Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Dallas-Fort Worth now No. 4 in nation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#1 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 14 July 2006 - 06:50 AM

Dallas-Fort Worth now No. 4 in nation

Dallas Business Journal - 3:06 PM CDT Thursday

by Glenn HunterEditor

Dallas-Fort Worth has vaulted past greater Philadelphia to become the nation's fourth-largest metropolitan area, the Greater Dallas Chamber said Thursday.

The chamber based its claim on U.S. Census Bureau data that, in July 2005, showed D-FW in fifth place with 5.819 million residents, just behind Philadelphia's 5.823 million.


However, the chamber says, because the Metroplex gains about 365 new residents every day -- compared to just 72 for Philadelphia -- D-FW overtook the Pennyslvania metro last year and since has pulled well ahead.

D-FW's new position won't be official until July 2007, the chamber said, when the census bureau releases its latest population estimate.

Dr. Lyssa Jenkens, the chamber's chief economist, said the new ranking would cause "companies around the world to see Dallas-Fort Worth with new eyes."

Economist Ray Perryman, CEO of The Perryman Group in Waco, said surpassing Philadelphia would send a signal to investors that D-FW is "a fast-growing area, and that the area is indeed fast-growing relative to other areas.

"It's not a huge change," Perryman added, "but people will make note that we're moving up higher, that we're becoming more dynamic."

The chamber said New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are the nation's most populous metropolitan areas, in that order. Miami; Houston; Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; and Detroit round out the top 10, in that order, following D-FW and Philadelphia.



#2 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 14 July 2006 - 11:26 AM

QUOTE(jefffwd @ Jul 14 2006, 07:50 AM) View Post

Dallas-Fort Worth now No. 4 in nation

Dallas Business Journal - 3:06 PM CDT Thursday

by Glenn HunterEditor

Dallas-Fort Worth has vaulted past greater Philadelphia to become the nation's fourth-largest metropolitan area, the Greater Dallas Chamber said Thursday.

The chamber based its claim on U.S. Census Bureau data that, in July 2005, showed D-FW in fifth place with 5.819 million residents, just behind Philadelphia's 5.823 million.



Do we have to sing Kum buy ya?

#3 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 07:41 PM

No, but it would be refreshing if this side would work toward regional goals.

#4 ghughes

ghughes

    Senior Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:University West

Posted 15 July 2006 - 06:45 AM

What regional goals?

I would think that clean air might be a good regional goal, but all the fringe areas want to maximize their development (i.e. produce increasing sprawl) which is a direct cause of low air quality.

Or are we talking tourism? Or does the region have a goal of passing Chicago on the "how big can you get" list?

I'm kind of fuzzy on this regional goal idea.

#5 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 15 July 2006 - 07:16 AM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Jul 15 2006, 07:45 AM) View Post

What regional goals?

I would think that clean air might be a good regional goal, but all the fringe areas want to maximize their development (i.e. produce increasing sprawl) which is a direct cause of low air quality.

Or are we talking tourism? Or does the region have a goal of passing Chicago on the "how big can you get" list?

I'm kind of fuzzy on this regional goal idea.


I think "regional goals" means to work for toward increasing the prominence of "greater Dallas".

#6 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 15 July 2006 - 11:03 AM

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jul 15 2006, 08:16 AM) View Post


I think "regional goals" means to work for toward increasing the prominence of "greater Dallas".


Yossarian I may not always agree with you. You may even hate me but your 100 % right about your statement. I know Fort Worth is not anti-regional . But sadly and justly has grown a thick shell. And will not get suckerd again with regional talk. Fort Worth has got burned to many times to fall for that line.

But I do feel we need to work close with Denton, Parker, Wise, and Johnson Counties. I would go far as to form a kinda G8 or Commonwealth type union if you will. A five County Western Metroplex Union. Our ETJ spills over into each county. Now and in the next 50 years growth in this region will be a challange. It would be a fresh of breath air to finally have friendly neighbors. And not go to the other side of the world with Sister Cities program to get them.

Don Hill the Dallas City Councilman said this week in the DMN. That the Dallas Land Port will be three times bigger than Alliance. And " it will get built" he said. True or not. Thats a wake up call for the Western half to join our own Alliance.

#7 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 15 July 2006 - 11:59 AM

QUOTE
the Dallas Land Port


Is that the Port of Houston container reliever yard? If so, it is going to need a lot more rail access to compete with Alliance.

QUOTE
You may even hate me


Do I?

#8 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 15 July 2006 - 12:55 PM

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jul 15 2006, 12:59 PM) View Post

QUOTE
the Dallas Land Port


Is that the Port of Houston container reliever yard? If so, it is going to need a lot more rail access to compete with Alliance.

QUOTE
You may even hate me


Do I?


You got me? Plus is that area of Dallas in a flood plane?

If any you have any doubt about how the eastern side feels about us on the same subject. Please do read thier Forum. So very proof positive about Yossarian statement. And so much for that "regional goals" talk.

#9 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 16 July 2006 - 02:43 PM

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jul 15 2006, 12:59 PM) View Post

QUOTE
the Dallas Land Port


Is that the Port of Houston container reliever yard? If so, it is going to need a lot more rail access to compete with Alliance.


That is partly the answer, but it is much more than that. It will be the intermodal Port of Houston, the currently built and operating intermodal transfer center of Union Pacific, the airport of Lancaster is proposed to go cargo and BNSF has said publically that they are looking at their rail intermodal center there and passed on Alliance as an option. A private company has bought up land in the area with plans to convert the vacant area to 6000 acres of industrial warehouse to support the area. Dallas has asked DART to look at expanding the blue line to the area, which is also housing the University of North Texas's newest University. With direct access to I-20 and I-45, and easy access to 635 and therefore I-30 and I-35, this is a very good area for this.

Also this is a collaboration with Dallas, Houston, Wilmer, Hutchins and Lancaster. Good things happen when cities work together.

#10 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 16 July 2006 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Jul 16 2006, 03:43 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jul 15 2006, 12:59 PM) View Post

QUOTE
the Dallas Land Port


Is that the Port of Houston container reliever yard? If so, it is going to need a lot more rail access to compete with Alliance.


Also this is a collaboration with Dallas, Houston, Wilmer, Hutchins and Lancaster. Good things happen when cities work together.


True. After all look at the Word (ALLIANCE )! Thanks to leaders like Fort Worth Mayor Bolen and Ross Perot Jr. Working togeather with other towns and overlaping goverment agencey's way back in the 80's. So many outside Fort Worth have good paying jobs because of this ALLIANCE.

#11 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 11:40 PM

Another numbers farce, with ambiguously defined criteria. US census bureau, yes, but they change definitions periodically.

DFW 5.819 million, top 10 sure, number four......do you really think so......

Two metro areas 'behind' DFW, actually larger: the census bureau changes its definitions periodically for MSA's and CMSA's, Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area of which the following are:
Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach - 6.2 million
San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose - 6.3 million
Washington DC used to be counted with Baltimore as a Metro, now CMSA

LA/OC 12.5 million, previous to 2000 LA and OC were separate Metros, why didnt they include San Bernadino/Riverside or Ventura? It would take the number to 16 million

Its like the whole San Antonio passing Dallas thing, numbers dont always tell the whole story.........Dallas Is a bigger city. Anchoring a metro area that is four times larger than SA.
I recall the same thing in California when San Jose passed San Francisco........again numbers dont tell the whole story, San Francisco is the Bay Area, it is the anchor the center the soul.......









QUOTE(jefffwd @ Jul 14 2006, 07:50 AM) View Post

Dallas-Fort Worth now No. 4 in nation

Dallas Business Journal - 3:06 PM CDT Thursday

by Glenn HunterEditor

Dallas-Fort Worth has vaulted past greater Philadelphia to become the nation's fourth-largest metropolitan area, the Greater Dallas Chamber said Thursday.

The chamber based its claim on U.S. Census Bureau data that, in July 2005, showed D-FW in fifth place with 5.819 million residents, just behind Philadelphia's 5.823 million.


However, the chamber says, because the Metroplex gains about 365 new residents every day -- compared to just 72 for Philadelphia -- D-FW overtook the Pennyslvania metro last year and since has pulled well ahead.

D-FW's new position won't be official until July 2007, the chamber said, when the census bureau releases its latest population estimate.

