Willy1

Lower Greenville isn't as bad about crime as is painted in ths forum. Deep Ellum, however is bad. It's been overrun with hip hop gangsta's and they've destroyed one of Dallas' best destinations. They're now preying on tourist who have head that Deep Ellum is a great/fun place.... Locals have known not to go there for a while.

Every gripes about Dallas being divided North vs. South, but crime is the main reason it's that way. People in the northern areas don't want the crime that is typical of the southern areas to suddenly pop up in their part of the city. That is what has happened in Deep Ellum. Drug Dealers and gang bangers have taken over Deep Ellum. They're working on the problem, but the gangs out number the cops 5 to 1 probably.... I think Deep Ellum is going to have to basically die and be reborn again so that even the gang members lose interest in the area and then Deep Ellum will have a chance to be reborn in a few years.

The problem is, Dallas is treating the symptom (putting more cops in Deep Ellum) instead of going after the cause - criminals that are living in the Southern half of the city and entertaining themselve in Deep Ellum.

You also have to re-read the crime statistic here... Dallas has the highest Crime rate of the 9 largest cities - not of ALL cities... There were only 9 cities included in that comparision. Who knows where Dallas ranks when you put all cities into the mix. But, regardless, if NYC and Detroit can turn around their crime stats, then Dallas can too.... It wasn't that many years ago that Fort Worth had the highest crime rate among big cities... Houston has held that honor before as well.... although, I think it's been a long time.... LA has had that title... Chicago... most of the large cities have had high crime rates at one point or another.... If and WHEN Dallas gets on the ball and turns it around, another city will take Dallas' place as the city known for crime at that point in time.... It's just a cylce that all big cities go through.

Just providing information from a native Fort Worthian here.... The growth in FW is not from annexation. FW has done some annexing, but those numbers are not counted by the census bureau or the NCTCOG's population estimates. I don't know why, or when they'll add those numbers but from what I understand they're not included yet. I read something once on the Census bureau website that said something about population gains from annexation not counting in population estimates. The growth FW has experienced has all been within the city limites. You are correct, however, in stating that a lot of FW's growth is in the Northern sector near Alliance - but that is inside the FW city limits. You're also correct that FW has expaned the city limits by annexing a lot of previously unincorporated land/small cities. The city limits now stretch all the way into Denton County in the North, Parker County to the west, and Johnson County to the South. FW's eastern-most city limit touches the Dallas County line just south of DFW airport, North of Arlinton. FW also has extra territorial jurisdiction over more than 300 square miles of unincorporated land just outside the FW city limits. If FW annexes that land it would literally double the land size of FW. Before that undeveloped land can be gobbled up by suburbs, FW has the 1st option of annexing the land. Unlike Dallas, FW is far from landlocked. Instead, FW has managed to landlock the suburbs in a way by "calling dibs" on the land surrounding the suburbs. So for example, before Burleson or Benbrook can annex land, FW has the option of annexing it first - which they are doing because it cost more to bring previously developed land up to city code once it's annexed. They're annexing unincorporated land so that it is developed according to city codes rather than having to be brought up to code later.

As for the core development, the central core is experiencing a lot of growth as well.... There are all sort of infill projects just around the corner. A lot of developers are sitting on projects until they see what is going to happen with the Trinity River Vision plan. There are already developers snatching up land all along the Trinity River in anticipation of what is going to be built there.... If you haven't seen the TR Vision plan definitely go look it up. It's going the make the River Walk in San Antonio look small. They've already opened the white water course inthe wester section of the river and the approval for the TRV is being rushed.... Construction is supposed to begin as early as 2006. Once that is underway you're going to see an explosion of growth in the city center - including new high rises. XTO energy is already considering a new 50+ story tower in central downtown, and there is a residential development for 50+ stories on the drawing board. I've hear that is going to go up next to the new Pier 1 building along the river....

Looks like this will be the 9th DFW sub-thread to be locked.

Yes, the DFW metro population officially passed 6 Million at the end of last year. The 5.8 million pop estimate was from either Jan 04 or July 04. We officially passed the 6 million mark as of Jan 05. DFW has has added over 150K per year for many years now. We may have even added closer to 200K per year in the last few years. DFW is exploding in population. DFW is expected to double in size in the next 30 years.

You are correct, but FW has been larger than Vegas and Atlanta for a very long time. Here is the list of the top 50 U.S. Cities....

1 New York city New York 8,104,079

2 Los Angeles city California 3,845,541

3 Chicago city Illinois 2,862,244

4 Houston city Texas 2,012,626

5 Philadelphia city Penn 1,470,151

6 Phoenix city Arizona 1,418,041

7 San Diego city California 1,263,756

8 San Antonio city Texas 1,236,249

9 Dallas city Texas 1,210,393

10 San Jose city California 904,522

11 Detroit city Michigan 900,198

12 Indianapolis city Indiana 784,242

13 Jacksonville city Florida 777,704

14 San Francisco city California 744,230

15 Columbus city Ohio 730,008

16 Austin city Texas 681,804

17 Memphis city Tennessee 671,929

18 Baltimore city Maryland 636,251

19 Fort Worth city Texas 603,337 ('00=534,694, '05=618,600)

20 Charlotte N Carolina 594,359

21 El Paso city Texas 592,099

22 Milwaukee city Wisconsin 583,624

23 Seattle Wash 571,480

24 Boston city Mass 569,165

25 Denver city Colorado 556,835

26 Louisville Kentucky 556,332

27 Washington DC 553,523

28 Nashville-Davidson Tennessee 546,719

29 Las Vegas city Nevada 534,847

30 Portland city Oregon 533,492

31 Oklahoma City city Oklahoma 528,042

32 Tucson city Arizona 512,023

33 Albuquerque NMexico 484,246

34 Long Beach city California 476,564

35 New Orleans city Louisiana 462,269

36 Cleveland city Ohio 458,684

37 Fresno city California 457,719

38 Sacramento city California 454,330

39 Kansas City city Missouri 444,387

40 Virginia Beach city Virginia 440,098

41 Mesa city Arizona 437,454

42 Atlanta city Georgia 419,122

43 Omaha city Nebraska 409,416

44 Oakland city California 397,976

45 Tulsa city Oklahoma 383,764

46 Miami city Florida 379,724

47 Honolulu CDP Hawaii 377,260

48 Minneapolis city Minnesota 373,943

49 Colorado Springs city Colorado 369,363

50 Arlington city Texas 359,467

Yeah, you're right. Fair Park is more East than South.... But, the Fair Park residential areas - which I was referring to, lie south of Fair Park... In South East Dallas. When people in Dallas think of "East Dallas", they're more likely thinking of White Rock/Lakewood.

