Why did Houston and DFW develop so differently? (Dallas, Austin: job market, neighborhoods)

[Thoreau424]

Different starting periods is part of it, with Houston starting earlier. Also access from the coast got the development going much faster too, along with Galveston.

Also very different people at the helm in early Houston development vs. Dallas, with different ideas, etc.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

The how is obvious in that the North Texas region is composed of countless independent municipalities that govern themselves, as opposed to Houston which has vast swaths of annexed and unincorporated territory over the same amount of land.

But what was the real advantage to Houston growing in such an unorthodox way? Would it have become as large and prosperous a city if it had developed the way DFW did? I think it definitely would have been a more attractive and efficient metro as a result.

I actually don't mind that the city doesn't have zoning. The problem for me comes with the suburbs being vast unincorporated areas leading to shoddy planning, higher crime, and "taxation without representation". If everything within Beltway 8 was no zoning City of Houston and outside of that was well planned suburbs, you'd have a pretty incredible metro area and get the best of both worlds. It would have become a large and prosperous metro and it would have cut into some of DFW's gains more.

Right now Houston gets to scam its way to more tax dollars by doing strip annexations. Then you have bored City of Houston police who will sit on the freeways in unincorporated Katy or Spring or Cypress pulling people over because the freeway is technically in the city. It's really weird. You look at places like Alief which still has the old town grid intact and think what that area could have developed as if it were its own city and not swallowed by Houston. Same with the Addicks area near Hwy 6/Grisby.

There's no reason why most of Houston had to develop the way it did. It's the result of letting developers run wild, mayors like Bob Lanier who sold the city to these developers, high parking requirements that are only now going down, not building enough detention ponds or a third reservoir, and not having enough incorporated suburban cities which can govern themselves. No zoning wasn't really the issue.

Originally Posted by texasdiver

I'm guessing the settlement patterns were completely different. Dallas was is on the plains where thousands of small homesteaders settled and formed small towns that eventually became all the little suburban cities surrounding the metroplex.

Houston's settlement pattern was completely different. It was more open ranch country and settled more by larger slave plantation owners moving west from Louisiana. So never developed the network of small towns throughout the region like Dallas did with thousands of homesteaders scratching away on small farms.

Not sure how true this is. There were several communities dotted around Houston that were eventually swallowed (annexed) by the city or paved over or flooded out. Spring, Alief, Cypress, Addicks, Fairbanks, etc., are some of the small towns around Houston that could have grown up into DFW suburbs but were stunted due to one of the reasons I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

Okay but how exactly is what I'm getting at. Can we really say that a thriving metro such as DFW has actually been stifled by its more conservative style of development?

Again, this isn't necessarily about COH's lack of zoning but rather why there has to be 600+ square miles of it.

No but there's something to be said that despite all the planning which goes into DFW and the bragging we see from residents there (see the first post in the Dallas thread on the new HQ move), Houston still somehow is right there next to DFW in regards to economy and population growth. Houston seems to produce more companies that innovate to stay relevant versus "buy" a company looking to leave from a high cost region. I think there is something to Houston having the more creative tilt of the two metros. I mean you could say Houston hasn't really been stifled by no zoning either. It's just there are some tweaks here and there that would make Houston runaway from DFW in my opinion.

[TheOverdog]

You definitely missed TMC for healthcare. Even within O&G, the industries vary by region. South eastern suburbs are mid stream, blue collar. EC big oil corporate jobs. Uptown is developing as a finance hub. Galveston is as entertainment centric as Arlington.

That's comparing Houston now vs Houston in the 1960s when the divergence happened. Galveston for example has lost population since then, not gained. Houston now I'd agree is as diversified as Dallas.



The TMC has way fewer jobs than downtown Seattle, though I assume more than the comparable DFW medical district. This is what I mean when they compare poorly against other metros. But then it would because DFW consists of several cities with 250k+ in population, so it makes sense their medical system is not consolidated in a single area.

[lepoisson]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Houston SHOULD be proud of not having zoning. It is a completely unjustifiable intrusion into private property rights and the free market. Proponents, whether they realize it or not, are drinking from the ante-diluvian, primitive and exclusionary toxic waste pool mindset and not the clear spring of the idealized America.

I think zoning is a good thing. But it doesn't need to be overdone like it is in some cities. In Chicago, the alderman can make rules about where certain types of businesses can be located. Liquor stores can't be near schools, if there are too many nail salons they can restrict business licenses, etc. I think this is a bit too far.

