LAguy

"I think Houston will eventually pass up the Dallas Metro... The "Migration" here seems to be a bit faster, and has been since the 1930s... There only basing it on current rates, and populations. They can't exactly predict the future, and neither can we. Because rates change (dramatically in some cases) over the corse of a month, to years...

Its my Prediction, Houston will probibly out grow the metro with in the next 30 years..."

Look guys, just because You WANT something to happen or WANT something to be true, it doesn't mean that it IS what you WANT it to be. You have to look at the facts before you can just state something as being true or not... I WANT to drive a Hummer or a Mercedes. I can even go out and tell people that I drive a Hummer or a Benz if I want to... But the fact is, I drive an Isuzu Trooper. And you know what - I love it. Now, if all I focused on was the fact that I don't have an H2 or a Benz, the I probably would miss the fact that I like my Trooper.

It seems that the standard rebutals to the "DFW is bigger" thing are "Houston is bigger in land size therefore we'll be bigger in population eventually" or "It takes two to be Houston; Dallas AND Ft Worth". That reminds me of the scene on the elementary school playground where one kid says to the other, "my dad can kick your dad's butt because he's bigger". It just a silly rebutal.

Houston is primarily all Houston, while DFW is made up of many suburbs. That is very true. Houston has been aggressively annexing surounding towns for decades while Dallas has not. In fact, the suburban areas surrounding Dallas actually have a greater population now than Dallas proper. So, if you compare the two areas, it's really difficult to comare them side by side... But doing so proves nothing anyway. The quality of a city has nothing to do with its size. Some of the best cities in America are small cities - Santa Fe comes to mind.

Anyway, here are some unbiased facts to read instead of getting into a pushing match in the playground sandbox...

1. The city of Houston is considerably larger than the city of Dallas.

2. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is considerably larger than the Houston Metro Area. (No one in DFW seems to even think about this, so why is it such a big deal for Houstonians?)

3. Houston's square mile footprint is larger than the square mile footprint of Dallas. Houston = 579 Sq Miles. Dallas = 343 Sq Miles. However, city rankings go by population more often than area. No one really even pays attention to square miles. In fact, no one would even guess the "largest" U.S. City when it comes to land area... Houston is not the largest, and if you're going to go by that stat then Hostonians are going to be even more embarassed by who is larger than Houston according to land area. Juneau Alaska is actually the "largest U.S. City" when ranking by land area. Juneau has a land area of 3081 square miles - yep you read that correctly and that's over 5 times larger than Houston! And Juneau's population is about 31,000. Okay, so then Houston must be the largest in the lower 48, right? Wrong. Jacksonville Florida sits on 841 Square Miles and Oklahoma City sits on 607 Sq. Miles... Houston is somewhere in the neighborhood of 579 sqare miles. And, there might still be other cities that are larger than Houston - this was just a quick search. I didn't look at a complete ranking. Another thing to consider... No one would ever consider Houston or DFW to be larger than NYC in any stretch of the imagination, right? Even Los Angeles pales in comparison to NCY when it comes to size... right? Wrong again. In fact, did you know that DFW Airport is actually larger land-wise than Manhattan? That's a fact. Manhattan sits on 23 square miles of land... DFW airport sits on 29.3 square miles of land. DFW has no population, and Manhattan is one of the most - if not THE most - densly populated urban areas on Earth. All of NYC combined is only 303 square miles... yet NYC metro is home to nearly as many people as the entire state of Texas while being roughly half the size of Oklahoma City. Point is, you can't really compare Dallas and Houston on this level because it would be like trying to compare LA to NYC. One is mainly suburban sprawl (Dallas and LA) and the other is incorporated city (Houston and NYC). Of course, if you want to get really obscure and cast a hypothetical on this scenario and add some of the suburbs to Dallas then the situation would be different. Pretend for a second that Dallas suddenly annexed Plano, Richardson, and other suburbs until it was the exact same size land-wise as Houston... just for the sake of a true side-by-side comparison... Dallas MIGHT (no one knows for sure because it can't be done) be larger than Houston population-wise because it would more than double Dallas' population.

4.Houston will not surpass DFW in population unless there is some sort of economic collapse in the DFW metroplex at the same time there is some sort of economic boom in Houston. The reasons cities boom or bust is based on the local economic strength of cities - job growth, cost of living index, economic diversity, etc. The projections are pretty strong that DFW will continue to widen the population gap over Houston Metro because the DFW regional economy is one of the strongest in the nation... not just because people in Dallas "think" or "want" to be bigger than Houston. Houston also enjoys a strong economy, but the problem is that Houston has not been as successful in diversifying it's economy in the years since the oil industry collapsed. The DFW economy is one of the most resilient economies in the country, therefore it is less likely to suffer during times of economic recession and/or depression. In fact, during recent recessions, DFW actually retained its rapid growth. One projection I saw - and there are many out there - stated that the population of Houston Metro in 2030 will be around 7.2 million. DFW's projected 2030 population is 9.1 million. However, even as we speak they are tallying the latest population figures to be released in April. The growth rate in DFW is so brisk that they projections can't even keep up. For example. Fort Worth was not projected to hit 625,000 until 2010, but Fort Worth has probably already surpassed that number, or is very close to hitting it now - 5 years ahead of the projected date.

I'm sure some of you reading this will will see all this as some sort of a slap in the face to Houston. But in all honesty, the DFW area is in trouble because of the growth. Although infrastructure is in a 24/7 state of construction, they won't be able to keep up with the population demands and the air quality and transportation systems are going to lag behind which will created a difficult living environment. DFW has grown too quickly to keep up, so as the years go by traffic, congestion, and all sorts of other urban problems will become reality in DFW. These are not good things.

