If Dallas had smaller boundaries...

[Trae]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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.

Houston started off small, but in order to increase its tax base, started annexing like crazy. The early Houston leaders didn't want the city to be boxed in like the Northeastern cities were. When new developments popped up (NASA for example) Houston annexed the land. When a new mall popped up, Houston annexed the commercial areas, but left the residential areas alone. Because of Texas' ETJ rules, when Houston annexes a strip of freeway for the commercial areas, it essentially controls any land five miles from the city limits. That's why you see those weird lines in this map:



As far as sprawl in Houston, Houston's Inner Loop is what a lot of people consider the "real" Houston. If it were a city, it'd be larger than Atlanta and only be 96 square miles. Other than that, Houston sprawls just like any other metro.

The way DFW developed was that there were two major cities in the area, Dallas and Fort Worth. Then, there were a lot of small towns that, I guess seeing what was going on in Houston, did not want to be annexed by the larger Fort Worth and Dallas, so they started forming their own cities and annexing land themselves. With Texas' weird ETJ rules, Dallas got boxed in because its suburbs have always been larger. Fort Worth annexed its way out of that and is not hemmed in like Dallas. There has always been more smaller towns/cities in DFW it seems.

Someone can probably do a better job than me, but that's the best way I can describe them.

Originally Posted by 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?

You're going to have to add up the zip codes in the Inner Loop. For the 2000 Census, the numbers were about 480K, IIRC.

[travelinmiles]

Originally Posted by Trae

Houston started off small, but in order to increase its tax base, started annexing like crazy. The early Houston leaders didn't want the city to be boxed in like the Northeastern cities were. When new developments popped up (NASA for example) Houston annexed the land. When a new mall popped up, Houston annexed the commercial areas, but left the residential areas alone. Because of Texas' ETJ rules, when Houston annexes a strip of freeway for the commercial areas, it essentially controls any land five miles from the city limits. That's why you see those weird lines in this map:



As far as sprawl in Houston, Houston's Inner Loop is what a lot of people consider the "real" Houston. If it were a city, it'd be larger than Atlanta and only be 96 square miles. Other than that, Houston sprawls just like any other metro.

The way DFW developed was that there were two major cities in the area, Dallas and Fort Worth. Then, there were a lot of small towns that, I guess seeing what was going on in Houston, did not want to be annexed by the larger Fort Worth and Dallas, so they started forming their own cities and annexing land themselves. With Texas' weird ETJ rules, Dallas got boxed in because its suburbs have always been larger. Fort Worth annexed its way out of that and is not hemmed in like Dallas. There has always been more smaller towns/cities in DFW it seems.

Someone can probably do a better job than me, but that's the best way I can describe them.



You're going to have to add up the zip codes in the Inner Loop. For the 2000 Census, the numbers were about 480K, IIRC.

Your assessment of Houston and DFW were both accurate. I will add a few points about D/FW. Before the 70s the two cities functioned as two different metros. With Fort Worth anchoring areas west of the Dallas-Tarrant county line and Dallas anchoring points east. In fact, up until the 80s the census counted each as distinct metro areas. Over the years, growth from both cities spilled over into adjacent suburbs. There was a bit of growth between them do to the heavy defense presents in Grand Prairie and GM in Arlington, but for the most part these two large boomburbs are offshoots of the two core cities. There are still vestiges of the two core cities being completely distinct metros, such as with newspaper subscriptions, area codes (its long distance to call FW from Dallas vice versa, whether you have a 76--- or 75--- for zip code, ect. The point being that the two metros grew together to form one big one. This is another reason why Houston feels bigger as Trae alluded to, is because it is, seeing as how its two against one.

A good measure of comparing historic urbanity between D/FW and any other cities would be to add up Fort Worths population in its pre 50's core with Dallas's core. Similar to what would be done with MSP.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 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?

For what ever reason some cities happened to amalgamate or annex the areas around them thus increasing their borders. While others did not do such a thing.

