Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

The Image of Fort Worth


  • Please log in to reply
515 replies to this topic

#101 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:17 AM

Somebody mentioned the San Francisco-Oakland analogy. If someone in Texas, say, is accepted for a job in Oakland, he'll probably tell a friend, "Goin' to San Francisco!" 

 

Really? 

Because I'm pretty sure Oakland is much more well known than Fort Worth... 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#102 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 05 May 2014 - 01:53 PM

....Somebody mentioned the San Francisco-Oakland analogy.....It's an unfortunately reality that regionalism obscures all subordinate urban entities under the name of the major metropolitan leader, whether it's San Francisco or Dallas. Unfortunately, the "image" of Fort Worth is, in actuality, a shadow of Dallas.

 

I think that you have missed the point of this thread which is to expand the image of Fort Worth; not to subordinate Fort Worth through the lazy use of terminology by the COG, by beholders or by those ready to surrender to the notion of an never-ending imperial Dallas complete with regional satellites.

 

If a company opens business in North Richland Hills, they are most emphatically not locating in Dallas, however broad one wants to stretch the meaning of Dallas.

 

Perception is not infinite actuality; it is only what you see and believe; and it is reversible. The answer is to stop the "bleeding".  Cities like Fort Worth and Oakland must always push back upon larger cities who secretly desire and benefit from the compilation of regional statistics and who then rather predictably, begin to take on an "entitlement status" that allows them to lay claim singularly to the benefits. 

 

It has become clear to some of us that Fort Worth has and is being disadvantage with the current makeup of the NCTCOG; and now that, for me at least, the time has come for Fort Worth to accentuate itself. If to accentuate means a new or the rebirth of an earlier COG consisting of Tarrant, Parker, Johnson, Hood and Wise Counties, then that is where Fort Worth should go. My guess is that Dallas really does not care much way or the other.

 

Downtown Fort Worth is already the key component in the infrastructure needed for this transformation in image.  Other infrastructure resources that are needed  is an expanded convention industry, core city-based and oriented media outlets, transportation assets and continued growth of academic institutions like UNT Health Center and Texas A&M Law School.

 

Fort Worth over everyone.



#103 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:56 PM

Oakland is the most dangerous city in California, its neighbors Emeryville and Richmond are close behind with sky high crime rates.  I would not want to compare Oakland to Fort Worth.

 

I can see why Toyota might have chosen Plano as a good place to relocate.  It is already packed with other corporate HQ's and is considered very livable.  They also are part of DART.  Read what Wikipedia has to say about Plano.  http://en.wikipedia....ki/Plano,_Texas   Compare that to Wiki's Fort Worth page.

 

I think RenaissanceMan's post on the other thread pretty well nailed what Fort Worth needs to do if they want to attract new corporate citizens.  It seems like there is more desire on this forum than at city hall.  We have some major employers in Fort Worth, Lockheed, Alcon, American Air, Bell, BNSF, Justin, the last two owned by Berkshire Hathaway.  None of these are downtown employers and I think folks here are hoping someone will come into town and build a high-rise.  There just doesn't seem to be much money right now for the city to market itself, but if Chamber of Commerce could step in and get the big employers in town to do a little marketing and explaining to business contacts why they are here and that they are happy to be part of the community.  You would think Warren Buffet would command some respect in the business world.    

 

I think Fort Worth has a good image, I have travelled all over the world and pretty much everyone I tell that I am from Fort Worth knows about it, I always tell them Fort Worth is the good side of the metroplex.  I may have told this story before, a few years ago I was at the airport in Queenstown, New Zealand.  I saw a guy wearing a sport coat over a T-shirt that said Fort Worth, Texas (i think it was from a bar) I asked the guy if he was from Fort Worth and he said no, he was from Los Angeles, but he was going to move to Fort Worth or somewhere in Texas because he had a family and he said California was not a good place to raise a family.

 

I like this side of the DFW area just fine, we could use a few improvements here and there, but things aren't bad at all.                                                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#104 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 May 2014 - 10:00 AM

 

 

It does seem like Fort Worth constantly misses out on office jobs...make no mistake, the announcement that Toyota is moving to Plano and bringing 4,000 jobs is still good news for the city of Dallas.... Many of those people will be shopping, eating, partying and living in Dallas. ...I think Fort Worth does a really poor job of marketing itself to the business community and is really being left behind.

 
I have my suspicion that Rick Perry had already cut a deal with Toyota and Plano during his trip to California; and that the deal would go to heavily conservative Collin County. would be getting this and not Dallas proper or even Fort Worth.  It happen so quickly and secretly that hardly anyone including Dallas proper or Fort Worth had an opportunity to make their pitch.
 
Rick Perry for President :glare:

While I can understand how you'd come to that conclusion... that's not exactly how these things work.

 

 

 

 

 


I have my suspicion that Rick Perry had already cut a deal with Toyota and Plano during his trip to California; and that the deal would go to heavily conservative Collin County. would be getting this and not Dallas proper or even Fort Worth.  It happen so quickly and secretly that hardly anyone including Dallas proper or Fort Worth had an opportunity to make their pitch.
 
Rick Perry for President :glare:

While I can understand how you'd come to that conclusion... that's not exactly how these things work.

 

 

From Dallas Morning News (5/3/2014)

 

Toyota leases interim offices

 

...Bruce Miller and Paul Martin with the law firm Vinson & Elkins negotiated the office lease

 

Miller said "The transaction to rent the office space happened quickly. We didn't know who the tenant was going to be until Monday...The lease was signed Wednesday".

 

Apparently, they knew something ahead of the rest of us, just not the who?

 

Now I ask anyone for an explaination of how Plano and the Campus of Legacy get this over Irving (Las Colinas), Dallas (Uptown/Downtown) Westlake or Fort Worth? 

 

Also Gov. Brown (California) cited comments from Toyota who said the decision to consolidate operations in Texas (Plano) was based partly on its proximity to manufacturing plants in Texas, Kentucky, Mississippi and Indiana. So then why not relocate to San Antonio?

 

 

 

Figured I'd go ahead and explain my previous comment.

