Houston Edges D-FW in GDP Race

[TexasStar]

Houston edges out Dallas in GDP race

08:21 AM CDT on Thursday, September 27, 2007

By BRENDAN M. CASE / The Dallas Morning News

Bad news in the battle between Dallas and that other large town to the southeast: Houston edged out Dallas in a new ranking of the largest U.S. metropolitan economies.

The Houston area's gross domestic product came in at $316.3 billion in 2005, a hair ahead of Dallas-Fort Worth's $315.5 billion.

That's one of the conclusions in a new study by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the U.S. Commerce Department. The report attempts to measure total output by metropolitan area through 2005.

The Texas titans rank as fifth- and sixth-largest metro economies in the nation, following New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the Washington area.

According to the study, the top 10 metropolitan areas accounted for 34 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product of nearly $12.4 trillion in 2005.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis called the study a prototype that was open to tweaking. Its analysis relied heavily on industry earnings data from the state and county levels.

In Texas at least, the federal estimates track calculations by Waco economist Ray Perryman. He estimates total output in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at about $315.4 billion in 2005. The Houston area stood at $316.1 billion.

METRO ECONOMIES

Gross domestic product in billions of dollars by metro area for 2005:

------------------------------------

New York $1,056.4

Los Angeles $632.4

Chicago $461.4

Washington, D.C. $347.6

Houston $316.3

Dallas-Fort Worth $315.5

Philadelphia $295.2

San Francisco $268.3

Boston $261.1

Atlanta $242.4

------------------------------------

SOURCE: U.S. Commerce Department

How great is it that Texas has two powerhouse economies? NYC remains in a class by itself.

But, as for the rest, the Texas giants are definitely playing with the big boys.

[stan the man]

Houston edges out Dallas in GDP race

08:21 AM CDT on Thursday, September 27, 2007

By BRENDAN M. CASE / The Dallas Morning News

Bad news in the battle between Dallas and that other large town to the southeast: Houston edged out Dallas in a new ranking of the largest U.S. metropolitan economies.

The Houston area's gross domestic product came in at $316.3 billion in 2005, a hair ahead of Dallas-Fort Worth's $315.5 billion.

That's one of the conclusions in a new study by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the U.S. Commerce Department. The report attempts to measure total output by metropolitan area through 2005.

The Texas titans rank as fifth- and sixth-largest metro economies in the nation, following New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the Washington area.

According to the study, the top 10 metropolitan areas accounted for 34 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product of nearly $12.4 trillion in 2005.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis called the study a prototype that was open to tweaking. Its analysis relied heavily on industry earnings data from the state and county levels.

In Texas at least, the federal estimates track calculations by Waco economist Ray Perryman. He estimates total output in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at about $315.4 billion in 2005. The Houston area stood at $316.1 billion.

METRO ECONOMIES

Gross domestic product in billions of dollars by metro area for 2005:

------------------------------------

New York $1,056.4

Los Angeles $632.4

Chicago $461.4

Washington, D.C. $347.6

Houston $316.3

Dallas-Fort Worth $315.5

Philadelphia $295.2

San Francisco $268.3

Boston $261.1

Atlanta $242.4

------------------------------------

SOURCE: U.S. Commerce Department

How great is it that Texas has two powerhouse economies? NYC remains in a class by itself.

But, as for the rest, the Texas giants are definitely playing with the big boys.

Houston and DFW are pretty much on the rise. Of course, could there be a new trend of Houston surpassing Dallas in various market sizes. (e.g. economic areas, population areas, TV markets, etc.)

[Dallasboi]

Houston and DFW are pretty much on the rise. Of course, could there be a new trend of Houston surpassing Dallas in various market sizes. (e.g. economic areas, population areas, TV markets, etc.)

Ive always notice houston winning over Dallas in alot of stuff so that trend is not new.....I think its becoming more equal now.

[C2H]

Houston edges out Dallas in GDP race

08:21 AM CDT on Thursday, September 27, 2007

By BRENDAN M. CASE / The Dallas Morning News

Bad news in the battle between Dallas and that other large town to the southeast: Houston

Like what was the point in referring to it as" that other large town ". I know it was meant as a sly remark but he ended mentioning Houston's name anyway. Texans are funny!

[RedScare]

Like what was the point in referring to it as" that other large town ". I know it was meant as a sly remark but he ended mentioning Houston's name anyway. Texans are funny!

It's just the Dallas Morning News showing it's inferiority complex over Houston.

