Dallas #3

[tamtagon]

I love reading about the future of Fort Worth. I'm generally skeptical of the city population estimates over 1.5 million, but the build out of northern Tarrant County during the next 20 years will be led by "urban" Fort Worth.

pasted from the 'Houston and Phoenix" thread: As of this year, the Census Bureau redefined the metro areas and there are now 25 MSAs in the Lone Star state accounting for 77 of the 254 counties.

These changes resulted in adding 22 counties and dropping three. The San Antonio MSA gained four new counties, the most for any Texas metro thanks to its rapid outward expansion.

Big news for the San Antonio metro area to increase geographically. For three decades, San Antonio's population growth has been conservative when compared to most other very large Sunbelt cities, registering about a 20% increase in metro population from census to census. But the 2010 census will probably report more than a 30% population increase within the previously defined geographic area of the SA metro, while the population gains due to the geographic increase will contribute to a total population increase of 38-40% greater than in 2000.

The look of the city may be the most significant change. The central business district has little available office space, and a very large residential population - a condition both Dallas and Houston struggle to develop. In its sleepy, slower paced century of being a big city, San Antonio has always maintained an active downtown - which the new urbanist development trends are bringing back to Dallas and Houston after the suburban devistation. Population density, inventory of office space and inventory of residential options (to own and rent) in the downtown area of San Antonio will see dramatic increases as the number of new highrises match the number brought on line in Dallas and Houston.

Easily until 2020, both Fort Worth and San Antonio will be making the same kind of noise Dallas and Houston have been making, and much of the "progress" in FW and SA will come focusing non-Dallas & non-Houston atmopsheres. DFW is probably the biggest winner with two distinct urban areas so close. The Texas Triangle is going to get lots of attention, and if the pollution questions are at least partially answered, the attention may be even better than the most optomistic Texan can imagine.

[Dallasite]

I am anxious to see Texas in 20 years. It will be very very different...

[westguy]

Border-to-border concrete and bedroom communities.

[2112]

FW is a lot like Houston in that the city has a huge appreciation for the arts and preserving historic buildings and the flavor of the city's rich Texas heritage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean?

[2112]

What do you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooops. I misread your post/quote. I thought you said "FW is NOT like Houston", but you said "A LOT" not "NOT". My error.

I do love Fort Worth. The two times I went to DFW the last 4 years, it was to a piano competition in Fort Worth. I like that Fort Worth at times has an "Austin" feel to it, minus 6th street. But more inportantly, minus the attitude.

Take care.

[Montrose1100]

Fort Worth is not the Fastest Growing city in America, its Las Vegas...

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

I wouldn't raise a family in Las Vegas, but that's just me.

[Willy1]

Montrose1100,

Actually, Fort Worth has grown faster than Las Vegas in the past few years. Plus, much of Vegas' growth is in the suburbs, not Vegas proper. However, what I said was that FW is the fastest growing city with a population over 500,000. It's been published in several different reliable sourses and covered quite a bit by the DFW media. However, it's after 2:00 am and I don't have the energy to hunt down the information. But, trust me... it's true. I know it's a shocking statistic. Who would have ever dreamed that sleepy ole Fort Worth would be the hotbed of such incredible growth. But, all you have to do is spend a little time in FW to see what all is going on. It's insane. The difference in FW's growth compared to some other large cities, is that FW is growing at the central core and in the outer areas... so FW is growing both upward and outward at the same time. It's unusual to see a large city growing at the core and outward at the same time. Plus, FW is also annexing to prevent becoming landlocked. There is a HUGE housing boom going on in dowtown FW... right now there are tons of older former office towers being converted to lofts. To give you an idea of the central core's growth, the population downtown was about 1000 just a couple years ago. Now it's around 2800, from what I read on the FW discussion board, and they're expecting the number to sore to over 10,000 within a few yeas as newer high rise residential towers go up. Right now the hottest address is THE TOWER, which was the Bank One Tower before being destroyed by the tornado that hit downtown in 2000. It's nearly sold out and only the a few penthouse properties remain from what I understand. It basically sold out overnight. Sales were so brisk that they cancelled all plans for rental units in the building and immediately put them up for sale. Now there are a hand full of other new buildings being announced for construction, as several other prominant older office towers convert to urban lofts. The growth in FW is just now starting. 5 years from now it will be a very different city than it is today. FW is ramping up for the kind of growth Pheonix has seen in the last decade. In fact, growth over the last couple of years has been so rapid that the North Texas Coucil of Governments - a board made up of DFW cities - is having to adjust the population projections they made for FW in 2000 because the city has already shot past the population they predicted for 2006. They are now saying FW could top the 700,000 mark by the end of the decade and possibly pass Dallas around 2020 or 2025. Given that Dallas is just under twice the size of FW now... that's a pretty incredible prediction.

