HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 5:25 PM
dweebo2220 dweebo2220 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 145
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%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 6:05 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,881
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 10:35 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2010, 11:33 PM
greywallsareboring greywallsareboring is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
"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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 12:16 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 12:50 AM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,479
Southwest Dallas across the trinity isn't the least bit urban.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 1:14 AM
pacarlson pacarlson is offline
Borneo Expat
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Balikpapan, Indonesia
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey View Post
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.
__________________
Suburbia is great. Big houses, big yards, good schools, & less crime. Do your family a favor & move out of the city and to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 1:16 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywallsareboring View Post
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 1:18 AM
pacarlson pacarlson is offline
Borneo Expat
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Balikpapan, Indonesia
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
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?
__________________
Suburbia is great. Big houses, big yards, good schools, & less crime. Do your family a favor & move out of the city and to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 2:04 AM
vjhe's Avatar
vjhe vjhe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 2:22 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 7:18 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,881
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 9:07 AM
Owlhorn Owlhorn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 4:56 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 6:06 PM
greywallsareboring greywallsareboring is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
"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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 7:02 PM
Don B. Don B. is offline
...
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,184
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 7:16 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 7:25 PM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 7:49 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
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.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2010, 7:59 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,519
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.