 

In these types of projects, whenever a major corporation is looking at moving their facility, in nearly every case that corporation hires an outside site selection consultant. There are a lot of reasons why they do this, but one of the biggest is to help keep things quiet until they've had time to fully evaluate their options and make a final decision about where they are going to go (the last thing you want is for your staff in California to hear about how the company is thinking of moving operations to Texas or for everyone in Texas to know where you are wanting to go which can lead to a lot of unnecessary and inaccurate press based mostly on rumor and a decision that's still in process and it can drive up the costs of your land purchase or moving costs, etc.). Now, what most people don't realize is that by the time a company (or rather their site selector) contacts a given state or community that they are interested in locating in, about fifty percent of the work has already been done - the site selector has gone through a fairly in-depth process of working with the client to figure out what specific criteria is going to be used for deciding on where to locate (this list can include dozens of items ranging from proximity to customers, access to major transportation and distribution networks, land costs and availability, taxes, regulatory environment, cost of utilities, quality and quantity of the specific kinds of workers they need for their operations, quality of life and yachting opportunities for the CEO, etc.).

 

So typically what will happen is the site selector will use that list of criteria to start focusing in on a group of regions that fit what the client is looking for, and they come up with an initial list of targets. They then prepare a highly classified request for proposals that they then distribute to the states and/or chambers of commerce or economic development organizations of the areas that they are considering. If it goes to the state, the state will then contact community representatives and discuss the project which may or may not result in that community or chamber preparing a proposal that the state will then coordinate submission of to the site selector and, in the process, work with the community to coordinate potential state and local incentives. Now, obviously, the state isn't going to call any region that doesn't have key items that the company is looking for, such as rail or presence of a major research university or a workforce of a certain size, etc. - the fewer the people who know about the project, the better, because if you are the state who leaks the project, you lose.

 

If it goes directly to the region (e.g. the Greater Dallas Chamber), they will usually reach out to their member communities (e.g. City of Dallas, Irving, Plano, etc.) and invite them to submit their best sites, if any, based on what the company is looking for (these sites will then be assembled into one proposal prepared and submitted by the regional chamber). These communities/regional chambers will then coordinate with the State as they get a bit further into the process to coordinate incentives, job training, etc. The idea in every instance is to find the location that will be most competitive and therefore most likely to be selected by the relocating company. If the State was the one reached out to by the site selector, then the state will be the one to submit the proposal (which may include 2-3 of their "best sites"), if it is the region's chamber or economic development organization, then they will be the one to submit the proposal to the site selector. For smaller projects, this may all be done between the site selector and individual cities.

 

Pretty much every step of the way, the site selector always has multiple locations on the list, even if there is one in particular that they or the client are most interested in (this gives them a plan b if necessary and ensures that they are getting the best deal by leveraging the competition; it also allows them to avoid committing prematurely to any one location before it has been completely vetted). And until fairly late in the process, the identity of the company is kept a well-guarded secret (again, the last thing you want is for this to get out into the press before you are ready for it). So usually, the site selectors discuss the project and present it to states/communities using a code name (everything from "Project 253" to "Project Windfire!"). It is not until after the site selector has gotten down to a list of finalist locations and has visited the proposed sites and begins really getting into a discussion about incentives that the identity of the client is revealed to the state and/or community. The other locations that are also being considered are also usually kept pretty close to the vest until fairly late in the process.

 

This entire process will usually take about four to six months (which is actually pretty fast all things considered), though it can also stretch on for a year or more. However, it's like an iceberg - the part that you are going to see publicly is only a very small part of the full process that led up to it.

 

Now, I not going to say that politics doesn't play a factor - it often does. But keep in mind that it is a competition - a competition that is played under very strict rules set by the company that is moving (and also, of course, by federal, state and local laws and regulations). Sometimes the deciding factor can seem very arbitrary (rumor has it that the thing that put Chicago over the edge versus Dallas in the relocation of Boeing's HQ was the fact that Boeing's CEO at the time was a very big sailing enthusiast, which Chicago knew about and made sure to give him an incredible view of Lake Michigan on his visit to the city; but this was only after the two cities became finalists).

 

In this particular project (with a particular eye to the sales and upper-management professionals that they will be employing), it makes sense that they would want to go to Plano. But that says nothing of the degree to which Fort Worth was ever a serious competitor for the project at any stage along the way and what may have prevented it from being more competitive. This is just one project, but there are many like it that all run with the same playbook. Fort Worth is pretty good at competing, but the deck is currently stacked pretty well against it and it is going to have to find some way to overcome this if it wants to get the kind of projects that a city of its size and assets should be attracting.



#105 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:54 PM

When your city is known as cowtown, many upper management types want nothing to do with that image--especially if they are from out of state.  We will always get the defense contractors and oil/gas companies looking.  I doubt we get any major players the caliber of Toyota HQ's moving to Fort Worth anytime soon for no other reason that we are viewed as a blue collar town.



#106 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 May 2014 - 02:09 PM

When your city is known as cowtown, many upper management types want nothing to do with that image--especially if they are from out of state.  We will always get the defense contractors and oil/gas companies looking.  I doubt we get any major players the caliber of Toyota HQ's moving to Fort Worth anytime soon for no other reason that we are viewed as a blue collar town.

 

Don't be too hard on Fort Worth just because we didn't attract Toyota.  Toyota isn't  the only non-defense or non-energy related company around.  And companies of the caliber of Toyota have located here, among them BNSF, GE-Locomotive, and Motorola.



#107 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:05 PM

RM,  post#104 lays out for us a very helpful chronological roadmap that enhances the understanding of the steps involve in the corporate relocation selection process.

Much of it makes sense theoretically when followed fairly, however in it seems to me, at least, to have broken down in the case at hand.

 

It is not clear to me why Plano was the obvious choice; and then there are various comments made by public officials post selection that cause me to remain as skeptical as before about this selection; as well as the summation that provides approval of the outcome, all in combination, that most raise my skepticism:

In this particular project (with a particular eye to the sales and upper-management professionals that they will be employing), it makes sense that they would want to go to Plano. But that says nothing of the degree to which Fort Worth was ever a serious competitor for the project at any stage along the way and what may have prevented it from being more competitive”.  - RenaissanceMan.

 

 



#108 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:24 PM

RM,  post#104 lays out for us a very helpful chronological roadmap that enhances the understanding of the steps involve in the corporate relocation selection process.

Much of it makes sense theoretically when followed fairly, however in it seems to me, at least, to have broken down in the case at hand.

 

It is not clear to me why Plano was the obvious choice; and then there are various comments made by public officials post selection that cause me to remain as skeptical as before about this selection; as well as the summation that provides approval of the outcome, all in combination, that most raise my skepticism:

In this particular project (with a particular eye to the sales and upper-management professionals that they will be employing), it makes sense that they would want to go to Plano. But that says nothing of the degree to which Fort Worth was ever a serious competitor for the project at any stage along the way and what may have prevented it from being more competitive”.  - RenaissanceMan.

