Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Population Census


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 mikedsjr

mikedsjr

    Member

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

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:47 AM

I was doing a generalized research to understand the how Fort Worth grew. What seems to confuse me is the period between 1960 to about 1980. The growth of Fort Worth basically died during this period. When you look at the World Population Growth and Fort Worth's growth it doesn't make sense. I understand the Cattle industry died out early in the 60's but did this really kill Fort Worth that much? And did people start moving eastward towards Dallas during this period for work?

#2 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 14 October 2005 - 01:20 PM

Nahh. They just moved towards Frisco and McKinney and Arlington and Irving, that's all.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#3 mikedsjr

mikedsjr

    Member

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:11 AM

QUOTE(safly @ Oct 14 2005, 02:20 PM) View Post

Nahh. They just moved towards Frisco and McKinney and Arlington and Irving, that's all.


If that is true, then why? Dallas didn't have this problem during this period.

#4 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 04:28 PM

60's to 80's was def. a time to be IN D-town. Remember, they built a show around that place in that time. The suburban sprawl was also taking in effect, FW as a whole just didn't provide that needed excitement to live near and Dallas WAS the scene. Unfortunately, Dallas was also the $$$cene, as in expensive and lavish for the "F's" scene, that's FASHION and FINANCE.

FW, was still dragging on it's "Western Heritage Heels", but showed noticeable change in it's aerodynamic endeavours globally. Six Flags came about, Rangers moved in and became a MLB newbie, so Arlington starts it's boom. Everyone wants to be near the Cowboys of old, the GREAT years with TL. SMU was a force to be reckoned with in the old SWC, "Red River SOut" is gaining NATIONAL attention, the Cotton Bowl was THE GREATEST BOWL scene this side of the Rockies, and The Texas State Fair was just peaking. So what was happening in FW at that time? Well, I'm not even sure the FW Stockyards was what it is now, no convention center yet, big medical center, and of course no SS.

So it was live closer to Dallas for cheap, but not IN Dallas. Apartment Complex living was becoming the craze too. Where you could populate 5 homes of about 2.5 persons each, you now populated 50 or so. Economy living in a post WWII and Vietnam era.

These are just my thoughts on that Q, an observation of sorts in relation to that TREND. Really no determined Cause and Effect studies here. But VERY good Q for others in the Forum to comment on.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#5 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:02 PM

About a year ago, conversations about Fort Worth's population made me wonder similar things. I noted, as you did, that between the 1960 and 1980 censuses Fort Worth's growth rate was very low; it even declined between 1970 and 1980. Why?

(Fort Worth's growth was also low between 1930 and 1940, but it was in line with the state's and really the nation's.)

I never found a definitive answer. I didn't really research it that much. My theory was that it was the work of several things:

*Improvements in transportation made it more practical for people to move away from central cities [changing the slope of the Bid Rent Function(?)]. This affected both Fort Worth and Dallas, of course.

* At the same time, the same improvements in transportation began (or sped up) the aggregation of Dallas and Fort Worth's reasonably separate worlds into a more regional economy.

* By 1960, Dallas was almost twice as large as Fort Worth in terms of population. It had more people in 1960 than Fort Worth does now. Dallas was the 14th largest city in the nation. Fort Worth, roughly the size Arlington is now, was 34th. I'll assume, then, that Dallas at this time had correspondingly more of the things you find in a city: more infrastructure, more retail, more businesses, more accountants & lawyers, and so on (as safly mentioned above).

* During this period, the Manufacturing Belt began to oxidize into the Rust Belt. People began to migrate to the Sun Belt looking for work and mild winters. Companies began to move to places where they could realize lower operating costs.

* As some of these jobs and workers made their way into this growing region, Dallas had a bit of an advantage in several ways. People may have found that Dallas had more of the amenities they expected from a larger city. Companies may have found Dallas more attractive because it had more lawyers and accountants financial service companies and such. It had a larger work force. Perhaps Dallas' leadership also worked harder to lure them. Once Dallas (okay, and its northern suburbs) began attracting a concentration of employers, its advantage in attracting people obviously grew. And vice versa.