Now, if you want to see something REALLY funny, read the different article on the exact same subject in today's Houston Chronicle.

Houston GDP

This article says that Dallas GDP is BIGGER than Houston GDP!

Why don't the two papers just switch articles, so each paper's hometown homers can be happy?

[C2H]

It's just the Dallas Morning News showing it's inferiority complex over Houston.

Now, if you want to see something REALLY funny, read the different article on the exact same subject in today's Houston Chronicle.

Houston GDP

This article says that Dallas GDP is BIGGER than Houston GDP!

Why don't the two papers just switch articles, so each paper's hometown homers can be happy?

So who's to say who's right? The Chronicile or DMN? The director of Regional Forecasting did say in the Chronicle article that the numbers for Houston don't match the employment growth. Something seems skewed.

[dalparadise]

It's just the Dallas Morning News showing it's inferiority complex over Houston.

Now, if you want to see something REALLY funny, read the different article on the exact same subject in today's Houston Chronicle.

Houston GDP

This article says that Dallas GDP is BIGGER than Houston GDP!

Why don't the two papers just switch articles, so each paper's hometown homers can be happy?

Wow, that Chron article sounds like it was written by a fifth grader. Despite the many things Houston should be proud of -- namely its cultural, economic and political growth over the past 30-40 years, its newspaper is a constant reminder that Houston is not ready for the big time.

[ToryGattis]

I figured out the discrepancy and posted the explanation on my blog:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2007...-confusion.html

[Houston19514]

Wow. Another major screwup for that sorry excuse for a newspaper (the Chron)

(Thanks for the explanation Tory)

[Trae]

Why is the Chronicle such a piece of ____?

[dalparadise]

Why is the Chronicle such a piece of ____?

Two reasons --

It doesn't have to be anything more, because we don't demand anything more.

and

It doesn't have to be anything more and it know it doesn't.

Why anyone would subscribe to it is beyond me. AP wire stories are available online, as is poorly written schlock about local issues.

[nucklehead]

Houston edges out Dallas in GDP race

08:21 AM CDT on Thursday, September 27, 2007

By BRENDAN M. CASE / The Dallas Morning News

Bad news in the battle between Dallas and that other large town to the southeast: Houston edged out Dallas in a new ranking of the largest U.S. metropolitan economies.

The Houston area's gross domestic product came in at $316.3 billion in 2005, a hair ahead of Dallas-Fort Worth's $315.5 billion.

That's one of the conclusions in a new study by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the U.S. Commerce Department. The report attempts to measure total output by metropolitan area through 2005.

The Texas titans rank as fifth- and sixth-largest metro economies in the nation, following New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the Washington area.

According to the study, the top 10 metropolitan areas accounted for 34 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product of nearly $12.4 trillion in 2005.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis called the study a prototype that was open to tweaking. Its analysis relied heavily on industry earnings data from the state and county levels.

In Texas at least, the federal estimates track calculations by Waco economist Ray Perryman. He estimates total output in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at about $315.4 billion in 2005. The Houston area stood at $316.1 billion.

METRO ECONOMIES

Gross domestic product in billions of dollars by metro area for 2005:

------------------------------------

New York $1,056.4

Los Angeles $632.4

Chicago $461.4

Washington, D.C. $347.6

Houston $316.3

Dallas-Fort Worth $315.5

Philadelphia $295.2

San Francisco $268.3

Boston $261.1

Atlanta $242.4

------------------------------------

SOURCE: U.S. Commerce Department

How great is it that Texas has two powerhouse economies? NYC remains in a class by itself.

But, as for the rest, the Texas giants are definitely playing with the big boys.

In the long run DFW will economically top Houston because it has the more volatile economy. An example of that volatility would be the collapse of its telecom industry a few years back. In order to offset such a loss of industry, the area constantly develops new ones.

[nucklehead]

Ive always notice houston winning over Dallas in alot of stuff so that trend is not new.....I think its becoming more equal now.

I noticed that you referenced Dallas. The fastest growing area of DFW now is the northern part of Fort Worth. In fact, Fort Worth isn't hemned in like Dallas so it expects to surpass it in population in the future. Fort Worth also has half of the billionaires living in DFW (which is pretty extinsive) including one of the Walton children as a resident. So it is a legitimate city out right.

[Guest Marty]

Did they banned you MisterNifty off the Dallas metro forums already?