 

 

 

Well, as I said, it all really depends on the criteria that the company/site selector used to filter down to their eventual pick of Plano as well as on the particular path that they used in getting there. If, for instance, the company said to the site selector, "here is a list of a few states that we would be particularly interested in taking a look at and, in Texas, be sure to take a look at the San Antonio area and 'the Dallas area." In so doing, they could have inadvertently eliminated any place in North Texas that doesn't get covered by the Dallas Chamber (i.e. Fort Worth and the western half of the metroplex, save a few of the northern mid-cities such as South Lake and, if there were any major logistics-related criteria involved, Alliance, which oftentimes outside of the region gets attributed to Dallas anyhow). That's just one possible scenario in which you could have had Fort Worth left out of the running in any serious manner, not because of any incompetence on its end or on any nefarious activities that others took part in against it, but simply by the ongoing issues relating to how Fort Worth's low profile and many people's assumption that it is or should be treated as being a part of Dallas can really play against it in a typical site selection process. But then again, in this particular case and with all credit to Plano/Dallas, there could have been certain criteria that Toyota felt was best matched by the specific site in Plano (and my personal guess is that their profile of the surrounding area and its supply of professional labor probably factored in in a major way).



#109 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 May 2014 - 01:02 PM


Well, as I said, it all really depends on the criteria that the company/site selector used to filter down to their eventual pick of Plano as well as on the particular path that they used in getting there. If, for instance, the company said to the site selector, "here is a list of a few states that we would be particularly interested in taking a look at and, in Texas, be sure to take a look at the San Antonio area and 'the Dallas area." In so doing, they could have inadvertently eliminated any place in North Texas that doesn't get covered by the Dallas Chamber (i.e. Fort Worth and the western half of the metroplex, save a few of the northern mid-cities such as South Lake and, if there were any major logistics-related criteria involved, Alliance, which oftentimes outside of the region gets attributed to Dallas anyhow). That's just one possible scenario in which you could have had Fort Worth left out of the running in any serious manner, not because of any incompetence on its end or on any nefarious activities that others took part in against it, but simply by the ongoing issues relating to how Fort Worth's low profile and many people's assumption that it is or should be treated as being a part of Dallas can really play against it in a typical site selection process. But then again, in this particular case and with all credit to Plano/Dallas, there could have been certain criteria that Toyota felt was best matched by the specific site in Plano (and my personal guess is that their profile of the surrounding area and its supply of professional labor probably factored in in a major way).

 

 

You would be hard pressed to convince Dallas that it should feel a sense of credit when it was the loudest and most outspoken critic of the selection.  Yes, Fort Worth may lack some immediate space for leasing, but I don't believe it lacks an insufficient pool  potential talent; or the land (Chisholm Trail Parkway) that would be needed to accommodate a corporate campus. And yes you might say that about Fort Worth now,  but certainly not Irving or Dallas. 

 

Ask yourself, if GM was relocating to Texas to be near its plant, would it relocate to San Antonio or Arlington? Well that is just what Toyota is doing by locating in Plano instead of San Antonio.  This just looks very unseemly.

 

How can you possibly compare the surroundings of Plano with the surroundings of Torrance California:

 

http://en.wikipedia....:Torranceca.jpg



#110 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 03:04 PM

For the person who said we have an abundance of white collar folks setting around Fort Worth that is not true as compared to our neighbors east of us in a per capita basis.  We do have an abundance of blue collar workers though.  This is what companies that look at Fort Worth see, in addition to our cowboy image that turns while collar jobs off.

 

There is a reason that I30, I20 and 183 are full of folks like me driving east.  There are little, if any, high paying white collar jobs to go around in Fort Worth and little on the horizon.



#111 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:09 PM

I just wanted to pick back up on something that was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread: the comparison of Fort Worth's situation to Oakland. I get that a lot of people make this comparison (almost as often as to Minneapolis and St. Paul, despite Fort Worth being larger than both of those two cities combined), but the Bay Area really is its own animal and it deals with several factors that are not in play in North Texas (by the way, as you might have noticed, I've given up on the term Metroplex as people have come to call it the "Dallas Metroplex," and too many people think that "DFW" is just a reference to an airport, hence the use of the vague "North Texas"). For one thing, you have the physical impact and constraints of the Bay itself. San Francisco, being on the tip of a peninsula would be far larger than it is if it could build on water. Oakland has over time been the beneficiary of this constraint and, together with San Jose, served as an outlet for that growth, creating a dynamic that really is not analogous to Dallas and Fort Worth.

 

There really are not many good comparisons to Fort Worth and Dallas, though the one I tend to prefer is Washington D.C. and Baltimore. Even though they are not in the same MSA (mostly because Washington D.C. is Washington D.C.), those two cities are, from downtown-to-downtown the exact same distance as Fort Worth is to Dallas. Now imagine anyone in America mistaking Baltimore for Washington or for someone to say that they are from Washington D.C. and someone responds with "oh, the Baltimore area." The big difference in the comparison to Washington and Baltimore (besides being in different MSAs and states/districts) is the fact that there is no city similar to Arlington, TX in between them and (don't get too excited Renamerusk) their major international airports are not consolidated and positioned in between them prompting the build-up of mid-cities, thereby allowing the two cities to remain more physically distinct. But again, the analogy is somewhat lacking since Fort Worth is still larger than  Washington D.C. and larger than Baltimore. But, I like it a bit better because most people simply could not conceive of anyone treating the two as if they were one in the same and no one would dare suggest that one is basically a suburb of the other (though as a region the two cities share quite a bit between each other).

 

In case you were wondering, there are also several major cities outside of the United States that are roughly the same distance from one another (again, looking from downtown-to-downtown) as Fort Worth is from Dallas:

 

Liverpool - Manchester

Cologne - Dusseldorf

Lucerne - Zurich

Padua - Venice

 

Only one of these cities has a larger population than Fort Worth (Cologne), but none of these pairs would be lumped together as one in the way that Fort Worth tends to be with Dallas. One day I'd love to see the Chamber or the CVB or somebody prepare a document or poster that puts the maps of these regions side by side with North Texas.



#112 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:21 PM

Plano over San Antonio may be as simple as DFW over SAT.



#113 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

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

Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:46 PM

What about: Miami-Fort Lauderdale.

 

They are about 30 miles apart, and Fort Lauderdale is about half the size of Miami.  And, er, the smaller one starts with "Fort".

 

And Fort Lauderdale also has "modern bus-trolleys for the downtown".  It's almost spooky...

