How so?

Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base is still active. It's just that ownership of Ellington was transferred to the City of Houston.

New projects drying up, others being scaled back and/or put on hold. Housing prices have plateaued. Job market somewhat flat. I was actively looking and it was tough...decided to get an MBA in the meantime. It's slowly recovering.

I said public universities. Having multiple large public universities in a metro area is always a benefit. That's a constant stream of development, ideas, research, and people coming in.

Right, but Houston has Rice, which is better than any university in TX. Whether it's privately or publicly funded has no impact on its relative benefits.

You can't talk about higher education while ignoring private schools, or you would come to crazy conclusions, like Boston being an educational backwater, because there are no prominent public institutions anywhere near Boston. Obviously places with prominent private universities are less likely to have prominent public universities.

It's unfortunate that even after Houston is emerging from a relatively solid boom decade, it's downtown skyline has little to show for it (and essentially looks like it did in the late 80's) while downtown Austin and downtown L.A. have completely taken off.

Fine, Houston has Rice which is not a very large school and recently has had a problem with having record number of applicants but very low acceptance rates (meaning quality students are left out). Now those students left out only have two other options to go to a 4-year university in the Houston area: University of Houston (many do this) or TSU (hardly any do this). If not those two things, then the young people are leaving Houston for another city in the state to attend a 4-year. Houston has one of the youngest populations of any large metro area in the US (it might be the youngest for a metro of over 4M actually). Where are all these kids going to go to school if the city doesn't have more than one large public university? They might end up in Dallas or San Antonio then decide to put down roots there (aka brain drain from Houston).

That's the importance of multiple public universities in a metro area because the private universities are generally small and inclusive.

I don't think Houston's (arguable) lack of university seats harms the city's economic prospects. You don't have to work where you attended school, and, for most elite universities, people are eventually headed all over the planet.

There are many top-tier universities in the middle of nowhere. Places like Cornell and Dartmouth. Then there are huge, successful urban agglomerations with no top-tier universities. Places like Miami and Dallas.

If you look at the Silicon Valley workforce, very few people attended Stanford, which has a tiny undergraduate student population, and is the only elite university in SV. Even if every single Stanford grad stayed local, it would barely register (in terms of raw numbers).

People from Houston go to school elsewhere and then come back. Hence all the UT-Austin, A&M, Texas Tech and LSU crap everywhere. And again, there are 4 universities within the UH system plus TSU for public universities here around town.

I would say that Houston is among the most educated cities in America. The University of Houston is a tier one research university, it is the third largest university in Texas and it has 44,000 students. Yet it hasn’t been mentioned in this thread. Then you’ve got Rice University, which needs no introduction and is one of the leading teaching and research universities in the United States. Then you’ve got the colleges. Two of the ten largest colleges in America are in Houston, Houston Community College and Lone Star college.

The Bay Area also has multiple large public universities outside of Stanford to choose from. Having all of that there helps with attracting and retaining talent. I already mentioned Dallas, but Miami also has several large public universities. Miami is a niche market too.

But the UH system does not compare to being apart of the premier university system in the state. The UH system is a very minor system. Houston is a major metropolitan city so of course it'll have alumni from all over, but it's not the same as having say A&M located in the Heights rather than College Station. Houston would be a completely different city (for the better) if this was the case, for example.

I’ve always thought of Houston as being more recognized than Dallas. It is in the news more often, has a bigger impact on politics and is more influential in the entertainment industry.

The last place I would want to put a university campus in, is The Heights and there is a Texas A&M campus in Galveston.

Rice and UH appear to do about $300,000,000 of outside-funded research per year combined. UT Austin does about double that, and it's nowhere near the top schools either.

wait, are you saying that metro houston only has three 4-year universities in total? out of a metro are of 7 million people???

that can't be right.

So a list of four year universities in Houston

Art Institute of Houston

Baylor College of Medicine

Chamberlain college of medicine

Devry University

Houston Baptist University

Rice University

Texas Southern University

University of Houston

University of St Thomas

University of Houston - Clear Lake*

University of Houston Downtown*

MD Anderson*

University of Texas Health*

University of Texas Austin and Texas A&M have programs in Houston*

*Added by Jmanc

Is this just within the city limits or something? Because that seems rather low. If we compare with 4-year universities within LA city proper:

UCLA

Cal State LA

Cal State Northridge

USC

Loyola Marymount University‎

Mount St. Mary's University

Southern California Institute of Architecture

National University

LA has 8 vs Huston's 9. But if we're going by metro areas, just the UC/CSU system alone has 10 universities in LA area.