As for the Cowboys pumping money into the area.... in this case they would have helped tremendously. You have to remember that even though they don't play that many games a year - Fair Park is home to the State Fair and Tex/OU shootout. And, the Cowboy's new stadium will bring in the Super Bowl too. That would spawn hotels and all sorts of development around Fair Park that isn't there now. When you look at the AA Center in Downtown Dallas you see all sorts of development popping up around it now - residential, hotel, and retail. The same sort of development is going to follow the new Cowboy stadium. They've already be flashing proposals around on the local news/papers in DFW. They're planning a Times Square style development with high rise hotels, condos, offices, and retail immediately surrounding the new stadium. Restaurants and other year-round retail are going to make the stadium a year-round destination, not just a game day thing.

Irving has certainly seen a drastic change in their economy and status as a result of having the Cowboys. The entire Las Colinas area was the result of developers wanting to profit from the nearby Texas Stadium/Dallas Cowboys. Ultimately Las Colinas never took off the way it was originally intended. But, that's mainly because of poor planning, not a lack of potential. It was overbuilt in the 80's like much of Dallas and that hurt. But, it's still a vital part of the DFW business community. Many big companies office in Irving/Las Colinas. Had the Cowboys never moved to Irving, most likely Las Colinas would have never happened. Some would even say that The Four Seasons/Byron Nelson landed in Irving as a result of the Dallas Cowboys building in Irving.... Point is, there are all sorts of fringe benefits and developments that aren't directly tied to the jobs generated by a stadium.

I stand by the fact that the Cowboys moving to Fair Park would have given the city an economic boost. Sure, it's a civic pride thing... But, think about all the national attention that comes with a national sports franchise... Sure, Jerry Jones will get even richer than he already is, but not ALL the money will go to him.

Well if the number on the frontpage is 2000 they probably want to keep it as the true counts and not estimates.  But yeah the numbers are looking good for FW.  But regarding it passing Dallas, any predictions past 5 years seem hard to believe as many things can change in that time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true... but FW has done a great job diversifying their economy, unlike some cities that have based their local economies on single sectors such as technology (Richardson and Austin). Fort Worth is also home to XTO Energy and the Barnett Shale - one of the worlds largest natural gas reserves which is just starting to pump incredible amounts of money into the FW economy... (XTO has purchased several key downtown FW buildings and is currently considering building a new 50+ story tower) FW also has Alliance Airport which is driving growth in the Northern part of the city. Downtown is a model for downtown revitalization/redevelopment. And the Trinity River Vision is set to start construction as early as next year. When the Trinity starts to transform, it is predicted to escalate growth in the city at an unpredictable rate. FW is out-pacing Las Vegas in growth... and the reason for it is as diverse as the economy. That is the sort of thing that has experts saying that FW is just starting what is going to be a very long and very fast period of growth. All indicators point to the fact that FW will continue to grow at AT LEAST it's current rate for decades to come.

But, you are right - all those things could change and FW could stop growing. It's just not likely.

^ Yep. Things have been growing like crazy in FW the last few years and it's just getting started. FW is predicted to surpass Dallas eventually, according to some experts. However, it's not going to take a FEW decades. Maybe 2 at the most. And, with the addition of the Trinity River Vision in FW, things are only going to excellerate in the next few years. FW will probably reclaim the title of 4th largest city in Texas before the end of the decade since Austin is slowing/shrinking now. Another thing to keep in mind. FW's population predictions do not include annexation number... FW does not include those in projections/estimates. Those numbers probably won't be reflected until 2010. Even scarier - FW is only 50% built out... and has first rights to annex more than double the current city square mile land mass. Looks like FW is following Houston's philosophy when it comes to growth...

I wish FW had a football team - that bad boy went to Arlington so FW can't claim it. Arlington is another city that is about to boom thanks to the Cowboys. They're already approaching 400,000. But, when the Super Bowl comes to Arlington, FW will definitely get the spill over from it.

"Of course, the thing that really screwed things up was losing the Cowboys to Arlington. Laura Miller and the City Council should have been taken out back for letting that happen. Had they managed to snag the Cowboys new stadium and put it in Fair Park - where it belongs - then a lot of the improvements the people of S. Dallas are so desperate for would have been provided.... The city really dropped the ball on that one - no pun intended."

I've heard a lot of people promise a lot of things with their professional sports teams...but, never have I seen one promise to cure racism.

No wonder they call them "America's Team".

PS - Just wondering, since I moved back to Houston in 1995...when did they move Fair Park out of East Dallas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair Park is South East of DT Dallas.... but the area to the south of Fair Park would have benefited the most from putting the Cowboys back in Fair Park.... I never said that the Cowboys could/would cure racism. I merely suggested that it would smooth a few feathers since one of the things that people in South Dallas want so badly is economic development - such as one of the world's most valuable sports franchises moving to the area. If the Cowboys had built in Fair Park, the entire Fair Park area, and some parts of South Dallas would have seen a positive economic impact from the improvements that would have surrounded Fair Park. But, now we'll never know.... all those benefits will now be realized in Arlington, which moves all the Dallas Cowboy tax base completely out of Dallas County and into Tarrant County. This is the fist time in the Cowboy's history that they won't reside in Dallas County.

And, now that I think about it, I don't like using the term "racist" when referring to the problems in Dallas because most of the time the term "racist" is pointed at white people. It's a very derogatory term and it's a label that I don't think the city of Dallas deserves. I believe, if anything, the racial tensions in the city stem more from the people in South Dallas who constantly play the race card anytime someone mentions crime rate statistics in that sector of the city. In a lot of ways, it's not a race issue - it is a crime issue. The reason Deep Ellum is suffering is because criminal elements are coming from the South and causing trouble. Deep Ellum was for a long time a very safe, and very diversified part of the city. But, it has recently lost it's reputation as being a safe melting pot. In recent years there have been lots of incidents of white club-goers being attacked in the streets - some beaten, stabbed, or shot to death. The crime in Deep Ellum and the availablity of other night life options in other parts of the city have led to a severe decline in Deep Ellum. This has resulted in many business failures in Deep Ellum. Unfortunately these statistics have been used as an example forwhy some developers don't want to do business in some of the high crime areas in the southern part of Dallas.

