Starrsville, Dcespedes, hills in San Antonio? I think your Visitors bureau is doing what the Irish call "A bit of the blarney". Your city is flatter than Dallas.

For example, downtown SA is at 654 feet elevation. Six miles away, at the intersection of I10 and I410, the elevation is at 879 feet, a barely perceptible rise... A few more miles northwest, at the intersection of I10 and rte 1604, you're at 990 feet... sorry, but that's not particularly hilly. The real Hill country is still many miles away, more like Fredericksburg, or Johnson City.

Maybe your Visitors Bureau should talk to your Better Business Bureau about Truth in Advertising.

So you didn't live in the Dallas I described? That's too bad, you really missed out. Or perhaps I know the city better than you did. Of course I spend my time researching North Texas, and I can usually tell even native Dallasites many things they don't know.

Or perhaps I'm flat-out lying? There is no Joe Pool lake at the foot of the Cedar Hills, Texoma doesn't really exist, Dallas doesn't really have art museums and concerts and 180 starred restaurants in the Mobil Travel Guide?

Chicago, as you can see, Texans can be very attached to their opinions about their respective regions. I don't think one area is intrinsically better than the other.

xb2316 may be right in that the living experience in Dallas might be closer to Chicago than that in SA. However, I don't see anything in xb's initial posting to suggest xb has ever even been to San Antonio. The references to the census figures and the comparison to CLEVELAND are a big clue to that. San Antonio is one of the most historically significant towns in the southwest U.S., with a heavy influence from the latin american community. Its census figures may be similar to those of Cleveland, but the statement that living in SA would be like living in Cleveland, which I think xb suggests, is not accurate.

For the record, I have never lived in Dallas. I have had friends/family move FROM Dallas, and friends move TO Dallas. I have also travelled there on business on a number of occasions. My personal experience does not include the suburbs of the city.

My friends and family members who have worked in both communities do not feel that the companies that they worked for valued them more and treated them better in Dallas. They did make more money. Their jobs were more stressful. There are more opportunities in Dallas (more job openings) but also more people competing for them. There are many more cultural opportunities in Dallas. Its museums are better.

In any event, you are clearly going to have to visit both cities and decide for yourself. Be sure to drive during rush hour. And please let us know what you choose! Good luck!

starrsville, After living in San Antonio for nearly twenty years I know exactly where this Hill Country or no Hill Country is comming from. San Antonio's northern edge is In the hill country. The southern half of SA is Not in the Hill Country. So its really a matter of what part of SA you are talking about. In one sense everyone is right about if it is or isn't in the Hill Country.

>> Cedar Hills State Park just southwest of downtown Dallas has a large farm, with many buildings you can wander around. It also has weekend tours and occasional festivals. The terrain is very hilly and forested, a sort of Dallas answer to the Central Texas Hill Country.<<

Found this on another post. There's a state park near Dallas that has terrain similar to the Central Texas HIll Country.

As I read that, my interpretation would be that the other terrain in and around Dallas is NOT similar to the terrain to the hill country.

Hmmm... what that mean FLAT?

Here's MY post on this board -
>> moved to the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lasted less than a year. I just missed trees and hills.

We went to the Hill Country every weekend we could. I'd take Austin/ Fredricksburg area in a heartbeat.<<

By the way, the first poster I quoted was YOU, xbt. I suggested Austin or Fredricksburg (not San Antonio).

I stand by my comments - folks living in San Antonio would be amazed to learn that they don't live in the hill country. I defer to them. I'm no longer a Texan.

Jorr, I appreciate your Solomon-like decision... what a way to split the baby! You should be a diplomat or an attorney.

I don't know that the difference is particularly meaningful... one way or the other, the true Hill Country towns and their antique shops are certainly a day trip from San Antonio, much as Glen Rose and Granbury are a short day trip from Dallas.

My interest is not in proving that San Antonio is an unimportant place, but to present its true position in the Sorth-Central states. It's not the regional capital that Dallas is, but still has some validity in its own context.

Starrsville, you keep on trying to make a point...

The Cedar Hills area is steep, several hundred feet deep. The land to the east, Southern Dallas, is very hilly in nature, with dramatic changes in elevation, many creeks and streams and gullies, very heavily forested.

Much of the rest of Dallas is riparian woodland... rolling hills created by stream and river erosion, with extensive forest cover.

Bisecting the area between the Dallas and Fort Worth downtowns is the Cross Timbers strip... a solit belt of thick woodland, not tied to particular watercourses, but existing in a solid belt, several miles thick.

And I will stop trying. I've read enough of the Jan. 05 thread to learn what other Fodorites already knew - your reputation.

My last comment on this topic - I moved to Dallas, TX for a career move and did not stay because I missed the hills and trees. Your description does not match my reality. If a woodland belt "several miles wide" is enough for you, then so be it. It must be a Texan's view of a woodland. I am happy to have a home at 3000 feet elevation in a county that is 78% state park and national forest. I have found the terrain and vegatation that matches my expectations - and am glad that you have as well. Enjoy.

Starrsville, you're welcome to your county. My interest is in cities and the benefits to be derived from many people placed together, and creating a synergy of interaction.

When I go to the top of Reunion Tower in Dallas and I look over the landscape, I see millions of trees, It looks like a forest, with high rise buildings poking out of the green. If that isn't good enough for you, well, let's hope you find something better...

