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.
Why does Fort Worth annexing large chunks of land AND working on inner core density have to be exclusive of each other? The way growth patterns are happening in the metroplex, the land around Fort Worth will be developed. The city fathers, IMO, are wanting to control this area and have it be a part of the city. If not, the areas would then incorporate into new suburban cities or be annexed into existing suburbs.
So, this huge population growth in Fort Worth is coming into the city population figures instead of into surrounding suburbs like Saginaw, Haslet, Benbrook, White Settlement, Lake Worth, etc, etc. These suburbs have all been surrounded by Fort Worth instead of growing into mega suburbs like you find on the east side of the metroplex. Arlington is the largest suburb in the metroplex, but is the only suburb in Tarrant over 100k. While on the Dallas/Collin/Denton County side of the metroplex, you have Grand Prairie, Irving, Lewisville, Carrollton, Richardson, Plano, Garland, Mesquite, McKinney, Frisco... (did I leave any out?) all over 100k (or right at it in Mesquite and Richardson's case). Dallas is over the 1 million mark but is pretty much hemmed in and cannot expand except to the southeast (Wilmer/Hutchins area) and that is NOT the growth side of the city.
So, the massive growth you see in Fort Worth is primarily attributed to Fort Worth expanding its limits. Collin County grew numberically almost as much as Tarrant between 2000 and 2010 (Collin 491,675 in 2000, 782,341 in 2010 a gain of 290,666 vs. Tarrant 1,446,219 to 1,809,034 in the same period for a gain of 362,815) but Collin's growth percentage wise was more than double that of Tarrant, 59.1% vs. 25.1%.
All that to say you must look at statistics in several angles and take arbitrary things like expansive city limits into play. Texas cities have HUGE city limits that when you look at populations of just the city limits skew things incredibly. There is no way that San Antonio's top ten ranking because of its huge footprint is in reality a larger city than the likes of Boston, San Francisco, Washington DC, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver, etc, etc, etc.
Fort Worth is growing mightily, but a lot of it is due to its annexation practices. Because of this, it will most likely reach the 1 million plateau ahead of Austin.
Historically Fort Worth was larger than Austin. This was certainly true in the 1970s and '80s, a time period during which I lived both places. This is even truer of the population within the city limits of the respective cities.
You never know, east Austin still has alot of room to grow and with the f1 track about to open in 4 months developers are looking to build around that area.
Room and potential are not the same thing. Austin had both of those to a high degree in the last decade and still fell far short of 200K. Austin has a less vigorous annexation plan and a slower rate of growth this decade so far. 100K is a reasonable expectation for Austin this Decade, over 200K is not. The cities of Houston and san Antonio may see those increases largely because of a large inner city hispanic population with a high birth rate, but Austin's numbers from births are not as high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks
Why does Fort Worth annexing large chunks of land AND working on inner core density have to be exclusive of each other? The way growth patterns are happening in the metroplex, the land around Fort Worth will be developed. The city fathers, IMO, are wanting to control this area and have it be a part of the city. If not, the areas would then incorporate into new suburban cities or be annexed into existing suburbs.
So, this huge population growth in Fort Worth is coming into the city population figures instead of into surrounding suburbs like Saginaw, Haslet, Benbrook, White Settlement, Lake Worth, etc, etc. These suburbs have all been surrounded by Fort Worth instead of growing into mega suburbs like you find on the east side of the metroplex. Arlington is the largest suburb in the metroplex, but is the only suburb in Tarrant over 100k. While on the Dallas/Collin/Denton County side of the metroplex, you have Grand Prairie, Irving, Lewisville, Carrollton, Richardson, Plano, Garland, Mesquite, McKinney, Frisco... (did I leave any out?) all over 100k (or right at it in Mesquite and Richardson's case). Dallas is over the 1 million mark but is pretty much hemmed in and cannot expand except to the southeast (Wilmer/Hutchins area) and that is NOT the growth side of the city.
So, the massive growth you see in Fort Worth is primarily attributed to Fort Worth expanding its limits. Collin County grew numberically almost as much as Tarrant between 2000 and 2010 (Collin 491,675 in 2000, 782,341 in 2010 a gain of 290,666 vs. Tarrant 1,446,219 to 1,809,034 in the same period for a gain of 362,815) but Collin's growth percentage wise was more than double that of Tarrant, 59.1% vs. 25.1%.
All that to say you must look at statistics in several angles and take arbitrary things like expansive city limits into play. Texas cities have HUGE city limits that when you look at populations of just the city limits skew things incredibly. There is no way that San Antonio's top ten ranking because of its huge footprint is in reality a larger city than the likes of Boston, San Francisco, Washington DC, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver, etc, etc, etc.
Fort Worth is growing mightily, but a lot of it is due to its annexation practices. Because of this, it will most likely reach the 1 million plateau ahead of Austin.
You bring up interesting points. One that I missed is the county level growth. Tarrant County is a seeding ground for FW's large population. It is growing a lot quicker than Travis. Add to that the fact that Austin's ETJ barely extends into other counties, while FW's ETJ goes into Denton, Parker, Wise, Johnson, all of which are fast growing.
