Willy1

Here is a link to the story

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/real_estat...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Long Beach isn't a suburb though. I would even say Burbank isn't a suburb. The rest are (even Riverside).

Long Beach and Burbank are most definitely suburbs of LA... Just about all the major cities in SoCal are suburbs of LA, except for San Diego and its surrounding suburbs. Long Beach has over 400K, but it is definitely a suburb of LA.

I wouldn't really call Arlington that much of a suburb with FW. Arlington along with GP are kind of in the middle. A lot of people in both cities commuter to either the Dallas side or FW side.

I've always considered Arlington and GP suburbs because neither of them are the main anchor of their respecitve metro areas. And, the fact that they do have large portions of their populations that commute to either Dallas or Fort Worth is what makes them suburbs. Fort Worth has historically been the center of the Tarrant County end of the metroplex and is the county seat... that's why it is NOT a suburb of Dallas. Dallas, obviously isn't a suburb either. Arlington and GP also lack any sort of public transportation system. Arlington still relies on FW's transportation system; the T. I think another ear mark of whether a city is a suburb or not is whether or not the city was formed as a suburb of another major city - if it's very existance is owed to a nearby larger city. I think both GP and Arlington fit that description. Neither city would have grown into what they are today without the surrounding cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. Think about it, if Arlington was a stand-alone city without the rest of the Metroplex, it wouldn't have Six Flags, Texas Rangers, or the Dallas Cowboys.... Those entertainment complexes were built in Arlington because of Arlinton's proximatity to the much larger population of DFW.

IMO, there are no cities in DFW other than Dallas and FW that are not suburbs regardless of how large they are.

I went to DFW this summer and had a great time. I liked Ft. Worth a lot and I asked my dad why is it still a subureb of Dallas and he told me it never was. I was shocked to find out it actually had its own suburbs. But Dallas is Dallas and many people will think Ft. Worth as Dallas' largest suburb no matter what. Thats just the way it is. I always wondered what city makes more money of the cowboys? Does Dallas just get name recognition since they dont really play in Dallas city limits.

No one in DFW thinks of FW as being a suburb of Dallas - that really only happens with people outside of the DFW Metroplex and more so with people from outside Texas. Arlington likes to claim that it's not a suburb either... but it is a suburb of FW and it is also the largest suburb (est. pop 364,300) in Texas. Dallas is the county seat of Dallas County, FW is the County Seat of Tarrant County. For many years, the Dallas and Fort Worth Metro's were not counted as one Metro area. It wasn't until the Dallas and FW commuter patterns (the number of folks living in one city and commuting to the other for work) hit a high enough percentage that the U.S Census Bureau designated the area as one metro area. Because the two cities grew together into one larger metro region, we have some very large suburbs. In fact the state's 3 largest suburbs are in DFW; Arlington, Plano, and Garland. Despite being a suburb, Arlington is the 7th largest city in Texas. Plano is number 9 and Garland is number 10.

As for the Dallas Cowboys, FW really hasn't ever profited from the Cowboys since they have always resided in Dallas County. Now that they are moving to Tarrant County, however, FW might see some proceeds in the form of more tourist and more hotel rooms rented. But, the Cowboys new stadium is being built in Arlington so the majority of the proceeds from Cowboy games will remain in Arlington. FW will benefit from the new cowboy stadium when the super bowl hits because Arlington isn't big enough to provide all the hotel space needed, so the entire metroplex will benefit from the superbowl being played at the new stadium.

I am a FW native from a multi-generation FW native family chiming in here... FW is FW's biggest problem. There has always been a very deep-seeded anti-Dallas mentality in FW. Actually, Dallas started the rivalry way back in the day by saying that "FW was such a sleepy town that a panther was seen sleeping on the Courthouse steps", and thus the original city monikier of "Panther City" was born. That set in motion a rivalry between the two cities that, although not as intense as days gone by, still exist in true hard-core FW natives. Unfortunately, some of those same folks are the same people who "make things happen" in FW. You have to remember that Amon Carter - the founder of the FW Star Telegram - also struck back at Dallas with his own unique and infectious sense of FW Civic Pride. Legend has it that whenever Amon Carter had to go to Dallas for business, he always took his lunch with him so he wouldn't spend any of his money in Dallas, thus contributing to the Dallas economy. Of course, in the early 70's the cities worked together to build DFW Airport, which turned a page in history of the DFW Metroplex by marking the first time Dallas and FW combined forces to create what is still the largest economic engine in the DFW Metroplex. In a nutshell, the cities have always had a rivalry and deep seeded pride in being different from each other. Dallas has always considered itself the cosmopolitain side of the metroplex, and FW has always prided itself on being the laid back, down to Earth side of DFW.

