Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fort Worth Moves into 16th Place


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#1 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:21 PM

Fort Worth moved into 16th place when the Census Bureau announced that Detroit's population had fallen from 951,000 to 713,000 the past ten years. Also if New York City does not add more than 206,000 when the New York census is announced this week, Fort Worth will have added more people than any other city in the the US the past ten years. Worst case scenerio, Fort Worth will be 2nd.

#2 John S.

John S.

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Samuels Avenue FW

Posted 23 March 2011 - 08:48 AM

That was surprising news. I was aware FW had picked up population, but not to that extent. Even more surprising to me was to see the paltry population numbers increase in Dallas. I believe it was around 9,000. While an increase of that size might be major good news in places like Buffalo or Des Moines, for Dallas it might be a cause for concern. Dallasites are always bragging about how superlative their town is in every way compared to their poor country cousin of Fort Worth, but it seems reality paints a different picture. Just one look at downtown Fort Worth over the past decade shows a dynamic change in the skyline and streetscapes that is far more dramatic than the minor changes seen in Dallas. Dallas is also pretty much "landlocked" while Fort Worth still has room to grow. I'm not trying to knock Dallas, they still tend to lead while Fort Worth follows, but Fort Worth's growth and progress over the past decade cannot be denied or ignored. If FW indeed leads the country in population growth that feat in itself might draw even more attention and future growth to our fair city. However, we must always keep in mind when it comes to population, bigger is not always better. Some of the highest quality of life ratings nationally come from cities considerably smaller than Fort Worth. We need that increase in quality more so than quantity to continue to draw new people here.

#3 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 23 March 2011 - 09:27 AM

Let's not go nuts. Dallas is in no danger whatsoever of losing its title as the major power in the Metroplex to Fort Worth. I'm not trying to come across as a Dallas booster (as anybody who reads what I do will know), but let's be realistic. I tend to agree with Mitch Schnurman in the S-T:

http://www.star-tele...e-of-power.html

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#4 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 23 March 2011 - 04:17 PM

Unfortunately, you're right. At least 15 of the cities below us are much more urban.

#5 John S.

John S.

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Samuels Avenue FW

Posted 23 March 2011 - 09:15 PM

Let's not go nuts. Dallas is in no danger whatsoever of losing its title as the major power in the Metroplex to Fort Worth. I'm not trying to come across as a Dallas booster (as anybody who reads what I do will know), but let's be realistic. I tend to agree with Mitch Schnurman in the S-T:

http://www.star-tele...e-of-power.html


Good article, and it does settle the issue as to whether Dallas should be concerned about Fort Worth's rapid growth.(explained in the article that much of it was due to the Alliance Airport corridor) It's true there's another whole dimension when you add in Dallas's sprawling suburbs and exurbs to the north which extend now almost to the Oklahoma border. Even Sherman and Denison are becoming bedroom communities as is Denton and McKinney, of course. Plano and Frisco have added people as fast as builders could put up more new McMansions. Still, the low population increases within Dallas itself seems unusual but maybe with DART nicely connecting most of the far flung suburbs, increasing urban residential density in Dallas is unnecessary. From this article comes a cautionary message that Fort Worth should not assume anything from the census numbers and should pay close attention to our larger neighbor to the east if we want to remain a regional contender. As I said in my earlier post, Dallas leads while Fort Worth tends to follow. The article certainly answered some of my questions about the recent census numbers.

#6 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 24 March 2011 - 10:53 AM

Let's not go nuts. Dallas is in no danger whatsoever of losing its title as the major power in the Metroplex to Fort Worth. I'm not trying to come across as a Dallas booster (as anybody who reads what I do will know), but let's be realistic. I tend to agree with Mitch Schnurman in the S-T:

http://www.star-tele...e-of-power.html


Whoa! Not so fast to dismiss FW surpassing Big D. Remember that, over the past two centuries, great cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans were rivals of New York City. Los Angeles prior to the movie industry was a town. Not just population migration, but new industrial and commercial developments may occur that influence the balance of metropolitan power in this country. For example, the decline of the steel industry has adversely affected Pittsburgh; so has the decline of the labor-intensive auto industry affected Detroit. After Katrina, New Orleans has less population than Arlington, Texas. What will happen to cities that boast of oil and gas production when, eventually, those fuels are supplanted by other forms of energy? What will happen to cities having macro manufacturing industies when (in the far distant future) the small-scale nanotechnology industries are developed?

