Moving away...

[downtownguy25]

In the past few months I noticed alot of people are leaving this city. I know of at least 3 forum members who are moving out of town this month and a few more that are planning on moving. Thought this could be an interesting thread, to see why they are moving.

[tamtagon]

Is it like people saying they are moving, or is it for real?

[vman]

Uh...I can't think of a city in this country that people are not constantly moving from. People have been moving to and from Dallas since I've been here. I don't see anything unususal about that.

[incrediculous]

I'm moving to Chicago on Oct 1st.

Because Chicago isn't Dallas.

[RobertB]

I worked for American Airlines, which has large workforces in Tulsa and Dallas. It's been my experience that most of the people who moved here from Tulsa wanted to go back. And in Tulsa, most of the people who moved there from Dallas ALSO wanted to go back. It's a Greener Pastures thing.

Churn is a natural part of the American landscape. The only towns that don't have people leaving are the ones that are so dead that everyone's already left.

[downtownguy25]

I'm moving to Chicago on Oct 1st.

Because Chicago isn't Dallas.

I moved for pretty much the same reason. That and there are no datable people in this city.

Perhaps its just my group of friends but out of my close friends 3/4 of them are either moving or have plans to move in the near future.

[tamtagon]

I wonder how many people have moved to the CBD because of all the promises and media hype, but have become disappointed because they didnt know and no one told them that it'll be a couple more years before the CBD atmosphere is close to today's promoted potential.

[MisterNifty]

In the past few months I noticed alot of people are leaving this city. I know of at least 3 forum members who are moving out of town this month and a few more that are planning on moving. Thought this could be an interesting thread, to see why they are moving.

Did you happened to read the Dallas Morning News yesterday about the comparisons between the GNP of the metropolitan area of Houston and that of DFW? The Houston area has a larger GNP than DFW. No reason for alarm you say? Well, consider that the DFW area has about 500,000 more citizens than the Houston metro area. So what does this mean? The DFW area does not have as stable of a middle class as Houston. Houston also pays its lower class better, as the evidence supports. Although the DFW area can counter that it has far more billionaires than Houston, this fact would also verify that Houston's higher GNP means that it has a much better paid middle and lower class than DFW.

The significance is that powerful nations have historically had a strong middle class. Back when the United States was incredibly powerful it had an extinsive middle class.

The city of Dallas likewise at one time had an incredibly powerful middle class society.

The problems with creating a strong middle class is that the actions of doing so go against the nature of an economy. It needs to become the primary agenda of the government because having a middle class spawns lots of overling millionaires and billionaires while its base best supports the tax money necessary to take care of its underlings.

And how does one go about stopping the erosion of the middle class? One does so by stopping a government spending policy that focusses primarily on the subsidizing of the very poor and the very rich in society at the expense of an ever shrinking middle class taxpayer.

[downtownguy25]

It was a differnce of less than one billion. If my math is right they are doing better by less than .8 %

[gc]

I wonder more about the reasons people move.

Moving to the burbs because they have a family?
Moving to another city for a job?
Moving to another city because they hate Dallas?
Moving to another city in the Metro just because?
Moving to another city because of Dallas crime?

The list goes on.

I peer of mine lives here and hates it. He grew up in California and spent the last 10 years in Colorado. He is also single and loves the outdoor life. His reasons for not liking Dallas are understandable.

...and yes...the grass is always greener.

[MisterNifty]

It was a differnce of less than one billion. If my math is right they are doing better than .8 %

Granted, oil is doing great right now and Houston is just soaking with oil related businesses. But oil does not produce the wealth one might expect it to (Look at Mexico). That is why Texas diversified after the oil collapse of the 80's. Also Houston might suffer the same kind of downturn as it did back then when its City proper lost over 100,000 citizens. I can remember back when the suburb of Plano was adding more citizens anually than the whole massive city of Houston was as a result.
Still, consider that the city of Houston just got through adding an estimated 200,000 Katrina vicims to its population and yet its still smaller population has a larger DNP?

[frankchitown]

I'm moving to Chicago on Oct 1st.

Because Chicago isn't Dallas.

Congrats! Its very possible that I may be moving back next year. Not because Chicago isn't Dallas, but because Dallas isn't Chicago.

[aceplace]

Hope you all find what you're looking for... but bear in mind that metro Chicago has negative domestic migration.

That means more people leave Chicago than the people that move to Chicago from the rest of the USA. Chicago is losing Americans like helium oozing out of a balloon.

In the case of Dallas, more Americans move to Dallas than the Dallas people who leave.

[aceplace]

Did you happened to read the Dallas Morning News yesterday about the comparisons between the GNP of the metropolitan area of Houston and that of DFW? The Houston area has a larger GNP than DFW. Actually, we don't know that for a fact. The numbers were generated by a Waco economist who created an estimate... a guess... based on his personal choice of assumptions and indicators.

Some other economist, using different assumptions and indicators, would have provided a very different estimate.