[TxDave]

I noticed that you referenced Dallas. The fastest growing area of DFW now is the northern part of Fort Worth. In fact, Fort Worth isn't hemned in like Dallas so it expects to surpass it in population in the future. Fort Worth also has half of the billionaires living in DFW (which is pretty extinsive) including one of the Walton children as a resident. So it is a legitimate city out right.

This point has been rehashed a million times. Yes, the city limits of Dallas only represent about 1/4 to 1/5 of the DFW metro area. However, the region is still referred to as "Dallas" (including Fort Worth), in general terms, throughout the world. So what? This happens with most major cities. Fort Worth is a great city and known well enough to be recognizable worldwide (although partly due to being the second half of DFW airport's name), but how much does it really differ from other "adjacent cities" as Oakland, CA; Tacoma, WA; or St Petersburg FL? They are all eclipsed by their more reconizable neighbors, despite their size.

Outside of North Texas, people will still generically refer to "Dallas" and people from the area (maybe not Fort Worth) will still likely identify as being from "Dallas". The term can be used equally to define the region or the municipal boundaries of the city itself. That distinction is only relevant to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, no one should get worked up about it and accept the dual use of "Dallas" as a city name.

As a local example, how often do people who live off of FM 1960 identify as being from "Unicorporated Harris County" rather than Houston when speaking to people outside of the Houston area. Or for that matter, how about those from Sugar Land or The Woodlands? They are all from "Houston" in the rest of the world's eyes. The general term should be recognized as what it is.

[nucklehead]

This point has been rehashed a million times. Yes, the city limits of Dallas only represent about 1/4 to 1/5 of the DFW metro area. However, the region is still referred to as "Dallas" (including Fort Worth), in general terms, throughout the world. So what? This happens with most major cities. Fort Worth is a great city and known well enough to be recognizable worldwide (although partly due to being the second half of DFW airport's name), but how much does it really differ from other "adjacent cities" as Oakland, CA; Tacoma, WA; or St Petersburg FL? They are all eclipsed by their more reconizable neighbors, despite their size.

Outside of North Texas, people will still generically refer to "Dallas" and people from the area (maybe not Fort Worth) will still likely identify as being from "Dallas". The term can be used equally to define the region or the municipal boundaries of the city itself. That distinction is only relevant to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, no one should get worked up about it and accept the dual use of "Dallas" as a city name.

As a local example, how often do people who live off of FM 1960 identify as being from "Unicorporated Harris County" rather than Houston when speaking to people outside of the Houston area. Or for that matter, how about those from Sugar Land or The Woodlands? They are all from "Houston" in the rest of the world's eyes. The general term should be recognized as what it is.

Indeed. But in the future the city of Houston will be competing population wise more with the area of Fort Worth than it will be with Dallas. There are no suburbs north of Fort Worth to serve as boundaries to keep the city from growing all the way to Denton. The relationship Fort Worth has with Dallas is not like the one the city of St. Paul has with Minneapolis. Those 2 citys are only 10 miles seperated from each other. Dallas and Fort Worth are seperated by 30 miles.

[Trae]

In the long run DFW will economically top Houston because it has the more volatile economy. An example of that volatility would be the collapse of its telecom industry a few years back. In order to offset such a loss of industry, the area constantly develops new ones.

Not at all.

[nucklehead]

Did they banned you MisterNifty off the Dallas metro forums already?

I'm not banned from the Dallas metro forums, no. Why would my beloved forum members ban me? They know good and well that while I am out of prison on parole, I need their valuable therapy to keep me centered. So I have a signed agreement with that forum's editors stating that I am never to be banned. It isn't that I am treated any more special than the other common members in that forum, in particular. See I tend to suffer from a chemical imbalance every time they delete one of my posts. It comes about because of my homelessness. My therapists calls it "a disposition to go beserk" or something like that. So when they delete one of my posts, I have a tendency to wander the streets of Uptown and the Dallas Lightrail System while antagonizing its upwardly mobile residents.

As they have agreed to developed a full time special committee to edit all my posts, my part of the agreement stipulates that I will continue receiving therapy in regards to my racist posts. Anyway, thanks for being concerned about my welfare.

By the way, have you ever noticed how envious Houstonians are about Dallas' light rail system and about how dense its Uptown area is? Doesn't it border on hostility even?

[Trae]

Uptown Dallas isn't that dense. If anything, it is just a Texas Medical Center. Uptown Houstom may not be dense, but it is larger than Downtown Dallas itself.

[nucklehead]

Not at all.