But, times they are a changin... Dallas was once the 6th or 7th largest city in America and over the past 10 years has started moving down the list. FW, on the other hand, was the 29th largest city about 10 years ago and just recently passed Baltimore to become the 17th largest city in the U.S. and is currently the fastest growing city over 500,000 in the country. Some experts are now predeicting that FW may surpass Dallas in population in the next 15 to 20 years. However, even if FW continues to grow at its current rate, I doubt FW will ever have a skyline that rivals Dallas or Houston. FW has always been very slow and conservateive about building trends. I think FW will follow the pattern more similar to San Antonio or Phoenix where the population is much larger than the skyline seems to indicate. FW seems to have a glass ceiling at the 40 story mark. FW hasn't built a building over 25 stories since the early 80's... The Omni is breaking that streak... and hopefully someone else will build something over 40 stories, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that....

That's some really unsatisfying food you're serving. You need to consider land area of cities and population density in your analysis. SF, after all is just 47 square miles. FW just about matches SF in population, but it takes about seven times as much land or 281 square miles. Chew on that. Both Dallas and Ft. Worth need to improve their density figures and worry less about overall totals.

That's a personal preference issue... I personally think that having THAT many people in that close quarters is too close for comfort. Hey, I'm a Texan so I like my elbow room. That's probably why I live in DFW not SF or NYC. And, the fact that DFW is one of the least densely populated big cities isn't new news... everyone knows that. I never said anything about density. Most Sun Belt cities are sprawling cities, not dense cities... LA - Houston - DFW - Atlanta - Pheonix - even OK City... all very sprawling cities. Hey, LA is a city of sprawl... that doesn't stop it from being the second largest city in the country. Bottom line here - there are not two cities that are totally alike. But cities, like the people who live in them, do sort of follow trends. The cities along the Eastern Sea Board are older, mass transit cities. Cities in the northern midwest tend to be older industrial cities (Detroit, Chicago, etc). Cities in the NWest are typically landlocked by some sort of geographic boundary - a bay, a mountain range, etc. (Seattle, San Fran) and, Sunbelt Cities are all about the sprawl.

Willy1, have you ever been to downtown FW, besides Sundance Square? I ride my bike through downtown every Sunday morning; the homeless are sleeping on the pedestrian bridges over the Trinity, they are milling about the streets (one just recently stabbed another in front of the jail, no less), they infest the water gardens, and they are as aggressive for asking (demanding) for money as their colleagues in Dallas.

As for FW's growth, it is based on two things: Annexation and Alliance. The farmland/sprawl area around Alliance is booming, I should know, I live there. The Alliance area, not the core and not gas, is what is driving FW's growth. Well, the Alliance area did get a JCPenney and Cheddar

Willy1, have you ever been to downtown FW, besides Sundance Square? I ride my bike through downtown every Sunday morning; the homeless are sleeping on the pedestrian bridges over the Trinity, they are milling about the streets (one just recently stabbed another in front of the jail, no less), they infest the water gardens, and they are as aggressive for asking (demanding) for money as their colleagues in Dallas.

As for FW's growth, it is based on two things: Annexation and Alliance. The farmland/sprawl area around Alliance is booming, I should know, I live there. The Alliance area, not the core and not gas, is what is driving FW's growth. Well, the Alliance area did get a JCPenney and Cheddar

If you want to call stating the obvious ( the different economic leauge thing is obvious, FW being a dump , industrial city is just my opinion) a conniption then feel free. I'm not even from Dallas or Texas and have no time for silly city rivalries, but I know a crazy opinion backed by not one concrete fact when I read one. Also, I found the thread on the DFW forum. It seemed to me noone really took it seriously and the thread turned into poke a few laughs at FW and Dallas, that is when it didn't wander into a totally different subject altogether. There seemed to be much more laughs over the editorial than fits.

