22 replies to this topic

[cberen1]

Out today from the census bureau:
CNN Article

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More people moved to Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, than to any other metropolitan area in the United States last year.

The population there increased by 162,250 between July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau report. Atlanta, Phoenix and Houston also saw their ranks swell by more than 100,000 people each.

[PLS]

despite global warming, people are moving in increasing numbers to warmer climates...

[tjh1]

It's just a shame that the vast majority of the growth is just sprawling further outward and destroying our natural habitat instead of working on adding density to what already exists.

[PLS]

It's just a shame that the vast majority of the growth is just sprawling further outward and destroying our natural habitat instead of working on adding density to what already exists.

i think that's why people are moving where they are, the ability to have some space... tired of living on top of their neighbors in the densely populated northeast. the quote i saw was something to the effect of "we just saw how much house you could buy in texas, and decided to go there."

[longhornz32]

Exactly our homes are ridiculously cheap compared to other parts of the country.

[ghughes]

While I certainly agree with the shame o' the sprawl... we got what we got. So the next question is, given that the ideal will not be realized around here, what's a good fall back position?

We're probably on our way to flunking air quality big time, more so as sprawl increases automobile emissions. So will we just see a drop in appeal as our traffic worsens without federal highway funds until growth is choked? Or will we just be happy to live in "LA on the Prairie" but without the ocean or mountains?

Is there some sort of living arrangement we haven't explored that lets people live all sprawled out but is sustainable?

[safly]

I think it is important to DEFINE "Metropolitan" here. What ar the parameters/designations set on the national standard?

Because I don't see nothing metro about Keller (no offense KP), Aledo, Burleson or Red Oak???

[hannerhan]

I think it is important to DEFINE "Metropolitan" here. What ar the parameters/designations set on the national standard?

Because I don't see nothing metro about Keller (no offense KP), Aledo, Burleson or Red Oak???

Keller certainly seems to be metro to me. Aledo is separated from the rest of the metroplex by 5+ miles of pasture and ultra low density housing, so I don't put them in the mix. But Keller is not in the sticks like it was 15 years ago. Just because it takes 20 minutes to get anywhere from there doesn't mean it ain't metro!

[dustin]

according to wikipedia:

The Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area, a title designated by the U.S. Census as of 2003, encompasses 12 counties within the U.S. state of Texas. The metropolitan area is further divided into two metropolitan divisions: Dallas–Plano–Irving and Fort Worth–Arlington.

counties in the metro:

* Collin County
* Dallas County
* Delta County
* Denton County
* Ellis County
* Hunt County
* Johnson County
* Kaufman County
* Parker County
* Rockwall County
* Tarrant County
* Wise County

also, census definition of a metropolitan statistical area (also from wiki):

MSAs are delineated on the basis of a central urbanized area—a contiguous area of relatively high population density. The counties containing the core urbanized area are known as the central counties of the MSA. Additional surrounding counties (known as outlying counties) can be included in the MSA if these counties have strong social and economic ties to the central counties as measured by commuting and employment. Note that some areas within these outlying counties may actually be rural in nature.

[FW_Drew]

Delayed release of 2008 Population Estimates from NCTCOG

http://www.nctcog.or...ayedRelease.pdf

[safly]

according to wikipedia:

The Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area, a title designated by the U.S. Census as of 2003, encompasses 12 counties within the U.S. state of Texas. The metropolitan area is further divided into two metropolitan divisions: Dallas–Plano–Irving and Fort Worth–Arlington.

counties in the metro:

* Collin County
* Dallas County
* Delta County
* Denton County
* Ellis County
* Hunt County
* Johnson County
* Kaufman County
* Parker County
* Rockwall County
* Tarrant County
* Wise County

also, census definition of a metropolitan statistical area (also from wiki):

MSAs are delineated on the basis of a central urbanized area—a contiguous area of relatively high population density. The counties containing the core urbanized area are known as the central counties of the MSA. Additional surrounding counties (known as outlying counties) can be included in the MSA if these counties have strong social and economic ties to the central counties as measured by commuting and employment. Note that some areas within these outlying counties may actually be rural in nature.

That answers it. PKL and ROCKWALL???

[gdvanc]

While I certainly agree with the shame o' the sprawl... we got what we got. So the next question is, given that the ideal will not be realized around here, what's a good fall back position?

