DALLAS FORT WORTH | Urban + Suburban P & C

[NYC2ATX]

I'll be impressed if they choose to remain in uptown when they select the location of the new headquarters. It seems like many of these relocations in recent years have opted for corporate campuses in far out suburban settings. On that subject, it seems like Westlake/Roanoke is becoming a north-of-town (that town being Fort Worth) sub-hub that would be an analogue to the centers in Frisco and Plano north of Dallas. That will certainly continue the trend of the Metroplex center of gravity pulling westward recently, as the most recent census estimates show Fort Worth skyrocketing in population. It will be very interesting to watch.

Texas is in play folks

[futuresooner]

CBRE's current HQ is in downtown Los Angeles & the executives in Dallas they're talking about are mostly in their building adjacent to Klyde Warren Park in Uptown, so I think it's a pretty safe bet they'll stay downtown. They'd really have no business being far flung in the northern Metroplex given the location of most of their offices in the country are in/near downtown areas.

[eburress]

Originally Posted by R1070

I think they will consolidate into the new office building planned for McKinney Ave.

That's definitely the speculation. Some have thought the new Newpark/Smart District tower could be their eventual home too.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

That will certainly continue the trend of the Metroplex center of gravity pulling westward recently, as the most recent census estimates show Fort Worth skyrocketing in population.s

I'd love more info on the general growth trends of DFW if anyone has them. For instance, aside from the obvious players (Plano, Allen, McKinney, Frisco, and beyond the 380 corridor), where is the most growth happening? I have family in DFW and went to college up there years back, but I don't pay as close attention to that kind of stuff up there. I'm curious if anyone has some quick resources to share.

[N90]

Originally Posted by drummer

I'd love more info on the general growth trends of DFW if anyone has them. For instance, aside from the obvious players (Plano, Allen, McKinney, Frisco, and beyond the 380 corridor), where is the most growth happening? I have family in DFW and went to college up there years back, but I don't pay as close attention to that kind of stuff up there. I'm curious if anyone has some quick resources to share.

DFW's favorite direction to sprawl is northward toward Oklahoma. Not just now but for the last few decades now.

What that means is that growth north of Dallas and north of Fort Worth is typically the most intense. Plus both cities are also seeing development and activity in their cores too. Uptown Dallas is always in a perpetual boom and now DT Ft. Worth is following suit.

The area that is lacking in mass scale development, activity, or investment is the southern portion of the metro area and also the southern portions of both Dallas city and Ft. Worth city.

Contrast that to metro Austin where growth, investment, development, and activity seem almost equal between north and south, with north only having a slight edge but the south still having a sizable number of the 10 fastest growing cities in the US between Austin and San Antonio. West is built up in Austin and due to the hilly geography, there is a limit to how much it can build up. That also makes the westside the most expensive and sought after section of metro Austin. East is Austin's least favorite section both city and metro but by US standards it's a booming area as well. Pretty much all of metro Austin is growth and boom central. In DFW, the southern part of the metro appears to be neglected compared to the other 3 sides, especially compared to the north. But that may change one day as land values and development reach their zenith north, west, and east in DFW and looking towards the south would be more economical.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by N90

DFW's favorite direction to sprawl is northward toward Oklahoma. Not just now but for the last few decades now.

What that means is that growth north of Dallas and north of Fort Worth is typically the most intense. Plus both cities are also seeing development and activity in their cores too. Uptown Dallas is always in a perpetual boom and now DT Ft. Worth is following suit.

The area that is lacking in mass scale development, activity, or investment is the southern portion of the metro area and also the southern portions of both Dallas city and Ft. Worth city.

Contrast that to metro Austin where growth, investment, development, and activity seem almost equal between north and south, with north only having a slight edge but the south still having a sizable number of the 10 fastest growing cities in the US between Austin and San Antonio. West is built up in Austin and due to the hilly geography, there is a limit to how much it can build up. That also makes the westside the most expensive and sought after section of metro Austin. East is Austin's least favorite section both city and metro but by US standards it's a booming area as well. Pretty much all of metro Austin is growth and boom central. In DFW, the southern part of the metro appears to be neglected compared to the other 3 sides, especially compared to the north. But that may change one day as land values and development reach their zenith north, west, and east in DFW and looking towards the south would be more economical.