[houstonsemipro]

The fastest growing cities are: houston, phoenix, and las veges.

[tamtagon]

Can we agree on a data source (US Census, Rand McNally or TAM data center etc), and paste and/or provide link to the numbers. Then we can sift and distribute the prizes for fastest growing based on:

-municipal population increase - % of total

-municipal population increase - numerical gain

-metro population increase - % of total

-metro population increase - numerical gain

I suspect that Los Angeles area continues to realize the greatest numerical population increase, and would not be surprised to learn that recently, the Fort Worth metro area (not including Dallas metro) has one of the fastest growth rates; for the city of Fort Worth to have the fastest growth rate of all cities would not be too surprising, but the rate of increase will level off in a couple years.

[Montrose1100]

Can we agree on a data source (US Census, Rand McNally or TAM data center etc), and paste and/or provide link to the numbers.  Then we can sift and distribute the prizes for fastest growing based on:

-municipal population increase  - % of total

-municipal population increase  - numerical gain

-metro population increase - % of total

-metro population increase - numerical gain

I suspect that Los Angeles area continues to realize the greatest numerical population increase, and would not be surprised to learn that recently, the Fort Worth metro area (not including Dallas metro) has one of the fastest growth rates; for the city of Fort Worth to have the fastest growth rate of all cities would not be too surprising, but the rate of increase will level off in a couple years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NYC had the greatest numerical population increase, I belive it was over 100,000. But thats NYC, and the % of the increase was very little, considering the city has 8,000,000 inhabitants.

Los Angeles had one of the greatest % increase, as well as Houston.

[dbigtex56]

NYC had the greatest numerical population increase, I belive it was over 100,000. But thats NYC, and the % of the increase was very little, considering the city has 8,000,000 inhabitants.

Los Angeles had one of the greatest % increase, as well as Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sources, please.

[Willy1]

From the media - not me... there are lots of ways to measure growth... LA, NYC, Vegas, Houston... FW... they're all growing at impressive rates. But, this is just one of the sources I use to support my claim that FW is growing faster than cities such as Vegas. It should also be noted that latest population figures put FW at about 620,000... so we've actually passed one or two more cities on the list by now. We're at least number 19 and possible 18th by now. The numbers mentioned in this article have already been blown out of the water according to NCTOG figures.

*****

No bull!

Cowtown climbs five spots among nation's most populous cities

By Aman Batheja

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Fort Worth is on the move on the population charts. So is Dallas. They're just going in opposite directions.

Jumping past five cities -- including Boston, Seattle and Washington D.C. -- Fort Worth is now the 20th-largest city in the country with 585,122 residents, according to 2003 census figures to be released Thursday.

Dallas, meanwhile, was supplanted by San Antonio as the eighth-largest city in the country. Dallas, which gained less than 2,500 people between July 2002 and July 2003, dropped to No. 9.

Fort Worth has been enjoying a robust growth rate for several years. But Rocky Gardiner, with the North Central Texas Council of Governments, said Cowtown is growing even faster than previously expected.

