SkyscraperPage Forum
Prev1234
Viewing Page 1 of 4
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   What if Houston or Dallas eventually became the largest cities in the US? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240799)

jd3189 Oct 24, 2019 11:37 PM
What if Houston or Dallas eventually became the largest cities in the US?
 
I thought that the LA thread would foster more discussion specifically on the OP. But in order to prevent that thread from being locked up for going off topic, I’m giving a certain topic its own home.


But in all seriousness, I’m curious about it as well. Texas seems to be the fastest growing of the top 3 Sunbelt states (which also happen to also be the top 3 most populous states in the country). California seems to be slowing down and Florida might be seen as a goner to climate change. It doesn’t seem like the growth of Houston or Dallas will change, especially as their economics continue to diversify.

So, what if either of them, in maybe the next 20,30,40, etc years, become the largest cities in the US?

Let’s not question whether or not it will happen, but consider the ramifications of such an event if it one day becomes a reality.

Y’all can argue to your heart’s content on that. As before, I don’t think it would make much of a difference besides giving some more clout to Texas, but who knows....

Obadno Oct 24, 2019 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8728519)
I thought that the LA thread would foster more discussion specifically on the OP. But in order to prevent that thread from being locked up for going off topic, I’m giving a certain topic its own home.


But in all seriousness, I’m curious about it as well. Texas seems to be the fastest growing of the top 3 Sunbelt states (which also happen to also be the top 3 most populous states in the country). California seems to be slowing down and Florida might be seen as a goner to climate change. It doesn’t seem like the growth of Houston or Dallas will change, especially as their economics continue to diversify.

So, what if either of them, in maybe the next 20,30,40, etc years, become the largest cities in the US?

Let’s not question whether or not it will happen, but consider the ramifications of such an event if it one day becomes a reality.

Y’all can argue to your heart’s content on that. As before, I don’t think it would make much of a difference besides giving some more clout to Texas, but who knows....
I dont really understand how any of this would matter.

Unless you live in NYC/Houston or Dallas and one becomes "the biggest city" and one becomes the former "biggest city" that is more of a local cultural issue not really a concern nor matter for anyone living in the countless other cities and towns in America.

The world didnt end when Virginia stopped being the most populace state, and it didnt end when New York stopped being the most populace state.

Nothing happened when the 2nd place city prize flipped from Chicago to LA

iheartthed Oct 25, 2019 12:03 AM
If that happens before all of us reading this in 2019 are dead, then something really, really bad must have happened.

Crawford Oct 25, 2019 2:30 AM
Something catastrophic would have happened.

Dallas has 7-8 million people, LA has 18-19 million, NYC has 23-24 million. So not happening in our lifetimes unless some cataclysmic event like WW3 happens. And basically all of North TX and a good share of OK would be barren, endless sprawl.

ThePhun1 Oct 25, 2019 3:50 AM
Not necessarily. New York could split amongst itself (unlikely but hardly impossible), LA has had some home rule/deannex votes before and Houston keeps growing. Dallas has been stagnant, so unless the Southside becomes more affluent, it may not even catch San Antonio (let alone Houston) within Texas, never mind the really big boys.

It's really a big pile of who cares anyways, as evidenced by the fact San Antonio has entered the conversation.

llamaorama Oct 25, 2019 5:16 AM
It won’t happen because neither city can grow enough. US demographic trends are slowing. People move less domestically. Birth rates are falling. The long term immigration trend is downward due to political realities.

Also both cities have to compete with places like Austin and Nashville and Charlotte and Orlando and so on..,

Crawford Oct 25, 2019 5:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8728767)
Not necessarily. New York could split amongst itself (unlikely but hardly impossible), LA has had some home rule/deannex votes before
Can you explain how this would affect Census-based metro population counts? If NYC split into say, 50 mini-cities, how would that change the population?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8728767)
and Houston keeps growing. Dallas has been stagnant
No, Dallas is faster growing than Houston. I didn't even mention Houston because it's smaller and slower growing, and its prospects for adding 18 million people even more ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8728767)
so unless the Southside becomes more affluent, it may not even catch San Antonio (let alone Houston) within Texas, never mind the really big boys.
San Antonio is about 1/4 the size of Dallas. What does the relative affluence of southside Dalas have to do with regional growth rates? And now you think San Antonio could be larger than NY and LA? Why not throw in Lubbock and Amarillo while you're at it?

austlar1 Oct 25, 2019 7:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8728767)
Not necessarily. New York could split amongst itself (unlikely but hardly impossible), LA has had some home rule/deannex votes before and Houston keeps growing. Dallas has been stagnant, so unless the Southside becomes more affluent, it may not even catch San Antonio (let alone Houston) within Texas, never mind the really big boys.

