Will DFW surpass Chicagoland as the third largest metro? (houses, job market)

[SlickRick1]

I really dont see Dallas ever passing Chicago..Chicago's too big and is an economic hub. Still light years away from Dallas. And dont forget while Dallas grows so wont Chicago..

[bracra1]

Originally Posted by bradly

I guess every one has a different view but thats a massive metro, i could see it passing in the future.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington jumped +19.05% in growth.

It gained nearly a million people since 2000,

6,145,037 --2007
5,161,520 --2000

Did the Chicago Metro see growth like that.. i dont think so.. +4.68% is nothing.




I will give it about 25 years or less until it passes chicago's metro.

when u already have 10 million people verse 6 million, 4.68% is a lot. 19% of 6 million isnt

Chicago Gained 468,000
Dallas Gained 118,000

what do you have to say now?

[Spade]

Originally Posted by bracra1

when u already have 10 million people verse 6 million, 4.68% is a lot. 19% of 6 million isnt

Chicago Gained 468,000
Dallas Gained 118,000

what do you have to say now?

You continue to do this. You are comparing Chicago's metro population to Dallas city population. Those stats are not fair to either city. First off. Chicago does not have 10 million people yet.

Chicago's metro grew 426,357 people this decade so far.
DFW's metro grew 983,517 people this decade so far.

This is MSA numbers. CSA is obviously different.
Chicago metro grew 432,910 this decade so far.
DFW metro grew 1,010,454 this decade so far.i

[bracra1]

Originally Posted by Spade

You continue to do this. You are comparing Chicago's metro population to Dallas city population. Those stats are not fair to either city. First off. Chicago does not have 10 million people yet.

Chicago's metro grew 426,357 people this decade so far.
DFW's metro grew 983,517 people this decade so far.

This is MSA numbers. CSA is obviously different.
Chicago metro grew 432,910 this decade so far.
DFW metro grew 1,010,454 this decade so far.i

what is then? 9.9 million? Its close to ten. Whatever, that's not the point. The point is that it could never happen. Chicago is already just so much bigger (by nearly 4 million people) that it would be impossible for DFW to catch them. GROWTH DOES NOT LAST FOREVER! I've said this over and over. Back in the early 1900's, when Chicago became the second U.S city ever to hit 1,000,000 plus people, projections predicted that Chicago would be larger than NEW YORK CITY! Look how wrong that turned out to be. Chicago's population peaked at 3,600,000, dropped for 40 years, and its now only near the 3,000,000 mark. Also, DFW IS NOT a true "metro" seeing as its two different cities joining together to create one metroplex! I know you Texans are hopeful that it will happen, but it won't. Urban sprawl will eventually kill the city anyway. Why would someone want to live 100 miles from downtown Dallas or Fort Worth and work their. 15% of a cities population needs to work in the city for it to be considered in the metro and that's just not going to happen with people 100 miles away from Center City.

DFW may maintain its spot as number four, but it should watch out for Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Atlanta. Even cities like Miami, Baltimore, D.C, and Boston may pass it.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by bracra1

what is then? 9.9 million? Its close to ten. Whatever, that's not the point. The point is that it could never happen. Chicago is already just so much bigger (by nearly 4 million people) that it would be impossible for DFW to catch them. GROWTH DOES NOT LAST FOREVER! I've said this over and over. Back in the early 1900's, when Chicago became the second U.S city ever to hit 1,000,000 plus people, projections predicted that Chicago would be larger than NEW YORK CITY! Look how wrong that turned out to be. Chicago's population peaked at 3,600,000, dropped for 40 years, and its now only near the 3,000,000 mark. Also, DFW IS NOT a true "metro" seeing as its two different cities joining together to create one metroplex! I know you Texans are hopeful that it will happen, but it won't. Urban sprawl will eventually kill the city anyway. Why would someone want to live 100 miles from downtown Dallas or Fort Worth and work their. 15% of a cities population needs to work in the city for it to be considered in the metro and that's just not going to happen with people 100 miles away from Center City.

DFW may maintain its spot as number four, but it should watch out for Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Atlanta. Even cities like Miami, Baltimore, D.C, and Boston may pass it.

DC-Bmore is already ahead of it by over 1.5 million people.
Boston is already ahead by over 800k people.
DFW is growing much faster and has more room to grow and a more diverse and better economy than Miami so it will continue to prosper for a while.

And I never SAID that DFW will continue to grow. I said that DFW will not pass Chicago. You just have your facts warped that needed to be addressed. DFW isn't a true metro because it's two cities? Have you ever been to Texas? DFW is one single solitary area. The downtown Ft Worth to downtown Dallas is 30 miles but Dallas city limits to Ft. Worth city limits are as close 10 miles apart. If you want to start using that crazy logic anyway. You need to do the same for the following CSA metros that have two cities in it's metro:
Seattle-Tacoma
San Francisco-Oakland
Washington DC-Baltimore
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Minneapolis-St. Paul

According to your logic, these aren't true metros either. Even though they cover about the same amount of area as ChicagoLAND.