It is why when comparing things like population or density that the land area should also be taken into account as well. To just compare the population of two cities can lead to a wrongful comparison if one doesn't know that one city in land area might be twice as large as another.

[hudkina]

I did another one of Phoenix. It looks very similar to the one posted earlier.

The population in 2000 was 741,994 in 139.94 sq. mi. putting the density at 5,302.1 ppsm.

[urbanactivist]

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.

This is true, but you're leaving out a big piece of the puzzle, and why it is that we view cities like Houston and Dallas as "suburban"...

These cities had distinctive urban cores prior to WWII... each with over 100,000 people. A "real city" at that time, with walkable districts, streetcars and rail transportation, corner stores... all of the above. What they didn't have later were NIMBY'S that stood in the way of progress with the development/exapansion of cars and freeways. These walkable areas got severed, separated and obliterated to make room for freeways. That's why we consider these cities suburban today. Everyone has sprawl, but Dallas and Houston chopped up their true city cores, while places like NYC and Philly did not. Our cores did not survive the freeway era.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Owlhorn

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

Ridiculous, overly-defensive BS like this is a major reason so many intelligent forumers shy away from discussion threads and/or leave the forum altogether.

Gleefully? Hardly. The OP asked "I thought it would be interesting to see what Dallas would look like if it hadn't expanded to 342.5 sq. mi...". That was the topic of the thread. I was answering the question he asked. And that answer is... Dallas wouldn't look all that much different.

Originally Posted by 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...

Having been a resident of Dallas' supposed "massive pre-war" core, I can assuredly say that it most certainly is not all that massive, nor is it pre-war... especially not when compared to comparably-populated cities. The majority of the land area contained within the map you created is suburban in design, and definitely NOT developed by the 1950s, as you claim. If that is your "massive core", I can tell you it is definitely not "pre-war". The entire area north of Mockingbird Ln (save for portions of the Park Cities) is a totally suburban environment, most of it 1950s and later... as is the area bordering White Rock Lake. Much of the area of South Dallas which you've included is also quite suburban and developed (if you can call it that) in the 50s and later. Portions of South Dallas within your boundaries could even be considered semi-rural. Have you ever actually been down there? To claim that area as a part of a "massive pre-war core" is laughable.

Claiming that Dallas' "massive historic core" is akin in function, size, etc., now or historically, to urban cores like Baltimore's or St. Louis' (which each had more than double Dallas' population by 1950), Minneapolis/St. Paul's, or even Pittsburgh's is almost disingenuous. I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate with this thread topic, because what you're claiming just isn't true. If Dallas were only 140 sq miles, as you proposed, it would still resemble many of the further out suburban areas, simply because Dallas is a more suburban-styled city, owing to the era in which much of the area you mapped out developed.

And who is singling out Dallas besides you? Dallas is the topic of the thread which you started. I was just answering your question.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

This is true, but you're leaving out a big piece of the puzzle, and why it is that we view cities like Houston and Dallas as "suburban"...

These cities had distinctive urban cores prior to WWII... each with over 100,000 people. A "real city" at that time, with walkable districts, streetcars and rail transportation, corner stores... all of the above. What they didn't have later were NIMBY'S that stood in the way of progress with the development/exapansion of cars and freeways. These walkable areas got severed, separated and obliterated to make room for freeways. That's why we consider these cities suburban today. Everyone has sprawl, but Dallas and Houston chopped up their true city cores, while places like NYC and Philly did not. Our cores did not survive the freeway era.

I fully agree. Dallas' urban environment was drastically altered in mid-century with impressive infrastructure projects aimed at accommodating the automobile.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by MNMike

If we were to ignore all of the suburbs, and expand Minneapolis(or St. Paul's for that matter) boundaries to say, around 135 square miles(the size of a lot of the examples above), just redrawing the boundaries over the existing urban area, the population would easily be 800k+. Even though in reality the city would still be the same size...I bet it would be perceived as a much bigger city. What do you think?

Here's one for Minneapolis where it basically annexes all of its inner-ring suburbs.

