DFW 4th Largest Metro in the Nation

[BigD5349]

Dallas-Fort Worth now No. 4 in nation
Dallas Business Journal - 3:06 PM CDT Thursdayby Glenn HunterEditor

Dallas-Fort Worth has vaulted past greater Philadelphia to become the nation's fourth-largest metropolitan area, the Greater Dallas Chamber said Thursday.

The chamber based its claim on U.S. Census Bureau data that, in July 2005, showed D-FW in fifth place with 5.819 million residents, just behind Philadelphia's 5.823 million.

However, the chamber says, because the Metroplex gains about 365 new residents every day -- compared to just 72 for Philadelphia -- D-FW overtook the Pennyslvania metro last year and since has pulled well ahead.

D-FW's new position won't be official until July 2007, the chamber said, when the census bureau releases its latest population estimate.

Dr. Lyssa Jenkens, the chamber's chief economist, said the new ranking would cause "companies around the world to see Dallas-Fort Worth with new eyes."

Economist Ray Perryman, CEO of The Perryman Group in Waco, said surpassing Philadelphia would send a signal to investors that D-FW is "a fast-growing area, and that the area is indeed fast-growing relative to other areas.

"It's not a huge change," Perryman added, "but people will make note that we're moving up higher, that we're becoming more dynamic."

The chamber said New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are the nation's most populous metropolitan areas, in that order. Miami; Houston; Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; and Detroit round out the top 10, in that order, following D-FW and Philadelphia.

ghunter@bizjournals.com | 214-706-7109

[Bryant]

Awesome.

[St-T]

Top 10 US Metro Areas:

1. NY
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Philly
6. Miami
7. Houston
8. DC
9. Atlanta
10. Detroit

What is interesting about that list is that the folllowing cities have populations under 1Mil: Miami, DC, Atlanta, and Detroit.

[Cliff Dweller]

I'll display my ignorance. I always thought Houston was bigger than Dallas. Is that just the cities without the surrounding metropolitan area?

[FoUTASportscaster]

Metro means the region. So cities like Ft Worth and Denton are included.

[psukhu]

The metro is defined by factors like commuting patterns and local economics. More info at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html

That being said, there are also other regional rankings for radio market size and TV market size. In these cases, I hope to see Dallas get to #4 by 2010.




Top Radio Markets- http://www.arbitron.com/advertisers/home.htm

Metro 12+ Population
----------------------------------------------------------
1 New York, NY 15,332,000
2 Los Angeles, CA 10,790,100
3 Chicago, IL 7,698,300
4 San Francisco, CA 5,829,700
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 4,730,200
6 Philadelphia, PA 4,354,900
7 Houston-Galveston, TX 4,353,000
8 Washington, DC 4,132,800
9 Detroit, MI 3,892,600
10 Atlanta, GA 3,860,100
11 Boston, MA 3,841,100
12 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood, FL 3,505,100
13 Puerto Rico 3,250,400
14 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 3,204,800
15 Phoenix, AZ 2,938,500

Top TV Markets- http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html


Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Homes % of US
----------------------------------------------------------
1 New York 7,375,530 6.692
2 Los Angeles 5,536,430 5.023
3 Chicago 3,430,790 3.113
4 Philadelphia 2,925,560 2.654
5 Boston (Manchester) 2,375,310 2.155
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,355,740 2.137
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,336,140 2.120
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,252,550 2.044
9 Atlanta 2,097,220 1.903
10 Houston 1,938,670 1.759
11 Detroit 1,936,350 1.757
12 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,710,400 1.552
13 Seattle-Tacoma 1,701,950 1.544
14 Phoenix (Prescott) 1,660,430 1.507
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,652,940 1.500

[mjblazin]

Why is this a title that we want to win? Could we possibly have more franchise restaurants, hotels, Starbucks, movie theaters, shopping centers, TV & radio stations, athletic teams, and all the accoutrements that go with being a bigger market? Whether people want their half acre in the exurbs or downtown condo, I'm sure all are welcome. I just don't understand why, per Martha S, it's a "good thing."