I hate to break it to you TroyBoy, FW is anything but blue collar. In fact, FW has more old money than you'd ever imagine. Of course, you're here from Dallas hating on FW just to stir the pot... and we all know that. But, don't forget, some of the wealthiest families/individuals in the country live in FW. You obviously have spent way too much time in the land of over-leased $30,000-a-year millionaires than you have on the West Side of FW and you've also apparently only seen DT FW from 30 rather than actually parking and walking around. I will give you one thing - the FW skyline sucks for a city the size of FW. However, I would much rather walk around DT FW at night that walk around DT Dallas ever. DT Dallas is full of scary homeless people and criminal elements who do nothing but bug the crap out of people asking for money, etc. DT FW, on the other hand, is fully of white collar people spending money at the long list of restaurants, movie theaters, and bars. And, before you blow off FW as never being able to surpass Dallas... just remember FW has been one of the fastest growing cities in the country for the last 7 or 8 years, growing from 29th largest city to approximately 17th largest, while Dallas has enjoyed near stagnant growth and "grown" from 7th largest city to 9th. Seems to me, one of the cities is moving in one direction while the other is headed in the opposite direction. Like it or not, things are changing...

Either way both metros are doing awesome for their size when compared to other cities that have a larger population like Chicago. NYC is easily 3 times the size the of either Texas metro, but has a little less then twice the number of fortune 500 companies. I think that speaks well for the Texas economy and this area's appeal to firms looking to relocate.

Actually, NYC metro population is over 20 million... NYC metro population is closer to the population of the state of Texas (about 24 Million) than it is the population of either DFW or Houston Metro. How insane is that?!

You're absolutely right. I'm just trying to stay loyal to my own city.

I'll admit, I am envious of Dallas' lighting and infrastructure. I wish Houston building owners would take note. However, at the same time though, i stand by my statement of Dallas's development becoming plastic. Something is missing, those 2 main ingredients: Soul and character.

Honestly, it isn't just Dallas that feels like it's missing something. MOST sunbelt cities feel new and plastic compared to the older, more seasoned, cities of the Eastern Seaboard. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Pheonix, LA... They all have a bit of a generic feeling to them. Ask anyone from Chicago or NYC and they laugh when any of these cities talk about things like history, identitiy, or culture. There are only a few truly unique Southern or South Western cities that have a truely one-of-a-kind identity. San Antonio, New Orleans, Miami, Nashville and Memphis, are a few that seem to have their own identities. Dallas does come off as a bit plastic but, like it or not, the skyline is one the nations most recognizable and identifiable skylines... NYC, Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, and Dallas are among the most famous American skylines. Of course, Dallas' skyline was made famoust by the tv show, DALLAS. Houston is recognizable to most Texans, but is not as easily identified outside Texas. Houston has a very impressive and beautify skyline, in my opinion, but it doesn't really have a standout iconic building that that is ingrained into the minds of Americans and makes the city instantly recognizable. NYC = WTC, Empire State and Crystler buildings. Chicago = Sears and John Handcock, and soon Trump and Fordham Spire. Seattle = Space Needle. San Fran = Transamerica and Golden Gate Bridge. Dallas = Reunion Tower and Bank of America building.

I think responses like Coog's here are fair. It disagrees with the concept of the snow park, not the fact that it is a Dallas thing. In fact he points that out. If, on the other hand, a comment was made that the fundamental constituent of the snowflakes was plastic, and that therefore it would not be surprising that it would exist in Dallas, then that may or may not be out of line on this forum, depending on motive. Comments that are outright offensive about Dallas are simply inappropriate, and will not be tolerated on this forum.

I agree - that the above comment by Coog was fair because he's entitled to his opinion of the project. But, the following quote was a direct slam at Dallas.... If we're going to be fair here, then you have to apply the rules to Houstoninas and Dallasites alike, not just when Dallasites react to anti-Dallas remarks. IMO, Dallasboi was just reacting to Coog's anti-Dallas remarks. And, even though two wrongs don't make a right and Dallasboi should have ignored Coog... Coog did swing first on this one. The following remark from Coog was very unnecessary.

