Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex

[Spades]

They would probably be around the same size Gary. I'm only guessing, though. I believe Harris County alone is bigger than Tarrant and Dallas county and Chambers county to the east is not very populated. It's skewed no doubt nor is Waller or Washington county.

Something is really wrong with this list. Does anyone know why the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metro area is not on this list? The bay area cities are every bit as connected by population, freeways, and buildings as Dallas and Fort Worth are, in fact more so. There are more people in the SF bay area than DFW. I don't know how the NCTCOG defines metropolitan areas but a top ten list of the largest metro areas that does not include the SF bay area can not be very accurate.

Nothing is wrong with that list. If you go by CSA, then the Bay Area and Washington DC-Baltimore both are bigger than DFW. But this isn't about the CSA because they split San Francisco and San Jose up anyway. This is the MSA which is how Philadelphia was fourth.

[JasonDFW]

This post got me thinking. If one was to look at the actual geographical boundaries that NCTCOG was using, how many square miles would that be? And considering this, would the greater Houston area be more populous using this criteria?

Good question, here are the stats:

Houston-Baytown-Sugarland Metro  = 5,280,077 people in 10,061 square miles
Dallas-Fort Wort-Arlington Metro = 5,819,475 people in 9285 square miles

Those are the official census numbers as of 2005 (pre-katrina) that were the extrapolation point for the above article.

Speaking of the above article, I thought it was nice of the greater Dallas chamber, or whoever created that press release, to mention greater Houston specifically in a positive way. That means someone in Dallas is paying for some Houston press.

Jason

I don't know how the NCTCOG defines metropolitan areas but a top ten list of the largest metro areas that does not include the SF bay area can not be very accurate.

In addition to what spades said, I just wanted to make clear that the top 10 list/data wasn't created by the NCTCOG, but rather the US Census. You can see it independently being compiled here:

http://proximityone.com/metros.htm

(Houston just happens to be the example on that above page)

Jason

P.S.

By the way, if anyone wants to see the Houston equivalent of the NCTCOG numbers that data is here:

http://www.houston.org/blackfenders/09AW015.pdf

Edited July 17, 2006 by JasonDFW

[2112]

This just in: The greater Houston area including Brownville and LaGrange, has surpassed the city of Chicago to become the number 3 city and thus can now be classified as "pretty".

I know I participate in these threads just as much. But this there article is trully priceless.

[Houston19514]

By the way, if anyone wants to see the Houston equivalent of the NCTCOG numbers that data is here:

http://www.houston.org/blackfenders/09AW015.pdf

That is not the equivalent to NCTCOG. The Greater Houston Partnership is the equivalent of a chamber of commerce. And the numbers on the page you linked are strictly US Census Bureau numbers.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Houston19514

[Gary]

Good question, here are the stats:

Houston-Baytown-Sugarland Metro  = 5,280,077 people in 10,061 square miles
Dallas-Fort Wort-Arlington Metro = 5,819,475 people in 9285 square miles

Those are the official census numbers as of 2005 (pre-katrina) that were the extrapolation point for the above article.

Is that right? Last time I checked Houston had a slightly denser population base. Unfortunately I can't remember where i found it.

[RedScare]

Is that right? Last time I checked Houston had a slightly denser population base. Unfortunately I can't remember where i found it.

That's because it was denser. The new definitions of a MSA added Austin and San Jacinto Counties, with a total population of less than 46,000 people, but a land area of about 1,000 square miles. The same thing happened to the Dallas MSA.

BTW, the Houston Council is the Houston-Galveston Area Council. H-GAC uses the Texas State Data Center for it's population estimates.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/estimat...xpopest_msa.pdf

As you might guess, the TSDC also has a lower population estimate for the DFW MSA, though their latest data is for July 2005. And, for those who like big numbers, the City of Houston's population estimate for January 2006 is 2,199,000.

[Mister X]

Thus all population figures for specific metros should be treated as interpretations rather than hard facts, and rankings and comparisons of metros should be treated with great caution.

As far as ranking metropolitan areas, I think this quote just about sums it up. Evidently, people with their own agendas can make up just about any metro population numbers they want, to prove whatever they want.

