Fort Worth, Irving among top fastest-growing U.S. cities

From the Dallas Business Journal...

http://www.bizjourna...-among-top.html

Love the mention of 56 new businesses, 12,000 new jobs, and $1.8 billion in capital investment.

Some pretty sobering population increase numbers are out, and Tarrant shows the10th greatest county increase in the country; the DFW area shows the 3rd greatest metropolitan area growth. 

http://www.star-tele...ngton-adds.html

So, what about water for all those new folks, and transportation? If this is going to keep up we are going to have to seriously change up the way we do things. There are various threads elsewhere on this forum about what needs changing and how it needs to change, but here is the reason in a nutshell!

Drives me nuts when people brag about this in Fort Worth (not saying you are.) With hardly any real infrastructure investment in the past 25 years, this is akin to an obsese person bragging about packing on another 100 lbs.

Drives me nuts when people brag about this in Fort Worth (not saying you are.) With hardly any real infrastructure investment in the past 25 years, this is akin to an obsese person bragging about packing on another 100 lbs.

Hearing about growth is generally positive but as noted, infrastructural improvements tend to lag years or even decades behind where they should be for our current needs-let alone future needs. Oilman T. Boone Pickens was foreseeing a severe lack of adequate fresh water as one of the biggest obstacles for sustainable growth in the Southwest and wisely bought up water rights in years past. It sometimes seems we like to pretend that we have as much rainfall and water resources as Atlanta while its closer to the truth we are much more like Phoenix. All one has to do to observe our water resources reality is to pay attention to our regional lake levels, mandatory water restrictions, and continually rising water use rates. With newcomers pouring into the region, our water shortages can only get worse unless our rainfall patterns unexpectedly become much wetter for several years. But history has taught us that arid conditions are the rule in our region, (such as in the 1930's Dust Bowl years, the 1950's drought, and more recent years) not abundant rainfalls. The water supply increases approved by the State last year are only the proverbial drop in the bucket; some projects, like the proposed new lake in Fannin County near tiny Ladonia, will take years to come online. Until we have some rare years of abundant rains, and as more people are dependent on existing water resources, even tighter restrictions on use will be necessary. Already, some drought-stricken Texas communities are augmenting their limited water supplies with recycled sewage water. While that unpalatable measure is still fairly uncommon it may not be in the future, IMO.

Sorry about the thread drift...

I'd be perfectly happy for Fort Worth to implement the year-round permanent watering restrictions utilized in Phoenix, Tuscon, or Albuquerque. (Although I would point out it's gross hyperbole to equate our climate with that of the dessert Southwest.)

Water just isn't that big of a problem.  One of these days, likely decades from now, the TRWD is going to have to figure out how to build a pipeline from Richland Chambers to Toledo Bend (about 120 miles).  Toledo Bend is being used mostly for hydro power now and all that water just goes down to the coast.  At some point DFW is going to be drinking that water (or water from other sources East and South of the Metroplex where water supplies are plentiful).  In the worst case scenario, Texas will end up doing what SoCal is already having to do with desalination.  I believe the first large desalination plant in California goes on line either this year or next, in San Diego.  At the current rate of technological innovation, this methodology will be relatively cost effective within 20 years.

Yes, water is a problem.  But it's a problem with very clear solutions (including conservation first and foremost), so I don't think all the alarmist rhetoric is anything other than people who don't know what they're talking about.

Don't worry - our current transportation and land use patterns will ruin us if the water situation doesn't.

Did anyone see the article last week about FW moving up to 13th place in population according to Census projections for 2014? I've seen conflicting information... Charlotte NC had an article claiming to have leap frogged past FW again. Anyone know anything?

In today's S-T, Caty Hirst reports on Fort Worth's population growth, expected to be around 1.19 million, in 2040.  The article focuses on projected growth in the city's west and southwest sides.  (Paywall may be down for the holidays).

http://www.star-tele...e-for.html?rh=1

In today's S-T, Caty Hirst reports on Fort Worth's population growth, expected to be around 1.19 million, in 2040.  The article focuses on projected growth in the city's west and southwest sides.  (Paywall may be down for the holidays).

 

 

http://www.star-tele...e-for.html?rh=1

They need to focus a little closer to home, 2020 for instance, they need something in place that can address issues in the near term and stop trying to project decades into the future off a few years of growth spurts.

You can tell an area is successful when the locals start complaining about all the new people moving there.

So, in a nutshell all of this outward growth costs the city more to provide services to than if this growth had taken place a lot closer to the actual core of the city where such services already exist.  And apparently the taxes these developments bring in isn't enough to cover the cost, so they started charging a fee to the developers, but that's still not enough to cover the cost of sprawling all over the map.

Personally, I think that all of these developments over the years that are over x miles away from the city center should have been incorporated into their own little towns.  It's crazy to me that the city chose to support these areas that are so far away.  I keep thinking back to an article I read a few years ago about people that didn't really know that they lived in Fort Worth because they had say a Keller zip code and their kids went to Keller schools (haven't been able to find that article and I can't remember the exact zip and ISD).

Like your point about why not incorporate.  Either do that, or remain in an area where the county sheriff is law enforcer, instead of the FW police (as an example of essential services).

Did some rough checking (for lack of anything better to do this afternoon) on when surrounding communities were either settled and became identified with the community name* or officially incorporated:*

Burleson (1881)

Aledo (1882)

Azle (circa 1880s)

Granbury (1887)

Benbrook (1947)

Crowley (1951)

Willow Park (1856)

Weatherford (circa 1850s)

Saginaw (1882)

Lake Worth (circa 1920s)

White Settlement (1941)

Mineral Wells (circa 1880s)

Joshua (circa 1880s)

Roanoke (1933)

*various on-line services, including Wikipedia, Texas Handbook, Texas Historical Society, Chambers of Commerce, and others.

What's the point here?  People don't incorporate overnight, as most of these outlying towns are fairly old, some as old or older than Fort Worth.  Exceptions among my list are Crowley and Benbrook. 

Urban development is haphazard and driven mostly by economics, geography, communications, and transportation. among the chief factors.  Generally not socially engineered, of course, as we have always had a free market economy (though developers like to do "planned communities.").

Fort Worth, most likely, will have to annex these populated areas, eventually, until Fort Worth encroaches on some of these outlying communities (or they grow so much as to encroach upon our city).   I doubt if we're up to repeating the historical trends of town establishment these days, but could be wrong.

So, in a nutshell all of this outward growth costs the city more to provide services to than if this growth had taken place a lot closer to the actual core of the city where such services already exist.  And apparently the taxes these developments bring in isn't enough to cover the cost, so they started charging a fee to the developers, but that's still not enough to cover the cost of sprawling all over the map.

It's almost like some of us were predicting that very thing for years and years now...

Leave it to the Dallas Business Journal to toot Fort Worth's horn, even remarking our growth rate left Dallas "in the dust."  Then the Journal lumps both Dallas and Fort Worth tourist spots into the all encompassing name, "DFW", and concludes with the Dallas mayor lauding "our city."  Go figure...

Where are you Fort Worth Business Press when we need you?

CNNMoney reports. "DALLAS top 10 fastest growing cities in America" Showing off the Dallas skyline! And by "Dallas" they mean DFW area . Fort Worth in teeny tiny letters. Fort Worth has the huge growth. But Dallas gets the credit !     *SIGH*

Do you have a link?

I myself couldn't find a CNNMoney link.  But a google search produced this Roanoke, Virginia TV website article below; the apparent primary sources cited are Berkshire Hathaway and the Dallas Business Journal (which suggests that CNNMoney probably extracted from the same sources).  Note the Dallas dateline.

http://www.wsls.com/...wing-city-in-us

Personally, I think that all of these developments over the years that are over x miles away from the city center should have been incorporated into their own little towns.  It's crazy to me that the city chose to support these areas that are so far away.  I keep thinking back to an article I read a few years ago about people that didn't really know that they lived in Fort Worth because they had say a Keller zip code and their kids went to Keller schools (haven't been able to find that article and I can't remember the exact zip and ISD).

I live in this area in FW in which I am within the KISD and I am serviced by the Keller post office but all of my other public services are FW and I pay FW for them. The same holds true for some of the FW communities west of 35 and north of 820 (although they are serviced by the Eagle Mountain ISD).

I agree it would make a lot of sense for FW to give these areas over to the local community and focus inward but FW wants our outlying areas where growth is occurring to bring in new revenue.
 

Bring in new revenue that'll be eaten up and then some by the cost of providing huge new roads and other infrastructure (because heaven forbid we actually re-think the planning in the outlying areas)...

Based on the following quotes from the Star-Telegram article, it sounds like the new growth is not bringing in enough revenue to cover the costs

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...community/fort-

 

..the city is just now building a community park and has yet to announce the location and funding sources for a north police patrol division.

“The issue we have got is money. Funding is going to be critical. Just in the city of Fort Worth we have over $1 billion in transportation needs,” said Zimmerman

the City Council voted in 2008 to create a transportation impact fee, charged for each house in a new development to help pay for roads. The council voted to increase the fee in 2013, though critics say the amount is still not enough to keep pace with development.

The city does not have a fee system on new developments to help pay for other park services such as community centers or ball fields, Zavala said. Those needs are normally addressed through bond programs.

 

It should be obvious that it costs a lot more to keep expanding and having to add everything from scratch at the edges versus filling in and improving things in the core.

The new census estimate for city populations were released today.  Fort Worth is still one of the fastest growing cities.  The current estimated population is 812,238.  This puts us over the 800,000 mark for the first time.  This pushes us ahead of Charlotte, North Carolina and we have returned to the 16th largest city in the U.S.  Arlington, which is becoming built-out dropped out of the Top 50.  Also, for the first time, all of the Top 10 largest cities in the country have over 1 million people.  At the rate that it is growing, Austin should become the 11th one million plus city by next year.  Texas and California each have three cities in the Top 10.

Here's a link to the U.S. Census Bureau's website showing the 300 largest cities in the U.S.

http://factfinder.ce....xhtml?src=bkmk

"Sobering news".

Fort Worth is not among the growth cities cited by U-Haul in this FWBP article.  I guess U-Haul has a different measure of population growth than does the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://www.fortworth...7c98c66af0.html

U-Haul included Dallas.  I wonder if they were counting the entire Metroplex and labeled it "Dallas."

What is remarkable about this "fastest growing" survey is that the pre-Hurricane Harvey Houston metro area is No. 1.  Wonder how long that's going to be the case?  Ranked No. 2 is the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area.  This survey, of course, is based on the most recent U.S. Census estimates.  Forbes is usually a fairly reliable source.

http://www3.forbes.c...est-numbers/16/

So DFW will likely be No. 1:  Houston will dip some as a portion of the population will leave and never return, and some of those emigres will land in DFW.

Reports now that between 30-40k homes are destroyed. Assuming 2.5 people per home that could be ~75k with no place to go. 

The housing in Houston in the short term is going to be a huge issue. I saw an interview with the Houston mayor last night and heard some other items on the radio this morning talking about housing, or the lack thereof now. The radio report said that there's a big shortage of temporary housing for the displaced residents. That is going to be a big factor in peoples decisions to stay and rebuild or just move on to greener grass.