[VectorWega]

Why is this a title that we want to win? Could we possibly have more franchise restaurants, hotels, Starbucks, movie theaters, shopping centers, TV & radio stations, athletic teams, and all the accoutrements that go with being a bigger market? Whether people want their half acre in the exurbs or downtown condo, I'm sure all are welcome. I just don't understand why, per Martha S, it's a "good thing."


As an urban-type living in uptown, you should certainly be excited about this. It matters because it shows that DFW is growing rapidly. This means that this is a more attractive place for employers, and this helps our economy. The influx of people will help support all of the high/mid rises being built in Dallas. DFW obviously falls short in several areas including public transportation and as more people move the metroplex, the city of Dallas will become more dense and public transportation will become better and more accessible. Not everyone is moving to the 'burbs ya know.

[aceplace]

The metro is defined by factors like commuting patterns and local economics.Yes, the physical city, the mass of urban/suburban population, is measured by county. If an outlying county has a commuter pattern to Dallas county above a certain threshold, it is considered a suburb of Dallas county. Minor administrative divisions, such as University Park and Cockrell Hill, Fort Worth and Denton, are irrelevant in terms of the Big Picture.

Tarrant County has about 30% of its population commuting to Dallas county, and is included in the Dallas Metropolis. As a courtesy to local pride, the metro area is called Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington.

[JasonDallas]

As a courtesy to local pride, the metro area is called Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington.

Also, that's just the standard. Houston metro is called Houston-Baytown-Sugarland or something like that.

Jason

[Fobulous]

So metroplex is something Dallas people invented?

[freewaytincan]

So metroplex is something Dallas people invented?

Actually, I believe it was coined by a journalist from Minnesota in 1971.

[elmstreetdallas]

Not 100% certain that the word "Metroplex" was coined here in DFW (the word does not exist in the dictionary), but it has certainly come to mean, almost exclusively, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area.

If you Google the word "Metroplex," a majority of the returns involve the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Here is Answers.com take on the word:

Metroplex

A Metroplex is an area of 2 or more very close statistical metropolitan areas that converge upon one another. Another name for a Metroplex is a megalopolis.

Several metroplexes exist in the United States. The most common metroplexes in the U.S. are:

ChiPitts stretching from Chicago to Pittsburgh and including Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee.
The Greater Los Angeles Area (sometimes referred to as Southland), comprising Los Angeles - San Diego - Long Beach - Anaheim - Riverside - San Bernardino - Palmdale - Bakersfield - and Ventura.,
The BosWash comprising New York City - Philadelphia - Baltimore - Boston - Washington, D.C. - Newark - Providence - and Hartford.
Chicago - Northwest Indiana, known as Chicagoland.
Dallas - Fort Worth sometimes called DFW; the area around Dallas and Fort Worth is regularly referred to as "The Metroplex" in print and television media inside the state of Texas, unlike the other metropolitan areas listed.
San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland, called the San Francisco Bay Area.

Interesting that "megalopolis" is in the dictionary, but "metroplex" isn't. [I]

[Lakewooder]

Video: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=195524&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

[freewaytincan]

Wow, Hunt, One Arts Plaza, and some townhomes got some recognition there. I was very pleased to see that the only mention of suburbs was that moving company from Richardson.

[BigD5349]

Dallas population breaks 6M
DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL - BY G. Scott Thomas BUSINESS FIRST OF BUFFALO

Read more: Dallas population breaks 6M - Dallas Business Journal
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2010/08/02/daily31.html

Latest population stats on the top ten metros, according to the Dallas Business Journal/Buffalo Business First:

1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 19,154,092
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,931,077
3. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,641,146
4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,618,405
5. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 6,022,719
6. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,000,904
7. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 5,620,829
8. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 5,594,422
9. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,558,015
10. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,621,095

[MarkL2023]

Dallas population breaks 6M
DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL - BY G. Scott Thomas BUSINESS FIRST OF BUFFALO

Read more: Dallas population breaks 6M - Dallas Business Journal
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2010/08/02/daily31.html

Latest population stats on the top ten metros, according to the Dallas Business Journal/Buffalo Business First:

1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 19,154,092
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,931,077
3. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,641,146
4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,618,405
5. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 6,022,719
6. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,000,904
7. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 5,620,829
8. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 5,594,422
9. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,558,015
10. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,621,095

I think they are a little behind on their headlines considering we've been over 6 million for like 4 years now.