Dr. Lyssa Jenkens, the chamber's chief economist, said the new ranking would cause "companies around the world to see Dallas-Fort Worth with new eyes."

Economist Ray Perryman, CEO of The Perryman Group in Waco, said surpassing Philadelphia would send a signal to investors that D-FW is "a fast-growing area, and that the area is indeed fast-growing relative to other areas.

"It's not a huge change," Perryman added, "but people will make note that we're moving up higher, that we're becoming more dynamic."

The chamber said New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are the nation's most populous metropolitan areas, in that order. Miami; Houston; Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; and Detroit round out the top 10, in that order, following D-FW and Philadelphia.



#12 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 17 August 2006 - 10:06 AM

[quote name='SLO' date='Aug 17 2006, 12:40 AM' post='28781']
Another numbers farce, with ambiguously defined criteria. US census bureau, yes, but they change definitions periodically.

DFW 5.819 million, top 10 sure, number four......do you really think so......

Two metro areas 'behind' DFW, actually larger: the census bureau changes its definitions periodically for MSA's and CMSA's, Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area of which the following are:
Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach - 6.2 million
San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose - 6.3 million
Washington DC used to be counted with Baltimore as a Metro, now CMSA

LA/OC 12.5 million, previous to 2000 LA and OC were separate Metros, why didnt they include San Bernadino/Riverside or Ventura? It would take the number to 16 million

Its like the whole San Antonio passing Dallas thing, numbers dont always tell the whole story.........Dallas Is a bigger city. Anchoring a metro area that is four times larger than SA.
I recall the same thing in California when San Jose passed San Francisco........again numbers dont tell the whole story, San Francisco is the Bay Area, it is the anchor the center the soul.......
^^^
I agree. I get a big laugh over at the Dalas Forum. Thier crunching numbers over thier so to make Dallas number 4 in the nation. After all "Fort Worth is IRRELEVANT" DFW is the fastest growing in America. NO Fort Worth is the fastest growing in DFW. Numbers from some pointy headed fed don't tell the real story.

I think the feds should just count cities just by thier own population . And forget this MSA bull. San Antonio is the bigger city than Dallas plain and simple. But who knows 5 10 20 years from now?

#13 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:02 PM

Yup, Fort Worth is the only reason this area's so great. If only Dallas could break off and give Fort Worth the spotlight it needs and stop holding it back, then it can begin it's inevitable drive to become the best city in the nation, miles ahead of New York. That way, it can begin the eventual process of becoming the best city in the world, once Dallas is gone.

The quicker you guys realize we need each other, the better. There are pro's and con's to each city. Accept it.

The use of the term metro is not defined by Dallas, but actually the US government. It is very arbitary and the reason DFW is 4th is that San Jose is not counted in the bay area metro. The DFW area has greater than 6 million people thanks growth in part to Fort Worth, but also Dallas was on the top 10 list for growth. Dallas city gained 10,000 people, though not the 37,000 that Fort Worth did. WOO! I am glad that extra 27,000 gets your willie's going and helps you believe Fort Worth is the greatest city ever. There still was growth in other cities within Dallas County that showed almost equal growth to Tarrant when added together. Add in Collin, which is mostly spurred on by the economic activity of Dallas (just like Fort Worth, I'd like to add), then again you guys lag behind in the growth numbers.

Right now Fort Worth is making the same mistakes Dallas did in the 50's through 70's. Annexing a lot of land and building freeways is an unsustainable model for growth. Were it not for Dallas becoming landlocked, Uptown's boom along with the surrounding areas likely wouldn't have happened. Downtown would have, but that is probably it.

Either Fort Worth was lucky or smart that they passed by the expansion area without too much unsustainable's, but they are catching up, which will lead to later headaches. Headaches Dallas won't have.

#14 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:12 PM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 17 2006, 11:06 AM) View Post
I think the feds should just count cities just by thier own population . And forget this MSA bull. San Antonio is the bigger city than Dallas plain and simple. But who knows 5 10 20 years from now?


Do you know why they do that? They think regionally. People in Mesquite commute to Dallas to work. They work together as a region. Mesquite doesn't try to break off and say they are better. People in Arlington commute both ways, but the percentage is greater as the head to Dallas. Same thing with Fort Worth. A lot of people live in Tarrant, but work in DTD, Las Colinas or somewhere not in Tarrant. That's why they are grouped.

Yes San Antonio is larger, but they annexed a lot into the city the last decade. they suffer from the same inferiority complex you guys do. They base greatness of a city on a population number. Anybody want to say that San Antonio is better than San Fransico? I won't. The better population number is density, IMHO. That number we both suck in.

How MSA is bull is beyond me. It is the best number the census bureau could come up with to measure a how a region interacts, which in this case is both Dallas and Tarrant, along with 10 other counties.

I'm surprised you guys haven't called for a boycott of Denton County because their transit system is focusing on a rail line to connect with Downtown Dallas, rather than Fort Worth. At least the DCTA understands the regional approach.

#15 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:22 PM

Do you think our chances of a terrorist attack grew with those numbers?
Or was the threat already there?Almost six million people,that smells like trouble.Is somewhere between Dallas and FW the likely place something will happen,or in the middle of Dallas?
T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#16 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 18 August 2006 - 01:53 PM

QUOTE
I'm surprised you guys haven't called for a boycott of Denton County because their transit system is focusing on a rail line to connect with Downtown Dallas, rather than Fort Worth.


What!! Denton county is focusing on a rail line to connect with Downtown Dallas, rather than Fort Worth?!!
I'm calling for a boycott!! cool.gif

#17 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 18 August 2006 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 18 2006, 01:12 PM) View Post

I'm surprised you guys haven't called for a boycott of Denton County because their transit system is focusing on a rail line to connect with Downtown Dallas, rather than Fort Worth. At least the DCTA understands the regional approach.



Denton shall soon realize its errant ways..The boycott is on!..(just kidding) tongue.gif


Keep Fort Worth folksy

#18 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 19 August 2006 - 10:27 AM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 18 2006, 01:02 PM) View Post

The quicker you guys realize we need each other, the better. There are pro's and con's to each city. Accept it.

The use of the term metro is not defined by Dallas, but actually the US government.
Right now Fort Worth is making the same mistakes Dallas did in the 50's through 70's. Annexing a lot of land and building freeways is an unsustainable model for growth. Were it not for Dallas becoming landlocked, Uptown's boom along with the surrounding areas likely wouldn't have happened. Downtown would have, but that is probably it.



"Fort Worth is IRRELAVANT" My bad that is regional talk. wacko.gif Sport you know that this only works if Dallas is up front . Thats is why your so gung ho about this MSA Bull. People are loseing thier houses here in Fort Worth as reported in the DMN . "Dallas Area" But you know what? Dallas ,Denton, Collen Co. Rockwall are losing thier homes lot more that Fort Worth. Thier was a chart in thier to prove it. If crime in Fort Worth is sky high and Dallas crime is low is it right to combine both to get an average?

Dallas not annexing in the 50's is the mistake! about 6 weeks ago I quoted a book called "Dallas Architecture 1936-1986" page 143. Marvine Springer Dallas planning director in 1950 . Would say you wrong. Dallas Mayor R.L. Thornton would say your wrong! Read it yourself.

Thier are and always will be a need to "work togeather". But more often than not its best Fort Worth leave Dallas alone. Fort Worth gets burned too many times. DFW and love field, Dallas Cowboys, Calatrava, JFK ect.

#19 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 19 August 2006 - 12:33 PM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 18 2006, 01:02 PM) View Post

Yup, Fort Worth is the only reason this area's so great. If only Dallas could break off and give Fort Worth the spotlight it needs and stop holding it back, then it can begin it's inevitable drive to become the best city in the nation, miles ahead of New York. That way, it can begin the eventual process of becoming the best city in the world, once Dallas is gone.

The quicker you guys realize we need each other, the better. There are pro's and con's to each city. Accept it.

What??? Either someone has been seriously mis-representing Fort Worth to you, or you're just sadly mistaken. I would say that 99.9% of us here in FW don't think like that. We DO think regionally and we DO recognize that we need Dallas, probably better than Dallas recognizes that it needs Fort Worth. What I think pisses most people off is when Fort Worth acknowledges the Dallas/Fort Worth region and other people (including many Dallasites) only acknowledge Dallas. Things like called DFWIA "Dallas International" or attributing 6 million people to the population of the "Dallas area." Jesus, it's not like we want to overtake the entire metroplex, we just want our fair share of the recognition.

