Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1
At a macro level, DFW already is quite the disaster, but fortunately for most residents, they don't live in the DFW area at the macro level. The same could be said for LA area residents, although I think probably a greater percentage of LA residents commute longer distances to and from work or school than do their Metroplex (I really hate that name) counterparts. Both metros have several nodes of employment and business activity, but in the DFW area, with it's much lower housing prices and greater housing mobility, people tend to live a bit closer to where they work. DFW can add several million more residents without too much disruption.
|
What does the first sentence even mean? Looking at DFW from satellite view, it appears that a disproportionate amount of the growth is happening in the northeast quadrant (Frisco, McKinney) of the metro area. That assumption is supported by the numbers, which also show significant population gains in Tarrant County (Fort Worth). So, the macro-level snapshot of DFW is certainly relevant. Adding "several million more residents" would likely entail expanding that macro-level view.
I don't know whether or not it's true that more people in LA commute long-distance, but I'm firmly of the belief that most people don't choose to live where they live because of proximity to employment. People change jobs all the time, and most aren't going to uproot their children for a shorter commute to a job that might only last a few years. Further, people who move to DFW are likely interested in large, new-construction homes... which, again, are likely to be found in peripheral areas.