#7 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 24 March 2011 - 11:26 AM

What will happen to cities that boast of oil and gas production when, eventually, those fuels are supplanted by other forms of energy?


You mean...like Fort Worth?

Naturally, in a lot of ways, things can change. However, the sort of ways things are changing are ways that Dallas is already better equipped that Fort Worth to deal with. Both cities are overdependent on cars and cheap oil, but Dallas is far ahead of Fort Worth in providing alternatives in the form of better transit - largest light rail system in the country, streetcars running and planned, and a better bus system. (I'd say Fort Worth is ahead, for the time being at least, in bike infrastructure.) And Dallas has a lot more people living in walkable neighborhoods and a lot more choice in those places. Meanwhile, we waffled on streetcars, struggle to slowly get one infrequent-headway commuter train built, and in the meantime spend billions on widening freeways and building new roads from 1960s mobility plans.

I'm not putting us down, just being honest. We've got problems we need to address. Dallas will be the major power for the foreseeable future. That's just reality.

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#8 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 24 March 2011 - 06:03 PM

Hmmm. Fort Worth is now larger than Detroit. And yet the naval gazing from its inferiority complex infused citizenry (mainly on this forum, I know lots of folks in FW who would whoop up on you pansies for your comments), in relation to the D, continues unabated. I so totally disagree with the tone of this thread. Fort Worth has its own business base, its own arts scene, its own history, its own culture base (world renowned, btw), its own billionaires, its own music scene, its own ID in college athletics (Go TCU!), its own western history and identity, I could go on and on. Why the EFF would anyone who lives there take a even a marginal attempt to compare it to Dallas and then declare it second. Most of you, I figure live in Hurst or Flower Pot. The Fort Worthians I know would drop kick many of you like a toad on the end of a pointy pair of Justins. Dallas has wonderful points. Down here in Austin, though, please note the same size as Fort Worth, Dallas might as well be Detroit. Gawd, Jeebus FW Forum folks, grow a pair...

#9 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 09:04 AM

Hmmm. Fort Worth is now larger than Detroit. And yet the naval gazing from its inferiority complex infused citizenry (mainly on this forum, I know lots of folks in FW who would whoop up on you pansies for your comments), in relation to the D, continues unabated. I so totally disagree with the tone of this thread. Fort Worth has its own business base, its own arts scene, its own history, its own culture base (world renowned, btw), its own billionaires, its own music scene, its own ID in college athletics (Go TCU!), its own western history and identity, I could go on and on. Why the EFF would anyone who lives there take a even a marginal attempt to compare it to Dallas and then declare it second. Most of you, I figure live in Hurst or Flower Pot. The Fort Worthians I know would drop kick many of you like a toad on the end of a pointy pair of Justins. Dallas has wonderful points. Down here in Austin, though, please note the same size as Fort Worth, Dallas might as well be Detroit. Gawd, Jeebus FW Forum folks, grow a pair...


Hear Hear!

#10 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

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

Posted 03 April 2011 - 10:03 PM

That was surprising news. I was aware FW had picked up population, but not to that extent. Even more surprising to me was to see the paltry population numbers increase in Dallas. I believe it was around 9,000. While an increase of that size might be major good news in places like Buffalo or Des Moines, for Dallas it might be a cause for concern. Dallasites are always bragging about how superlative their town is in every way compared to their poor country cousin of Fort Worth, but it seems reality paints a different picture. Just one look at downtown Fort Worth over the past decade shows a dynamic change in the skyline and streetscapes that is far more dramatic than the minor changes seen in Dallas. Dallas is also pretty much "landlocked" while Fort Worth still has room to grow. I'm not trying to knock Dallas, they still tend to lead while Fort Worth follows, but Fort Worth's growth and progress over the past decade cannot be denied or ignored. If FW indeed leads the country in population growth that feat in itself might draw even more attention and future growth to our fair city. However, we must always keep in mind when it comes to population, bigger is not always better. Some of the highest quality of life ratings nationally come from cities considerably smaller than Fort Worth. We need that increase in quality more so than quantity to continue to draw new people here.