Since we don't know how the Waco guy came up with his numbers, we have no particular reason to trust them. Or to believe the Waco guy's numbers are better than some other economist's.

[mikedsjr]

I peer of mine lives here and hates it. He grew up in California and spent the last 10 years in Colorado. He is also single and loves the outdoor life. His reasons for not liking Dallas are understandable.

...and yes...the grass is always greener.

This is one of the most amazing things that this region has developed despite any river (Trinity isn't a river comparably speaking), mountain range or ocean. I would say it is a credit to the people who have moved here.

But I agreee with you. I understand those who move from Colorado or the West Coast. Everywhere else, I don't hear people missing the outdoor life from where they were from.

[grantboston]

I think it depends what you're looking for in a city, really. If you like living in an urban environment, Dallas poses an interesting choice. It's very much a city in its infancy just beginning to assert itself. For native Dallasites or people who like the experience of being a part of something new and rapidly changing, it can be a fun place to live (even if it is frustrating at times).

On the other hand, US cities like NYC, Boston, LA, Miami, Chicago are more established cities in their own unique ways and allow newcomers to walk into something that is essentially already made. These cities are a bit further down the track (and have the problems and costs along with it).

All a matter of personal preference, in my opinion. Personally, I think it's kinda nice to split my time in several places that offer something on both sides.

[frankchitown]

Hope you all find what you're looking for... but bear in mind that metro Chicago has negative domestic migration.

That means more people leave Chicago than the people that move to Chicago from the rest of the USA. Chicago is losing Americans like helium oozing out of a balloon.

In the case of Dallas, more Americans move to Dallas than the Dallas people who leave.

Well that's good news to me...less time waiting in line for my Italian Beef at Luke's. That also must be why Boeing chose Chitown over Dallas, why ORD was chosen for nonstop flights to China, why they got the 2016 Olympic bid, or why Trump Tower, Chicago Spire, Waterview, and numerous other skyscrapers are under construction/proposed from river north to the near south side.

[MisterNifty]

Actually, we don't know that for a fact. The numbers were generated by a Waco economist who created an estimate... a guess... based on his personal choice of assumptions and indicators.

Some other economist, using different assumptions and indicators, would have provided a very different estimate.

Since we don't know how the Waco guy came up with his numbers, we have no particular reason to trust them. Or to believe the Waco guy's numbers are better than some other economist's.

I noticed that the figures first mentioned at the beginning of the ariticle differed somewhat from the Waco fellow's numbers provided at the end of it. Come on now? Just how many billions do you think the figures are off? The Dallas Ft. Worth metro area has as much as 500,000 more people than the Houston metro area and should likewise have a greater GDP. But it doesn't.

[MisterNifty]

Well that's good news to me...less time waiting in line for my Italian Beef at Luke's. That also must be why Boeing chose Chitown over Dallas, why ORD was chosen for nonstop flights to China, why they got the 2016 Olympic bid, or why Trump Tower, Chicago Spire, Waterview, and numerous other skyscrapers are under construction/proposed from river north to the near south side.

The only way to keep giant corporations from prostituting and pitting U.S. cities against themselves is to invest heavily in the creation of small businesses.
In other words, I would rather have 50 small businesses in 50 five story buildings here in Dallas than 10 huge corporations in 10 fifty story buildings in your Chicago. Not only would my 50 companies grow a lot faster and pay their employees better than your corporations; but, in the long run my city of small businesses would kick your corrupt city's butt in the building of massive skyscrapers.
As we clearly have seen in China, the building of massive skyscrapers there is masking an impoverished system that still maintains a 60,000,000 member communist party. So tall buildings mean little.

[frankchitown]

Since when has "pitting U.S. cities against themselves" been the goal of the corporate world? I don't understand that logic. The supertalls u/c in Chicago are all residential, with the exception of the hotel in Trump Tower. Also announced yesterday was a 100 st Waldorf Astoria with condos.

I'm not trying to create a Dallas vs Chicago argument here...thats a pointless task. I was countering the point aceplace made that "Chicago is losing Americans like helium oozing out of a balloon." The majority of people who left Chicago proper moved to its suburbs/exurbs. My family (small business owners in Chicago) made the move to Naperville back in the 90's, and my cousins who've recently graduated are moving back into the city.

[aceplace]

I noticed that the figures first mentioned at the beginning of the ariticle differed somewhat from the Waco fellow's numbers provided at the end of it. Come on now? Just how many billions do you think the figures are off? The Dallas Ft. Worth metro area has as much as 500,000 more people than the Houston metro area and should likewise have a greater GDP. But it doesn't.That's one clue that the Waco fellow's estimates may be skewed in some way. The size of the economy (or whatever he was measuring and calling the economy) should be in proportion to population.

[aceplace]

Since when has "pitting U.S. cities against themselves" been the goal of the corporate world? I don't understand that logic. The supertalls u/c in Chicago are all residential, with the exception of the hotel in Trump Tower. Also announced yesterday was a 100 st Waldorf Astoria with condos.