 

http://articles.sun-...own-trolley-bus



#114 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:47 PM

I just wanted to pick back up on something that was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread: the comparison of Fort Worth's situation to Oakland. I get that a lot of people make this comparison

 

RM, as always, you provide excellent points to the discussion.  The comparison of Fort Worth's situation to Oakland's situation in a dual or multi-centered region was made by me to demonstrate that with all of the negative image aimed at Oakland, it is a city that is affirmative about its status and must remain vigilant as should Fort Worth.  For all of the denigration heaped upon Oakland, it gets enormous benefit and recognition for being one of the "fortress" hubs in the Southwest Airlines network.

 

Yes, the Bay Area is a region, but neither SF, Oakland or San Jose would relinquish major assets like an airport, major convention hall, transit, etc. to either one of the fore mentioned cities in the name of regionalism as did Fort Worth when it made a strategic and forced error in the 1960's. 

 

It is time to repeal this error in judgment and for Fort Worth to reclaim these assets to once again become seen as city with its own identity.



#115 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:54 PM

Plano over San Antonio may be as simple as DFW over SAT.

 

How so?  Why not Irving if DFW is important?

 

What about: Miami-Fort Lauderdale.

 

They are about 30 miles apart, and Fort Lauderdale is about half the size of Miami.  And, er, the smaller one starts with "Fort".

 

And Fort Lauderdale also has "modern bus-trolleys for the downtown".  It's almost spooky...

 

 

Yes.  Good point!

 

Dallas is trampling Fort Worth



#116 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 07 May 2014 - 05:51 PM

 

Plano over San Antonio may be as simple as DFW over SAT.

 

How so?  Why not Irving if DFW is important?

 

The question was why Plano over San Antonio. I think the difference in airports can reasonably be considered a significant advantage for Plano vs. San Antonio - given Toyota is an international company with operations distributed across the US.

 

But clearly to the extent that air travel was a consideration, DFW's advantage would apply to any city with reasonable access to that airport over cities served by SAT. As to why Plano rather than Irving, that's a different matter and presumably other factors were considered.



#117 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 07 May 2014 - 10:20 PM

I just wanted to pick back up on something that was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread: the comparison of Fort Worth's situation to Oakland. I get that a lot of people make this comparison (almost as often as to Minneapolis and St. Paul, despite Fort Worth being larger than both of those two cities combined)...

 

I just wanted to comment about this comparison and another one mentioned later in RM's excellent post. Any comparisons of Fort Worth being "larger" than other cities runs the risk of being very skewed due to Fort Worth's habit of annexing everything between downtown and Denton. To see what I'm talking about, go to google maps and type in "Fort Worth, TX". The map that comes up with show you exactly where the city boundaries are. Now do the same thing with Minneapolis. The 820 and 694 loops are basically identical in size, yet "Minneapolis" fits entirely within the loop. Minneapolis is 58 sq miles, while Fort Worth covers 350 square miles. Nearly 6 times more landmass! So if you are going by population, of course Fort Worth is bigger. Every single small town that has been annexed by Fort Worth exists as it's own city around Minneapolis.

 

A useful comparison is Tarrant versus Hennepin County. Here's the stats:

Tarrant: 897 sq miles, 1.88 mil population ~ 2095 persons per sq mile

Hennepin: 606 sq miles, 1.185 mil population ~ 1955 persons per sq mile

 

Even that's not perfect as Minneapolis is stuffed over in the corner of the county, but it's close. Having lived for quite some time in both cities, I would have to say Minneapolis is far more like Dallas. Fort Worth is absolutely a "small town" compared to Minneapolis, which isn't necessarily a bad thing- lots of people love that small town feeling in Fort Worth. Merely looking at population of a "city" gives a skewed perspective.

 

Incidentally, this sort of land grab by Fort Worth has the consequence of skewing numbers for things like the purported improved crime statistics versus Dallas due to CCPD.



#118 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 May 2014 - 07:51 AM


I just wanted to pick back up on something that was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread: the comparison of Fort Worth's situation to Oakland. I get that a lot of people make this comparison (almost as often as to Minneapolis and St. Paul, despite Fort Worth being larger than both of those two cities combined)...

 
I just wanted to comment about this comparison and another one mentioned later in RM's excellent post. Any comparisons of Fort Worth being "larger" than other cities runs the risk of being very skewed due to Fort Worth's habit of annexing everything between downtown and Denton. To see what I'm talking about, go to google maps and type in "Fort Worth, TX". The map that comes up with show you exactly where the city boundaries are. Now do the same thing with Minneapolis. The 820 and 694 loops are basically identical in size, yet "Minneapolis" fits entirely within the loop. Minneapolis is 58 sq miles, while Fort Worth covers 350 square miles. Nearly 6 times more landmass! So if you are going by population, of course Fort Worth is bigger. Every single small town that has been annexed by Fort Worth exists as it's own city around Minneapolis.
 
A useful comparison is Tarrant versus Hennepin County. Here's the stats:
Tarrant: 897 sq miles, 1.88 mil population ~ 2095 persons per sq mile
Hennepin: 606 sq miles, 1.185 mil population ~ 1955 persons per sq mile
 
Even that's not perfect as Minneapolis is stuffed over in the corner of the county, but it's close. Having lived for quite some time in both cities, I would have to say Minneapolis is far more like Dallas. Fort Worth is absolutely a "small town" compared to Minneapolis, which isn't necessarily a bad thing- lots of people love that small town feeling in Fort Worth. Merely looking at population of a "city" gives a skewed perspective.
 
Incidentally, this sort of land grab by Fort Worth has the consequence of skewing numbers for things like the purported improved crime statistics versus Dallas due to CCPD.

All great points, but as you've demonstrated, if you use the county or the Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan division, then things become a bit more comparable. And I also agree that population is only one measure of a city, but it is one of the most common and is equally as often used to imply the size of that city's economy and general stature among other cities nationwide. I do not believe that being viewed as a large city in any way takes away from Fort Worth's small town character, but Fort Worth is a major city with big city amenities and world class cultural assets, so while Fort Worth can be known for being laid back or for having that small town feel where everyone's a neighbor (a myth we like to tell ourselves, but a good myth nonetheless), what Fort Worth cannot afford is to be marginalized or treated as something less than the major city that it is (i.e. a suburb or a hick backwater, etc.). And making comparisons based on population is one way of doing that. My previous point was only that making direct comparisons to some of the usual suspects such as the Bay Area or Minneapolis-St. Paul can be problematic and suggest things about Fort Worth that aren't entirely true and that reinforce perceptions of it being a second-rate or a "twin city" which it just doesn't seem to me to be.

