Census: D-FW adds more residents than any other U.S. metro area (Dallas: subdivisions, restaurants)

[Acntx]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Dallas is Dallas and Ft.Worth is Ft.Worth, each with thier own indentity and history, and to suggest that some goofey governmental statistical compilation alters that in any way is just plain silly.

I just listed the population growth figures based on the official census definitions as they currently are.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Dallas is Dallas and Ft.Worth is Ft.Worth, each with thier own indentity and history, and to suggest that some goofey governmental statistical compilation alters that in any way is just plain silly.

Every one of the hundred or so municipalities in metro DFW have their own identity and history. But they do not have independent economies and transportation patterns. They are merely administrative subdivisions of a large economic unit, the DFW metro.

When a corporation decides to relocate, they first decide between Dallas or Atlanta or Phoenix or Houston or maybe Chicago. If they decide on Dallas, they then determine which part of Dallas. Irving, Richardson or Plano are parts of Dallas, as far as they're concerned.

Believe me, you get out into the world, and people can't be troubled to make a distinction or recognize the identity of places like Fort Worth or Arlington or Coppell or Highland Park. All they know, all they want to know, is that there is a metro area somewhere in Texas named Dallas. They may assume it contains boroughs and districts, but they ignore them.

We're the same way. How many of us have heard of Pankow, Wedding or Potsdam? How many of us care to know? They are, of course, places in and around greater Berlin. They also have a separate identity and history, of course, but the distinction between Dallas and Fort Worth is as meaningless to the world as the distinction between Berlin city and Potsdam is to us.

[portyhead24]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Dallas is Dallas and Ft.Worth is Ft.Worth, each with thier own indentity and history, and to suggest that some goofey governmental statistical compilation alters that in any way is just plain silly.

I don't think anyone is claiming that. But they are part of the same MSA because of many factors including close proximity and interdependence economically. The two cities and all the others in between share a symbiotic relationship. So Marietta is Marietta as Atlanta is Atlanta but still in the same MSA. Sugar Land is Sugar Land as Houston is Houston but still the same MSA. Same for DFW. Just so happens that both Dallas and Fort Worth are two very large cities in the same metro rather than a metro dominated by one large city. Kinda like a solar system with two stars It's just a fact so trying to argue this point seems fruitless to me.

[kdogg817]

What I dont like is if this area is truly powered by two econmic engines that being Dallas & Fort Worth than why is the perception that Dallas represents the whole metro area, but Fort Worth only represent Tarrant (2 Mil) . So Dallas gets credit for Fort Worth population but Fort Worth dosen't get credit for Dallas population (6.4mil).

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by kdogg817

What I dont like is if this area is truly powered by two econmic engines that being Dallas & Fort Worth than why is the perception that Dallas represents the whole metro area, but Fort Worth only represent Tarrant (2 Mil) . So Dallas gets credit for Fort Worth population but Fort Worth dosen't get credit for Dallas population (6.4mil).

Fort Worth is not that much of an economic engine. Places like Las Colinas, Richardson, Addison, Plano, etc., have more jobs than downtown FW.

Tarrant County is a commuter suburb of Dallas county. About 30% of its workforce commutes to Dallas county for employment.

Dallas and Collin counties are pretty much the dominant force in the metro.

Also, bear in mind that metro areas are not defined in terms of municipalities, but entire counties. That is, a particular county will be either entirely in a metro or not in the metro. The Federal OMB doesn't take the trouble to look at each municipality individually. In many cases, heavily popuulated suburban areas are not in a municipality.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by portyhead24

I don't think anyone is claiming that. But they are part of the same MSA because of many factors including close proximity and interdependence economically. The two cities and all the others in between share a symbiotic relationship. So Marietta is Marietta as Atlanta is Atlanta but still in the same MSA. Sugar Land is Sugar Land as Houston is Houston but still the same MSA. Same for DFW. Just so happens that both Dallas and Fort Worth are two very large cities in the same metro rather than a metro dominated by one large city. Kinda like a solar system with two stars It's just a fact so trying to argue this point seems fruitless to me.