Honestly, how much harder is it to say "DFW" than "Dallas"? wacko.gif

#20 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 19 August 2006 - 02:27 PM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 18 2006, 01:12 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 17 2006, 11:06 AM) View Post
I think the feds should just count cities just by thier own population . And forget this MSA bull. San Antonio is the bigger city than Dallas plain and simple. But who knows 5 10 20 years from now?


Yes San Antonio is larger, but they annexed a lot into the city the last decade. they suffer from the same inferiority complex you guys do.

At least the DCTA understands the regional approach.


If you really belive this regional approach. You and other Dallas forum members would take issue with with the post about Fort Worth and a list of other cities in that post as being irrelavant! You got this Mel Gibson thing of pointing our "inferiority complex" But the truth is. Its you with the inferiority complex. Fort Worth should work with Rowlett to Irving to Weatherford. But until Dallas gets its act togeather. Every city in North Texas needs to watch its back in dealing with Dallas.

And don't think for a second I missed the story in the DMN two weeks after the W opened. About what Dallasites had to say about Dallas. It made the New York Times bashing story about Dallas look like a lovefest as to what Dallas people were saying about thier own city.(By the way the New York Times did a glowing story about Fort Worth and its coming into its own. Unlike Dallas New York says other cities ARE relavant). Its thos people that need to run Dallas. Not you. If they were to run Dallas. I would be very happy to work with Dallas. But until then.

I didn't post it because . Im not one to harp only about whats wrong with your city. Unlike you. But you got me thinking about posting it.

#21 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 06:03 PM

QUOTE
. Anybody want to say that San Antonio is better than San Fransico?

huh.gif

Do you REALLY want my OPINION on this one???

I would say YES! Just by the reaction of my fellow classmates/ friends turned young professionals who have lived in the Greater H-town area, L.A. ,Austin, and SFran. They have since then ultimately decided to head back home to good ol SA. SA is affordable to visit and reside in. It's plainly more historic in reference. Air quality is just as clean, perhaps cleaner. Folks don't live "RIGHT OVER" eachother along major streets, at least not yet. Closer to MEXICO! FIESTA is like no other there. As for annexation, I have never heard of that particular motion set forth by the city. Converse is still Converse, Kirby, Alamo Heights and others alike are still who they are. The town is growing and the development is just "sick". Especially along the Hill Country Highway 281 corridor.

Oh and I almost forgot that just outside of SA is the ever beautiful Hill Country region of Tejas. Outside of San Fran is... ? dry.gif
Fields of GRAPES. (push there)
Oh and much better HS Football in SA. happy.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#22 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 19 August 2006 - 08:53 PM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 19 2006, 11:27 AM) View Post
"Fort Worth is IRRELAVANT" My bad that is regional talk. wacko.gif Sport you know that this only works if Dallas is up front . Thats is why your so gung ho about this MSA Bull. People are loseing thier houses here in Fort Worth as reported in the DMN . "Dallas Area" But you know what? Dallas ,Denton, Collen Co. Rockwall are losing thier homes lot more that Fort Worth. Thier was a chart in thier to prove it. If crime in Fort Worth is sky high and Dallas crime is low is it right to combine both to get an average?

Dallas not annexing in the 50's is the mistake! about 6 weeks ago I quoted a book called "Dallas Architecture 1936-1986" page 143. Marvine Springer Dallas planning director in 1950 . Would say you wrong. Dallas Mayor R.L. Thornton would say your wrong! Read it yourself.

Thier are and always will be a need to "work togeather". But more often than not its best Fort Worth leave Dallas alone. Fort Worth gets burned too many times. DFW and love field, Dallas Cowboys, Calatrava, JFK ect.


Personally, I don't care who is up front. Call it North Texas for all I care. Wouldn't bother me.
What does it matter who is losing their homes? So what if it is in the places 30,000 millionaires would like to be. Does it mean Ft Worth is better off? Not really, just means it is happening less there. Maybe it means that they are smarter. Maybe it means that area is less desireable, so people don't want to live there and therefore don't lose their homes, but it doesn't mean Collin County is terrible. As for crime, there are different stats for different areas within the same city, so your point is irrelevant. Should I base all of Fort Worth's crime on the gang infested areas where you can get shot walking out a convenience store? No. But if we want to talk jobs, population growth, communting patterns, you have to include everyone within the region.

As for RL Thornton, his policies helped faciltate sprawl, which would eventually lead to the HQ building of the buisness he founded becoming vacant. I'm sure if he had the facts then that we know today, things would be different. Anyone want to say it was in Dallas or Fort Worth's best interest to raze all streetcar lines? I won't, but that's what you did back then. Think of how much better downtown Fort Worth would be if they still had their streetcar tracks in useable shape. I know they would say it is wrong, but their policies encourage sprawl and sprawl forces development on the fringes and decay in the middle and it works its way out. That is ultimately bad for central cities like Dallas and Fort Worth. Now we have anti-sprawl measures that help induce development back to the core. Some suburbs, like Arlington and Mesquite don't have those and still depend on the auto-dependant growth model of the '50's. Theres a reason those suburbs tax base is suffering, because that model is called unsustainable growth. Do an internet search and see what you find. None of it is good.
If you will research the history books, you'll see that the decision's made by Dallas's political leaders were actually decision made by buisiness leaders (like RL Thornton) for buisiness interests. That was also a mistake for Dallas. The masterplan of 1907 calls for a lot of public greenspace, which, because buisiness leaders at the time didn't see the benefit to buisiness, didn't happen. Dallas today is still trying to rectify that situation. But at the time they thought it was the right thing. Would you guys like to replace a surface lot in downtown with a park? Civic leaders in the '50's and '60's thought that was a bad idea. We must make more parking so people can come here. Just because they thought they were doing it for the greater good, doesn't mean what they did WAS for the greater good.
We are repeating those mistakes with highway 121, the Bush Turnpike and will do the same if the Southwest "Parkway" gets built. Leaders all over, including in Dallas realize that you can't build your way out of congestion. The reason is simple as several books make the case very well. People's threshhold of highway movement is stop-and-go. Most freeways can provide that before or after widening. Once you widen, you induce more traffic to come, bringing back the congestion level to what is was. Look at US-75 in Dallas. The day it opened, it was stop-and-go. The did a major remodel in the '90's. The day it re-opened, stop-and-go traffic. Same thing with the High-5. TxDoT spent 255 million dollars to give us the same thing we had before, only with a more appealing structure.

Without Dallas, there would be no DFW Airport, TRE and possible no Fort Worth (the actual Fort was made to protect the settlements to the east, which includes Dallas), so there it was in everyone's best interest to work together. How Fort Worth got burned by Dallas Cowboys, Calatrava, JFK ect. is beyond me, unless you are implying Dallas had ordered JFK's assasination to bleed the bad pub over to Fort Worth. Either way, seems very childish.


QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 19 2006, 03:27 PM) View Post
If you really belive this regional approach. You and other Dallas forum members would take issue with with the post about Fort Worth and a list of other cities in that post as being irrelavant! You got this Mel Gibson thing of pointing our "inferiority complex" But the truth is. Its you with the inferiority complex. Fort Worth should work with Rowlett to Irving to Weatherford. But until Dallas gets its act togeather. Every city in North Texas needs to watch its back in dealing with Dallas.

And don't think for a second I missed the story in the DMN two weeks after the W opened. About what Dallasites had to say about Dallas. It made the New York Times bashing story about Dallas look like a lovefest as to what Dallas people were saying about thier own city.(By the way the New York Times did a glowing story about Fort Worth and its coming into its own. Unlike Dallas New York says other cities ARE relavant). Its thos people that need to run Dallas. Not you. If they were to run Dallas. I would be very happy to work with Dallas. But until then.

I didn't post it because . Im not one to harp only about whats wrong with your city. Unlike you. But you got me thinking about posting it.


Don't mean to be an ass, but sometimes your posts are hard to read. The use of punctuation and grammar is terrible.