Actually, and I'm only saying this because I think people in FW often downplay Dallas and the significant changes going on in Dallas. I'm a multi-generational FW native and I LOVE everything that FW has done over the past decade. However, Dallas has actually made some really significant skyline changes lately. FW has really only added a couple buildings that actually impact the skyline (Pier 1 and Omni) over the past decade. Meanwhile, in Dallas, the Calavatra bridge is adding a whole new element to the skyline and is over 400 ft tall. There is also a 40+ story skyscraper under construction on Woodall Rogers freeway, the new museum, which will be significant in height, and two other rather towers (Hall Arts Towers) have recently been announced in Dallas. Of course, the really dramatic changes in the Dallas skyline have happened in the Uptown area... Dallas has added dozens of mid-rise towers over the past few years. In fact, Uptown Dallas is now probably larger than Downtown Forth Worth in terms of total square footage and many of the building in Uptown Dallas are as tall as many of the buildings in DT FW...

FW still wins hands down though for pedestrian friendly development downtown. DT FW and DT Dallas are no comparison in terms of fun and cleanliness. There simply isn't any comparison.

#11 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 05 April 2011 - 03:48 PM

Yep, we could use some of those empty buildings they have in d.

#12 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

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

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:16 PM

Yep, we could use some of those empty buildings they have in d.


I agree with you, despite the fact that you're being sarcastic. FWians always make remarks about Dallas being "vacant". But, at least Dallas has building to fill up or convert. FW has basically, with a few minor additions, the same skyline it had in 1985. And, on top of that, a lot of the vacant buildings in DT Dallas have or are being converted into residential buildings. It's no Sundance Square, but if you drive around DT Dallas, there are cranes and construction sites all over the place. The large former Hilton hotel on the East end of Dallas recently announced a new redevelopment project, they are adding new parks in DT Dallas, and the new Woodall Rogers Park and Calavatra Bridge are coming along nicely. Dallas is in the middle of a huge transformation. 5 years from now Dallas will be a very different story. And, even if downtown has vacancy, most of Uptown is pretty full, from what I hear, and it's mostly pedestrian-friendly.

If you want to have a really cool shot of the Dallas skyline, go to the Belmont Hotel on Sylvan Ave just North of I30 and you'll be blown away... the skyline is HUGE from there!

#13 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:30 AM

Good points. I, too, would like to see a denser and taller FW downtown skyline, no doubt as both a matter of hometown pride and a naÔve childlike fascination with architectural magnitude (if not quality). But, letís face it. The old adage ďyou canít get blood out of a turnipĒ is true in this case. Unless FW attracts many more major corporations there wonít be any new Class A office buildings downtown. And the current crop of high rises here cannot support any new residential redevelopment projects, I donít believe. FWís increase in population may cause more suburban development, but (alas) it wonít likely do much for the DT skyline.

#14 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:53 PM

I just read that Uptown has an occupation of about 95%. Not much empty space there.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#15 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 06 May 2011 - 01:11 PM

Willy, over the Thanksgiving holiday of 2009, I took some excellent photos of the Downtown Dallas Skyline from the hillside next to the Belmont Hotel.

As for new buildings, be careful what you wish for. Virtually none of our downtown buildings have any local historic designation. Therefore, they could be demolished with just the approval of a demolition permit. We have several very historic skyscrapers that are not protected and could fall victim to the dynamite charges or wrecking ball very easily. If new buildings were to be constructed, I would like to see them built on existing parking lots, rather than on existing built locations.

#16 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 May 2011 - 11:07 AM

I just read that Uptown has an occupation of about 95%. Not much empty space there.


Yes that is an enviable statistic, but at what cost to Traditional Downtown Dallas? Read this recently in the Dallas Business Journal.


http://www.bizjourna...in-trouble.html

#17 JKC

JKC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 15 May 2011 - 07:28 PM


I just read that Uptown has an occupation of about 95%. Not much empty space there.


Yes that is an enviable statistic, but at what cost to Traditional Downtown Dallas? Read this recently in the Dallas Business Journal.


http://www.bizjourna...in-trouble.html

That is a very good observation. That internal competition occurs in a great many cities with unhealthy result.

