from 20 by Mountain Creek Parkway. It’s Dallas’ little hill country. The Cedar Ridge Preserve and Cedar State Park is also in the area.


I-20 - Skip to 5:00


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

Kiest Blvd looking towards Spur 408

https://goo.gl/maps/zx36k1YqvZ1usxsp6

This looks more like I 20 east bound towards Spur 408.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

The claiming the GMP is inaccurate is the equivalent of claiming the census population data is inaccurate. To a degree it’s true, but they’re the most reliable, unbiased source. Midland is very high in personal wealth per capital for a reasons

I made a very specific claim that is well understood in economics. If GMP/GDP/PPP GDP/per capita PPP GDP etc. identified say median incomes particularly well Irish and Bahamian citizens would be some of the very richest people on Earth. Neither are.

Continuing, median household income in Midland is only about $20,000 over the national average. But it has recently shown the highest real per capita GMP by far. So if those numbers meant what you and the other guy seem to think Midland would have higher median income numbers than San Francisco, San Jose and several others instead it's not close.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by EDS_

I have access to numbers you can't see yet because of an academic subscription to a particular service. That's all. Trust me when the numbers go live I'll DM them to you. FWIIW there's an available source right now that you could find pretty easily showing a '20 gap of around $50BN.


GMP does not define personal income or wealth very well if it did everyone would move to Midland.

I didn't cite GMP (I cited personal income) and 2020 numbers (regardless of the source) mean very little to me as it was not a normal year for anyone.

Regardless, we shall see. At the end of the day, Houston has been in front in the mean/median income race for a long time.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

I didn't cite GMP (I cited personal income) and 2020 numbers (regardless of the source) mean very little to me as it was not a normal year for anyone.

Regardless, we shall see. At the end of the day, Houston has been in front in the mean/median income race for a long time.

1. Personal income is derivative of GNP/GMP numbers......sometimes as simple as GNP/number of citizens. So you did cite GMP although indirectly.

2. Yea. I want to see '21 numbers for Dallas and Houston too. Unfortunately, even the preliminary '21 numbers will not bet out until next summer. According to the St. Louis Fed. and many other sources DFW passed Metro Houston in GMP early in 2019. According to the USBEA DFW passed Metro Houston in real area-GDP sometime in 2015.

3.. At the end of the day this is a narrow proposition/argument. DFW and Houston whatever the order are the 1A and 1B big economies in the south, Atlanta has been out of the conversion for a while - Miami even longer, and heavyweights across the country. If one were to really burrow down into the numbers looking at real GMP adjusted by local buying power/dollar value metrics etc. I'd guess DFW would leapfrog DC and probably SF. Houston too maybe.

[Nuclear Bear]

Originally Posted by spacecitytx

Except that I never said that Houston doesn't have any flaws. There are plenty, to be sure. Just don't see how the supposed "ugliness" in the city is any greater than Dallas'. Perhaps because Dallas is smaller...and therefore the ugly parts are hit or miss, as compared to Houston which is double the size and therefore more noticeable because you have drive for miles longer in those areas?

And I never said that Dallas doesn't have scenic views...only that nothing in Dallas compares to the specific view I gave in the earlier post. The fact that one can capture almost all of the major hotspots in Houston in that one view is amazing to me.

I love that view of the Houston skyline that you referred to. It truly is fantastic.

but I'm going to disagree with you.

The view of DTD and Uptown Dallas from the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge coming from West Dallas is fantastic.
Especially at night.

You have this wide expansive view of Victory Park, Uptown, the Design District, the Medical District and Downtown Dallas all from one elevated spot.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

Walkability in most American cities have no substantial benefit because most American cities are built to cater to cars not pedestrians. But I do believe the cities that have more walkable areas have a substantial benefit over those that are completely dependent on cars. Now again because American cities are not created to benefit pedestrians walkability isn't a high priority for most Americans when they're choosing a city to move to.

But, how many Americans truly benefit from relying on 24 to 45 min commutes to get to and from work? Commute, traffic and lack of public transportation is some of the things transplants and even natives complain about Houston and Dallas the most.

This is one reason you see more work+live+play developments popping up in these sprawling cities. If people had the option to walk or ride a bicycle to work instead of driving to work I believe more Americans would choose to walk or bike than to hop in a big hunk of metal and risk their lives everyday getting on the road.

Some cities do a better job of giving it's residents more options to avoid getting on the road. Dallas and especially Houston not so much. And for metro it's size and importance I believe it's worst than similar sunbelt cities because of those 2 reasons.

As far as the cities you've lived or visited I can give my experiences as well.

Los Angeles- Definitely needed a car to get around but the places of interest we went were much more walkable than any neighborhoods in Houston and Dallas. Several neighborhoods have sidewalks and are actually geared towards pedestrians. LA is just a massive area full of different municipalities. Still more walkable.

Miami- We stayed in Downtown Miami and could get to most places of interest on foot or the public transportation they have. We didn't rent a car at all. Relatives did choose to rent a car because they had an airbnb further away from the city center. Only time we got in a car was to go to Miami Beach. Which we walked in most places in Miami Beach and it's city center.

Riverside- Similar if not worse than DFW and Houston

Atlanta- Very similar to DFW and Houston but they do have more walkable urban neighborhoods and I believe they do a better job of "urbanizing" their suburbs and town squares to make up for the lack of density all throughout the MSA. But no doubt Atlanta is just as much a sprawling mess as HOU and DFW. You do have more options of walkability though.

Phoenix- Actually worse than Houston and DFW

For whatever reason, the City of Dallas preserved more of its walkable areas (the buildings and sidewalks) than Houston did - so much of Houston's walkable built environment got torn down. If that hadn't happen to as great an extent, maybe the difference in walkability between the two core cities wouldn't be as noticeable. DFW of course has more suburban cities with historic town cores that are preserved enough to retain walkability. It also has had more post-2000 new suburban "town centers" built than Houston.

Studies have shown that yes, the majority of American's don't care about walkability, at least in the mixed-use sense (meaning more than just walking trails in single family areas). However, since the mid-1990s, the value of walkability has risen within the general population, probably not coincidentally with the return of the popularity of urban cores in general.

So, if a city or metro is able to credibly offer a greater amount of walkability, it's better able to cater to the portion of the population that does value it. Offering attainable housing in both walkable and car-centric settings, as well as workplaces, is a big plus for metro area marketing. A place like NYC obviously offers walkability unparalleled in the U.S., but most don't think of that metro as offering attainable car-centric lifestyles. DFW and Houston, if they can continue to increase their walkable areas (in both their cores and suburbs), have a great opportunity to increase their overall appeal.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

The only reason I haven’t brought this up is because this thread was originally (I know it later took turns) about the development years. Houston did have early regulations but nothing to the degree of what you see now. In 2021, every single last construction project misread be approved and they aren’t as lenient as they once were. But again, this is 2021. Pre millennia is a very different story. And the more restricted building regulations are the reason newer Houston developments are trending walkable.

I disagree with you here; actually regulations are becoming more relaxed for the most part to ALLOW more walkability that had been not technically legal under the 1960s-1990s regulatory regime. And because the community values walkability more, private developers have been starting to respond with what they do behind the curb, and both developers and the City have been improving their public infrastructure and amenities to better cater to pedestrians.

[R1070]

I like the DT view from the Sylvan Ave and Hampton Road bridges crossing over the Trinity.