This has to be a joke.

Oh Dallas. It's a little bit "Time Square", "Manhattan" and "Colorado" all in one.

Somebody needs therapy.

Dallas - Be yourself!

I believe Coca Cola also calls Atlanta home....

So... I just have to play devil's advocate here and ask why is it that it's okay to compare "Atlanta" (meaning metro) to "Houston" (meaning metro) in the great "who's bigger" battle? Yet, anytime such comparisons involve Dallas and Houston, the anti-Dallas comments start flying like crazy? Seems like a double-standard to me... Anytime anyone even refers to "Dallas" as a metro, or talks about DFW being bigger than Houston, they're practically burned at the HAIF stake...

Why isn't anyone pointing out that Atlanta proper has a population of less than 500,000 and isn't even one of the largest 40 cities in terms of population? If this was a Dallas v Houston comparison - again - it would be immediately pointed out that "Dallas" isn't bigger than Houston, and that it takes the whole Metroplex to be larger than Houston???

Not trying to start a fight - just pointing out the inconsistency...

Actually.... I don't spell check or really even re-read anything before I hit Add Reply. NO ONE actually pays much attention to spelling or grammer in a public internet forum. But I assure you, when needed, I do quite well for myself when it comes to writing. But you make a good point - anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. So, I'm officially changing my identity right now. Hear yee, hear yee... NOW HERE THIS... WILLY1 is the world's first billionaire adult film star, and he has a perfectly toned body... oh yeah, and a Pulitzer too!

Interesting story... A few years ago I wrote a feature article for a major magazine that actually compared another major Texas city (I won't say which one because I'd hate to detract from all the laser-focused Dallas bashing) to Dallas... In the article, Dallas came up on the short end in a big way. Even more interesting... when I was hired for the assignment, the managing editor handed me a copy of an article from the Houston Chronicle that just bashed the crap out of Dallas in every imaginable way; the skyline, the people, population, the traffic... you name it. After reading the article the editor told me she wanted something even more acid-tongued than what the Houston Chronicle had published... she wanted to pick a fight with D magazine. And, that's exactly what I gave them. Of course, they watered down my article before going to press with it.

Anyway, I did not fail to get this topic back on track... My "so what" post was intended to get this topic back on track. But, that was before you began posting rude personal attacks aimed at me, and before I took the low road and replied to those attacks. Now, I really don't care about the topic anymore... I'm just having fun with you at this point. Hence my long-winded replies. Oh, and by the way, when it comes to my angle I really don't care if you "get it" or whether or not you believe me. Are you really so arrogant as to think that I, or anyone else in here, needs to have your approval for some reason? Are YOU SURE you're not from Dallas?

I think it's worth mentioning at this point that it's so much easier to find faults in a person (or a city) than it is to find the good in them. I try very hard to find the good in people and in this case places... Houston, Dallas, etc. Unfortuately I don't have much of a history of interaction with you, Coaster. And, I regret that our interactions have been so negative. I respect your passion for Houston. As irritating as the Houston vs. Dallas flame wars are, each city is lucky to have such passionate citizens. it's just too bad there is so much ill-will between Texas' two megacities. And too bad that it lead to such hostile words between the citizens themselve. Hey Coaster, maybe you and I should run for Dallas City Council since we're behaving like DCC members! Wait, make that the DISD board - they get better perks from the tax payers, like all new furniture for their homes!

Till next time.

Well good, Willy. I'm glad you're getting the therapy you need. Anyone who has nothing better to do with his time than to write a 400 word post where he himself admits that the comparison of Houston and Dallas is a total waste of time, needs therapy badly.

And don't worry, I never take any of your posts seriously. However, it is a form of light entertainment watching you sad Dallasonians constantly coming down to HAIF to tell Houstonites how envious they are - when it is people like YOU that can't seem to get Houston out of your system. (131 posts are the proof)

Now give us another 300 words about how you are able to rise above the LCD.

