Posted on 06/24/2004 8:01:53 AM PDT by ladtx
40,000 new people since 2000, I miss it the way it was.
I live on the Dallas side because of work location (moving to Rockwall next week) but have always preferred Fort Worth and environs.
People need a place to live I reckon.
As kids we hunted all these fields where the new houses are, and caught 3 lb bass and catfish in the small creeks that are now shallow trash filled depressions.
although traffic is nothing like Dallas, its getting there.
Dallas itself may have gained only 2500 in population but I'll guarantee that the suburbs are growing a a greater rate than that. We're moving to Rockwall from Plano mainly to get away from the sprawl but looks like it won't be long and we'll be in the middle of it again. Lake Ray Hubbard will always keep us a little separated though.
ping
Fort Worth's got the best downtown area in North Texas. Lots of entertainment, up-scale apartments, great restaurants.
I agree. The stockyards area is great for taking relatives when they come for a visit. Plus always take them to Pendery's downtown so they can get their spices particularly the chili powder.
Newsflash: Most Americans consider Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington one big city.
It makes little sense to compare cities that have room to grow to cities that are surrounded by growing suburbs.
Chicago is a great example. Although the population of Chicago has changed little over the last ten years, the burbs just keep expanding into the farmland.
Sooo... instead of comparing city populations, it would make more sense to compare the populations of urban areas instead.
You have a point. Dallas proper really has no room to grow other than up. That's why the outlying suburbs have such a high growth rate. The total population of the DFW Metroplex is about 5.1 million as of 2000 census.
Columbus, for example, was the 16th-largest city in the U.S. in 1990, with a population that exceeded the population of Cleveland by more than 100,000 and had about 300,000 more people than Cincinnati. And yet it never had a major sports franchise until the NHL's expansion Blue Jackets started playing there a couple of years ago.
I never would have guessed that Oklahoma City would be larger than such cities as Kansas City, St. Louis, Atlanta, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, etc.
These sorts of assessments actually belie the reality that formal city limits only contain a small fraction of the population of each metro especially in places like DFW. This method of assessments has always made it seem like eastern cities are bigger than western and southern ones which at the metro level exceed eastern ones which are bigger by this method. If the entire metro area was considered and with no artificial breaking up of some of the largest western and southern ones into smaller ones where there is in fact no physical separation of any kind, the results would be very interesting. In the case I am most familiar with, where I live, the SF Bay Area, they break us up into 3 individual "SMA" units, when in fact its continuous concrete across 9 counties with a combined 7 or so million people, with another 2 counties with arguable "exurb" satellites. Oh, and also, the Rats love the current, urban core biased, gerrymandered way of reporting this, as if I even needed to mention it.
Yes indeed.
But the East Coast liberal intelligencia hate that fact and want to portray places like Philly, Boston, and Baltimore as being bigger than they really are, while downplaying just how big in population southern and western metro areas really are.
Kansas City is Cowtown; who are these imposters?
The liberals would hate if we counted that way. It would highlight the reality that the future belongs to people living outside the limits of the "urban core" cities in the west and south. They don't want to face the facts.
I'd bet Fort Worth alone has over 75,000 illegal aliens.
That's ok; I already did it for you! (From a safe distance, I might add.)
The discrepancy you've noted goes both ways, and for the same reasons. New York City has a population of about 8 million people. The New York metropolitan area has a population of about 25 million people, which means it is almost half the size of the entire state of California.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.