Houston, however, did just break that barrier. Props to our little brother... hehe

[bfg9000d]

It's great to see Houston finally hit the 6 million mark. I think DFW is trying to hit the big 7. At least where pushing that way.

[mannypr]

And Texas is now the only state with two metros in the top five. Not sure if this is the first time it happens but if it's not it must have been New York or Pennsylvania a while back.

[Dariusb]

I thought L.A. and San Fran were both in the top 5 at one time? Anyway, Dallas is like an economic engine that will not slow down anytime soon. I saw some estimates for 2025 that put the population at around 9 million. Do you think with current growth rates the metro will get there?

[psukhu]

The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area (CSA), which includes all of the Bay Area and also all of San Benito and Santa Cruz counties has 7.4 million people.

The above quote is from Wikipedia's page on the Bay Area.

The Census considers Oakland/SF to be one metro and San Jose to be another metro. This is based on economical factors like commuting patterns and the local flow of money.

[Trae]

But the split is so dumb. It's be like having 360 has the split between the Dallas and Fort Worth MSA. There is development (homes, midrises, strip centers), on both sides of the boulevard that splits up the San Fran and San Jose MSA.

[gchrisbailey]

But the split is so dumb. It's be like having 360 has the split between the Dallas and Fort Worth MSA. There is development (homes, midrises, strip centers), on both sides of the boulevard that splits up the San Fran and San Jose MSA.

Yeah, as much as I would like for DFW to be 4th outright, you've got to consider that SF, Oakland and San Jose are just as urbanized continuously as DFW...their MSA should be 7.4 million and they should be 4th...

[barrycb]

You could almost say the same for D.C./Baltimore. I feel the time will come when Fort Worth becomes its own MSA.

[aceplace]

Hi Folks,

I've been lurking for a couple of years now, after being kinda-sorta active in the forum, but maybe I can contribute something to the discussion.

A metro area is a region that is economically and transportationally interdependent... that means that the traffic and job market within the metro is much stronger than the traffic and economic exchange between two metros. It doesn't mater how close they are to each other.

As an example, DFW and Houston are separate metros because very few people in one of them commute daily to the other. Harris and Montgomery counties (greater Houston) are part of the same metro because people do commute across the county boundaries, or enough do to make them into a common economy and transportation network..

In the case of DFW, Tarrant county is so integrated into the economy and transportation web of the Metroplex that it could not survive if it were separated. About 30% of the Tarrant county workforce commutes to Dallas county (or Denton or Collin).

For San Francisco and San Jose, they have separate and independent economies, and the transportation problems within SF and SJ are solvable separately. They are two separare metros for that reason. As are Washington DC and Baltimore.

Does it really matter if San Francisco and San Jose are part of a continuous urbanized area? No. The people of San Jose do not contribute to the SF economy in sufficient numbers to provide synergy to SF, nor does San Jose benefit that much from the closeness of SF. SJ and SF have separate TV stations, the SF symphony travels to SJ for its concerts (rather than letting SJ people come to SF), and people in SJ stay in their own county pretty much for any kind of entertainment.

Naturally, this classification is true to a degree. There will always be some traffic between SF and SJ... just not enough to meet the criteria for including them in the same metro. In the case of Dallas and Tarrant counties, the commuting... both for work or pleasure... exceeds the criteria for a common metro area. The criterion is 25% of a workforce commuting to another county... and over 30% of Tarrant county's workers commute outside of their county.

[barrycb]

Good to hear from you again, Ace. I knew the criteria in general, but didn't know the breakpoints - thanks for clarifying. Again, I can see Fort Worth getting below that 25% threshold sometime in the not-so-distant future.

[Lakewooder]

good to see you ACE

[tamtagon]

... maybe I can contribute something to the discussion.


Yes, you can. I'm very glad to hear from you again.

[gc]

Guess who's back?

Howdy Ace. Good to hear from an old friend.

[aceplace]

Hi Guys... good talkin' with ya...

[trolleygirl]

Ace! Where have you been?

[aceplace]

Ace! Where have you been?Hi, TG!

I've been lurking in the forum for a while, but I just had to pick up on the thread...