So if SF and San Jose are considered two different metro areas today even though they are just as connected as Houston and Baytown or DFW, then one day someone will make a list saying that Dallas and Fort Worth are two different metro areas - and then Houston will be the largest city in Texas AND have the largest metro area.

That ought to cause some shock waves in DFW. I mean D and FW.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Mister X

[JasonDFW]

As you might guess, the TSDC also has a lower population estimate for the DFW MSA, though their latest data is for July 2005. And, for those who like big numbers, the City of Houston's population estimate for January 2006 is 2,199,000.

I looked at your link and it appears the TSDC actually has a larger estimate of the DFW MSA than the article released by the Dallas chamber.

TSDC estimate = 5,752,589 for 1/1/2005

Census estimate = 5,819,475 for 7/1/2005

The commonly accepted growth rate for DFW for the past 10 or 15 years is 145k per year so half of that would be 72.5k.

TSDC estimate then = 5,752,589 +72,500 = 5,825,089 which is greater than 5,819,475 of the census.

The 145k/year estimate is supported by TSDC's own data, which shows an annual growth rate of ~148k/year.

Edited July 18, 2006 by JasonDFW

[JasonDFW]

As far as ranking metropolitan areas, I think this quote just about sums it up. Evidently, people with their own agendas can make up just about any metro population numbers they want, to prove whatever they want.

So if SF and San Jose are considered two different metro areas today even though they are just as connected as Houston and Baytown or DFW, then one day someone will make a list saying that Dallas and Fort Worth are two different metro areas - and then Houston will be the largest city in Texas AND have the largest metro area.

That ought to cause some shock waves in DFW. I mean D and FW.

I personally don't think the US Census has a big agenda to make Houston and Dallas bigger than they are by giving them big 10,000 square mile metros while giving SF a smaller metro. If the bay had a slightly (several % as I recall) more diverse commute pattern they would be one MSA.

As long as someone gives some rules on how to define "metros", more power to them. People will decide which definitions they prefer to use. A bay area resident may prefer CMSAs to metros as it lumps the whole area together, and that's fine. The radio or TV market size are fine definitions to use as well, and it mostly gets the evil government out of the equation.

On a side note, I really doubt the DFW msa will ever be split up. There are huge commute numbers between the counties (many numbers even bigger than the bay area) and they are being tied together more closely every day. Every time I ride rail between Dallas and Fort Worth I meet people that live in one town and work (or go to school) in another.

Jason

Edited July 18, 2006 by JasonDFW

[RedScare]

I looked at your link and it appears the TSDC actually has a larger estimate of the DFW MSA than the article released by the Dallas chamber.

TSDC estimate = 5,752,589 for 1/1/2005

Census estimate = 5,819,475 for 7/1/2005

The commonly accepted growth rate for DFW for the past 10 or 15 years is 145k per year so half of that would be 72.5k.

TSDC estimate then = 5,752,589 +72,500 = 5,825,089 which is greater than 5,819,475 of the census.

The 145k/year estimate is supported by TSDC's own data, which shows an annual growth rate of ~148k/year.

I wonder why the Dallas Chamber says growth is 133,225 (365/day x 365) a year, then? And, TSDC shows 591,000 growth since the 2000 Census, a period of 57 months. That puts the estimate in line with the Census figure.

EDIT: Oh, maybe they left out the spectacular growth in Delta County.

Edited July 18, 2006 by RedScare

[Gary]

That's because it was denser. The new definitions of a MSA added Austin and San Jacinto Counties, with a total population of less than 46,000 people, but a land area of about 1,000 square miles. The same thing happened to the Dallas MSA.

BTW, the Houston Council is the Houston-Galveston Area Council. H-GAC uses the Texas State Data Center for it's population estimates.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/estimat...xpopest_msa.pdf

As you might guess, the TSDC also has a lower population estimate for the DFW MSA, though their latest data is for July 2005. And, for those who like big numbers, the City of Houston's population estimate for January 2006 is 2,199,000.

Ok, but but if you were to eliminate the new MSA bondaries of Houston and Dallas, would that mean that Houston is still a more dense city? As I mentioned earlier, I had some numbers a few years ago that showed Houston slightly denser at 600 sq miles (approximately) than the city of Dallas at 300 sq miles. Again, is that right?