The first one to get to 1M will get a big boost from that too. It will then be able to extend its ETJ to the fullest extent of Texas Law (5 Miles in all directions). I think by then FW will have a huge say in the growth of burbs in their backyard. FW is NOT going to be hemmed in so easily
Historically Fort Worth was larger than Austin. This was certainly true in the 1970s and '80s, a time period during which I lived both places. This is even truer of the population within the city limits of the respective cities.
My point here is that it has only been in recent years that Austin actually outgrew/overtook Fort Worth. I find it odd for people now to be asking when Fort Worth will overtake Austin in population, as though they have no memory of things before the year 1995 or 2000. The city limits of Fort Worth are set much farther out than Austin's, and the City of Fort Worth per se will surely again overtake Austin. If you are talking about metro area -- well, it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Fort Worth is part of an enormous contiguous metro area, while Austin's metro area is really a bit more conceptual or theoretical -- not as organically real as the DFW metro, and comprised of smaller burbs that are much more bedroom communities and less intrinsically well-developed than the numerous cities of the DFW metro. Also, since Fort Worth hates to be lumped in with Dallas, it's pointless to talk about the overall metro area in terms of Fort Worth size and population. You could talk strictly about Tarrant Co., I suppose. The towns outlying Austin are less important and highly developed than the burbs surrounding Fort Worth, which causes people to spuriously consider places like Cedar Park, Leander, Pflugerville, and even Round Rock to be "part of" Austin -- though they most emphatically are NOT Austin.
Historically Fort Worth was larger than Austin. This was certainly true in the 1970s and '80s, a time period during which I lived both places. This is even truer of the population within the city limits of the respective cities.
Something I didn't realize until I went and looked at Fort Worth historical population numbers was that FW actually lost population between 1970 and 1980.
1970: 393,476
1980: 385,164
It was the 1990 census when Austin overtook FW, or more likely the early part of the 80's: 472,020 to 447,619
Austin has a less vigorous annexation plan and a slower rate of growth this decade so far.
I thought you didn't believe in those estimate numbers...
Austin Metro grew at an average rate of 3.7% per year last decade, and the estimate has been 3.9% per year so far this decade. The estimate for the city has it growing at a faster rate than last decade as well. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea...n/cb12-55.html
Quote:
You bring up interesting points. One that I missed is the county level growth. Tarrant County is a seeding ground for FW's large population. It is growing a lot quicker than Travis. Add to that the fact that Austin's ETJ barely extends into other counties, while FW's ETJ goes into Denton, Parker, Wise, Johnson, all of which are fast growing.
Tarrant County grew 25.1% last decade, Travis County grew 26.1% last decade.
What does having a ETJ extending into 5 counties have to do the growth? A larger ETJ, or a larger population within an ETJ would be useful, but the fact that someone has 5 counties in their ETJ doesn't mean anything. If the city of Houston was located in Brewster County and all of its ETJ was within the boundaries of Brewster County, would that mean it had less room to grow or potential to grow because it was only in one county?
Quote:
The first one to get to 1M will get a big boost from that too. It will then be able to extend its ETJ to the fullest extent of Texas Law (5 Miles in all directions). I think by then FW will have a huge say in the growth of burbs in their backyard. FW is NOT going to be hemmed in so easily
Agreed, but I think both will hit the 1 million mark around the same time, maybe a year or two apart max.
I thought you didn't believe in those estimate numbers...
Austin Metro grew at an average rate of 3.7% per year last decade, and the estimate has been 3.9% per year so far this decade. The estimate for the city has it growing at a faster rate than last decade as well. Newsroom: Population: Census Estimates Show New Patterns of Growth Nationwide
I don't. I am taking all things into consideration, including what I see with my own eyes.
Quote:
Tarrant County grew 25.1% last decade, Travis County grew 26.1% last decade.
What does having a ETJ extending into 5 counties have to do the growth? A larger ETJ, or a larger population within an ETJ would be useful, but the fact that someone has 5 counties in their ETJ doesn't mean anything. If the city of Houston was located in Brewster County and all of its ETJ was within the boundaries of Brewster County, would that mean it had less room to grow or potential to grow because it was only in one county?
a larger ETJ extending into 5 fast growing counties has a huge benefit over having an ETJ in only one fast growing county. I am not talking about room to grow, I am talking about actual people available. Tarrant gained more people last decade than Travis, Add to that that Denton, and some of those other counties were even faster growing shows that while Austin may have a pull of 300K people to poach people from, FW may have a pull of 800K people because it is not limited by the people who move to Tarrant. The further it goes into Denton county for example the quicker it can grow. Austin is not as surrounded by as many people as FW.
Quote:
Agreed, but I think both will hit the 1 million mark around the same time, maybe a year or two apart max.
but one will get there first, and I just think that FW is in the better position to do so because it is maintaining the vigorous annexation policies of last decade, while Austin has slowed down on theirs.
Births and migration alone this decade are not going to get Austin the 150K it got last decade. At the same time I think FW will be able to match its last decade performance and pull in another 200K. That would put Austin and FW at near even. I predict that both will be near 950K at the close of the decade. They will be the 11th and 12th largest city in the US really close in population to San Jose.
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.
