Better place to live?? Dallas metro or Houston metro? (Richmond: location, skyline)

[Exult.Q36]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

Maybe around Atlanta Metro, but not in D/FW...sorry man.

North Texas' trees are a joke compared to Southeast Texas'.

Everytime I'm in Dallas or Fort Worth it reminds me of why I don't ever wanna live there again.

I've got a sweetgum tree in my backyard here in Tyler that's taller than anything I've EVER seen in North Texas. Its around 70-80 feet tall, but then again this is East Texas.

Tyler is more like Houston in that regard than Dallas.

Ok Mr. Hyperbole ...Southeast Texas you know metro Matt has some treeless areas as well and they aren't small pockets by any stretch of the imaginary. DFW isn't the most forested area in the country but it isn't exactly a desert either. You never seen a 80 ft tree in DFW you are a liar. I have seen 80 foot planted pine trees in DFW and you are the same poster that mention your friend in East Fort Worth had a 70-80 ft pine tree in his yard.

[AK123]

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.

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Dallas is a much more established city so of course it would have much more tree coverage.

You are mixing up Sugar Land with somewhere else. Is Sugar Land suddenly not a part of the Houston metro, with similar soil and rain/weather patterns? Like I said before, with the exception of the farming areas and areas developers have leveled for new developments, Sugar Land is full of trees (including naturally occurring... the area was even named Oakland Plantation before it was Sugar Land.)

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by AK123

You are mixing up Sugar Land with somewhere else. Is Sugar Land suddenly not a part of the Houston metro, with similar soil and rain/weather patterns? Like I said before, with the exception of the farming areas and areas developers have leveled for new developments, Sugar Land is full of trees (including naturally occurring... the area was even named Oakland Plantation before it was Sugar Land.)

If Sugar Land is full of trees; than so is Waco and Dallas. I don't think Sugar Land is treeless, but I don't see how people can say Dallas is barren and treeless, but turn around and say Sugar Land is lush. Neither are no Woodlands.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by kdogg817

Ok Mr. Hyperbole ...Southeast Texas you know metro Matt has some treeless areas as well and they aren't small pockets by any stretch of the imaginary. DFW isn't the most forested area in the country but it isn't exactly a desert either. You never seen a 80 ft tree in DFW you are a liar. I have seen 80 foot planted pine trees in DFW and you are the same poster that mention your friend in East Fort Worth had a 70-80 ft pine tree in his yard.

Yes, my cousin does have some planted pine trees in her back yard in East Fort Worth, but they are not 70-80 feet tall...not even close.

Where in Southeast Texas is it not forested besides maybe Port Aurthur & other such areas closer to the coast? Beaumont is forested north of I-10 where just south of there is becomes more coastal plains-y & they grow rice.

Interstate 10 is roughly the dividing line of where the Piney Woods of Southeast Texas meets the Gulf Coast Plains.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

the only person they are laughing at is you.

you search for apartments in the SW you get apartments on westheimer. You go the chamber of commerce cite, lookie there, it shows that westheimer is in the southwest.

you are the only one on here I see that use lazy terms to describe areas of Houston. west and east??? how lazy is that???

Dude Korea town is in the northwest, westheimer is in the south west

LOL, you're on your own with this one. Again, you act like you have an army of people agreeing with you, but you're actually all alone. LOL at Koreatown being considered Northwest Houston. That's west bro. Learn2Read.

Edit: And I'll even give you Westheimer as the extreme northern boundaries for what most Houstonians consider Southwest Houston (because that is even stretching it), but to say the areas around Memorial City Mall is Southwest Houston is just so damn funny. You are the ONLY person I have EVER heard call that part of Houston, "Southwest Houston". And then just across I-10, you want to call it "Northwest Houston". Please.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

If Sugar Land is full of trees; than so is Waco and Dallas. I don't think Sugar Land is treeless, but I don't see how people can say Dallas is barren and treeless, but turn around and say Sugar Land is lush. Neither are no Woodlands.

I can name areas of Dallas city limits that are larger (or near larger) than the city limits of Sugar Land that don't even have trees.

