If Dallas had smaller boundaries...

[dweebo2220]

BTW, my simple methodology for choosing the tracts to include was based on finding a core area that had a similar share of the urban area's population to Boston (I know it's silly to choose that city since it has such a small percentage of its urban area, but I just wanted to find what the extreme would be)

Boston: City- 589,141; Urban Area- 4,032,484; City share- 15%
(Actual) Los Angeles: City- 3,694,820; Urban Area- 11,789,487, City share- 31%
("Classic") Los Angeles: City- 1,800,000; Urban Area- 11,789,487, City share- 15%

In truth, LA's actual 31% of the population is pretty similar to philly (29%) and Chicago (34%)

[pj3000]

Much of Dallas' 342 sq miles is "city" in name only... we should all be able to agree on that. Hell, in Texas they call everything a city.



source: txroadrunners

[hudkina]

Dallas isn't as "bad" as Houston as far as having largely undeveloped land. If you consider that there was 617,000 people in the 140 sq. mi. core, that leaves 572,000 people in the remaining 202 sq. mi. That's still a density of over 2,800 ppsm, and today that number is probably over 3,000 ppsm.

In fact, I believe Dallas is pretty close to being "built out" in the sense that easily developable land is rapidly disappearing, and it can't annex more land as it is mostly boxed in by its suburbs. In the coming decades, most of the development in the city will have to be of the "urban renewal" sort.

[greywallsareboring]

"Much of Dallas' 342 sq miles is "city" in name only... we should all be able to agree on that." The same could be said for many cities in America. Although the picture of Valentine (which is a nice little town by the way) is rather ignorant. Most of the international delegations that I get to meet every week are usually impressed with both DFW and Houston, especially given Texas stereotypes.

[hudkina]

I think he meant just in the sense that certain areas within the city limits of Dallas are undeveloped, not that what is developed isn't a "city".

[Zerton]

Southwest Dallas across the trinity isn't the least bit urban.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I'd like to see Detroit's boundaries inflated to the size of Dallas.

If you were to allow Detroit to annex all of Wayne county, it would have just over 1.9 million as of 2009 (more than Detroit city had at its 1950 peak of 1.85 million) in about 614 square miles. This would make it comparable to Houston.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by hudkina

In the coming decades, most of the development in the city will have to be of the "urban renewal" sort.

I hope that this is true. I left Dallas in the early 2000s just when things were really starting to happen in the urban core. In frequent visits since then, I've been impressed with the development/redevelopment projects.

Originally Posted by greywallsareboring

"Much of Dallas' 342 sq miles is "city" in name only... we should all be able to agree on that." The same could be said for many cities in America. Although the picture of Valentine (which is a nice little town by the way) is rather ignorant. Most of the international delegations that I get to meet every week are usually impressed with both DFW and Houston, especially given Texas stereotypes.

First... No, not really... considering that cities with comparable populations to Dallas (like Philadelphia and Detroit) are half the size in terms of city limit land area, and are far more urban. Dallas, by and large, is a suburban city. Second... learn the meaning of the word "ignorant". Third... you're not doing Texas any favors in dispelling any of those stereotypes.

Originally Posted by hudkina

I think he meant just in the sense that certain areas within the city limits of Dallas are undeveloped, not that what is developed isn't a "city".

Yes, but I also meant that the vast majority of Dallas' 342 sq miles could not be considered an urban environment. Sure, most of that area is developed, and is technically "city". But it is certainly suburban.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Much of Dallas' 342 sq miles is "city" in name only... we should all be able to agree on that. Hell, in Texas they call everything a city.



source: txroadrunners

Did you see the Prada store?

[vjhe]

Originally Posted by alex1

well, that land South of the Woodlands technically can belong to Houston and will at some point in the coming decade(s). That particular land has the same designation as Kingwood, which was gobbled up by Houston some 7-8 years ago. The Woodlands, TX also belonged within Houston's grasp, but I do believe they relieved themselves of this possibility (or will soon be relieved of it) through an agreement.

First of all Houston annexed Kingwood (14,00 acres and 40,000 residents at the time) close to 15 years ago.