[Mister X]

I personally don't think the US Census has a big agenda to make Houston and Dallas bigger than they are by giving them big 10,000 square mile metros while giving SF a smaller metro. If the bay had a slightly (several % as I recall) more diverse commute pattern they would be one MSA.

As long as someone gives some rules on how to define "metros", more power to them. People will decide which definitions they prefer to use. A bay area resident may prefer CMSAs to metros as it lumps the whole area together, and that's fine. The radio or TV market size are fine definitions to use as well, and it mostly gets the evil government out of the equation.

On a side note, I really doubt the DFW msa will ever be split up. There are huge commute numbers between the counties (many numbers even bigger than the bay area) and they are being tied together more closely every day. Every time I ride rail between Dallas and Fort Worth I meet people that live in one town and work (or go to school) in another.

Jason

All I know is that there is non stop build up from north of Fairfield and beyond to south of San Jose and beyond (Oakland and SF are somewhere in the middle) and it is impossible to tell when one city begins and the next one ends as one drives on the roads and freeways. Any futher definition of metro area is bogus. It is what it is. The methods that the North Central Governments whatever agency uses to place DFW at number 4 is balony.

Metro rankings mean nothing if they can't accurately be compared. If an agency wants to focus on or delete specific criteria in order to show a metros ranking in a certain catagory that's fine - but they shouldn't call the list an overall metro area ranking.

Also, like the wikipedia disclaimer says - comparisons of metro areas should be taken with great caution.

The standards used to compare metros are too inconsistant to be taken seriously.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Mister X

[2112]

Ok, but but if you were to eliminate the new MSA bondaries of Houston and Dallas, would that mean that Houston is still a more dense city? As I mentioned earlier, I had some numbers a few years ago that showed Houston slightly denser at 600 sq miles (approximately) than the city of Dallas at 300 sq miles. Again, is that right?

I never placed a lot of weight on the "density per square mile" rating. The reason is that Houston has a lot of area, so the total density number may seem low. Not that it is not low compared to Boston. But how can you compare a city like Boston with such small area, with a huge area-wise city like Houston? It is very possible that the central Houston areas are a heck of alot more densor (or more sparse) than another city. Even if you took the inner-loop portion of Houston, it may still be bigger than Boston, and the whole distribution changes too. But that information is lost because the entire city limit area is taken as a whole. Houston from downtown to the med center through Montrose and to Uptown feels pretty crowded. And that is a pretty substantial piece of the city. It really is hard to capture.

Edited July 18, 2006 by 2112

[JasonDFW]

All I know is that there is non stop build up from north of Fairfield and beyond to south of San Jose and beyond (Oakland and SF are somewhere in the middle) and it is impossible to tell when one city begins and the next one ends as one drives on the roads and freeways. Any futher definition of metro area is bogus. It is what it is. The methods that the North Central Governments whatever agency uses to place DFW at number 4 is balony.

2 quick points.

1) I agree it is impossible in SF to tell where one city starts and the other ends. If your point is that SF is a bigger metro that's fine, it is by many standards.

2) Once again, it isn't the NCTCOG methods that place DFW at number 4, it is the US Census Bureau. If enough people in the bay area complain they may change their definitions, as they always are refining them. If the job market in San Jose suddenly goes in the dumps (like back in the early 2000s) they may get enough commuting numbers to combine the metro without intervention though.

Jason

I never placed a lot of weight on the "density per square mile" rating.

I agree, but for perhaps a different reason.

If you have county A with 900,000 people clumped downtown and 100,000 in the suburbs it will appear to have the same density on paper as county B with 1,000,000 people evenly distributed thoughout the county.

Both Houston and Dallas have about 3,500 people/sq. mile. They each would need complex graphs to show how dense they truly are though. Dallas for instance is fairly dense to the north but has areas like the Trinity flood plain and Mountain Creek where nobody lives and in some cases nobody will ever live. I don't know Houston well enough to give an equivalent example.