LOL... Actually - I am not a Dallasonian or a Houstonian, so I am in fact unbiased when it comes to the whole Dallas v. Houston thing. I actually like both cities a lot. And, I don't come to the Houston forum to tell Houstonians how envious they are... However, when someone gets personal with me, I will respond with equal humor, or equal bile... whatever form seems warranted at the time. I do come to this site to read up on the perceptions of Dallas and other Texas cities from an outsiders perspective. I sort of view myself as a middle-man in this war between cities. I think it's interesting that two of the greatest cities in the country apparently loath each other so much for what seems to be no real reason other than wanting bragging rights or jealousy of one another... It's like a big civic version of King of the Hill.

As for the 400 word response - I am a professional writer so it takes me about 90 seconds to pound out 400 words. So, it wasn't as much of a waste of time as you would think...

P.S. My therapist said to tell you hi and remind you that your appointment is scheduled for 1:00 Thursday and, as always, she has cleared the rest of her afternoon for you. ;-)

Actually, Coster... (since you decided to address me directly)

My post at least made a point - that this thread has desolved into yet another "lowest common denominator" discussion, amounting to nothing but Houstonite HAIFers trying to put down Dallas every chance possible. With that, thank you for proving my point with your really intelligent and insightful personal attack. You obviously have a bookcase full of debate trophies somewhere.

And just so you know, posts like yours make it seem like Houston forum members are so filled with hatred for Dallas/Dallasites that they can't deal with the idea of anyone actually posting anything positive about Dallas. Which sort of leaves the impression that Houstonites suffer from some sort of serious inferiority complex, which has been discussed many times on HAIF. I've heard of penis envy... but Dallas envy seems to be running wild here in HAIF. (I can't wait to hear the rebutals to that one - which, of course, will further reinforce my point.) Like someone else said, why even have a DFW thread in HAIF if the only purpose for it is to bash Dallas and Dallasites? Unless, of course, that really is the whole reason for this thread in the first place...

Anyway, since you decided not to actually add anything to this thread, and instead decided to post a personal insult with my name on it, I'd like to return the favor by pointing out that actually YOUR post is the one that is the "biggest load of nothing". The only point you managed to make was that I need help... and maybe I do since I'm replying to you! I suspect that you were unable to articulate anything intelligent because you were so flustered because a few of the items on my "so what" list actually pointed out the fact Dallas has the upper hand on Houston in a few categories.

I was trying to point out that the "mine is bigger" discussion has become stupid in an attempt to bring the topic back on track. But, apparently that doesn't work in here. So, like they say, "When in Rome (or in this case Houston), do as the Houstonites do"... So, here goes my attempt to insult both Coaster and Houston...

Houston is more boring than Dallas and my mom can whip your mom's butt, Coaster.

LOL.... gotta run to therapy now.

PS - in case anyone is wondering, this is all in good fun and I'm in NO WAY serious with this post. So, Coaster, please don't take this personally...

Well, so much for interesting reading. Looks like it's time to close yet another Dallas-related thread because no one can even discuss Dallas-related subjects in HAIF without it turning into a 5th grade "my dad can beat up your dad" level discussion.

Houston is the 4th largest city in America - so what. (Chicago, LA, and NYC all dwarf Houston and Dallas)

Dallas-Fort Worth Metro is the largest metro in the state - so what.

Dallas Victory Project is huge and impressive - so what.

Houston's Downtown has higher occupancy rates than Dallas' - so what.

Dallas is a more famous city than Houston internationally - so what.

Houston and Dallas both have millionaire and billionaires - unless you're one of them, so what.

Houston is close to the Gulf (as if that's worth bragging about - yuck) - so what.

Dallas has a big Trinity River Project on the way (the Trinity is gross too) - so what.

Houston has more skyscrapers than Dallas - so what.

Dallas has many things that blow away what Houston has - Houstonites, learn to deal with it.

Houston has many things that blow away what Dallas has - Dallasites, learn to deal with it.

I'm sure I could go on and on, but I've decided to stop so that the hostile replies can begin and the HAIF moderators can go ahead and close this thread.