Can you name even 3 square miles of Sugar Land's total 24 Square Miles that doesn't have trees? I cant and that's with 14 years of living there that I cant name one spot in Sugar Land that's missing trees. Even inside the town centers and the urban corridors of Sugar Land manage to have trees that both Dallas & Houston can learn from for their Downtown's respectively. Neither Dallas nor Sugar Land are The Woodlands, because The Woodland capitalizes on taller more lush trees in close proximity to one another than both Dallas & Sugar Land.
But come on dude lets be real here, you cant compare how lush a city is to a suburb, especially a suburb that developed in a previously wooded land area.

Dallas city limits does have some open land without trees. Sugar Land overall has a higher percentage of trees than Houston city limits. Arguing this is just wont get the results you would want.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

I can name areas of Dallas city limits that are larger (or near larger) than the city limits of Sugar Land that don't even have trees.

Can you name even 3 square miles of Sugar Land's total 24 Square Miles that doesn't have trees? I cant and that's with 14 years of living there that I cant name one spot in Sugar Land that's missing trees. Even inside the town centers and the urban corridors of Sugar Land manage to have trees that both Dallas & Houston can learn from for their Downtown's respectively. Neither Dallas nor Sugar Land are The Woodlands, because The Woodland capitalizes on taller more lush trees in close proximity to one another than both Dallas & Sugar Land.
But come on dude lets be real here, you cant compare how lush a city is to a suburb, especially a suburb that developed in a previously wooded land area.

Dallas city limits does have some open land without trees. Sugar Land overall has a higher percentage of trees than Houston city limits. Arguing this is just wont get the results you would want.

I could be speaking about Dallas suburbs and still think the same. Sugar Land looks like Dallas suburbs. My purpose is that Dallas area is always criticized about it's trees, but people are calling Sugar Land lush and plentiful.

Anyways, this debate is lame and I think we're kind of agreeing with each other anyway.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

I can name areas of Dallas city limits that are larger (or near larger) than the city limits of Sugar Land that don't even have trees.

Can you name even 3 square miles of Sugar Land's total 24 Square Miles that doesn't have trees? I cant and that's with 14 years of living there that I cant name one spot in Sugar Land that's missing trees. Even inside the town centers and the urban corridors of Sugar Land manage to have trees that both Dallas & Houston can learn from for their Downtown's respectively. Neither Dallas nor Sugar Land are The Woodlands, because The Woodland capitalizes on taller more lush trees in close proximity to one another than both Dallas & Sugar Land.
But come on dude lets be real here, you cant compare how lush a city is to a suburb, especially a suburb that developed in a previously wooded land area.

Dallas city limits does have some open land without trees. Sugar Land overall has a higher percentage of trees than Houston city limits. Arguing this is just wont get the results you would want.

I think what he is saying are naturally forested areas like The Woodlands and Kingwood versus areas like Sugar Land and Dallas where the developers planted the trees a long time ago (or brought them in from other areas) and now they are maturing. And you can't use the square mile argument with Dallas and Sugar Land, since Dallas' city limits are much larger than Sugar Land's.

[AlGreen]

there are parts of dallas that are as green as sugar land, but the latter is still more lush, simply because of the fact that southeast texas is more humid and receives much more rainfall than north texas

of course dallas isn't barren, but it still isn't as green as sugar land

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

I think what he is saying are naturally forested areas like The Woodlands and Kingwood versus areas like Sugar Land and Dallas where the developers planted the trees a long time ago (or brought them in from other areas) and now they are maturing. And you can't use the square mile argument with Dallas and Sugar Land, since Dallas' city limits are much larger than Sugar Land's.

You're getting me wrong dude.

What I mean saying is that you cant compare any suburb to any city like that. The city is built up and built out with concrete around the areas. Of course it limits the city whether its land area is 48 square miles or 700 square miles.

Sugar Land is a suburb, a neighborhood residential, family friendly place. Every median in the road had trees lined with it. Every place you go has trees lining the area because well that's just its character, its a family environment, nice little cozy place, not a big city like Houston or Dallas. In Houston & Dallas you can have trees lining medians but not every median will have it, not as much of the overall city's land areas (by percentages) will have trees because they're built out like nuts.

Sugar Land (Katy, Plano, Irving) are all going to be more lush green because they're suburbs, family friendly areas made to look attractive for real estate reasons with trees lining their medians and streets, and parks, and reserves, and trees in their town centers, and all that good stuff. Houston & Dallas are cities and function as so. Now saying Houston is more lush green than Dallas, that can be said.

But Sugar Land the suburb shouldn't be compared to Dallas the city. Ever. (LOL)