Very helpful for my curiosity. Thanks for that!

[NYC2ATX]

That was a really interesting and detailed break-down N90, the contribution is appreciated!

The favored northward expansion you speak of is voracious to say the least. I often have considered a hypothetical point in the future where the North Texas built-up urban area fully reaches the Oklahoma border. There are so many factors contributing to that inevitability too, the rapid growth of Oklahoma City being one of them, and therefore an increased importance of the corridor between them. Additionally, the establishment of major job centers in places like Westlake and Frisco means that significant populations can live in seemingly exurban towns like Prosper and Melissa, and for many, if not most, the commute will be reasonable.

I also tend to see Denton as a college town archetype that is an opportunity, a place that could be to the Metroplex what Boulder is to Denver. On that topic, it appears that the US 380 corridor is being primed to be the next major road to be upgraded to a full freeway, as development of these areas demands more intensive mobility infrastructure. Anyone have confirmation on that? It's a rule in Texas that if you want to find the growth, you follow where the roads are getting upgraded and expanded in your area.

[N90]

DFW is exactly halfway between Austin and OKC. 190 miles north of DFW is OKC and 190 miles south of DFW is Austin.

The two big differences there is that between DFW and Austin there’s a sizable Waco area and Killeen/Temple/Fort Hood area with a combined population around 700k people. But between DFW and OKC there isn’t a major source of population, just casinos and resorts and empty land. But what that direction lacks in population it makes up with growth as DFW is growing northward and OKC is growing southward.

San Antonio’s favored direction of growth is north. Austin is both north and south. I don’t know about the Killeen or Waco areas, and then there’s DFW. With how expensive Austin is and becoming, I expect development to reach the Killeen area and for Killeen to grow into Waco.

If DFW grew as intensely southward then everything from DFW to San Antonio would be one continuously developed corridor.

Also another way to look at that corridor is from OKC all the way down to either Monterrey or Saltillo, Mexico. I-35 in the US is renamed to 85D in Mexico and runs through Monterrey and then there’s Saltillo nearby. We tend to forget but Monterrey is pretty damn huge, growing and urbanizing rapidly, and pretty tied to TX. Laredo is on the border and is growing swiftly on both the US and Mexico sides.

[N90]

Downtown Ft. Worth to Downtown San Antonio = 268 miles

DFW CSA: 8,057,796
Waco MSA: 273,920
Killeen/Temple/Ft. Hood MSA: 460,303
Austin MSA: 2,227,083
San Antonio CSA: 2,571,266

That’s a combined population of 13,590,368 people in a 270 mile north-south corridor along I-35. That would be the 5th most populous US state. It’s not the Northeast Corridor but it’s pretty populated and a part of the fastest growing area in the US (which is the Texas Triangle).

[eburress]

High-rise project north of downtown Dallas will include an ‘urban arboretum’



https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ban-arboretum/

[drummer]

Originally Posted by N90

Downtown Ft. Worth to Downtown San Antonio = 268 miles

DFW CSA: 8,057,796
Waco MSA: 273,920
Killeen/Temple/Ft. Hood MSA: 460,303
Austin MSA: 2,227,083
San Antonio CSA: 2,571,266

That’s a combined population of 13,590,368 people in a 270 mile north-south corridor along I-35. That would be the 5th most populous US state. It’s not the Northeast Corridor but it’s pretty populated and a part of the fastest growing area in the US (which is the Texas Triangle).

That's a great breakdown, thanks. I've often wondered what a contiguous metro down I-35 would be like, but in the near-ish term, I see Waco to San Antonio being likely, but DFW would be separate, or at least not directly contiguous. My reason for this is the northern growth for DFW for the most part while Waco, etc., seems to me to be growing more to the south (purely observational based on observed construction while driving on I-35). West, Hillsboro, and the like simply aren't growing enough in and of themselves to fill in the gaps at this time.

