Fort Worth Economic Growth - Gaining on Dallas?

[lookinoveratya]

Below is a link to a story by a veteran DFW TV reporter (Tracy Rowlett - CBS 11) about the potential for Fort Worth to someday rival Dallas for economic supremecy in the Metroplex - the driver being the natural gas drilling boom currently going on literally underneath Fort Worth. It's a bit of fanciful speculation - and I'm sure most folks wouldn't agree with Rowlett - but it sent some Dallasites into wild conniptions (which alone made it worth watching/reading)...

Enjoy:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_210225516.html

[Gary]

Although that article seems a little presumptuous, I loved this line: "The Barnett Shale could produce gas for many years to come. Add that to Fort Worth's better planning, and you have a city that's not only on the move, but clearly has struggling Dallas in its sights".

If you follow some of the Dallasites line of thinking, the DFW area is one happy city that's ready to take on the world. Doesn't look like that to me. At least from this guy's standpoint.

[ToryGattis]

"FWD Airport"? That's rich. Don't get me wrong - Ft. Worth is a very nice city on a great growth path, but if local gas fields were the key to domination, Midland-Odessa would have become the #1 megapolitan of Texas long time ago...

[Dallascaper]

Although that article seems a little presumptuous, I loved this line: "The Barnett Shale could produce gas for many years to come. Add that to Fort Worth's better planning, and you have a city that's not only on the move, but clearly has struggling Dallas in its sights".

If you follow some of the Dallasites line of thinking, the DFW area is one happy city that's ready to take on the world. Doesn't look like that to me. At least from this guy's standpoint.

I like the quote at the 4:08 mark in the video,

[Mister X]

I see they still haven't gotten all that LSD out of the north Texas water supply.

[troyboy]

That editorial is so ridiculous it's laughable. It can't be real. Fort Worth is already a really unattractive, very blue collar city, so now gas wells are going to be all over the place?..Nice. And because of gas drilling Fort Worth, with its four "skyscrapers", is going to become a bigger player than economic powerhouses Houston & Dallas. Really? I'm sure Dallas is really concerned. One drive around each city and it's clear these cities are not even in the same economic leauge and probally never will be.

[lookinoveratya]

That editorial is so ridiculous it's laughable. It can't be real. Fort Worth is already a really unattractive, very blue collar city, so now gas wells are going to be all over the place?..Nice. And because of gas drilling Fort Worth, with its four "skyscrapers", is going to become a bigger player than economic powerhouses Houston & Dallas. Really? I'm sure Dallas is really concerned. One drive around each city and it's clear these cities are not even in the same economic leauge and probally never will be.

Like I said, conniptions...

[troyboy]

Like I said, conniptions...

If you want to call stating the obvious ( the different economic leauge thing is obvious, FW being a dump , industrial city is just my opinion) a conniption then feel free. I'm not even from Dallas or Texas and have no time for silly city rivalries, but I know a crazy opinion backed by not one concrete fact when I read one. Also, I found the thread on the DFW forum. It seemed to me noone really took it seriously and the thread turned into poke a few laughs at FW and Dallas, that is when it didn't wander into a totally different subject altogether. There seemed to be much more laughs over the editorial than fits.

[N Judah]

That Trinity River Corridor project would be tough to beat. They must really have an ace up their sleeve.

[TheNiche]

If you want to call stating the obvious ( the different economic leauge thing is obvious, FW being a dump , industrial city is just my opinion) a conniption then feel free. I'm not even from Dallas or Texas and have no time for silly city rivalries, but I know a crazy opinion backed by not one concrete fact when I read one. Also, I found the thread on the DFW forum. It seemed to me noone really took it seriously and the thread turned into poke a few laughs at FW and Dallas, that is when it didn't wander into a totally different subject altogether. There seemed to be much more laughs over the editorial than fits.

troyboy

Today, 11:24 AM Post #8

Group: Members

Posts: 104

Joined: Tuesday, August 9th, 2005

From: Dallas

Member No.: 1,129

[lookinoveratya]

"FWD Airport"? That's rich. Don't get me wrong - Ft. Worth is a very nice city on a great growth path, but if local gas fields were the key to domination, Midland-Odessa would have become the #1 megapolitan of Texas long time ago...

That's an interesting point. Fort Worth's situation may be different, though. Whereas Midland and Odessa largely exist to support the oil and gas industry which extracts those commodities from the surrounding land, Fort Worth is literally sitting on top of a good chunk of the Barnett gas field. The city itself, and many institutions and homeowners within the city, will get royalties from the extraction of gas under their property. For the city in particular, which is the largest landowner, the additional revenue will be significant. The money could be used for investment in infrastructure, economic development, or to reduce property and local sales taxes - any of which could potentially increase Fort Worth's appeal for business investment and relocations.

