Second Biggest City in Texas (Houston, Dallas: apartments, crime, zoning)

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

You have to be very slow to think that.....

That's BEYOND "slow"...

[JimBaker488]

FWIW, what I always find interesting is that DFW includes 7 of the 15 biggest cities in Texas while Houston metro has only one ?

[majicdonjuan]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

FWIW, what I always find interesting is that DFW includes 7 of the 15 biggest cities in Texas while Houston metro has only one ?

Well, 5 of those 7 cities are suburbs. In Houston, the majority of suburban development is in areas that are currently unincorporated (think NW/western Harris County and parts of Ft. Bend and Montgomery counties) or are in areas that are part of the city of Houston. In DFW, those areas are generally incorporated as cities and have grown with the metro.

Just different histories and approaches by the major cities. Had Houston not aggressively annexed in the 1970s, the COH population would be smaller and you would likely have multiple incorporated cities of 200k+. Had Dallas continued to annex during that same time, you'd see a similar development pattern and places like Plano, Richardson, Irving, Mesquite, etc. would be part of the city of Dallas.

Remember Houston proper has slightly more people than the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth combined and ~900K more people than Dallas alone. Those people would just be spread out among multiple suburban incorporated cities in an alternative development scenario.

[Bobloblawslawblog]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

FWIW, what I always find interesting is that DFW includes 7 of the 15 biggest cities in Texas while Houston metro has only one ?

That's because most of the suburbs in the DFW metroplex are incorporated cities, whereas most of Houston's suburbs are unincorporated areas serviced by the county. For example, what people refer to as "Katy", is mostly unincorporated Harris county land that has a population of over 300K. There is an actual, incorporated town of Katy, but it's population is only something like 15K. Most Houston suburbs are a bit hard to peg when it comes to counting heads.

Originally Posted by majicdonjuan

Had Houston not aggressively annexed in the 1970s, the COH population would be smaller and you would likely have multiple incorporated cities of 200k+. Had Dallas continued to annex during that same time, you'd see a similar development pattern and places like Plano, Richardson, Irving, Mesquite, etc. would be part of the city of Dallas.

I really wish Houston had done it the way Dallas did, and NOT gone annex-crazy. That's one thing about Houston that drives me nuts.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

You have to be very slow to think that.....

Your telling me. But some people do not educated themselves apparently.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by majicdonjuan

Well, 5 of those 7 cities are suburbs. In Houston, the majority of suburban development is in areas that are currently unincorporated (think NW/western Harris County and parts of Ft. Bend and Montgomery counties) or are in areas that are part of the city of Houston. In DFW, those areas are generally incorporated as cities and have grown with the metro.

Just different histories and approaches by the major cities. Had Houston not aggressively annexed in the 1970s, the COH population would be smaller and you would likely have multiple incorporated cities of 200k+. Had Dallas continued to annex during that same time, you'd see a similar development pattern and places like Plano, Richardson, Irving, Mesquite, etc. would be part of the city of Dallas.

Remember Houston proper has slightly more people than the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth combined and ~900K more people than Dallas alone. Those people would just be spread out among multiple suburban incorporated cities in an alternative development scenario.

It seems that if cities share a common border, they are effectively part of the same entity. For example,
Fort Worth and Arlington are part of the same city as are Dallas and Richardson. To me that seems consistent.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Bobloblawslawblog

That's because most of the suburbs in the DFW metroplex are incorporated cities, whereas most of Houston's suburbs are unincorporated areas serviced by the county. For example, what people refer to as "Katy", is mostly unincorporated Harris county land that has a population of over 300K. There is an actual, incorporated town of Katy, but it's population is only something like 15K. Most Houston suburbs are a bit hard to peg when it comes to counting heads.



I really wish Houston had done it the way Dallas did, and NOT gone annex-crazy. That's one thing about Houston that drives me nuts.

I don't mind how large the city of Houston is, but I wish these unincorporated areas were their own cities. Cities like Katy and Richmond, Humble, etc., should have annexed more land early on.

[Bobloblawslawblog]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

It seems that if cities share a common border, they are effectively part of the same entity. For example,
Fort Worth and Arlington are part of the same city as are Dallas and Richardson. To me that seems consistent.

You mean part of the same MSA? Arlington and Ft. Worth (especially FW), along with Plano, Richardson, Irving, Garland, etc. are all separate cities that make up the DFW metroplex. Fort Worth especially is it's own city, with it's own "wheel-and-spoke" freeway network, it's own built-up core area, it's own economy, and above all else... it's own identity and culture. That's why it's called the DFW metroplex, and not just the "D" metroplex. I'm sure JJG can tell you more about this.

Dallas and Fort Worth, not that long ago, were separate metros whose suburbs grew together to form one big metro. I can even remember in my lifetime when there was lots of open, undeveloped farmland between the two, and I'm not that old.

Originally Posted by Trae713

I don't mind how large the city of Houston is, but I wish these unincorporated areas were their own cities. Cities like Katy and Richmond, Humble, etc., should have annexed more land early on.

The size bothers me because most of it is land that was annexed in the last 40 years, and it makes Houston look more suburban than it actually is. It reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes and skews a lot of statistics. If Houston had kept it's 1960's city limits in place but had the exact same growth patterns up to the present day, you would see a much more manageable and cohesive urban city, with a much higher level of density. Sure, it wouldn't be #4 in the charts, but that wouldn't bother me one bit. It would probably still be the biggest city in Texas, with a population of roughly 1.5 million (which would bump it all the way down to the #5 spot nationally). Not only would it be more manageable, but taxes would probably be lower as well. The MSA would still be the same size, if size is what's important.

I'm not talking about shrinking it down to Miami or Atlanta levels, just down to what it was prior to the annexation fury that began in the 70's. I don't know the exact square mileage, but I'm pretty sure that area-wise, it was roughly half the size that it is today... which would put it right around 300 sq. miles. To me, that seems like a nice, ideal amount of space for a major U.S. city. 600+ just seems a bit... excessive.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by Bobloblawslawblog

You mean part of the same MSA? Arlington and Ft. Worth (especially FW), along with Plano, Richardson, Irving, Garland, etc. are all separate cities that make up the DFW metroplex. Fort Worth especially is it's own city, with it's own "wheel-and-spoke" freeway network, it's own built-up core area, it's own economy, and above all else... it's own identity and culture. That's why it's called the DFW metroplex, and not just the "D" metroplex. I'm sure JJG can tell you more about this.
Dallas and Fort Worth, not that long ago, were separate metros whose suburbs grew together to form one big metro. I can even remember in my lifetime when there was lots of open, undeveloped farmland between the two, and I'm not that old.

But the FTW/Arlington area and the Dallas-Plano-Irving metro area are still broken out into seperate categories for economic classifications in many instances. And as you point out, Fort Worth is a separate entity with its own culture, history, and infrastructure just as Dallas is. What do they share besides DFW airport ?

[Bobloblawslawblog]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

But the FTW/Arlington area and the Dallas-Plano-Irving metro area are still broken out into seperate categories for economic classifications in many instances. And as you point out, Fort Worth is a separate entity with its own culture, history, and infrastructure just as Dallas is. What do they share besides DFW airport ?

A few interchangeable suburbs and interchangeable freeway networks. I'm confused. I thought you were saying earlier that they seem like one connected city?