You ARE correct alex1 in that Houston and The Woodlands reached a agreement where The Woodlands cannot be annexed, however they do have to contribute financially to metro area infrastucture projects as part of that agreement.

Lastly, at least once a year I like to mention that despite perceptions on this site, Houston is NOT in a perpetual state of annexation, "gobbling" up enormous amounts of populations and lands. If you look at the history of annexation in Houston, you will find, yes there were significant land grabs in the 70 like Clear lake but from that point they have been relatively small. MOST of the annexation in the 80's and 90's consisted of small pieces of land that consisted of many water districts, electrical power plants, small airports, and lucrative tax cows like malls and popular shopping centers. Houston even annexed a wildlife preserve. Most of the those annexations consisted of acres or 2.5 square miles and the like.

A look into Houston's annexation history and WHAT the city annexed would change the perception the city is constantly annexing giant populations of surrounding small cities on a consistent basis.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yes, but I also meant that the vast majority of Dallas' 342 sq miles could not be considered an urban environment. Sure, most of that area is developed, and is technically "city". But it is certainly suburban.

Every city has suburbia beyond it's small core. Dallas is no exception. The larger the city limits, the more suburia is included.

[pj3000]

True, but even if you reduced Dallas' city limit size to something considerably smaller, it would still be decidedly suburban... and not "streetcar" suburban at that, but rather 1960s-1980s type suburban. Before expanding its land area to over 300 sq miles, Dallas was already a suburban city, considering its eras of greatest development. Adding all of that additional land only served to make it an even more suburban environment within its city limits.

[Owlhorn]

Originally Posted by pj3000

True, but even if you reduced Dallas' city limit size to something considerably smaller, it would still be decidedly suburban... and not "streetcar" suburban at that, but rather 1960s-1980s type suburban. Before expanding its land area to over 300 sq miles, Dallas was already a suburban city, considering its eras of greatest development. Adding all of that additional land only served to make it an even more suburban environment within its city limits.

so, what? Did you come all the way here to tell us that gleefully?

[hudkina]

Dallas already had 500,000+ by the time sprawlier post-war suburbia became common, so it's not as if there isn't a massive pre-war core. That's the "achilles heel" of cities with such large land areas. People forget about the historic city... Cities like Dallas, San Diego, Columbus, Louisville, etc. may owe a lot of their current population to suburban sprawl, but that doesn't change the fact that those cities have massive historic cores that function no differently from the likes of Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, St. Louis and other cities that maintain relatively small boundaries. In fact, the reason I did this was to not only compare Dallas to the other cities, but also show the side of Dallas that many people overlook, the older pre-war neighborhoods, the historic downtown districts, etc. Most of the land within the boundaries that I created was developed by the 1950's, and most of it was developed with people in mind.

I just don't see the need to single out Dallas for post-war sprawl when every city in the nation experienced it. Hell, the only city that might deserve chiding is Phoenix, as it doesn't have a large historic core and really didn't become a major player until the era of post-war sprawl. Ironically, Phoenix has one of the denser cores...

[greywallsareboring]

"First... No, not really... considering that cities with comparable populations to Dallas (like Philadelphia and Detroit) are half the size in terms of city limit land area, and are far more urban. Dallas, by and large, is a suburban city. Second... learn the meaning of the word "ignorant". Third... you're not doing Texas any favors in dispelling any of those stereotypes."

I am not dispelling stereotypes, I'm am just commenting on observations by outsiders. Trust me, visitors get plenty of exposure to stereotypes when they travel here, but the stereotypes are usually not what leaves the biggest impression and is not the reason the people I work with come here. Also, I never said Dallas is not a largely suburban, just that the picture of Valentine has no relevance here.

Is there a place in Texas that you would not call a city in name only?

[Don B.]

I've studied Phoenix's more developed core extensively. Using 2000 census data, Phoenix's corporate city limits covered 555 square miles and had a population of 1.324 million, with a per capita income of about $19,833. Using the Phoenix city government's Village maps and data, I've been able to remove most of the more suburban, wealthy neighborhoods from the more dense, poorer core, which yields the following contrasts:

Inner City: 153 square miles, population 712,648, per capita income $14,314.
Suburbs: 402 square miles, population 611,964, per capita income $26,260.