I almost jumped in to the thread about the ESPN station in Sundance Square, but that settled down OK. Actually, I'm glad that downtown FW gets some national TV exposure...

Anyhow, I like the idea that FW and Tarrant county contributes to the vitality of the metro... maybe a lot like Brooklyn contributes to the vitality of NYC.

[skys the limit]

Here is a link to a cool slideshow prepared by Bisjournals on June 1, 2009. The data presented is now more than a year old, but it is still an interesting look at population projections and trends for the top ten metro areas in the country:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/slideshow/59.html?page=1

This report and slideshow is under estimating Dallas metro population growth because it shows that the Dallas Ft. Worth Metro area in 2010 would be 6,555,770 and the latest released estimate for the Metro shows 6,618,405 which is about 63,000 more than they projected. That is a huge difference to the positive.

But using the slideshow as published on 06-01-09, the population projections show Dallas metro at:

2015: 7,221,323 (4)
2020: 7,945,163 (4)
2025: 8,750,408 (4)

Again these are obviously under estimated as the 2010 projection is already 63,000 off.

But it is clear that Dallas Ft. Worth is well entrenched as the 4th largest metro well into the foreseeable future with no real challengers threatening that position at all. In fact, Dallas will be closing in on Chicago to become 3rd largest at some point in the not so distant future.

The statistics regarding change over the 2005-2025 period is very interesting as well for Dallas Ft. Worth:

2005-2025 Change
(ranks in parentheses)
Total percent change: 50.41% (26)
Annual percent change: 2.06%
Total raw change: 2,932,712 (2)
Annual raw change: 146,636

Dallas Ft. Worth is projected to add another almost 3,000,000 people between 2005 and 2025. Absolutely incredible and that figure represents the 2nd largest raw increase of any metro in the nation. The annual population increase during that period is estimated to be pushing 150,000 net increase per year!

It is great that Texas now has two metro areas in the top 5, with apparently Houston moving up to the 5th spot and slightly edging out Philadelphia.

But the thing that I find really interesting, and very good for the Dallas Ft. Worth metro area, is that Dallas metro will be growing faster than Houston by all projections and the gap between the two metro areas just continues to widen over time.

In fact, using these projections (which so far are under estimating Dallas metro growth) the gap between Dallas and Houston widens by an additional 243,000 people between 2005 and 2020 to a total gap of 758,000 people!

That of course means more jobs, more money, more development and ever greater importance for our Dallas Ft Worth metro on the U.S. and World stages. And closing in on Chicago to become the 3rd largest in the nation!

[AeroD]

In fact, using these projections (which so far are under estimating Dallas metro growth) the gap between Dallas and Houston widens by an additional 243,000 people between 2005 and 2020 to a total gap of 758,000 people!

That of course means more jobs, more money, more development and ever greater importance for our Dallas Ft Worth metro on the U.S. and World stages. And closing in on Chicago to become the 3rd largest in the nation!

Dude you just opened up a can of worms with that. You unintentionally set the bait for the Houstonian Caucus of the forum.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Dude you just opened up a can of worms with that. You unintentionally set the bait for the Houstonian Caucus of the forum.
To hell with them. It was an interesting post.

They have the hysterical online screaming match known as HAIF.

[skys the limit]

When facts speak for themselves, with data to back it up, than anyone who wants to throw a tantrum because they don't like the data and facts has a problem dealing with reality.

The reality is, and the facts and data support, the Dallas metro area has been growing faster than Houston metro for the last decade, the growth is accelerating, and the population gap will continue to widen.

Houston proper is a larger city than Dallas proper. No one denies that fact.

But even there Dallas has been growing at a fast clip and almost assuredly will move past San Diego for the 8th largest city proper. There was one city population estimate that I saw for Dallas that actually showed it edging past San Antonio to move to 7th in 2010, but that remains to be seen with the final census numbers once they are released.

Dallas Ft Worth is the largest metro in the State of Texas, the largest metro in the entire South and the 4th largest in the nation. No metro comes close to challenging our position today or into the future. In fact, Dallas metro will be closing in on Chicago metro for the 3rd largest position.

The Dallas area has much to be proud of and no apologies needed!