#119 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 May 2014 - 07:51 AM


I just wanted to pick back up on something that was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread: the comparison of Fort Worth's situation to Oakland. I get that a lot of people make this comparison (almost as often as to Minneapolis and St. Paul, despite Fort Worth being larger than both of those two cities combined)...

 
I just wanted to comment about this comparison and another one mentioned later in RM's excellent post. Any comparisons of Fort Worth being "larger" than other cities runs the risk of being very skewed due to Fort Worth's habit of annexing everything between downtown and Denton. To see what I'm talking about, go to google maps and type in "Fort Worth, TX". The map that comes up with show you exactly where the city boundaries are. Now do the same thing with Minneapolis. The 820 and 694 loops are basically identical in size, yet "Minneapolis" fits entirely within the loop. Minneapolis is 58 sq miles, while Fort Worth covers 350 square miles. Nearly 6 times more landmass! So if you are going by population, of course Fort Worth is bigger. Every single small town that has been annexed by Fort Worth exists as it's own city around Minneapolis.
 
A useful comparison is Tarrant versus Hennepin County. Here's the stats:
Tarrant: 897 sq miles, 1.88 mil population ~ 2095 persons per sq mile
Hennepin: 606 sq miles, 1.185 mil population ~ 1955 persons per sq mile
 
Even that's not perfect as Minneapolis is stuffed over in the corner of the county, but it's close. Having lived for quite some time in both cities, I would have to say Minneapolis is far more like Dallas. Fort Worth is absolutely a "small town" compared to Minneapolis, which isn't necessarily a bad thing- lots of people love that small town feeling in Fort Worth. Merely looking at population of a "city" gives a skewed perspective.
 
Incidentally, this sort of land grab by Fort Worth has the consequence of skewing numbers for things like the purported improved crime statistics versus Dallas due to CCPD.

All great points, but as you've demonstrated, if you use the county or the Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan division, then things become a bit more comparable. And I also agree that population is only one measure of a city, but it is one of the most common and is equally as often used to imply the size of that city's economy and general stature among other cities nationwide. I do not believe that being viewed as a large city in any way takes away from Fort Worth's small town character, but Fort Worth is a major city with big city amenities and world class cultural assets, so while Fort Worth can be known for being laid back or for having that small town feel where everyone's a neighbor (a myth we like to tell ourselves, but a good myth nonetheless), what Fort Worth cannot afford is to be marginalized or treated as something less than the major city that it is (i.e. a suburb or a hick backwater, etc.). And making comparisons based on population is one way of doing that. My previous point was only that making direct comparisons to some of the usual suspects such as the Bay Area or Minneapolis-St. Paul can be problematic and suggest things about Fort Worth that aren't entirely true and that reinforce perceptions of it being a second-rate or a "twin city" which it just doesn't seem to me to be.

#120 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 May 2014 - 08:00 AM

RM, as always, you provide excellent points to the discussion.


Quit blowing smoke or pretty soon I'll be exclusive to Facebook and basking in the comments of my adoring fans.

#121 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 08 May 2014 - 08:28 AM

 

Quit blowing smoke or pretty soon I'll be exclusive to Facebook and basking in the comments of my adoring fans.

 

 

Touche!

 

Oh and one more point on the Minneapolis/ Fort Worth comparison:

With ~ half the population, the City of Minneapolis budget is TWICE as large as Fort Worth. How does that happen? Don't say property taxes- they are far lower in Minnesota.

Fort Worth spends (blows?) ~1/3 of the budget on Police (not including CCPD!) Minneapolis 12%.

While I agree that Fort Worth has some great cultural amenities, Minneapolis has the same thing times ten. Minneapolis is Dallas, and St. Paul is Fort Worth. The whole thing in Minnesota is about half the size of the DFW version, but as far as I can tell after living "up North" for about 10 years and living in Tarrant County for about 25 years, I'd say it's quite an accurate comparison. Oh, and folks from St. Paul get bent out of shape if you call it the Minneapolis airport versus Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport, etc, etc...



#122 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 May 2014 - 10:32 AM

 

The question was why Plano over San Antonio. I think the difference in airports can reasonably be considered a significant advantage for Plano vs. San Antonio - given Toyota is an international company with operations distributed across the US.

 

 

So Toyota justified its relocation to Texas so that it could be closer to its U.S. plants.

 

How important is an international airport to Toyota's national offices when business travel takes it to Tupelo, MS, Georgetown, KY, San Antonio, TX, Princeton, IN, Huntsville, AL and Buffalo, WV.?

 

After all, the flight to Tokyo is shorter from LAX than from DFW.

 

For the person who said we have an abundance of white collar folks setting around Fort Worth that is not true as compared to our neighbors east of us in a per capita basis.....There is a reason that I30, I20 and 183 are full of folks like me driving east.  There are little, if any, high paying white collar jobs to go around in Fort Worth and little on the horizon.

 

Your point is counter intuitive.  The commute west to east demonstrates two things (1) that there is an abundance/adequate supply of white collar folks living in Tarrant County; (2) that there is a lack of opportunity in Tarrant County. 

 

So, the answer is to create white collar jobs in Tarrant County to meet the demand.



#123 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 08 May 2014 - 12:40 PM

Oh and one more point on the Minneapolis/ Fort Worth comparison:

With ~ half the population, the City of Minneapolis budget is TWICE as large as Fort Worth. How does that happen? Don't say property taxes- they are far lower in Minnesota.

Fort Worth spends (blows?) ~1/3 of the budget on Police (not including CCPD!) Minneapolis 12%.

 

 

I realize it's off-topic, but comparing government revenues, expenses and budgets is fun.

 

The City of Minneapolis 2014 approved budget is $1.24B.

The City of Fort Worth 2014 approved budge is $1.4B

 

It's not twice as large, but I guess about twice per capita. Not everyone would think that's a good thing. But it's interesting that with half the population they take in and spend almost as much. To answer your question "How does that happen?": on most revenue sources, despite having half the population, they take in well over half as much as Fort Worth and on some line items (Operating Grants & Contributions is a big one (+$85M) but also local government aid ($56M)) they take in quite a bit more.

 

The City of Minneapolis budgeted $147M for their PD in 2014. (12% of total budget; $374 per capita)

The City of Fort Worth budgeted $204M for their PD in 2014. (14% of total budget; $262 per capita)

 

In 2012, the City of Minneapolis' 3 largest revenue sources were:

Charges for Services ($400M)

Property Taxes ($231M)

Operating Grants and Contributions ($133M)

(There was also $53M listed as "property tax increment", whatever that is. And Minneapolis had a separate line item for convention center taxes, which Fort Worth may have included either in other local taxes or perhaps charges for services.)

