Dallas doesn't really have any high density tracts, and has minimal transit share.

The stuff in the foreground is where single people live; they aren't gonna be in 3-4,000 sq. ft. tract homes. I mean, yeah, it's better than McMansions in cornfields, but it isn't like Dallas falls short on that score. And I suspect these apartments will age about as well as McMansions.

Dallas actually builds a crapload of multifamily. I believe they're #2 in multifamily construction starts, behind only NYC. But it's almost entirely the typology in the pic.

Who care about transit usage? Queens probably has lower transit usage than Calgary and is 5x denser

Most Dallas suburbanites live in places that look like Plano, not ‘McMansions on cornfields’

Still scratching my head about what’s wrong with that pic. Transit? Check. Dense? Check. New construction next to urban center? Check

If this were on Long Island you would be celebrating it

Yeah. No doubt, I always thought Los Colinas was an extremely boring looking area, so I agree with the person who originally made the comment. However, if you look at the area from a macro standpoint, its relatively in the middle of nowhere. It's not like its 3 miles from downtown Dallas. Knowing this, I think the development is alright. It's decent, you have relatively high-density apartments abutting rail. You can take the train to downtown Dallas or to the Airport. Perfect for young singles who work downtown or fly a lot.

It's nice for what it is...but it ain't like some uber urban neighborhood in Boston or NYC and will never be.

I doubt Queens has lower transit share than Calgary, and don't understand the relevance. Why would we compare the least transit-oriented major borough to a Canadian metro? How is that apples-apples?

Plano is literally "McMansions in (former) cornfields". It's exactly what I'm talking about.

The pic looks awful because it's suburban style apartments on treeless streets and a barely used transit line a few miles north of downtown Dallas. And it's specifically being used to argue that Dallas has high density and transit share (it has neither).

And no, I wouldn't be celebrating this on Long Island, and don't understand the relevance. Again, not remotely apples-apples; this is the Manhattan of Dallas (that whole North Dallas favored corridor).

more than a few, that image is actually 10 miles NW of downtown dallas.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8680.../data=!3m1!1e3

Toronto from somewhere to the northwest:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b8985d43_h.jpg
Untitled by Franklin McKay, on Flickr

Dubai
https://foshthoughts.files.wordpress...001.jpg?w=1440
https://foshthoughts.wordpress.com/2...arab-emirates/

I'm one of those annoying Texans that loves this state way too much (I try to be as conscious and as not-annoying as possible), but I gotta be honest; Dallas is the most sterile and boring big city in Texas. I live in Austin, raised in Corpus, and have spent a lot of time in Houston, but I just can't wrap my head around Dallas. No one that I've ever met has ever even used DART and the city focuses too much on being flashy rather than fostering an urban environment for everyone. Very clean city, great architecture, but the city is a yawn. It's infrastructure is far beyond any city in Texas, but nothing about Dallas feels natural

I guess if there weren't a lot of negativity about cities on SSP, there wouldn't be an SSP.

Gotta love someone in Atlanta (universally recognized as Charlotte's slightly more urban big brother) coming on here to consistently talk $hit about Dallas and Houston.

Like, really. Because We all know Atlanta is head and shoulders above Dallas and Houston in terms of skyline size, density, proposed development, etc.

Talk about glass houses.

Envious, much?

#1 This is suburban Dallas, north of Irving. I am sorry, please tell us how suburban Dallas should look again. The area looks pretty urban for a suburban area. Just because the trees are not mature does not mean it is treeless. It's obviously newer construction.

#2 To call this the "Manhattan of Dallas" is just the definition of ignorant when ignoring neighborhoods like Uptown, West Village, and other downtown adjacent neighborhoods.

North Dallas is the "Manhattan of Dallas". That's the favored quarter. The buildings looks exactly the same whether they're two blocks north of downtown or in Plano.

And there's no traditional urban fabric anywhere in Dallas. That's the point.

OK. Sure.

If we're talking strictly about skylines, then yes, this statement is factually accurate.

Atlanta's tallest skyscraper, BofA (1023 ft) is taller and better looking than Dallas' tallest, also BofA (only 921 ft), as well as Houston's tallest, JP Morgan (1002 ft).

And in the past 30 years, Atlanta has added 18 new towers to its top 25 tallest buildings. In the past 30 years, Dallas has added one new tower to its top 25 tallest lineup. Houston, meanwhile, has added four. Indeed, Atlanta has added 13 more top 25 towers in the past 30 years than Dallas and Houston combined.

...

Atlanta

Heads
Shoulders

Houston
Dallas

^ dallas' relative skyline stagnation is a bit perplexing to me. the area has been growing like a weed, and yet has so little skyscraper construction to show for it.

the metroplex has added over 2M people over the past 20 years, but dallas has only built 2 towers over 400' during that time, with nothing rising above 700'.

by contrast, chicagoland has basically been stagnant population-wise over the past 20 years, yet chicago has built roughly 100 towers over 400' during that time, with 14 of those rising above 700' (3 more to start soon).

and then you have metro toronto which has been growing like a weed over the past 20 years, and toronto has built over 170 towers over 400' during that time, with 19 of those rising above 700'.

population growth and skyline growth are sometimes directly correlated with each other, but certainly not always, as dallas and chicago prove.

But on the multi family construction front, Dallas is tops in the USA

This is helping create many new urban spaces and clusters of density across the metroplex

I’m sure if Dallas has Toronto’s prices, they’d be building less affordable towers instead of multi family

But Dallas draws its growth from domestic middle class migrants. Toronto from upper class foreign migrants

sure, but i wasn't talking about multi-family construction, rather skyline change.

and dallas' skyline has been remarkably stagnant for a good long while now, especially given it's very aggressive population growth.

Virtually every study on the topic has foreign buyers at between 3% to 9% of the Toronto market. the vast majority of buyers are Canadian buying multiple homes as investments and either renting out the space or reselling.

Yeah, I am not a Dallas hater by any means(although I am well aware of its faults) and I am still in awe of the lack of buildings being built downtown.

Someone with a good guess or actual answer care to answer? I am beyond perplexed. I know most migrants to the metro are looking for a cheap suburban 3/2 and all the suburban development that comes with those types of areas. However, as Steely pointed out, there has been barely any large development downtown. Even with the city favoring a certain type of development, you would figure they would get more than TWO towers over 400 feet in the time span that so many American cities have been booming in that department. Hell, even little ole stagnant Norfolk has built our 3rd/4th/7th/8th/11th tallest in the last 20 years. And we are currently building our new 4th tallest as I type.

Houston

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11700551@N02/48609752127/


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...556a0c72_h.jpg