We're probably on our way to flunking air quality big time, more so as sprawl increases automobile emissions. So will we just see a drop in appeal as our traffic worsens without federal highway funds until growth is choked? Or will we just be happy to live in "LA on the Prairie" but without the ocean or mountains?

Is there some sort of living arrangement we haven't explored that lets people live all sprawled out but is sustainable?

those are good questions that deserve consideration. a large number of our neighbors aren't at all interested in living in a truly urban setting. given that a significant subset of the region's population prefer housing options that result in sprawl and we're not quite centrally planned enough to not give them the option, can anything be done to reduce its negative effects?


another thing that might be worth some thought is whether there is anything that can be done to expand the market for urban living. what barriers can be removed, for instance, if there are people who would be interested if certain real or perceived obstacles could be addressed? similarly, are there barriers (other than lack of demand) that prevent the development of additional supply of urban housing options? if so, can they be mitigated?

[dustin]

There is one thing that can help in both issues. Effective and rapid public transportation. If you look at some European cities, like Frankfurt a.M., sprawl is prevalent. However, their rail system is so advanced and reliable that it is a viable alternative to auto commutes. I would love to see some sort of spiderweb rail system...or at least something. Also, effective transit options encourage urban growth. When a car is needed to get just about everywhere, people want the two car garage and the nice quiet cul-de-sac. When you dont need a car, downtown apartments that are close to amenities become a more viable option.

[DallasMavsfan]

We're probably on our way to flunking air quality big time, more so as sprawl increases automobile emissions. So will we just see a drop in appeal as our traffic worsens without federal highway funds until growth is choked? Or will we just be happy to live in "LA on the Prairie" but without the ocean or mountains?

He took my response. DFW is on its way to being just like the Los Angeles Metro area. Just an insanely spread out locale of different suburbs and neighborhoods.

[safly]

Actually L.A. Metro is about the size of FW herself. (Malibu to Pasadena Area to Port of L.A.)

When you consider "Inland Empire", ala Ventura Cty, Orange, Newport Beach, Valley, to San Bernadino then you will have the sprawl size of DFW Metroplex.

DFW is freegin HUGE! But, yes L.A. Metro has waay too many lil pockets of incorporated cities and suburbs. CRAZY!

In 10-15 years, DFW Metro will be relatively close as L.A. Metro, population wise. I already here from many of my well traveled S.A. friends (still live in S.A. or in L.A. and other huge metro areas) that they will most likely end up in the DFW area sooner rather than later.

Perhaps I should get to work on my RE license ASAP.

[Willy1]

I recently ran across a wiki entry claiming that FW has now passed the 700K population mark, "based on a recent poll". See below... Anyone have any confirmation of this fact?

From Wiki:

Fort Worth is the fifth-largest city in the state of Texas and the eighteenth-largest city in the United States[1]. Situated in North Texas, Fort Worth covers nearly 300 square miles (780 km²) in Tarrant and Denton counties, serving as the county seat for Tarrant County. As of the 2006 U.S. Census estimate, Fort Worth had a population of 653,320.[1] The population now exceeds 700,000 according to a recent 2007 poll.[citation needed] The city is the second-largest cultural and economic center of the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area (commonly called the Metroplex), the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the U.S. with a population of 6.8 million in sixteen counties. Fort Worth and the surrounding Metroplex area offer numerous business opportunities and a wide array of attractions.

Established originally in 1849 as a protective Army outpost at the foot of a bluff overlooking the Trinity River, the city of Fort Worth today still embraces its western heritage and traditional architecture and design more than its more contemporary neighbor, Dallas.[

[JOCOguy]

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) has not yet come out with their 2008 population estimate for FW, the 2007 estimate was 686850, the fastest growing major city in the metroplex. The city is growing about 3% per year, so it is probably true that Fort Worth is well above 700000, in fact, growing faster and catching up with Austin.
Who knows, we maybe the fourth largest city again.

http://www.nctcog.or...opestimates.pdf

[DallasMavsfan]

In 10-15 years, DFW Metro will be relatively close as L.A. Metro, population wise. I already here from many of my well traveled S.A. friends (still live in S.A. or in L.A. and other huge metro areas) that they will most likely end up in the DFW area sooner rather than later.

I can't picture DFW jumping to 17 million people in 15 years. The LA metro area has almost 18 million people. DFW has about 6 million.