UCLA

UCI

UCR

UCSB

Cal Stale LA

Cal State Northridge

Cal State Long Beach

Cal State Fullerton

Cal State San Bernardino

Cal Poly Pomona

South Florida only has 3 major ones (FIU, FAU and Miami) plus numerous other minor private schools scattered about (Barry, Nova,..etc) but those are pretty insignificant. FIU is the 3rd or 4th biggest in the US so it crowds out any other public schools in the area. Florida and FSU take a huge chunk of South Florida students (like I'm sure Illinois does for Chicago) despite being located elsewhere in the state.

Well downtowns in the South have participated in the booms only in minor ways. Houston has built a few downtown office towers and a small number of residential. The biggest surprise is downtown Dallas, given the strong growth of the region. I think there has only been one office building built downtown and much of the downtown residential growth has been concentrated around the basketball arena. It seems that businesses in DFW definitely prefer the suburbs over the downtown.

Not a lot of major (Tier 1) universities given the size of the region. Rice is really the best but it is small - it's too bad it could not double or triple in size. UH is okay but it has been an underperformer - I think it just got its Tier 1 status during the last 15 years and it can't compete with UT and Texas A&M in stature. Compared to DC, which is about the same size, there really is no comparison....Georgetown, American, George Washington, Virginia Polytech, U of Maryland,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ashington,_D.C.

It probably is hurting Houston by having a small number of elite universities. Houston has the biggest med center in the world but it's biomedical/pharma industry is very small and meager compared with SF and Boston, and even DC - I guess it is because it lacks the universities to draw in the talent. I think it is also hurting Houston to gain any technology industry traction - it's too bad Compaq was bought out by HP, which did mostly nothing with it. Compaq was one of the earlier tech companies to develop a smartphone/PDA.

I agree that the downtown skyline drought appears to be affecting Dallas more than Houston. I mentioned Houston (and not Dallas), though, because it was the city being discussed in the post to which I replied.

The area "around the basketball arena" in Dallas to which you are referring is called uptown, not downtown. Uptown Dallas is adjacent to downtown Dallas, and (to your point) is the area that has seen an increase in density during the most recent boom period.

And yes, much to a skyscraper enthusiast's chagrin, the campus development has become the default development approach used by corporations relocating (Toyota, etc.) to or expanding within the DFW Metroplex, further adding fuel to the rapid growth of suburban towns like Plano, Frisco, Richardson, Garland, etc.

You say 'dated' while others might say 'classic.' And thats how it tends to work across the board, does it not? Even for cities who embrace more traditional aspects of their history and identity, in many cases those aspects are mostly things of the past or not nearly as prominent in the life of the city as they used to be (e.g., Pittsburgh and steel). And with the homogenization of American culture and many demographic trends that used to be more regional becoming more of a national phenomenon , there are less and less modern characteristics that cities can truly capitalize on today to distinguish themselves. Dallas had better stick to the show and "America's team" because I'm not sure if building a new brand and identity simply on things like rapid Latino growth, expanding LRT, and amassing several corporate headquarters will go over too well.

It's clear metros like Dallas and Houston (and Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.) can grow without having a major top-tier university within their respective metros--as long as there is sufficient in-migration to provide the necessary talent to keep economies humming along. But what if domestic in-migration can't do that in the future? Metros that can grow their own talent are positioned better in general, IMO.

Well for one thing Dallas culture is nothing like it was in the 80s. If we are talking about it’s reputation, we should talk about its current reputation, not what it used to be.

I gotcha, but what needs to be kept in mind here is that universities are city-based and not really metro-based, at least when you consider the time when they were founded. Metro Houston truly does dominate its metro whereas the Metroplex has a handful of smaller cities besides Dallas and Fort Worth. But at least things are somewhat balanced out with Houston having Rice and the states's two public four-year HBCUs. It could be closer to the situation between Charlotte and the Triangle where the latter gets the most, the best, and the most variety in institutions of higher learning.

I'm wondering if Houston's coastal location versus DFW's inland location played some sort of role there.

The military seems to be more consequential for San Antonio and the smaller Texas cities and truthfully, most cities whose economies are dominated/defined by the military don't tend to be the most dynamic or prosperous. While San Antonio is indeed growing at a rapid clip, it's not getting the same types of tech/corporate office development as the other large Texas cities. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic at work in places like Hampton Roads and Fayetteville, NC. I think Houston is a lot better off with NASA and the port being its recipients of government largesse.