Why would I think that as irrelevant? You are very much misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not for abolishing city limits. I am not saying we need a regional government, though it is nice to see the NCTCOG, which is composed of local leaders, working together, using the regional approach. I am saying we all benefit when we work together and we lose when we don't. Do you like the TRE? Well kiss it goodbye if we didn't think locally. Like DFW Airport? Kiss it goodbye if the CAB didn't make us cooperate and work together. Do you know the main difference between the T and DART? DART is composed of 13 cities working together. We have rail that goes places and is helping to shape a region. Fort Worth has a crappy bus network in Fort Worth and two cities less than 10,000 people. While that isn't Fort Worth's fault, mainly Arlington's, it shows what happens when we don't work regionally. The T is now what the Dallas Transit System was before DART, very lacking.
DART works with the T on the TRE and is working with the DCTA in Carrolton. We all win when that happens. Ask Plano if the downtown Plano station is worth it to act as part of a region, or Richardson at Galatyn Parkway, or Garland at the downtown Garland station, or Carrolton on the new station in their downtown, or Farmer's Branch at their new station. Those two cities have new development going on to be ready by the time the new station is ready. Those cities would have none of that if they didn't cooperate with Dallas. This watching your back stuff is BS and I think that shows you to be ignorant of what it means to cooperate and what it could do for Fort Worth, just like the TRE and DFW have been good for Fort Worth (and don't give the that crap about Love, SWA was in its legal right to fly there and it was against the wishes of Dallas).

As for the DMN article, I could pick ten people who lived in Fort Worth and get quotes from them about how Fort Worth is a piss-hole. That means nothing. Please, and don't ignore this request, please find any Dallas official who said the other cities are irrelevant. Not a citizen, not a tourist, not anyone who has no decision-making power. Find me that and we'll move on. Until then, I'll continue with the inferiority complex talk that I get from Fort Worth. If you could just be happy with what you like, work to change what you don't and ignore the rest, we'd all be better off, instead of wishing for a new tallest that is 922 feet.

Please also find where I harped what is wrong with you city. I pointed out the lack of regional cooperation this board seems to favor. I like downtown Fort Worth, it has a lot going for it. I like the Stockyards. But other than that, there is a lot of mindless sprawl, just like Dallas. That's the post WWII, Sunbelt city way. However, Dallas is trying to move away from that pattern of development, as is evident by rail lines and the Forward Dallas plan which stresses better land use. Fort Worth, on the other hand is trying to encourage it, as is evident by the new SW "Parkway" and the sprawl development along Alliance. Dallas does have plans for a tollway inside the Trinity, but there are people fighting it. There seems to be a lot of support for the sprawl development of Fort Wort. If you like that, fine, but those are mistakes that Dallas (and Houston and Phoenix and LA etc.) made that Fort Worth is on the verge of making if they follow the same path.

If you were to go visit the DFW Urban Forum, you'll see my comments on what I think about downtown Fort Worth. I love the new developments announced in Sundance Square and am hoping for more. You see my posts about Grapevine's city council voting to put a measure on the ballot for it's citizens to join the T and get rail service. Same thing with Corinth and Shady Shores and the DCTA. It means all three of those cites are cooperating within the region. Grapevine's leaders have even come out to say they can't build their way out of congestion and need a rail line, very forward thinking in this area where the thought is usually we need a highway.

As for what's wrong with my city, I don't mind you telling me your opinion, especially if you have a solution. All ideas presented make for a better solution, if the final decision is unbiased.

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Aug 19 2006, 01:33 PM) View Post
What??? Either someone has been seriously mis-representing Fort Worth to you, or you're just sadly mistaken. I would say that 99.9% of us here in FW don't think like that. We DO think regionally and we DO recognize that we need Dallas, probably better than Dallas recognizes that it needs Fort Worth. What I think pisses most people off is when Fort Worth acknowledges the Dallas/Fort Worth region and other people (including many Dallasites) only acknowledge Dallas. Things like called DFWIA "Dallas International" or attributing 6 million people to the population of the "Dallas area." Jesus, it's not like we want to overtake the entire metroplex, we just want our fair share of the recognition.

Honestly, how much harder is it to say "DFW" than "Dallas"? wacko.gif


That is not Dallas's fault. Does the average person refer to Minneapolis when also talking Saint Paul. It isn't St Paul's or Minneapolis's fault. Same thing with Oakland in reference to San Fransico, although the reference is often the Bay Area, like ours is North Texas. Generally the main economic driver is the reference for the region. How many suburbs can you name from Detroit? Their downtown is less the economic driver than it was 20 or even 10 years ago, as they lose jobs to the suburbs. Doesn't mean we still don't refer to the area as Detroit, even though they really don't have the say to keep it that way. It is more human nature to be lazy and use abreviations or contractions.

QUOTE(safly @ Aug 19 2006, 07:03 PM) View Post
I would say YES! Just by the reaction of my fellow classmates/ friends turned young professionals who have lived in the Greater H-town area, L.A. ,Austin, and SFran. They have since then ultimately decided to head back home to good ol SA.


Ok, that may be in fact yours and theirs opinion. But the general consensus is that it is not, despite its continued desire to annex land and get a bigger population count to be considered a big city.
http://www.lboro.ac....c/citylist.html

#23 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 19 August 2006 - 10:07 PM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 19 2006, 09:53 PM) View Post

....Without Dallas, there would be no DFW Airport, TRE and possible no Fort Worth....

.... Like DFW Airport? Kiss it goodbye if the CAB didn't make us cooperate and work together.



BONK!!!! That's the kindest thing that I can say about your rant.

The fact that the FWD Airport straddles the Tarrant/Dallas County line as oppose to the Dallas/Collin County line should be conclusive to even someone like yourself that Fort Worth pulled the airport to the west..and that is indisputable. And how many so call "economic drivers" can you cite that had one of its "suburbs" dictate the location of its airport. If the Feds did not think of Fort Worth as a suburb; what give y'all the right to think so! I can assure that the Feds had to apply an equal amount of pressure upon Fort Worth to get us to cooperate with you. Your so-called "Gang of 13" have no spine and prefer to identify with you perhaps because of low self-esteem.

It is all too abundantly clear as evidenced by your rant that there is a lot of pinned-up frustration in your city in light of "pie-in-the-sky" bridges, back-to back stadium losses to neighboring cities; the buffoonery surrounding the Love Field fiasco, and by the chicanery of one of your own who mischievously erected the bronze cattle drive to stifled your city's efforts build a convention center hotel.

Oh, yes Fort Worth has some very specific and limited interest (EPA issues mainly) in cooperating with you; but it can just as well gither done without you in many ways!

Fort Worth, the Icon of Texas

#24 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 20 August 2006 - 01:51 AM

QUOTE(renamerusk @ Aug 19 2006, 11:07 PM) View Post
BONK!!!! That's the kindest thing that I can say about your rant.


Not sure what that means, but I should consider the source.

QUOTE(renamerusk @ Aug 19 2006, 11:07 PM) View Post
The fact that the FWD Airport straddles the Tarrant/Dallas County line as oppose to the Dallas/Collin County line should be conclusive to even someone like yourself that Fort Worth pulled the airport to the west..and that is indisputable. And how many so call "economic drivers" can you cite that had one of its "suburbs" dictate the location of its airport. If the Feds did not think of Fort Worth as a suburb; what give y'all the right to think so! I can assure that the Feds had to apply an equal amount of pressure upon Fort Worth to get us to cooperate with you. Your so-called "Gang of 13" have no spine and prefer to identify with you perhaps because of low self-esteem.


FWD Airport, so you have such a penis envy, you can't even call it its real name? Interesting. At the time of the 1968 Bond Agreement, Collin County was little more than an agricultural county. Besides, it would not have mattered. The CAB ordered Dallas and Fort Worth to work together, not Dallas, Fort Worth and Collin County. And please quote me where I called Fort Worth a suburb. I'm sure you can't. However, I can find you a quote where I called Fort Worth a central city. Please stop being stupid. Again, though, I should consider the source. You called your own city a suburb, not I. And what's this gang of 13? Our city council has 15 members, so that's not it.

QUOTE(renamerusk @ Aug 19 2006, 11:07 PM) View Post
It is all too abundantly clear as evidenced by your rant that there is a lot of pinned-up frustration in your city in light of "pie-in-the-sky" bridges, back-to back stadium losses to neighboring cities; the buffoonery surrounding the Love Field fiasco, and by the chicanery of one of your own who mischievously erected the bronze cattle drive to stifled your city's efforts build a convention center hotel.