[CTroyMathis]

Ace, great to see you brother!

[aceplace]

Yo, Troy... how goes it!

[Trae]

Here is a link to a cool slideshow prepared by Bisjournals on June 1, 2009. The data presented is now more than a year old, but it is still an interesting look at population projections and trends for the top ten metro areas in the country:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/slideshow/59.html?page=1

This report and slideshow is under estimating Dallas metro population growth because it shows that the Dallas Ft. Worth Metro area in 2010 would be 6,555,770 and the latest released estimate for the Metro shows 6,618,405 which is about 63,000 more than they projected. That is a huge difference to the positive.

But using the slideshow as published on 06-01-09, the population projections show Dallas metro at:

2015: 7,221,323 (4)
2020: 7,945,163 (4)
2025: 8,750,408 (4)

Again these are obviously under estimated as the 2010 projection is already 63,000 off.

But it is clear that Dallas Ft. Worth is well entrenched as the 4th largest metro well into the foreseeable future with no real challengers threatening that position at all. In fact, Dallas will be closing in on Chicago to become 3rd largest at some point in the not so distant future.

The statistics regarding change over the 2005-2025 period is very interesting as well for Dallas Ft. Worth:

2005-2025 Change
(ranks in parentheses)
Total percent change: 50.41% (26)
Annual percent change: 2.06%
Total raw change: 2,932,712 (2)
Annual raw change: 146,636

Dallas Ft. Worth is projected to add another almost 3,000,000 people between 2005 and 2025. Absolutely incredible and that figure represents the 2nd largest raw increase of any metro in the nation. The annual population increase during that period is estimated to be pushing 150,000 net increase per year!

It is great that Texas now has two metro areas in the top 5, with apparently Houston moving up to the 5th spot and slightly edging out Philadelphia.

But the thing that I find really interesting, and very good for the Dallas Ft. Worth metro area, is that Dallas metro will be growing faster than Houston by all projections and the gap between the two metro areas just continues to widen over time.

In fact, using these projections (which so far are under estimating Dallas metro growth) the gap between Dallas and Houston widens by an additional 243,000 people between 2005 and 2020 to a total gap of 758,000 people!

That of course means more jobs, more money, more development and ever greater importance for our Dallas Ft Worth metro on the U.S. and World stages. And closing in on Chicago to become the 3rd largest in the nation!

When facts speak for themselves, with data to back it up, than anyone who wants to throw a tantrum because they don't like the data and facts has a problem dealing with reality.

The reality is, and the facts and data support, the Dallas metro area has been growing faster than Houston metro for the last decade, the growth is accelerating, and the population gap will continue to widen.

Houston proper is a larger city than Dallas proper. No one denies that fact.

But even there Dallas has been growing at a fast clip and almost assuredly will move past San Diego for the 8th largest city proper. There was one city population estimate that I saw for Dallas that actually showed it edging past San Antonio to move to 7th in 2010, but that remains to be seen with the final census numbers once they are released.

Dallas Ft Worth is the largest metro in the State of Texas, the largest metro in the entire South and the 4th largest in the nation. No metro comes close to challenging our position today or into the future. In fact, Dallas metro will be closing in on Chicago metro for the 3rd largest position.

The Dallas area has much to be proud of and no apologies needed!

This would have been true earlier in the decade, but Houston closed the gap considerably as the decade grows. According to the Texas projections site, Houston is far ahead of schedule as well. Not to mention it has more potential being on a natural port, BUT, DFW has an advantage having two major cities anchoring its metro area. You have Dallas and its suburbs, along with Fort Worth in its suburbs. In the Houston area, it's just Houston. Also, I think what you're seeing now is Houston starting to advertise itself more. Before, Houston was pretty low key. But, with the election of Mayor Parker, as well as the huge theme park news, Houston leaders are starting to advertise the city more.

As for the bizjournals link, they predicted Houston to be at 5,954,888 in 2010. Houston is ahead of that projection by almost 68,000. Both Texas metro areas are doing great, and well ahead of schedule. Both are pulling away from Atlanta also, when it looked like earlier in the decade, Atlanta was going to pass Houston by now and be close to Dallas.