I'm not sure Midland and Odessa have extensive drilling for crude oil and natural gas within their city limits - maybe they do. If you review the history of Texas' crude oil boom in the early 20th century, it appears the primary beneficiaries were Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston, due to their development as the markets for equipment, engineering, transport, and capital for the newfound industry - and of course the folks who owned the mineral rights to the land being drilled in east and far west Texas.

I think that Rowlett's piece was looking towards the long future and merely raising the possibility of Fort Worth's potential given it's already strong economy and robust population growth and now the unleashing of an economic force - a big batch of highly valued natural gas underneath the city - that previously had not been in the mix.

Is it really that far fetched that Fort Worth might someday be bigger and more important than Dallas? Who would have thought 40 years ago Houston would grow to be bigger and economically stronger than Philadelphia or Detroit? And my gosh - who would have EVER thought - even 10 years ago - that San Antonio would outgrow Dallas to become Texas' second largest city.

Although I live in Austin, I think Fort Worth is pretty terrific and has a great future and often gets undeservedly bashed by folks due east. I, for one, hope Mr. Rowlett is someday vindicated...

[Willy1]

If you want to call stating the obvious ( the different economic leauge thing is obvious, FW being a dump , industrial city is just my opinion) a conniption then feel free. I'm not even from Dallas or Texas and have no time for silly city rivalries, but I know a crazy opinion backed by not one concrete fact when I read one. Also, I found the thread on the DFW forum. It seemed to me noone really took it seriously and the thread turned into poke a few laughs at FW and Dallas, that is when it didn't wander into a totally different subject altogether. There seemed to be much more laughs over the editorial than fits.

I hate to break it to you TroyBoy, FW is anything but blue collar. In fact, FW has more old money than you'd ever imagine. Of course, you're here from Dallas hating on FW just to stir the pot... and we all know that. But, don't forget, some of the wealthiest families/individuals in the country live in FW. You obviously have spent way too much time in the land of over-leased $30,000-a-year millionaires than you have on the West Side of FW and you've also apparently only seen DT FW from 30 rather than actually parking and walking around. I will give you one thing - the FW skyline sucks for a city the size of FW. However, I would much rather walk around DT FW at night that walk around DT Dallas ever. DT Dallas is full of scary homeless people and criminal elements who do nothing but bug the crap out of people asking for money, etc. DT FW, on the other hand, is fully of white collar people spending money at the long list of restaurants, movie theaters, and bars. And, before you blow off FW as never being able to surpass Dallas... just remember FW has been one of the fastest growing cities in the country for the last 7 or 8 years, growing from 29th largest city to approximately 17th largest, while Dallas has enjoyed near stagnant growth and "grown" from 7th largest city to 9th. Seems to me, one of the cities is moving in one direction while the other is headed in the opposite direction. Like it or not, things are changing...

[JasonDFW]

Seems to me, one of the cities is moving in one direction while the other is headed in the opposite direction. Like it or not, things are changing...

Willy,

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I think this is stretching it a bit. Fort Worth's recent population growth is due to the Collin county part 2 to the north, and is little to nothing of what is going to make Fort Worth great (such as the Trinity project). Now, if Fort Worth were doing that with 3 or 4k people per square mile, I might agree with you. As far as raw population alone, if San Jose can pass up San Francisco, Fort Worth could definitely pass Dallas.

Jason

[Dallascaper]

I hate to break it to you TroyBoy, FW is anything but blue collar. In fact, FW has more old money than you'd ever imagine. Of course, you're here from Dallas hating on FW just to stir the pot... and we all know that. But, don't forget, some of the wealthiest families/individuals in the country live in FW. You obviously have spent way too much time in the land of over-leased $30,000-a-year millionaires than you have on the West Side of FW and you've also apparently only seen DT FW from 30 rather than actually parking and walking around. I will give you one thing - the FW skyline sucks for a city the size of FW. However, I would much rather walk around DT FW at night that walk around DT Dallas ever. DT Dallas is full of scary homeless people and criminal elements who do nothing but bug the crap out of people asking for money, etc. DT FW, on the other hand, is fully of white collar people spending money at the long list of restaurants, movie theaters, and bars. And, before you blow off FW as never being able to surpass Dallas... just remember FW has been one of the fastest growing cities in the country for the last 7 or 8 years, growing from 29th largest city to approximately 17th largest, while Dallas has enjoyed near stagnant growth and "grown" from 7th largest city to 9th. Seems to me, one of the cities is moving in one direction while the other is headed in the opposite direction. Like it or not, things are changing...