It's a "which came first the chicken or the egg" situation. The city of Dallas has a tough fight ahead of it to sort out these problems and it's getting national attention. I wish them luck. Dallas is a city with a lot of potential, but it's at a turning point. Things will either get better or get worse depending on what the city leaders do.... Only time will tell...

It's not about assumed racial borders as much as it is the tale of two cities.

I really am pulling for y'all to "all get along".

I lived in Addison! but always prefered Fair Park, Harry Hines, Denton Drive, Lower Greenville, etc.

Those places are real and reminded me of home (Houston), but Addison! and the other northern cities were just far too planed out to feel real.

Cowboys to Arlington?  Y'all never even had them in the first place, LOL!  Irving did!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When the Cowboys first started, they were playing at the Cotton Bowl. Then they moved to Irving.

That number is correct... FW is one of the fastest growing cities with a population over 500,000 according to both the US Census Bureau and the North Central Texas Coucil of Governments. The Census B. list FW at 603,000 plus, but that's for 2004. The N. Central Texas Coucil of Goverments has a more recent count of 618,600 for 2005. Fort Worth has been adding about 20K +/- a year for several years now... last year FW added 21,500. So, adding over 80,000 in 5 years isn't that big of a deal in FW. The 2000 Census ranked Fort Worth as the 27th largest U.S. city. As of 2003 or 2004 FW is ranked 19th. In Fact, FW is growing so fast that the NCTCOG's is having to adjust previous population estimate that predicted that FW would be nearing a population of 850K by 2030 because FW is now predicted to pass that population much sooner.

Since 2000 FW has passed Milwaukee, Boston, Washington, DC, El Paso, Seattle, Denver, Nashville, and Charlotte. And, Memphis and Baltimore will be next. In the next 5 years, FW will probably pass Austin and possibly Columbus if current growth continues - which is it expected to...

Here are my sources.

http://www.nctcog.org/ris/population/index.html

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/12022865.htm

http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1020r.txt

For whomever might be in control of updating FW's population on the main thread/sub-forum, FW's new 2005 population is 618,600. Just thought I'd bring it to the forum's attention so it could be updated.

Willy,

Y'all will never get past it until people stop calling South Dallas "South Dallas" and North Dallas "North Dallas".  Statements like this just perpetuate the sterotype.

Every Dallasite I talk to has the "North" vs. "South" approach, like it's two different cities.

It should just be "Dallas."

It's funny how you don't see that in Houston.

Of course, I lived in lilly white Addison!  What do I know?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is probably some validity to that statement.... I get the "need for unity" sentiment behind it, and nothing could be more true when it comes to a city needing to unify. But I really don't think that "North Dallas" vs "South Dallas" terminology perpetuates any sort of assumed racial borders. I think those are just descriptive geographical terms used to describe an area of Dallas. It's along the same lines as referring to Oak Cliff... it simply describes what part of Dallas a person is talking about. Of course, "North Dallas" has become so synonymous with wealth that I can see what you're talking about in a way.

But, there was an earlier statement in this thread that made it sound as if North Dallas is strictly off limits to anyone who is not white. That simply isn't true.

The real resentment in Dallas comes from South of the Trinity and is sort of a one-sided thing. People in North Dallas are in such a bubble that South Dallas never even crosses their minds. But, over in South Dallas everytime they look north they see the gleaming towers that symbolize the wealth and prosperity of Dallas and it eats at them. Rather than focusing on the problems in South Dallas and trying to solve some of the problems that plague that area, they keep their envious eyes trained to the north and obssess about what they don't have. If they would get some of the incredible crime problems solved in South Dallas then it would help (Dallas' crime rate is almost entirely caused by crimes in the Southern half of Dallas - North Dallas crime is minimal compared to that in South Dallas). Of course, the thing that really screwed things up was losing the Cowboys to Arlington. Laura Miller and the City Council should have been taken out back for letting that happen. Had they managed to snag the Cowboys new stadium and put it in Fair Park - where it belongs - then a lot of the improvements the people of S. Dallas are so desperate for would have been provided.... The city really dropped the ball on that one - no pun intended. I can't even begin to imagine how much development that would have spawned in the Fair Park area of Dallas. They're already talking about building a Time Square-scale/style urban development, complete with skyscrapers, around the stadium in Arlington giving that city what it has always wanted --- a real skyline.

But, I agree something has to change in Dallas govt. before anything will really change in the city of Dallas. I think the strong mayor initiative would have done just that. Dallas is one of only a few cities structured the way it is. In most large cities the Mayor actually has some real power to opperate and run the city. They should have at least tried it, and then if it didn't work, go back to the way things are now.... Oh well.

I wish the racial tensions in Dallas weren't as extreme as they are, but Dallas is such a transitional city right now.... and at the same time tons of stuff is being developed downtown and in uptown.... South Dallas is trying very hard to get the ball rolling and having some of their own development in that part of the city. There have been a few good things so far, but nothing compared with what's going on North of the Trinity/i-30..... South Side on Lamar lofts have been a huge success and the new Police Head Quarters across the street from SSonLamar is also a nice new development. The problem in Dallas is that the city council members who are almost insistant on developments taking place in the southern sector aren't doing the up-front work that needs to be done in that area to make it attractive to developers. The crime rate in those areas make it tough for developers to justify building in those "danger zones". Meanwhile, peaceful areas of Dallas are flourishing and building left and right.

Deep Ellum development has dried up because of the criminal element that has moved in. Long time established restaurant Sambuca moved to a new Uptown location. Down the street, a huge furniture retailer that had been in Deep Ellum for years moved to North Dallas and across the street, 4 or 5 of the small unique retail shops that put Deep Ellum on the map have closed up shop and the only retailer left in that block is an urban 7-11. I stopped by that 7-11 last week for a quick slurpee fix and I was scared for my life because there were 5 scary fellows in there threatening the cashier because she couldn't give them a cash refund for the batteries they were trying to return without a receipt. There was screaming and threats and I wanted to drop my cherry/cola treat and run.

Bascially, the southside residents are seeing what's going on in downtown/uptown and they want to have that development too.... So, instead of cleaning up their act and making their area more desireable and attracting developers the right way... they're trying to flex their city council muscle in an effort to stong-arm their way to development.

But, we all need to remember this is not a Dallas-specific problem. It happens in big cities all over the country. Dallas - in true Dallas fashion - has just made the mistake of letting it happen on television. I think that if they ever remake the TV Show Dallas, they should scrap the actors and just make it a reality show.