#18 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

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

Posted 14 August 2011 - 12:20 AM

So, who won the contest... Fort Worth or NYC? Who added more people?

#19 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

FYI, Star-Telegram report by Steve Campbell showing some decline in FW population growth since 2006.
http://www.star-tele...mated-9360.html

#20 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

So, who won the contest... Fort Worth or NYC? Who added more people?

Fort Worth.

As for the above post, I would rather it be rephrased, "slow down in growth". At first I thought it meant decline in population.

#21 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:26 AM

An update on Fort Worth's job growth in this S-T article by Scott Campbell. Note that the geographic study links Fort Worth and Arlington as a metropolitan area (separate division from Dallas-Plano). Fort Worth is No. 4 in the fastest growth among large cities.

http://www.star-tele...adlines-default

#22 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:55 AM

Yeah! Were still #16. Almost 800K and OKC, Tulsa, Omaha and even Mobile, Alabama has taller downtown buildings. I know it's not just about height, but damn can we get some buildings over 600 feet?!



#23 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,395 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:10 PM

Are you compensatin' for somethin'?


My blog: Doohickie

#24 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,188 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:36 PM

All without adding any reasonable amount of infrastructure in 25 years. To me, this is akin to an obese person bragging about packing on another 50 lbs...



#25 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 23 May 2013 - 04:22 PM

Are you compensatin' for somethin'?

Not at all. Why does Fort Worth have to be the only city that thinks small???



#26 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:24 PM

 

Are you compensatin' for somethin'?

Not at all. Why does Fort Worth have to be the only city that thinks small???

 

Are you kidding me?  Have you traveled out of Haslet or Flower Pot or where ever you're from lately?  You are missing out on the evolution of a great city, right before your eyes, if all you want to see is tall, lifeless office towers to validate your ???.  If so, wikipedia the late 1900's architecture or the trashy middle east (0r D).  Come walk in the center of the Fort.  The energy is palpable and extraordinary.  I can't wait to come visit in December.   



#27 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

Height isn't everything.  Look at it this way, in the last few years we have gained a 450' hotel.



#28 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:07 PM

This discussion reminds me of Dismuke's contribution the other day of the American Airways film that showed the skylines of Fort Worth and Dallas circa 1933. Great film, by the way. But if you saw that film, you noticed that the two skylines were almost equivalent in height and density. I guess Dallas took off in the real estate building gravy days that began after WWII and left Fort Worth far behind.

#29 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:25 PM

Well in the last 10 years we've gotten the Omni, Pier One, Carnegie  and a few other great sized skyscrapers. Our skyline is well developed  for what it's worth. I'd like to see the pace of 1 or 2 450-550 foot towers a decade continue, with the 2-5 200-450 footers filling in, and everything down low building up and just in general good improvements. A new tallest by 2025 would be excellent. If only to keep things interesting and modern. I don't really want to see anything over 600 feet yet. Just to big. Omni is a great addition (along with the Tower's renovation and the CP updates). And of course let's get some better transit. That dead horse has some pretty big bruises on it now.

​Sure, Fort Worth isn't as big and fast developing as other cities, but what it is developing is very nice.



#30 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:19 PM

I'm pretty sure plenty of you here know how I feel about more highrises/skyscrapers (and other things) coming to Fort Worth and the pace of development in the city. 

Just appreciate what's going on now. You gotta realize that what you WANT for this city wont happen over night...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#31 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 26 May 2013 - 09:38 AM

Interesting that all this talk about mega high rises for Fort Worth is in the same thread as our city becoming the 16th largest population-wise in the country. I suspect that some of the underlying wishful thinking is that prevailing quest to have Fort Worth gain national recognition, vis a vis Dallas. Unfortunately, population is probably not a factor. Look at New Orleans, whose population was significantly reduced to the size of Arlington by Katrina. Yet, everyone in the world knows New Orleans, because of its historical importance. As for high rises, no doubt Tampa Bay, Florida, has its share but who thinks about Tampa when the subject of Florida comes up in, say, London.? I’ve always thought it would help if Fort Worth had an NFL-type sports franchise, because everyone talks about little Green Bay, Wisconsin (you could fit three or four Green Bays inside Fort Worth city limits). I guess what I’m saying is that high rises and big populations don’t necessarily make for a great city.