Compare Atlanta to Miami. Which city is the regional distribution center? Which has the regional airport? Which has the more volatile economy? DFW is to Houston what Atlanta is to Miami.

Dallas is so volatile that it has to build its own real estate developments. Outside investers just can't rationalize investing in a volatile market like DFW that after every recession it empties out millions of square feet of office space. What they don't understand is how fast it fills back up during periods of economic expansion. People tend to focus so much on the firing that goes on in DFW, which is quite healthy for an economy actually, that they have forgotten how dynamic the hiring has been over the years.

[nucklehead]

Uptown Dallas isn't that dense. If anything, it is just a Texas Medical Center. Uptown Houstom may not be dense, but it is larger than Downtown Dallas itself.

The people in Dallas confuse others by differentiating Uptown from Downtown. Downtown is becoming successful right now because of Uptown. Both together make up a single core with the Woodall Rogers Freeway serving at its new Main Street. The fact that the old folks in Dallas still want to reestablish the old Main Street in Downtown, just confuses the situation.

The significance in Dallas in comparison to Houston is the critical mass that has been reached there. As lots of development has been built along both sides of Woodall Rogers, even more is going to be started to match the expected openings of the next phase of the Art's District, further expansion of the Victory development, the next Light Rail expansion which will double in size and each phase of the Trinity River project.

Houston went through an incredible building spree itself a few back where it invested billions east of its downtown. That included the building its first light rail line, the rebuilding of a lot of its downtown streets, the expansion of its convention center, the building of a 1000 room convention hotel and the building of the Toyota Center. All this infrastructure does little to enhance Midtown though.

Perhaps development in Midtown is slow because Houston still has ample property downtown to expand?

[nucklehead]

The people in Dallas confuse others by differentiating Uptown from Downtown. Downtown is becoming successful right now because of Uptown. Both together make up a single core with the Woodall Rogers Freeway serving at its new Main Street. The fact that the old folks in Dallas still want to reestablish the old Main Street in Downtown, just confuses the situation.

The significance in Dallas in comparison to Houston is the critical mass that has been reached there. As lots of development has been built along both sides of Woodall Rogers, even more is going to be started to match the expected openings of the next phase of the Art's District, further expansion of the Victory development, the next Light Rail expansion which will double in size and each phase of the Trinity River project.

Houston went through an incredible building spree itself a few back where it invested billions east of its downtown. That included the building its first light rail line, the rebuilding of a lot of its downtown streets, the expansion of its convention center, the building of a 1000 room convention hotel and the building of the Toyota Center. All this infrastructure does little to enhance Midtown though.

Perhaps development in Midtown is slow because Houston still has ample property downtown to expand?

Okay. Let me give you another analogy. There was a year when the Nissan 300Z could out run a Corvette in the quarter mile. Does this mean that the Nissan 300Z was the better car? No. Dallas over the long run just has the better foundation to expand than Houston does. The assurity of Houston's future economy is actually what keeps it from expanding the way DFW does. DFW is wide open. Houston gets a lot of Federal money because of its Texas Medical Center and NASA. Free Markets do better than socialism.

[Trae]

Okay, Dallas' economy is based off of transportation and IT. Houston is medical/energy/aerospace. Houston industries are more world industries than Dallas'. Dallas is mostly a regional city, while Houston is international. Houston has a lot more international visitors than Dallas does, too.

I am willing to bet that Houston's economy is a lot better than Dallas' and will expand further and further as these oil companies start going flex fuel.

[nucklehead]

Post of the Day!

Tell me more about this "new Main Street". Will it be pedestrian friendly? Will we see attractive young professionals walking their Papillions down its median? Will it be lined with street level (or should we call it subterranean level) retail? Tell me more!

Uhm . . . the buried portion of Woodall Rogers will have a park plaza built over it. Main Street references the center of both the city's core and its development. The fellow who designed the suspension bridges to go over the Trinity was puzzled as to why Dallas citizens tended to divide the city core using freeways as boundaries. He said the city should consider the Baylor Medical Center to the east and the Market Center / Southwestern Medical Center to the northwest as part of Downtown.

[nucklehead]

Okay, Dallas' economy is based off of transportation and IT. Houston is medical/energy/aerospace. Houston industries are more world industries than Dallas'. Dallas is mostly a regional city, while Houston is international. Houston has a lot more international visitors than Dallas does, too.

I am willing to bet that Houston's economy is a lot better than Dallas' and will expand further and further as these oil companies start going flex fuel.

