Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fort Worth Moves into 16th Place


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#101 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 19 October 2017 - 11:16 PM

Would be nice if Fort Worth were to anchor its own MSA again someday.

 

I don't see how it would not ? Some things simply don't fit or make sense with government guidelines for a MSA. If this calculation is correct. That would mean Austin will overtake Dallas or be very close to doing so by 2020. That would mean one or two cities stand between Fort Worth and Dallas nationally. To me that is shocking ! 



#102 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

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

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:25 AM

Yeah Im not sure that moving up a couple of spots really means a whole lot... Although it looks pretty on paper it has little relevance to anything because of how many square miles the city limits are and pair that with the paltry density numbers we have this becomes another statistic of unwarranted chest thumping... I assume one of the cities FW will move past is SF however when you compare their vibrancy and dynamism there is really no comparison. SF feels like a much bigger city than FW does. I know first hand because I lived there 15 years. Even Dallas is not on the same level.

I love my hometown and I am not trying to knock it, but density should be the true barometer when determining list of largest cities in my book and unfortunately FW falls flat in that category.

#103 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 20 October 2017 - 07:11 AM

Yeah I’m not sure that moving up a couple of spots really means a whole lot... Although it looks pretty on paper it has little relevance to anything because of how many square miles the city limits are and pair that with the paltry density numbers we have this becomes another statistic of unwarranted chest thumping... I assume one of the cities FW will move past is SF however when you compare their vibrancy and dynamism there is really no comparison. SF “feels” like a much much bigger city than FW does. I know first hand because I lived there 15 years. Even Dallas is not on the same level.

I love my hometown and I am not trying to knock it, but density should be the true barometer when determining list of largest cities in my book and unfortunately FW falls flat in that category.

 

Hate it or love it. To each their own how they want to look at this. But as I said on this topic. The number I watch more is the region. And most especially in state rankings. Fort Worth has already passed many well known cities. To me that is old news. Heck Fort Worth could fall back in national rankings. That means  little to me.

 

But to think "Big D" could permanently settle to 4th or 5th largest in Texas ? I never thought that could ever happen. And Dallas has been growing in population like other Texas cities this whole time, just not at the same pace. Plus congressional districts in the Metroplex will be redrawn to favor more representation to the western side of the metroplex.  And to some degree Austin and San Antonio will also affect Dallas federal clout.



#104 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

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

Posted 20 October 2017 - 07:44 AM

NID... I agree with you that it is amazing to think that Big D could slip to 5th. If the current numbers keep up with recent growth projections Fort Worth WILL pass Dallas in the not too distant future.

As far as going up on the largest cities list my only hope is that Fort Worth starts to think and prepare itself for denser inner city growth. There is plenty of other land to grab and incorporate, but I don't think we need further sprawl which in turn puts stress on public and city services.

#105 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:14 AM

12
Jacksonville[9]
Florida
880,619
821,784
+7.16%
747.4 sq mi
1,935.8 km2
1,178/sq mi
455/km2
30.3369°N 81.6616°W
13
San Francisco[10]
California
870,887
805,235
+8.15%
46.9 sq mi
121.5 km2
18,569/sq mi
7,170/km2
37.7272°N 123.0322°W
14
Columbus
Ohio
860,090
787,033
+9.28%
218.5 sq mi
565.9 km2
3,936/sq mi
1,520/km2
39.9852°N 82.9848°W
15
Indianapolis[11]
Indiana
855,164
820,445
+4.23%
361.5 sq mi
936.3 km2
2,366/sq mi
914/km2
39.7767°N 86.1459°W
16
Fort Worth
Texas
854,113
741,206
+15.23%
342.9 sq mi
888.1 km2
2,491/sq mi
962/km2
32.7815°N

 

My copying and pasting from Wikipedia's Census-based population columns leaves a lot to be desired.  The point here is that, if Fort Worth maintains it's "15.23%" growth rate, compared to the 7-9% range of San Francisco and the other cities just below Austin, Fort Worth will become No. 12. 



#106 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,341 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 20 October 2017 - 07:33 PM

Anchoring our own MSA (metro area) would probably help our image more than moving up a few positions in city population rankings.


- Dylan


#107 Willy1

Willy1

    Elite Member

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

Posted 28 February 2018 - 08:32 PM

I just saw where fw has a projected 2018 population of 894,000, Austin is about 90k ahead of fw and is sitting at approximately 983,000. Which means Austin will likely hit 1,000,000 in 2018 or 2019. FW should hit 1,000,000 in about 2020-2023. Fw will leapfrog over cities currently sitting in 12th-15th place, to become the 12th largest city.

