Why did Houston and DFW develop so differently? (Dallas, Austin: appointed, condo)

[spacecitytx]

Originally Posted by Nuclear Bear

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.

I don't recall having viewed that in person, but I'll take your word for it. However, I still doubt it's as stunning as the view of Uptown Houston and Greenway Plaza going north from South Post Oak merging onto 610 North. THAT view can't be beat anywhere in Houston OR Dallas...I wish I could find a snapshot of it.



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

That's the exact same view I described earlier in Houston...You can see most of the MULTIPLE Houston skylines from that one spot. To me, it can't be beat.

[spacecitytx]

Found it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu1uqXnMjxA

Mind you, this is from 2010...it was beautiful then, and it is ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING NOW...especially since they've added a lot more buildings in Uptown and they've redone the ramps merging onto 59 north and south. The greenery makes it look even better.

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by walker1962

Actually, DFW has more high NW (over $30 Million NW) than Houston; DFW ranks in the top 10 world wide

Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site

I don't really care about those metrics...but in the links you provided one measures DFW as a whole compared to just the City of Houston. Not sure if you noticed that.

[spacecitytx]

Originally Posted by SanJac

I don't really care about those metrics...but in the links you provided one measures DFW as a whole compared to just the City of Houston. Not sure if you noticed that.

They ALWAYS tend to avoid that fact whenever I bring it up, lol.

They never seem to be able to explain why Houston AS A CITY BY ITSELF is still neck and neck (and in some spots, AHEAD OF) with the whole of DFW, despite the hurricanes, floods, oil downturns, and "ugliness" that the homers like to throw at it. Add to that the fact that they have over 500k MORE people to work with, and I REALLY get a sense that something ain't adding up, lol.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by spacecitytx

[/b]



They ALWAYS tend to avoid that fact whenever I bring it up, lol.

They never seem to be able to explain why Houston AS A CITY BY ITSELF is still neck and neck (and in some spots, AHEAD OF) with the whole of DFW, despite the hurricanes, floods, oil downturns, and "ugliness" that the homers like to throw at it. Add to that the fact that they have over 500k MORE people to work with, and I REALLY get a sense that something ain't adding up, lol.

This is city to city.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/14/top-...-wealth-x.html

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

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.

Yeah I think developers in Houston post WWII just went a tad bit crazy when they started developing the area beyond it's core. You look at old pictures of Houston back in the day and there was some true urbanity. Houston had the bones to create a more walkable city but like you sid choose to tear down those areas for the more suburban haphazard look.

I'll say Houston and DFW are trying to create more walkable spaces. And something is better than nothing but I know Houston can't continue to go down the path of creating wider freeway lanes all while creating more walkable spaces. It's counterproductive.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

Yeah I think developers in Houston post WWII just went a tad bit crazy when they started developing the area beyond it's core. You look at old pictures of Houston back in the day and there was some true urbanity. Houston had the bones to create a more walkable city but like you sid choose to tear down those areas for the more suburban haphazard look.

I'll say Houston and DFW are trying to create more walkable spaces. And something is better than nothing but I know Houston can't continue to go down the path of creating wider freeway lanes all while creating more walkable spaces. It's counterproductive.

I don’t think this is what’s counterproductive. As you’ve pointed out many times, Houston and DFW are car centric cities and this isn’t going to change by building walkable districts. This won’t change until new transportation technologies begin to roll out. Metro Houston is working towards reaching 8 million in population. When it gets there, it’ll work to reaching 9 million. The extra new emerging freeways are being made to supply the growth. If Austin wants to avoid congestion while growing as well, it will have to do the same because Austin is also car centric.

What I find to be counter productive is the lack of other options for transport. In Dallas as well as Houston but a bit more so in Houston for now. The new walkable districts coming up are great but getting to them and around are as important to supply extremely fast growing metros.

One technology that has helped every car centric city is rideshare (Uber and Lyft). For those saying “well there were cabs before”, it’s not the same. With cabs, you couldn’t pick up a device and instantly get from point A to point B. Nor were cabs as economic. At some point, this technology will advance with AI and be even more efficient. Designated lanes (bridges and tunnels) are the future in this regard.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by EDS_

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.

Fair enough, we'll see what happens. I agree that for all intents and purposes they are about equal at this point.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

I don’t think this is what’s counterproductive. As you’ve pointed out many times, Houston and DFW are car centric cities and this isn’t going to change by building walkable districts. This won’t change until new transportation technologies begin to roll out. Metro Houston is working towards reaching 8 million in population. When it gets there, it’ll work to reaching 9 million. The extra new emerging freeways are being made to supply the growth. If Austin wants to avoid congestion while growing as well, it will have to do the same because Austin is also car centric.

What I find to be counter productive is the lack of other options for transport. In Dallas as well as Houston but a bit more so in Houston for now. The new walkable districts coming up are great but getting to them and around are as important to supply extremely fast growing metros.

One technology that has helped every car centric city is rideshare (Uber and Lyft). For those saying “well there were cabs before”, it’s not the same. With cabs, you couldn’t pick up a device and instantly get from point A to point B. Nor were cabs as economic. At some point, this technology will advance with AI and be even more efficient. Designated lanes (bridges and tunnels) are the future in this regard.

Yes, the existing mass transit technologies, for the most part, just don't make sense to users time-wise in sprawling metros like DFW and Houston except in very special cases (weekday commutes to office centers for example) where they get a speed or hassle advantage over driving for longer distances (Dallas light rail to downtown, Houston express buses on the HOT lanes to downtown and TMC). While in theory it makes sense to connect newly walkable areas with transit, in practice it's had a limited impact - supposedly Las Colinas has a walkable area around its station but relatively few patrons. Hence the need for new innovations like Uber / Lyft or something else (auto-driving vehicles perhaps as you suggest) that really ups the convenience factor in a sprawl environment.

A not-often-mentioned enormous benefit of transport that's not drive-alone-cars is that it can, if heavily adopted by travelers, reduce the need for parking at destinations, the provision of which is an enormous cost on both walkability and real estate development.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Yes, the existing mass transit technologies, for the most part, just don't make sense to users time-wise in sprawling metros like DFW and Houston except in very special cases (weekday commutes to office centers for example) where they get a speed or hassle advantage over driving for longer distances (Dallas light rail to downtown, Houston express buses on the HOT lanes to downtown and TMC). While in theory it makes sense to connect newly walkable areas with transit, in practice it's had a limited impact - supposedly Las Colinas has a walkable area around its station but relatively few patrons. Hence the need for new innovations like Uber / Lyft or something else (auto-driving vehicles perhaps as you suggest) that really ups the convenience factor in a sprawl environment.

A not-often-mentioned enormous benefit of transport that's not drive-alone-cars is that it can, if heavily adopted by travelers, reduce the need for parking at destinations, the provision of which is an enormous cost on both walkability and real estate development.

The benefits of not needing to park from Uber and Lyft are part of the reason Midtown Houston, Deep Ellum, Oak Lawn etc are improving as nightlife districts.