Two years ago, the council forecasted Fort Worth to have 624,000 people by 2010, Gardiner said.

"With the growth we're seeing lately, they could surpass that by 2006," Gardiner said.

Most of the growth is in north Fort Worth.

Besides making the top 20, Fort Worth is also the fastest-growing city of more than 500,000 from July 2002 to July 2003, increasing by about 2.8 percent, or 16,000 people.

And from April 2000 to July 2003, Fort Worth grew 8.1 percent, making it the fastest-growing city of more than 500,000 during that time, according to the Census figures.

"We have found that delicate balance between economic development opportunities in our city and the quality of life in our neighborhoods," said Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief.

The city's booming population will undoubtedly affect public policy, Moncrief said.

"We're no longer 25. We're now 20. Certainly as we go into this next budget cycle, it's something we're going to have to be mindful of," Moncrief said.

While city services will need to continue to be expanded to sustain the growth, Fort Worth is big enough to handle the newcomers, according to Fort Worth city planner Fernando Costa.

Approximately 1/3 of the city's land remains vacant and suitable for development, Costa said.

"We can accommodate a great deal of growth within our city limits, which in a sense makes Fort Worth different from many other large cities," Costa said.

State demographer Steve Murdock said both Fort Worth and San Antonio's growth is due in part to the availability of land surrounding the city. Dallas, on the other hand, has little space left for new development.

"Dallas is a very contained area. Growth like this simply isn't possible there," Murdock said.

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, who had just given her state-of-the-city address Wednesday, was disappointed to learn of Dallas' drop in the standings.

But she said it would not be long before her city surpasses San Antonio again, especially after the completion of the Trinity River Corridor project, which will consists of lakes, trails, an equestrian center and the Great Trinity Forest, which will be seven times the size of Central Park.

"They have that little, teeny, tiny riverwalk, and when we get our big, huge Trinity River lakes project with our nice bridges, I think that's going to turn around real fast," she said.

In Miller's address, she said the river project and other city efforts will make Dallas one of the most livable cities in the nation within the next five years.

What's especially interesting about Fort Worth's growth is where the new Cowtowners are coming from, Murdock said.

Other Texas cities are growing rapidly largely due to international migration, Murdock said. He noted that Fort Worth's ability to attract a mix of international and domestic residents speaks well for the area economy.

"Domestic migrants are what demographers call 'highly selective.' They tend to have higher incomes and are higher educated than the areas from where they move. It means you have a growing economy with some well-paying jobs," Murdock said.

Other cities in North Texas are also enjoying substantial growth.

Little Elm, on the north shore of Lake Lewisville in Denton County, grew 31 percent to about 12,000 people from 2000 to 2003, making it the country's seventh-fastest growing city of any size during that time.

Town manager J.C. Hughes called the figures "mind boggling" but not unanticipated.

"Frisco is right next to us so I think it was a natural progression for people to look down the road to us," Hughes said.

He said population growth will likely grow even higher in 2008 when a corridor connecting Little Elm to the Interstate 35 is completed.

In Crowley, south of Fort Worth, City Manager Truitt Gilbreath downplayed his city's 8.7 percent growth rate.

"Being a smaller city, naturally our percentage would be greater than larger cities where the numbers are growing faster," he said.

Gilbreath agreed that the quality of life in a smaller town combined with its proximity to Fort Worth attracts people to Crowley.

"You have a little more opportunity to be involved in a small community," he said.

Burleson public information officer Sherry Campbell-Husband attributes Burleson's growth of 6.8 percent to the city's semi-rural environment, good schools and proximity to the retail stores and other amenities of Fort Worth.

While dealing with growth can be painful, it's worth the hassle, Campbell-Husband said.

"Our mayor is fond of saying 'A community that doesn't grow dies,'" she said.

