Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fort Worth Moves into 16th Place


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#51 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:36 PM

I don't begrudge Fort Worth for annexing land for future growth, as that staves off being "landlocked" (like Dallas).   And a landlocked city may be more densely populated, hence over-crowded and not as attractive in terms of quality of life.   Of course it's never easy to manage growth, as our city is discovering up north where vital municipal services are lacking or inadequate.  .
 



#52 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 29 May 2014 - 01:11 PM

See, that's the problem with discussing this issue - the assumption that "more densely populated" is nothing but a negative.  That's simply untrue.  "More densely populated" does not instantly lead to "over-crowded" and "not as attractive in terms of quality of life."  There's a vast spectrum between "Fort Worth" and "overpopulated."  A lot of people would be thrilled to have a denser city that, while may not providing a massive McMansion with six bedrooms, trades that for walkability, proximity of social situations and businesses and services, more transportation choice, huge reduction in cost of transportation, etc.  That's not "decreased quality of life."



#53 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 30 May 2014 - 07:42 AM

I agree.  Density attracts a lot of consumer options that just don't work until you have enough people close enough together.  It's like an anorexic person talking about not wanting to eat for fear of obescity.  We've got a long way to go before we'll need to worry about any of the dangers of over-crowding.  In fact, I'm 100% confident that if we become over-crowded we'll be able to find some cheap land on which we can build some crummy suburban cookie cutter brick homes for those wanting to get out.



#54 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 08:17 AM

A city gets better the more people you add to it, and a suburb gets worse the more people you add to it.  Both suburbanites and city-dwellers should support dense development in the urban core - it benefits both groups.  On the other hand accreting yet another layer of sprawl outside the existing layer benefits nobody but the developers.  There is no shortage of existing low-cost low-density developments if you're looking to buy. 



#55 dfwerdoc

dfwerdoc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:fort worth
  • Interests:hockey, cars, architecture, photography, everything and anything apple, medicine.

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:44 AM

we fell to 17th. charlotte took over 16th. 



#56 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 23 June 2014 - 07:16 AM

Interesting. The juggernaut founders.
My blog: Doohickie

#57 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 24 June 2014 - 09:05 AM

An interesting contrast in the Twin Cities:

 

http://blogs.citypag...s_last_year.php



#58 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:04 PM

Hmmm.  Maybe this is a national trend, the reversal of the post World War II outward migration.  Never been to Minneapolis.  But for a city of 400,000, it's skyline looks more impressive than Fort Worth's.  And our city has almost twice the population of Minneapolis.  Go figure...



#59 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:30 PM

Hmmm.  Maybe this is a national trend, the reversal of the post World War II outward migration.  Never been to Minneapolis.  But for a city of 400,000, it's skyline looks more impressive than Fort Worth's.  And our city has almost twice the population of Minneapolis.  Go figure...

 

That's what I've been saying! When you annex everything, you get a bloated population number that doesn't fit with the true size of your city. There's a reason Fort Worth has a small town feel- because it IS ONE. Minneapolis gets their 400,000 number from 50 square miles of land, versus Fort Worth's 350 sq/mi. If you bloat the annexations of Minneapolis up to 350 square miles it's way over a milllion.

 

These national lists comparing city size are pretty worthless due to the differing approaches of annexing or not.

 

What's the highest density 50 square mile patch of "Fort Worth"? It might not even be the urban core!



#60 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 24 June 2014 - 06:27 PM

A city gets better the more people you add to it, and a suburb gets worse the more people you add to it.  Both suburbanites and city-dwellers should support dense development in the urban core - it benefits both groups.  On the other hand accreting yet another layer of sprawl outside the existing layer benefits nobody but the developers.  There is no shortage of existing low-cost low-density developments if you're looking to buy. 

 

 

Allow me to go off topic for a moment.  I'll understand if this is cut.

 

There is a shortage of quality affordable high-density development.  

 

Why would a family spend $250k on a townhome off Magnolia, when the same money could get them a 3500 sf home with a yard in Burleson?  (And let's not even get started on schools...)

 

Growing middle-class families must be convinced to lay down roots in the core if density is going to rise.  Everyone has a part to play - the city, FWISD, developers, business owners, neighborhood associations - people who might otherwise "flee to the suburbs" are the key to rebuilding the urban villages we all want to become a reality.


Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#61 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 25 June 2014 - 10:31 AM

 

Hmmm.  Maybe this is a national trend, the reversal of the post World War II outward migration.  Never been to Minneapolis.  But for a city of 400,000, it's skyline looks more impressive than Fort Worth's.  And our city has almost twice the population of Minneapolis.  Go figure...