This is the common myth. Oil is not that much better than agriculture in creating wealth. Look at Mexico and Venezuela. Look at what happened to Texas as the "Superstate" during the 80's. You don't think Houston could lose over 100,000 citizens in a blink of an eye? Well, it already happened once back during its oil depression. Houston was out pacing DFW back during the late 70's also. There was a talk of building a mile high office building in Houston back then. Developers had over 100,000,000 square feet of office development planned along the stretch of the North beltway 8 west of Greenspoint Mall. Oil is only good as a great foundation for an economy as is agriculture. DFW still has Oil and Gas and Agriculture as a base for its diverse economy. Houston is too much oil.

By the way, something you should consider is the wisdom of having all the world's oil companies in Houston. It give Houston a very bad reputation. It wouldn 't surprise me if the a lot of the oil companies make that determination in the future by moving their headquarters to more diverse areas of the nation. Think about it. Nothing is assured. Didn't Haliburton recently decide to move its headquarters out of the nation to the middle east?

[RedScare]

This is the common myth. Oil is not that much better than agriculture in creating wealth.

Post of the friggin' DECADE!

[Trae]

This is the common myth. Oil is not that much better than agriculture in creating wealth. Look at Mexico and Venezuela. Look at what happened to Texas as the "Superstate" during the 80's. You don't think Houston could lose over 100,000 citizens in a blink of an eye? Well, it already happened once back during its oil depression. Houston was out pacing DFW back during the late 70's also. There was a talk of building a mile high office building in Houston back then. Developers had over 100,000,000 square feet of office development planned along the stretch of the North beltway 8 west of Greenspoint Mall. Oil is only good as a great foundation for an economy as is agriculture. DFW still has Oil and Gas and Agriculture as a base for its diverse economy. Houston is too much oil.

By the way, something you should consider is the wisdom of having all the world's oil companies in Houston. It give Houston a very bad reputation. It wouldn 't surprise me if the a lot of the oil companies make that determination in the future by moving their headquarters to more diverse areas of the nation. Think about it. Nothing is assured. Didn't Haliburton recently decide to move its headquarters out of the nation to the middle east?

Houston actually lost about 50,000 during two years, and gained all of that, and more the very next year (55,000). The year after that, Houston gained 80,000 more residents. Oh, and don't expect Houston to lose anymore population like that ever again (Houston will never lose population anyway). The reason is because Houston's economy is not 80%+ tied to energy anymore. The number is now down at 46%.

About Haliburton...no. They decided to move their HQ from Dallas to the oil/energy capitol of the world...Houston. They then decided to open up a Middle East HQ (kind of like a regional office).

And Houston's reputation (with having all of these oil companies which make up less than half of its economy now) sure isn't hurting it (except for getting more rail). People are still moving here in droves.

[Dallascaper]

Post of the friggin' DECADE!

If we want to get technical, agriculture has been building wealth and has been the foundation of empires for thousands of years, and it will continue to do so long after the last drop of oil is gone. So, in a way, nucklehead has a point, though I am not sure what it has to do with the Houston vs. DFW economies. As for the GDP numbers, they are statistics, so they are most likely wrong; I wouldn't take them too seriously.

[nucklehead]

Houston actually lost about 50,000 during two years, and gained all of that, and more the very next year (55,000). The year after that, Houston gained 80,000 more residents. Oh, and don't expect Houston to lose anymore population like that ever again (Houston will never lose population anyway). The reason is because Houston's economy is not 80%+ tied to energy anymore. The number is now down at 46%.

About Haliburton...no. They decided to move their HQ from Dallas to the oil/energy capitol of the world...Houston. They then decided to open up a Middle East HQ (kind of like a regional office).

And Houston's reputation (with having all of these oil companies which make up less than half of its economy now) sure isn't hurting it (except for getting more rail). People are still moving here in droves.

Maybe it was the totality of people that Houston lost before it started growing again? I know that the city lost a total of over 100,000 before. This was something new for Houston. Dallas had lost population before but never Houston.

I can remember back when the suburb of Plano was adding more new citizens than the whole massive city of Houston combined. I can also remember the billions its local economy lost because of the Enron / energy wholesaler collapse. Although Houston has had some companies relocate to its area since then, you really have to be curious as to whether even that amount of new companies were was enough to replaced the hundreds of billions lost during that scandal?

[ToryGattis]

Hmmm. Note the top and bottom lines on this graph. Also note the diverging slopes of the two lines...

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2007/swe0702g.cfm