I'm not trying to create a Dallas vs Chicago argument here...thats a pointless task. I was countering the point aceplace made that "Chicago is losing Americans like helium oozing out of a balloon." The majority of people who left Chicago proper moved to its suburbs/exurbs. My family (small business owners in Chicago) made the move to Naperville back in the 90's, and my cousins who've recently graduated are moving back into the city.Chicago city is losing population, but that is explained by the exodus of families to the suburbs and the vacant housing units taken over by singles and DINKs.

Metro Chicago is not losing population in spite of its negative domestic migration. International migration plus births minus deaths keep its population increasing from census to census by a few hundred thousand every 10 years. The sunbelt cities (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston) are gaining between one and two million every 10 years.

The negative migration does not mean that central Chicago is unpopular... the negative migration is probably in the suburbs. Central Chicago may have an advantage over central Dallas in terms of urbanism, but the Chicago suburbs do not have a similar advantage over other suburbs, especially in the Sunbelt.

Nevertheless, the numbers tell the story. The relative desirability of a metro, averaged over all age groups and demographics, is indicated by the migration figures. People will vote with their feet for what is, on balance, their best self-interest.

The metaphor of a leaky balloon is a good one. Some gas comes in thru the leaks, but more goes out than comes in. This is a balloon, however that has an internal gas generator, and a nozzle that someone occasionally blows into. The gas being generated and blown in is greater than the gas lost thru the leaks, so the balloon is still expanding, just not expanding as fast as other balloons.

Dallas is a balloon that is inside a high pressure tank that pushes gas in thru the leaky holes. The external pressure is greater than the internal pressure, and it swells up the balloon. And there is a stronger generator, and a stronger breath blowing in. So the Dallas balloon is expanding very quickly compared to the Chicago balloon.

My personal take on the subject... central Dallas' size and degree of urbanity is good enough for me, even after having lived in San Francisco for many years. Likewise the quantity and quality of entertainment and culture in Dallas is already overwhelming... 25% more restaurants in Chicago doesn't mean anything to me.

But then again, why do you want to move? What's the difference? And that is a serious question.

[incrediculous]

Hope you all find what you're looking for... but bear in mind that metro Chicago has negative domestic migration.

Why should I keep that in mind? Must I remind myself of this when I'm watching the latest Second City revue, biking in Lincoln Park, getting off the L at Grand, or catching a Cub's playoff game?

Cubs Win, Cubs Win! Huh? What was that? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Everything I experience here is diminished by the fact that Chicago is experiencing negative domestic migration according to that guy on the Internet. Let's all just go home.

[tamtagon]

^I hope you keep posting to this forum after the move, especially hoping for your take on the daily life similarities and differences between the two.

[SDORN]

Dallas is my city and I love living here.

Born and raised

Scott

[frankchitown]

But then again, why do you want to move? What's the difference? And that is a serious question.

I think SDORN kinda answered that question. No matter what city you grew up in, you're going to have an unwavering sense of pride in that city, and Chicago's my hometown. I've been in Dallas for 12 years and I've seen tremendous growth since 95. I don't want to move because I don't like Dallas...I do, but personally I prefer the urban life of Chicago vs. Dallas. It's a 50/50 chance I may move, and if I stay in Dallas, I would be very happy here as I am now. I fly to Chitown 3-4 times a year (out of Love Field, nowadays), and that's good enough to keep me from getting too homesick. I've already got time booked for the end of October...just in case... (don't want to jinx it, but hopefully to attend a certain sporting event).

The difference? The streetlife, the lakefront, Lincoln, Grant, and Millenium Park, the Museum district, the density, the neighborhoods, taking the red line to Wrigley, mass transit in general, cocktails at the signature lounge, State St. Michigan Ave, the food, the culture and history. People born in Dallas will probably always prefer the Arts Dist. vs. the Museum dist., Northpark vs the Miracle Mile, dinner at Antares vs. the Signature Room, etc. Its just a matter of hometown pride and I don't think any convincing from either side would make one change his mind.

[aceplace]

Why should I keep that in mind? Must I remind myself of this when I'm watching the latest Second City revue, biking in Lincoln Park, getting off the L at Grand, or catching a Cub's playoff game?

Cubs Win, Cubs Win! Huh? What was that? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Everything I experience here is diminished by the fact that Chicago is experiencing negative domestic migration according to that guy on the Internet. Let's all just go home.If you can fughettabout it... great. Enjoy your city.

[aceplace]

I think SDORN kinda answered that question. No matter what city you grew up in, you're going to have an unwavering sense of pride in that city, and Chicago's my hometown.Good answer... there's always a sense of loyalty to the sights, feel and smell of your hometown.

[MisterNifty]

Since when has "pitting U.S. cities against themselves" been the goal of the corporate world? I don't understand that logic. The supertalls u/c in Chicago are all residential, with the exception of the hotel in Trump Tower. Also announced yesterday was a 100 st Waldorf Astoria with condos.