I love what's happening in downtown Dallas. The bridges will sort themselves out. I'd rather dream big and fail than dream small and succeed, the results are near the same, but when the other succeeds, good things happen.
Back-to-back huh? Well previous to the Cowboys stadium was the AAC and that went through, at one-third the price of the Cowboys Stadium with four times the events and a dense tourist/residential/retail/office development attached. I'll take that any day, though I think that price was too high and not what was promised. And for 425, the price the Cowboys offered Dallas for this once-in-a-lifetime deal, the return is little to negative. There are tons of independent studies prove that stadiums are not economic boons and at best move spent disposable income from one area. There has been nothing around the Ballpark and there will be nothing around the stadium.
The "buffoonery" is actually brought on by Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and the local agreement co-signed by Mike Moncrief (sp?), so if there is any bufoonery, which our mayor does indeed bring a lot of, then it actually goes two ways. I wish my senator wasn't telling the department of justice, you know the one that oversees anti-trust issues, to stay out of it because there is no problem, when in fact there is specific language within the compromise that addresses the issue and calls for blanket-immunity. That would also be the same sen whose husband receives a lot of money from DFW airport as a contractor. Interesting. Dallas's rep, meanwhile calls for a closing of an airport within her district that would shut down a place that employs 20,000 people and would run-off a pioneer in the aviation industry. We are both being screwed by our elected political representatives.
As for the convention center hotel, it is once again apparent that you aren't up-to-date on the issue. Pioneer Park isn't, and never was a sight. Either you are being dumb on purpose for a rise or you are truely ignorant to the issue, either way it harkens back to the statement of consider the source.

QUOTE(renamerusk @ Aug 19 2006, 11:07 PM) View Post
Oh, yes Fort Worth has some very specific and limited interest (EPA issues mainly) in cooperating with you; but it can just as well gither done without you in many ways!


I'm sure, but in a much slower and costlier way, not in your or my best interest. Ever wonder why Dallas County, with more residences, retail destinations and job centers has lower air pollution than Tarrant? Because DART is a coalition of 13 cities that work together to achieve something. Meanwhile, we have Fort Worth, Arlington, Southlake, etc. trying to put up Berlin Walls.

QUOTE(renamerusk @ Aug 19 2006, 11:07 PM) View Post
Fort Worth, the Icon of Texas


Actually, that'd probably be the Alamo in SA, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, the Capital Building in Austin, or the oil rigs found everywhere in the state.

Is there an ignore feature? There is one on the DFW board. I don't mind Now in Denton. There is at least knowledge mixed in. I admire NiD's wishes for a better Fort Worth. But there isn't the blatant shortcomings your posts have and continue to have, mixed with spite because your city doesn't get mentioned as the centerpiece of a long running evening soap opera of the '80's. Just the amount on inane ignorance and hatred is amazing.

#25 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 21 August 2006 - 01:22 PM

[quote name='FoUTASportscaster' date='Aug 20 2006, 02:51 AM' post='28926']
[quote name='renamerusk' post='28923' date='Aug 19 2006, 11:07 PM']

........ so you have such a pe*is envy,
^^^
Are you talking about Reunion Tower? UTASport will you do one thing please. Stop useing the word pe*is for to make your point on your rant. You done this about 3 times in last few weeks. Think of the kids ok?

Is there an ignore feature? There is one on the DFW board. I don't mind Now in Denton. There is at least knowledge mixed in. I admire NiD's wishes for a better Fort Worth. But there isn't the blatant shortcomings your posts have and continue to have, mixed with spite because your city doesn't get mentioned as the centerpiece of a long running evening soap opera of the '80's. Just the amount on inane ignorance and hatred is amazing.
[/quote]
^^^
"San Antonio suffer from the same inferiority complex you guys do" UTASport all that San Antonio did was pass you in population and you rant againts them? I bet 99.9% San Antonians don't even know or even care. And you talk about being very chidish?

Give me a REAL BOOK and a page number to go to. Like I did. Don't just say "if you research the history books" Dude that all I ever do. I read Dallas related books all the time. I find nothing at all to make your point. Or rather rant. In fact I find more anti-Dallas stories all the time. If you want me to show you what books and what page? I would be more than happy to show you. And I am not even talking about the book last year about USAs worst cities in America.

I'll tell you what find the book I told you about. I say again if its in the Fort Worth Library . It has to be in the Dallas Library. You don't have to read the whole thing. (But thier some nice pics and stories in there ) And come back in a week, 5, 10 weeks what ever. And give me your honest opinion about Dallas and annexation. Those Dallas city leaders were not idiots. ( Sport I have to tell you most mayors in the world ARE businessmen and women) . Dallas did fix a wrong. But was somewhat too late. And lay off the coffee dude. shakehead.gif

#26 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 21 August 2006 - 06:02 PM

[quote name='safly' post='28903' date='Aug 19 2006, 07:03 PM']I would say YES! Just by the reaction of my fellow classmates/ friends turned young professionals who have lived in the Greater H-town area, L.A. ,Austin, and SFran. They have since then ultimately decided to head back home to good ol SA.[/quote]

Ok, that may be in fact yours and theirs opinion. But the general consensus is that it is not, despite its continued desire to annex land and get a bigger population count to be considered a big city.
http://www.lboro.ac....c/citylist.html
[/quote]


Au CONTRAIRE! ???

SA could care less about a big whoop in becoming a major city. People will go and people will stay in SA just like long before and long after my time. You may be right in regards to the GENERAL CONCENSUS, but it's neither here nor there. SA and SF have quite a lot in common, minus a HUGE ASIAN population. But I am sure that day will come, and that's a good thing. SA does not DESIRE ANNEXATION, in fact smaller towns near and encompassed by SA have thrived well within their own frame of local government and resources. I've made plenty of examples of those cities who hav ebeen established for generations. And that will MOST LIKELY continue according to my "concensus". Think education and funding/ distribution for just a moment. Do these towns REALLY want to be part of a grander scheme here, or would they prefer to council themselves???

When you are already a top 5 national market in tourism, why worry about EXPANDING to other PROPERS??? Makes no sense here.

Now when it comes to AUTHENTIC MExican food, then you are right in how SA would prefer to take over the world in that respects.

Hee Hee. smile.gif

COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#27 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 07:11 PM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 21 2006, 02:22 PM) View Post
Are you talking about Reunion Tower? UTASport will you do one thing please. Stop useing the word pe*is for to make your point on your rant. You done this about 3 times in last few weeks. Think of the kids ok?


It is a medical term. I have no shame to say a medical term.

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 21 2006, 02:22 PM) View Post
"San Antonio suffer from the same inferiority complex you guys do" UTASport all that San Antonio did was pass you in population and you rant againts them? I bet 99.9% San Antonians don't even know or even care. And you talk about being very chidish?


Go to skyscraper page and you'll see how bad the SA boys defend their city against the constant critics. Let me say again. I couldn't care less about population numbers. If Fort Worth annexed everything all the way from 820 West to Midland and Amarillo, they could be the "largest" city in the U.S. Anyone here wanna say that would make them better? That's all San Antonio did. I've said this before on this board and I will say it again, and hopefully it will stick with you this time. The best way in my opinion to gauge a city is density, and Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio fall woefully short in this category.

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 21 2006, 02:22 PM) View Post
Give me a REAL BOOK and a page number to go to. Like I did. Don't just say "if you research the history books" Dude that all I ever do. I read Dallas related books all the time. I find nothing at all to make your point. Or rather rant. In fact I find more anti-Dallas stories all the time. If you want me to show you what books and what page? I would be more than happy to show you. And I am not even talking about the book last year about USAs worst cities in America.


Please keep your anger under control. The quote simply said if you read a history book about Dallas, you'll know that the leaders were buisness leaders. That is all I said. Since you have read a history book, then you know Dallas's leaders were buisness men. Calm Down.

While I do other things, in regards to reading history books..
QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 21 2006, 02:22 PM) View Post
that all I ever do
too

You won't find my points in a history book. In fact, it is appearing more and more you aren't even reading my posts. I said if they knew then, what we know now, some things might have changed. At the time pre-WWII Germany was doing what it thought was in its best interest. Turns out that wasn't the case, but they didn't know it at the time. It is the same with sprawl. These same leaders also thought it was in the best interest for Dallas to build and extensive network of tunnels and skywalks in downtown. That has turned out to be a very bad idea, as street level activity and retail are dead, thanks in large part to that. But at the time they thought they were doing what is best. You won't find that in any history book. Consensus today by urban planners is that this was a bad idea.