ONLINE: www.census.gov

[tamtagon]

Approximately 1/3 of the city's land remains vacant and suitable for development, Costa said.

And, the city can annex even more open prairie. Over the next 20 years, NE Tarrant and SW Denton counties area is expected to become home to hundreds of thousands of residents. Location of this mostly undeveloped area is the primary driver of the substantial population growth. The way-out-north extention of Dallas suburbs toward McKinney has become a hurdle for many relocating families wary of long commutes to DFW job centers in Dallas, Irving and Fort Worth. Residents of NE Tarrant & SW Denton counties will have exceptionally convenient access to job centers at Fort Worth, Las Colinas, Alliance & DFW airports and Dallas's central business district. As far as the lay of the land, some of the area is still covered by heavy woods, and the prairie is generally rolling and pleasant.

Most of the highways in the area are being updated, and commuter rail while not networked through out the area, will be easily accessed with commuter service currently available between Fort Worth and Dallas (TRE) as well as DART light rail stations at DFW Airport.

[dbigtex56]

As far as the lay of the land, some of the area is still covered by heavy woods, and the prairie is generally rolling and pleasant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Therefore, it must be destroyed.

[TxDave]

This is a long term issue that Houston should be concerned about. Given the growth of Houton's suburbs - Sugarland, the Woodlands, Katy, and Kingwood's resistance to annexation - eventually Houton will become hemmed in like Dallas. At that point it will have to become focused on growing from within, and could learn a lot from how well (or poorly) Dallas handles the situation.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

That is why Houston should annex now, if they can. Don't forget that Baytown is landlocking Houston also. Also, we have a larger land size than Dallas does so there is a difference there.

[drumguy8800]

I don't know if this has been posted or not.. I just know that this thread is about Dallas dropping to #3 in Texas.

Let's look at some other numbers though, that go beyond the bounds of municipal size: Dallas is suburb-locked, Houston is not. Dallas can't expand.. but when you take into account Dallas' suburbs, it eclipses both Houston and San Antonio metro area.

Dallas: 1,208,318 in city and 5,784,645 in metro

Houston: 2,009,690 in city and 5,176,061 in metro

San Antonio: 1,214,725 in city and 1,820,719 in metro

Also, an interesting fact.. one one of the HAIF banner ads, it says 'bigger than dallas.. prettier than austin..' something like that. Well, Dallas metro is bigger than Houston & San Antonio.. and Dallas metro area has MORE BUILDINGS! Don't believe me?

Number of buildings above 12 stories:

Dallas metro: 432 buildings.

Houston metro: 392 buildings.

San Antonio metro: 59 buildings.

hmmmmmm. But, Houston does have Dallas one-up, well, two-up on one thing: The tallest 'scrapers in the state.

And for those of you who contest those numbers, i got the from skyscrapers.com, and they are valid. Numbers at skyscraperpage.com are very skewed. It lists San Antonio HIGHER than Dallas in terms of # of buildings, and anyone with a pair of eyes can see that San Antonio's downtown is miniscule compared to the Houston & Dallas'.

Just wanted to clarify things. Municipal boundaries mean nothing when looking at a city's size. A city is the entire organism.. the entire metro.

[tamtagon]

It's probably a fair comparison to 'combine' the cities of Dallas and Irving - population, tall buildings stuff like that - then compare to Houston. Not too sure, would the geographic area be about the same?

[drumguy8800]

The numbers above combine the entire metro area.. once you're outside the area defined by an MSA, populations (and especially buildings) become so irrelevant to the total numbers compiled that landsize becomes obsolete. Basically, those numbers cover both region's urbanized areas.

Here's how the numbers were defined:

Dallas-Fort Worth Metro Area

Houston-Baytown-Huntsville Metro Area

As you can see, Houston's even includes cities as far off as Galveston. The DFW metro area is probably fairly close to the same size as the Houston metro area, in terms of statistical MSAs..