** Some of these people came from Fort Worth.

Said another way:

Basically, improved mobility caused both the Fort Worth and Dallas CBDs to lose some of their gravity; with a higher concentration of businesses that service other businesses, Dallas maintained some critical mass and businesses moving to (or within) the area and that still needed (or preferred) a central city location would have found the Dallas CBD relatively more attractive. Businesses that didn't need a central city location could go anywhere, but ultimately many began to concentrate in north Dallas and its northern suburbs because they were attracted to 1) the workforce there (relatively more educated?), 2) the customers there (relatively more wealthy?), etc., while maintaining fairly convenient access to the airports and the CBD and whatever else they needed thanks to the expanded highways and tollways.

That's a simplified picture; there's certainly a lot more to it. And it's only a guess.


Not that this sheds light on my theory, but here for the entertainment of all are the populations of Fort Worth and Dallas over several decades, the growth rates of both, and the concurrent growth rates of Texas and the U.S. This is from last year and I didn't complete the numbers for Texas and the nation.

IPB Image


And the Fort Worth & Dallas numbers graphed (1910-2000 only)...

IPB Image


And the same in logarithmic scale...

IPB Image

Have a great day.

#6 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:23 PM

now in black and white please.
biggrin.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#7 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 26 October 2005 - 05:07 PM

I have heard that Fort Worth's stagnant growth in the 1960's-70's was in large part due to the personalities of the people who were local economic and social leaders. That is, I understand that the city took a very conservative, virtually no-growth posture. Or at least they didn't aggressively promote their city to outside interests to promote growth. I suspect that would have stemmed from a strong attachment to the affection for the old small town atmosphere and an assumption that all growth and development is bad growth.

When I meet with baby boom generation real estate people outside of Fort Worth, I often hear about their lingering impressions of our city as a highly provincial, obsessively conservative, close-minded place, where outsiders aren't welcome, and where companies don't want to be. They developed this impression a LONG time ago, yet it still lingers, and it affects their decisions regarding investment in Fort Worth. For example, one of them might be reluctant to lend money for a truly great, ambitious, well-designed infill development project here because he would firmly believes that Fort Worth will never grow or evolve into a large city.
Those who don't have their heads buried in the sand will have noticed that the place has been evolving - rapidly.

Can anyone confirm or deny my assumptions above I heard about our conservative city "leaders" (i.e. prominant business and social figures) playing a role in the city's stagnant growth during the 60s-70s?

#8 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:20 PM

Just look at the Reata restuarant's Hall of Fame stairways.
I go there for the pic's, not the food.
You will see city officials and city mayor after mayor throughout those times. THEY LOOK ULTRA CONSERVATIVE to me. Old, thick black frame glasses, dark suits, buzz haircuts, thin tight ties, and smokers teeth biggrin.gif .

YUP! There you go.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#9 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:39 PM

Urb, I've heard the explanation that the big fish in this pond opposed the growth of the pond for fear that it would attract bigger fish that might threaten their piscine hegemony. I can't say that this is necessarily true, but it is fun to say just the same.

#10 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 27 October 2005 - 06:29 PM

I blame it on the TV show, Dallas.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#11 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:05 PM

gdvanc wrote
QUOTE
big fish in this pond opposed the growth of the pond for fear that it would attract bigger fish that might threaten their piscine hegemony.

OH, dang... that is great!

#12 austlar

austlar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 27 October 2005 - 11:00 PM

It is really simplistic to assume that FW did not grow during the 60's and 70's because of a lack of desire on the part of local power figures. That is just not the case. FW simply could not compete with Dallas at that time. Our economy was dominated by the aircraft manufacturers, the military, a large federal government operation, and a number of medium sized manufacturing concerns. The stockyards were withering away to nothing, and the railroads were in serious decline. The only large businesses to develop in FW during that time were Tandy Corp and Alcon. Meanwhile Dallas was emerging as a major wholesale trading center with the Mdse. Mart, World Trade Center, Apparal Mart, etc. It was also becoming a major warehouse and distribution center, a regional branch office for Fortune 500 companies, and an important medical center with a good medical school and teaching hospital. In addition it was home to the 3 largest banks in the region and also many large insurance companies. Most important, probably, Dallas was a major player in the rapidly developing airlilne transportation industry. By the time DFW opened in 1976, Love Field was the 5th or 6th busiest airport in the nation and had over 100 gates in operation and several hundred fllights a day. FW had Amon Carter Field with 12 unused gates and about a dozen flights a day. Also, Texas Instruments was starting to happen in a big way, and tech companies such as IBM had set up big local operations in Dallas as well. In the face of all this momentum, about all FW could do was wait until the region grew enough to sweep FW up into all of this economic activity. It would appear that finally that day has arrived, and FW is now in a position to attract growth based on its liveability and charm and proximity to the mighty economic engine that developed first in Dallas

#13 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 28 October 2005 - 01:30 AM

QUOTE
It would appear that finally that day has arrived, and FW is now in a position to attract growth based on its liveability and charm and proximity to the mighty economic engine that developed first in Dallas



Wow. You can almost exchange that FW with a Soutlake or Arlington. Sooner.