#32 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,395 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 26 May 2013 - 07:42 PM

Personally, I don't care that much what people outside the city think about the city.  I enjoy living here; that's enough.


My blog: Doohickie

#33 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:14 AM

 

 

Are you compensatin' for somethin'?

Not at all. Why does Fort Worth have to be the only city that thinks small???

 

Are you kidding me?  Have you traveled out of Haslet or Flower Pot or where ever you're from lately?  You are missing out on the evolution of a great city, right before your eyes, if all you want to see is tall, lifeless office towers to validate your ???.  If so, wikipedia the late 1900's architecture or the trashy middle east (0r D).  Come walk in the center of the Fort.  The energy is palpable and extraordinary.  I can't wait to come visit in December.   

 

I live in Funkytown sir and yes, I go downtown M-F and sometimes S-Su. And no, I don't want "tall, lifeless office towers," I want tall, full of life towers. lol. I love this city as much as anyone ever will and represent it EVERY TIME I travel around North America. Based on those travels, I know we are undersized and too many people from Tarrant County drive to Dallas County to work.



#34 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:17 AM

​Sure, Fort Worth isn't as big and fast developing as other cities, but what it is developing is very nice.

It has been THE fastest growing over the last decade or so.



#35 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 29 May 2013 - 04:34 PM

 

​Sure, Fort Worth isn't as big and fast developing as other cities, but what it is developing is very nice.

It has been THE fastest growing over the last decade or so.

 

What I meant by that was by the numbers FW is, but visually we are not the fastest growing.

austin-skyline.jpg



#36 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

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

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:25 AM

Austin jumped from #15 to #11 in population and the skyline has grown significantly over the past few years. It wasn't that long ago that Austin was smaller than FW and had a smaller skyline. Austin has blown the doors off FW in both categories now. If FW would just add 3 major buildings taller than what we have now, it would make a huge difference in the appearance of the city. But, historically FW is very resistant to progress/change/growth... There is plenty of room in and around DT FW to build some really cool skyline-changing structures without even disturbing the current historical buildings. I'd love to see some Atlanta-like buildings built in FW. FW is also losing it's edge in population growth... Dallas, Austin, and Houston all outpaced FW in population growth the last couple years.



#37 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:53 AM

I think it is positive that Fort Worth's population growth has slowed; time to let the infrastructure catch up. Perhaps more quality infill and less sprawl/quantity would be a good thing.



#38 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:18 AM

Austin jumped from #15 to #11 in population and the skyline has grown significantly over the past few years. It wasn't that long ago that Austin was smaller than FW and had a smaller skyline. Austin has blown the doors off FW in both categories now. If FW would just add 3 major buildings taller than what we have now, it would make a huge difference in the appearance of the city. But, historically FW is very resistant to progress/change/growth... There is plenty of room in and around DT FW to build some really cool skyline-changing structures without even disturbing the current historical buildings. I'd love to see some Atlanta-like buildings built in FW. FW is also losing it's edge in population growth... Dallas, Austin, and Houston all outpaced FW in population growth the last couple years.

I feel compelled to weigh in here since I've lived in Austin for the last six years.  All of the growth in Austin's skyline, all of it, has been in either high rise condos or apartments. In my experience, many of the condos are second homes for people who spend a weekend a month here.  Not sure you want that.  Perhaps you do.  Also, traffic is horrible.  I can walk home from work in downtown faster than I can get home by car.  So now I walk.  I cannot emphasize enough how bad traffic is here ALL THE TIME.  While Austin has many charms, the rapid growth has definitely affected the quality of life since I moved here in 2007.  I agree with Mr. Milhollin - Fort Worth already has a superior infrastructure to Austin's - but the city would benefit from taking advantage of the slowed growth to do some planning ahead.



#39 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,188 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:25 AM

... I cannot emphasize enough how bad traffic is here (Austin) ALL THE TIME.  ...

 

 

This. For all you people whining about 8 miles of I-35W in Fort Worth. Imagine if your entire city was like that. In addition to Austin, many places on the East and West coasts are that way too.

 

If we keep growing the way we have, we will get there: First sprawl to East (35 years ago when Arlington was the fastest growing city in America). Then sprawl to the North (Alliance, etc). Next sprawl to the west...