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 21 2006, 02:22 PM) View Post
I'll tell you what find the book I told you about. I say again if its in the Fort Worth Library . It has to be in the Dallas Library. You don't have to read the whole thing. (But thier some nice pics and stories in there ) And come back in a week, 5, 10 weeks what ever. And give me your honest opinion about Dallas and annexation. Those Dallas city leaders were not idiots. ( Sport I have to tell you most mayors in the world ARE businessmen and women) . Dallas did fix a wrong. But was somewhat too late. And lay off the coffee dude. shakehead.gif


I don't need to find the book you mentioned. Odds are I have read it, but it still doesn't pertain to the point I am making. Dallas now is trying to undo the policies made that encouraged sprawl. Btw, I never said the leaders were idiots. I said at the time, they did what they thought was best, it just that it wasn't, which we know now the problems they caused, with the best of intentions.
The City of Dallas has helped fund the McKinney Avenue Transit Authority. It was RL Thornton at the helm of the Dallas when they yanked the plug on the streetcar. They were doing what they thought was best at the time. We know now that is was not. All sorts of things like that encourage sprawl, parking requirements, setback ordinances, freeway construction, etc. If you look at the Forward Dallas plan, you'll see some of these things corrected. There is to be less parking space requirement, which means better land-use which in turn gives Dallas increased tax revenue. Surface lots are the lowest form of tax revenue for a city. Yet that's what annexing a lot of land encourages. You like that dirty air? Same thing. At the time, these effects weren't known. Dallas now has to try for a 1.2 billion dollar bond, of which more than half is for maintenance. The reason is the taxable area doesn't pay for itself. The sprawl measures of the '50's and '60's encouraged this. Unless you have a Southlake/Highland Park type sprawl, the tax revenue seldom will cover its expenses. Again, that's why old suburbs are struggling now.

As for mayors being buisness people, I'm not sure, but that is not always the case. However in Dallas, the civic elite have always been the political leaders. That had been the case until the Supreme Court shot down the at-large council representation, but you know that from reading it in your history books.

QUOTE(safly @ Aug 21 2006, 07:02 PM) View Post
Au CONTRAIRE! ???

SA could care less about a big whoop in becoming a major city. People will go and people will stay in SA just like long before and long after my time. You may be right in regards to the GENERAL CONCENSUS, but it's neither here nor there. SA and SF have quite a lot in common, minus a HUGE ASIAN population. But I am sure that day will come, and that's a good thing. SA does not DESIRE ANNEXATION, in fact smaller towns near and encompassed by SA have thrived well within their own frame of local government and resources. I've made plenty of examples of those cities who hav ebeen established for generations. And that will MOST LIKELY continue according to my "concensus". Think education and funding/ distribution for just a moment. Do these towns REALLY want to be part of a grander scheme here, or would they prefer to council themselves???

When you are already a top 5 national market in tourism, why worry about EXPANDING to other PROPERS??? Makes no sense here.

Now when it comes to AUTHENTIC MExican food, then you are right in how SA would prefer to take over the world in that respects.

Hee Hee. smile.gif


Yes SA does well, but there are moves that say that they aren't happy in what they are. They are trying to lure the Marlins there. They built a football stadium to get an NFL team, without an agreement, and now they have a bowl game and some sort of NCAA tournament every year. They have tried to get a huge convention center hotel at the expense of "lesser" things. Those examples indicate they are trying to make themselves a global city. I will admit this is my perception, but all that coupled with the recent annexation, indicates to me they are trying to make themselves a "big" city.

If SA doesn't desire to annex, then why have they annexed large amounts of land recently?

And no, there aren't a lot of similarities. Sa has a dense urban core with losts of offices, homes and retail in a walkable environment. SA just has a walkable area, though a lot less dense. They both have economies in which tourism plays an intricate part. That's pretty much where it ends. SA, like Dallas, has lots of mindless sprawl in a car-centric environment, with a lack of decent transit. SF, on the otherhand, has lots dense areas that are walkable and pedestrian oriented with a solid transit system.

#28 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 21 August 2006 - 07:40 PM

I think the Metroplex ranks #6 in Core Based population statistics. Here's a best guess recall of the 2005 estimates:

New York - 24 million
Los Angeles - 19
Chicago - 9.4
Washington-Baltimore - 7.5
San Fran-San Jo-Oak - 7.1
DFW 6.2

It's something like that.

#29 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:52 AM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 21 2006, 08:11 PM) View Post


I don't need to find the book you mentioned. Odds are I have read it, but it still doesn't pertain to the point I am making.


^^^Oh really now? Read it? Good.... Now that takes the cake. Man it flys in your face about what your talking about. You know even more than Dallas city hall and leaders? Dallas leaders that work at city hall that come the city at large. I now know why thier are so many books and stories slamming Dallas. From the New York Times to even Dallasites. With rants like yours. Thier will always be anti-Dallas books and stories.

Look I don't want to be apart of this "Dallas Area" I didnt vote to be in one. Feds can say and do all they can to mess things up. "Dallas Area" does not tell the truth or say anything about Fort Worth. Fort Worth a major growing city. Thats why I think President Ronald Reagan is a hero. Thankfully thiers more talk from Fort Worth city hall to change this "Dallas Area". If we win fine. If we lose? Hey we win some lose some. But we keep fighting. Either way it's not your problem.

#30 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 22 August 2006 - 10:23 AM

I'm on vacation in San Diego and Seattle right now, so I haven't been hanging out on the DFW forums, but FoUTA, why are you trying to discuss anything with NID?? Ignore his posts as I do, and spend the time DISCUSSING topics with someone who can form a logical thought or a coherent sentence.

#31 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 22 August 2006 - 10:30 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 22 2006, 11:23 AM) View Post

I'm on vacation in San Diego and Seattle right now, so I haven't been hanging out on the DFW forums, but FoUTA, why are you trying to discuss anything with NID?? Ignore his posts as I do, and spend the time DISCUSSING topics with someone who can form a logical thought or a coherent sentence.


When will you be logical?

#32 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 12:01 PM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 22 2006, 10:52 AM) View Post
Oh really now? Read it? Good.... Now that takes the cake. Man it flys in your face about what your talking about. You know even more than Dallas city hall and leaders? Dallas leaders that work at city hall that come the city at large. I now know why thier are so many books and stories slamming Dallas. From the New York Times to even Dallasites. With rants like yours. Thier will always be anti-Dallas books and stories.


Okay, and...? It still doesn't pertain to the point I am making. We know now more better than we know then, yes. It's not me, it is present day leaders in central cities from coast-to-coast. Yes, we know more now than then. Should I repeat that since that is where you are stumbling? We know more now than then. One more time. What they thought they were doing for the greater good then, doesn't mean it was for the greater good now. Understand. Leaders from coast to coast realize this now, but not then. Another way. There were unintended consequences from actions then that planners know today, that wasn't known then. Got it, or do I need to keep going?

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 22 2006, 10:52 AM) View Post
Look I don't want to be apart of this "Dallas Area" I didnt vote to be in one. Feds can say and do all they can to mess things up. "Dallas Area" does not tell the truth or say anything about Fort Worth. Fort Worth a major growing city. Thats why I think President Ronald Reagan is a hero. Thankfully thiers more talk from Fort Worth city hall to change this "Dallas Area". If we win fine. If we lose? Hey we win some lose some. But we keep fighting. Either way it's not your problem.


Technically, the government defines it as Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. Dallas area may be more slang. The longer the chip is on your shoulder, the harder things are. As I said before, enjoy what you like, change what you don't and ignore the rest. This would fall under ignore. If you do what's best for Fort Worth, then that's all that matters. Sometimes, that means cooperating with your neighbors, like with the TRE. Fort Worth is better after cooperation.

This is why I prefer to think regionally. I don't get offended when someone says something bad about my city. If it's true, there's a greater than zero chance I know it already, if it's not I don't care. Fort Worth is trying to better itself. That's great. It will help everyone from Arlington to Dallas. Increased economic activity in one area sees a spill-over effect in all areas.

For Example, if there are two distinct downtowns in the area, that only bolsters the tourist activity. Wanna see historical crime areas? Come to Hell's Half Acre in Fort Worth and The Grassy Knoll in Dallas. We all win. When we compete, like in the example we lose. Because no one will see just those on its own. A bundle of sticks is stronger together than each stick seperately.

