Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.