Now that truly does suck, especially with Houston having a respectable higher education profile as well as the behemoth that is TMC. It's not uncommon for states to play favorites at times with its metropolitan areas for the purposes of economic development unfortunately, and a lot of times that's tied to a state's political history and the regions that traditionally held power. It sucks even more when you consider that Houston is arguably the critically most important city in the state due to its coastal location. It's impressive that it still continues to do relatively well considering the cyclical economic fluctuations it usually undergoes as well as the recent weather events it has experienced.

Plus UH Clear Lake and UH Downtown. MD Anderson has four year degrees in health sciences and UTHealth offers BSN degrees. Plus UT Austin and Texas A&M have MBA f2f programs here in Houston.

We're talking about cultural prominence and identity, and yes, old stuff usually plays a big role in defining and shaping those things. I don't understand why some find this to be so debatable when it's damn near a principle. I didn't write the rule book and Dallas isn't an exception. Hell aren't we still calling Austin the "Live Music Capital of the World" when a crap ton of the live music venues it had when the nickname was initially coined have since met the wrecking ball? I mean we could be at this all day.

Well Austin is still the live music capital of the world and I think the real principle is that when things change you recognize it.

Thanks for adding to my list jmanc

Is it though?

https://www.kvue.com/article/enterta.../269-556797289
https://www.dailytexanonline.com/201...d-by-musicians

No that's not the real principle in this context, which, again, is cultural prominence/identity; we're not having this discussion in a vacuum. Of course things always change but that doesn't erase the cultural impact or contribution a city made in the past which put it on the map and gave it an identity nationally. Cities build upon those things and those bygone eras become notable chapters in their histories and important additions in their cultural profiles.

At this point, I'm not sure if you were unaware of the context of this particular side discussion or if you're disagreeing for its own sake.

All and all, Houston offers less traditionally higher education offerings (4-year colleges where "anything" can be taken) than its peers.

It's not really balanced out when UT-Dallas and UT-Arlington both have over 25k+ undergraduates compared to two HBCUs under 10k students each.

Like I mentioned earlier, the presence of the military has spurred economic growth. Like San Antonio is big in cyber security due to the military. You'd rather have it as part of your city's economic diversity than not. The other Texas cities luckily have it (and in Austin's case the state government too), while Houston does not. San Antonio may not be getting as many namebrand relocations as DFW and Austin, but quite a few companies have expanded operations there (Microsoft, Hulu, etc.). Touting the Port is no different than DFW touting it's airport. Speaking of which, a bill was proposed by Texas lawmakers to limit cargo ships into the Port of Houston. Luckily that didn't pass.

Yeah I agree. It's impressive the city has gotten as large as it has without the assistance the I-35 Corridor has received (and continues to) from the state.

A&M is 90-something miles from downtown. Outside the metro area but still fairly close. I had a friend who commuted to College Station a few times a week from Houston for her masters. Sam Houston State is about 70 miles from Houston.

Well 90 or 70 miles is a lot different than just a handful of miles. Imagine if you placed College Station inside Loop 610 in Houston? Satellite campuses are different than a campus being inside the city. Besides, if we start counting A&M for Houston, then DFW can just as easily count Baylor and Tarleton State.

List universities and colleges for Metro Houston versus its peer cities, and unfortunately Houston comes up a few steps short.

After doing some searching I finally found a listing of US metros by total college enrollments, and the results are a bit shocking:

https://i.imgur.com/pkrT4T1.jpg

LA has a larger population of college student than Dallas, Huston, and Austin combined. Of all the metros with more than 1 million residents, at 7.34% LA has the highest fraction of college students compared to total population. Austin is at 5th with 7.13%, and no other Texan city falls in the top 10.

Houston being in the top 10 fares pretty well.

Ellington Field doesn’t count?

Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of prominence and variety of institutions.

Eh, we'll agree to disagree concerning the military. It seems to play a rather minor role in DFW's economy (and the same is pretty much true for Miami and Atlanta also). I actually think that having a rather large military sector can lead to a sort of complacency since the military tends to be a reliable economic fixture and that could be at least partially to blame for the lack of a local dynamic economy in many military-dependent cities. I think Houston benefits more from NASA's presence than it would from a DFW-sized military presence myself.

And come on, you know very well that DFW airport and the Port of Houston are two different types of assets. If you want to talk about entities in the state that are public or receive large amounts of government financial support, you've gotta mention Houston's port which is one of the largest and busiest in the world. It's also directly tied to the region's petrochemical industry.