The popultion is 639,006 in 132.20 sq. mi. for a density of 4,833.7 ppsm.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Having been a resident of Dallas' supposed "massive pre-war" core, I can assuredly say that it most certainly is not all that massive, nor is it pre-war... especially not when compared to comparably-populated cities. The majority of the land area contained within the map you created is suburban in design, and definitely NOT developed by the 1950s, as you claim.

Most cities outside of the pre-auto core are "suburban" in nature, especially in cities of 140 sq. mi. or more. Look at northeast Philadelphia or Northwest Detroit. There's plenty of early post-war suburbia in those areas. And while obviously Dallas doesn't have the "rustic" rowhouses and victorian commercial corridors found in the Northeast, the area I bounded is fairly typical of most American cities. It may be suburban in many respects, but it isn't nearly as auto-dependent as what is going up at the fringes.

[sogod]

Originally Posted by Trae

You're going to have to add up the zip codes in the Inner Loop. For the 2000 Census, the numbers were about 480K, IIRC.

In other words, the 600,000 is just a guess

Also the numbers for Dallas at the start of this thread are from 2000, so its comparing them to Houston's 2000 numbers seems right.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Most cities outside of the pre-auto core are "suburban" in nature, especially in cities of 140 sq. mi. or more. Look at northeast Philadelphia or Northwest Detroit. There's plenty of early post-war suburbia in those areas. And while obviously Dallas doesn't have the "rustic" rowhouses and victorian commercial corridors found in the Northeast, the area I bounded is fairly typical of most American cities. It may be suburban in many respects, but it isn't nearly as auto-dependent as what is going up at the fringes.

I guess I understand what you're trying to convey, but you're reaching too far and are mistaken in your description of Dallas. Sure, Philly and Detroit absolutely have their share of early post-war suburbia in pockets. But MOST of that area you consider to be Dallas' core is post-war suburbia... and not the "early" type. A sizable portion is 1960s-80s suburbia. Much of that area is quite, if not completely, auto-dependent. As I stated earlier, north of Mockingbird is a suburban environment in terms of function, transportation, design, and spatial arrangement. It's actually funny that you think this area is part of Dallas' "massive historic core", when the portion within your boundaries north of mockingbird and east of 75 up to 635 is basically nothing but an endless mass of 1970s-1990s apartment complexes. North of Northwest Highway, the suburban nature of the entire area is even more pronounced and is entirely auto-dependent... quite similar to what one would find in Richardson, Addison, or even Plano. South Dallas is an entirely different, disconnected suburban area of the city.

[BevoLJ]

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.

I could be wrong, probably am, but I am fairly sure that the last time Houston expanded was in the mid to early 90's. I'm fairly certain it has been at 579 sq miles since then.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by hudkina

I did another one of Phoenix. It looks very similar to the one posted earlier.

The population in 2000 was 741,994 in 139.94 sq. mi. putting the density at 5,302.1 ppsm.

Like Don said earlier, the numbers would be much higher if the airport wasn't included, also, the Salt River corridor is a huge swath of mostly vacant land and sand/gravel operations.

I'd like to see the figures if South Phoenix was excluded and replaced with SE Glendale.

[hudkina]

All of the cities I posted have a river valley and large airport within the city limits. My point wasn't to show the densest possible configuration, but rather to show the most likely configuration.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by sogod

In other words, the 600,000 is just a guess

Also the numbers for Dallas at the start of this thread are from 2000, so its comparing them to Houston's 2000 numbers seems right.

More of an estimate . Just add up the population in the zip codes. And comparing 2000 numbers for both is correct, you're right on that. I wonder what Houston would look like at 140 square miles, too.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by hudkina

All of the cities I posted have a river valley and large airport within the city limits. My point wasn't to show the densest possible configuration, but rather to show the most likely configuration.

Could you do Austin? Just one thing, most of Austin's development is very linear north to south, up and down I-35. Austin's airport is just barely inside the city limits.

[Unity77]

Minneapolis at 300 sq. miles would include the cities of MPLS., STPL., and 25 of their inner-ring suburbs. The city-proper population would be over 1.2 million.