I looked for DT Dallas and DT Houston population figures, but couldn't find any solid numbers. I did recently read that DT Fort Worth has about 1000 more people than DT Dallas right now. But, DT Dallas will probably outgrow DT FW eventually since DTD dwarfs DT FW and FW doesn't seem to be building anything significant. Dallas is building a lot of new residential units and also converting a ton of old office space to residential. FW is mainly just converting old space to residential. I believe DT Dallas and DT Houston have similar populations... but I couldn't find anything solid to support what I've read....

I don't know why anyone is so freaked out about DTD's state of being. The DTD area is in an up-swing, not a downward spiral. In recent years, DTD has had high vacancy rates. However, just drive through downtown.... there are cranes and redevelopment projects all over DTD. There are tons of old buildings that are currenly being redeveloped for residential and retail use and these residential conversions are being gobbled up faster than they can hit the market. They can't build them fast enough! DTD is not in dying by any means. For every Hunt Oil that leaves a big vacancy in an older class A building, several smaller companies who can't afford to build their own new building will move to DTD to take the place of the out-going Hunt-like companies. Also, let's not forget that 7-11 is also moving back to downtown Dallas once the One Arts Plaza building is completed. I can't help but wonder if all this talk about DTD dying a slow death is at least partially fed by a little bit of wishful thinking on the part of those who would love to see Dallas bite the dust. I think one thing that might be overlooked here is that Dallas is basically landlocked and maybe what we're seeing with the current building boom, is that Dallas is beginning to grow vertically because land in Dallas proper has become more difficult to find and more expensive to develop. The suburbs surrounding Dallas are also reaching critical mass and because they are so far out from central Dallas, some employers are not willing to move to the "outer rim" because many employees will not move with them because of traffic congestion and higher gas prices. Think about this... If you build a new corporate campus in McKinney you may get more bang for your buck in terms of facilities, but your talent pool is severly limited by the remote location.... So, instead of moving to Southern Oklahoma like some companies have done in the past, many employers are staying in Dallas to take advantage of the higher numbers of potential hires. (And, if you're wondering how I know all this... I work in HR of a fortune 500 company HQ'd in Dallas, specifically dealing with workforce development programs and marketing initiatives... I know local trends.)

^^^ You might want to read the article again (this time without so much pro-Houston, anti-Dallas bias) and maybe you won't miss the point they're making. Yes, the new construction is taking away from the older 80's 'scrapers. That happens in any city where they build a new building. That's not Dallas-only phenomenon. It's all part of the commecial real estate life cycle. If they built a new 50 story tower in Houston tomorrow, some of the tennants of the larger, older, buildings would want to move into the newer space. It's just human nature to want to reside in the newest and most prestigious buildings. Even in NYC, when they built the World Trade Center in the late 60's tennants abandoned their long-time spaces to move into the new towers. Life cycle!

And, yes, right now uptown is outside the CBD... but the point this article was making was that in the 50's Southland and Republic Bank towers were outside the CBD too... but they expanded the CBD, they didn't remain outside the CBD thus hurting DT Dallas... Then came the buildings along Ross Ave.... they too expanded the CBD.... And now we have Uptown. Uptown is outside the CBD now - but like the CBD expansions of the 50's and 70's, Uptown too is likely to be considered part of the CBD before it's all said and done. The reason for that is not because some powerful real estate tycoon somewhere makes a decision and "presto" it's not CBD. It's all about public perception. When they built the buildings in the 50's and 70's and they were outside CBD, it didn't take long before the public perception of those areas lumped them in with "Downtown". Same thing will eventually happen with Uptown. As it grows taller and visually becomes indistinguisable from the traditional DT Dallas Skyline, it too will start being referred to as "downtown". And, once they cover Woodall Rogers with the park connecting uptown to downtown the line between the two will become even more fuzzy. That too is part of the life cycle of a downtown... it grows both vertically and outwardly - if lucky - in spurts. If a city is really lucky, the downtown area grows both vertically and horizontally at the same time... but usually only in periods of boom. Dallas and Houston have both enjoyed such growth over the past few decades and both will probably continue the upward and outward growth for a while... Other cities such as Fort Worth and San Antonio have enjoyed much larger population gains recently without much added height to the CBD's.