Dude you just opened up a can of worms with that. You unintentionally set the bait for the Houstonian Caucus of the forum.

I chimed in! ;)

But really, no one in Houston (or DFW for that matter) should be upset or bicker over the projections, as both metro areas are well ahead of them. Should be exciting to see where they are both at in five, and on to ten years from now.

[aceplace]

Getting back to the comparison between DFW and San Francisco-San Jose, the Bizjournal numbers are interesting:

San Francisco-Oakland: 4,352,017
San Jose: 1,864,237
Total: 6,216,254

DFW: 6,555,770

So DFW is ahead of SF-San Jose as of 2010.

Lets compare DFW to Washington-Baltimore:

DC: 5,489,655
Baltimore: 2,716,793
Total: 8,206,448

So DC-Bal is considerably larger than DFW, but in practice, the 2.7 million people in greater Baltimore have little social interaction with people in DC. I've put in a lot of time commuting from the Baltimore suburbs (Howard county) to DC, and it is not a casual jaunt. They are very much two independent lifestyle centers with a lot of open country between them.

So, if you do not accept the DC-Bal separatism, then DFW is the 5th... otherwise it is he 4th largest integrated metro.

Now we have to answer yet another question... why is DFW so little known, why is it seldom mentioned in the national media, why does it not get its share of Federal funding... why do people in many places refer to it as "Dallas, Texas", as if it were not that dissimilar to Dallas, Georgia or Dallas, Idaho?

[aceplace]

What is the evidence that the Dallas-Fort Worth area is an integrated metro while DC-Baltimore is two separate metros?

Lets look at sports teams.

Fort Worth expected to participate in the 2011 Super Bowl as an equal member. Why is that? Because the Cowboys are as much FW's team as Dallas'. Jerry Jones' pleasure dome in Arlington is something that FW can identify with, just as Dallas county can.

In the case of DC-Balt, they do not share football teams (or baseball teams either). If Baltimore were awarded a Super Bowl, the Ravens fans would think it ludicrous for Washington, and the Redskins fans, to want to be a part of it, to consider the Super Bowl as a Washington-Baltimore Super Bowl. And vice versa for a DC Super Bowl.

If the Orioles were hosting a world series game in Camden Yards against, say, the Red Sox, would the Nationals fans convince themselves that DC was hosting a world series? Most likely not.

[Dariusb]

How long has DFW been in high growth mode? Didn't it start in the 70's? I read some where once that Texas adds something like 1,500 people a day! That's like the growth California experienced in the 60's and 70's.

[aceplace]

I think it's always been in a high growth mode, but certainly it's been more pronounced since the 1940s and 1950's.

California has been imploding as a migratory destination at least since the 1990's. At that time I was working in the SF Bay Area, and the common talk among my cubicle mates was how to move somewhere else. There was extensive migration to places like Seattle and coastal Oregon, Colorado and Arizona.

Today, more Americans move away from Cali than move to Cali, due to the deteroration of living conditions in the state. Yes, it has great scenic beauty and the California coast and mountains have a benign climate, but Cali as a human society is repellent to people, at least those who are used to a North American level of affluence. If you are an impoverished denizen of the Third World, Cali looks pretty good compared to where you might be coming from.

Much of our current recession was caused by the massive devaluation of Cali housing prices, and the massive loss of equity for the banks that held their mortgages. The prices were artificially inflated by scarcity, and the difficulty of obtaining building permits. The building restrictions were Draconian due to several factors... environmental restrictions, the vested interest of homeowners who wanted to see the housing price inflation continue, and the heavy restrictions on raising property taxes due to a statewide law called Prop 13. Municipalities would take a heavy loss revenuewise between the cost of providing services to housing areas, versus the taxes they could raise from them, so they had a financial incentive to minimize housing permits.

In Texas, on the other hand, housing prices remained steady, or grew only slowly, and houses in Texas were a relative bargain compared to more heavily populated regions such as Cali, or New York-New Jersey. In Dallas and Houston, the housing stock was newer, cheaper, and the suburbs were better furnished, thus attracting the vast majority of the population who want to live in a low density residential area.

And yet again, the urban areas in Dallas, such as Oak Lawn, Uptown, etc., were also newer and in many ways betterthan corresponding areas in the West and Northeast, also encouraging people to move here.

