Census: D-FW adds more residents than any other U.S. metro area (Houston: school districts, legally)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by eastdallasson

aceplace you're takin this concept a little too far, lets leave the philosophy out

Philosophy?

Who said anything about Logical Positivism, Sartre's ideas on existentialism, Nietsche's views on the Will to Power, Dialectical Materialism...?

Viewing the DFW metro area as a unified whole makes a lot of sense, and helps us understand it. Looking at individual municipalities is a trivial or meaningless exercise, a waste of time.

Believe me, the Fort Worth city council had nothing to do with DFW accumulating more people than any other metro.

[kdogg817]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Philosophy?

Who said anything about Logical Positivism, Sartre's ideas on existentialism, Nietsche's views on the Will to Power, Dialectical Materialism...?

Viewing the DFW metro area as a unified whole makes a lot of sense, and helps us understand it. Looking at individual municipalities is a trivial or meaningless exercise, a waste of time.

Believe me, the Fort Worth city council had nothing to do with DFW accumulating more people than any other metro.

Ace your making that assumption no one else is. You have some stigma towards Fort Worth or something. Throughout this entire thread you have trashed Fort Worth. No true DFW resident would say Fort Worth means absolutely nothing to the metroplex. The area as a whole is unified under one name called DFW.

[eastdallasson]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Philosophy?

Who said anything about Logical Positivism, Sartre's ideas on existentialism, Nietsche's views on the Will to Power, Dialectical Materialism...?

Viewing the DFW metro area as a unified whole makes a lot of sense, and helps us understand it. Looking at individual municipalities is a trivial or meaningless exercise, a waste of time.

Believe me, the Fort Worth city council had nothing to do with DFW accumulating more people than any other metro.

sweet name dropping, you must be really well educated. the point is, the point your trying to make is taken...i guess. but i would venture to say that if you really want to apply that theory you could make just as good of an argument to the cohesiveness of a real identity in either fort worth or dallas perhaps even more tangibly understood and described, without bringing government or any of that crap into the picture, than your assertion of DFW as a whole as the only "REAL" entity.

this thread has become absurd as is

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by eastdallasson

but dallas is the major city in the metroplex.

But see "metroplex" is just a name probablly conceived by some guy from Wall Street as part of a marketing idea. They could have said "TexasPlex" and
used that name interchangeabley with Dallas for the whole state because it is the most recognizable name of all Texas cities. But that doesn't change the fact that FTW, Houston, Austin, EP, etc. are all seperate individual places with their own identites which would be far more important than "TexasPlex".
But the point is that the history, the culture, etc of Ft Worth preceeded and is certainly more important to people of Texas than some idea a guy from NYC came up with.

[eastdallasson]

read my posts please and chill with the inferiority complex. no one's trying to take anything away from fort worth. will this thread never end? the whole we're better, no we're better thing got old pages ago

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by kdogg817

Ace your making that assumption no one else is. You have some stigma towards Fort Worth or something. Throughout this entire thread you have trashed Fort Worth. No true DFW resident would say Fort Worth means absolutely nothing to the metroplex. The area as a whole is unified under one name called DFW.

True, I agree that it is unified under one name.

And no, I didn't mean to single out Fort Worth as somehow at fault for something. I'm just using it as an example of the demographic and economic irrelevance of all city governments in the metro, Dallas included.

In my opinion, the entire metro is the real city, in the sense that the late Jane Jacobs described, in her book "The Life and Death of Great American Cities". Dallas city and Fort Worth city are just political jurisdictions, and have little or no relevance to the rise in population of the metro, the actual subject of this thread.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

But that doesn't change the fact that FTW, Houston, Austin, EP, etc. are all seperate individual places with their own identites

The name "Metroplex" is OK with me, but I notice the local stations are used to calling it "North Texas".

And no, Houston and Fort Worth are not separate individual places. The intersection of the center lines of Main and Preston in downtown Houston is a separate place. Houston in general is not a specific place, it is a political jurisdiction containing a mathematically infinite number of separate places.

If Houston were in a specific place, then where is it? Downtown? Uptown/Galleria? Medical Center? Since those three neighborhoods are all Houston, then you must conclude that Houston can be in 3 places at once. Which contradicts your original claim that Houston is a single place. On the other hand, what does "separate place" mean? How do you separate a place? It's a point in space, and a point is indivisible by definition.

Does Fort Worth have a separate identity? Yes, but so does every other political jurisdiction in the Metroplex... uh, excuse me, I mean NORTH Texas. Dalworthington Gardens has a separate identity, as does Mesquite, Frisco, Highland Park, Lewisville. Even my little fresh water district # 10, containing the unincorporated community of Savannah, has an identity.

By the way, when you drive northh on Preston Road and cross the Dallas-Plano line, do you see a different identity on either side of the line? It honestly looks the same to me.

The fact of having an identity does not make a municipality such as Fort Worth particularly interesting. That's why the US Census Bureau ignores the existence of municipalities in deriving the populations of metro areas.

[mysterymachinebl]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The name "Metroplex" is OK with me, but I notice the local stations are used to calling it "North Texas".

That's probably because their coverage area extends all over Northern Texas, not just the DFW metro area.

[eastdallasson]

its not that the city is all those places at once, its that it encompasses them all. you are made up of billions of parts but i'm willing to call you aceplace and not address your individual cells or try to assert their singular identity. do we really want to argue this?

[C2H (ComingtoHouston)]

When i am in DFW, the boundaries are very distinct. For example, between Dallas and Las Colinas in Irving, it actually feels like you're leaving Dallas to go to a cold lifeless business park. Fort Worth on the other hand feels like a city but with a small time charm. It's a little too far from Dallas and too big in its own right to ever be considered a suburb of Dallas. I was also surprised when Aceplace said there's no Fortune500 companies in Ft. Worth. If i'm not mistaken, isn't Pier 1 a Fortune 500 company?

Dallas only makes up 25% of the metroplex. It does not own the entire area and shouldn't be treated that way. Things do change and the Census may probably end up doing to DFW what they did to San Fran/San Jose metro and count them as two separate MSAs, especially after Fort Worth continues to grow and gain more prominence.