I'm not trying to create a Dallas vs Chicago argument here...thats a pointless task. I was countering the point aceplace made that "Chicago is losing Americans like helium oozing out of a balloon." The majority of people who left Chicago proper moved to its suburbs/exurbs. My family (small business owners in Chicago) made the move to Naperville back in the 90's, and my cousins who've recently graduated are moving back into the city.

So what does an old city do to keep her corporations from moving on to younger ones? Will she have to give up more of her tax revenue to keep them? Will she have to bend down and get on her knees to keep them from running off? Small businesses do nothing more than act like good sons. They just grow, happily pay taxes while they also pay their employees lots of money.

[CityLove]

Personally, I am in Dallas because it is close to home & family. I haven't really had the desire to leave until recently...when I started getting interested in urban living, walkable environments and the like. I have a shortlist of cities I'd consider moving to...Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Portland, maybe even NYC. It may happen at some point, but Dallas will still always feel like home.

[Geaux Tigers]

I've been all over this country and I don't think there's another city that I would consider living in outside of DFW. It's not that I don't mind visiting Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, and Phoenix, but I don't think I'd want to relocate there. Well, maybe Phoenix for the weather, but that will wait until I retire and just want to play golf and not mow a yard.

[DalLove444]

Oh my gosh, this thread is depressing. All these posts makes me feel very sad for Dallas' future, especially Downtown. Is downtown dying again?? Is everyone really leaving? Whats realy going on there?

[downtownguy25]

Oh my gosh, this thread is depressing. All these posts makes me feel very sad for Dallas' future, especially Downtown. Is downtown dying again?? Is everyone really leaving? Whats realy going on there?

A few people leaving does not mean everyone is leaving. Incrediculous lives in deep ellum anyways, he is a wanna be downtowner.

We just know there is better places out there and are tired of waiting for this city to become what so many other cities already are. Most of us that are disstastified with living in texas have lived abroad and know what life could be like.

[frankchitown]

On the flip side...several old friends of mine who left Dallas after college have moved back within the past few months.

[MisterNifty]

A few people leaving does not mean everyone is leaving. Incrediculous lives in deep ellum anyways, he is a wanna be downtowner.

We just know there is better places out there and are tired of waiting for this city to become what so many other cities already are. Most of us that are disstastified with living in texas have lived abroad and know what life could be like.

Isn't California moving to the state of Texas right now? Certainly a lot of those people are moving to the DFW area.
Where do you live if not in the DFW area? Austin? Way too weird. Atlanta? Way too east. Chicago? Great but not as dynamic as DFW. Houston? Too hot with too many half million dollar houses floating down the river.
The problem with moving away from the DFW area is that it is a trade down.
The city of Dallas will be something else when it finally finishes its Art's district and when its other light rail routes open up.
However, in order to maintain its growth, the city needs less office space and more warehouse and manufacturing. That is where Fort Worth is killing Dallas right now. Fort Worth is developing an infrastructure to base its wealth on in the future while Dallas is allowing its infrastructure to erode.

[DalLove444]

A few people leaving does not mean everyone is leaving. Incrediculous lives in deep ellum anyways, he is a wanna be downtowner.

We just know there is better places out there and are tired of waiting for this city to become what so many other cities already are. Most of us that are disstastified with living in texas have lived abroad and know what life could be like.
Sorry for sounding pessimistic(spelling?). Seems everything ive been learning about dallas lately indicates it isnt doing well.

But hey, cant say I blame you for wanting to move for a more urban environment. Guess i'd feel the same way, but if I moved to dallas from NY, then decide to move out of dallas, i couldnt move back to NY. To me it seems NY and Chi can swallow Dallas whole and not give a shit...the national media doesnt give a rats ass about places like Dallas, its all about NYC, there's definitely a bias there. :realmad8:

Since im a fan of mid-size and smaller cities, id consider places like:

1. Denver
2. Minneapolis
3. Portland
4. Pittsburgh
5. Kansas City

My apologies for the rant above. :angel:

[msutton]

Did you actually just say that Chicago is not as dynamic as DFW? What's your definition of dynamic?

[warlock55]

I wonder more about the reasons people move.

Moving to the burbs because they have a family?
Moving to another city for a job?
Moving to another city because they hate Dallas?
Moving to another city in the Metro just because?
Moving to another city because of Dallas crime?



How about moving because you have lived in one place for a while and want to try something new? I think that's a pretty uniquely American reason to move.

[aceplace]

Isn't California moving to the state of Texas right now? Certainly a lot of those people are moving to the DFW area.
Where do you live if not in the DFW area? Austin? Way too weird. Atlanta? Way too east. Chicago? Great but not as dynamic as DFW. Houston? Too hot with too many half million dollar houses floating down the river.
The problem with moving away from the DFW area is that it is a trade down.
The city of Dallas will be something else when it finally finishes its Art's district and when its other light rail routes open up. Some good points in this article.

If you were originally attracted to Dallas for its particular qualities, then a 19th century city such as Boston, Chicago or Philadelphia will not satisfy you. They have a larger and stronger pedestrian core, that is true, but there is much more to a dynamic metro area.