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

#14 austlar

austlar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 01:43 AM


Safly- That would be true if only Arlington or SouthLake had any real charm or urbanity. Arlington certainly grew because of its proximity to Dallas, but it did not grow pretty. South Lake is a product of the DFW Airport economy, which in turn came into being because Love Field was not able to handle the growth in airline traffic that had developed there in the 50's. All of this activity and growth spilled out of Dallas and spread both north and west. Even Alliance Airport, which is contributing to the rapid growth in northern Tarrant County, Denton County, and Fort Worth itself, is a product of the Dallas economic boom of the 50's and 60's. It is Ross Perot's EDS fortune that has financed the Alliance development.

#15 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 October 2005 - 05:31 AM

I think that assesment is more OPINIATIVE than FACT. Arlington and Southlake DO have their own version of charm, urbanity, and distinction. Arlington will gain a new Town Center feel with the arrival of the new Cowboys stadium. They also boast a lakeside community, a HUGE shopping mall scene, amusement parks, and a very large UT school system.

Southlake is the essence of charm and high growth economy working together, along with the SLTSquare taking on a new look or addition every time I visit. It will promote a "West Village" type of scene, along with some slightly affordable townhome housing. They too share a lakeside community further down the road. Close proximity to D/FWIA, and major highways to both cities within minutes. Population is experiencing steady growth and MUCH BIGGER tax receipts for it's municipalities. The nearby Gaylord Resort in Grapevine is helping to support SL's attractions.

Fort Worth still has it's charm and a little mix of urbanity for it's population. For what it's worth, I have known a few notable business owners and professionals who have jumped ship from urban FW and started more fruitful ventures in the SL area. I am still optimistic that FW will continue to grow, but I still see Arlington and Southlake being at a more competitive advantage when it comes to attractions for businesses and residents down the road in the NEAR future. Those two cities are def. poised for growth and have plenty of room to grow near their existing or future town centers.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#16 austlar

austlar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 11:13 PM

Safly-

By West Village I assume you are referring to the 150 to 175 year old neighborhood in New York's Greenwich Village, a neighborhood that has been associated with the artistic and itellectual life of this nation for much of its existence, a neighborhood famed for it's lovely AUTHENTIC ARCHITECTURE AND CHARM, a neighborhood filled with clubs, restaurants, bookstores, antique stores, corner markets, dry cleaners, newstands, flower stands, etc., a neighborhood served by two subway lines and within WALKING DISTANCE of both midtown and lower Manhatten I am hard pressed to understand what a PLASTIC and CONTRIVED environment like South Lake has in common with a neighborhood like the West Village. Have you ever been to the West Village, Safly?

#17 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 31 October 2005 - 12:11 AM

No, no, no. Not that West village, I mean of the one in Dallas, off McKinney Ave. from Stemmons Fwy (south of Turtle Creek Ave. and Cedar Springs Road). Lots of condo's built around a shopping/restaurant village (Ferre, Tom Tom, BCBG). I've been to that one, but the one in NY I might find time to visit come mid- November. Is that West Village as in near the Hudson, NYU, and WTC area? I believe Canal St. (shopping deals) runs through it? I will take the (6) from Lexington/125th on towards Little Italy and Chinatown. Sound like you really know the area. Do you have any suggestions on where to visit? Not too touristy. I'll be there for a couple of days. One stop for me is near 27th and Park Avenue area, then GCStation onto New Haven. If I have time, I'll try some ice skating near Time Square. wacko.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#18 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 25 November 2005 - 02:10 AM

I have to disagree with something I read. I don't think that Arlington is charming anymore. It used to be - about 20 years ago. But it's sort of become an aging suburb that is becoming increasingly dirty, congested, and undesirable. It's been a long time since arlington was anything nice. I think it's kind of gross and dirty now. Southlake is pretty nice though. There is some charm there and if they grow smart they'll stay that way.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users