[Montrose1100]

Ihope you didn't include proposed, never built, On-Hold, Under Construction, Demolished or "fantasy" in your post...

Houston has more "High-rises" in the city, then Dallas does. The # of High-rises in the metro are not as much as Dallas, but when you include the metro, your including major areas such as Ft. Worth... Which is the second biggest city in the Dallas Metro. Houston metro's second biggest is Pasadena, which is only a meer 120,000. So when you compare metros, I'd say Dallas has got everyone in Texas Beat, but when it comes down to the City, Dallas is behind S.A. And Houston. No Matter what...

We have the facts already, so you don't need to stick your head up from the dust of you falling out of second place...

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Dallas, most definetly, is NOT behind San Antonio for sure.

[Montrose1100]

Dallas, most definetly, is NOT behind San Antonio for sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In city population, yes....

[drumguy8800]

Ihope you didn't include proposed, never built, On-Hold, Under Construction, Demolished or "fantasy" in your post...

Houston has more "High-rises" in the city, then Dallas does. The # of High-rises in the metro are not as much as Dallas, but when you include the metro, your including major areas such as Ft. Worth... Which is the second biggest city in the Dallas Metro. Houston metro's second biggest is Pasadena, which is only a meer 120,000. So when you compare metros, I'd say Dallas has got everyone in Texas Beat, but when it comes down to the City, Dallas is behind S.A. And Houston. No Matter what...

We have the facts already, so you don't need to stick your head up from the dust of you falling out of second place...

Wow, way to be a jerk about it. I'm sorry, but your metro area included GALVESTON and HUNTSVILLE. Which are REALLY FREAKING FAR AWAY. Galveston and Huntsville really shouldn't be considered part of Houston, should they? It isn't completely urbanized in between the three cities. But in between Dallas and Fort Worth, because its such a short distance, it IS urbanized, and they are the same thing.

And no, I didn't use any propsed or under construction numbers those are all BUILT structures at or above 12 storeys.

I'm sorry that Houston has only one major population center. DFW is one organism. It's a city from Weatherford to Mesquite. Urbanized. Would you like to exclude Irving? It has a group of buildings too.. I'm sorry they aren't within the municipality of Dallas! But it sure as heck is in DFW! When you take into account a "city," you take into account an urbanized area. Okay? Please don't mudsling.

[YakuzaIce]

Ihope you didn't include proposed, never built, On-Hold, Under Construction, Demolished or "fantasy" in your post...

Houston has more "High-rises" in the city, then Dallas does. The # of High-rises in the metro are not as much as Dallas, but when you include the metro, your including major areas such as Ft. Worth... Which is the second biggest city in the Dallas Metro. Houston metro's second biggest is Pasadena, which is only a meer 120,000. So when you compare metros, I'd say Dallas has got everyone in Texas Beat, but when it comes down to the City, Dallas is behind S.A. And Houston. No Matter what...

We have the facts already, so you don't need to stick your head up from the dust of you falling out of second place...

And no, I didn't use any propsed or under construction numbers those are all BUILT structures at or above 12 storeys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well those numbers that they give say right next to them all status types, which includes vision, never built, destroyed, etc... Also the odd thing is when I counted up all the cities for Houston I got the 392 number, but with dallas I only got 407, but they say 432. I counted it a couple times so I don't know where emporis is getting these 25 other buildings.

[Montrose1100]

Ihope you didn't include proposed, never built, On-Hold, Under Construction, Demolished or "fantasy" in your post...

Houston has more "High-rises" in the city, then Dallas does. The # of High-rises in the metro are not as much as Dallas, but when you include the metro, your including major areas such as Ft. Worth... Which is the second biggest city in the Dallas Metro. Houston metro's second biggest is Pasadena, which is only a meer 120,000. So when you compare metros, I'd say Dallas has got everyone in Texas Beat, but when it comes down to the City, Dallas is behind S.A. And Houston. No Matter what...