Willy1, have you ever been to downtown FW, besides Sundance Square? I ride my bike through downtown every Sunday morning; the homeless are sleeping on the pedestrian bridges over the Trinity, they are milling about the streets (one just recently stabbed another in front of the jail, no less), they infest the water gardens, and they are as aggressive for asking (demanding) for money as their colleagues in Dallas.

As for FW's growth, it is based on two things: Annexation and Alliance. The farmland/sprawl area around Alliance is booming, I should know, I live there. The Alliance area, not the core and not gas, is what is driving FW's growth. Well, the Alliance area did get a JCPenney and Cheddar

[Willy1]

Willy1, have you ever been to downtown FW, besides Sundance Square? I ride my bike through downtown every Sunday morning; the homeless are sleeping on the pedestrian bridges over the Trinity, they are milling about the streets (one just recently stabbed another in front of the jail, no less), they infest the water gardens, and they are as aggressive for asking (demanding) for money as their colleagues in Dallas.

As for FW's growth, it is based on two things: Annexation and Alliance. The farmland/sprawl area around Alliance is booming, I should know, I live there. The Alliance area, not the core and not gas, is what is driving FW's growth. Well, the Alliance area did get a JCPenney and Cheddar

[Willy1]

Willy1, have you ever been to downtown FW, besides Sundance Square? I ride my bike through downtown every Sunday morning; the homeless are sleeping on the pedestrian bridges over the Trinity, they are milling about the streets (one just recently stabbed another in front of the jail, no less), they infest the water gardens, and they are as aggressive for asking (demanding) for money as their colleagues in Dallas.

As for FW's growth, it is based on two things: Annexation and Alliance. The farmland/sprawl area around Alliance is booming, I should know, I live there. The Alliance area, not the core and not gas, is what is driving FW's growth. Well, the Alliance area did get a JCPenney and Cheddar

[NDtexan]

FW is now in striking distance of having a larger core population than San Franscisco (less than 60K difference) There's some food for thought.

That's some really unsatisfying food you're serving. You need to consider land area of cities and population density in your analysis. SF, after all is just 47 square miles. FW just about matches SF in population, but it takes about seven times as much land or 281 square miles. Chew on that. Both Dallas and Ft. Worth need to improve their density figures and worry less about overall totals.

[Willy1]

That's some really unsatisfying food you're serving. You need to consider land area of cities and population density in your analysis. SF, after all is just 47 square miles. FW just about matches SF in population, but it takes about seven times as much land or 281 square miles. Chew on that. Both Dallas and Ft. Worth need to improve their density figures and worry less about overall totals.

That's a personal preference issue... I personally think that having THAT many people in that close quarters is too close for comfort. Hey, I'm a Texan so I like my elbow room. That's probably why I live in DFW not SF or NYC. And, the fact that DFW is one of the least densely populated big cities isn't new news... everyone knows that. I never said anything about density. Most Sun Belt cities are sprawling cities, not dense cities... LA - Houston - DFW - Atlanta - Pheonix - even OK City... all very sprawling cities. Hey, LA is a city of sprawl... that doesn't stop it from being the second largest city in the country. Bottom line here - there are not two cities that are totally alike. But cities, like the people who live in them, do sort of follow trends. The cities along the Eastern Sea Board are older, mass transit cities. Cities in the northern midwest tend to be older industrial cities (Detroit, Chicago, etc). Cities in the NWest are typically landlocked by some sort of geographic boundary - a bay, a mountain range, etc. (Seattle, San Fran) and, Sunbelt Cities are all about the sprawl.

[Trae]

LA's metro is denser than New York's metro.

[TheNiche]

LA's metro is denser than New York's metro.

Comparisons like these that look at municipal boundaries are pretty thoroughly flawed. Back in 2003, the Census Bureau decided to add Austin and San Jacinto Counties to the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area, so overnight the population density of the area fell by a fair bit. It didn't reflect reality, of course.

This research paper briefly discussed density gradients, which is the preferred method of drawing comparisons of this sort between different cities. Check page one of the body of the text.

[troyboy]

troyboy

Today, 11:24 AM Post #8

Group: Members

Posts: 104

Joined: Tuesday, August 9th, 2005

From: Dallas

Member No.: 1,129

Oh you caught me, I'm a big liar and a fraud!!...You're so smart!!! Imagine how silly I feel, claiming I'm not from Dallas when "Dallas" is right there under my name.

I'm not Dallas or Texas born, Brainiac...so therefore I have no biasis for either city and play no part in any city rivalries. I didn't think I needed to clarify any further, but now I know better.