That's all I have said. If you want to isolate yourself, there's a time period for that. It was the '50's through '70's. But I have to tell you, the Berlin Wall was torn down, so that period is done and over. In comparison, Dallas and Fort Worth can get along, like the TRE and benefit each other. Unless you are saying you don't like what the TRE has done for Fort Worth?

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 22 2006, 11:23 AM) View Post

I'm on vacation in San Diego and Seattle right now, so I haven't been hanging out on the DFW forums, but FoUTA, why are you trying to discuss anything with NID?? Ignore his posts as I do, and spend the time DISCUSSING topics with someone who can form a logical thought or a coherent sentence.


I see the wisdom in this post.

#33 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 22 August 2006 - 01:57 PM

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 20 2006, 02:51 AM) View Post

I'd rather dream big and fail than dream small and succeed

OMG, I love that statement. My father said something similar in regards to FW and Dallas when I was kid.

#34 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:42 PM

Come on FUTOSJFM%$^&^&,

SA gave the MARLINS an "OPTION" and a very good one at that to present a case for a move to SA. Marlins have shown disinterest as of late, so SA has left it alone and said that the deals off for now (according to the MAyor and CMgr.). I mean these guys and GALS actually have the backbone to tell a 2 time World Series Champ to get talkin or move on over to hot and bothersome LVegas or El Phoenix. SA already has proven it's sports traditional ways with the SPURS (YEAH!) and a rich TX Minor league historical sports franchise (for like 60 +years). Basically taking little and yielding quite a lot for futures sake. *(Note to FW civic minded leaders, read up on a city building book that SA has written. Over and over again.) I guess you can tell how bad I want FW to flourish in it's own sports franchise path.

SA has many attractions that draw people and "air play" from all major markets. In regards to urban core centric/ viability/annexation. The only land I see being eyed for such considered "local major" projects are the extension of the SA river confluence to nearby city-centralized neighborhoods, Brack area and AHeights to be exact. The city is also anticipating a major PGA backed golf village to compete witht the already sanctioned courses like LA Cantera and The Dominion. This is city backed and a well thought out venture with WATER PRESERVATION in mind as TOP PRIORITY. Speaking of, while enjoying a Sundance Square night on the town last Saturday, I did notice a SA Water League SUV parked oput in front of Cabo Grande's that night. Perhaps FW is lending an ear to SA's "water ways"???

One problem that I see in SA is the musical arts league and scene lacking some energy/momentum these days, the SA symphony league NEEDS to get their act together and earn support. With a MAJOR TOYOTA plant move coming in, hopefully that support will be evident from a willing corporate support level. On the plus, AS ALWAYS, Military presence and operations are STILL in full throttle and I/WE appreciate all that they do, as well as the Naval reserves out in San Fran area.

SA has it's own legs to stand on and I have plenty more to present in that case. San Fran is a beautiful destination, but to live there and SA are like you said, two completely different WORLDS, and most SA'ians agree that is just fine with them. KEEP THEM HIPPIES and the likes of GALLAGHER OVER THERE! tongue.gif (Speaking of, Spiral DINER Sunday AYCE Vegan Blueberry/Traditional pancakes. YUMMMMM!) cheeburga.gif (that's a VEGGIE BURGER, honestly) biggrin.gif . But to downplay SA as a major market or pigeon hole them as a city which is lacking this yet YEARNING that is quite foolish. I am certain that SAn Frans would yearn lower taxes and a disapperaing housing bubble??? Who knows, can't REALLY speak for them, but to be HOUSE RICH and dining ala SPAM is not my idea of LIVING. So the next time you bite into a juicy-flavorful-skillet-seared-sizzling BEEF FAJITA, YOUR WELCOME! WORD to your moderator. dry.gif

-SAFLY
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#35 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:00 PM

The CMSA rank is probably the best indication of pure city size, regardless of the MSA or main city rank.

Right now someone in Mesa, Arizona is touting that their city is "larger" than Atlanta, St. Louis, and Minneapolis....
City Ranking sample:
41 Mesa, Az city: 437,454
42 Atlanta city: 419,122
43 Omaha city: 409,416
44 Oakland city: 397,976
45 Tulsa city: 383,764
46 Miami city: 379,724
47 Honolulu CDP: 377,260
48 Minneapolis city: 373,943
49 Colorado Springs city: 369,363
50 Arlington city: 359,467
51 Wichita city: 353,823
52 St. Louis city: 343,279


US CENSUS - RANK CMSA 2004
1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,858,830
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,516,110
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,608,458
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 7,986,615
5 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,159,693
6 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,951,797
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 5,899,336
8 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH 5,809,111
9 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,428,855
10 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,361,723
11 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,280,752
12 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA 5034362
13 Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3763569
14 Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3437464
15 Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2942303
16 St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2824778
17 Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2566162
18 Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2494949
19 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2159756
20 Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2100501


#36 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:13 AM

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Aug 19 2006, 01:33 PM) View Post

Honestly, how much harder is it to say "DFW" than "Dallas"? wacko.gif


...or Dallas area conf.gif

It's because they are arrogant jerks. rotflmao.gif

#37 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:38 AM

Being in New York City and New Jersey this past week reminded me of how suburban Fort Worth and the great, gigantic Dallas really are.


#38 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 23 August 2006 - 11:34 AM

Right CJ, that's really logical. Everyone in Dallas has a vandetta against FW and are all on a mission to hide the city from the rest of the world. I've heard a fair share of FW leaders and businesses refer to the region as "DFW" area also. The accusation screams of insecurity. I was on the Dallas board this morning, and there are several post there regarding FW projects. I don't think a negative comment was said about any of them. I've said it many times since I've been in DFW, FW is a lot more concerned about Dallas than the other way around. Mention Dallas on this board and you guys can barely stop yourselves from making senseless, illogical statements. If FW is blanketed by Dallas, that's FW's fault. I didn't hear of FW until I was fourteen years old and visited the city for the first time. And I quickly understood why I had never heard of it. It had nothing to do with Dallas.

And comparing the surburbanity of DFW to New York and Jersey is moot. Dallas and FW just like Houston, Atlanta, L.A., Miami, etc. all experienced massive growth and immigration during the era of the automobile. So ofcourse our cities are much more surburban, our entire infrastructure is different. The way we build our homes, shopping centers, and streets all revolve around the use of our car. The idea of mass transit is still relatively new to many of these cities (those that have it). The fact that we don't have neighborhoods full of historical browstones on narrow, walkable, treelined streets, with friendly little neighborhood cafes, coffeshops, grocers, and dry cleaners that you can stop and visit as you walk home from work after getting off the subway is moot, because this region has never had that.

#39 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 23 August 2006 - 11:45 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 23 2006, 12:34 PM) View Post

Mention Dallas on this board and you guys can barely stop yourselves from making senseless, illogical statements.


I agree with most of that post, but of the 50 or so regular members who post here, the number who get bent out of shape over Dallas issues is vastly outnumbered.


#40 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:31 PM

QUOTE(JBB @ Aug 23 2006, 12:45 PM) View Post

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 23 2006, 12:34 PM) View Post

Mention Dallas on this board and you guys can barely stop yourselves from making senseless, illogical statements.


I agree with most of that post, but of the 50 or so regular members who post here, the number who get bent out of shape over Dallas issues is vastly outnumbered.


Its all very silly. Most Intelligent Americans unless their heads are buried in the sand realize that there are two distinct cities here. Both progressive and fast growing. I'm just interested in the numbers.


#41 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 23 August 2006 - 08:29 PM

Where does SA fall in this CMSA (Country Music Songwriters Assoc.???)

SA, I would gather by the shown examples, would fall pretty low on the list considering that SA is pretty much a metropolis island onto itself in Central South Texas. For example there is no Boerne-Kerrville-New Braunfels-San Antonio reference, like the San Jose-San Fran-Oakland setup. RIGHT?

But what does it exactly tell you about density, jobs, retirees, schools and so forth. Basically, what people REALLY want to find out about living here or there.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#42 ghughes

ghughes

    Senior Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:University West

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:20 PM

What would anyone expect to understand from a snapshot? There is no way that urban areas can be compared with one, or even a few, statistics. They are a bit too complex for that.

#43 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:24 AM

QUOTE(safly @ Aug 23 2006, 09:29 PM) View Post

Where does SA fall in this CMSA (Country Music Songwriters Assoc.???)