 

That's what I've been saying! When you annex everything, you get a bloated population number that doesn't fit with the true size of your city. There's a reason Fort Worth has a small town feel- because it IS ONE. Minneapolis gets their 400,000 number from 50 square miles of land, versus Fort Worth's 350 sq/mi. If you bloat the annexations of Minneapolis up to 350 square miles it's way over a milllion.

 

These national lists comparing city size are pretty worthless due to the differing approaches of annexing or not.

 

What's the highest density 50 square mile patch of "Fort Worth"? It might not even be the urban core!

 

Fort Worth is no more small town than any other city it's size. Fort Worth is at about 2200 people per sq mi (with a lot of undeveloped land) versus 2700 in Austin, 2300 in Indy and 2500 in Charlotte. Nashville is at 1265  :excl: and OKC is at 956  :laugh:

 

They're really aren't any dense cities in the south other than Miami, Baltimore and DC.

 

Houston and Dallas only have about 3500 people per sq mi versus 27K and 17K in New York and SF respectively. Are they small towns too?

 

We just have a powerful few trying to jam this small town cowtown bullsh down the throats of the many. We have so much more to offer the world than that.

 

http://zipatlas.com/...ion-density.htm



#62 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

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

Posted 25 June 2014 - 11:19 AM


Growing middle-class families must be convinced to lay down roots in the core if density is going to rise.

 

This exactly. 

 

(Source - member of growing middle class family)



#63 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 26 June 2014 - 01:02 AM

 

What's the highest density 50 square mile patch of "Fort Worth"? It might not even be the urban core!

 

 

 

NCTCOG has a tool for this actually. Here's a bunch of comparisons I did. The cores are not really even close to the gridded old neighborhoods. Each circle is 1 mile in radius. 

 

vWQPzbP.png

 

ERFZIZF.png

 

 

V3iDiEX.png

 

zsi6Pun.png

 

And here's the same maps, this time with regional differences and a 9 mile radius. The map centered on DTFW is one of the smallest I could actually find. 

 

 

 

EiAPN1N.png

 

mdut8HP.png

 

3KYfmw1.png

 

The most I could cram in, 1 million people. Centered near Addison. 

 

GmWVgwg.png



#64 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 June 2014 - 01:25 AM

This provides a good illustration of why the City (and particularly the Economic Development Dept.) has been working to find new ways to promote/incentivize/directly build more housing units (especially at various levels of affordability) in downtown and why they made a point of encouraging more residential units be a part of he Left Bank development.

#65 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 26 June 2014 - 08:33 AM

Nice job Austin55!

 

I would be awesome if this was available nationwide for these comparisons.



#66 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 26 June 2014 - 10:32 PM

@Volare and Renaissanceman, have I gone crazy or did my post dissapear?

 

Edit-It has been restored. Thanks gdvanc.



#67 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 June 2014 - 10:45 PM

@Volare and Renaissanceman, have I gone crazy or did my post dissapear?


yes and yes

#68 urbancowboy

urbancowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Was Philly, now Houston
  • Interests:Sustainable, Livable, Urbanism

Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:54 AM

I thought the population within the loop was smaller. That's not too bad. It still needs improvement.

#69 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:02 PM

Austin, your population density "bubbles" are fascinating and food for analysis.   I don't understand why the bubble of the "Arlington environs" population density is larger than the "Fort Worth environs" population density.  Of course, Fort Worth has roughly twice the population of Arlington.  Looks like, maybe, Irving and Grand Prairie populations are adding to the Arlington density.  Yet there are more suburban communities included in the circle surrounding FW.  So the populations of Saginaw, North Richland Hills, Watauga, Haltom City, etc., don't contribute greatly to urban density in the Fort Worth area, I guess.



#70 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:43 PM

Actually, the 9-mile circles understate Arlington's density and the difference in density between Arlington and Fort Worth. Arlington's population density is over 70% higher than Fort Worth's. It's also more dense than Irving or Grand Prairie, so they're certainly not adding anything to the picture.

 

 

By itself, population density is a fairly meaningless - and potentially misleading - statistic. Well, except perhaps outside a couple standard deviations from the middle. Same goes for total population. Judging the health of a city by either would be like judging the health of a person by their pulse alone.

 

 

To illustrate this... look up the Texas city with the highest population density. It's the only city in Texas in the top 130 densest cities in the U.S. (It's about 75th, just ahead of Chicago.)



#71 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:53 PM

If you've never read about Mobile City, Tx you should. Kinda funny. Densest city in Texas. But it's only .04 sq mile and just has a trailer park, liquor store and gas station. Total population is under 200.