In terms of quality of life, or at least for consuming what money can buy, moving out of Dallas and out of the Sunbelt is definitely a step down.

Dallas is currently building what more dense, pedestrian cities have... an extensive rail system, a more sizable central core with more pedestrian amenities. Fair Park, especially after the DART connection will be Dallas' version of Chicago's Navy Pier, Woodall Rogers Park will be Dallas' version of Chicago's Millenium Park, the Caltrava bridges will be the equivalent of San Francisco's stunning bridges, the Arts district will be Dallas' Lincoln Center, the DART system and the T's rail lines will be Dallas' counterpart to Boston's T. Dallas will have more pedestrian oriented transit villages. Downtown shopping and residential support will be much more extensive than it is now, and Dallas shopping is already better than almost every city in America.

As one poster (Grantboston) put it, you have the opportunity to be in Dallas and watch it happen. It's like watching your children growing up, instead of dealing with them when they are busy adults with lives of their own.

My own view... Dallas is plenty pedestrian enough for me, it's big city amenities are among the best in America, and I like being a part of a developing urban area.

[monogodo]

My wife and I are happy where we are right now, but are open to moving from Dallas in the future. Her employer has offices all over the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter), so she'd be able to transfer very easily. In my line of work, I can find a job anywhere. There's nothing keeping us in Dallas -- we have no family here, and only a few friends.

As for places we'd consider moving to, we've thought about St. Louis and Kansas City. Both of them have urban residential of the type we'd like to live in. And both of them are closer to our families than Dallas is.

But like I said, we're happy here and aren't planning on moving any time soon.

[downtownguy25]

My main reasons for moving

1.) Lack of buildings with character. I live in one of the oldest buildings in downtown and its only 100 odd years old. And I look out to an 60 year old office building. My new home is over 200 years old and looks out onto other 200 + year old building.

2.) Walkablity, while Dallas is walkable, I still have to walk about 10 blocks to a grocery store. If I am need anything else I am forced to go with a friend in their car to pick something up. My new place has about 3 corner markets within a two block radius also there is a little hardware store a few blocks away.

3.) Differnt culture, tired of the typical american culture.

4.) Just need a change, this is the longest I have lived in one place.

[aceplace]

Downtownguy, thanks for the clarification.

If age of the buildings is a consideration, if you value a 200 year old building, then Dallas would not suit you. Nor would San Francisco.

When I lived in downtown San Francisco, there were two or three mom and pop groceries within a few blocks. I didn't like that, I thought the prices and the selection sucked. I would ride the Geary bus a few miles to a Safeway supermarket and carry bags of groceries home in my arms. I'd do that in Dallas, too, if I lived in Uptown, except that I'd take the Red line instead of a bus.

San Francisco's downtown had a lot of the sort of shopping you'd see in Northpark or the Galleria, but it did not have a grocery as good as the Urban Market in DT Dallas. After the stores closed at 8PM, the streets would be populated almost entirely by vagrants and panhandlers bedding down in doorways.

Also, in San Francisco, I didn't expect to be able to walk to all my general purpose shopping. I'd take a Muni bus or railcar somewhere, or get a cab. I'd say that living in Downtown/Uptown Dallas without a car is as convenient, if not more so, than living in San Francisco without a car.

I guess I got sick and tired of the San Francisco culture. It started to look more weird and extreme every year.

Needed a change? Where are you going?

[MisterNifty]

Did you actually just say that Chicago is not as dynamic as DFW? What's your definition of dynamic?

I wasn't talking about the type of dynamic where you have drunk, Irish midgets swimming around in the dyed green water <eyeroll>

[incrediculous]

I wasn't talking about the type of dynamic where you have drunk, Irish midgets swimming around in the dyed green water <eyeroll>

Oh, right. Well in that case I think we can all agree with you. But you really should have said what you really meant in the first place.

Not everyone around here is as witty as you are, you know?

[rantanamo]

put me on the list of possibly moving again.

[utgf]

I was born and raised in the Preston Hollow area of Dallas and had a townhouse in Uptown for 10 years before moving to SF a year and a half ago. I moved seeking better weather, better city life, and better outdoor life. SF and the bay area in general has surpassed all my expectations. A few months ago I bought a 1100 sqft condo close to downtown for 900k, just in time for the housing bubble to burst. :)

If age of the buildings is a consideration, if you value a 200 year old building, then Dallas would not suit you. Nor would San Francisco.? Yes, a lot of beautiful old buildings (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136875) were wiped out with the 1906 earthquake and resulting fire. Nevertheless, what was put up during the rebuilding are very beautiful too.