Dallas has all sorts of problems on the political front. Racism is a little strong though. If you're going to analyze the prolems in Dallas and claim the fault is "racism", then you have to sort of explain why.

There is a white mayor trying to deal with the political currents in an almost all minoirty city council and in Dallas it's the entire city council that runs the show. The mayor has her hands tied and can't make decisions without the city council. The reason the Strong Mayor Initiative was proposed was to releive some of the tensions in the city council by ending so many of the argument sessions by empowering the mayor to do things without the approval of the city council. Propaganda-hounds in the southern sector quickly started pointing and shouting "racist" claims aimed at the mayor - and she's not even the person who proposed the Strong Mayor Campaign. That would lead some to believe that the city problems are racial. You have to be careful throwing that term around though because historically it is a term that has been pointed at white people. However, IMHO, the problems in Dallas are being caused by the people in the southern end of town who are trying to play the racial card in order to extort what they want from the city. However, you have to remember that these same problems existed prior to Laura Miller becoming mayor, when Ron Kirk was the mayor (for those who don't know him, he's black). Mayor Kirk was a great mayor and his biggest problem while he was in office also came from the city council - mainly Laura Miller. They would have screaming matches in city council meetings - all caught on TV to the embarassment of most Dallasites. (These public outbursts were also hapening at the same time that the Dallas ISD was going through some controversial stuff and of course that was caught on TV as well...) Regardless, this is a debate that is WAY too broad to be discussed logically here.... But, I don't think that what is going on in Dallas is rare to Dallas.... It happens in all major cities. Dallas just has a problem with doing it on the 6 O'Clock news.

Anyway, what's going on in the City Govt. and the DISD has nothing to do with what's going on in Deep Elum and Lower Greenville... Please don't confuse tensions at City Hall with stuff going on in those areas. Lower Greenville isn't usually like that. You must have caught it on a bad night. Deep Ellum, on the other hand, has become a nightmare. My best friend just moved out of Deep Ellum 6 months ago after living in an urban loft for 3 years. When he moved there, Deep Ellum was on the up-swing and improving. Lofts were popping up all over the place and retail stores were going in left and right - it was on track to be a really cool urban area. I don't know what happened, but it seems like things just crashed over night. There were a lot of great restaraunts/bars/clubs and lots of urban living. But suddenly a very dangerous criminal element basically took over Deep Ellum. People were being jumped and attacked for no apparent reason - some were even killed. The city turned its attention to the problem and infused the area with police. But that did little to fix the problem. Cars thefts/break ins were a daily event... graffetti became a problem and gangs started moving in and retail started moving out... Now, Deep Ellum is a shadow of what it was just a few years ago. But, they're supposedly working on the problem. But, how do you address a problem with gangs and criminals in a city where the city council is so quick to start screaming "racist" at anyone who dares to accuse the criminals for the downfall of an area when the criminals in question just also happen to be minorities? It's a catch 22.

Here is an article about the Trinity River Plan that was in today's FW Star Telegram...

Posted on Sun, Jun. 12, 2005

GRAND VISIONS

Promoters of a plan to prevent flooding along the Trinity have painted a picture of a vibrant riverfront. But what is the dream and what is reality?

By Scott Streater and Mark Horvit

Star-Telegram Staff Writers

FORT WORTH -- It's a bold offer: Give us $435 million and we'll protect the area just north of downtown from catastrophic flooding. And while we're at it, we'll remake the face of the city.

That's the proposal by an influential coalition of elected leaders, administrators and urban planners promoting Trinity Uptown, the sweeping plan to rechannel the Trinity River. If all goes as planned, construction will begin next year.

More than $9 million in public money has already been spent to launch the project.

In contrast, a bare-bones solution to the most severe flooding threat would have cost about $10 million, according to estimates expected to be made public later this week.

The price disparity between the bargain-basement approach and the penthouse plan goes to the core of questions about the project as it gains momentum: Why is the budget so high? Is this economic development masquerading as flood control? What will the project actually deliver?

Some answers are hard to sort out. But an examination of the project shows that while millions of dollars are spent eliminating serious flood risks, millions more would be used to offset problems created by a proposed bypass channel -- the central flood-control tool. Millions more would go to aspects intended to attract development. And to meet the budget and schedule, several elements must fall perfectly into place during the estimated 10-year timetable for the project.

The project aims to transform flood control into the spark that ignites an economic renaissance in what planners are calling uptown Fort Worth, the area between downtown and the Stockyards. It would be one of the biggest local economic development projects since D/FW Airport. Organizers have dazzled the community with gleaming images of more than $1 billion in development they believe will follow.

Fundamentally, though, the project is about safety, backers have told Congress and the dozens of property owners who would lose land in the deal.

In a catastrophic flood, engineers say, big chunks of the dirt levees that protect the uptown area could be washed away, submerging large swaths of land.

Repairing the existing flood-control system -- the cheaper option, devised by the Army Corps of Engineers -- is unacceptable, project backers say. That's because it would require building up some levees. Instead, planners want the levees removed because they act as barriers between residents and the river.

The cheaper option also would not eliminate a more common type of flooding created by poor drainage.

"The $10 million Corps option is straight-up flood control, no frills, ugly," said Jim Oliver, general manager of the Tarrant Regional Water District, which is responsible for controlling flooding along much of the river in Fort Worth.

The more expensive answer is to cut a new river channel that would carry floodwaters harmlessly downstream. And while they're at it, the plan's advocates say, why not create a small lake across from the new RadioShack headquarters and ensure that water always remains deep enough for boats.

"It will create an urban waterfront that will be unique in North America," said U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth. "To me, the overall importance is that it will change the river to make the Trinity River the asset that I thought it always should be."

The Corps will endorse the more elaborate project in a preliminary report expected to be released this week. Final approval by the Corps -- which could come this fall after the public weighs in -- is the last regulatory hurdle before construction begins.

A grander plan

Wedged between levees that rise 22 feet in places, the Trinity River snakes north of downtown, its tea-colored water creeping along so slowly that it's hard to determine which direction the river is moving.

For decades, those levees have prevented central Fort Worth from flooding.

And they're still in excellent condition, according to the Corps, which inspects them every year.

But there's a problem. Over the past 25 years there has been an explosion of development in and around the floodplain, from Benbrook Lake to Dallas. All the new roads, driveways, sidewalks and parking lots allow much more water to wash into the Trinity than if grassy plains and wetlands were still there.

