What's the name of entire metro area? (Richardson)

[grindin]

But wasn't Ft. Worth a city in its own right well before the other suburbs started growing into the Metroplex that we know as D/FW today? I kind of understand their resentment, BUT if Oakland and San Jose can live with San Francisco being the Big Kahuna in the Bay Area (even though San Jose is larger) or Tacoma can live with being in the shadow of Seattle, Ft. Worth is going to have to deal with it I guess.

Now, what would be hilarious is if Mississauga, Ontario, which is a suburb of Toronto, but has a population of 668,549 starts resenting Toronto being the Big Kahuna, then that would be hilarious and ridiculous, because much of its growth has been recent, and has only been a city since 1974 (it was a conglomeration of separate towns before that).

[grindin]

Originally Posted by blueskies49

SA is larger than Dallas? I thought it was the other way round. There is a population sign on 35E/Loop 12 going north from I-30 that says Dallas population is one million or so and I'm assuming that would mean Dallas proper.

US Census 2007 Estimates:

San Antonio:1,328,984

Dallas: 1,232,940

I think SA surpassed Dallas as the #2 city in TX sometime in 2002 or so. However, only 2 million people are in its metro area versus the 6.1 million or so in the Metroplex.

[grindin]

Originally Posted by autotech4dallas

That is insane.

Yep, and that is in the last seven years or so. There were 4.1 million people the metro area according to the 2000 Census, a growth rate of about 20 percent. And Atlanta only had 416,000 people in 2000, so that is a testament to the growth within the city as well as outside.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by grindin

US Census 2007 Estimates:

San Antonio:1,328,984

Dallas: 1,232,940

I think SA surpassed Dallas as the #2 city in TX sometime in 2002 or so. However, only 2 million people are in its metro area versus the 6.1 million or so in the Metroplex.

This is a consequence of confusing a municipal government with an urban area surrounded by countryside. The term "city" is of course more generic, while the term "municipality" is more relevant.

When people refer to London as a "city" they mean it in the generic sense of a major metropolitan area, surrounded by countryside. That is its worldwide connotation. If you are referring to something in the USA, though, the term is ambiguous. In context, however, when you ask someone "which city are you from", you are almost never referring to municipal boundaries.

San Antonio is a larger municipal government than Boston, Atlanta or San Francisco. But San Antonio as an urban area is nowhere as significant to America as those above.

[rogramjet]

For those of you who insist on including Fort Worth in your list of Dallas suburbs, you're showing your complete lack of knowledge of local history and current market conditions. Fort Worth has a 135 year history as a burgeoning city all its own - unlike Plano or Garland or Arlington or any of the other D/FW bedroom communities. And a recent article in the national press touted Fort Worth's economic vitality in the midst of the current meltdown - with no mention of the "D." It's also the county seat for Tarrant County, which is marginally smaller than Dallas County and provides an importance for Fort Worth in the administration of state and local government that would kick it up a notch from a "suburb." Also, I doubt the federal government would make the effort to count the FW/Arlington area as a metropolitan statistical area as a "courtesy." How ridiculous for bureaucrats. Perhaps 30% of Tarrant County residents travel to Dallas County for their jobs, but the FW marginalizer on this thread fails to mention how many interlopers from Dallas and Denton counties travel to Fort Worth for jobs. Maybe not 30%, but plenty to offset that one-sided claim. My cousin and many of my former colleagues at Lockheed Martin came from the east side of the Metroplex to claim a paycheck. I'd love to provide for all you folks who think Fort Worth is a suburb of Dallas a soap box in the middle of Sundance Square on a Saturday night to spew your opinion and see what happens....

[aceplace]

Take it easy, rogramjet. Nobody is saying that the Fort Worth city council is in some way subordinate to the Dallas city council. What they are saying is that Fort Worth is a political and divisional subdivision of the metro area known as Dallas.

And yes, the OMB, that defines metro areas, wrestled for years with the reality that metro areas would invariably swallow up communities that were previously independent towns, surrounded by farmland, but with a history and tradition of their own. In spite of that, they created the concept of a metropolitan area, and they named it according to the traditional name is contained, usually that of the central city that was essentially the center of influence in the metro.

