Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 113 Posts

·
Architect
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't care who you are, but you can't deny that the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area is much bigger than the Houston metro area.

So . . .

When, if ever, do you think the Houston metro area will surpass the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area in population?

I only ask because I always thought it strange that the Dallas metro was that much bigger, especially based on the amount of recognition each city gets on these forums. Just wondering . . .
 

·
GULF COAST TEXAN
Joined
·
226 Posts
Hmm, good question. The Houston metro may never surpass DFW. The economic situation of the two metros in the future may very well produce the answer. I'm not sure how one would go about forecasting their economies in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Houston will probably never pass the Dallas-Ft.Worth metro area, at least in our lifetimes. It doesn't really bother me that much because Dallas-FtWorth is comprised of two big cities 30 miles apart while Houston has the power of both Dallas and Fort Worth wrapped up in to one. Ft Worth has a population about the size of Denver Colorado, so it's inevitable of which metro would be bigger. I do think Houston holds its own all by itself though. It doesn't need the help of a twin. If one is to think about it, there's really not that much of a real substantial population difference in the long scheme of things that Houston couldn't eventually overtake.
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
^Yeah, I never thought of it like that. It would certainly be cool if Houston did pass Dallas though. :cool:
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
^All thanks to me. :colgate:

Maybe I should start a "When will Atlanta surpass Houston?" thread as well? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
The Houston City grows alot faster then Dallas or Fort Worth, but the whole "DFW" metro grows faster then Houston's.

Maybe somewhere in the future, but I don't really care. Houston's second largest city in its metro is Pasadena (120,000? somewhere around that) and its really just a suburb. Dallas' metro is composed of several "Satellite cities" or as I call them "Self Supporting Cities". In other words, they don't rely too heavily on Dallas to survive. Like Irving, Fort Worth, Plano, Alrington, Grapevine, etc. In Houston, theres only 2 "cities" that support themselves in a sence, and its Galveston and The Woodlands.

These little cities help both metros, but Dallas has more, and its good and bad. Because it takes business away from Dallas, and vise versa. Theres also a sence of this in Houston, but its between Uptown and Downtown.
 

·
Megalomaniac
Joined
·
4,171 Posts
i'm staying out of this.

-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
In terms of Dallas and Fort Worth's representation on this subforum versus Houston, Houston has been more active by far for quite a while. We've had threads on the reasons why DFW is underrepresented and the usual answer seems to be that Fort Worth and especially Dallas have their own local websites that deal with similar issues to SSC and they are very popular, especially the Dallas one.

I'd love to see more representation from DFW forumers, and there seem to be some new guys who are doing a good job representing DFW.

However, on SSC, Houston definitely has some very strong representation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
i dont think it will ever happen. even though dallas does have a second city, if you didnt know you probably couldnt tell, because of the infill in between the two.

is the houston metro larger than dfw land wise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
No. DFW is a bit larger. The CSA definitions have changed and both areas, I believe, have added counties. But overall, DFW's metro area is slightly larger. It's not very important measure, though, because the area is based on the sum of all counties, and obviously some counties will have a ton of undeveloped land that sits well outside the urbanized area.

The urbanized populations density is roughly the same, with Houston being only slightly denser than DFW's urbanized area. In other words, the development patterns are roughly the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I think Metro D/FW covers more area than Metro Houston I know one time I was reading this magazine on population growth and it forecasted Houston's metro growing to nearly 9,000,000 by the year 2025 and D/FW's metro growing to just over 9,000,000 by 2025.
 

·
SSLL
Joined
·
8,354 Posts
How much bigger is Houston than Dallas (CSAs and square mileage)? And how about in comparison with Miami and Atlanta? They're all very similar though aren't they? What are the growth rates in the cities? Unless there's a big gap in growth, I don't think there'll be any leapfrogging anyone.
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
^Pretty good off the top of your head, put here are the real statistics:

1.) Atlanta - 2,959,950 - 38.9% - 4,112,198
2.) Dallas-Fort Worth - 4,037,282 - 29.3% - 5,221,801
3.) Houston-Galveston-Brazoria - 3,731,131 - 25.2% - 4,669,571
4.) Miami-Fort Lauderdale - 3,192,582 - 21.4% - 3,876,380
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
I believe that in the 1980 census, the Houston msa was larger than the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro and/or combined area, whatever it was called then.

So, the relative sizes of the two aren't written in stone.
 

·
make it so...
Joined
·
6,755 Posts
HoustonTexas said:
The Houston City grows alot faster then Dallas or Fort Worth, but the whole "DFW" metro grows faster then Houston's.

Maybe somewhere in the future, but I don't really care. Houston's second largest city in its metro is Pasadena (120,000? somewhere around that) and its really just a suburb. Dallas' metro is composed of several "Satellite cities" or as I call them "Self Supporting Cities". In other words, they don't rely too heavily on Dallas to survive. Like Irving, Fort Worth, Plano, Alrington, Grapevine, etc. In Houston, theres only 2 "cities" that support themselves in a sence, and its Galveston and The Woodlands.

These little cities help both metros, but Dallas has more, and its good and bad. Because it takes business away from Dallas, and vise versa. Theres also a sence of this in Houston, but its between Uptown and Downtown.

actually pasadena is not a suburb in the typical sense of the word. it is it's own city with its own indentiy. many pasadena residents work in pasadena and rarely venture over to houston. unfortunaly, unlike arlington and plano, pasadena is a real pit and has no positive future prospects and may actually be losing people.

my take on why houston is smaller than DFW is that we lack the big "boomburbs" that DFW has. our largest true suburbs are only about 50-000 -60,000 people (sugarland & woodlands) where as DFW has quite a few with 200,000-300,000 and are growing. galveston is its own city and has literally zero population growth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
^Five of the ten largest cities in Texas are in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area.

1) Houston (Harris Co.) 1,980,950
2) Dallas (Dallas Co.) 1,201,759
3) San Antonio (Bexar Co.) 1,182,840
4) Austin (Travis Co.) 678,198
5) El Paso (El Paso Co.) 573,787
6) Fort Worth (Tarrant Co.) 555,110
7) Arlington (Tarrant Co.) 344,751
8) Corpus Christi (Nueces Co.) 279,241
9) Plano (Collin Co.) 237,495
10)Garland (Dallas Co.) 219,010
 
1 - 20 of 113 Posts
Top