Las Vegas is 5 million people behind DFW and Phoenix is over 2.5 million people behind. The only metros that have a chance to pass DFW is Houston (which is about 600k behind) and Atlanta (which is about 700k behind). But that's about it.

[CMDallas]

Originally Posted by bracra1

The point is that it could never happen.

I think we went over this already... Need i quote myself again...

Originally Posted by bracra1

Also, DFW IS NOT a true "metro" seeing as its two different cities joining together to create one metroplex!

I guess The Bay Area isn't either...with San Jose, San Fran, and Oakland....and while were at it....Niether is New York as it has Newark and jersey city right? Oh WAIT! Lets go ahead and say Chicago too...because Aurora isn't Chicago...neither is Gary....
god...I can hear you right now... "wait! But that's different!!!"
uhh...no its not...
Metropolitan Area- a large city and its surrounding suburbs
source
DFW is just as much a metropolitan as Chicago or Los Angeles...or Minneapolis St.Paul...it has a large cities and suburbs... I don't see where it says there has to be one main city....
Your hypocrisy is really starting to annoy me.
I agree with you that DFW is not going to pass Chicago is 2020...but you reall don't seem to learn, and you make cheap attack manipulating data. To make chicago look far supurior...which...(this might come as a suprise to you) IT'S NOT.
I can hear you right now, denying this. And ,maybe you don't intend to be like this. But tone down the pride a little? I don't have anything against Chicago but you are really fighting the idea at DFW being bigger.

[bracra1]

Originally Posted by CMDallas

I think we went over this already... Need i quote myself again...

I guess The Bay Area isn't either...with San Jose, San Fran, and Oakland....and while were at it....Niether is New York as it has Newark and jersey city right? Oh WAIT! Lets go ahead and say Chicago too...because Aurora isn't Chicago...neither is Gary....
god...I can hear you right now... "wait! But that's different!!!"
uhh...no its not...
Metropolitan Area- a large city and its surrounding suburbs
source
DFW is just as much a metropolitan as Chicago or Los Angeles...or Minneapolis St.Paul...it has a large cities and suburbs... I don't see where it says there has to be one main city....
Your hypocrisy is really starting to annoy me.
I agree with you that DFW is not going to pass Chicago is 2020...but you reall don't seem to learn, and you make cheap attack manipulating data. To make chicago look far supurior...which...(this might come as a suprise to you) IT'S NOT.
I can hear you right now, denying this. And ,maybe you don't intend to be like this. But tone down the pride a little? I don't have anything against Chicago but you are really fighting the idea at DFW being bigger.

In no way am I being a hypocrite, you're just out to make me look like I am one, for some reason.

1. Aurora IS NOT included in Chicago's metro seeing as it has ITS OWN and Gary, Indiana is a SUBURB. If you want to say Aurora is a suburb, then I guess Rockford would be one too.

Chicago's metro includes: West to Naperville, East to Gary, South to Joliet, and North to Zion. NOWHERE in there is Aurora. Had you taken the time to look it up, you would have known that.

2. How am I manipulating data? I honestly find this really funny that you said that because you have no idea what your talking about. In no way shape or form have I manipulated data to make Chicago look "superior" (which it is anyway, I don't need to manipulate the data to prove that).

3. Explain to me, how two cities, each with populations over 700,000 can join to create "one city", when they are nearly 35 miles away from one another. That's not a metro, its a METROPLEX.

4. And lastly, no, I will not "turn down" the pride. I'm sorry if your from DFW and you feel offended by what I said, but I believe it to be true. You can't take two cities and call the stretch of road they share their combined metro. The only reason Jersey City is counted as NYC's metro is because NYC has a population of over 8 million people and has the single most office space in its downtown area in the country, so of course you're going to people from other states working in the city.

[CMDallas]

Originally Posted by bracra1

In no way am I being a hypocrite, you're just out to make me look like I am one, for some reason.

1. Aurora IS NOT included in Chicago's metro seeing as it has ITS OWN and Gary, Indiana is a SUBURB. If you want to say Aurora is a suburb, then I guess Rockford would be one too.

Chicago's metro includes: West to Naperville, East to Gary, South to Joliet, and North to Zion. NOWHERE in there is Aurora. Had you taken the time to look it up, you would have known that.

2. How am I manipulating data? I honestly find this really funny that you said that because you have no idea what your talking about. In no way shape or form have I manipulated data to make Chicago look "superior" (which it is anyway, I don't need to manipulate the data to prove that).

3. Explain to me, how two cities, each with populations over 700,000 can join to create "one city", when they are nearly 35 miles away from one another. That's not a metro, its a METROPLEX.

4. And lastly, no, I will not "turn down" the pride. I'm sorry if your from DFW and you feel offended by what I said, but I believe it to be true. You can't take two cities and call the stretch of road they share their combined metro. The only reason Jersey City is counted as NYC's metro is because NYC has a population of over 8 million people and has the single most office space in its downtown area in the country, so of course you're going to people from other states working in the city.