Back to reality... Dallas is a CITY, not a state park or a mountain hideaway, and it succeeds or fails on its validity as a city.And my current perception is that it is doing quite well as a CITY, thank you very much.

I moved back to the "City of Trees" - Atlanta, GA.

Go ahead and compare those two cities as intelligently as you did in the Dallas/Chicago thread and others.

I agree with the numerous posters on the above thread that you have some sort of problem - and I'm glad it's not my problem. As it is, I've been given one more reason NOT to move back to Dallas. I've visited it recently and darn it doesn't look pretty much the same...just built up more - with mesquite trees cut down in the process.

Have fun with your future arguments.

Dallas versus Atlanta,

Well, that's outside the original question, isn't it.

In many ways, the two metros are similar... except that greater Dallas is moderately larger... but the urban growth dynamic are the same.

Personally, I don't like Atlanta's extensive pine forests... but that's immaterial to the general discussion. My personal preferences shouldn't influence anyone.

Do I have a problem? Not with Fodors travel forum... perhaps some posters have a problem with my arguments... if they can't support their side of the argument, let them learn better. Instead of making their frustrations into a personal issue.

Atlanta has some unique problems as an urban area, mainly involving traffic and congestion... but it will solve them, I'm sure. Also, I am sorry that the Atlanta suburbs don't support the extension of MARTA. The Dallas suburbs have a much better appreciation of Dallas' system, DART. The Dallas suburbs want to extend DART trains into their communities... they just don't know how to pay for them.

I prefer Dallas to Atlanta, but the Georgia city is doing well in its ability to attract migrants... on the whole, there seems to be rough parity between the two cities as to growth and desirability.

So... if you think you're better off in Atlanta... I wish you luck.

I was born north of Dallas, and lived in Dallas for 20 years, 3 years in Houston, and now live between Austin and San Antonio. You must understand that Texas, being so big, is really like several different states in one in terms of politics, environment - physical and cultural. In one state there are the plains area, the piney woods, the coast, the hill country, the valley and flat west texas.

So some real unbiased opinion:
Please know that when people talk about Dallas, they're really talking about all of North Texas: Plano, McKinney, Lewisville, Colleyville, etc. etc. These areas can be as different as night and day. Some are older: stately homes in lush green areas with huge mature trees, others are in strip mall nightmare areas...some our new money havens (Plano) with huge McMansions with zero lot lines. They are right, if you travel north of McKinney, you will see some rolling plains still (not for long, the developers have found it). If you travel to LAke Texoma, it is quite rolling and green. Spent my summers there.

I love Dallas b/c it is home. However, that being said I can see the downside to it. It can be very very shallow and image driven. It is not friendly for Texas, but it is certainly friendly compared to other Metro areas. There is culture to be found if you know where to go/live, and there is cultural morass to be endured. I like to revisit Dallas for the shopping and restaurants, for Shakespeare in the Park, for the State Fair, and of course family. Cost of living wise: My friend purchased a lovely custom kitchen, designer 3200 sq. ft. home in Frisco, on a big lot, for $225K.

When people talk about San Antonio, they are also talking about a wide swath that includes traditional downtown area as well as the now sprawling suburbs. Parts of San Antonio are flat, colorless, dirty, while others are hilly and green (North and West). In fact, I was just in the Sea World area, and the construction over there in this NOW green area is really moving. Can't say it will be so pretty for long. It is very culturally diverse, and has a larger transient population due to the military and immigrants. It does seem to have more of a soul, is more interesting as opposed to Dallas cookie cutter...but that too seems to be fading as people from other states discover how close it is to the Hill Country (and no, no matter what anyone says, this is not quite the Hill Country, any more then Austin is...which is MUCH hillier and greener then SA. Austin and SA are more like gateways to the Hill Country, no matter how much the Marketing Dept. of businesses try to tell you differently). San Antonio might be a skosh cheaper then Dallas...again, it's all about area. You can no longer expect to get big homes on big acreage for a good buy...again, we've been "discovered." However, with the plethora of new development does come more opportunity. You can buy one model of a Ryland home for $145K in one subdivision, and drive 15 miles to pay $180K for the exact same model with some upgrades in a nicer subdivision.
San Antonio offers more opportunity for outdoor activity as it is so very close to the Hill Country...kayaking, hiking, camping, tubing, B&B overnights, wine tasting (ok, to be fair, take this with a grain of salt). People are more active in this area b/c there is simply more opportunity. Many people who live in Dallas vacation weekends in the Hill Country. That must tell you something.

In SA you're closer to Austin which is the only town that the majority voted for Kerry. It's a more politically diverse area. Dallas is more good ol' boy with money, while south Texas can be more good ol' boy with land. You'll find far more granola then socialite here. I personally prefer where I live now to Dallas...simply b/c it is more "flavored" and naturally pretty. But if you love glitz and flash, Soccer moms and suburbs, Dallas may be more for you.

If you can't decide, don't forget Austin of course...which is about 1 hr. from SA. IT's MUCH more expensive...but it's a wonderful town, kind of an oasis. Not like it used to be by far, but still of great worth.

Good luck to you, I hope you find your place.

If you are used to Chicago and the big buildings big city then you will love Dallas. Austin is fun but sometimes too laid back and the job market is saturated! The hill country is great but if you are not used too the country then you could be bored. Houston is way too over populated. I have lived in Dallas all my life except I just moved back from LA. I was out there 2 years.

Weather will be an adjustment for you. It doesnt snow here and the summers usually get into the 100's.