#108 txbornviking

txbornviking

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington Heights

Posted 28 February 2018 - 10:40 PM

I just saw where fw has a projected 2018 population of 894,000, Austin is about 90k ahead of fw and is sitting at approximately 983,000. Which means Austin will likely hit 1,000,000 in 2018 or 2019. FW should hit 1,000,000 in about 2020-2023. Fw will leapfrog over cities currently sitting in 12th-15th place, to become the 12th largest city.

 

We really, Really, REALLY need to get our public transit act in order. I'd argue we're about 10years to late in making progress, but that doesn't mean it's to late.

 

Now if only we can convince the city council to actually either a) fund the T Master Plan or B) reject it and outline a preferred direction...



#109 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:16 PM

New census estimates are out. Tarrant County is the 5th fastest growing county in the nation, adding nearly 33k residents over the past 365 days. DFW is the nations fastest growing metro, adding 146k.

 

https://www.census.g...tro-county.html



#110 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 22 March 2018 - 01:14 PM

New census estimates are out. Tarrant County is the 5th fastest growing county in the nation, adding nearly 33k residents over the past 365 days. DFW is the nations fastest growing metro, adding 146k.

 

https://www.census.g...tro-county.html

What strikes me is that Tarrant County's total 2017 population estimate (2.05 million) is only about 600,000 fewer people than Dallas County's (2.6 million).  Yet Fort Worth has an estimated 2017 population (854,113), which is about two-thirds less than Dallas's (1.3 million).  This means that half of Dallas County's population consists of the city of Dallas;  only about 43 percent of Tarrant County's population consists of Fort Worth's population.  Stated another way, Tarrant County's population is more evenly distributed among its municipalities.



#111 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,648 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 March 2018 - 01:33 PM

Also, Dallas is 385 square miles while Fort Worth is 349 square miles.



#112 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 22 March 2018 - 01:56 PM

Dallas County Density - 2,523 ppsqm
Tarrant County Density - 2,095 ppsqm

#113 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 22 March 2018 - 02:28 PM

Also, Dallas is 385 square miles while Fort Worth is 349 square miles.

However, Dallas has 45 square miles of water and Fort Worth only has 7 square miles of water, so Fort Worth has a slight edge in land area.

#114 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,648 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 March 2018 - 02:47 PM

Good point.

Austin - I think you're missing a digit in your Tarrant number.

Tarrant's distributed population isn't necessarily good for Fort Worth. Fort Worth is growing out and that growth isn't sustainable or healthy for the urban center of town.

#115 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:gone

Posted 22 March 2018 - 02:58 PM

Good point.

Austin - I think you're missing a digit in your Tarrant number.

Tarrant's distributed population isn't necessarily good for Fort Worth. Fort Worth is growing out and that growth isn't sustainable or healthy for the urban center of town.

 

Yep.

 

Fort Worth should be reevaluating how it builds all over, not just in a handful of urban villages. The way we're building now is not sustainable, environmentally or economically, in the long term.



#116 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 22 March 2018 - 03:04 PM

Good point.

Austin - I think you're missing a digit in your Tarrant number.

Tarrant's distributed population isn't necessarily good for Fort Worth. Fort Worth is growing out and that growth isn't sustainable or healthy for the urban center of town.

 

Fixed

 

Agreed



#117 txbornviking

txbornviking

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington Heights

Posted 22 March 2018 - 04:07 PM

 

Good point.

Austin - I think you're missing a digit in your Tarrant number.

Tarrant's distributed population isn't necessarily good for Fort Worth. Fort Worth is growing out and that growth isn't sustainable or healthy for the urban center of town.

 

Yep.

 

Fort Worth should be reevaluating how it builds all over, not just in a handful of urban villages. The way we're building now is not sustainable, environmentally or economically, in the long term.

 

Amen!
Land

Use

Policies

Matter!



#118 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 22 March 2018 - 04:17 PM

 

 

Good point.

Austin - I think you're missing a digit in your Tarrant number.

Tarrant's distributed population isn't necessarily good for Fort Worth. Fort Worth is growing out and that growth isn't sustainable or healthy for the urban center of town.

 

Yep.

 

Fort Worth should be reevaluating how it builds all over, not just in a handful of urban villages. The way we're building now is not sustainable, environmentally or economically, in the long term.