Jason

Edited July 18, 2006 by JasonDFW

[tamtagon]

RMA updated for July 2005:

RMA estimates for July 2005:

Rank - - Core City - - July 2004 ----- July 2005 ------- urban pop increase

1) New York City------19,799,374-----------19,935,000-----136,000

2) Los Angeles--------13,671,048-----------13,814,000-----143,000

3) Chicago--------------9,026,690-------------9,086,000------60,000

4) San Francisco-------6,034,656------------6,033,000-----(0)

5) Philadelphia---------5,931,045------------5,964,000------33,000

6) Miami-----------------5,307,359------------5,383,000------76,000

7) Dallas----------------5,154,855------------5,259,000-----105,000

8) Washington DC----4,904,263------------4,967,000------63,000

9) Boston---------------4,748,174------------4,754,000-------6,000

10) Detroit-------------4,694,293-------------4,705,000------11,000

11) Houston-----------4,472,646-------------4,561,000------89,000

12) Atlanta-------------3,992,259------------4,055,000-----63,000

13) Phoenix------------3,495,656------------3,591,000------96,000

14) Seattle-------------3,165,807-------------3,196,000------31,000

I got these Ranally Metro Area data from the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide.

Rank - - Core City - - Population -- Change '00-'04 - - Area square miles

1) New York City------19,799,374-----------2.3%---------------6905

2) Los Angeles--------13,671,048-----------5.2%---------------3224

3) Chicago--------------9,026,690------------3.2%---------------4068

4) San Francisco-------6,034,656------------0.7%---------------2041

5) Philadelphia---------5,931,045------------2.0%---------------3912

6) Miami-----------------5,307,359------------7.3%---------------1660

7) Dallas----------------5,154,855-----------10.1%---------------3360

8) Washington DC----4,904,263------------7.1%----------------3479

9) Boston---------------4,748,174------------1.5%---------------3609

10) Detroit-------------4,694,293-------------1.1%---------------3656

11) Houston-----------4,472,646-------------9.6%---------------2576

12) Atlanta-------------3,992,259------------10.2%--------------3132

13) Phoenix------------3,495,656------------13.6%--------------2071

14) Seattle-------------3,165,807-------------4.2%---------------2604

29) San Antonio------1,511,381--------------7.5%---------------1032

37) Austin-------------1,122,107--------------11.2%--------------1071

59) El Paso-------------729,987----------------5.0%---------------469

23) El Paso/Juarez---2,004,987--------------34.5%--------------529

The biggest difference between OMB Census and Ranally metro area definition is that Ranally is not restricted to county boundaries. Ranally metro areas contain at least 70 persons per square mile and at least 20% of the labor force commute to the central urban area.

[houstonfella]

Get a yellow marker. The Gulf Of Mexico counties from Louisiana (Lake Charles) down to Rockport (a stopping off place since the beach geauxs for days) indicate there are six million of us. And when quality like engineers, geologists and the like are factored in, we got it goin' down here. The Port of Dallas

[beseder]

Hi! I'm from Moscow, conducting research about Dallas - Fort Worth Metroplex. Does anybody know why is it spreading mostly in the north - east direction? Why this metropolitan area is so attractive for immigrants? (not only international but for domestic either) may be there are some local factors.....i'd be very thankful for help

[HarryMoto]

Beseder,

No offense to my Houston brothers, but you probably should post on the Dallas (www.dallasmetropolis.com) though you should get some equally valid answers here.

There are many reasons for the spread northward but a lot of it has to do with the class/racial history of Dallas. To oversimplify, whites and the upper-middle-class moved north, and development moved with them. The Trinity River area and south remains underdeveloped and much of it is largely minority (Hispanic, African-American).

Today, Dallas can't spread northward anymore; that's all built out. So, finally, attention is being paid to the southern sector. If all goes according to the plan, over the next generation, the southern sector should see an explosion of development. The combination of the Trinity River Project, the Calatrava bridges, the new University of North Texas campus, the "agile port" (yes, I can hear the laughter of the Houstonians now), the desire of some former suburbanites to live closer to the heart of the city, and the attention of developers who only previously worked in North Dallas should mean a new life for the long beleaguered southern sector.

Some corporate relocations would be nice but that's probably only going to happen if the Dallas school system could improve to the point where middle-class families of all stripes/colors would have faith in it. Then the area could really prosper. Of course, all this comes with a giant asterisk. I said "if" all goes to plan and that could be a very big "if."

