Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:47 AM
Posted 14 October 2005 - 01:20 PM
Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:11 AM
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.
Posted 19 October 2005 - 04:28 PM
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.
Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:02 PM
(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.
And the Fort Worth & Dallas numbers graphed (1910-2000 only)...
And the same in logarithmic scale...
Have a great day.
Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:23 PM
Posted 26 October 2005 - 05:07 PM
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?
Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:20 PM
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 .
YUP! There you go.
Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:39 PM
Posted 27 October 2005 - 06:29 PM
Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:05 PM
OH, dang... that is great!
Posted 27 October 2005 - 11:00 PM
Posted 28 October 2005 - 01:30 AM
Wow. You can almost exchange that FW with a Soutlake or Arlington. Sooner.
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.
Posted 30 October 2005 - 05:31 AM
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.
Posted 30 October 2005 - 11:13 PM
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?
Posted 31 October 2005 - 12:11 AM
Posted 25 November 2005 - 02:10 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users