 

Amen!
Land

Use

Policies

Matter!

 

 

Say it louder for the people in Walsh!



#119 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,648 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 March 2018 - 05:12 PM

The fact that the land has already been annexed by Fort Worth means the battle is mostly lost.



#120 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 March 2018 - 06:19 AM

Though I agree that urban management planning is important, I take a contrarian view regarding Fort Worth’s annexation policy.  Some of you may not like to read this, but one of the major reasons for annexation is to keep policy decision-making centralized.  The emergence and growth of suburbs and satellite communities is actually harmful to sound urban management planning on a regional scale.  Regional population growth is inevitable. I believe it is better controlled and managed in the long term by a single centralized governing authority rather than decentralized among numerous municipalities.



#121 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,648 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 March 2018 - 06:29 AM

If the annexation can't pay for the overextended city services with comparable tax base increases, where's the advantage in centralized control? Everybody loves to point to the pension system, mismanagement, and the police department as the roots of the city's financial problems, but rampant, unsustainable outward growth is just as much to blame. I would rather Fort Worth concentrate on providing better services to a smaller area and make living inside the loop more appealing and affordable than being able to dictate to a neighborhood in Parker County how tall their fences are or what color shingles they can put on their storage shed.

#122 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 March 2018 - 06:57 AM

I appreciate your concerns about "unsustainable outward growth" but that is a fact of life in our free political, social, and economic market-driven way of life.  People want to live where they choose and a lot of people choose to live out in the countryside rather than in a big city.  Then they demand urban services such as fire prevention and police patrol.  So over the long term civic leaders have three choices:  (1) Leave the area rural and ungoverned and uncontrolled except  by the county and state for their limited resources; (2) leave the area alone and eventually and inevitably it becomes urbanized through the suburban or satellite community process; or (3) the big city annexes the area so that it is governed by a single centralized authority.

 

I prefer No. 3 because it's easier for one governing authority to make decisions to control widespread population growth rather than have that decision-making fragmented over numerous municipalities.  You have only to think about how difficult it is to arrive at a decision regarding a regional transportation scheme when all the communities have to agree on one.

 

If you're worried about lack of services in new areas annexed by Fort Worth that is understandable.  But over time Fort Worth, if governed by wise leaders, will respond by providing those services.  But it takes time.



#123 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 23 March 2018 - 07:10 AM

New census estimates are out. Tarrant County is the 5th fastest growing county in the nation, adding nearly 33k residents over the past 365 days. DFW is the nations fastest growing metro, adding 146k.

 

https://www.census.g...tro-county.html

 

Texas Tribune has more details about the growth: https://www.texastri...-texas-suburbs/ The 33K increase in Tarrant County was nearly evenly split between "natural increase within county," aka existing residents having babies, and migration from other areas. Contrast that with Dallas County, whose growth was only 30% migration, and the suburban counties, which were 74% migration.



#124 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,648 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 March 2018 - 08:26 AM

The problem with Walsh a decade ago or Alliance back in the 90s is that the there was no one moving there and demanding city services.  The city annexed the empty land and subsidized the sprawl.  I have no problem with people living where they choose.  I just don't want the city footing the bill unnecessarily.  We already have a patchwork of city governments bordering the city of Fort Worth.  I'm interested in hearing examples of where it is so terrible that FW annexing the land would have been a better option.  Yes, you're right, the city will find a way to get city services to these areas.  Because the taxes brought in from those areas doesn't cover the cost of spreading city services out that far, they just dilute service and spending across the city and lower quality of life across the board.



#125 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 10:07 AM

Is it not true that providing city services is a net loser anyway in the city or to far flung areas of the city regardless of tax base for those services?  Making the $ back takes decades even in areas that have high density for those services. 


  • JBB likes this

#126 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,648 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 30 March 2018 - 10:33 AM

Yeah, I don't think anyone is making the argument that cities go into the business of providing services for the profit.  Just that spreading them out to the outlying areas dilutes it for everyone.



#127 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 10:46 AM

It would be really interesting to see a study like this done for Fort Worth.

https://www.strongto...=value per acre

http://www.urban-thr.../albuquerque-nm

https://www.strongto...ty-has-no-money

 

For all the studies that I have seen, the less dense far flung areas of a city bring in much less tax revenue than the older denser core, and it's the core that ends up subsidizing all of the new development.

 

There's a big difference between infill development which already has all the utilities and services that it needs vs. brand new green field development where everything needs to be built new to support it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users