Oh, and if you have any Fort Worth questions, you should try www.fortwortharchiteture.com

Edited December 11, 2006 by HarryMoto

[dfwcre8tive]

Fort Worth has passed Las Vegas to be the fastest growing city (in percentage growth) in the U.S.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/tgrande/vol13-4/1790.html

Edited December 20, 2006 by njjeppson

[2112]

Fort Worth has passed Las Vegas to be the fastest growing city (in percentage growth) in the U.S.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/tgrande/vol13-4/1790.html

Congratulations to Fort Worth!!!

[Dallasboi]

Get a yellow marker. The Gulf Of Mexico counties from Louisiana (Lake Charles) down to Rockport (a stopping off place since the beach geauxs for days) indicate there are six million of us. And when quality like engineers, geologists and the like are factored in, we got it goin' down here. The Port of Dallas

..............OH BROTHER.

[Dallasboi]

I thought this was interesting.................this reigon (DFW)added 500 people a day in 2006

http://www.wliinc2.com/cgi/foxweb.dll/wlx/...T&docid=358

The link is not active but if you copy and paste it you willbe a ble to read the article.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Dallasboi

[Dallasboi]

I thought this was interesting.................this reigon (DFW)added 500 people a day in 2006

http://www.wliinc2.com/cgi/foxweb.dll/wlx/...T&docid=358

The link is not active but if you copy and paste it you willbe a ble to read the article.

[Houston19514]

I thought this was interesting.................this reigon (DFW)added 500 people a day in 2006

http://www.wliinc2.com/cgi/foxweb.dll/wlx/...T&docid=358

Cool. So did Houston.

Actually, as we have come to expect from the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, they stretched the truth just a bit. First, the actual growth was 180,924 (they oddly called this "almost 182,000"... why not "almost 181,000"?).

180,924 divided by 365 days in a year comes to a growth rate of 495.68 people per day. Very impressive and certainly "almost" 500 per day, but the Chamber, oddly, dispenses with the "almost" qualifier and just calls it 500 per day.

The numbers for Houston:

Total growth: 187,380. 513.37 per day.

[Dallascaper]

Cool. So did Houston.

Actually, as we have come to expect from the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, they stretched the truth just a bit. First, the actual growth was 180,924 (they oddly called this "almost 182,000"... why not "almost 181,000"?).

180,924 divided by 365 days in a year comes to a growth rate of 495.68 people per day. Very impressive and certainly "almost" 500 per day, but the Chamber, oddly, dispenses with the "almost" qualifier and just calls it 500 per day.

The numbers for Houston:

Total growth: 187,380. 513.37 per day.

Maybe the COC should check its math; they arrived at the "almost" 182K number by rounding up the individual categories, such as growth due to organic, foreign and domestic migration, which combined equaled 181,700. However, the first thing one should consider with statistics is that it is not very effective in splitting hairs; it is not meant to be taken so precisely. I get your point, but who are we to say that DFW didn't grow by 500 people a day, or 514, or 479...the numbers are estimates, no more.

[Houston19514]

Maybe the COC should check its math; they arrived at the "almost" 182K number by rounding up the individual categories, such as growth due to organic, foreign and domestic migration, which combined equaled 181,700. However, the first thing one should consider with statistics is that it is not very effective in splitting hairs; it is not meant to be taken so precisely. I get your point, but who are we to say that DFW didn't grow by 500 people a day, or 514, or 479...the numbers are estimates, no more.

I agree; they are estimates and no more. But the real estimate numbers are quite impressive, so why not just report them honestly?

[H-Town Man]

I agree; they are estimates and no more. But the real estimate numbers are quite impressive, so why not just report them honestly?

Why be so anal? If the estimates come out to 496 (errrrrrr, almost 496), they have every right to say they grew by 500 people a day. If something costs $9.95, I'll say it costs ten dollars. I'm not going to say "almost ten dollars."

[Trae]

Yeah really. It isn't that big of a deal.

[Houston19514]

Yeah really. It isn't that big of a deal.

Nobody said it was a big deal, guys. I was just poking a little fun at the Dallas tendency to exaggerate. Now calm down everyone.

[Dallasboi]

Nobody said it was a big deal, guys. I was just poking a little fun at the Dallas tendency to exaggerate. Now calm down everyone.

Good for Houston..........I know you were itching to let everybody know....................in the Dallas section.

"Hey everybody........Just screw everything I said about DFW..........Houston grew more than we did..................We are nothing more than second when it comes to Houston........GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO H-town.