#40 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:56 AM

I think some of the past years' spurt in Fort Worth's population is attributable to immigration from Mexico. But I would agree with Volare that the far north area of the city is going to be the population draw. It can happen exponentially. Corporations like GM Locomotive and Motorola bring in employees and their families; and word spreads in business communities elsewhere that "AllianceTexas" (so-called) is a good place to re-locate. Hence, more employees, their families, and support businesses like restaurants, etc. are needed. The multiplier effect.

#41 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

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

Posted 27 May 2014 - 11:21 AM

I read in the Startlegram last week that FW moved to 13th place. Is it possible the ST reported that incorrectly? I also read a article released the same day stating that Charlotte NC has passed FW again.



#42 FWFD1247

FWFD1247

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 27 May 2014 - 12:22 PM

The Star Telegram said we are ranked 13th nationally with the largest population gain over the year before. According to that article from the Charlotte Observer their population is now 792,862 which is greater than Fort Worths 792,727.
The star telegram was referring to our rank based on population growth not the overall population.

16atmjd.jpg


#43 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 27 May 2014 - 12:50 PM

Wikipedia is repeating the claim of the Charlotte Observer that we've been overtaken in the 16th slot by Charlotte.  http://en.wikipedia....s_by_population

 

Can we expect an article with the title "5 Ways US Census Numbers Are Meaningless"?  Should we change the thread title to "FW Moves Down To 17th Place"?



#44 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:31 PM

Here's the way I look at it.  The "official" census is taken every 10 years.  In 2010, Fort Worth was the 16th largest city in the United States.  All other yearly numbers are "estimates".  Therefore, Fort Worth is "officially" the 16th largest city in the country, and it will remain as such until the numbers for the 2020 census are released.  Any other claims are based on the estimates and are unofficial.  They also have a degree of error.   You could always say that Fort Worth Moves into 16th Place in the 2010 Census, and you could always state that according to the 2013 estimates, Fort Worth has fallen to the 17th Largest City.



#45 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 28 May 2014 - 07:28 AM

I suppose you could look at it that way - but really all these numbers are estimates of one form or another (there's no way to count exactly - and what about temporary residents?  underrepresented immigrant population that doesn't respond to the census? etc etc)  But... Charlotte's been growing faster than us for the last few years.. and when all is said and done in 2020, Charlotte will be far ahead of Ft Worth.    On the other hand we're growing faster than the next couple of cities on the list, San Francisco and Columbus - so we could be in 15th "place" by then.



#46 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 28 May 2014 - 07:48 AM

Well Detroit's 18th so we sure as heck don't have anything to worry about there!

^^Not only San Francisco and Columbus, but we are growing over twice the % of Jacksonville and Indianapolis and they are 13th and 12th, passing them could happen within a few years/decades. 

I also can't wait to see what would happen if Austin passed Dallas. The fits that would be thrown by them...



#47 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:02 AM

Did the S-T bother to explain the significance of the rankings?  Perhaps for newspapers, headcounts matter for advertising rates and their business models.  Unfettered growth fueled by the availability of cheap land in extreme outer parts of the region is perhaps one of the reasons why Fort Worth is not having the urban growth that Dallas is experiencing and the urban growth for which many of us would like to see occur here.

 

If Fort Worth was ringed by cities as is Dallas, then it would have the density to justify growing vertically instead of horizontally.

 

 


  • JBB likes this

#48 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,431 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:23 AM

Yeah, I've never undertood why some around here fall all over themselves to pat FW on the back for climbing up the population ranks when it's been accomplished through annexing and sprawling halfway to Oklahoma. "Yay, we're 13th! Let's celebrate by running to Denton across tract home roof tops!"

#49 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:43 AM

"Yay, we're 13th! Let's celebrate by running to Denton across tract home roof tops!"

lol.



#50 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,431 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:03 AM

And I'm not trying to sound like FW isn't doing anything right. There are a lot of good things happening here to be excited about. But as rename said, smart urban growth is never going to happen at a quicker pace unless the city stops trying to grow out. It's fun to point out how the city is going broke because of the pension system or crazy spending by the police department, but providing city services out into the hinterlands when that growth doesn't match up in terms of income value is probably just as detrimental.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users