Houston vs. Dallas (Fort Worth, Pasadena, Mesquite: tax, eat, land)

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

I endorse the emporis forumula, though there are others ones out there. I think it's relatively fair. Houston has the 3rd largest skyline behind NYC, Chicago. LA 4, Honolulu 5, Dallas 6 (not including Ft. Worth or Las COlinas, Richardson Telecom COoridor, or Tollway District).

Well no offense mplx2003, but if none of the other cities can include their surrounding area skylines, I don't think all of those Metroplex areas count.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Well no offense mplx2003, but if none of the other cities can include their surrounding area skylines, I don't think all of those Metroplex areas count.

It just verifies the point that DFW business districts are spread out vs. Houston's being concentrated in the city. Area populations are similar with DFW having more than houston area.

But what I was illustrating was that despite lots of the business districts being located outside Dallas proper, Dallas proper still has the 6th largest skyline, which is surprising to many.

Cities with their proper containing most of the skyline or business districts.: Chicago, NYC, Houston, Denver, Atlanta, Philly, Boston, etc etc etc..... Now yes, some of their suburbs have business districts, but it is kept at a minimum. This goes along w/the Houstonian arguments a/b Houston having more of an urban core than Dallas.

Cities more like Dallas: LA, Phoenix, Miami area, SF Bay Area, Seattle/Tacoma, St. Louis /Clayton, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Raleigh/Durham, etc. THese are examples of business district cities that contain significant districts outside the proper limits.

[Guerilla]

There is a huge drop of after #2 and #3 though... Also, they just use CBD, not every other skyline in the city. Uptown isn't included in Houston's ranking.

Emporis' skyline goes by floor count, too, not height:

Construction Comparison of the World's Most Booming Cities

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

It just verifies the point that DFW business districts are spread out vs. Houston's being concentrated in the city. Area populations are similar with DFW having more than houston area.

But what I was illustrating was that despite lots of the business districts being located outside Dallas proper, Dallas proper still has the 6th largest skyline, which is surprising to many.

Cities with their proper containing most of the skyline or business districts.: Chicago, NYC, Houston, Denver, Atlanta, Philly, Boston, etc etc etc..... Now yes, some of their suburbs have business districts, but it is kept at a minimum. This goes along w/the Houstonian arguments a/b Houston having more of an urban core than Dallas.

Cities more like Dallas: LA, Phoenix, Miami area, SF Bay Area, Seattle/Tacoma, St. Louis /Clayton, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Raleigh/Durham, etc. THese are examples of business district cities that contain significant districts outside the proper limits.

Regardless. If New York, Chicago, and Houston are able to keep their notable skylines within the city limits, every other city should be able to do the same. Las Colinas' "skyline" belongs to Irving. Not Dallas.

[Lakewooder]

The skyline of refineries puffing pollution - Does that belong to Houston, Deer Park or Pasadena?

[Spade]

A dialogue of the major cities of Texas.

Houstonians: It takes two large cities for the both of you to equal us. You can't add your suburban skylines and claim them for yourself.

Dallasites: Yet, you annexed your suburbs just to include their skylines within your city as well as have your city at 2.3 million people now. What if we did the same?

Austin & San Antonio: Shut up, both of you.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Regardless. If New York, Chicago, and Houston are able to keep their notable skylines within the city limits, every other city should be able to do the same. Las Colinas' "skyline" belongs to Irving. Not Dallas.

There would be no Las Colinas or Richardson without Dallas.

The principle city keeps the very fabric of a MSA region together. Just like Clayton and St. Louis, or SF and Oakland. There would be no impressive Clayton skyline without its principle city counterpart. I question Oakland's success w/o San Francisco proper, despite the fact that the principle city is only the largest in MSA stats but not CMSA stats (that title goes to San Jose).

TO me skyline tends to be about the buildings that surround you in a region. I commute to Dallas everyday. On my 30 min commute I pass by the Las Colinas Skyline, have a view of the Tollway District, and then the Dallas Skyline as well. Yes we've established Houston has more high rises, but the population of the DFW area has supported numerous high rises outside of Dallas proper. I wonder what the MSA skyline rankings would be if you included all business districts within a MSA...it would be interesting how much the gap widens or narrows.

I think people's perception here of their own region think of this area as a region operating an as economic entity...we live and work in the DFW area (or now a new popular term is "North Texas")...many work in Dallas, many work in las Colinas, many live in the city of Dallas to live like an urbanite, but commute to Las Colinas or the Tollway district for work, and vice versa...lots live in Las Colinas and commute to Dallas. Many live in Plano, and work in Plano. Many commute all the way from Mansfield to Plano, and vice versa. We work as a region here...with Dallas being our principle city that offers arts, entertainment, culture and Ft. Worth adding a bit of WEstern culture. It's a great area to live...you get the best of both worlds...urban sophisticate with western culture.

