DFW will reach 8.75 million residents by 2025 (Dallas, Fort Worth: pool, land, commuting)

[Lakewooder]

If the Forward Dallas plan moves ahead I can see 200-300 maybe 400,000 more in the central city. Where will the rest go? Probably more sprawl -- did you see the ozone figures in the paper the other day?

I hope I shall still be able to see the cliffs and islands at Lake Texoma!

[lh_newbie]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

Is 8 million a healthy number for dfw? I know Dallas is known throughout the country as a very prosperous area!!!? That seems like too many people. Does anyone else think so?

I don't understand the correlation between the area being prosperous and seeming like too many people. Are you saying that if the areas population increases, it will negatively affect the reputation of being a prosperous area? Does a stagnant population somehow magically maintain the prosperity? Please explain.

IMO - an area increasing in density is a sign that it offers something that people want. To me, that is a sign of prosperity. People moving to DFW will be in all different income brackets - which is a good thing. I know some folks prefer to only have high income earners in the area - but that's not realistic. We don't have that now, contrary to some folks beliefs. Yes, there are areas with high concentrations of high income households, but to even suggest that the DFW MSA is all high income earners shows that people either don't know what an MSA is, or they never drive outside their gated community.

Anyhow - I think more people will increase the entertainment options, will increase the eating options and will increase the retail options. So I consider it a good thing. It would be especially good if downtown/uptown areas continued to grow and attract new residents. Having a larger/denser core offers more lifestyle options, which increases diversity in the population - all of which I consider good things for a healthy metro area.

One last thing to keep in mind - typically, people have relocated to DFW because we have a strong job market. We still have a relatively strong job market. I suspect we will continue with that pattern. As more large companies discover the benefits that DFW offers and continue to relocate here, or expand their local workforce, we continue to have jobs - which has been a large reason our metro has grown as fast as it has in the past. People aren't going to relocate here just to cut their expenses (en mass anyhow) without having job prospects - so don't let the fear mongering of people moving here to live off Texas and DFW citizens set in - it's simply not going to happen - we don't have the level of welfare that many other states do. The vast majority of people moving here are moving here for jobs. These things are all good things in general.

Brian

[John Shaft]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

I hope I shall still be able to see the cliffs and islands at Lake Texoma!

You've got good eyes if you can see them from Lakewood!

In all seriousness, if it is going to accommodate all those people, eventually the DFW metro will have to start building up rather than outward. Of course, that will take away some of the appeal of the area - the ability to live in an inexpensive house with your own yard.

On the other hand, it's not like people will still flow into DFW if there's no place to live, and just congregate on the streets when they are not at work.

[Lakewooder]

My family has had a place at Texoma for nearly 50 years and in the last decade it's lost most of its tranquillity. I suppose it will be like Ray Hubbard in another decade or so...

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by lh_newbie

I don't understand the correlation between the area being prosperous and seeming like too many people. Are you saying that if the areas population increases, it will negatively affect the reputation of being a prosperous area? Does a stagnant population somehow magically maintain the prosperity? Please explain.

IMO - an area increasing in density is a sign that it offers something that people want. To me, that is a sign of prosperity. People moving to DFW will be in all different income brackets - which is a good thing. I know some folks prefer to only have high income earners in the area - but that's not realistic. We don't have that now, contrary to some folks beliefs. Yes, there are areas with high concentrations of high income households, but to even suggest that the DFW MSA is all high income earners shows that people either don't know what an MSA is, or they never drive outside their gated community.

Anyhow - I think more people will increase the entertainment options, will increase the eating options and will increase the retail options. So I consider it a good thing. It would be especially good if downtown/uptown areas continued to grow and attract new residents. Having a larger/denser core offers more lifestyle options, which increases diversity in the population - all of which I consider good things for a healthy metro area.

One last thing to keep in mind - typically, people have relocated to DFW because we have a strong job market. We still have a relatively strong job market. I suspect we will continue with that pattern. As more large companies discover the benefits that DFW offers and continue to relocate here, or expand their local workforce, we continue to have jobs - which has been a large reason our metro has grown as fast as it has in the past. People aren't going to relocate here just to cut their expenses (en mass anyhow) without having job prospects - so don't let the fear mongering of people moving here to live off Texas and DFW citizens set in - it's simply not going to happen - we don't have the level of welfare that many other states do. The vast majority of people moving here are moving here for jobs. These things are all good things in general.

Brian

I agree, lh_newbie

I especially agree that a greater population will improve the diversity of choices in which to work, play and live. A larger population will increase the number of specialized groups that can reach the critical mass needed for a particular kind of restaurant, as an example.

If an area is increasing its density, that means it is perceived as valuable by the public.

[Saintmarks]

Of all the major metro areas in the country, Dallas and Atlanta are the only two that can continue to grow in complete concentric circles in every direction without some form of geography getting in the way: an ocean, mountain range, large lake, swamp, desert, etc. Of course there are other factors, but that is an intriguing one. Plenty of land to continue sprawling all over the place.

[pappy97]

This study is flawed.

Look at the current numbers:

Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You telling me some of the metros just disappear off the list? No, rather our definition of what constitutes a metro is different among different people.

Notice how the SF Bay Area is currently #6 largest metro, ahead of DFW, but then in 2025 according to the article is nowhere to be found. That's because some organizations incorrectly split up the SF Bay Area into one centered around SF-Oakland, another centered around San Jose-Santa Clara-Fremont, and ignore the rest of the 9 county region.

That's the problem here. We have no standard definition of what constitutes a certain metro.

[LAnative10]

Originally Posted by pappy97

This study is flawed.

Look at the current numbers:

Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You telling me some of the metros just disappear off the list? No, rather our definition of what constitutes a metro is different among different people.

Notice how the SF Bay Area is currently #6 largest metro, ahead of DFW, but then in 2025 according to the article is nowhere to be found. That's because some organizations incorrectly split up the SF Bay Area into one centered around SF-Oakland, another centered around San Jose-Santa Clara-Fremont, and ignore the rest of the 9 county region.

That's the problem here. We have no standard definition of what constitutes a certain metro.

Its not flawed. You are just confusing CSA with MSA. Combined statistical areas measure people in an area without any paramaters. MSA's share the same economy, have high levels of people who commute from one to the other, have the same media market, etc. The most important from this list is the sharing the same economy. San Francisco and San Jose dont share one economy. Niether do Balto and DC. Dallas and Fort Worth do, so do Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.

[little elmer]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Of all the major metro areas in the country, Dallas and Atlanta are the only two that can continue to grow in complete concentric circles in every direction without some form of geography getting in the way: an ocean, mountain range, large lake, swamp, desert, etc. Of course there are other factors, but that is an intriguing one. Plenty of land to continue sprawling all over the place.

True, but at some point we'll see land/property becoming more valuable - while that's a good thing, when you combine it with our property tax rate it could get dizzying.

[kdogg817]

Originally Posted by LAnative10

Its not flawed. You are just confusing CSA with MSA. Combined statistical areas measure people in an area without any paramaters. MSA's share the same economy, have high levels of people who commute from one to the other, have the same media market, etc. The most important from this list is the sharing the same economy. San Francisco and San Jose dont share one economy. Niether do Balto and DC. Dallas and Fort Worth do, so do Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.

Very true.....Oakland and SF share economies but San Jose and SF do not share economies. Imgaine trying to get from San Jose to SF for work.

Los Angeles to San Francisco Road Trip on US 101 - San Jose to San Francisco





http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_cities/dallas2.jpg


http://gocalifornia.about.com/od/cacoast/ig/Los-Angeles-to-San-Francisco/San-Jose-to-San-Francisco.htm