I don't disagree with any of that. Molly Ivins wrote about it when she characerized Dallas as "Boosterville" (she wasn't being complimentary). Historically, Dallas is a great city in large part because it has the regional Federal Reserve Bank. And it has that entirely because it out-hustled everyone else (primarily Houston, but also New Orleans) just before WWI.
But a lot of the shit Dallas has gotten done (or tried to get done) has been dumb, stupid, ill-advised, or outright wicked. In the former group is the stupid-ass standing wave in the Trinity River; in the latter group is the stupid golf course in the middle of the Great Trinity Forest.
Still--the biggest thing I will say is that Dallas has real, legitimate philanthropists. It has people who pay hundreds of millions of dollars to put their name on parks, museums, hospitals, theaters and other things build and dedicated to the public good. Austin has none of that. It's not that Austin doesn't have plenty of rich people; a quick drive along Highway 360 on a Saturday afternoon will disabuse you of that notion. It's that hte rich people in Austin--with the sole exception of Michael Dell--don't have a philanthropic bone in their bodies. There's no Perot Museum here; there's no Winspear Opera House or Meyerson Symphony Center; there's no Klyde Warren Deck Park. And that is to this city's very great detriment.