As a result, it takes less rain today to cause a devastating flood, said Mike Danella, a civil engineer in the Corps' Fort Worth office. And some levees throughout the city are no longer tall enough -- especially if the big one hits.

Federal regulators are required to design flood protection to handle a catastrophic deluge, no matter how rare. "Noah's flood" is how Richard Sawey, the project's chief engineer, describes it.

In North Texas, it would probably take a series of huge storms, hitting one after the other, to create such a flood.

It may happen this year, maybe next.

It may not happen for 1,000 years.

If it comes, though, and if the flood-control systems along the Trinity aren't adequate, "untold" numbers could die and more than $4 billion in property could be damaged, according to a government study.

According to federal engineers, two of the areas at greatest risk in Fort Worth are uptown and the Cultural District.

In early 2002, the Corps began developing plans to upgrade the levee system in the central city, said Rebecca Griffith, chief of the Corps' planning branch. Engineers determined they could restore flood protection by replacing a flood wall near the old Texas Utilities plant with a levee. Other levees would be raised in several locations, mostly along the river's Clear Fork. Gates would be placed on one or more bridges to close them and contain water during catastrophic flooding.

The cost: $10 million, Griffith said.

The plan was abandoned in early 2004, though.

That's because local leaders had already been working on another idea.

They wanted an urban oasis to replace what many see as a collection of mostly aging commercial and industrial sites in the North Main Street corridor.

Organizers of the Trinity River Vision, an ongoing effort to plan for development, recreation and other uses along an 88-mile stretch of the Trinity, envisioned the central Fort Worth area as a bustling mix of condos, parks and restaurants, with the river as the centerpiece.

They wondered: What if local money could be matched by federal funding, easing the burden on taxpayers here?

Public planning sessions were held. And Trinity Uptown was born.

Corps officials say they willingly switched gears.

"What we were able to determine is the traditional Corps process is not going to deliver the kind of product the city is looking for," said Gary Loew, programs director of the Corps' Southwestern Division in Dallas.

The project won over some, like Robert Goode, the city's transportation and public works director, who initially wondered about other priorities, including road improvements. But, Goode realized, Fort Worth would only be chipping in a small percentage of the budget -- about $26 million, plus some tax proceeds from the project area.

"For that kind of investment, you're getting how many millions in private development," Goode said, "and you're changing the face of the city."

High hopes, high costs

Picture San Antonio's famed River Walk on steroids.

The Trinity River, no longer hemmed in by dirt levees, is rechanneled to create two islands that combined are roughly equal to the size of downtown. Between the islands is a small lake.

Rows of new condominiums, each typically six stories tall, stand alongside canals. Parks and wide walkways line the river banks.

This is the grand vision, rendered in minute detail in the model created by architects and project planners to promote Trinity Uptown. It fires the imagination with images of Sunday strolls, afternoons playing waterside and evenings dining dockside.

But those same images have critics wondering just how much of this project is for flood control, and how much is for economic development.

"I think we're doing an economic project, then we're doing flood-control work to preserve the economic development," said outgoing City Councilman Clyde Picht.

James Toal of Gideon Toal, the chief urban planner for the project, said the plan is designed to do both.

"You have to do flood control, and you should do it right," he said. "And that's what this project is about."

In some ways, it's difficult to determine which major costs are for flood control and which are for economic development. That's because the channel system is integral to the redevelopment that planners believe will follow.

The 1 1/2-mile bypass channel would essentially be another arm of the river but would be designed to handle more water during torrential rains. At those times, three flood gates would close, sealing off the uptown area. All the water would be forced through the channel, which would carry it downstream. Griffith said that would protect the uptown area and the Cultural District.

Digging the channel and building the gates would cost about $100 million.

That's the basic flood control. But the channel can't be built without a lot of related expenses. Buildings and businesses in its path have to be removed, and their tenants relocated. Pollution created by decades of commercial and industrial operations must be cleaned. Utility lines must be moved.

Roads that used to go through the channel area now must span the water, so three bridges must be built.

The preparation work costs more than $165 million.

Once the channel is built, a new flood risk would be created that will cost millions more to avoid.

Floodwaters will move more quickly through the channel than down the river's current path. The water will have to be slowed or serious flooding could occur downstream. So project sponsors would purchase about 250 acres along the river where the water could safely flow. They'll also raise a section of University Drive to help trap the waters.

Cost: about $56 million.

Millions more go for elements that have nothing to do with flood control.

A 33-acre lake -- or "water feature," as planners call it -- would be created where the Trinity's West Fork and Clear Fork meet. The water running through the development area would need to be deep enough for recreation. So a dam will be built just downstream of Samuels Avenue.

Cost: $64 million.

The dam would also help ensure that the river doesn't become stagnant and remains healthy for fish, said Sawey, with the Massachusetts engineering firm Camp Dresser & McKee.

Whenever there's a risk of flooding, the dam will release water.

The channel itself ultimately becomes a key economic development tool. That's because property lining it gains a waterfront view.

The Water District will control the prime property available for development because it's part of the land being purchased for channel construction.

What $435 million buys

George Shannon stood in front of the Fort Worth City Council in April and explained why the levee system must come down. Shannon, president of the Water District's board, decried the levees as having "divided the citizens from the river."

The uptown project, he promised, "will bring them back."

That image of the uptown area without the levees is depicted in the elaborate model promoting Trinity Uptown.

But the $435 million project will only eliminate the need for the levees -- it won't pay for removing them. That work would be done by developers or perhaps the Water District.

"When we say it allows us to eliminate the levee barriers, that's from an engineering perspective, it allows us to remove them," Toal said. "And frankly, moving dirt is not expensive."

The levees are emblematic of confusion over what the project will and won't deliver for the price tag.

Interior canals for extra waterfront? Essential elements, says one of the project's architects, Vancouver, British Columbia-based Bing Thom, but not included. New neighborhoods for the area? Sure, but the project won't pay for the road and utility work needed.

A new road that would run along the river by the bluffs was originally included in the plan and is featured on the model. But it was removed as planning proceeded and the budget climbed from $360 million to $435 million.

Another point of confusion: Residents may not understand the extent of protection the project will provide.

Almost every flood in Fort Worth for the past 50 years would have happened even if this project had been built. That's because its focus is on preventing a catastrophic flood in which the river overtops the levees.

But much of the city's flooding is created by an outdated stormwater drainage system, which leads to difficulties getting water off streets and into the river.