All said, after the HSR between DFW and Houston is built, focus must be quickly turned to the I-35 corridor at least down to San Antonio. I have heard rumors over the years of a separate line from San Antonio down to Monterrey, which makes perfect sense to me with the natural connections, business and personal ties.

DFW's growth is nuts, for sure. In your opinion, N90, do you think that it will eventually become even more L-shaped with the rate of growth on the northern Dallas side so much higher?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by eburress

High-rise project north of downtown Dallas will include an ‘urban arboretum’



https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ban-arboretum/

I like it.

[drummer]

@N90, I cross-posted some of this discussion to the Austin Metro Thread since there is some good information which overlaps. Thanks for all of your thoughts on this!

[BG918]

Originally Posted by N90

DFW is exactly halfway between Austin and OKC. 190 miles north of DFW is OKC and 190 miles south of DFW is Austin.

The two big differences there is that between DFW and Austin there’s a sizable Waco area and Killeen/Temple/Fort Hood area with a combined population around 700k people. But between DFW and OKC there isn’t a major source of population, just casinos and resorts and empty land. But what that direction lacks in population it makes up with growth as DFW is growing northward and OKC is growing southward.

Good points but the limits to OKC's metro growth have pretty much stopped at Norman, as Norman itself is growing more to the north and east with some growth along the 77 corridor toward Noble. OKC's primary growth is northward in cities like Edmond and also westward in cities like Mustang and Yukon. Tulsa oddly enough is growing more southward along the 75 corridor which many hope will eventually be upgraded to a limited access freeway all the way to the TX border. If you've ever driven from Dallas to Tulsa there are still significant gaps where 75 goes through small towns.

Ardmore is roughly in between OKC and DFW and has seen some decent growth recently but is still relatively small. The Arbuckles are a neat hilly area north of Ardmore, good hiking trails around the lake and Turner Falls.

What are the thoughts on Gainesville and Sherman eventually being part of exurban Dallas? I know Lake Texoma is a popular recreation area for DFW it seems like it could eventually be right on the outskirts of the metro.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by BG918

Good points but the limits to OKC's metro growth have pretty much stopped at Norman, as Norman itself is growing more to the north and east with some growth along the 77 corridor toward Noble. OKC's primary growth is northward in cities like Edmond and also westward in cities like Mustang and Yukon. Tulsa oddly enough is growing more southward along the 75 corridor which many hope will eventually be upgraded to a limited access freeway all the way to the TX border. If you've ever driven from Dallas to Tulsa there are still significant gaps where 75 goes through small towns.

Ardmore is roughly in between OKC and DFW and has seen some decent growth recently but is still relatively small. The Arbuckles are a neat hilly area north of Ardmore, good hiking trails around the lake and Turner Falls.

What are the thoughts on Gainesville and Sherman eventually being part of exurban Dallas? I know Lake Texoma is a popular recreation area for DFW it seems like it could eventually be right on the outskirts of the metro.

If I'm not mistaken Sherman/Denison and adjacent Bryan County OK are already in the DFW CSA. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Gainesville follows suit. I often wonder how big the Metroplex will ultimately be? I'm quite certain it'll exceed the Chicago and Boston-Providence CSA's. Do you think it'll pass the San Francisco-Oakland and Washington-Baltimore CSA's which are currently not far from the 10 million mark.

[R1070]

As for DFW growth... The Southern end of the metro gets a bad wrap, especially compared to the higher growth burbs in other areas of the metro. Southern burbs are not void of growth though. Southern Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Cedar Hill, etc. all have good amounts of new growth with nice new neighborhoods and such. The growth is more East-West though following I-20.

[N90]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

If I'm not mistaken Sherman/Denison and adjacent Bryan County OK are already in the DFW CSA. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Gainesville follows suit. I often wonder how big the Metroplex will ultimately be? I'm quite certain it'll exceed the Chicago and Boston-Providence CSA's. Do you think it'll pass the San Francisco-Oakland and Washington-Baltimore CSA's which are currently not far from the 10 million mark.

