USA TODAY TOP CITIES FORT WORTH
#1 Nick
Posted 13 April 2004 - 01:16 AM
I did find something at the USA TODAY web site. Not a lot is written about Fort Worth. Well actuality nothing is written about Fort Worth. Just that we are the only Texas City in thier ranking.
Well anyway good for you Fort Worth.
#2 jefffwd
Posted 13 April 2004 - 12:09 PM
By the numbers, Tarrant shines
By Bud Kennedy
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Hey, Philadelphia - you're history.
Next, we'll take Manhattan.
With 1.56 million people, Tarrant County has passed dwindling Philadelphia County in population. We're No. 19 in the nation.
And we're closing in on No. 18 New York County -- also known as Manhattan.
That's no misprint. An average of 90 people a day move into Keller, Mansfield or somewhere in or around Fort Worth, newly honored as one of America's nine "Most Livable" big cities.
Within weeks, all those newcomers are down at City Hall demanding new soccer fields, speed bumps and a drive-through Starbucks.
I have no idea how many of those 90 come from Philadelphia or Manhattan, but I do notice that it's easier lately to find a pretzel dog.
In another number from the math brains at the U.S. Census Bureau, Tarrant County is the No. 2 fastest-growing county this size in the Southwest, behind only Clark County, Nev., and Las Vegas.
OK, so we don't have nickel slots or Wayne Newton singing Danke Schoen. But we do have gaudy, Vegas-style decor at the new Gaylord Hotels resort.
Beyond the census count, Fort Worth has a new award.
As of Monday, Cowtown is one of nine major American cities named "America's Most Livable Communities."
What's interesting about this award is the cities that weren't named "most livable." Like Austin. Or Plano. Or any other Texas city.
According to a Washington-based organization of city and business officials, Fort Worth's plans for central-city preservation and redevelopment make this one of the most "creative" big cities in America.
Other "most livable" winners include Charlotte, N.C.; Cincinnati; Denver; Jacksonville, Fla.; Kansas City, Mo.; San Diego and San Jose, Calif.; and Tulsa, Okla. The complete awards list is at www. mostlivable.org.
Yet another ranking, this in a new book, puts the Fort Worth-Arlington area No. 2 behind Austin as simply the "best" in the Southwest.
The authors of Cities Ranked and Rated make headlines every year for churning statistics and naming both the best and worst cities in America. They ranked the Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan area 36th of 331 overall, behind mostly smaller communities.
These rankings are based on a mathematical comparison of 100 statistical factors by Oregon co-author and city-rankings guru Bert Sperling, the creator of Money magazine's "Best Places to Live."
Fort Worth-Arlington comes out as the sixth best major metropolitan area, behind Atlanta; Portland; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Austin and Pittsburgh.
And I love the reason.
We're among the best because Dallas and Plano are next door.
"What we're seeing is that Fort Worth and Arlington are close enough to Dallas to enjoy its amenities -- without living there," Sperling said by phone Monday from his office in Oregon.
"Fort Worth in particular has been able to preserve the small-town feel. ... Dallas is there for sports, shopping and entertainment."
The book -- $24.99 in stores -- specifically defines Fort Worth and Dallas as "quite different." Sperling read off the benefits of life this side of the county line: a lower cost of living, cheaper home prices, "two-thirds the crime and air pollution" and faster job growth.
His book also notes that Fort Worth folks insist on the distinction between the cities and "bristle" if they are introduced by outsiders as "from Dallas."
Dallas' rank?
No. 95.
Fort Worth is also rated among the Top 100 "Best Places to Live" overall by Relocate-America.com, a real estate Web site. We're in good company: The only other Texas cities ranked are Houston, Plano, Sugar Land, Texarkana and Wylie.
"Fort Worth is a great place to live," the Relocate-America Web site reports, in a puffy profile that also touts "progressive private schools," museums and "authentic Western saloons."
Gosh.
Maybe someday we'll even have a major-league baseball team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud Kennedy's column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. (817) 390-7538 bud@budkennedy.com
#3
Posted 13 April 2004 - 04:59 PM
#4 Nick
Posted 13 April 2004 - 06:45 PM
A permanent web site will high light every city on this list.
Heck Basball? How about the Olympics? Lets hear it for
"FORT WORTH 2020"
#5 Nick
Posted 13 April 2004 - 07:18 PM
I pick local and major Texas cities past Winner's.
San Antoinio 1949,1951, 1982,1983.
Fort Worth 1964,1993.
Wichita Falls 1980.1981.
Grand Praire 1974-1975.
Plano 1994.
Dallas 1970.
Odd Houston and Arlington never made the list.
#6
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:41 PM
#8
Posted 25 May 2004 - 03:14 PM
Nonprofit group denies the award was sold to Ventura, Riverside or other recipients.
By Seema Mehta, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.c...ines-california
When Riverside was named one of the nation's "Most Livable Communities" in April, the city's libraries, diversity and its environmentally friendly "green power" energy program were touted as reasons for the honor. What city leaders failed to disclose was another form of green power: Riverside and every other city honored paid $10,000 to the organization that released the list, Partners for Livable Communities. Ventura and San Jose also paid $10,000 in city funds, and San Diego and Sacramento-area officials had private groups or residents pay, officials at the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization said.