The Trinity Uptown plan does fix drainage problems in the project area that would not be addressed by the Corps' cheaper option. Federal regulators estimate that could save almost $5 million in damage to buildings and businesses in one big storm alone.

It could also help fix broader drainage shortcomings in the Cultural District west of downtown, but only if the city spent more money.

Sawey said the project represents a good start on a drainage and levee system that needs help.

"The project never was thought of or intended to fix every flooding, every drainage problem in Fort Worth," he said.

2112,

I'm glad you had fun in FW... I don't know if you spent any time in Dallas or not, but I read your posts on the FW Forum and I'm glad you had fun here. I wish I'd known you were coming in advance. I could have told you all the cool things to do and some of the cool hometown favorites, not just the tourist destinations. But, I'm glad you got to experience Sundance Square. FW and Dallas really are two different experiences. I personally think - and I'm very biased - that FW is a really nice city and getting better everyday. There is so much growth and so many big changes happening in FW... The new Trinity River Vision is going to transform FW into a much different city than you experienced this past weekend. It will literally double the footprint of DTFW and it's going to include a River Walk that will rival, if not blow away, San Antonio's and big city lake complete with high rise living on man made canals. The TRV is being built just north of the Tarrant County Courthouse. The final proposed plan is already approved (I think) and is in the planning stages and set to start construction in the next year or two, from what I understand... could be wrong on that, but I think it's being "fast tracked" by city leaders. FW city leaders are also saying this is the big project that will finally put FW "on the map", so to speak. This will be our Astrodome or NASA... or our answer to the St Louis Arch. It's literally going to change everything about FW... size, tourism, business, residential... Experts are saying this is what will push FW out of Dallas' shadow once and for all... It could even cause FW to become larger than Dallas, which many demographic forcasters are now saying will happen in the next 20 years.

Anyway, next time you have a trip to FW let me know in advance and I'd be happy to give you some pointers on where to go...

LOL.... well if no one in America (thanks for speaking on behalf of the other 300 million Americans, by the way) gives as rats ass about Dallas, then why in the world would someone from the almighty, yet shrinking, San Fransisco bother to dig all the way down to the Dallas-Fort Worth Sub-forum within the Houston Forum just to post some smears and insults about Dallas and Texans? I mean, if you really don't give a rats ass about either Dallas or Houston, then why are you on the Houston Forum, reading threads about Dallas? And, even more interesting is the fact that, although you live in SF, you still have to come here for work. Thanks for the dollars and contributing to our ever-growing economies bro... If I were you I'd be praying really hard that your employer doesn't trasfer you, or heaven forbid, move their entire HQ to either Dallas or Houston - which just happen to be two of the fastest growing cities and relocation sites in the country.

One last thing... there are roughly 11 million people who I'm quite sure do care a lot about Dallas and Houston --- the people who live in those two huge metro areas... You might want to check your shoulder... there seems to be something on it.

"It really is one of the jewels of Texas. It's just a lesser known jewel because there was never a "Houston" TV show that made it a global phenomenon the way that "Dallas" propelled the city of Dallas."

Oh, now you're trashing 'Houston Knights' and 'Animal Cop - Houston'? 

That's it, buddy.  It'sOn!   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never heard of Houston Knights... but I LOVE Animal Cops - Houston. It's even better than Cops in Fort Worth. LOL....

People keep confusing "information" with "opinion". This forum seems to be about 99% opinion.

I know I shouldn't post this because I really wish this lame thread would just die already.

Relax Houston, everyone in America knows that Dallas sucks and Houston rocks. (information)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess that by "everyone in america" you mean "everyone in harris county" because out side of Texas, Houston translates to nothing more than "Houston we have a problem". Please. The obvious insecurity and jealousy of Dallas in this forum is just sad. I completely understand it because seriously Dallas does get WAY more attention than it deserves. I am so Pro-Houston. I actaully really like Houston a lot, but seriously, you people need to get a grip. Houston is actually a great city. It really is. The problem is Houston has an identity crisis.... Fort Worth has the exact same problem. FW and H-town have sort of the same feel, only on much different scales. They are both such gold mines that no one knows about!!! You have a great culture. You have great museums. You have NASA. Houston is super-urban, and really modern and forward. You have so much to offer the world. The problem is, no one knows Houston even exists... except the people who live in Texas/Houston. Seriously... I know Houston has had major exposure, but it is so fleeting. Superbowl smooperbowl. Who cares. Even Dallas people ignore the hell out of Houston. So there was a big football game. Woo Hoo... what else happens there the rest of the year. I'm not being a jerk. I'm being serious. Dallas has even less going on, but thanks to the media, it's not PERCIEVED that wya. There is that word again.. perceived.... I don't mean any of this talk as an insult to Houston, it is just the way it is - and I suspect that is the source of why there is so much Houston-based hostility toward Dallas. It's the classic Marsha, Marsha, Masha" thing. Only in here it's "Dallas, Dallas, Dallas". I get it. It is annoying. I totally agree. Unfortunately, it's just a fact of life. San Antonio has busted their ass putting themselves on the map. 20 years ago San Antonio had an image that was very much like the image that El Paso has never been able to shed. Everyone though of SA the way they think of EP today - very low income, poorly educated, and mostly over-the-border people. I know that's not politically correct, but it's true. Austin has let the world know that they are the place to go if you're into live music. Fort Worth has lived in the shadow of Dallas for so long that they don't know what to do with all the attention they are getting now... Houston's size doesn't make it immune to the Dallas "phenonemnon". Dallas just got lucky in that Hollywood took notice and put it on the map. Question is "why?" Personally, I thinik the only reason is because "Dallas" was just simple and easy to say. Chicago is a better city in many ways than NYC. But, it will never mesure up because it's always been counted as second best because it's so much smaller and because it's sort of an after thought to NYC. Houston is very similar to Chicago in that it is a really great city that has in larger part been overlooked for the greatness that it deserves. I really love Houston. - minuse those VW size mosquitio's yall have down there. It really is one of the jewels of Texas. It's just a lesser known jewel because there was never a "Houston" TV show that made it a global phenomenon the way that "Dallas" propelled the city of Dallas. Hey, I'm the first to admit that the city of Dallas has some serious problems - and the biggest one's last name is MILLER!. But, you cannot deny the fact that on a global scale, Houston simply can't compete in terms of "brand name" recognition. Dallas just got lucky that way. On a global scale Dallas' recogniton value ranks up there with NYC, LA, Vegas, Chicago... etc. You walk up to some random person in some random city in Europe or really anywhere in the world and ask them if they've ever heard anything about "Dallas" and immediately they're talking about JR and cowboys and horses and oil... I do not mean it as in insult when I say that those same people may have "heard of" houston, but they MIGHT not be able to nail down anything specific about the city iteself. Hell, I'm a native Texan and other than Nasa and Oil, I can't even identify what Houston's core "identity" is all about. Seriously, I think that of all the major cities in Texas, Houston has the biggest identity problem. SA = Alamo. FW = Cowtown. Dallas = JFK, Dallas Cowboys, JR Ewing, Oil, etc. Austin = live music, hippy-town, hollywood of the south. Houston = Nasa and Enron? Seriously... that's all that comes to mind. Houston isn't well known for culture or Texas history... So what is H-town's claim to fame??? And there in lies the problem... if you have to explain it.. then, well...