So Atlanta, with 10% of the population of its metro, came to identify it. And likewise, the name of our metro came o be known as "Dallas", in view of the predominant strength of its center of power.

If Plano and Frisco do not have a problem with this, why does Fort Worth?

[Saintmarks]

With the land area inside McKinney's ETJ, it is predicted to one day be the third city in the metroplex with a population over 400,000. I propose we save money with marketing gurus and go ahead and call the area DFM.

Of course Denton will want a piece of the pie and Frisco is right behind McKinney in growth.

Arlington is already well populated and with the Rangers and Cowboys in their limits, needs to be considered. Also figure that the soutside will inevitably grow and Midlothian or Mansfield is in position to annex large swaths. One of these is sure to join the ranks as a major player.

Surely these areas will want to have a separate identity from DFW. I foresee a mega donut that will dwarf DFW and eventually swallow it from all sides. Taking this all into account I propose this to designate all the up and coming areas:

DAM/MF

(Even though the huge growth heading east of Lake Lavon will cause Nevada to mushroom very soon, couldn't find a way to put an "N" into that mix.)

[lh_newbie]

Before long, we'll have to call it Texas...

[grindin]

Originally Posted by aceplace

If Plano and Frisco do not have a problem with this, why does Fort Worth?

Same reason that say, Mendota Heights or Bloomington, MN "don't have a problem," but someone in St. Paul would be if it were lumped in with Minneapolis. One doesn't go without the other.

Plano and Frisco are suburbs that have grown mainly in the last two decades but Ft. Worth is very much a large city in its own right. Does it have ties to Dallas from a commuting standpoint? Sure it does, but to discount its importance to the metropolitan area as a whole when its history as a city is an outright lie. Comparing Ft. Worth to Plano or Mesquite is a joke. Now if Ft. Worth had a history and growth similar to say, Mississauga, Ontario and started catching a case with Toronto, I'd understand.

Coming from the perspective of an outsider, I've always associated Dallas and Ft. Worth together. Maybe it is a testament to the concerted effort of the two cities to market themselves as "DFW" or the "Metroplex" together in the last 3 decades rather than trying to compete with each other. Excusing the stupidity that most people have when it comes to geography doesn't fly in my book.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by grindin

Same reason that say, Mendota Heights or Bloomington, MN "don't have a problem," but someone in St. Paul would be if it were lumped in with Minneapolis. One doesn't go without the other.

Plano and Frisco are suburbs that have grown mainly in the last two decades but Ft. Worth is very much a large city in its own right. Does it have ties to Dallas from a commuting standpoint? Sure it does, but to discount its importance to the metropolitan area as a whole when its history as a city is an outright lie. Comparing Ft. Worth to Plano or Mesquite is a joke. Now if Ft. Worth had a history and growth similar to say, Mississauga, Ontario and started catching a case with Toronto, I'd understand.

Coming from the perspective of an outsider, I've always associated Dallas and Ft. Worth together. Maybe it is a testament to the concerted effort of the two cities to market themselves as "DFW" or the "Metroplex" together in the last 3 decades rather than trying to compete with each other. Excusing the stupidity that most people have when it comes to geography doesn't fly in my book.

Yes, Fort Worth was able to grow quite a bit before it was subsumed into the Dallas area. Their error was in trying to exist outside of the Dallas orbit. The Fort Worth founding fathers should have just moved to Dallas and exerted their energies there, rather than boosting Fort Worth as a separate and antagonistic alternative to Dallas. Talk about dividing energy and resources.

History has corrected Fort Worth's hubris and sense of arrogance. Dallas has ultimately prevailed in showing its identification as the urban area that is the focus of the North Texas economic region. Fort Worth is known for its quaint downtown, courtesy of the Bass family, and its nice museums, courtesy of a few millionaires who were willing to spend their fortunes to slap Dallas in the face and declare... "we're just as good as you are...".

In terms of the dynamics that define a metro, however, Fort Worth is marginalized, on the periphery. When industries think of relocating to the Dallas area... they consider Dallas, or areas with an affinity to Dallas.