Bob McNulty, president of Partners for Livable Communities, defended the contributions, saying they were solicited only after the 30 cities were chosen. The money will help fund the organization's website, which for the next four years will highlight and promote each city that made the list. "The award is not for sale," he said. "[The funding] is to get word out to the world." But Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. in Sacramento, said the payments don't pass the "ha-ha test."
"I'm working two blocks from the Capitol. Don't tell me money doesn't influence decisions," he said. "Local government continues to complain about a lack of revenue for essential municipal services, including fire, police and libraries. Yet they're writing $10,000 checks to pay an organization that gave them an award. That's not good policy." Ventura City Councilman Bill Fulton said that the award, which was covered in newspapers nationwide, was worth every penny. "The USA Today article alone is worth $10,000," he said. "You couldn't buy that kind of advertising. Oh, yeah."
Riverside City Councilman Art Gage agreed, saying it's a small price to pay for such good publicity. "It's certainly something we can hang on our Christmas tree and say 'Hey, look who we are,' " Gage said. "There are a lot of cities in the country, and only 30 of them received the award." This is the fourth time the organization has issued the awards, but the first time the nonprofit asked cities for a donation.
"In past times when we've given the award, we realized the value of it really didn't stick," said Irene Garnett, a program officer with the group. "With this very unique exclusive award, we wanted the value of it to last for communities. The best way to do that is to have a website in this day and age." Riverside's page on the website highlights the city's computer-access centers and loans for subsidized computers to low-income people, the city's inclusiveness policies and other programs.
Ventura's page highlights the city's public-art program, which encourages diverse artistic perspectives and offers economic opportunities to artists in the city. "The reason for contracting with the center had nothing to do with the awards," said Rick Cole, who became Ventura's city manager after the awards were announced. "The reality is that [Partners for Livable Communities] is a nationally known nonprofit resource for good ideas and technical assistance. Over time, a number of cities have established relationships. Some they gave an award to, some they did not."
Garnett said that receiving the award was not contingent upon agreeing to the payment, though all 30 cities either paid or found a private organization or individuals to pay for them. Erwin Chemerinsky, a political science and law professor at USC, said the money taints the award. "There's a lot of ways for nonprofits to raise money," Chemerinsky said. "It appears unseemly to do it by soliciting money from those they just bestowed awards on. I find it strange that someone said 'We're going to bestow this award on you. Now give us $10,000.' "
The group's website can be found at http://www.mostlivable.org .
#9
Posted 22 January 2005 - 08:05 AM
#10
Posted 22 January 2005 - 08:56 AM
#11
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:35 AM
And I love the reason.
We're among the best because Dallas and Plano are next door.
"What we're seeing is that Fort Worth and Arlington are close enough to Dallas to enjoy its amenities -- without living there," Sperling said by phone Monday from his office in Oregon.
"Fort Worth in particular has been able to preserve the small-town feel. ... Dallas is there for sports, shopping and entertainment."
Sounds like a pretty dumb reason to me. One that I am not proud of.
To me, they're saying "move to dull Fort Worth because it's cheap and it's close to enough to Dallas that you can have lots of big city sports, shopping, and entertainment fun."
#12
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:58 AM
To me, they're saying "move to dull Fort Worth because it's cheap and it's close to enough to Dallas that you can have lots of big city sports, shopping, and entertainment fun."
That's one way to look at it and there is truth in what you said, but I dont share the severity of the opinion. Instead of saying Fort Worth is dull, they may mean to say Forth Worth is a refreshingly real place to live and only 45 minutes away is another world offering the pretentious cityscape counterbalance. As the Metroplex population grows, the symbiotic realtionship between the distinct social atmospheres of Dallas and Fort Worth will become more apparent, and the city dispositions will come to the forefront among reasons to live the Metroplex.
#13 David Love
Posted 24 January 2005 - 01:29 PM
Fort Worth-Arlington comes out as the sixth best major metropolitan area, behind Atlanta; Portland; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Austin and Pittsburgh.
This list makes perfect sense to me, I’ve worked, lived or visited all of them, but Atlanta just doesn’t seem to fit. Perhaps I hung out in the wrong areas but it reminded me a lot of Dallas on a bad day.
#15
Posted 24 January 2005 - 05:33 PM
QUOTE(cjyoung @ Jan 24 2005, 10:35 AM)
To me, they're saying "move to dull Fort Worth because it's cheap and it's close to enough to Dallas that you can have lots of big city sports, shopping, and entertainment fun."
I call that "Harsh Reality" lol
I am a rebelious citizen
#16
Posted 25 January 2005 - 01:44 AM
"What we're seeing is that Fort Worth and Arlington are close enough to Dallas to enjoy its amenities -- without living there," Sperling said by phone Monday from his office in Oregon.
"Fort Worth in particular has been able to preserve the small-town feel. ... Dallas is there for sports, shopping and entertainment."
I think the abovementioned statement is a dated one. I am sure that it is an attitude that is held only by a portion of Fort Worth area residents, however it suggests that there is an opportunity for Fort Worth entrepreneurs to grow each of these components of its city. Local entrepreneurs should rise to the occasion rather than complacently waiting for chains to expand into our neighborhoods - you know, when we "get a ____ store".
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users