It's really a big pile of who cares anyways, as evidenced by the fact San Antonio has entered the conversation.
I do believe the person who created this thread was referring to metro areas.

jtown,man Oct 25, 2019 12:09 PM
Let's be more realistic than, lets say in 150 years Dallas becomes to largest city in the country.

Sun Belt Oct 25, 2019 12:58 PM
Texas has potential to become the most populated state a long ways down the road. That would require California to continue it's long trending slow down and it would require Texas to maintain it's high rate of growth for decades to come.


Texas is a state of 28,701,845 [2018] the next population milestone will be 30 million, which will happen in a few years considering the state will have added about 4 million residents by the 2020 census since 2010.

California is about to cross 40,000,000 by the 2020 census.

IrishIllini Oct 25, 2019 1:32 PM
It’s not unrealistic that LA passes NYC, but Dallas or Houston :???:

Dallas will probably end up about the size of Chicago and Houston a bit smaller. I don’t see how Dallas or Houston grow at 100k+ per year consistently for the next decade. Houston’s already slipping. There are only so many jobs to buy/poach, housing becomes unaffordable, traffic becomes a nightmare, perception of crime increases, perceptions of increasing taxes for fewer services...

Yuri Oct 25, 2019 1:55 PM
I recently opened a thread asking how much a city could grow keep its cohesion. Something like a dying star getting bigger and bigger before its collapse:


Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8694547)
I thought of this thread more as a reflection about present urban areas and whether there is a physical limit on how much a (monocentric) city can grow and still working as a same labour market.

World's largest city is Tokyo, a "monocentric" metro area. In the future, it could be surpassed by Jakarta or New Delhi, both with the same characteristic. Emerging Chinese metropolises, on the other hand, would work differently, be it on the Pearl River Delta ou on the metro areas around Shanghai. Both regions work more as a big Rhein-Ruhr area, a collection of metropolises instead of a gargantuan metropolis.

In South America, São Paulo is transitioning from this Tokyo-model into a Pearl River Delta one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...012202_lrg.jpg

The "Macrometropolis" (a term more and more common) has about 33 million people and growing at a 10% decade rate. Even though São Paulo is the star, it's not big enough to turn Campinas metro area (3 million people) into a mere suburb, even though they touch each other by continuous urban development through Jundiaí and its suburbs and working on a complementary way (Campinas-Jundiaí-Sorocaba triangle absorbing São Paulo's manufacturing and logistic flight, stopping them to move to other parts of the country avoiding a Rust Belt phenomenon).

New York and Philadelphia might be a similar case, even though, they are distinct and have their own worlds. At least in São Paulo's case, all the areas are inside the same state and share the same cultural traits.

Anyway, can we have a 50 million, a 60 million "monocentric" urban area or Tokyo's 38-40 million is a physical limit for it? What are your thoughts?

Bringing this concept here, if cities were to have an universal size limit, I guess that I would be much lower in places like Dallas, Houston or Atlanta.

A 20 million people Dallas, with current densities or ever a bit higher, would function as a regular metro area? Or simply as a state region with its several nodes acting as independent mid-sized cities, without reaching the critical mass to work as a single metropolis?

pm91 Oct 25, 2019 2:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8728519)
I thought that the LA thread would foster more discussion specifically on the OP. But in order to prevent that thread from being locked up for going off topic, I’m giving a certain topic its own home.


But in all seriousness, I’m curious about it as well. Texas seems to be the fastest growing of the top 3 Sunbelt states (which also happen to also be the top 3 most populous states in the country). California seems to be slowing down and Florida might be seen as a goner to climate change. It doesn’t seem like the growth of Houston or Dallas will change, especially as their economics continue to diversify.

So, what if either of them, in maybe the next 20,30,40, etc years, become the largest cities in the US?

Let’s not question whether or not it will happen, but consider the ramifications of such an event if it one day becomes a reality.

Y’all can argue to your heart’s content on that. As before, I don’t think it would make much of a difference besides giving some more clout to Texas, but who knows....
OP literally said not to question if it will happen or not. I think they're talkin about how would the country feel different. There's a lot of stigma with the Coasts having the population, cultural, media centers that supposedly represent the middle part of the country. Imagine if the #1 and #2 cities in the US are in the middle of the country and in this case both in a single state. What would that entail.