#72 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 28 June 2014 - 08:36 AM

And it's walkable.

 

Man, I'll tell you what right now - if you have either of them sell ammo and bait, you've got yourself the makings of a fine Mike Judge TV show right there.



#73 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:17 AM

Yes, density is only part of the equation - density is nothing without the design and planning (of the transportation infrastructure, of the blocks, of the land use & forms, etc.) to make it walkable and livable.



#74 urbancowboy

urbancowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Was Philly, now Houston
  • Interests:Sustainable, Livable, Urbanism

Posted 01 July 2014 - 12:37 PM

Yes, density is only part of the equation - density is nothing without the design and planning (of the transportation infrastructure, of the blocks, of the land use & forms, etc.) to make it walkable and livable.

This is true.  I really do think that subdivision regs are more important in many cases than zoning.  In many cases the density we are building isn't bad, its the street design, connections, block lengths/structure, and public realm.



#75 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 02 July 2014 - 07:27 AM

A big issue with the subdivisions is that there is only one or 2 ways in/out.  You end up funneling all the cars and creating all this traffic at these entrances.  In addition, once you are in the subdivision it primarily consists of a ring road and a lot of the other streets are a dead end/cul-de-sac off of it.  Even when you are in the neighborhood you don't have any options of how to get somewhere.

 

You want to visit your friend that lives behind you, two or three houses down, well you have to go all the way out to the main ring road and back in because none of the streets connect.



#76 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 02 July 2014 - 08:24 AM

You want to visit your friend that lives behind you, two or three houses down, well you have to go all the way out to the main ring road and back in because none of the streets connect.

 

They do that deter crime. Easy in and out means easy swipe. The greatest fulfullment of this of course being the guarded and gated community.



#77 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 02 July 2014 - 08:56 AM


You want to visit your friend that lives behind you, two or three houses down, well you have to go all the way out to the main ring road and back in because none of the streets connect.

 
They do that deter crime. Easy in and out means easy swipe. The greatest fulfullment of this of course being the guarded and gated community.

Plus with fewer eyes on the street, it less likely that someone will notice that one house that is operating as a meth lab.

#78 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:59 AM

We only "fell" to 17th because Charlotte just outgrew us this past year.

 

 

We're pretty even with them... well, other than the public transportation and other amenities that we so sorely need.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#79 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 21 May 2015 - 09:59 AM

The new census estimate for city populations were released today.  Fort Worth is still one of the fastest growing cities.  The current estimated population is 812,238.  This puts us over the 800,000 mark for the first time.  This pushes us ahead of Charlotte, North Carolina and we have returned to the 16th largest city in the U.S.  Arlington, which is becoming built-out dropped out of the Top 50.  Also, for the first time, all of the Top 10 largest cities in the country have over 1 million people.  At the rate that it is growing, Austin should become the 11th one million plus city by next year.  Texas and California each have three cities in the Top 10.

 

Here's a link to the U.S. Census Bureau's website showing the 300 largest cities in the U.S.

http://factfinder.ce....xhtml?src=bkmk



#80 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 21 May 2015 - 02:14 PM

Hopefully recent developments will start a boom in construction and business relocations downtown.



#81 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:39 AM

Just want to give a heads up about a story tonight on CBS 11 is doing. About Fort Worth Dallas population at 10:00 PM.

But sometimes they do a condensed version of the 10:00 newscast in the afternoon news.



#82 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 22 February 2017 - 11:57 PM

Here's what (I think) you're referring to: http://dfw.cbslocal....-next-10-years/

 

I'm a little disappointed Brian New didn't mention Fort Worth's Trinity River project.


- Dylan


#83 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 February 2017 - 07:09 AM

Of course CBS 11 didn't mention our Trinity River project.  They didn't say anything about Fort Worth--except for the opening reference to "Dallas-Fort Worth."  In fact, nothing is mentioned about the extent to which Fort Worth's population will contribute to the 9 million projected.

 

DFW lumped together is that TV station's mantra.  As you see in every newscast the "downtown" photo behind the anchor desk shows Fort Worth and Dallas high-rise buildings side by side.  Some of us old-timers remember the days when Channel 11 was an independent Fort Worth station before CBS took over.



#84 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 23 February 2017 - 04:56 PM

So If im doing my math right, FW adds 412 people a week, so 59 a day. Panther Island's total buildout is supposed to have 10,000 units. 10,000/59=170 days. Assuming 2 people per unit,  thats 340 days, divided by 30 (days per month) is 11.3. So if we keep growing a current pace, and every single person moved to PI, it'd be full in less than a year.