When I lived in downtown San Francisco, there were two or three mom and pop groceries within a few blocks. I didn't like that, I thought the prices and the selection sucked.How long ago did you live in SF? I live close to downtown and I have 3 full service grocery stores within a few blocks (Bristol Farms, Whole Foods, Safeway) and 6 or more within 3/4 mile, including a Costco and Trader Joe's. Not to mention the incredible array of shops in the Ferry Building. The prices still suck though.
Also, in San Francisco, I didn't expect to be able to walk to all my general purpose shopping. I'd take a Muni bus or railcar somewhere, or get a cab. I'd say that living in Downtown/Uptown Dallas without a car is as convenient, if not more so, than living in San Francisco without a car.Muni and trying to catch a cab in the city still sucks! But for me living in SF without a car would be infinitely more convenient. Eventhough I have a car, I currently use it only on weekends to go hiking and explore other parts of the bay area.
I guess I got sick and tired of the San Francisco culture. It started to look more weird and extreme every year.Its a draw for me in that sense. I traded one extreme there for another here.

But overall, what an amazing place!

[aceplace]

Actually I lived in the heart of DT SF, near the intersection of Geary and Powell. It's been a few years, though. If the residential areas near downtown have developed more common retail such as supermarkets, that's a good thing.

When I left SF for Dallas in the 90s, I was pretty furious with the place. I have mellowed a little, but I still like to rant. Here goes.

I first lived in SF in the late 60's, then lived in Sacramento for a few years, then returned to SF, living on 38th avenue in the Sunset district. The outer neighborhoods in SF are actually very inconvenient for a carless existence, but yes, it is more practical near downtown. The problem with the Muni (SF's local transit system) is lack of money and poorly motivated, rude drivers. Also, the routes across the city can take forever, with several transfers.

The advantage of Dallas vs SF in terms of transit is that SF never really embraced the transit village concept until just recently, whereas Dallas has a wealth of transit villages around its stations, and/or has placed stations in corridors with much retail. If you want Central Market, you have the Lovers Lane station, if you want big box retail, you have the Park Lane station, for entertainment you have Mockingbird station and CityPlace station, Red Line access to the Dallas zoo is more convenient to access than to the SF zoo via the L Taraval car. I could go on and on about the things accessible from the current DART rail and express bus stations.

We'll have a much better deal comparatively quickly, especially when the Green line is fully extended. Access to Fair Park, scheduled access to Victory, the Infomart, to Love Field, to Koreatown, to the new transit villages in FB and Carrollton, access to the Trinity forest at Lawnview, access to Deep Ellum and Baylor, the Park Lane Place station will give us many new options, as will the new transit villages in Richardson. And then we will have Orange line access to Las Colinas.

The SF area has better scenery in the immediate environs, but the Dallas area is still pretty good for outdoor activity, especially if you want to go to a lake beach. SF beaches are unswimmable, unless you want to commit suicide by hypothermia. There is some incredible scenery within a few hours drive of Dallas, places like the Hill country, Palo Duro, Caprock Canyons, etc. Plus, SF is much farther from the nearest big cities, Portland, Seattle and LA, than Dallas is to Houston, Austin or SA.

You mentioned a $900,000 townhouse. That's an example of the hyperinflation and noticeably lower standard of living in SF. When I lived there, your money bought you far less than it does in Dallas, and there was a shortage of good jobs, but especially an extreme shortage of housing. Why are things so out-of-kilter? SF is a magnet for the neurotic, the disaffected, the social rejects of a thousand millle American towns... not the normal flow of migrants responding to a job market. In Dallas, you assume there will be an apartment available in any complex you want, but in SF, apartment hunting is a crushing ordeal.

I've mentioned the ideological culture of extreme left wing politics in SF, that disgusts me... it's like living in a lunatic asylum. Dallas has far more people on the moderate left than SF has on the right.

In SF, most of the neighborhoods are shabby and rundown and very gloomy at night... the expanse of Geary street past Van Ness Avenue all the way to the ocean is horrible... although Dallas has some unlovely streetscapes. And need I say that the weather sucks! It's either a dank, bone chilling cold (in june and July and August, isn't that bizzare), or drizzling cold rain, or morning and afternoon fogs with a few hours of sun in the middle of the day.

Culturally, both metros have much to offer, with plenty of museums and symphonic music, and other activities. SF does have more specialty/foreign films, but Dallas has plenty... more than almost every other American city. I can live with just the 21 screens in the 2 Angelikas, the Magnolia and the Inwood. This weekend, Dallas had 18 separate titles for indie/foreign flicks, which is as good as or better than all but 3 or 4 cities.

I've mentioned the poverty level in SF... that's for people with professional level incomes, too. What about technology? It's not in SF, it's way away in the San Jose area where the Silicon valley is located. I commuted to the Valley from my house in SF for 18 months in the 1970's, and the commute was horrible then. It's probably unbearable now.

The Bay Area is one of those places with negative migration, more people moving out than in... but why do people move there at all. Take all the criticisms I have made, consider them as assets instead of liabilities, and you'll find that a segment of the population likes them. Especially the cold winds in the summer, the frigid beaches, the low standard of living, the tolerance of lunatics and social deviates.

[utgf]

The silly rant is a negative reflection of the writer rather than San Francisco or its people. The positives of the area speakes for itself.