Centropolis Oct 25, 2019 2:34 PM
if california secedes dallas has a shot at number two. i don’t think houstons growth is sustainable.

iheartthed Oct 25, 2019 2:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini (Post 8728965)
It’s not unrealistic that LA passes NYC, but Dallas or Houston :???:

Dallas will probably end up about the size of Chicago and Houston a bit smaller. I don’t see how Dallas or Houston grow at 100k+ per year consistently for the next decade. Houston’s already slipping. There are only so many jobs to buy/poach, housing becomes unaffordable, traffic becomes a nightmare, perception of crime increases, perceptions of increasing taxes for fewer services...
CSA LA, maybe. Not MSA LA. But if NYC and Philadelphia were ever merged into a single CSA, there would be no chance.

galleyfox Oct 25, 2019 3:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini (Post 8728965)
It’s not unrealistic that LA passes NYC, but Dallas or Houston :???:

Dallas will probably end up about the size of Chicago and Houston a bit smaller. I don’t see how Dallas or Houston grow at 100k+ per year consistently for the next decade. Houston’s already slipping. There are only so many jobs to buy/poach, housing becomes unaffordable, traffic becomes a nightmare, perception of crime increases, perceptions of increasing taxes for fewer services...

There's also no giant population pool to supply the growth anymore. Immigration from Latin America is slowing, immigration from overseas always favors New York and California first, birth rates in the Western Hemisphere are rapidly falling, the rust belt is tapped out with its population stabilizing, retirees favor other destinations, ect.

Population growth peaked in Houston and Dallas a few years ago, and has been steadily falling ever since.

Obadno Oct 25, 2019 3:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox (Post 8729077)
There's also no giant population pool to supply the growth anymore. Immigration from Latin America is slowing, immigration from overseas always favors New York and California first, birth rates in the Western Hemisphere are rapidly falling, the rust belt is tapped out with its population stabilizing, retirees favor other destinations, ect.

Population growth peaked in Houston and Dallas a few years ago, and has been steadily falling ever since.
Birthrates can change on a whim, this is why projections for more than a few years in the future usually turn out wildly inaccurate.

Crawford Oct 25, 2019 3:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8729047)
CSA LA, maybe. Not MSA LA. But if NYC and Philadelphia were ever merged into a single CSA, there would be no chance.
I actually think long-term, it's less likely by CSA, because NYC is surrounded by large population centers not in its CSA, while LA is surrounded by nothing, except for SD.

NYC has Philly, Allentown, Scranton, Albany and Hartford MSAs directly adjoining its CSA. Even putting aside Philly, that's nearly 5 million people. With Philly CSA, it's nearly 12 million. LA has maybe 4 million in the equivalent circumference.

Yuri Oct 25, 2019 3:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8729096)
Birthrates can change on a whim, this is why projections for more than a few years in the future usually turn out wildly inaccurate.
Not quite. They are fairly accurate, specially on country-level and in areas past the population transition (Americas, Europe, eastern Asia).

Once the population go below the replacement level, it's a matter of time to have negative growth. As soon the larger cohorts past the reproduction age, even if the population goes back to 2.0, population decline is unavoidable as the following generation is smaller.

Only migration can keep things afloat as it allows the general population to be younger on average (thus higher birth rates, not necessarily fertility rates). But has galleyfox said, the main sources of migration to Texas will be themselves in decline.

iheartthed Oct 25, 2019 3:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8729103)
I actually think long-term, it's less likely by CSA, because NYC is surrounded by large population centers not in its CSA, while LA is surrounded by nothing, except for SD.

NYC has Philly, Allentown, Scranton, Albany and Hartford MSAs directly adjoining its CSA. Even putting aside Philly, that's nearly 5 million people. With Philly CSA, it's nearly 12 million. LA has maybe 4 million in the equivalent circumference.
If not by CSA then there's probably no chance LA ever overtakes NY, since NY's MSA has consistently been adding more people than LA's MSA since the 1980s.

jd3189 Oct 30, 2019 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8728524)
I dont really understand how any of this would matter.

Nothing happened when the 2nd place city prize flipped from Chicago to LA
Actually, didn’t some things happened? Didn’t the 2nd city title led to LA being compared more to NYC not only nationally but globally? Chicago is still in the picture of course, but in this era, if you were to ask a foreigner or random person on the street which two cities are the top ones in the US, most would tell you NYC or LA.