1)Where have you been? Aurora is within 10 minutes of Chicago....
If Aurora is not part of the Chicago metropolitan area than by your definition...Chicagoland is ALOT smaller...
Aurora
Chicago
The Chicago Metropolitan area
Obviously over 30 miles across....

2)Spade called you out on manipulating data, need I quote him ??? or will you save me the trouble and just look a couple of posts up?

3)First of all....I never said it created a city, it is a metropolitan area...Composed of TWO core cities like Minneapolis-St.Paul, DC-Baltimore, Los Angeles-Orange County, San Jose- San Fran, Seattle Tacoma, NYC-Newark...
LASTLY.
there is not such thing as a metroplex ....Metroplex is the nickname coined for DFW.... But let not get into that, this is not english class....go look in a dictionary.

4) your making no sense..."it ok for this metro area because it has more office buldings...but not for this one"
Did you know the ONLY reason Fort Worth and Dallas are considered to be a metropolitan area?
BECAUSE ABOUT 30% OF FORT WORTH GOES TO DALLAS FOR WORK EVERYDAY...psh there goes you theroy.

Now your denying your own pride, you are trolling of DFW why??? cause you don't like the idea that it might pass Chicago???
You are also neglecting the Data in which I proved you incorectt.
You haven't even been to DFW, because if you have, you would've know the whole stretch between Dallas and Fort Worth in Completely Developed, minus the area the airport owns...

[bracra1]

Originally Posted by CMDallas

1)Where have you been? Aurora is within 10 minutes of Chicago....
If Aurora is not part of the Chicago metropolitan area than by your definition...Chicagoland is ALOT smaller...
Aurora
Chicago
The Chicago Metropolitan area
Obviously over 30 miles across....

2)Spade called you out on manipulating data, need I quote him ??? or will you save me the trouble and just look a couple of posts up?

3)First of all....I never said it created a city, it is a metropolitan area...Composed of TWO core cities like Minneapolis-St.Paul, DC-Baltimore, Los Angeles-Orange County, San Jose- San Fran, Seattle Tacoma, NYC-Newark...
LASTLY.
there is not such thing as a metroplex ....Metroplex is the nickname coined for DFW.... But let not get into that, this is not english class....go look in a dictionary.

4) your making no sense..."it ok for this metro area because it has more office buldings...but not for this one"
Did you know the ONLY reason Fort Worth and Dallas are considered to be a metropolitan area?
BECAUSE ABOUT 30% OF FORT WORTH GOES TO DALLAS FOR WORK EVERYDAY...psh there goes you theroy.

Now your denying your own pride, you are trolling of DFW why??? cause you don't like the idea that it might pass Chicago???
You are also neglecting the Data in which I proved you incorectt.
You haven't even been to DFW, because if you have, you would've know the whole stretch between Dallas and Fort Worth in Completely Developed, minus the area the airport owns...

Are you his ***** now? Sticking up for him? Aurora is close to 40 miles away from Chicago. It IS NOT included in the metro. You can look it up on the census if you want to try and prove me wrong, but you'll look like an idiot in doing so.

Second, DFW wont pass Chicago. Texas is the definition of Urban Sprawl (although a couple other sunbelt cities are). People won't want a 200 mile round trip commute everyday. Be serious. This is my main argument AGAINST DFW. DFW is soooo determined to be #3, that it SPRAWLS everyone out, hoping to cover a greater area and eventually, gain more people! Chicago on the other hand, tries to make the city has dense as possible, with over 1,418 people per square mile in its metro. Whats DFW's? Its 684! Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. IT COVERS 9,286 square miles! Now compare that to Chicago's Metro Area, which covers 7,212 square miles, and has a population of 9.8 million compared to 6.1 million.

I don't really think that having homes sitting on an huge plots of land followed by some undelvoped areas, and more mass sprawl its considered developed.

heres your typical DFW suburb:



Here is your typical Chicago Subrub neigborhood:




notice the difference? DFW is just trying to make a name for itself but it will backfire terribly on them.

Not to mention all the enviromental damage they do, clear cutting forest and destroying habitats to throw up 11 homes on 10 acres of land.

[CMDallas]

DFW tried to become number 3???
Chicago tries to make the city all dense???
NO! You can as if each city has its own master plan to out do the other....

By the way...that is NOT Dallas Fort worth...that's Los Angeles...
Houston's Clear Thinkers: In defense of urban sprawl

Check your photos next time before you look like a fool.

Aurora shares a small part of the the same county...there in the same metropolitan area, either that or Chicago's metropolitan area is NOT 9 Million.


Yeah....Chicago is real dense...

With the 'dense' part of Chicago in the distance...

I never said DFW wasn't sprawl, and I'm not objecting to Chicago being denser... There are however Denser parts of DFW.
I was originally attacking you for posting manipulated data and ignorant statements... such as "DFW will NEVER pass Chicago"
And the the idea that you rejected DFW as a metropolitan area...
Most of the area between Dallas and Fort Worth is developed, what isn't belongs to DFW international Airport.