Better place to live?? Dallas metro or Houston metro? (Spring: corporate, counties)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by justme02

For real!!! Yes, the Houston area has more trees. Dallas also has trees but its on prarie land. I would think these things are obvious and would not need to be discussed.

For me, what Dallas lacks in trees, it makes up for in lakes and hills. I did not grow up around thick layers of trees so it was not an adjustment for me. When I lived in Chicago, trees are also few and far between. Its not as if Dallas is devoid of any physical beauty.

Its because Al Green is obsessed with trees and he knows that it would spark another tree fight if he mentioned the trees in the Woodlands.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

You people confuse me??? Dallas is sometimes consider barren and treeless, but Sugarland isn't???? Dallas is more lush than Sugar Land.

They're about the same. Lived in both, live in Sugar Land now, and I cant imagine Sugar Land in my head without trees. The first thing I think of when I think of Sugar Land are the trees lining the streets in fall when leaves change colors.

Absolutely gorgeous time of the year.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by justme02

For real!!! Yes, the Houston area has more trees. Dallas also has trees but its on prarie land. I would think these things are obvious and would not need to be discussed.

For me, what Dallas lacks in trees, it makes up for in lakes and hills. I did not grow up around thick layers of trees so it was not an adjustment for me. When I lived in Chicago, trees are also few and far between. Its not as if Dallas is devoid of any physical beauty.

Part of Houston's metro sits on a prairie too...far West Houston, Katy, & Sealy.

Even parts of southern Houston resemble a prairie such as areas around Sugar Land & Pearland though they are technically classified as Coastal Plains because there is very little elevation change & are near the coast.

Areas outside of Chicago & the rest of the Midwest remind me of North Texas in lots of ways.

Places like Sugar Land & Plano share many similarities.

Its all relative really.

Houston is the most geographically diverse city in Texas, if not the whole country.

Everything from swamps, to bayous, to forests, to prairie, to beaches, to lakes can all be found in & around Houston.

In Dallas the scenery pretty much stays the same...wide open prairie with a few wooded areas near waterways. The vegetation in North Texas ranges from scrub brush, to mesquite, to cedars, to elms.

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by justme02

Galveston is not a suburb so that is irrelevant. In DFW, Las Collinas and Southlake both have things in common with the Woodlands.

Never said Galveston was a burb..Galveston is in the Greater Houston area. Galveston operates just as identitical to other areas of Greater Houston that are consider suburbs

Originally Posted by AlGreen

galveston hardly counts as a "suburb". in reality, it was a major city and port, long before houston ever was. it just so happens to be considered a part of the metro area. but galveston should never be considered a suburb of houston

the woodlands is very nice, true, but it isn't all that, IMO. my first visit to the town center, i was not overly impressed, and definitely not with the actual mall itself. i think it's the trees that does it for everybody.

WHATTTTTTTTTTTT...You mean to tell me that Galveston the city that was considered the Manhattan of the southwest. The City that could have been bigger then Houston if not for the great storm of 1900. That Galveston whattttt...hmmm I don't know why I was assuming Galveston, NM

Wasn't calling Galveston a burb...yes I compared it to burbs because it operates as such..It supports the larger city which is Houston..along with other burbs,sub-divisions,areas around Houston that make up the Greater area of Houston.

The same as the DFW area..you think all the cities in DFW area that are labeled suburbs sprung up over night. Spring,TX is considered a suburb of Houston which grew out of Old Spring Town and has just as much history as Galveston and the city of Houston.

Arlington,TX was founded in the late 1800's and operated as it's own city before it became apart of the DFW metroplex..ppl still consider it as one of Dallas big burbs. What about Denton. does it not contribute to the DFW metroplex area?

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Old Town Spring is not that stereotypical.

Old Town Spring, Texas

Spring is one of Houston's most valuable little known gems.
Spring cannot be lumped in with the other burbs

I think it's a big difference between Old Town Spring and Spring..Old Town Spring is a little part of the cities history...and it's very unique and unlike some sterotypical suburbs. But once you go outside of Old Town Spring it ends up looking other burbs in other parts of the city. The same is with Humble. Even though the historic area of Humble is nowhere near as impressive as Old Town Spring, it's actually quite lame.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

Part of Houston's metro sits on a prairie too...far West Houston, Katy, & Sealy.

Even parts of southern Houston resemble a prairie such as areas around Sugar Land & Pearland though they are technically classified as Coastal Plains because there is very little elevation change & are near the coast.