I will admit though that Hollywood and the media in general may be largely responsible for that. However, these comparisons probably weren’t happening as much before the 80s. If Houston or Dallas were to theoretically reach that status, it may not lead to any artificial status change unless they gain more influence over how the world sees them beyond being economic powerhouses.

Granted, a city’s global popularity and status may shoot itself far beyond what is expected of it in terms of its physical size, population, and even level of urban density and infrastructure. It’s probably why I would say more people now know more about Houston, Atlanta, and Charlotte than they know about Galveston, Savannah, and Charleston.

JAYNYC Oct 31, 2019 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8734376)
I will admit though that Hollywood and the media in general may be largely responsible for that.
Hollywood (and to a lesser extent, the media) put Dallas directly in the spotlight big time during the 80's.

The Summer Olympics did so for Atlanta in '96.

Both shows/events are to be largely credited for any global awareness either of those cities might have.

jd3189 Oct 31, 2019 4:27 AM
^^^Exactly, although Atlanta may have had some clout due to MLK being from there along with Coca Cola and CNN.

mthd Oct 31, 2019 4:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8734554)
^^^Exactly, although Atlanta may have had some clout due to MLK being from there along with Coca Cola and CNN.
no doubt the TV show and the olympics boosted the profile of dallas and atlanta...

but ask someone in china or india or south africa about cities in the united states, and you’ll get new york and los angeles and then maybe san francisco, miami, orlando, las vegas, etc. chicago is well known but not for any specific reason. DC, of course, has a unique status as the capitol. seattle is now well known thanks to amazon and microsoft.

phoenix, dallas, houston, atlanta are just not globally prominent outside of specific industries they may have ties to.

JManc Oct 31, 2019 5:09 PM
As someone who lives in Houston. If it became the largest city (metro) in the US, it would become an overcrowded hellscape of epic proportions.

Bailey Oct 31, 2019 6:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8735014)
As someone who lives in Houston. If it became the largest city (metro) in the US, it would become an overcrowded hellscape of epic proportions.
In the current form, yes..but NOBODY thinks it will develop in the same way as it has in the past. In fact, the evidence that it is developing differently is all around...the city is developing with mixed use infill projects and with vertical projects. We do need more mass transit but Houston has a chance to be way less of a "hellscape" than NYC , especially if it focuses on urban nodes, density, and connectivity. I'm actually pleased with many of the infill projects and we have more land (way more land area) and blank spaces to accommodate both a healthy urban core and a suburban periphery, which is something I can't say for ALL of the northeast cities.

But i do strongly believe we need some sort of city or regional plan to make sure we head in the right direction.

TexasPlaya Oct 31, 2019 7:05 PM
Texas is going to dominate the 21st century. Just start saying “y’all” now folks.

TexasPlaya Oct 31, 2019 7:09 PM
As mentioned in the Texas thread... Houston and Dallas have some levers to pull to increase density, especially if auto ownership decreases.

As many metros do.

JManc Oct 31, 2019 7:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey (Post 8735180)
In the current form, yes..but NOBODY thinks it will develop in the same way as it has in the past. In fact, the evidence that it is developing differently is all around...the city is developing with mixed use infill projects and with vertical projects. We do need more mass transit but Houston has a chance to be way less of a "hellscape" than NYC , especially if it focuses on urban nodes, density, and connectivity. I'm actually pleased with many of the infill projects and we have more land (way more land area) and blank spaces to accommodate both a healthy urban core and a suburban periphery, which is something I can't say for ALL of the northeast cities.

But i do strongly believe we need some sort of city or regional plan to make sure we head in the right direction.
Yea...I don't think so. LA is more or less where we would be with 10 million more people and better transportation and getting around LA is a bear compared to NY. Houston also is in Texas is no California or New York as far as attitudes on transportation and sustainable development.

ThePhun1 Oct 31, 2019 9:27 PM
Houston is not built to be an easy place for those looking for a typical urban lifestyle. Only a few of those cities exist, as a matter of fact, in North America. Have most of what you're looking for within 2 square miles or 5 with public transportation. Houston by default can't be like that.

edale Oct 31, 2019 10:03 PM
Does Houston have any walkable commercial districts? I'm not trolling here. I've become increasingly curious about Houston and have tried to explore the city on streetview. It has some really pretty residential neighborhoods, but I haven't been able to find a single cohesive commercial corridor that isn't totally auto-dominated. I've been able to find a fair number of such districts in Dallas, but literally not one (outside of downtown) in Houston.