SA, I would gather by the shown examples, would fall pretty low on the list considering that SA is pretty much a metropolis island onto itself in Central South Texas. For example there is no Boerne-Kerrville-New Braunfels-San Antonio reference, like the San Jose-San Fran-Oakland setup. RIGHT?

But what does it exactly tell you about density, jobs, retirees, schools and so forth. Basically, what people REALLY want to find out about living here or there.


It tells you nothing, really........except raw numbers, but I do think CMSA where applicable is the best indicator of overall size.
San Antonio is not currently defined as a CMSA (Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area) because there is not more than one defined metro area adjacent to each other creating a larger grouped or consolidated area. San Antonio is, however defined as an MSA (see above minus the 'C'). I would guess Austin will pass SA within 10 to 15 yrs, it is growing at a faster rate.

2004 Ranking:
30 San Antonio, TX 1,854,050 MSA
31 Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI 1,709,926 CMSA
32 Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,688,385 CMSA
33 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport Ne 1,644,250 MSA
34 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River 1,628,808 MSA
35 Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT 1,559,230 CMSA
36 Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC 1,473,679 CMSA
37 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN 1,470,571 CMSA
38 Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC 1,467,434 CMSA
39 Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,412,271 MSA

#44 mikedsjr

mikedsjr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Location:Fossil Creek
  • Interests:Photography, Ecology, Church

Posted 24 August 2006 - 12:11 PM

This is why Fort Worth needs its own sports team named after Fort Worth.

This is all about competition. And nothing would be more enjoyable to have the fans of their city than to see cities have a their professional sports team battle it out against each other. Especially Football. I can see it now. Dallas Cowboys in Arlington and the Fort Worth Steers on the river of Downtown Fort Worth.

Dallas Cowboys vs Fort Worth Steers
Next on Monday Night Football.

#45 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 24 August 2006 - 03:44 PM

^^^ That would be the best rivaly in the NFL or on the face of the planet! wub.gif

What's the friendliest way to deal with the ol' city rivalry than to deal with it on the field? Oh what a fantasy! happy.gif


#46 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 24 August 2006 - 04:18 PM

Ehh. Pro Football is for SISSIES??? ohmy.gif

I say you do it the OLD "Warriors Come out and PLaaaya!" FREE tot he viewing public, no outrageous season ticketsw to hold onto, or parking passes to get by way of a HELOC.

Now that would rock!

Ohhh! Ohhh! I want the Yankee pinstripe uniform.

STEERS???

Come on now, I can hear the Cowboys riding the STEERS jokes just flowin.

And why is SA only an MSA again??? Hello, SA-San Marcos-Boerne-Kerrville-Seguin would be a very appropriate CMSA here.

I cannot see Austin surpassing SA in 30 years. One, Austin would have to ANNEX theheck out of that C.Texas hill country range, and I don't see that being allowed any time soon. Two, housing prices would have to hit an ALL-TIME LOW before any mass migration of homeowners would be foreseeable. Three, SA and it's military town attraction will suit the needs of our country's service men and women for years to come. Fourth, The ALAMO over here and THE Clock Tower over there. You decide on that one. What happens when them WINNING Horns all of a sudden lose their luster, down she goes for AUSTIN, based on my 12 year observation.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#47 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE(safly @ Aug 24 2006, 05:18 PM) View Post

And why is SA only an MSA again??? Hello, SA-San Marcos-Boerne-Kerrville-Seguin would be a very appropriate CMSA here.

I cannot see Austin surpassing SA in 30 years. One, Austin would have to ANNEX theheck out of that C.Texas hill country range, and I don't see that being allowed any time soon. Two, housing prices would have to hit an ALL-TIME LOW before any mass migration of homeowners would be foreseeable. Three, SA and it's military town attraction will suit the needs of our country's service men and women for years to come. Fourth, The ALAMO over here and THE Clock Tower over there. You decide on that one. What happens when them WINNING Horns all of a sudden lose their luster, down she goes for AUSTIN, based on my 12 year observation.


Safly: I admire your committment & promotion of San Antonio....u sure your not on the Chamber of Commerce.
CMSA's, are reserved for the largest urbanized areas......not sure about Kerrville fitting in there....

San Antonio MSA includes: Bexar Co, TX Comal Co, TX & Guadalupe Co, TX
Austin MSA includes: Hays Co, TX, Travis Co, TX, & Williamson Co, TX

Between 1990 & 2000
San Antonio MSA grew by 21.6%
Austin MSA grew by 47.7%


#48 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 26 August 2006 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 22 2006, 02:57 PM) View Post

QUOTE(FoUTASportscaster @ Aug 20 2006, 02:51 AM) View Post

I'd rather dream big and fail than dream small and succeed

OMG, I love that statement. My father said something similar in regards to FW and Dallas when I was kid.


Your from Washington D.C. vjackson right?.......... Oh my God !............Anyway Ladies and Gentlemen . As hard proof that UTASport and vjackson don't know what thier talking about. Read what DALLAS people had to say. Go to the Dallas NYT Article post................... Read it yourself !..................... dry.gif

#49 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 26 August 2006 - 01:53 PM

QUOTE(SLO @ Aug 26 2006, 01:20 AM) View Post

QUOTE(safly @ Aug 24 2006, 05:18 PM) View Post

And why is SA only an MSA again??? Hello, SA-San Marcos-Boerne-Kerrville-Seguin would be a very appropriate CMSA here.

I cannot see Austin surpassing SA in 30 years. One, Austin would have to ANNEX theheck out of that C.Texas hill country range, and I don't see that being allowed any time soon. Two, housing prices would have to hit an ALL-TIME LOW before any mass migration of homeowners would be foreseeable. Three, SA and it's military town attraction will suit the needs of our country's service men and women for years to come. Fourth, The ALAMO over here and THE Clock Tower over there. You decide on that one. What happens when them WINNING Horns all of a sudden lose their luster, down she goes for AUSTIN, based on my 12 year observation.


Safly: I admire your committment & promotion of San Antonio....u sure your not on the Chamber of Commerce.
CMSA's, are reserved for the largest urbanized areas......not sure about Kerrville fitting in there....

San Antonio MSA includes: Bexar Co, TX Comal Co, TX & Guadalupe Co, TX
Austin MSA includes: Hays Co, TX, Travis Co, TX, & Williamson Co, TX

Between 1990 & 2000
San Antonio MSA grew by 21.6%
Austin MSA grew by 47.7%



I'll take that as a compliment. But why not add Kerr County and Bulverde??? Droves of people are moving there and still holding jobs in the SA City Limits. So what's Austin's MSA or CMSA, post TECH BOOM???

I know for a fact that SA grew some 55% between 1994 and 2004. And the RIVER/ALAMO CITY is still prospering beyond her expectations. Still managed very well. I do give Austin PROPS for being a town you would want to wake up in a party of 200 people by a college apartment at about 5am. And the kegs still have not floated. I say keep it up A-town.

I DO support the SACoC. And the FWCoC too. So what about it???
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#50 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 26 August 2006 - 09:10 PM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 26 2006, 12:15 PM) View Post

Your from Washington D.C. vjackson right?.......... Oh my God !............Anyway Ladies and Gentlemen . As hard proof that UTASport and vjackson don't know what thier talking about. Read what DALLAS people had to say. Go to the Dallas NYT Article post................... Read it yourself !..................... dry.gif

I've never been one for name calling on any forum, but I'll break that rule and just go right ahead and call you an idiot. Nothing you say makes sense. I can't even rebuke many of your lame attacks, not because they're clever, but just because they're so stupid I can't understand most of them. You seem to be so insecure about FW, you constantly feel a need to attack everything Dallas. Which is fine with me, I don't care. And regarding the NYT article, there are people living in Dallas that hate it here, just like there are people living in FW that hate it there. I know several on both sides of DFW, so what is your point?? No, don't try to explain it, I won't understand it anyway. BTW, I'm not from DC, I lived there for awhile. Have you ever lived anywhere else??? Have you ever been anywhere outside of DFW??? You don't sound as if you've ever ventured as far as your front yard...not even to elementary school. I get the feeling you were home schooled by parents whom were also home schooled by thier parents. I love a good debate with anyone, and I'm not saying I'm the most intelligent person in the world, but some people are just too stupid to argue with...like you. So if you can't summon up a coherent thought, don't bother responding to anything I say. I'm bored being a witness to you continuously embarrasing yourself.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users