[MisterNifty]

Actually I lived in the heart of DT SF, near the intersection of Geary and Powell. It's been a few years, though. If the residential areas near downtown have developed more common retail such as supermarkets, that's a good thing.

When I left SF for Dallas in the 90s, I was pretty furious with the place. I have mellowed a little, but I still like to rant. Here goes.

I first lived in SF in the late 60's, then lived in Sacramento for a few years, then returned to SF, living on 38th avenue in the Sunset district. The outer neighborhoods in SF are actually very inconvenient for a carless existence, but yes, it is more practical near downtown. The problem with the Muni (SF's local transit system) is lack of money and poorly motivated, rude drivers. Also, the routes across the city can take forever, with several transfers.

The advantage of Dallas vs SF in terms of transit is that SF never really embraced the transit village concept until just recently, whereas Dallas has a wealth of transit villages around its stations, and/or has placed stations in corridors with much retail. If you want Central Market, you have the Lovers Lane station, if you want big box retail, you have the Park Lane station, for entertainment you have Mockingbird station and CityPlace station, Red Line access to the Dallas zoo is more convenient to access than to the SF zoo via the L Taraval car. I could go on and on about the things accessible from the current DART rail and express bus stations.

We'll have a much better deal comparatively quickly, especially when the Green line is fully extended. Access to Fair Park, scheduled access to Victory, the Infomart, to Love Field, to Koreatown, to the new transit villages in FB and Carrollton, access to the Trinity forest at Lawnview, access to Deep Ellum and Baylor, the Park Lane Place station will give us many new options, as will the new transit villages in Richardson. And then we will have Orange line access to Las Colinas.

The SF area has better scenery in the immediate environs, but the Dallas area is still pretty good for outdoor activity, especially if you want to go to a lake beach. SF beaches are unswimmable, unless you want to commit suicide by hypothermia. There is some incredible scenery within a few hours drive of Dallas, places like the Hill country, Palo Duro, Caprock Canyons, etc. Plus, SF is much farther from the nearest big cities, Portland, Seattle and LA, than Dallas is to Houston, Austin or SA.

You mentioned a $900,000 townhouse. That's an example of the hyperinflation and noticeably lower standard of living in SF. When I lived there, your money bought you far less than it does in Dallas, and there was a shortage of good jobs, but especially an extreme shortage of housing. Why are things so out-of-kilter? SF is a magnet for the neurotic, the disaffected, the social rejects of a thousand millle American towns... not the normal flow of migrants responding to a job market. In Dallas, you assume there will be an apartment available in any complex you want, but in SF, apartment hunting is a crushing ordeal.

I've mentioned the ideological culture of extreme left wing politics in SF, that disgusts me... it's like living in a lunatic asylum. Dallas has far more people on the moderate left than SF has on the right.

In SF, most of the neighborhoods are shabby and rundown and very gloomy at night... the expanse of Geary street past Van Ness Avenue all the way to the ocean is horrible... although Dallas has some unlovely streetscapes. And need I say that the weather sucks! It's either a dank, bone chilling cold (in june and July and August, isn't that bizzare), or drizzling cold rain, or morning and afternoon fogs with a few hours of sun in the middle of the day.

Culturally, both metros have much to offer, with plenty of museums and symphonic music, and other activities. SF does have more specialty/foreign films, but Dallas has plenty... more than almost every other American city. I can live with just the 21 screens in the 2 Angelikas, the Magnolia and the Inwood. This weekend, Dallas had 18 separate titles for indie/foreign flicks, which is as good as or better than all but 3 or 4 cities.

I've mentioned the poverty level in SF... that's for people with professional level incomes, too. What about technology? It's not in SF, it's way away in the San Jose area where the Silicon valley is located. I commuted to the Valley from my house in SF for 18 months in the 1970's, and the commute was horrible then. It's probably unbearable now.

The Bay Area is one of those places with negative migration, more people moving out than in... but why do people move there at all. Take all the criticisms I have made, consider them as assets instead of liabilities, and you'll find that a segment of the population likes them. Especially the cold winds in the summer, the frigid beaches, the low standard of living, the tolerance of lunatics and social deviates.

The older the lightrail system gets in Dallas the more its citizens take it for granted. They have forgotten how the city (DART) hit a home run by building the system because of the way it made the city seem more intimate. The city had been trying for years to find a way to wake up its urban core and the construction of lightrail was the perfect missing piece to that puzzle.

In Dallas they built the first line in Oak Cliff where they thought people would ride it. In Houston they built their similar line (each transit system was limited to $300 million) between the downtown area and the Texas Medical Center. This makes little sense because both of those dense urban areas are populated more with day laborers than full time residents.

In Dallas people actually ride the train. Something I noticed when riding it from Oak Cliff to downtown is how riders of every culture seem really proud of it. People just wake up when they ride a train; whereas, when they get on a bus, they just ride on another mundane bus. A city can make their citizens feel special by building them a train. Tourists when they visit also like riding on them. A rail system doesn't just connect the people in a community together, but every lightrail car that travels on the system feels connected. You can never do that by devising a transportation system of just buses.