Shawn Nov 1, 2019 12:10 AM
If any city in Texas becomes the largest city in the US, then it can be safely assumed the US as we understand it today would no longer exist; the Northeast would have already broken away, the West Coast most likely too. We’d be living in Richard Morgan’s future. West Coast mega-city states and their massive free ports, the North Atlantic Union, and a whole lotta Jesusland in between.

ThePhun1 Nov 1, 2019 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale (Post 8735509)
Does Houston have any walkable commercial districts? I'm not trolling here. I've become increasingly curious about Houston and have tried to explore the city on streetview. It has some really pretty residential neighborhoods, but I haven't been able to find a single cohesive commercial corridor that isn't totally auto-dominated. I've been able to find a fair number of such districts in Dallas, but literally not one (outside of downtown) in Houston.
I've considered the Museum District and Downtown, so they exist. Much of what's along the rails.

edale Nov 1, 2019 6:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8735642)
I've considered the Museum District and Downtown, so they exist. Much of what's along the rails.
Can you provide some streetview links? I've poked around the Museum District and haven't been able to find a commercial district.

This is the closest thing I have been able to find to a walkable commercial district, and there is parking in front of all the buildings:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7174...7i16384!8i8192

I'm genuinely perplexed. Nashville, which gets a lot of shit from urbanists, appears to have more pedestrian-centered commercial districts than massive Houston. All this talk of Houston densifying is great, but how dense can you really be if everything, and I mean really almost everything, is developed around the car? As auto-oriented as LA is portrayed, it has TONS of walkable commercial districts all over town. Its transition from a driving city to a walking/transit one is ongoing, but at least the bones are in place for such a transition. How can Houston be retrofitted in a more urban way when it lacks the very ingredients that create high-density urban neighborhoods? Dallas seems to have much more going for it on this front than Houston.

LA21st Nov 1, 2019 7:07 PM
I don't get it either. It reminds me of DC/NOVA posters who think Tysons Corner will be some urban/walkable place one day.

JManc Nov 1, 2019 7:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale (Post 8736414)
Can you provide some streetview links? I've poked around the Museum District and haven't been able to find a commercial district.

This is the closest thing I have been able to find to a walkable commercial district, and there is parking in front of all the buildings:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7174...7i16384!8i8192

I'm genuinely perplexed. Nashville, which gets a lot of shit from urbanists, appears to have more pedestrian-centered commercial districts than massive Houston. All this talk of Houston densifying is great, but how dense can you really be if everything, and I mean really almost everything, is developed around the car? As auto-oriented as LA is portrayed, it has TONS of walkable commercial districts all over town. Its transition from a driving city to a walking/transit one is ongoing, but at least the bones are in place for such a transition. How can Houston be retrofitted in a more urban way when it lacks the very ingredients that create high-density urban neighborhoods? Dallas seems to have much more going for it on this front than Houston.
There really isn't any because the city had excessive mandatory parking minimums outside of downtown. It wasn't until this past July they exempted Midtown and East Downtown as well so we'll see how new development shapes up in the coming years.

The parking garage in that streetview is relatively new (in relation to the rest of the 'village') because so it is such a congested area and there was (and still is) no place to park and transit ins't really an option.

Dariusb Nov 2, 2019 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8735294)
Yea...I don't think so. LA is more or less where we would be with 10 million more people and better transportation and getting around LA is a bear compared to NY. Houston also is in Texas is no California or New York as far as attitudes on transportation and sustainable development.
Wasn't Los Angeles at one time like Houston is today? Isn't it possible that it can mature density like LA has?

LA21st Nov 2, 2019 1:36 AM
No.
LA was built around the red car lines first, and thats when many of it's walkable districts formed, even in far flung areas like Van Nuys.

No other sun belt city was built like that, so it can't be duplicated with them.

dc_denizen Nov 2, 2019 1:43 AM
the inner loop seems pretty walkable or at least bikable to me.

ThePhun1 Nov 2, 2019 3:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8736428)
I don't get it either. It reminds me of DC/NOVA posters who think Tysons Corner will be some urban/walkable place one day.
At the risk of derailing this thread (I know it'll get locked because I'm pretty much confronting you) do you have to make a comment like that in every thread like this? We get that you think people in places like Texas have an unrealistic or simplistic view of urbanity. Then, as I assume you're addressing me indirectly, I'm 100% sure I said Houston's not built to be a walkable city overall on this same page.

