Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only NE people wanna say that those are not southern, to diminish the south.
It's all part of an eloborate alternate future world where they think that the South will collapse while the Northeast and Midwest explode with growth. Just what's in that Kool-Aid?
Dallas and Fort Worth are two different cities that just so happened to grow into each other over the years with its suburbs growing just as well.
Also, Dallas isn't as powerful as you make it. Fort Worth and Arlington have both pulled their weight in making DFW what it is today. Without those two, Dallas would probably be another Cleveland, only with a few more thousand people and better economy. There would be no 3rd largest/busiest airports in the world here. There would be no 6 million pop. Possibly no Jerryworld, Super Bowl, Six Flags, or Hurricane Harbor. I doubt this area would have teams in all 4 of the major sports in this country and no ESPN Dallas.
Just because Dallas is more well known or is "the face" of the area doesn't mean it IS the area. And don't try to compare DFW to Miami and L.A. because they are one major or very large city with a bunch of small suburbs around. DFW is TWO big cities, 3 mid-sized cities, and suburbs. It's called Dallas-Fort Worth for a reason.
Fort Worth is NOT a twin city, it's NOT a sister city, and it damn sure isn't a suburb.
Fort Worth is in the league of Orlando, Austin, San Antonio, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Portland, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Raleigh, Buffalo, Columbus, and Indianapolis. It in no shape resembles anything close to the caliber of Dallas, which is the true name of the north Texas metropolis. Fort Worth while a city is not deserving of a mero title shared with a powerhouse like Dallas. Really those who call the area 'DFW' clearly havent been to both, would be similar to calling Miami as south FL or Miami-Ft. Lauderdale when Miami is the true name of the metropolis IMO
Fort Worth is in the league of Orlando, Austin, San Antonio, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Portland, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Raleigh, Buffalo, Columbus, and Indianapolis. It in no shape resembles anything close to the caliber of Dallas, which is the true name of the north Texas metropolis. Fort Worth while a city is not deserving of a mero title shared with a powerhouse like Dallas. Really those who call the area 'DFW' clearly havent been to both, would be similar to calling Miami as south FL or Miami-Ft. Lauderdale when Miami is the true name of the metropolis IMO
you can't describe DFW based on other areas of the country. different areas grew up differently.
If you knew the history of the area you would see that they pulled things together. They each grew on the backs of the other.
You say the name can't match that of Dallas, that could not be said if FW was not part of the picture.
Dallas's logistics prowess was developed on the boost that FW gave it.
THE Cities were not far apart population-wise and economic-wise until the oil boom. And pretty soon they will be the same population-wise. As for economically, who knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Huh?
Just a little crack on how far behind NY Philly is.
My list: i made up the land areas
1. NY 8.3M- Land area 302 sq miles
2. Los Angeles 4M -Land Area 475 sq miles
3. Houston 2.9M- Land Area 599 sq miles
4. Chicago 2.6M- - Land Area 230 sq miles
5. San Antonio 1.9M- Land Area 525 sq miles
6. Phoenix 1.75M - Land Area 575 sq miles
7. Philadelphia 1.6M- Land Area 135 sq miles
8. San Diego 1.4M - Land Area 350 sq miles
9. Fort Worth 1.35M - Land Area 400 sq miles
10. Austin 1.3M - Land Area 375 sq miles
runners up:
11. Dallas- 1.25M
12. Charlotte 1.2M
13. San Jose 1.1M
14. Detroit 1.1M
15. Jacksonville 1M
16. Indianapolis 1M
17. El Paso 900K
18. San Francisco 800K
19. DC 700K
20. Memphis 700K
Houston doesn't have a million more people than SA within a similar land area. Houston is not really anymore dense its just gets bigger over a larger urbanized area. If anything S.A will have 2.3 million if not more within 500 square miles in that time.
Houston doesn't have a million more people than SA within a similar land area. Houston is not really anymore dense its just gets bigger over a larger urbanized area. If anything S.A will have 2.3 million if not more within 500 square miles in that time.
So basically what saying is that if San Antonio had the same city limit boundaries as Houston, it would be more populated than Houston?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