But at the same time it's not great knowing that a loud indoor shooting range could technically open up next to a public library or a place of worship where people normally expect peace and quiet.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by TheOverdog

That's comparing Houston now vs Houston in the 1960s when the divergence happened. Galveston for example has lost population since then, not gained. Houston now I'd agree is as diversified as Dallas.



The TMC has way fewer jobs than downtown Seattle, though I assume more than the comparable DFW medical district. This is what I mean when they compare poorly against other metros. But then it would because DFW consists of several cities with 250k+ in population, so it makes sense their medical system is not consolidated in a single area.

Good point. One thing about TMC… Although I’m not sure about More or less jobs than Downtown Seattle, the TMC area extends beyond the official boundaries with medical developments. The Levitt Green for example is a biotech campus currently under construction that isn’t going to be added to the TMC district. The TMC3 also currently isn’t although I wouldn’t be surprised if they expand the official TMC boundaries further into that development. And on Galveston, the population is indeed shrinking but since we are talking about employment, this is different. Entertainment developments there are still growing such as the third cruise terminal that broke ground last week. Most of Galveston’s entertainment employees live in southeast Houston suburbs like Pearland.

But yeah I see what you’re saying about their upbringing vs recent

[katygirl68]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

The point is not how or when the growth happened. It is how it started. What were the initial settlement patterns that led to the initial drawing of lines on the map? After that the patterns were basically baked in. Put another way, the initial settlers in the Dallas area were mostly homesteader and sodbuster farmer types who's objective was building lots of small communities. The initial settlers in the Houston area seemed more about large plantations and open range cattle ranching. So there are far fewer little farm towns scattered about Harris County that eventually grew into stand-alone suburban towns.

At least that's how I read how the two areas were founded and initially developed.

You could be right.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

I actually don't mind that the city doesn't have zoning. The problem for me comes with the suburbs being vast unincorporated areas leading to shoddy planning, higher crime, and "taxation without representation". If everything within Beltway 8 was no zoning City of Houston and outside of that was well planned suburbs, you'd have a pretty incredible metro area and get the best of both worlds. It would have become a large and prosperous metro and it would have cut into some of DFW's gains more.

Right now Houston gets to scam its way to more tax dollars by doing strip annexations. Then you have bored City of Houston police who will sit on the freeways in unincorporated Katy or Spring or Cypress pulling people over because the freeway is technically in the city. It's really weird. You look at places like Alief which still has the old town grid intact and think what that area could have developed as if it were its own city and not swallowed by Houston. Same with the Addicks area near Hwy 6/Grisby.

There's no reason why most of Houston had to develop the way it did. It's the result of letting developers run wild, mayors like Bob Lanier who sold the city to these developers, high parking requirements that are only now going down, not building enough detention ponds or a third reservoir, and not having enough incorporated suburban cities which can govern themselves. No zoning wasn't really the issue.




Not sure how true this is. There were several communities dotted around Houston that were eventually swallowed (annexed) by the city or paved over or flooded out. Spring, Alief, Cypress, Addicks, Fairbanks, etc., are some of the small towns around Houston that could have grown up into DFW suburbs but were stunted due to one of the reasons I mentioned.




No but there's something to be said that despite all the planning which goes into DFW and the bragging we see from residents there (see the first post in the Dallas thread on the new HQ move), Houston still somehow is right there next to DFW in regards to economy and population growth. Houston seems to produce more companies that innovate to stay relevant versus "buy" a company looking to leave from a high cost region. I think there is something to Houston having the more creative tilt of the two metros. I mean you could say Houston hasn't really been stifled by no zoning either. It's just there are some tweaks here and there that would make Houston runaway from DFW in my opinion.

This here exactly. I'm wondering if Houston would not already be far and away the premier city in the state if it had not been for its seemingly cheap approach to development. Several posts in this thread suggest that Dallas made mistakes along the way that Houston didn't, but the results of that aren't apparent.

You say everything within Beltway 8, but I'll take it a step further and say what if Houston was only downtown, the ship channel, TMC and the airports? Everything else was independent cities and suburbs. This would make it similar to the Miami model, where the main city constitutes a small percentage of the metro itself and you have a diverse and well planned network of cities making up the rest.

[dallasboi]

Originally Posted by spacecitytx

Lol...and a lot of folks think DFW is bland and boring. How do you justify THAT flaw?

What about the majority of the other people who don't think that?....they don't matter huh?

[R1070]

Originally Posted by dallasboi

What about the majority of the other people who don't think that?....they don't matter huh?

Exactly. “Bland and boring” seems to be a better recipe than ugly and boring.

[Frustratedintelligence]

I want to reiterate that I don't think lack of zoning is the problem. Houston could have zoning and that wouldn't help matters if all other factors were the same.