Inner City density: 4,658 people per square mile
Suburb density: 1,522 people per square mile

Note the inner city numbers includes our airport, Sky Harbor, which is vast, so the true population density of Phoenix's core (which roughly approximates the city limits of Phoenix from 1960 to 1975 or so) is more like 6,000 people per square mile.

Mind you, this does not include any of the approximately 3 million people who live in Phoenix's true suburbs, such as Mesa, Tempe, Glendale, Gilbert, Chandler, Peoria and so on.

The inner city of Phoenix above would be about 60% Hispanic and overwhelming blue in political nature. Probably about two-thirds of Phoenix's gay and lesbian population of 100,000 to 200,000 resides in that core as well, including myself and almost all of my friends.

This same area in 1950 would have had about 200,000 people, give or take. It probably reached 400,000 by 1970 and 600,000 by 1990.

Hope this helps. Here's the map, and the black borders roughly correlates to the numbers I provided above:



--don

[Trae]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Dallas isn't as "bad" as Houston as far as having largely undeveloped land. If you consider that there was 617,000 people in the 140 sq. mi. core, that leaves 572,000 people in the remaining 202 sq. mi. That's still a density of over 2,800 ppsm, and today that number is probably over 3,000 ppsm.

In fact, I believe Dallas is pretty close to being "built out" in the sense that easily developable land is rapidly disappearing, and it can't annex more land as it is mostly boxed in by its suburbs. In the coming decades, most of the development in the city will have to be of the "urban renewal" sort.

Dallas' core is actually a little less dense than Houston. Houston fits 600K into the 96 square mile Inner Loop. With Dallas, having Fort Worth nearby definitely takes away from some of the urban population that would be going to Dallas if Dallas was the only major city in the area. With Houston being the only major city in the area, it contributes to its urban core being larger and denser than Dallas'.

Having moved to Dallas recently, I have to say that it definitely does feel smaller than Houston. I work in Uptown Dallas and though the area is very nice (with some nice eye candy), it doesn't feel as large as Houston's urban core. And with all of these suburban cities surrounding Dallas, you're out of the city limits pretty quick (by freeway) depending on where you are. In my opinion, DFW feels like one large collection of cities/suburbs, while the Houston area feels like one giant city (save for Bay Area Houston).

[CyberEric]

These discussions are interesting to me. I had no idea Dallas city limits had such a large square mileage.

I really am saddened by how often publications and the everyday person talk about cities in terms of their populations within a totally arbitrary city proper.

It seems to me that some cities, such as Boston and San Francisco has the opposite problem from Dallas when thinking about population. SF's city proper is arbitrarily small in terms of sq mileage, due to some ridiculous straight line drawn across the peninsula, while urbanity continues pretty much uninterrupted into Daly City.

Are there any books written on this sort of thing?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Trae

Dallas' core is actually a little less dense than Houston. Houston fits 600K into the 96 square mile Inner Loop. With Dallas, having Fort Worth nearby definitely takes away from some of the urban population that would be going to Dallas if Dallas was the only major city in the area. With Houston being the only major city in the area, it contributes to its urban core being larger and denser than Dallas'.

Having moved to Dallas recently, I have to say that it definitely does feel smaller than Houston. I work in Uptown Dallas and though the area is very nice (with some nice eye candy), it doesn't feel as large as Houston's urban core. And with all of these suburban cities surrounding Dallas, you're out of the city limits pretty quick (by freeway) depending on where you are. In my opinion, DFW feels like one large collection of cities/suburbs, while the Houston area feels like one giant city (save for Bay Area Houston).

I've never been to Texas, so I found that very informative/interesting. Did the DFW area develop over the decades from lots of small towns (Dallas and Ft. Worth being the largest 2) converging into one giant metro? Is the developmental history of Houston the opposite?

If Houston puts a stop to sprawl it will have to densify. The experience in my city is that this inevitably leads to the development of lots of 'city centres' scattered throughout the metropolitan region. Houston may develop that way.

Both cities may end up looking very similar 20, 30, 40 years down: 1 or 2 large city centres, with lots of satellite city centres.

[mhays]

I've heard the Houston inner-loop 600,000 figure before, but couldn't verify it. Is there a source for this without me manually figuring out census tracts?