Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By Philadlephia standards? Yes the Dallas area is unchartered territory thats primed for growth.Philaldephia had its Dallas like spurt 180 years ago. In 1950 the entire metro population of Dallas was 700k as opposed to Philadlephias 4.3 M.
The Philadlephia area has found its equilibrium. The urban parts of the area are maxed out, cant fit any more people. The suburban areas are very picky about who and what they want to be part of their future. It makes for a slow growing region, one day the same will happen in Dallas.
Your second paragraph explains well about how cities evolve and stabilize.
Dude. you just ignored what I posted. 5.5 million people live in 3,300 square miles in DFW. The other 800,000 live in the remaining land.
Its not nearly as sprwaling as you think.
So if you would like to keep makeing the same argument, at least be informed.
So you want your cake and eat it too?
Do you want the 800,000 people living on the fringe or not? If you do want them then suck it up and take the criticism that comes along with an 11,000 sq mile metro. If you dont want the 800,000 dont use them in your braggadocious claims about how heavily populated Dallas is.
By Philadlephia standards? Yes the Dallas area is unchartered territory thats primed for growth.Philaldephia had its Dallas like spurt 180 years ago. In 1950 the entire metro population of Dallas was 700k as opposed to Philadlephias 4.3 M.
The Philadlephia area has found its equilibrium. The urban parts of the area are maxed out, cant fit any more people. The suburban areas are very picky about who and what they want to be part of their future. It makes for a slow growing region, one day the same will happen in Dallas.
Well what you call uncharted, we call parks and neighborhoods. There are some massive park areas in the middle of the DFW that can make the metro seem "desolate." Although Denton and Collin still have plenty of room to grow, Dallas and Tarrant have just about run out of room for buildable area and are having to start to buildings up.
Although Philadelphia may have reached its max, it will be along time before that happens to Dallas. As you mentioned already, there's not a lot of geographical limitations and the region is geared for growths. Dallas still has a lot of growth ahead of it. I guess one day it will find an equilibrium, but not in the foreseeable future.
Well what you call uncharted, we call parks and neighborhoods. There are some massive park areas in the middle of the DFW that can make the metro seem "desolate." Although Denton and Collin still have plenty of room to grow, Dallas and Tarrant have just about run out of room for buildable area and are having to start to buildings up.
Although Philadelphia may have reached its max, it will be along time before that happens to Dallas. As you mentioned already, there's not a lot of geographical limitations and the region is geared for growths. Dallas still has a lot of growth ahead of it. I guess one day it will find an equilibrium, but not in the foreseeable future.
There is a price to pay for over-development and overpopulation. I guess dallas could one day get as big as Chicago even LA but do you really want that? LA County is such a mess that it has 1 M illegal aliens hiding out and further compounding to the countys already astronomic poverty rate. LA arguably has one of the top 5 settings and climates in the country.Its imploding due to unsustained growth. .... Whats Dallas with a much more modest setting going to become 100-200 years down the line as it infrastructure and housing deteriorates? The dallas planners probably think they have it all figured out, they'll stay on top of things right? Wrong they'll all be long gone and future generations wont rebuild they will move on, old cities get left behind in ruins here.
Do you want the 800,000 people living on the fringe or not? If you do want them then suck it up and take the criticism that comes along with an 11,000 sq mile metro. If you dont want the 800,000 dont use them in your braggadocious claims about how heavily populated Dallas is.
As posted earlier, DFW is 9,000 square miles - not 11,000. I'm not sure where you're getting the extra 2K, but it's incorrect.
There is a price to pay for over-development and overpopulation. I guess dallas could one day get as big as Chicago even LA but do you really want that? LA County is such a mess that it has 1 M illegal aliens hiding out and further compounding to the countys already astronomic poverty rate. LA arguably has one of the top 5 settings and climates in the country.Its imploding due to unsustained growth. .... Whats Dallas with a much more modest setting going to become 100-200 years down the line as it infrastructure and housing deteriorates? The dallas planners probably think they have it all figured out, they'll stay on top of things right? Wrong. This country doesnt rebuild it moves on and old cities get left behind
I don't live in Dallas (although I was born there), so the growth doesn't effect me. If or when The Metroplex reaches the size of Chicago or LA, it's not like there is much I can about it. I'm sure Dallas will have its own problems due to growth, but what city doesn't regardless of the size? Really, Dallas and Houston had some major problems during the early 80's due to the oil crash, but both cities recovered, created a more diverse economy, and are both now stronger than ever. Texas is very different from California, Chicago, or the Northeast as far as how the cities do things. The sprawl design may seem chaotic, but can absorb massive amounts of growth. The entire Metorplex has been very good at handling its population boom.
Either way, I'm not sure why it matters. Philly's growth is fairly stagnant and Dallas/Fort Worth still has a ton of growth in its future.
The sprawl design may seem chaotic, but can absorb massive amounts of growth. The entire Metorplex has been very good at handling its population boom.
Either way, I'm not sure why it matters. Philly's growth is fairly stagnant and Dallas/Fort Worth still has a ton of growth in its future.
The Dallas area is basically50 years old, its all relatively new growth. We wont be around to see it but my guess is that 100 150 years from now the Dallas story will not be pretty.
The Philly areas growth rate is healthy given its age.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