DFW CSA will easily surpass Boston CSA and Chicago CSA. SF CSA will be harder but both DFW and HOU should pass it at some point.

It’s just a little behind Boston now and growing much faster. DFW adds 100k more people a year than Boston does so it’ll only take a few years for that. Chicago population is dropping and DFW is growing with the largest numbers in the US. So that one is prolly a sure thing too.

It’s more complicated with the other 2. SF CSA was booming in the beginning of the last decade but its slowed to a crawl now. But SF CSA can always add more territory as it always does. By adding more territory, SF CSA can always keep moving the goal post further ahead. If you look at the SF CSA definition from 2012, DFW CSA already surpassed that but SF just keeps adding more and more areas from the Central Valley and surroundings. I think DFW will surpass it because SF can’t compete with DFW’s population growth (without adding more territory). I also think Houston will jump Boston CSA, Chicago CSA, and eventually SF CSA too.

So that just leaves DC CSA. That’ll be the hardest one for DFW to jump. DFW’s growth is much higher than DC’s but DC’s growth is unpredictable. It basically resets every 4 years depending on what kinda government takes over. DC’s growth is tied to increase or decrease in government spending. And that changes with the president and Congress ever few years making DC’s growth hard to predict.

When all is said and done by 2050 I think DFW CSA will be #3 behind NYC and LA. And Houston will be either #4 or #5, behind NYC, LA, and DFW if it’s #4 or behind NYC, LA, DFW, and DC if it’s #5.

[N90]

Originally Posted by drummer

That's a great breakdown, thanks. I've often wondered what a contiguous metro down I-35 would be like, but in the near-ish term, I see Waco to San Antonio being likely, but DFW would be separate, or at least not directly contiguous. My reason for this is the northern growth for DFW for the most part while Waco, etc., seems to me to be growing more to the south (purely observational based on observed construction while driving on I-35). West, Hillsboro, and the like simply aren't growing enough in and of themselves to fill in the gaps at this time.

All said, after the HSR between DFW and Houston is built, focus must be quickly turned to the I-35 corridor at least down to San Antonio. I have heard rumors over the years of a separate line from San Antonio down to Monterrey, which makes perfect sense to me with the natural connections, business and personal ties.

DFW's growth is nuts, for sure. In your opinion, N90, do you think that it will eventually become even more L-shaped with the rate of growth on the northern Dallas side so much higher?

What helps DFW's growth northward is how developed the suburbs there are and becoming even more so.

Plano, Frisco, McKinney, Richardson, Denton, Grapevine, Allen, Lewisville, Garland, Carrolton, Flower Mound.

That's a staggering amount of office space and other job centers and DFW is always pushing to develop or build even more. Massive scale mixed use developments with towers and highrises. This keeps DFW's growth going forward north as these job centers develop north. If you look at most of the DFW cities with 100k people or more, they're all either north or in the midcities (cities between DAL and FW). Mesquite is one of the few exceptions to that.

Yeah, in the near future, it'll be San Antonio running up into Austin, with Austin running down to San Antonio while simultaneously also running up to Killeen area and the Killeen area running up to Waco. Then there is a 76 mile gap between Waco and Burleson on I-35 where the development is either very lightly populated or not populated. Burleson on I-35 is the first contiguous town a part of the DFW metro area.

[N90]

Originally Posted by eburress

High-rise project north of downtown Dallas will include an ‘urban arboretum’



https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ban-arboretum/

Oh this is very nice.

Btw, whatever happened to that cylinder designed Ross Perot supertall tower? I loved that one, would be my favorite building in TX if it got built.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by R1070

As for DFW growth... The Southern end of the metro gets a bad wrap, especially compared to the higher growth burbs in other areas of the metro. Southern burbs are not void of growth though. Southern Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mansfield, Cedar Hill, etc. all have good amounts of new growth with nice new neighborhoods and such. The growth is more East-West though following I-20.

I've also read that Waxahatchie and Cleburne are expected to have big growth in the future.