[troyboy]

willy1:

I'm not stirring any pot or trying to berate your city. But sorry from what I've seen FW is more blue collar than white...by far. So there's old money in FW. I can't think of any decent sized city that doesn't have old money and wealthy families. So nothing special there. Granted I haven't spent much time in FW...I never wanted to. But from what I saw, the downtown is nice, not in a big city way, but in a small town touristy sense. The restaurants and other offerings are very middle of the road, anytown USA, with very little uniqueness or funkiness. And there's nothing wrong with that.. as it is clean, familiar and safe and brings life to DTFW. Downtown Dallas has a long way to go, but I don't want it to turn into that. There's too may chains around here already.

There's some beautiful neighborhoods on the west side and around the zoo, but the vast majority of the inner loop of FW is rundown as heck, full of industrial businesses and warehouses as is most of south FW, except the SW half aound Hulen and Byrant Irving. Which seems to have better newer housing, but once again, horrible sprawling strip centers and big parking lots. The entire Northside around the stockyards is a wasteland as is most of the Eastside. Every city has rundown areas, but FW seems to have more than its fair share. The area of the most growth, North FW , around Alliance is MOSTLY low rent sprawl at its worst....cheap subdivison after cheap subdivison. The largest boom to the FW economy in years has been Alliance which is industrial based and now the next boom to the FW economy (according to Rowlett) is gas wells.... and it's not a blue collar town?? You are still ten times more likely to see warehouses going up than office buildings in FW. When I read the business pages it seems new businesses in FW are almost always industrial in nature.

I remember the first time I visited FW, I knew nothing about it at all and my first impression was "this town is really blue collar". I'm not saying there are no white-collar jobs in FW as that would be silly. But sorry, to me and many people I've spoken to, FW gives off a very blue-collar feel

[troyboy]

wrong thread..sorry

[troyboy]

wrong thread..sorry

[RedScare]

I wonder how troyboy would describe west Dallas....or how about south Dallas....or, maybe east Dallas....how about anywhere but North Dallas?

Call it what you will, but I'll take "blue collar" Fort Worth any day.

[troyboy]

I wonder how troyboy would describe west Dallas....or how about south Dallas....or, maybe east Dallas....how about anywhere but North Dallas?

Call it what you will, but I'll take "blue collar" Fort Worth any day.

Can you read?? I said every city has it's rundown areas. I would describe these areas of Dallas much the same way, I would describe lots of Houston, Atlanta, or Chicago. As I said, all large cities have rundown, blue collar areas, but FW has more than its fair share and a general blue-collar vibe, IMO. Houston has huge industrial petroleum operations, miles of warehouse, and shipping yards but it still feels like a modern, progressive city vibe to me...Fort Worth..not so much.

You can have blue collar FW, what do I care?

[nucklehead]

"FWD Airport"? That's rich. Don't get me wrong - Ft. Worth is a very nice city on a great growth path, but if local gas fields were the key to domination, Midland-Odessa would have become the #1 megapolitan of Texas long time ago...

Uhm . . . there was a time in which Midland was the richest city per capital in the world. Look at its magnificent skyline and compare it to Tyler's or Longview's -- some other dynamic small cities in Texas.

I think water might be a problem in that part of Texas in regards to building a magapolitan area there. Texas has 40,000 square miles of sand dunes in and around that region.

The gas fields are believed to be the largest in the lower 48 states. Add to these gas fields all the warehouses and expanding manufacturing that Fort Worth covets while Dallas despises them and the smaller city has a healthier infrastructure for future growth. Dallas has lots of office buildings indeed, but they are being built from the top down on an eroding foundation of small business. This is why Dallas has millions of square feet of office space empty out during every recession while the city of Fort Worth has more of a stable economy.

[TxDave]

Uhm . . . there was a time in which Midland was the richest city per capital in the world. Look at its magnificent skyline and compare it to Tyler's or Longview's -- some other dynamic small cities in Texas.

I think water might be a problem in that part of Texas in regards to building a magapolitan area there. Texas has 40,000 square miles of sand dunes in and around that region.

The gas fields are believed to be the largest in the lower 48 states. Add to these gas fields all the warehouses and expanding manufacturing that Fort Worth covets while Dallas despises them and the smaller city has a healthier infrastructure for future growth. Dallas has lots of office buildings indeed, but they are being built from the top down on an eroding foundation of small business. This is why Dallas has millions of square feet of office space empty out during every recession while the city of Fort Worth has more of a stable economy.

I am not sure how long these gas fields will be a boon for Fort Worth (if not detrimental - a lot of people don't want drilling in their neighborhood), but Fort Worth will continue to grow in size and prominence. Unlike Dallas, it has a lot of room to expand to the North, West, and South - and its population will continue to expand.

But with that urban growth will likely come many more of the big city problems (poverty, decay, etc) that Dallas has had to address alone for years. Maybe together they can develop better solutions.

[TexasStar]

[Trae]

I'm surprised, but not really because people are heading back into the Inner City.