willy, go back and read your very first and second sentence.  it's clear you were stating that dallas has a wealthy prestigious, whatever image and houston does not.  you started this not vice versa.  weird stuff man.  wierd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is what I said "...Dallas gets the Ritz because Dallas is the Texas city that most fits the "image" that the Ritz associates itself with. Houston, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio are all hot, growing Texas/Sunbelt cities, but all of them lack the "prestigious" image that Dallas has continued to promote" In the second paragraphe, I did say in the second paragraph that the other cities (not just houston) aren't as wealthy. I admit that I probably spoke too soon on that one because there really isn't any reliable way to determine whether or not one city is wealthier than another.... You can use median income, but that's not a fair picture. You can use Forbes, but that's not a good measure either... There simply isn't a good way to measure - and really... who cares. Both are wealthy cities. Period. But, I do think it was pretty clear that I was talking about "perceptions" more so than actual black and white absolutes... And, I still stand behind the fact that - regardless whether or not it's a fact - Dallas is percieved as being the wealthiest place in Texas.... and is more recognized for its wealth than Houston, FW, Austin, or San Antonio. That's all I was saying...

tierwestah - you didn't start the problem. You simply asked an innocent question. I provided information that I should have known would have been high controversial on here so I'm probably more responsible for the argument than anyone. Last time I throw out information without thinking about whether or not it will insight a cyber-riot. LOL

LOL... Y'all please don't read my previous post... er... I mean rant as being super serious. I hope y'all can tell that was attempting to make some people laugh and to diffuse the "Houston vs Dallas" debate. I was just frustrated because anytime anything posted about Dallas that isn't a complete bashfest, then it's immediately refuted with why Houston "out does" Dallas on some level...

I agree... The Ritz isn't looking at little statistics to determine whether or not they were going to build in Houston or Dallas. In fact, they probably never even had the "should we build in Dallas or Houston" conversation in the planning meeting because they probably just said "hey we have an opportunity in Dallas" without Houston ever entering the conversation. And, when time comes for them to return to Houston, I seriously doubt there will be a "But wait... how will this impact the people of Dallas?"

My rant was merely aimed at those who feel the need to elevate Houston above any other city on Earth anytime they feel like Houston is being one-up'd by another city - esp, Dallas. Those people need to get over it because every city has it's pluses and minuses and every city is unique. Comparing cities is like comparing snow flakes... no two are alike and each one has it's positive and negative... Dallas and Houston are both among the wealthies cities in the world... which one is actually wealthier is a dumb conversation, because both are flourishing and both will continue to grow and evolve into bigger and better cities.

So, I hope that everyone takes my "rant" in the spirit it was intended... to bring laughter. Have a great day...

The whole premise of willy's argument is that dallas is getting a ritz and houston is not because dallas has the reputation as a trendier wealthier city.

uh, so since houston had the very first ritz carlton (before dallas even sniffed one) that means a few years ago the perception was that houston was a wealthier trendier city? 

lame argument.  lame thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WRONG! I said that the reason Dallas is getting The Ritz is because of the perception of Dallas' wealth and the image that the city has makes it a good fit for The Ritz. I never said "and Houston isn't". In fact, if people would stop putting words in my mouth and actually read my thread as simply adding information and not picking a fight, then they would realize that I also said that if another city in Texas were to get a Ritz it would be Houston! How is that translated to "and Houston is not"? I didn't know that Houston had already had a Ritz... but I'm not surprised by that. I was merely responding to the question put forth by someone else in this thread: Why is Dallas getting The Ritz and not Houston? I was not the one who turned this into a Dallas vs. Houston thing... $%#! I don't even live in Dallas!!!!! THAT'S RIGHT --- I AM NOT FROM DALLAS!!!!!! I was merely trying to answer a question as to why Dallas would be chosen as a city for The Ritz to build in. Apparently - based on the number of locked threads on this message board - some members of this site are extremely defensive and uptight about anything positive being said about any city other than Houston or at least Dallas!

I think it's sad that there is so much insecurity in this site that you can't let Dallas have the credit it deserves. I have heard a lot of grumbling on here about how "Dallas thinks it's so much better than anywhere else", etc. I find that comical now given the fact that so many of the Dallas-Fort Worth threads on HAIF have to be locked because the members on here are so obssessed with bashing anything that even resembles a pro-Dallas comment. It has been my experience on this site that y'all are the one's who are so bad about thinking you're better than anywhere else. The insecurity in here is so bad that ridiculous claims about Houston are made without even attempting to substantiate the claims with some sort of resource to support the claims being made. So, I give up on trying to have any real conversations based on any sort of reality in the HAIF... So, to make y'all all feel better and to go along with all the delusions of grandure in here... here you go.

* Houston is the biggest city in Texas and by 2007 it will be the largest city on Earth, in both population and land mass.

* Houston is prettier than any other city in Texas, and on Earth for that matter. Seattle, Honolulu, and San Franscisco only wish they were as pretty as Houston.

* Houston's buildings are cooler than the buildings in Dallas - or New York, Chicago or Hong Kong for that matter.

* By 2010, Houston will be so big that people in Chicago will be driving into downtown Houston for work every morning.

* The port of Houston really includes all of the Gulf of Mexico.

* Houston Intercontental is 100 times larger than DFW Airport - which is the worlds worst airport, for the record.

* Contenental Airlines - despite a deceptive advertising claim by American Airlines - is actually the worlds largest airline. And, they make more money than any other airline - especially that hack of an airline; Southwest Airlines.