You currently have a weird fascination and complex with that lately and it's ruining a number of threads.

JManc Nov 2, 2019 6:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb (Post 8736728)
Wasn't Los Angeles at one time like Houston is today? Isn't it possible that it can mature density like LA has?
Not really because LA is older and was built up much earlier...well before cars were around. That head start made a world of difference. We focus on all of their freeways but they have a crap ton of older walkable areas we can never replicate here.

Yuri Nov 2, 2019 1:33 PM
As we are talking so much about Texas lately, I have a question. I noticed Tarrant and Dallas counties has exactly the same size. Between 2000-2010, population in Tarrant has grown much faster than Dallas. Impressive 25.1% vs anemic 6.7%.

What's the explanation? Just the fact of more land available for exurban growth in Tarrant or there were also other factors explaining this gap?

Crawford Nov 2, 2019 1:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb (Post 8736728)
Wasn't Los Angeles at one time like Houston is today? Isn't it possible that it can mature density like LA has?
LA has always had a higher density core. And the density is more due to household size than built form.

Crawford Nov 2, 2019 1:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8736980)
As we are talking so much about Texas lately, I have a question. I noticed Tarrant and Dallas counties has exactly the same size. Between 2000-2010, population in Tarrant has grown much faster than Dallas. Impressive 25.1% vs anemic 6.7%.

What's the explanation? Just the fact of more land available for exurban growth in Tarrant or there were also other factors explaining this gap?
Tarrant is a cheap county with land for growth, Dallas, comparatively isn't. Americans will drive further for a big, cheap house.

Basically Tarrant is the "Sunbelt" of Dallas.

Yuri Nov 2, 2019 1:47 PM
And does Fort Worth manage to be a city on its own, a job magnet with a decent urban life or Dallas is strong enough to eclipse it completely?

ThePhun1 Nov 2, 2019 2:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8736980)
As we are talking so much about Texas lately, I have a question. I noticed Tarrant and Dallas counties has exactly the same size. Between 2000-2010, population in Tarrant has grown much faster than Dallas. Impressive 25.1% vs anemic 6.7%.

What's the explanation? Just the fact of more land available for exurban growth in Tarrant or there were also other factors explaining this gap?
Dallas (city and county) has been growing slightly for awhile now. The outlying areas are the ones that have grown the most recently.

Thank God I don't have to remember so many DFW suburb names as I used to, it gets old after awhile.

ThePhun1 Nov 2, 2019 2:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8736984)
Tarrant is a cheap county with land for growth, Dallas, comparatively isn't. Americans will drive further for a big, cheap house.

Basically Tarrant is the "Sunbelt" of Dallas.
Additionally, South Dallas (County) is mostly socioeconomically depressed, so because of the circumstances, it discourages growth in a would be growth area.

Quixote Nov 2, 2019 2:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8736981)
LA has always had a higher density core. And the density is more due to household size than built form.
But even factoring out the large household sizes, the built density is suggestive of like 20-25K per mile.

https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=Bw0qlR5K
Hunter Kerhart

ThePhun1 Nov 2, 2019 2:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8736991)
And does Fort Worth manage to be a city on its own, a job magnet with a decent urban life or Dallas is strong enough to eclipse it completely?
Fort Worth is the St. Paul to Dallas' Minneapolis. Strong enough to be a core, stand alone city but still overshadowed. Call it a waxing gibbeous moon or a partial eclipse.

austlar1 Nov 2, 2019 6:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade (Post 8736980)
As we are talking so much about Texas lately, I have a question. I noticed Tarrant and Dallas counties has exactly the same size. Between 2000-2010, population in Tarrant has grown much faster than Dallas. Impressive 25.1% vs anemic 6.7%.

What's the explanation? Just the fact of more land available for exurban growth in Tarrant or there were also other factors explaining this gap?
Significant economic drivers in northeastern Tarrant County (DFW Airport, Alliance Airport (air freight, logistics), and other large employers coupled with nearby affordable housing options have brought in a lot of population growth. Denton County just to the north of Tarrant County has also exploded with population growth. As for Fort Worth, it has it's own strong local economy that operates rather independently of Dallas. Lots of local wealth and lots of jobs.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:30 PM.
Prev1234
Viewing Page 1 of 4
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.