#85 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 23 February 2017 - 06:20 PM

Here's what (I think) you're referring to: http://dfw.cbslocal....-next-10-years/

 

I'm a little disappointed Brian New didn't mention Fort Worth's Trinity River project.

 

Yea I was very disappointed. I went on CBS 11 facebook and let them have it. It should of been called Dallas Collin County and the Trinity River Park.  Only thing I saw that was interesting was talk of the Mavs moving to a new Arena in the next ten years. But what does that have to do with DFW population ?



#86 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 23 February 2017 - 10:19 PM

Of course CBS 11 didn't mention our Trinity River project.  They didn't say anything about Fort Worth--except for the opening reference to "Dallas-Fort Worth."  In fact, nothing is mentioned about the extent to which Fort Worth's population will contribute to the 9 million projected.

 

DFW lumped together is that TV station's mantra.  As you see in every newscast the "downtown" photo behind the anchor desk shows Fort Worth and Dallas high-rise buildings side by side.  Some of us old-timers remember the days when Channel 11 was an independent Fort Worth station before CBS took over.

 

Something to note: CBS 11 has two newsrooms. There's a newsroom in Fort Worth where the studio is located (within Loop 820), and there's a bigger newsroom in Dallas (off Central Expy). I'm thinking Brian New is based in the Dallas newsroom.

 

As for the backdrop, I agree mixing both skylines together is a bit silly. I'd like to see them alternate skyline backdrops, but I'm not sure they can do so with their current set. Fox 4 changes generic backdrops between newscasts, and NBC 5 alternates between skylines on their LCD monitor backdrop.

 

 

 

Here's what (I think) you're referring to: http://dfw.cbslocal....-next-10-years/

 

I'm a little disappointed Brian New didn't mention Fort Worth's Trinity River project.

 

Yea I was very disappointed. I went on CBS 11 facebook and let them have it. It should of been called Dallas Collin County and the Trinity River Park.  Only thing I saw that was interesting was talk of the Mavs moving to a new Arena in the next ten years. But what does that have to do with DFW population ?

 

To be fair, this news package is about potential changes in the next 10 years, not specifically about population.


  • JBB likes this

- Dylan


#87 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 24 February 2017 - 05:34 AM

 

Of course CBS 11 didn't mention our Trinity River project.  They didn't say anything about Fort Worth--except for the opening reference to "Dallas-Fort Worth."  In fact, nothing is mentioned about the extent to which Fort Worth's population will contribute to the 9 million projected.

 

DFW lumped together is that TV station's mantra.  As you see in every newscast the "downtown" photo behind the anchor desk shows Fort Worth and Dallas high-rise buildings side by side.  Some of us old-timers remember the days when Channel 11 was an independent Fort Worth station before CBS took over.

 

Something to note: CBS 11 has two newsrooms. There's a newsroom in Fort Worth where the studio is located (within Loop 820), and there's a bigger newsroom in Dallas (off Central Expy). I'm thinking Brian New is based in the Dallas newsroom.

 

As for the backdrop, I agree mixing both skylines together is a bit silly. I'd like to see them alternate skyline backdrops, but I'm not sure they can do so with their current set. Fox 4 changes generic backdrops between newscasts, and NBC 5 alternates between skylines on their LCD monitor backdrop.

 

 

 

Here's what (I think) you're referring to: http://dfw.cbslocal....-next-10-years/

 

I'm a little disappointed Brian New didn't mention Fort Worth's Trinity River project.

 

Yea I was very disappointed. I went on CBS 11 facebook and let them have it. It should of been called Dallas Collin County and the Trinity River Park.  Only thing I saw that was interesting was talk of the Mavs moving to a new Arena in the next ten years. But what does that have to do with DFW population ?

 

To be fair, this news package is about potential changes in the next 10 years, not specifically about population.

 

 

I disagree. Because the teaser to the story is how the population over the next ten years in will change the Dallas Fort Worth area. Dallas Mavs move to a new Arena, Dallas Trinity River Park, (Both of those projects can be done regardless of population ) And Collin County growth.  Maybe I ought to send this topic to FOX 4. And ask if this is a deal or a dud . I say it was a dud . lol :laugh:



#88 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 24 February 2017 - 04:58 PM

Here's what (I think) you're referring to: http://dfw.cbslocal....-next-10-years/
 
I'm a little disappointed Brian New didn't mention Fort Worth's Trinity River project.

 
Yea I was very disappointed. I went on CBS 11 facebook and let them have it. It should of been called Dallas Collin County and the Trinity River Park.  Only thing I saw that was interesting was talk of the Mavs moving to a new Arena in the next ten years. But what does that have to do with DFW population ?

