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.
What does land area have to do with anything? Just face it. The DFW area is growing at a much faster rate than the Philadelphia area. And there's no end in site. Job growth, col, its a fun place, who knows. Lots of people are moving there.
Dallas is growing at a faster rate but even you must understand that it has to be put into consideration when comparing it to the Philly area.
Why do you think this doesn't matter. That is exactly the point! We can play the same game with Philadelphia and say this many people only live on this much land and so on. That's not what we are trying to do. The point is that the Dallas metro is huge, and it's difficult to justify why it is so. Despite the fact that the Dallas metro is growing much faster than Philly's (and Philly's metro has a nice sustainable growth rate I think), it doesn't change the fact that there are a lot more people living around Philly than Dallas. Take a 75 to 100 mile radius around each city and Philadelphia will have a lot more people living around it. Of course this means that it is going into other metro areas (NY and Baltimore), but that is exactly in Philadelphia's advantage. It is in the middle of the Northeast Megalopolis. Metro areas have similar population, but there are more people within the Philly region. Period.
I could make the same case for the Pinelands with is over 1000 sq. miles.
It still doesn't change the fact that the Dallas MSA is still much larger land area. Why are you trying get around that.
And I can see my point went way over your head.
Im not even comparing Dallas and Philadelphia. My point is that, for whatever reason, Philly posters like to throw out a 10,000 square mile figure as if thats the reason DFW is growing so fast. The reason its growing so fast is because jobs are coming hard and fast within the roughly 3,500 square miles of DFW thats actually populated. 6,500-7,000 square miles of "DFW" is ranch and farm land.
You can cling to your useless exaggerations (I know you will), but it doesnt change anything.
I could make the same case for the Pinelands with is over 1000 sq. miles.
It still doesn't change the fact that the Dallas MSA is still much larger land area. Why are you trying get around that.
I think all he was saying is that the majority of residents in DFW lives in less than half of those square miles. It's over 10k sq miles. But not even close to that is developed and probably most of it never will.
Im not even comparing Dallas and Philadelphia. My point is that, for whatever reason, Philly posters like to throw out a 10,000 square mile figure as if thats the reason DFW is growing so fast. The reason its growing so fast is because jobs are coming hard and fast within the roughly 3,500 square miles of DFW thats actually populated. 6,500-7,000 square miles of "DFW" is ranch and farm land.
You can cling to your useless exaggerations (I know you will), but it doesnt change anything.
When did I ever say Dallas wasn't growing fast? Your missing the point again.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 08-18-2013 at 08:04 PM..
Honey bees aren't native to America. It's not good for the economy of imported crops, but I'm not going to lose too much sleep if America loses its bees (though I do prefer to have them).
When did I ever say Dallas wasn't growing fast? Your missing the point again.
No, Im not. Your point is that Dallas is growing fast because of the metro areas square mileage. My point is that is not true since most of the square mileage is uninhabited.
No, Im not. Your point is that Dallas is growing fast because of the metro areas square mileage. My point is that is not true since most of the square mileage is uninhabited.
Like I said already, you can make the same case for the Philly area. You keep on digging yourself into a hole and it is entertaining to say the least. lol.
Like I said already, you can make the same case for the Philly area. You keep on digging yourself into a hole and it is entertaining to say the least. lol.
Im not even talking about Philly. Maybe you can make the same case for Philly (I havent done the math). Im saying that your continued claims about the reasons for the population of DFW is dead wrong. Youre the one digging the hole since you keep repeating false statements in hopes some one is stupid enough to believe you.
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.