We have the facts already, so you don't need to stick your head up from the dust of you falling out of second place...

Wow, way to be a jerk about it. I'm sorry, but your metro area included GALVESTON and HUNTSVILLE. Which are REALLY FREAKING FAR AWAY. Galveston and Huntsville really shouldn't be considered part of Houston, should they? It isn't completely urbanized in between the three cities. But in between Dallas and Fort Worth, because its such a short distance, it IS urbanized, and they are the same thing.

And no, I didn't use any propsed or under construction numbers those are all BUILT structures at or above 12 storeys.

I'm sorry that Houston has only one major population center. DFW is one organism. It's a city from Weatherford to Mesquite. Urbanized. Would you like to exclude Irving? It has a group of buildings too.. I'm sorry they aren't within the municipality of Dallas! But it sure as heck is in DFW! When you take into account a "city," you take into account an urbanized area. Okay? Please don't mudsling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where are you getting Galveston and Huntsville? DFW is not "one organism", and its not one city. Its a Metropolis:a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts. (i.e. Fort Worth, Irving, Arlington etc.) While your definition of Urban seems to be the # of 12 story buildings, the way everyone else sees is, is not... "a geographical area constituting a city or town" or so many people per square mile... You could include Huntsville and Galveston in the metropolis, because mostly, its Urban all the way down 45 to Galveston, including the area/towns of Nassua Bay, Pasadena etc... Look on a map, that shows urban areas...

So, you could say Galveston and Huntsville are in the Houston Metro. Also, the Metropolis is small towns, be them "self supporting" such as the Woodlands, or commuter towns, like Spring or Katy...

Your sophomoric...

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

It is urban all the way to Galveston. To Huntsville, I am not sure of that because there are some deserted spots. Like going to Baytown from Katy. Out of the Beltway, its nothing until you get to Garth Rd.

[Montrose1100]

It is urban all the way to Galveston. To Huntsville, I am not sure of that because there are some deserted spots. Like going to Baytown from Katy. Out of the Beltway, its nothing until you get to Garth Rd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know Huntsville doesn't have a direct "Urban" link, but the fact that they would consider themselves a suburb of Houston, and listen to Houston radio Stations, and go into Houston alot, I would say Huntsville is part of the Houston Metropolis...

[tamtagon]

I know Huntsville doesn't have a direct "Urban" link, but the fact that they would consider themselves a suburb of Houston, and listen to Houston radio Stations, and go into Houston alot, I would say Huntsville is part of the Houston Metropolis...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The inclusion of a county with a specific metropolitian area, as defined by the US Census, is governed by commuter traffic.

[drumguy8800]

I'm getting Huntsville and Galveston from Emporis. They consider it the "Houston-Galveston-Huntsville" metro.

I don't consider "12 storeys" urban, that's also what Emporis uses.

DFW is not "one organism", and its not one city. Its a Metropolis:a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts. (i.e. Fort Worth, Irving, Arlington etc.)

Yes, it is one "organism." An organism is made up of several organs. Which are, the municipalities.

You can't tell when you exit Fort Worth and enter Arlington. You can't tell when you exit Arlington and enter Grand Prairie. You can't tell when you exit Grand Prairie and enter Dallas. It's all one CITY. Administrative districts do not make up a CITY. When thinking of London, by your definition, that would only be London Proper: An area housing only about 23,000 Residents. But surely, you would think that the entire area housing 10,000,000 people is part of what people refer to as London! You seem to have municipality vs. city completely screwed up. City = metropolis, or city = urbanized area within a metropolis. Often, metropolises are bounded by the US Government by county designations, but the designations I have provided are urbanized areas.

I'm starting to get a little heated, and so will everyone else if this discussion continues. But the facts remain- don't try and chop up Fort Worth and Dallas so that you can say Houston is bigger. And surely don't try and say that San Antonio is- or at least, that it's "ahead," whatever skewed mental synapse that was spawned from.