In an area of southeast Houston that is very similar to Oak Cliff in Dallas, that city plans on building a system of train-like buses in place of a lightrail line for which the citizens originally voted. Each 'transbus,' or whatever they decide to call them, would run in a dedicated lane much like a lightrail car does minus the rail. In my opinion this isn't enough.

Dallas also spent its money wisely by designing each station in its system like a mini museum. Is that an original idea? If so, in my opinion the idea was also another smashing homeroom by the city of Dallas.

So Dallas should be very proud of its lightrail system. In one brilliant stroke it made the city feel a lot more intimate and what will it feel like when its system doubles in the next few years! It arguably makes the city the most sophisticated in Texas because the city of Austin, the former champion in this regard, still remains high in dry in regards to having a lightrail. Likewise, the city of Houston is lightyears behind Dallas in regards to building a comparable lightrail system.

[zigwamo]

Okay, add me also to the list of people possibly leaving Dallas. In my case, I desperately want to leave. I really don't want to pick a fight, and think that if someone prefers Dallas to cities like SF or Chicago, then that is fine. But, if anyone is interested, here would be my "list" of reasons for wanting to leave (in no particular order):

1. The people. I do not think people here, or in Texas generally, are friendly. This is, in my opinion, a self-generated Texas myth. And before anyone overreacts, let me add that I am "Texan born and raised". In Dallas at least, people want to own their own personal fortress, they want to drive to work in their personal vehicle, and drive home into their garage. Then they will do whatever they g-dmn like, on their own or with their family. Usually this will also involve mass consumption of personal entertainment devices. This is the ideal life in Dallas. But notice that it means being completely isolated from others in one's community. I grew up in that environment in the suburbs of Dallas. I now live in the core of Dallas and find that it is no different.

2. Misplaced Texan pride. See your reaction to 1, if you reacted negatively to it. Or your reaction to other items on this list.

3. Related to 1, there are really no public spaces of merit. It is embarrassing and depressing to compare Dallas to cities/metro areas that are even smaller (such as Sydney, San Francisco). I want to go outside and be among people, and to not have to buy something to do so. The best place to do this in Dallas, sadly, is the nearest Starbucks. Please don't get defensive and mention Turtle Creek or White Rock or the Katy Trail. No one uses Turtle Creek. White Rock is only beautiful in the context of so much ugliness elsewhere in Dallas. Otherwise it is mostly a big whole with water in it. The Katy Trail is fine, and certainly an improvement over what Dallas once had. But this is not enough for a city this size! And the reason, is again, that the average citizen of this metro area has no interest in being outside or around strangers. They want to be in their own private backyard or in their "media rooms".

4. Dallas is not a pedestrian-friendly city. If aliens came down they would think that the conscious intelligent beings are the automobiles, since everything is designed around "their" needs. I've lived in Uptown and in Oak Lawn. I've tried to make it happen. I was usually the only person on foot. When I would have a friend with me, one of us would have to either walk behind or walk in the feces-infested grass, given the lack of adequate sidewalks. This has been covered time and again in this forum, so I hope I don't need to elaborate.

5. Dallas is not a place for intellectuals. It is a place for business. That's fine if you want to make lots of money and live the lifestyle I described in #1. One problem here is the serious lack of quality research universities. [UT Southwestern is not enough, and is too specialized.]

6. Lack of natural beauty. Let's face it--you have to drive for hours to reach anything that is even remotely pleasant to look at. If you disagree, then I wonder if you have been out much to other parts of the world.

I tried for about 5 years to find the good things in Dallas. I would say that I was able to make the best of things for 3 or so of those years. But I have personally reached my limit and have to face the reality. Again, I was born in this metro area and lived here most of my life. Perhaps if I had never left for college or vacation, I wouldn't know any better and would be able to enjoy it. But having seen other cities I see that this place is really pretty horrible. I read the posts by Aceplace, and I am happy for him that he prefers it here to San Francisco. If that is so, then by all means, he ought to live here. I can't say I really *understand* his reasons, or agree with his comparisons and how Dallas stands. But perhaps some cities fit some people better than others. My list of complaints is not meant to disparage those who like Dallas. They are *my* observations and *my* reasons for not liking Dallas. I often think, if only I lived in San Francisco, I could go to Golden Gate Park right now. Or I could just stroll through North Beach and have a fantastic espresso and people-watch. Or I could go see the sea lions at the pier. Or there is probably a street festival going on this weekend. Or I could go to the beach and (okay, maybe not swim), but look out at Golden Gate bridge. Or sunbathe, even in the nude if I felt like it. Or, wow, I could drive down to Santa Cruz, or the wine country, or the Monterrey Bay Aquarium, or ......

In my opinion San Francisco is really exceptional, so perhaps it is an unfair comparison. But I would like just a small number of comparable options in a city, and I find Dallas is almost completely devoid of world-class experiences.

[Again--I didn't *start* this thread and am not looking to pick a fight! But some of the things said here resonated with me as well, and I couldn't resist sharing my own experience.]