Anyway, this article is not nearly as negative for Dallas as some would like for it to be. It is more about the changing climate in Dallas than some sort of wishful CBD evactuation in DT Dallas. Plus, the redevelopment projects in DT Dallas right now are at an all time high. A year or two from now as these projects are finished DT Dallas will be a very different market than it is today. Dallas is in a period of "repositioning" right now. Once the night life in DT Dallas kicks in, things will be very different.

LargeTEXAS wasn't talking about the municipal boundaries of LA versus NY or whoever. He was referring to the Los Angeles Urbanized Area, which is the densest UA in the nation.

I just found an article online supporting that LA is the densest. Not to doubt you or the article, but it just seems logical that NYC Metro or UA, or whatever, would be the most densly populated urban area since it takes up far less space in square miles, and have a much higher metro population than LA-metro... But, what do I know... Anyway, after reading this article, I never want ANY of the cities in Texas to become "urban" in the way this article describes. It sounds horrible. I was in LA last year and I've been to NYC too... Even if LA is more dense, it is NOT as urban as NYC. NYC is just the icon of urbanity in the U.S. LA is the icon of sprawl, even if it is dense sprawl unlike here in Texas! Here is the link to the article. I'd be interested to hear what others think of the "land of dreams". Don't get me wrong, I love LA... but after reading this article I'm not sure I'd ever want to live there...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGDKE94M01.DTL

^^^^ Yes, SF has a giant area that takes up a large portion of the city and is uninhabitable - SF bay! LOL... I don't think density is measured in that way. It's measured by people per square mile so it's a fairly even measurement of a city's density. I don't think airports or parks would impact city density figures... they measure around things like that from what I've always understood. So, Houston's airports and SF Bay would not affect the density of the city. But, don't quote me on that...

There really aren't any really dense cities in Texas. In fact, most Southern and Southwestern cities are very sparse when it comes to population density. Most of the really dense cites are located in the North East and along the west coast. I believe the eastern cities are so dense partly because they got a jump start before cars were available/popular and therefore density provided easier mobility because a need for close proximity to everything was necessary at the time. The west coast cities are dense simply because of demand to be near the water and beach, partially...

We just got stuck in the middle... literally and figuratively. We (Texas cities) will never see the kind of density that NYC or SF enjoy. We would have to basically start over to do that. We will, instead, have pockets of density surrounded by large swaths of sprawl... It's just the way we're built.

Just remember, Los Angeles is the densest North American city...way beyond NY or Chicago! Not many even refer to it as "urban." The trendy urban seems to describe a very nostalgic, 19th century-looking building made of brick. Plus, many if not most of the cities with cool

That's a confusing and unlikely theory...what really needs to happen is all the giant companies with HQ in the burbs need to come back to the CBD, im talkin about Exxon, AMR, Southwest, EDS, JCPenney, Kimberly-Clark, TI, and the list could go on forever; unfortunately this is just as unlikely.

AMR was never a Dallas company - AMR headquarters are in Fort Worth and always have been. Southwest won't leave Love Field to build offices downtown.... They'll build near Love if anything at all. Actually, I saw a guy showing off plans for Love Field area inmprovements at lunch last week - wait till those announcements are made! Major changes coming to the Love Field area!!!! EDS was always in Plano, and the campus they built will not be abandoned to move DT... It just wouldn't make sense. The other big campus companies are also unlikely to give up the campus way of life for high rise HQ because it would change the whole culture of their companies and the employees who are used to working in Plano and Richardson are not going to be willing to drive to DT Dallas. Dallas is going to have to attract new businesses to fill those spaces.

However, Dallas is in a pretty good position because DT Dallas is undergoing a makeover right now and it's just started really developing a lot of things that will change the entire tone and atmosphere of DT Dallas. Most of the older vacant buildings are being converted to residential units so the downtown population of Dallas is going to explode in the next year or two as these units come online. Most of the big developements are pre-selling and selling out before construction even begins. Dallas has to build the residential population downtown first, after the people move to DT, then big business will naturally follow... and so will retail and nightlife. DT Dallas is on the verge of major changes. The folks in Houston don't see it, but those of us who are in DT Dallas everyday are just awe-struck by the amount of construction and development going on in both DT Dallas and Uptown. Dallas is doing what Dallas does best - reinventing itself yet again.