Well now I kinda agree with most of that explanation. Except that it would probably be an insult to many in Ft. Worth to compare it to Sugar Land, TX
which is a small or medium sized city with no more than 50 or 60K population.
I mean after all Ft. Worth PROPER has in excess of 2/3 rds of a million, and that's before you include Arlington (300K) into its metro population.
But granted Ft. Worth isn't as significant an economic player in Texas as Dallas or Houston, but it's major with such prominent corporate headquarters as AMR, Burlington Northern, Radio Shack, & XTO. And the Barnett Shale formation in the Ft. Worth area is a very significan employment producer (or was until petro prices recently tanked).
But yea, if you say that Dallas and Ft.Worth are kinda like the twin cities and then flip a coin to see which city gets its name first, that makes sense. I mean saying St Paul/Minneapoplis or Ft.Worth/Dallas is just a name change, just symantics but has the same meaning.
But Ft. Worth still is a distinct and very significant municipality with its own cultural history. Just don't treat it as a place with no more signicance than
Sugar Land, TX. And I'm not knocking SL here, that's not my point.

[portyhead24]

I definitely hear what you're saying. I'm not trying to insinuate that Dallas is like Houston and Ft. Worth is akin to Sugar Land. Really it could be vice versa. The gap between Ft. Worth and Dallas is definitely much closer than Houston is to Sugar Land for instance. The point I'm trying to make is that they shouldn't be two separate MSAs because they are very close to each other and interdependent. I don't think it's insulting to Ft. Worth or Dallas to do this either. I understand why people from Ft. Worth though might get irked because Dallas is the more recognizable and recognized of the two, but unfortunately that's the way it is. Anyway, I'm rambling and it's late and I'm not sure I know what I'm saying anymore haha.

[kdogg817]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Fort Worth is not that much of an economic engine. Places like Las Colinas, Richardson, Addison, Plano, etc., have more jobs than downtown FW.

Tarrant County is a commuter suburb of Dallas county. About 30% of its workforce commutes to Dallas county for employment.

Dallas and Collin counties are pretty much the dominant force in the metro.

Also, bear in mind that metro areas are not defined in terms of municipalities, but entire counties. That is, a particular county will be either entirely in a metro or not in the metro. The Federal OMB doesn't take the trouble to look at each municipality individually. In many cases, heavily popuulated suburban areas are not in a municipality.

I totally disagree. As a Fort Worth native I am insulted. A city of 700,000 has to supply there citizens with good paying jobs. Fort Worth has 9 fortune 500 companies. Please lets not insult the western half of the metroplex. Tarrant county did lead the area in growth according to the latest census data.

[nunusguy]

Dah, it's just me being slow on the draw because now I get what this MSA is about: it finally gives the guys in Dallas the bragging rights to be the "largest city" in Texas, right ?
A mere statistical reclassification/redefinition by some bureaucrats in Washington DC and Dallas can finally be, well the "Big D" down in those parts instead of just being the third or fourth largest city in the state ?
By lumping the population-count of two of the states 5 or 6 most populous ciities into the Dallas population and calling it a another name beginning with Dallas - presto-chango. Slick !

[Dallas native]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Dah, it's just me being slow on the draw because now I get what this MSA is about: it finally gives the guys in Dallas the bragging rights to be the "largest city" in Texas, right ?
A mere statistical reclassification/redefinition by some bureaucrats in Washington DC and Dallas can finally be, well the "Big D" down in those parts instead of just being the third or fourth largest city in the state ?
By lumping the population-count of two of the states 5 or 6 most populous ciities into the Dallas population and calling it a another name beginning with Dallas - presto-chango. Slick !

That's idiotic. Dallas does not control the Federal Government's Office of Management & Budget which defines MSA's. I'm certain that OMB was not thinking in terms of "bragging rights" when they determined how to compose all of the MSA's. You're projecting your bigger is better mentality onto an entity that doesn't give a rat's ass.

Dallas and Ft. Worth are included in the same MSA due to their PROXIMITY to one another. If Houston, for example, had a city of 700,000 just 30 miles away, then it would be included in the Houston/Baytown/Sugarland MSA. But, it doesn't. As defined by OMB, the DFW MSA contains about 9,300 sq.miles and the Houston MSA contains about 10,000 sq.miles. The DFW MSA happens to have about 10% more population contained in a slightly smaller defined area. That's not bragging, that's just a fact.

United States metropolitan area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia