Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay so all that means is that scenic areas are closer to the city center of Dallas. Does it really matter where the gaps are? Dallas and DFW both support large populations so with all of these gaps and wide open spaces here (that Houston claims we have) and still having a population nearing 7 million that must mean that there are more dense pockets in DFW than in Houston. Right?
Trust me if you are hanging out in the city of Dallas, the fact that there's a field in Grand Prairie really isn't going to affect your life much.
The land around Loop 12 in Far SW Dallas and in Grand Prairie is mostly Trinity watershed or hills. This land will most likely never be developed or can't be and why would it be if other areas can be developed. Dallas is building a lot in it's core I would much rather that than encouraging even more suburban sprawl out to fill in some field in Grand Prairie. I understand that you all are trying to make this look as negative as possible toward Dallas, but there are obvious reasons that land is not developed and like i've said in a previous post it's not that much of a gap anyway. You definitely don't feel like you're out in the country somewhere. This is also a factor in why Houston has so many more people in it's city limits than Dallas, the geography/topography allows for more growth. Dallas is divided up by flood plains and levees. We just build around the undesirable/undevelopable land. Is that such a bad thing? It really is amazing how you all can turn anything about Dallas into something so negative.
Please... you can't throw rocks and then try to hide your hands. That excuse might fly for the mountain creek lake side of loop 12 below I30 but the east side is sufficient for development(as there are residents there) Its just underdeveloped. Don't attempt to change the narrative now into some noble cause of Dallasites preserving greenspace or avoiding areas that can't be developed. The Corps of Engineers ruled the levees in Dallas insufficient and yet west Dallas is still being prepped for more developement despite the potential for disaster. My response was to your assertion that its "very sparse and countrylike" between Houston and Galveston when most of that area isn't even located within the city of Houston. I only countered with a very "sparse and countrylike" area within the city of Dallas. The fact is that YOU attempted to make "sparse and countrylike" a negative when it came to Houston's metro.
I disagree. It may seem that way because Dallas does not build up on the freeways as much as Houston does. You see the development from Houston to Galveston and you think its consistent but its not. You get off the interstate and the gaps begin going west. Pearland is just starting to build up but South and west of the is nothing more than nature running its course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R1070
This comparison is actually backward and totally proves the Houston bias! It is fully developed from Dallas to FT Worth along 183. Going from Houston to Galveston can be very countrylike and sparse with wide open fields. Airport Freeway in DFW you may find a random vacant lot where something was demo'd for new construction.
Ok i stand corrected. Although it has filled in quite considerably along the drive along 45 between Houston and Galveston, there are still small gaps. The area off 646 in Dickinson is exploding with new development and has really closed the gap between League city and Galveston. And add the new Tanger outlets which will serve to close the gap even further.
So yes, i will retract my statement and admit there are gaps some gaps, but the difference is, Galveston is an added commodity for the Houston area. It's not like Houston really relies on Galveston to function as a singular area. Houston doesn't have to use Galveston's museums, economy, or any of its attributes to be able to stomp with the big dawgs. When cities do this, any gaps in its overall area just goes to show there's distinctive boundaries between the cities and how disjointed they are.
Okay so all that means is that scenic areas are closer to the city center of Dallas. Does it really matter where the gaps are? Dallas and DFW both support large populations so with all of these gaps and wide open spaces here (that Houston claims we have) and still having a population nearing 7 million that must mean that there are more dense pockets in DFW than in Houston. Right?
No, it just means the DFW urban area takes up more space and is less dense than the Houston UA. You just dont get wide open gaps that feels like you're rolling through the countryside in Houston like in DFW. Some people like that though. Spur 408 is a nice drive, but i enjoy 75 much better.
Quote:
Trust me if you are hanging out in the city of Dallas, the fact that there's a field in Grand Prairie really isn't going to affect your life much.
U mad?
Quote:
The land around Loop 12 in Far SW Dallas and in Grand Prairie is mostly Trinity watershed or hills. This land will most likely never be developed or can't be and why would it be if other areas can be developed. Dallas is building a lot in it's core I would much rather that than encouraging even more suburban sprawl out to fill in some field in Grand Prairie. I understand that you all are trying to make this look as negative as possible toward Dallas, but there are obvious reasons that land is not developed and like i've said in a previous post it's not that much of a gap anyway. You definitely don't feel like you're out in the country somewhere. This is also a factor in why Houston has so many more people in it's city limits than Dallas, the geography/topography allows for more growth. Dallas is divided up by flood plains and levees. We just build around the undesirable/undevelopable land. Is that such a bad thing? It really is amazing how you all can turn anything about Dallas into something so negative.
No, the only thing people were saying, that is true, is that DFW is more wide open and does not have as much consistent development as Houston. It's not a knock on DFW. Yes, geography plays a part, but most of DFW does not look like far SW Dallas County and the areas are just underdeveloped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
I disagree. It may seem that way because Dallas does not build up on the freeways as much as Houston does. You see the development from Houston to Galveston and you think its consistent but its not. You get off the interstate and the gaps begin going west. Pearland is just starting to build up but South and west of the is nothing more than nature running its course.
Not really. Going west, you hit Friendswood before getting into Pearland. Next to Pearland is Missouri City and Fresno. The gaps are filling in, in between the freeways, but along them is pretty consistent. Again, different tham DFW, where there are gaps on the freeways. I just drove back from McKinney, and even it feels like its on a little island away from Allen and suburbs south of it.
Bravo!...i couldnt have said it better than this. Nairobi this is My point exactly. I think DFW being larger than the Houston area is the hardest pill for Houstonians to swallow. I think thats the reason they try and seperate Dallas and Ft.Worth,because thats the only way Houston can win.
Oh,and Nairobi Im still waiting on Houston's list of TOD's so I can retract my statement.
Until Houston can figure out how to deal with the speculative real estate investors who have vultured much of the desirable land around MetroRail lines, you won't see a list. They've made it nearly financially impossible to purchase the amount of land needed for TOD's.
Please... you can't throw rocks and then try to hide your hands. That excuse might fly for the mountain creek lake side of loop 12 below I30 but the east side is sufficient for development(as there are residents there) Its just underdeveloped. Don't attempt to change the narrative now into some noble cause of Dallasites preserving greenspace or avoiding areas that can't be developed. The Corps of Engineers ruled the levees in Dallas insufficient and yet west Dallas is still being prepped for more developement despite the potential for disaster. My response was to your assertion that its "very sparse and countrylike" between Houston and Galveston when most of that area isn't even located within the city of Houston. I only countered with a very "sparse and countrylike" area within the city of Dallas. The fact is that YOU attempted to make "sparse and countrylike" a negative when it came to Houston's metro.
There are of course areas of Dallas that have rural character but the impression from the Houston posters that this is just a Dallas thing and it is not around Houston is just flat out wrong. West Dallas is being prepped for redevelopment and the city of Dallas has completed all repairs mandated for the levees and the beautiful new bridge is now open. We are ready for business!
I'd love for someone that is a little more tech savvy to post google satellite images to show that overall these "gaps" between Dallas and FW arent' that big and then compare those to the gaps in Northern and Southern parts of Houston. It really isn't much different.
There are definitely less developed parts of Greater Houston, but our trees still give it a more filled in look.
This is the case around ATL too. I completely agree with this.
I grew up in Ohio so I kind of like the open range look of certain parts of the Metroplex. It stirs up images of the old western frontier. I love to drive west out of Ft Worth and it is open range then it turns into the Palo Pinto area which i think is just gorgeous. Very cool looking there especially when the skies are clear blue.
It's funny how quickly a point being made in this thread turns into something entirely different and irrelevant to the original topic. The discussion about "gaps" in the development in DFW was not started or originally stated as a positive or negative thing for DFW. It was about how as time goes on, the ability to make the distinction of being in a Dallas influenced area or Fort Worth influenced area is becoming less and less. Municipalities lines are becoming more irrelevant in DFW. Yes, I'm sure there are gaps in both DFW and Houston's developmental patterns to an extent. Who freakin' cares either way? Personally, I don't mind if there's not a McDonald's, a gas station, or strip mall on every single corner. You mean there's some actual land left in Dallas and Houston?? Something natural to look at?? Oh, gee, what a concept! How on Earth is that a BAD thing????
It's funny how quickly a point being made in this thread turns into something entirely different and irrelevant to the original topic. The discussion about "gaps" in the development in DFW was not started or originally stated as a positive or negative thing for DFW. It was about how as time goes on, the ability to make the distinction of being in a Dallas influenced area or Fort Worth influenced area is becoming less and less. Municipalities lines are becoming more irrelevant in DFW. Yes, I'm sure there are gaps in both DFW and Houston's developmental patterns to an extent. Who freakin' cares either way? Personally, I don't mind if there's not a McDonald's, a gas station, or strip mall on every single corner. You mean there's some actual land left in Dallas and Houston?? Something natural to look at?? Oh, gee, what a concept! How on Earth is that a BAD thing????
I would love for Dallas County to preserve more of this land. There's plenty of other areas to build up around DFW.
It's funny how quickly a point being made in this thread turns into something entirely different and irrelevant to the original topic. The discussion about "gaps" in the development in DFW was not started or originally stated as a positive or negative thing for DFW. It was about how as time goes on, the ability to make the distinction of being in a Dallas influenced area or Fort Worth influenced area is becoming less and less. Municipalities lines are becoming more irrelevant in DFW. Yes, I'm sure there are gaps in both DFW and Houston's developmental patterns to an extent. Who freakin' cares either way? Personally, I don't mind if there's not a McDonald's, a gas station, or strip mall on every single corner. You mean there's some actual land left in Dallas and Houston?? Something natural to look at?? Oh, gee, what a concept! How on Earth is that a BAD thing????
Good point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Corps of Engineers ruled the levees in Dallas insufficient and yet west Dallas is still being prepped for more developement despite the potential for disaster. My response was to your assertion that its "very sparse and countrylike" between Houston and Galveston when most of that area isn't even located within the city of Houston. I only countered with a very "sparse and countrylike" area within the city of Dallas. The fact is that YOU attempted to make "sparse and countrylike" a negative when it came to Houston's metro.