5. DFW is set to overtake Philly as the 4th largest metro area. It will probably happen in 2005 or 2006, if it hasn't already happened. Philly continues to slow down and DFW was only about 300,000 behind Philly in Jan 2003. DFW is adding over 150,000 per year (or somewhere close to that) therefore DFW should be neck and neck with Phily by now.

6. Fort Worth Factor. For most of her history Fort Worth has been sitting in the shadows of her sister to the east. However, that is changing quickly. Fort Worth is aggressively annexing the extra jurisdicional territory (land outside the city limits that they have first right to) in the same way that Houston has annexed in years gone by. The result is that Fort Worth is about to - or possibly already has - surpassed Dallas in area. This means that Fort Worth will not become landlocked by the surburbs around it the way that Dallas has. Experts are now projecting that Fort Worth will eventually overtake Dallas in population to become the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex - but that has nothing to do with the fact that FW is going to be larger land-wise. In this instance it's merely the result of FW trying to avoid becoming landlocked. However, the Dallas economy will probably still lead Fort Worth in job growth for decades...

7. Some believe the reason Dallas and Fort Worth merged to become "DFW" was to beat Houston in some sort of population race. This is not true. The DFW Metroplex became one metro area because the U.S. Census bureau determined that the commuter patterns in the DFW area were such that the two areas really were one larger metro area. The city governments really didn't have anything to do with it. There are tons of people who live in FW but drive to Dallas for work... Such commuting patterns led the U.S. Census bureau to reclassify the Dallas Metro and Fort Worth-Arlington Metro areas into one larger Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area. Likewise, the reverse has been true in other cities that have be split into smaller metros. San Fransisco/San Jose were divided because the silicon valley develepment in San Jose shifted commuter patterns in the Bay Area and people began moving to San Jose to be closer to their jobs in Silicon Valley. Therefore, they were no longer commutting to San Fran which had long been the local epicenter for jobs in the Bay Area. San Fran and San Jose are now two different metro areas and San Fran as slipped in the rankings as a result. Same thing happened in DC/Baltimore...

8. Houston's Skyline is bigger than Dallas'. This is true. Houston's skyline boast taller buildings and more of them than Dallas. Dallas will not overtake Houston's skyline when it comes to height because there are FAA height restrictions on how tall the buildings in downtown Dallas can be. Currently the tallest building in Downtown Dallas is the 921 foot Bank of America building. The FAA granted permission for that tower, but it is the tallest building that Dallas will ever see in its downtown core unless flight patterns at Love Field are altered to accommodate taller buildings. Fort Worth on the other hand, has no height restrictions and it is expected to start adding skyscrapers in the next couple years. This trend is due to the 99% occupancy rate in the FW CBD which has created a lack of class A office space. Additionally, there is a rising demand for high rise urban living in DT FW. Just this week, XTO energy announced plans to demolish the Landmark Tower (damaged in the 2000 tonado) and to possibly replace it with a 50-story office tower. More towers are on the way. And, once the Trinity River Plan is built in FW, more office and residential towers are expected to pop up along the new waterways as demand sores. The FW Trinity River Plan is going to double the size of downtown Fort Worth, which is already considered one of the nations best examples of urban renewal...

Well, I'm tired of typing. My point to all this is that DFW is a great city with great people - like it or not. The exact same thing can be said for Houston - it's a huge city filled with great people who are proud to live in Houston.

To me the idea of comparing cities is like comaring snow flakes. No two are alike and therefore they cannot truly be compared to one another. All of them have things that are good and bad about them. Point is, it's all subjective. Houstonians can point out all the reasons they hate DFW - the Dallatude, the skyline, the lack of things to do, whatever... DFW residents can turn around and ramble off a laundry list of things they hate about Houston - the humidity, the smog, the people, the traffic... It is and endless cycle that does nothing but waste the energy of the person who choses to fling mud at the other city.

I hope these points are met with objectiveness and not a back lash of typical elementary school "my city is better than your city" lame rebutals. If so, I'm sure this thread will be closed too...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WOW, this is the single best response to the never ending Houston/Dallas debate! if anyone insisted on the continuous debate then they are just plain stupid. sometimes people just have to learn to forget personal bias and ego and stop the madness! it's not always a little boys pissing contest.

BH's median income is low because it encompasses quite a few apt. dwellers and succesful, but not overly affluent residents. most people don't realize BH is larger than they might think. (30,0000) that's 3x more than HP, TX with 9,000. also Holmby Hills, Bel Air, Palos Verdes and the hills above the BH city boundrys normally considered BH(but actually LA) are more affluent.

Hizzy, those are some pretty accurate comparisons. I'd say outside of the areas with the most affluance LA is not as lush as most people would believe. all Houston needs is mountains and the occasional seaside cliffs.

At $20 a month - NETFLIX is the absolute way to go.  Blockbuster and the like are simply awaiting demise.  Brick and mortar is no longer needed to substantiate a video rental business.  I've been a member for about 10 months now and I absolutely can't live without it! 

It goes beyond just getting the dvds mailed to you...it's about the rating/recommendation system that they've got in place for users.  The interface is great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^not likely, Blockbuster just entered the field and undecut Netflix by about two dollars. with BBV's connections with the studios and pull I'd say they'll end up on top- even though they did not pioneer the service

The last time I went to the Galleria, there was a Ralph Lauren billboard to the right of the Ralph Lauren store saying opening some time soon.  Is the Ralph Lauren store expanding?  Almost every major city has a main Ralph Lauren store, and they are pretty huge.  I always thought the one in the Galleria was pretty small compared to other cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

they probably are expanding becuase the store is pretty small by RL standards. I'd expect it to be 7,500 to 10,000 square feet when it reopens. Dallas has a Polo store, RL in Highland Park Village and soon another store in Northpark. I think the global store template is around 15,000 to 20,000 sq ft.