 

In 2012, the City of Fort Worth's 3 largest revenue sources were:

Charges for Services ($512M)

Property Taxes ($351M)

Other Local Taxes ($188M)



#124 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 08 May 2014 - 01:18 PM

So Toyota justified its relocation to Texas so that it could be closer to its U.S. plants.

 

How important is an international airport to Toyota's national offices when business travel takes it to Tupelo, MS, Georgetown, KY,

San Antonio, TX, Princeton, IN, Huntsville, AL and Buffalo, WV.?

 

After all, the flight to Tokyo is shorter from LAX than from DFW.

 

 

I think we can entertain the possibility that there was more than one reason and more than one criteria. I'm no man of the world, but in my limited experience when you have more than one consideration in making an important decision, sometimes you have to balance things and accept that there will be trade-offs. Sometimes none of your available options is superior in every category under consideration. And that's unfortunate, because it would probably make the decision a lot easier to make.

 

LAX to DFW got them closer to their US plants but further from Tokyo. I can't imagine where an airport would be that would get them closer to the plants without it being further from Tokyo, but I haven't had Geography since high school. It doesn't seem too unlikely that they decided it was more important to get closer to the plants so were willing to sacrifice some of the convenience of the Tokyo trips from LAX, but wanted to minimize the loss as much as possible. One way might be to stay close to an airport with frequent international flights and perhaps even non-stops to HND. Just shootin' from the hip, but that suggests cities served by DFW, ORD, etc. would get a look as getting them closer to their plants while still having decent service to HND (and other international locations, if they even have any). I mean, I wasn't invited into the process but it just seems plausible.

 

Moving to San Antonio would have the advantage of getting them closer to their San Antonio plant and the fine dining on the River Walk... and that's about it. Oh, and Sea World. Even when the trip from SAT to one of their plants is no worse than it would be from DFW (for instance, if you want to fly a major, you're probably looking at hopping a Delta to ATL and connecting to CRW from either DFW or SAT), DFW still will have the advantage in frequency of departures. 

 

I'm just thinking, with my limited cognitive skills, that they looked at a lot of things. I think air travel might have been one, but I don't know. There were probably others. Incentives. Labor force. Weather. Price and availability of space. Schools. Home prices. And those things might not have been ranked the same so some were seen as more important to meet than others. And based on all of that, they made a choice. And then Rick Perry and the Illuminati stepped in and said, "No, Plano." And that did it.

 

All that's left now is to decide who to take with the 16th pick of the NFL draft. Hopefully there's one player who can rush the passer, cover the deep routes, make open-field tackles, pick up blitzing linebackers and catch balls over the middle. Otherwise, we're back to trade-offs and balancing different needs and objectives.



#125 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 May 2014 - 01:29 PM

 

All that's left now is to decide who to take with the 16th pick of the NFL draft. Hopefully there's one player who can rush the passer, cover the deep routes, make open-field tackles, pick up blitzing linebackers and catch balls over the middle. Otherwise, we're back to trade-offs and balancing different needs and objectives.

 

 

No need for trade-offs with that criteria. Jason Verrett can do all of that quite nicely.



#126 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 01:35 PM

Most of the white collar are younger folks just starting out that make the commute to the East.  Once family comes along, most move East.  I am the exception to the norm as I have been doing the SW FW to Dallas for 20 years.



#127 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 08 May 2014 - 08:54 PM

 

I realize it's off-topic, but comparing government revenues, expenses and budgets is fun.

 

 

Thanks for correcting my wrong info posted above. I was going off the summary of the Fort Worth Budget for 2014 which shows a total General Fund budget of ~$565million, with $204 mil allocated to the PD (as you posted above). All the other sources of revenue in Fort Worth that add up to the larger 1.252 number don't support the $204 mil for the PD. At least that is my understanding, perhaps you can help out there.

 

So I think in Fort Worth it's $204 of the $565 (36%) versus $147 of the $503 (29%) in Minneapolis. Not including the CCPD.

(Not as out of whack as it looked at first glace.)



#128 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:19 AM

I was going off the summary of the Fort Worth Budget for 2014 which shows a total General Fund budget of ~$565million, with $204 mil allocated to the PD (as you posted above). All the other sources of revenue in Fort Worth that add up to the larger 1.252 number don't support the $204 mil for the PD. At least that is my understanding, perhaps you can help out there.

 

 

I ran into the same issues going through the CAFR and budget. Some numbers and tables would be relative to total revenues and expenditures while others were based on a particular fund (usually the general fund). I had to recalculate some of my numbers as I flipped around the pages.

 

And, right: not all revenues go into the General Fund. Taxes mostly do, I think. Some sources of revenue, though, are required to go into, for instance, Special Revenue Funds. While money in the General Fund can be allocated to pretty much any city expenditure, money in a Special Revenue Fund is allocated for a particular expense. For instance, money the city receives from the state or federal government might be designated by that government for road improvements. The city has to put those monies in a revenue fund earmarked for that and cannot just put it into the general fund to be used for other purposes. Also bond covenants may require the city to allocate certain revenues into a Debt Service Fund which is allocated for paying on outstanding bonds. Speaking of bonds, if a city sells bonds for a particular project, the proceeds from the sale of that bond can go into a Project Fund that is spent on that project rather than the General Fund. All these (and others) add up to the total budget.

 

Government accounting can be more arcane - and just as prone to pencil-whipping - as corporate accounting.



#129 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 May 2014 - 08:47 AM

 

I think we can entertain the possibility that there was more than one reason and more than one criteria. I'm no man of the world, but in my limited experience when you have more than one consideration in making an important decision, sometimes you have to balance things and accept that there will be trade-offs.......I'm just thinking, with my limited cognitive skills, that they looked at a lot of things. I think air travel might have been one, but I don't know. There were probably others. Incentives. Labor force. Weather. Price and availability of space. Schools. Home prices. And those things might not have been ranked the same so some were seen as more important to meet than others. And based on all of that, they made a choice. And then Rick Perry and the Illuminati stepped in and said, "No, Plano." And that did it.

 

 

FWBP's investigative reporting sheds light upon the Toyota Deal and reveals the roles of secrecy, presidential aspiration and corporate welfare.  I don't know if this is exactly fair competition within the region, however, various cities in North Texas, with the notable exception of Dallas, seem satisfied with the choice of Plano.   Fort Worth is embarrassingly silent on the matter, and really for all practicality, the image of Fort Worth was not a factor.

