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.
Yes SA will probably remain the 2nd city of TX but its metro population is underwhelming for the size of the city, that can change though.
2.3 million in the metro is about a million more than the city proper. SA ranks 24th largest metro now but it's also one of the fastest growing in raw numbers. It will break the top 20 just a matter of when it will.
Dallas has essentially developed most of the desirable land. The undeveloped parts in the south part of the city (mostly in between south Loop 12 and Interstate 20) have been difficult to develop due to the high rates of poverty and crime. Now that being said I am not saying Dallas has ceased development, considering it has one of the highest construction rates in the nation, after what I believed was New York City and Houston, respectively, but most of the construction has been highrise condos/the common 4-5 story apartments and gentrifying the current undesirable places. Dallas and the northern suburbs bleed together, particularly Richardson and Garland, however there are the defined boundaries.
The population is still rising, however I don't think at a rate that it will pass any of the cities listed anytime in the near future, except MAYBE Philadelphia, and that's considering that it has lost about half million people over the past 50 years. Philly has started to recover, but at an even slower rate than Dallas is growing. My prediction is Fort Worth will pass Dallas in size within the next few decades. People may disagree with me on it, however Fort Worth grown so rapidly over the years and is only a few square miles small that Dallas in total area. The entire north side of Fort Worth is still pretty undeveloped and has started to emerge from Dallas' shadow with the current progress that the city has made.
Forth Worth is not nor will ever be a suburb of Dallas. Fort Worth is it's own city, that would be like saying Oakland is a suburb of San Francisco or Baltimore a suburb of D.C.
The first comparison made sense but the second? Not so much.
Baltimore is older than DC and was an important city (and larger one) before DC even existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt
Fort Worth was its own city long before it became what is today known as the "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex".
Fort Worth is just like Oakland, Baltimore, & St. Paul.
Again... no, it isn't. Oakland or St. Paul, sure.
Baltimore is the only one out of the cities people constantly list as examples of cities that "exist without the larger city nearest them" that it's actually true of. For starters, it not only existed before but was also an important city before DC even existed, and at its peak it was larger than DC has ever been.
As for the question in the OP: Considering that Dallas and other Sunbelt metros grow by annexation, it isn't actually one of the fastest growing metros, now is it?
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.
...