I don't see what's shocking. The number of college students is basically a function of the overall population. LA is larger than Houston, Dallas and Austin combined, so, not surprisingly, has more college students. Something like 70% of high school grads attend college these days.

Again, I don't understand what's so important about where people attend college. In most cases it has limited impact on a metro's economic prospects. The best "Wall Street" business school isn't in NYC, the best "innovation" university is nowhere near Silicon Valley, etc. People just move to jobs after college.

The biggest concentration of Harvard grads isn't in Boston. If Harvard moved to rural Maine, it probably wouldn't change things too much, both for the metro and the institution.

Not too surprising regarding Texas.... Austin has the state's flagship university which is by far the largest while we don't take higher education as seriously as we should as an overall state.

Even though Texas A&M (the state's second flagship university) is ~90 miles from downtown Houston, it should get at least half the enrollment counted towards it.

I’m just impressed with Miami being that high. Of course the big dogs will always be up there, but it’s nice to see that we got a lot of college students in South Florida, even if they only chose it for the beaches and weather :haha:


But I got family and friends still in that system and had I not been bothered by the amount of loans I would have had to take out, I would have been an UM alumni.

What's the "best 'Wall Street' business school"? UPenn (Wharton)?

"Innovation"? I think Stanford is definitely #1.

Pretty sure it is, but I get your point.

Dallas-Fort Worth's defense contracting industry is one of the largest in the country. Several industry giants including Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT), Raytheon Co. (NYSE: RTN), L3 Technologies, Inc.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...nse-deals.html

Wharton likely has closer ties to Wall Street than any other institution. Harvard and Columbia would be close behind.

And it depends how you define innovation, but I would put MIT science up against any institution worldwide. Stanford obviously generates more startups and wealth, though. MIT is more about creating, say, a new polymer, rather than, say, a disruptive drycleaning startup.

LA metro pop in 2018: 13,291,486
Dallas, Houston, Austin combined metro pop in 2018: 16,705,411

College students in LA: 974,013
College students in Houston and Dallas combined: 572, 922
Austin doesn't even rate to be included in the list, but if we assume it has 270,000 students (same as Huston at #10) LA still has over 100,000 more than all three combined.

Or put another way, Dallas is 4th in total population yet 7th in students. Houston is 5th in population and 10th in students. On a per capita basis, Texan cities are really losing out on the college game.

And that does effect the overall composition of the metro area. The majority of both LA and Texas' college students stay in their city after graduation. Interestingly Houston and Dallas are both slight better at retaining their graduates (66.1%/63.7% vs 62.9% for LA), but even then the vastly larger number of students in LA means it generates a far larger base of skilled workers. Just on these numbers we'd find that Dallas is adding 192,738 graduates to its workforce every year, and Houston 180,323 for a total of 373,061. But then LA is adding nearly double that at 612,654, and in a single metro area.

Now the real number is almost assuredly lower, that figure assumes every student graduates and every student gets a 4 year degree, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to say a company in LA can pull from a pool of college educated workers 3-4x larger than it could anywhere in Texas.

edit: Houston

Where on God's green Earth is Huston???

Inquiring minds want to know.

Idaho. Though I think his numbers are off:

Huston Vineyards

:cheers:

I mean that sh*t don't even look right. It's like the equivalent of Shicago, Atlantuh or Feenix. :rolleyes:

I'll have you know John Huston was a screenwriter and director who defined classic noir with The Maltese Falcon and The Asphalt Jungle, and he would not appreciate being talked about like this.

:shrug:

The number of times I drove past Chicken Dinner Rd without realizing there was wine on it!

Texas historically been a destination for transplants. Most people I know here in Houston who are college educated are not from Houston or Texas but other states and countries where they already received most if not all their higher education. It's their kids who are likely to attend TX based universities and the schools are expanding. The undergrad and grad schools I went to here quadrupled in student size since my time there. California has not been a major destination for transplants on the scale of the rest of the sunbelt in decades. They long since addressed their higher education needs.

The Fort Worth "Metro" would be sizable on it's own too. Tarrant+Wise+Parker+Johnson+Hood is about 2.2 million, Vegas/Cincinnati metro territory.

Of all the things to discuss, you're zero'd in on a typo? A typo that is missing one letter? That typo is most likely associated to the user actually spelling it correctly, while the hardware/software not registering it as a full on punch - or typing too fast for the keyboard to actually place it.

This happens to me all the time [and certainly you!].