Actually L.A. Metro is about the size of FW herself. (Malibu to Pasadena Area to Port of L.A.)

When you consider "Inland Empire", ala Ventura Cty, Orange, Newport Beach, Valley, to San Bernadino then you will have the sprawl size of DFW Metroplex.

DFW is freegin HUGE! But, yes L.A. Metro has waay too many lil pockets of incorporated cities and suburbs. CRAZY!

Are you kidding me?

DFW is nowhere as big as the LA metro area. From North to south Santa Clarita to Irvine is a good 100 miles.

LAX to Riverside is about 60 miles stretching East to West

The West side of ft Worth to the edge of Mesquite is maybe 40 miles.

DFW is a big metro area, but its not "huge" by any means.

[dustin]

I think we have a little ways to go in terms of density to compete with LA. However, we do have 'em beat in terms of size. Here are the facts:

Los Angeles grater metro area (MSA):
Area: 4,850 sq. mi.
Population density: 2,665 sq/mi.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA:
Area: 9,286 sq. mi.
Population density: 634 sq/mi

*numbers are taken off of Wikipedia which are sourced from the 2005 census estimates.

[DallasMavsfan]

I think we have a little ways to go in terms of density to compete with LA. However, we do have 'em beat in terms of size. Here are the facts:

Los Angeles grater metro area (MSA):
Area: 4,850 sq. mi.
Population density: 2,665 sq/mi.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA:
Area: 9,286 sq. mi.
Population density: 634 sq/mi

*numbers are taken off of Wikipedia which are sourced from the 2005 census estimates.

I dont know where they get their stats are what they consider to the Los Angeles Metro area to be.

As somone that used to live in Southern California there is no metro area that is more spread out than LA.

I consider the Los Angeles metro area to be Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino County.

LA doesn't have highrises like Chicago or New York. Its not even possible to squeeze in 17 million people in a space small than DFW without major highrises.

All you have to do is look at a map and its clear as day how spread out Southern California is.

[David Love]

I'm just glad we've actually come out ahead of Los Angeles in a positive area such as population growth, that still doesn't sound right; they didn't move the census tallies to Florida did they.

REALLY glad it’s not in crime rates, smog, poverty or traffic, but big population growths often usher in winning positions in the not so popular surveys.

[safly]

What I consider LA Metro to be is when a guy knows how to correctly tan, style his hair, be fit and in fashion and watches BRAVO.

But Geographically speaking and having lived there for several years myself. I consider LA Met to be Santa Monica(I-10) to Malibu, to Glendale/Pasadena (JPL), to Rancho PV, down to Looooong Beach/San Pedro and back to LAX. So for me, it wasn't that LA was so spread out, it was more that it was HYPER-DENSED all throughout! Can't blame people for living there with that weather.

Orange is seperate and more of Irvine, Anaheim and Newport Beach area. Kind of a tweener with LA and SD. Ventura is closer to San Joaquin Valley metro or region (Fresno, Sac-town?, Bakersfield, GARLIC FEST area, Vedalia and other FARM TOWNS etc.). Riverside is CLOSER, and can be claimed. San Bernadino is out there, past Fullerton area and Chino Hills/Encino/ San Dimas?.

Now S.California as a region is a different matter all together here.

[gdvanc]

*numbers are taken off of Wikipedia which are sourced from the 2005 census estimates.

I dont know where they get their stats are what they consider to the Los Angeles Metro area to be.

As Dustin pointed out, they get their population stats from the 2005 census. Because these are from the census, they are for the metropolitan statistical areas as defined by the OMB. The 2007 MSA definitions are here.

If you go by Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs or CSA's, depending on whose style you follow), it's another story. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside CSA is gargantuan compared to the DFW CSA and several New England states - primarily because of the size of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA. The statistical areas are only granular to the county level; San Bernardino County and Riverside County are vast. The 2007 CSA definitions can be found here.

MSA and CSA maps available here.

As somone that used to live in Southern California there is no metro area that is more spread out than LA.

I consider the Los Angeles metro area to be Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino County.

Feel free to add your metro area definition to the Wikipedia.

All you have to do is look at a map and its clear as day how spread out Southern California is.

Well, North Texas is spread out, too. Southern California vs. the DFW MSA is not quite apples-to-apples, though, is it?

It is probably true that there is some subjectivity in carving up the SoCA counties among the various statistical areas. That makes it a political issue.