 

http://fwbusinesspre...651t34&aid=5225



#130 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,427 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 09 May 2014 - 11:33 AM

If you think that article was an investigative report as you described, I'm not sure you actually read it.

#131 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:12 PM

One thing the article touches on a couple of times (noticeably in the quotes from Jurey) that I think is really one of the keys to the success of the north Dallas corridor in attracting corporate relocations is the dense presence of the supporting businesses. As the area gained a number of successes, businesses that do business with those corporations moved in as well - law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, etc. This increased density of supporting firms are a part of the infrastructure of the area and made it increasingly attractive for new relocations. The presence of all of this has attracted a higher density of the labor force attractive to these firms, attracting a higher density of retail and personal services. Add to that things like Addison airport as an option for corporate jets while still being convenient to DFW and DAL. The north tollway is like another long thin CBD and the cities in that area are reaping the benefits.

 

Fort Worth is my city - don't get me wrong. And maybe I'm just missing it, but we don't seem to have all of these in the same density. Downtown Fort Worth is awesome, but it's not that convenient to DFW. Even Meacham is not a quick jaunt up the freeway. And while we have wonderful areas, I don't recognize the same density of all the things that companies look for. Yet.

 

We should remember that this isn't the 4th quarter. There's no game clock. Cities with much less to offer than Fort Worth have exploded overnight. The thing to do is continue to study film, work the refs, build our team and when the opportunity for a big play presents itself, execute.



#132 eastfwther

eastfwther

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:25 PM

If you want to see how much Fort Worth (and Tarrant County)  is behind in DFW's business community, take a drive from downtown Dallas head north up 75 through Plano/Mckinney, cut across 121 come back down the tollway through Frisco and back to downtown Dallas. What you'll see is a plethora of office buildings, corporate campuses, and office parks...the likes that are unseen here in Tarrant County and Fort Worth. And this doesn't even include Las Colinas (where I work).  Take this drive and you'll see how Fort Worth is not even close to being in same league as the Dallas area.. I mean, didn't I read on this forum that Las Colinas alone has more office space than DTFW? This is not a dis of FW, just a fact that we're no where near the Dallas metro when it comes to corporate office jobs. The two sides of the metro are virtually uncomparable.
 



#133 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:41 PM

There is WAY too much intelligent thought going on here for an Internet forum.

#134 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 09 May 2014 - 07:14 PM

Went to Dallas yesterday (and will be doing the same tomorrow night). There are far more suburban office buildings over there than here, and they tend to be far larger than anything here.

 

 

We really need to do something to promote ourselves. Viral video maybe?


- Dylan


#135 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 May 2014 - 11:26 PM

If you think that article was an investigative report as you described, I'm not sure you actually read it.

 

Scratch "investigative" and replace it with "useful". And yes, I did read it.   Lets just say that it is overall very helpful to anyone interested in the Toyota relocation.

 

By the way, the DMN is reporting the numbers in the Plano-Toyota "quid pro quo" deal.  Its corporate welfare gone amok for a company that is reporting a record annual profit of $17.5B and sales of 10M vehicles for the first time.  Texas (Plano) gets 3,650 jobs (transfers+created) for $40M dollars of Texas Enterprise Funds.  Collins County (Plano) homeowners seeing valuation increases between 10.92% - 14.7%

 

 

One thing the article touches on a couple of times (noticeably in the quotes from Jurey) that I think is really one of the keys to the success of the north Dallas corridor in attracting corporate relocations is the dense presence of the supporting businesses. As the area gained a number of successes, businesses that do business with those corporations moved in as well - law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, etc. This increased density of supporting firms are a part of the infrastructure of the area and made it increasingly attractive for new relocations. The presence of all of this has attracted a higher density of the labor force attractive to these firms, attracting a higher density of retail and personal services.

 

So, in the digital age where transactions are made across state and national boundaries, is it still critically important that there be a dense presence of supporting businesses?  As I understand,  the comments of Mr. Jurey suggested that "supporting" businesses will arise as a result of the relocation which is different than suggesting that the "supporting" businesses preceded the company's  relocation. I would characterize Mr. Jurey's description of "supporting" businesses as small local manufacturing/supplier contractors.  He made no mention of law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, etc.  In any event, l would imagine that the highest concentration of professional service firms that allegedly prompted Toyota to relocate are to be found in downtown/uptown Dallas; and not in Plano, right?

 

This continues to be an engaging discussion about the disparity between Dallas and Fort Worth when it comes to the "white collar" employment opportunities available in the two cities.  Spending too much time sulking is counter-productive.  The image of Fort Worth is not as problematic as is the lack of a defining presence --- you can fault regionalism for doing that and a what has become a rather complacent  and gullible string of leaders during the past 40 years. 

 

This statement from RM (5/2/14) sums it up for me:

 

"If you really want to get down to it, Fort Worth is the best city in the most asset-rich region of the most business-friendly state in America... it should be pulling in a better number of businesses downtown".

 

Lets invest in some assets of our own. Panther Island is a great start, add transportation, livable neighborhoods and tourism -  and Here you go!

 

Fort Worth over everyone.



#136 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

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

Posted 10 May 2014 - 12:33 AM

 

FWBP's investigative reporting sheds light upon the Toyota Deal and reveals the roles of secrecy, presidential aspiration and corporate welfare. 

 

 

If you replace "presidential aspiration" with the more general term "political ambition", I think that could apply to most high-profile relocations. Secrecy because many of the players have more to lose than to gain by showing their hand too early; political ambition because politicians at various levels and from all parts of the political spectrum are involved and this is what they do - having their hand in bringing jobs and money to their constituents looks good in November; and corporate welfare because there is a benefit to the city, county and state to win the location of the business and as long as other cities, counties and states are willing to pay them you're probably going to have to pay them to get them to move here (or stay here) no matter how big their pile of cash is. It might totally stink, but that's the environment now.

 

 

 

So, in the digital age where transactions are made across state and national boundaries, is it still critically important that there be a dense presence of supporting businesses?  As I understand,  the comments of Mr. Jurey suggested that "supporting" businesses will arise as a result of the relocation which is different than suggesting that the "supporting" businesses preceded the company's  relocation. I would characterize Mr. Jurey's description of "supporting" businesses as small local manufacturing/supplier contractors.  He made no mention of law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, etc.  In any event, l would imagine that the highest concentration of professional service firms that allegedly prompted Toyota to relocate are to be found in downtown/uptown Dallas; and not in Plano, right?

 

 

Yeah, it's the 21st Century and we have a wealth of technology and we could deal with many of those firms virtually, but in reality a lot of things are still done face-to-face. I don't know how much of that is cultural and how much is human nature, but it's still the way a lot of business gets done.