* Darth Vader - the worlds' most powerful Sith Lord, is from Houston originally - Westhiemer I believe. That wimpy, pretentious Count Dukoo - who had his head cut off by Darth Vader - is from Highland Park... but he had to rent because he didn't really make enough money to live there.

* Everyone in Houston makes at least 10% more money every year than Bill Gates, but they just don't like to let anyone know about it because in 1986 it actually became illegal to be pretentious in Harris County and if you're caught pretending to be something you're not, you're immediately deported to Dallas... By the way, when we say "Dallas" we mean the small North Texas city - not the DFW metro area that has millions fewer people than Houston proper even though they all got together to conspire to create a fake metro area so that Houston would look bad.

* Houston is both the newest and oldest city on Earth...

* Houston is WAY more cosmopolitain and trendy than Dallas - or NYC, LA, Milan, Rome, Paris, London, or any other city that doesn't have oil refineries on the outskirts of town.

* The Houston Architecure Forum is way friendlier, way bigger, way more impressive in any possible way than the Dallas forum.

* The city of Houston will soon become so rich and powerful that it will probably break off from the United States to become it's own nation - and of course will replace the United States as the worlds richest and most powerful nation.

* Houston is so cool that the Earth actually rotates around Houston, and even though it's only a few hundred miles to the north, Dallas spends most of the year in complete darkness.

* Our mosquitos are 3 times bigger than the ones in Dallas. Dallas mosquitoes suck!

* The Urban Cowboy starring John Travolta and Debra Winger won more oscars than any other movie in film history... and it made more money than all the Star Wars movie combined.

* The restaraunt chain "Houston's" is the most successful restaraunt chain in the history of the world.

* God is building a 2000 foot 5 star hotel and condo tower in downtown Houston and he's going to actually move Heaven into the penthouse... He was going to build it in Dallas, but he couldn't find a good deal on a Hummer to lease and he knows how important it is to drive the right leased vehicle in Dallas. Besides, Houston is so much bigger and cooler, in case I forgot to mention that before.

* Next year, they are going to start construction on "New Houston" on the moon and there will be daily shuttles from NASA to the "New Houston". This is necessary because by 2009, Houston will actually outgrow Earth and the moon is the only place to go. By the way, Donald Trump is already building Trump Space Tower in New Houston and it will be the tallest building in the Milky Way.

* The Houston City council has decied to annex everything between Houston's CBD and the Red River. Dallas is to be referred to from this day forward as "Far North Houston".

* Last year the name "Houston" replaced the name "Dallas" as the most popular boys name - EVER!

* Yoda learned to use THE FORCE at the University of Houston, and then went on to become a Master Jedi at Rice. It should be mentioned that he was the captain of the fencing team while at UH. He now lives in River Oaks, next door to the house where they filmed the other most sucessful movie ever made; Terms of Endearment.

* A homless guy that lives under i-45 in Houston collected enough money last week - mainly from rich Houstonians throwing Million Dollar Bills at him from their car windows - to actually buy Dallas County. He's planning on shutting it down and starting over with something better like a landfill or nuclear waste site.

* Williams Tower is so tall that it actually affects global wind patterns and the oceanic tides. Al Quida was going to blow it up, but they couldn't bring themselves to hurt such a beautiful structure. In fact, they've decided to put the Williams Tower on the cover of the new Taliban Phone Book.

* Downtown Houston is so tall that the moon is actually being slowly pulled into Earth's orbit by the gravitational pull created by the immense urban density of downtown Houston.

* Houston is so dense and urban that if the comet that killed the dinasaurs hit Houston, it would just bounce back off into space.

I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg on all things great and factual about Houston's superiority in the universe! Please forgive me for not listing them all. I am after all, not from Houston so hopefully you will forgive me - or at least overlook me...

First of all I think constant bickering between Dallas and Houston people is funny.

I'm not here to start a flame war. I don't live in Dallas, so I don't have any sort of favoritisim toward that city. I may have given the impression that Dallas was wealthier, or whatever. In fact, I was merely talking about "public image" and "perceptions" of the cities in Texas. I also mentioned San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Austin, but somehow it has instantly turned into another Dallas vs Houston thing... It's not. I wasn't aware that Houston had a Ritz... Like I said, if any other city in Texas were to have one, it would be Houston... I agree - if the Ritz thought that they could make money in Lampasas then there would be some luxery resport/high rise being built there. After all, one of the trendiest most upscale restaraunts - The Reata in Fort Worth - started in Alpine, then opened in Fort Worth... and for a while had a restaraunt on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. They even had an oning on the BH location that said "Reata - Alpine, Fort Worth, Beverly Hills". I laughed out loud when I was walking down Rodeo Drive and saw that....

I looked at the links... the first one refers to Dallas-Fort Worth... You can't count that as a true representation of Dallas' wealth because there are a lot of lower income suburbs lumped into the Dallas metro area.... The Ritz isn't moving to Dallas because the fine people of Mesquite or Euless, just as an example, will be staying there when they pick which Dallas hotel to stay in on New Years Eve... The second link merely lists a bunch of zip codes and the avg income/returns from a sample of tax returns from that zip code. For example, Corpus Christie is listed as the wealthiest in the State... Does anyone here really believe Corpus is the wealthiest city in Texas based on the 31 tax returns they just happen to use for that chart? I don't think so. Plus, in Fort Worth, for example there is a small city called Westover Hills - it's not Fort Worth, it's incorporated as it's own township... and it's the wealthiest city in Tarrant County. Not to mention on that chart, the combined Adjusted Gross Income for all of Texas is $351+ million. Given that Alice Walton, the 4th richest person on Earth, lives in Fort Worth and is worth over $20 Billion all by herself, I seriously doubt the chart is a true representation of anything... I certainly don't see her tax return on that chart. Any of these types of charts are disputable... For example on the following link, Arlinton, Austin, and then Fort Worth are ranked as the 3 richest Texas cities based on median income. Dallas and Houston are both way down the list... I don't think that's an accurate measure either... Especially since this list ranks Arlington as the 5 wealthiest in the nation. Who believe that one? Anyone been to Arlington lately? It's not exactly Monte Carlo. Heck, Arlington isn't even as nice as Plano. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ran...002/R07T160.htm

If you look at the number of millionaires/billionaires and where they live then DFW is by far the wealthiest area in Texas.... and is in fact, the 4th wealthiest in the country. However, does the number of millionaires/billionaires really reflect the wealth of a region? I don't think so...

http://www.forbes.com/static_html/rich400/.../indexFla.shtml