"Don't Dallas my Fort Worth..." / What the hell does this mean? (Austin: neighborhood, camp)

[Campeador]

Originally Posted by JJG

By size, they are our peers. That is, of course, if you separate the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex from the rest of the area.

The streetcar proposal fell under Moncreif's watch. I don't remember if she was one of the voters, but I do remember that one or two were out and couldn't vote for it, so that's what killed it... or at the very least held it off for another decade.

Honestly, every city in Texas is auto-centric. But Dallas and Houston (Dallas more so than any other city in this state) have invested into public transit, so there's no reason why we shouldn't have. I'm STILL upset about that vote, btw.

What I like about Austin is that it's the tech hub of this state. We don't have to strive to be exactly like what they are, but some aspects of that town are worth researching.

We do have Portland's similar city blocks, though.

I lived in Austin for 7 years. Apart from the tech presence, major differences include UT Austin and the fact that it is the capital. The creative community in Austin is palpable and much more broadly and deeply felt than in FW. We have pockets here, but it's the exception, not the norm. There is also a lot more folks into outdoor recreation and more scenic offerings closer to town, which helps with that. For these reasons, I really don't see FW as a peer to Austin.

I think our number of inhabitants is artificially inflated by the annexation history. In most other metro areas of the US, much of FW's landmass would be inner-ring suburbs. Due to that, the city feels (at least to me) much, much smaller than its population indicates. To me, it feels like a city of about 200K. I've lived in numerous cities of 300K that felt twice as big as FW.

I agree that all TX cities are car-centric, but I wasn't limiting myself to TX cities, nor even to US cities.


Edited to add: I was able to get that pdf open. I see what you were referring to, but notice the difference between "aspirational" peers and "current" peers. That's an important difference, and I agree with the distinction and with aspiring to what those cities offer.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Campeador

I lived in Austin for 7 years. Apart from the tech presence, major differences include UT Austin and the fact that it is the capital. The creative community in Austin is palpable and much more broadly and deeply felt than in FW. We have pockets here, but it's the exception, not the norm. There is also a lot more folks into outdoor recreation and more scenic offerings closer to town, which helps with that. For these reasons, I really don't see FW as a peer to Austin.

I think our number of inhabitants is artificially inflated by the annexation history. In most other metro areas of the US, much of FW's landmass would be inner-ring suburbs. Due to that, the city feels (at least to me) much, much smaller than its population indicates. To me, it feels like a city of about 200K. I've lived in numerous cities of 300K that felt twice as big as FW.

I agree that all TX cities are car-centric, but I wasn't limiting myself to TX cities, nor even to US cities.


Edited to add: I was able to get that pdf open. I see what you were referring to, but notice the difference between "aspirational" peers and "current" peers. That's an important difference, and I agree with the distinction and with aspiring to what those cities offer.

They're all still considered to be peers though, be they current or "aspirational".

That being said, I still just don't see why gaining what those peer cities have is "trying to be like Dallas" and why it's seen as a negative. Especially when you consider that Fort Worth was pretty progressive in the past. We were praised by JFK himself for our manufacturing of bombers. We were the first city in Texas to have a subway system of some kind that could have been expanded and utilized as a real public transportation option... those tunnels are still down there, btw. Hell, we had the first zoo in this state and one of the first cities in this state to establish a human rights commission, even.

It feels like that mentality over time has changed and need to compete and advance lowered, and I don't get why.

[Campeador]

Originally Posted by JJG

They're all still considered to be peers though, be they current or "aspirational".

That being said, I still just don't see why gaining what those peer cities have is "trying to be like Dallas" and why it's seen as a negative. Especially when you consider that Fort Worth was pretty progressive in the past. We were praised by JFK himself for our manufacturing of bombers. We were the first city in Texas to have a subway system of some kind that could have been expanded and utilized as a real public transportation option... those tunnels are still down there, btw. Hell, we had the first zoo in this state and one of the first cities in this state to establish a human rights commission, even.

It feels like that mentality over time has changed and need to compete and advance lowered, and I don't get why.

Progressive? The reasons you listed are all typical characteristics of an oligarchy, rather than a progressive community. The very heart of this city is essentially privately owned, with its own police force! The Tandy subway was privately owned, not a public transit option, but rather a way to move people from where they parked their cars to the mall. Caging animals and manufacturing bombs are not exactly badges of progressive politics either.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by JJG

They're all still considered to be peers though, be they current or "aspirational".

That being said, I still just don't see why gaining what those peer cities have is "trying to be like Dallas" and why it's seen as a negative. Especially when you consider that Fort Worth was pretty progressive in the past. We were praised by JFK himself for our manufacturing of bombers. We were the first city in Texas to have a subway system of some kind that could have been expanded and utilized as a real public transportation option... those tunnels are still down there, btw. Hell, we had the first zoo in this state and one of the first cities in this state to establish a human rights commission, even.

It feels like that mentality over time has changed and need to compete and advance lowered, and I don't get why.

And all of that was when?

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Threestep

And all of that was when?

All before the 70s.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Campeador

Progressive? The reasons you listed are all typical characteristics of an oligarchy, rather than a progressive community. The very heart of this city is essentially privately owned, with its own police force! The Tandy subway was privately owned, not a public transit option, but rather a way to move people from where they parked their cars to the mall. Caging animals and manufacturing bombs are not exactly badges of progressive politics either.

So not "progressive" in the term you're thinking, but "progressive" in terms of competing and trying to be first/on top.

The subway was privately owned but had the opportunity to expand to something public.

[Acntx]

Moderator Note: Just a reminder to all posters as the thread continues. Please keep the discussion on topic and remain respectful to one another. If you believe another poster isn't following the rules, report it. Thanks.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by JJG

All before the 70s.

It is almost 2019

What has progressed since the 70s? Bedroom communities with expensive fast food, out dated infrastructure and some business development ignoring what Ft. Worth is lacking?
When was the last time you were at the zoo?

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Threestep

It is almost 2019

What has progressed since the 70s? Bedroom communities with expensive fast food, out dated infrastructure and some business development ignoring what Ft. Worth is lacking?
When was the last time you were at the zoo?

. . . I really don't think we're on the same page, dude. None of that made any sense in terms of what this thread is about.

[NorthTexasGuy]

IMO, DFW as a whole can be compared somewhat to the Greater Los Angeles area. My understanding is L.A. was once know for urban sprawl. That sprawl has now appeared to reach maximum capacity because of that areas physical limitation (e.g. the ocean and the mountains) and has now started to increase in its population density; especially in Los Angeles County where mass transit a certainly a must. The sprawl has continued into the dessert regions expanding into San Bernandino and surrounding communities. But those dessert city areas are much less densely populated as LA or Orange counties. Similar to how the Metroplex is comprised of now. I would venture to guess that many people in San Bernandino or Anaheim don't want the problems of L.A.


My point in relation to your post is, Fort Worth unlike any of the other "peer" cities you noted, is part of the 4th largest metropolitan areas in the country. It is essentially one big economic region where it's hard to determine where one city ends and the other begins. Unlike the L.A area, we don't have physical limitations that will limit the sprawl. In the mean time, cities such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Plano, Garland and Frisco will try to maintain their own personalities to differentiate themselves from being considered just another extension of Dallas. I for one, can appreciate that as a way to demonstrate city pride, but your average new resident or visitor can not. Progress is good and necessary as any area grows, sometimes folks just want to hang on to the spirit of the thing as long as they can. Fort Worth is very much just a big town to me, and I believe that's what most of the current residents like about it. It is its spirit, its character. A lot of people who know how Dallas is don't want that in Fort Worth; at least not yet. Just my opinion.