Areas outside of Chicago & the rest of the Midwest remind me of North Texas in lots of ways.

Places like Sugar Land & Plano share many similarities.

Its all relative really.

Houston is the most geographically diverse city in Texas, if not the whole country.

Everything from swamps, to bayous, to forests, to prairie, to beaches, to lakes can all be found in & around Houston.

In Dallas the scenery pretty much stays the same...wide open prairie with a few wooded areas near waterways. The vegetation in North Texas ranges from scrub brush, to mesquite, to cedars, to elms.

Texas? Yes. Country? No. Los Angeles has Houston beat easily. Agree on everything else though. Houston has more geographical diversity than DFW, in my opinion. For the most part, all of DFW looks the same. Just some sides are hillier than others. Though, the Fort Worth side does have a more barren and wide open look, while the Dallas side seems more green and built up. In Houston, you have wide open prairies, bayous, lakes, rolling prairie, pine forests, the bay, and beaches. In DFW, you have rolling prairie and lakes, with mostly shrubby natural trees everywhere, except in older areas where the trees were planted a long time ago. Agree on the Dallas suburbs looking similar to other areas in the Midwest/Great Plains. You can take Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and western Chicago suburbs and place them in the Dallas area and not know the difference. The terrain is the exact same between the different areas.

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

I think it's a big difference between Old Town Spring and Spring..Old Town Spring is a little part of the cities history...and it's very unique and unlike some sterotypical suburbs. But once you go outside of Old Town Spring it ends up looking other burbs in other parts of the city. The same is with Humble. Even though the historic area of Humble is nowhere near as impressive as Old Town Spring, it's actually quite lame.

Too bad Spring isn't even a city, but is instead an unincorporated area. It should be its own city though. Along with the rest of the one million plus people living in unincorporated NW Harris County. If that area was divided into a few cities, Houston would have a group of Planos up there.

[AlGreen]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

They're about the same. Lived in both, live in Sugar Land now, and I cant imagine Sugar Land in my head without trees. The first thing I think of when I think of Sugar Land are the trees lining the streets in fall when leaves change colors.

Absolutely gorgeous time of the year.

exactly.

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Texas? Yes. Country? No. Los Angeles has Houston beat easily. Agree on everything else though. Houston has more geographical diversity than DFW, in my opinion. For the most part, all of DFW looks the same. Just some sides are hillier than others. Though, the Fort Worth side does have a more barren and wide open look, while the Dallas side seems more green and built up. In Houston, you have wide open prairies, bayous, lakes, rolling prairie, pine forests, the bay, and beaches. In DFW, you have rolling prairie and lakes, with mostly shrubby natural trees everywhere, except in older areas where the trees were planted a long time ago. Agree on the Dallas suburbs looking similar to other areas in the Midwest/Great Plains. You can take Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and western Chicago suburbs and place them in the Dallas area and not know the difference. The terrain is the exact same between the different areas.



Too bad Spring isn't even a city, but is instead an unincorporated area. It should be its own city though. Along with the rest of the one million plus people living in unincorporated NW Harris County. If that area was divided into a few cities, Houston would have a group of Planos up there.

Well damn this whole time I thought Spring was a city since people always refer to as a city. I figured areas like Aldine-Westfield were considered unincorporated areas. hmmmmmm interesting

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

They're about the same. Lived in both, live in Sugar Land now, and I cant imagine Sugar Land in my head without trees. The first thing I think of when I think of Sugar Land are the trees lining the streets in fall when leaves change colors.

Absolutely gorgeous time of the year.

I wouldn't say they are the same; Dallas is a much more established city so of course it would have much more tree coverage.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

Never said Galveston was a burb..Galveston is in the Greater Houston area. Galveston operates just as identitical to other areas of Greater Houston that are consider suburbs

Sorry. We were talking about suburbs so I thought thats what you meant.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

In DFW, you have rolling prairie and lakes, with mostly shrubby natural trees everywhere, except in older areas where the trees were planted a long time ago. Agree on the Dallas suburbs looking similar to other areas in the Midwest/Great Plains. You can take Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and western Chicago suburbs and place them in the Dallas area and not know the difference. The terrain is the exact same between the different areas.

I agree with this for the most part. The main differences between a Dallas suburb (like say Frisco) and a Chicago suburb (like Plainfield) is that the Chicago burb is flatter and and Dallas burb isnt covered with snow for 3 months out of the year.

Overall the Chicago area is much flatter than DFW, but beyond that, I do agree.