Besides Panther Island they failed to mention anything about the Rangers new Ballpark and Entertainment complex as well as no mention of growth in the Alliance / Southern Denton County Area.

#89 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 27 February 2017 - 05:07 PM

 

 

Here's what (I think) you're referring to: http://dfw.cbslocal....-next-10-years/
 
I'm a little disappointed Brian New didn't mention Fort Worth's Trinity River project.

 
Yea I was very disappointed. I went on CBS 11 facebook and let them have it. It should of been called Dallas Collin County and the Trinity River Park.  Only thing I saw that was interesting was talk of the Mavs moving to a new Arena in the next ten years. But what does that have to do with DFW population ?

Besides Panther Island they failed to mention anything about the Rangers new Ballpark and Entertainment complex as well as no mention of growth in the Alliance / Southern Denton County Area.

 

One of the reasons why I don't watch any local news.



#90 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:44 PM

So If im doing my math right, FW adds 412 people a week, so 59 a day. Panther Island's total buildout is supposed to have 10,000 units. 10,000/59=170 days. Assuming 2 people per unit,  thats 340 days, divided by 30 (days per month) is 11.3. So if we keep growing a current pace, and every single person moved to PI, it'd be full in less than a year.

You're assuming, of course, that a portion of the 412 people being added per day choose to reside in the multi-family housing on Panther Island.  Not knocking Panther Island, but there are many other attractive FW locales in which to live.



#91 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:41 PM

So If im doing my math right, FW adds 412 people a week, so 59 a day. Panther Island's total buildout is supposed to have 10,000 units. 10,000/59=170 days. Assuming 2 people per unit,  thats 340 days, divided by 30 (days per month) is 11.3. So if we keep growing a current pace, and every single person moved to PI, it'd be full in less than a year.

You're assuming, of course, that a portion of the 412 people being added per day choose to reside in the multi-family housing on Panther Island.  Not knocking Panther Island, but there are many other attractive FW locales in which to live.

Currently yes, but let's hope that when the area is built out and completed that won't be the case. If not, then the whole area will be a bust. That is what the city council wants it to become and what Fort Worth will be known for.

#92 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:46 PM

It was more just meant to get an idea of how much an impact PI has than a realistic expectation.

#93 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:03 PM

The Census Bureau now estimates Fort Worth's population at 854,113 as of 2016.  We are now just 1000 less than Indianapolis and 6000 less than Columbus.  We will pass them this year to move into 14th place in the U.S.  Very well could pass San Francisco into 13th place before the next official census. Probably will not pass Jacksonville, but not impossible for 12th place.



#94 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:11 PM

7 and a half years to the big 1 mil if the 20k per year pace keeps up.

#95 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 26 May 2017 - 01:56 AM

The Census Bureau now estimates Fort Worth's population at 854,113 as of 2016.  We are now just 1000 less than Indianapolis and 6000 less than Columbus.  We will pass them this year to move into 14th place in the U.S.  Very well could pass San Francisco into 13th place before the next official census. Probably will not pass Jacksonville, but not impossible for 12th place.

 

All the leapfrogging and number crunching is very interesting. But the number I watch most is the Dallas Fort Worth ranking. Because any given city can fall behind another. But that don't mean that city is losing population. It can mean that another city is growing faster. So it looks like Fort Worth will soon be within 5 ranks of Dallas ? That is a game changer ! With that gap continuing to close still. To think Fort Worth could one day be a bigger city than Dallas in my lifetime. I never thought that could even be close to ever happening.



#96 Bonfire98A

Bonfire98A

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:19 AM

 

The Census Bureau now estimates Fort Worth's population at 854,113 as of 2016.  We are now just 1000 less than Indianapolis and 6000 less than Columbus.  We will pass them this year to move into 14th place in the U.S.  Very well could pass San Francisco into 13th place before the next official census. Probably will not pass Jacksonville, but not impossible for 12th place.

 

All the leapfrogging and number crunching is very interesting. But the number I watch most is the Dallas Fort Worth ranking. Because any given city can fall behind another. But that don't mean that city is losing population. It can mean that another city is growing faster. So it looks like Fort Worth will soon be within 5 ranks of Dallas ? That is a game changer ! With that gap continuing to close still. To think Fort Worth could one day be a bigger city than Dallas in my lifetime. I never thought that could even be close to ever happening.

 

 

FW wouldn't be the first US city to leapfrog a more well-known neighbor, as San Jose, CA has been bigger than San Francisco since at least the 1990 census.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users