 

You are correct in what Mr. Jurey described, but what he described about that particular area is true more generally. Once there's a concentration of businesses in an area, it draws in supporting firms and matching labor skills. Toyota's American headquarters doesn't need small local manufacturing, but they will conceivably use local service firms for various needs.

 

There may indeed be a somewhat higher concentration of supporting service firms in downtown/uptown Dallas, but that's where we get back to weighing all the other needs to make the final site selection. Maybe they found a better deal there on the facilities they needed. Maybe Plano gave a better incentive package than Dallas. Maybe they liked the neighborhoods and schools (public and/or private) in that area more. Maybe they thought it'd be funny to joke, "Aw, these offices ain't nothing special; they're just our Plano headquarters! Get it? Our Plain o' headquarters! Hahahahahahaha!"

 

For the past year I'm (sadly) working in Dallas again - around 635 and the North Dallas Tollway. I haven't worked in Dallas since 1999 and have rarely visited. (Because life's too short and Fort Worth over everyone, right?) I had forgotten just how much commerce is going on over there. If it weren't Dallas, I'd probably think it was pretty awesome. I mostly Amon-Carter my lunch, but when I do go out I have to admit to being reluctantly impressed by everything that's in that area. And I'm telling you - Growth attracts growth. Success attracts success. Commerce attracts commerce. It just builds on itself. When the site selection team makes the drive from DFW to that area, they see growth and success and commerce. They see activity. Yes, sucks-thirty-five is horrible, but it's obvious there's a lot of work going on to remedy that. So they see mile after mile of offices of all sizes and names they recognize and it looks like it must be an attractive place to set up shop or there wouldn't be so many businesses here who have done so. And they know that there must be all the things that a large firm needs in the area or there wouldn't be so many large firms here. So before they hop out of the limo, they have a positive impression. And as they visit their sites and ask their questions and check off their requirements, they probably feel pretty confident that the site has potential to make the short list.

 

And once the short list is complete, then the negotiations begin. It's like buying a house. We want space and this house has the most space. Yeah, but we also want a nice yard and this house has such a sad little yard. This other house has less space but not too much less and it has a fabulous yard. But when the wind's out of the south, good heavens what is that smell? Oh, this one's not so bad. Decent space and decent yard - but the price per square foot is a bit high and the owner seems unwilling to negotiate. Sometimes you end up with not everything you wanted and your in-laws will question you reasoning but that's life.

 

Obviously I don't know what put Plano over the top - but I sure hope the folks working in Fort Worth's Economic Development department and the Chamber of Commerce do.



#137 dangr.dave

dangr.dave

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 12 May 2014 - 11:38 AM

Here is the latest:

 

http://www.wfaa.com/...-258910321.html

 

Joel Burns got into it with the Weather Channel because they apparently keep showing photos of Dallas instead of Fort Worth. 

 

And, when I was out in Sundance today at lunch, the paper was taking photos of Joel holding up a sign that said "#This is Fort Worth".  Of course, I butted in and asked to take a photo too!



#138 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 May 2014 - 11:44 AM

Good for him!

Edit: just read the link (and article in ST). Wow! Just wow. Completely unbelievable.

#THISisFortWorth

#139 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 12 May 2014 - 12:22 PM

All of us need to be on our toes, and when the media indicates that Fort Worth is a part of Dallas, then we should correct them.  I'm really pleased to see that Joel called them on it.  I'm just shocked by their reply.



#140 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,427 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 12 May 2014 - 12:45 PM

Good for Joel.  I'm not sure why anyone would have used their app in the first place.  Stacked up against the plethora of weather apps available, The Weather Channel's is easily the least accurate and the least reliable.



#141 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 May 2014 - 01:20 PM

Joel Burns is the exact kind of leader that Fort Worth lacks. 

 

And if, Mr. Burns, you are reading this - "BRAVO!"

 

Fort Worth over everyone.



#142 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 12 May 2014 - 01:48 PM

Good for Joel!

 

(Also surprised to see so many people *not* using Dark Sky, but that's another topic.)


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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#143 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,105 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 12 May 2014 - 02:04 PM

^Radarscope is where it's at! The Weather Channel is horrible. It's basically weather based fear mongering or entertainment half the time. 

But seriously, this little drama is doing great things for FW's image. The Weather Channel's response to Joel was even better and has gained quite a bit of attention. 

 

 

 

@JoelBurns we apologize for our reply this morning. Our response was inappropriate & we're taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again  


#144 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 May 2014 - 02:52 PM

Really love seeing the #THISisFortWorth taking off like it is on Twitter and Tumbler.

#145 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 12 May 2014 - 03:22 PM

Most of the white collar are younger folks just starting out that make the commute to the East.  Once family comes along, most move East.  I am the exception to the norm as I have been doing the SW FW to Dallas for 20 years.

Why not just move to Dallas or Irving?



#146 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 May 2014 - 03:45 PM

Bringing everything in this discussion full circle, after the press picked up on the whole exchange on Twitter today, I saw that one of the outlets that picked up on the story was in Boston and, curious, I read the article and caught the following in the comments section that just summed up so much of the issue perfectly:

 

"I'm confused. I thought that Fort Worth was part of Dallas? How come every time I fly there it says "Dallas / Fort Worth"? Also, they can't be expected to have a picture for every town in the US! If I check the weather in Cambridge and it shows me a picture of Boston, I'm not going to throw a fit."

 

Not to give a random commenter on some distant news outlet more weight than they deserve (which, really, is zero), but... there ya have it. Apparently, Fort Worth is analogous to Cambridge, MA (pop. 100,000).



#147 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 May 2014 - 04:36 PM

..... summed up so much of the issue perfect

 

"I'm confused. I thought that Fort Worth was part of Dallas? How come every time I fly there it says "Dallas / Fort Worth"? .....

 

   "Airport!...Airport...Airport... Ai........."



#148 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 12 May 2014 - 09:06 PM

Not thrilled with either side's response. Burns asking TWC to give $100,000 in donations is going a bit far IMO.

 

Glad to see TWC receive some embarrassment for confusing us with a different major city. They often confuse Fort Worth with Dallas on TV as well.


- Dylan


#149 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts

Posted 13 May 2014 - 09:47 AM

cjyoung--why move when I love Fort Worth and the drive is not that big of a deal. 



#150 dangr.dave

dangr.dave

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 14 May 2014 - 06:29 AM

Here you go:

14150753856_0bcbd19650_z.jpg#THISisFortWorth by dangr.dave, on Flickr






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users