It's probably similar to Uptown Houston and Downtown Houston...there's probably cross-migration to both areas. Some live and work in their opposite districts.

I'm not trying to resurrect the skyline debate...b/c people have their views...Houstonians think Houston has the best skyline in the country and even Chicago cant live up to it according to some (strongly disagree with that FYI)..but ...I just made a comment that it was impressive that Dallas proper ranked #6 despite the fact that a lot of the office space in the DFW area is outside of Dallas proper (ie Las Colinas, Richardson, Tollway District, and Ft. Worth). And this is a region of 6 million people who commute bidirectionally as we in this region think of us as a region, not a particular city...which maybe opposite in Houston since 40% ( 2.3 million out of 5.5) of you guys live within the city limits of Houston...partially due to your expanded sq. mileage area...but I'm willing to bet the outskirts of Houston proper is a suburb in any other US MSA. But I do know so many people that make use of the TRE (which is our heavy rail service)...that connects Ft. Worth, the mid-cities, and Dallas together and to Dallas' DART rail.
So many of my colleagues take the train in from Ft. Worth everyday. And then so many of my colleages take the train in from Plano/Allen. Then I know people who take the train up north to Plano/Richardson to work.

So, I still think this is very much an argument of DFW area vs. Houston area...that's how i've always argued this debate rather than Dallas proper vs. Houston proper...which I'm not convinced is entirely reflective of the debate b/c the debate wouldnt exist if it werent for the DFW area MSA as recognized by the US Census Bureau having more people than Houston MSA but Houston proper having more people than Dallas proper.

But then again, no one ever debates Dallas vs. San Antonio, b/c the comparisons are too huge...despite San Antonio proper being bigger thanDallas proper. We can always talk a/b Atlanta proper vs. Houston proper, but again, it's only b/c Atlanta MSA and Houston MSA's are similar in magnitude. We talk a/b area populations b/c these regions exist as a region...with the principle city holding the region together. CHicago area has 9.5 million people with only 31% of them living within the city limits. St. Louis' 2.8 million people only has 340,000 within its limits. Atlanta has 480,000 with 5.1 million in the region...the reason why Atlanta is a major player is b/c it has a nice principle city that is accompanied by a huge region. That's why no one talks a/b San Antonio in the same breath as Atlanta.

No one talks a/b Indianapolis' 700+K people in the same breath as San Francisco (a/b the same size) proper wise. The Bay Area region is a huge major player in American urbanism. Let's face it...SF is a major world player despite being smaller than Houston, or Dallas for that matter. I'm realistic a/b that. SF has more of a world reputation than our Texas cities...despite it being smaller. And the CMSA region of SF (and this is one of the few areas that I do agree with the use of CMSA) is actually bigger than DFW or Houston area...though I will still endorse MSA and UA's...I do think CMSA stat for the Bay area is more reflective of the region.

ANyway, back to the point: I thought it was impressive Dallas ranked #6 despite most of its office space being located outside of the proper city limits. That's all I was trying to convey...not that it's intentionally messing up by not keeping all of its highrises within the city limits...I think that's a market driven process. Corporations will choose to locate within or nearby a principle city, then they have to factor in costs of doing business and overhead. IT's a known fact that it's cheaper to build wider than taller. I am all for a corporation moving from Illinois to Plano if it means them locating here in the DFW area. I personally think a lot of DFW residents would also be happy if a company relocates to the area. It's not just a/b oh did it end up within Dallas city limits...the more important question since we're dealing with the same workforce pool is that did the company relocate to DFW area or Houston or Atlanta or Phoenix. We're not as much in competition with ourselves anymore versus being in competition with Chicago, Houston, Atlanta for companies.

[mpope409]

All of that means boo to me. You don't see New York City claiming Newark's skyline, do you?

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by Spade

A dialogue of the major cities of Texas.

Houstonians: It takes two large cities for the both of you to equal us. You can't add your suburban skylines and claim them for yourself.

Dallasites: Yet, you annexed your suburbs just to include their skylines within your city as well as have your city at 2.3 million people now. What if we did the same?

Austin & San Antonio: Shut up, both of you.

Clever, but Dallas would also have to direct the same line of criticism towards NYC for what they did to Brooklyn.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by Spade

A dialogue of the major cities of Texas.

Houstonians: It takes two large cities for the both of you to equal us. You can't add your suburban skylines and claim them for yourself.

Dallasites: Yet, you annexed your suburbs just to include their skylines within your city as well as have your city at 2.3 million people now. What if we did the same?

Austin & San Antonio: Shut up, both of you.

Haha, yet, most of Houston's skylines (Downtown, Uptown, TMC, Greenway Plaza) could all be well within Dallas' city limits.

You know, if you added Fort Worth and Dallas city limit populations and square mileage together, Houston would still have more density AND less land area.