Just checked Google Earth and...

[Cadillac]

Certainly "bigger does not mean better," but Fort Worth will "move outside Dallas' shadow" in about 11-13 years...aka, it'll be more populated than Dallas.

Dallas is landlocked...Fort Worth isn't.

But whooooooooo careeesss this is stupid. Let's talk football.

Dear Lord FroggieFever, that has to be the funniest thing I've seen on the internets this week.

-CoS

[sbsmith]

Yes Fort Worth, one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. A city with a functioning city council and low crime rate. Best of all, a city without John Wiley Price. Good luck to you.

And yet still irrelevant outside the state. Perhaps Fort Worth will move outside Dallas' shadow someday. You'd think it would have happened already since Fort Worth has so much going for it.

Certainly "bigger does not mean better," but Fort Worth will "move outside Dallas' shadow" in about 11-13 years...aka, it'll be more populated than Dallas.

Dallas is landlocked...Fort Worth isn't.

But whooooooooo careeesss this is stupid. Let's talk football.

Get back to us when that happens. By the way both Dallas and Ft. Worth are landlocked.

[smupony94]

Hurst is better than Euless

[ya]

And yet still irrelevant outside the state. Perhaps Fort Worth will move outside Dallas' shadow someday. You'd think it would have happened already since Fort Worth has so much going for it.[/quote]

Certainly "bigger does not mean better," but Fort Worth will "move outside Dallas' shadow" in about 11-13 years...aka, it'll be more populated than Dallas.

Dallas is landlocked...Fort Worth isn't.

But whooooooooo careeesss this is stupid. Let's talk football.[/quote]

Get back to us when that happens. By the way both Dallas and Ft. Worth are landlocked.[/quote]

We still can grow the city limits whereas dallas cannot because it is surrounded by other cities. We still have open land to grow--got it?

[FroggieFever]

We still can grow the city limits whereas dallas cannot because it is surrounded by other cities. We still have open land to grow--got it?

Exactly!

[smu diamond m]

Actually, Dallas has quite a bit of ETJ... FW has more, I would guess by inspection (i.e. not by analysis), but FW's ability to annex that much land depends on number of things, not simply the desire to do so.

[PK]

I believe this was the main point of his post "But whooooooooo careeesss this is stupid. Let's talk football." and he is right.

[RednBlue11]

they can annex all the land they want, they still don't have the business presence, they aren't investing millions in the arts, and they don't have any professional sports franchises.

in 11-13 years that won't have changed one bit.

[paperpony]

If we're going to turn this into an urban development argument, Dallas wins hands down. Smarter growth, better redevelopment. The ability to add more urban sprawl doesn't equal better. (And before you even mention it, Dallas has far more diverse entertainment districts than Sundance Square. Look at Henderson Ave, Bishop Arts, and though it's starting to fade, Greenville Ave.)

[Big Frog II]

If we're going to turn this into an urban development argument, Dallas wins hands down. Smarter growth, better redevelopment. The ability to add more urban sprawl doesn't equal better. (And before you even mention it, Dallas has far more diverse entertainment districts than Sundance Square. Look at Henderson Ave, Bishop Arts, and though it's starting to fade, Greenville Ave.)

And all of those would be good things if 1. you didn't get held up and 2. Your car didn't get stolen.

[RednBlue11]

If we're going to turn this into an urban development argument, Dallas wins hands down. Smarter growth, better redevelopment. The ability to add more urban sprawl doesn't equal better. (And before you even mention it, Dallas has far more diverse entertainment districts than Sundance Square. Look at Henderson Ave, Bishop Arts, and though it's starting to fade, Greenville Ave.)

And all of those would be good things if 1. you didn't get held up and 2. Your car didn't get stolen.

that would be a good point if you could back it up...but we all know you can't.

[Big Frog II]

If we're going to turn this into an urban development argument, Dallas wins hands down. Smarter growth, better redevelopment. The ability to add more urban sprawl doesn't equal better. (And before you even mention it, Dallas has far more diverse entertainment districts than Sundance Square. Look at Henderson Ave, Bishop Arts, and though it's starting to fade, Greenville Ave.)

And all of those would be good things if 1. you didn't get held up and 2. Your car didn't get stolen.

that would be a good point if you could back it up...but we all know you can't.

All you have to do is watch the news every night, and heaven help those poor people who live in the "M" streets.

Oh and by the way did you notice ESPN picked Downtown Fort Worth for their Super Bowl shows. Don't think the safety factor wasn't one of the biggest factors. Yes, I will give you that Dallas was indeed a great place in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's. However the disfunctional city council, suburban flight, changing demographics, and crime problems have radically changed the face of Dallas, and unfortunately not for the better.

[smupony94]

seriously guys??? city smack?

[FroggieFever]

Fort Worth has better public pools.

[PK]

...and heaven help those poor people who live in the "M" streets.

I live in the "M" Streets and you obviously don't know squat about living here. It's one of the most cosmopolitan areas in the city with a good diversity of residents and it's a fun place to live...so throw your misplaced sympathy somewhere else.