[Dariusb]

I'm so glad that Texas is a pro business state. We've weathered downturns in the economy a helluva lot better than most. I read something once that said if Tx were it's own country we'd rank #8! That's pretty damn good!

[psukhu]

Hi Guys, take a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areas

Here are the rankings for Combined Statistical Areas as defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget. (according to that link)



Rank Combined Statistical Area 2009 Pop
-------------------------------------------------------
1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport 22,232,494
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 17,820,893
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 9,804,845
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 8,440,617
5 Boston-Worcester-Manchester 7,609,358
6 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 7,427,757
7 Dallas-Fort Worth 6,805,275
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 6,533,122
9 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 5,968,586
10 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 5,831,778

[aceplace]

The real question is this... does this so-called Combined Statistical Area constitute anything of real importance? Or significance?

A metro area does, because the territory within it creates internal synergy, and its people support and provide a market for, urban goods and services that you don't find in the country towns. And the larger the population of the metro, the more plentiful and diverse the urban offerings.

A combined Statistical Area, OTOH, is merely symbolic. Each metro in it more or less stands alone, and the individual metros of the collection do not reinforce each others urban vitality.

For example, consider DFW and Mineral Wells, two metros lumped together into a Combined Statistical Area. Their two downtowns are 83 miles apart, roughly the distance between Dallas and Waco. According to Google, the drive time between them is 1 hour 41 minutes.

The people of Mineral Wells do not typically commute to DFW for work, to any significant degree if at all, they do not provide much of a customer base for the Dallas theater, restaurant or entertainment offerings, the impact of Mineral Wells on DFW is insignificant.

In the case of SF, the metro of Santa Cruz-Watsonville is so physically remote from San Francisco-Oakland that there is virtually no synergy, no interaction of any practical import between them.They are 72 miles apart, and over two hours apart, through some of the worst commute traffic in America. To reach Santa Cruz, you travel through a large, virtually unpopulated, range of mountain country. In fact, there is far more interaction between San Francisco and Los Angeles, just as there is much more interaction between Dallas and Houston than between Dallas and Mineral Wells.

I was being conservative with my example. Lets look at this pair of metros in the SF CSA... Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa. They are 129 miles apart, but even more telling, they are 3 hours drive time from each other. Lumping them into the same statistical entity would be similar to lumping together DFW and Austin, also about a 3 hour drive apart, into some meaningless statistical abstraction.

Bottom line... the act of lumping together metros into CSAs has no functional significance, does not predict or explain any real sociological phenomena. The Combined Statistical Area is meaningless.

[tamtagon]

Marketers, advertisers and most media efforts are more concerned with the population of a CSA far more than a MSA - depending on the focus of effort. All sorts of economic and political tracking measures look as CSA population. The residents of South Oak Cliff and Preston Hollow probably have zero interaction, but they are (supposedly) of equal relevance to the Mayor of Dallas and/or Transportation Planners at the NCTCOG.

The impact of Mineral Wells my be insignificant to DFW, but the impact of DFW is enormous to Mineral Wells.

[aceplace]

Marketers, advertisers and most media efforts are more concerned with the population of a CSA far more than a MSA - depending on the focus of effort. All sorts of economic and political tracking measures look as CSA population. The residents of South Oak Cliff and Preston Hollow probably have zero interaction, but they are (supposedly) of equal relevance to the Mayor of Dallas and/or Transportation Planners at the NCTCOG.

The impact of Mineral Wells my be insignificant to DFW, but the impact of DFW is enormous to Mineral Wells.
I may have to disagree, Tam.

I doubt that advertising on Channels 4, 5, 8 and 11 in DFW is concerned with Mineral Wells. I know that the DC TV stations do not consider Baltimore, which has its own TV and Radio stations, as well as newspapers. San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose have separate TV, Radio and newspaper outlets.

The South Oak Cliff and Preston Hollow have a lot of interaction with DFW and each oher... The same restaurants that feed Preston Hollow supply jobs to much of Oak Cliff.

The impact of DFW is enormous, not only to towns inside the hypothetical CSA but also outside it. DFW impacts the entire South-Central region.