Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Meanwhile...regarding Amazon.

Amid HQ2 backlash in NYC, Amazon can recall Dallas mayor’s pitch: ‘It’s easy’ in D-FW

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... sy-in-d-fw

Not surprising at all...

“A Development group is dropping its plans to purchase the historic Dallas Morning News building in downtown Dallas.

...Now, the developers have exercised a clause that allowed them to cancel the purchase of The News property from parent company A.H. Belo Corporation. The contract with KDC and Hoque Global gave the buyers an inspection period through Dec. 14 and the right “to terminate the agreement at any time and for any reason” before then.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... ews-campus

I hope it turns into residential.

Wow! That's a major deal, that could turn into something more major. It's not too hard to imagine Amazon budding its own package delivery service, and if Alliance turns into the dominant hub, we could see two North Texas airport on the top ten list of domestic cargo airports. Alliance is #30 on this list:

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/top-car ... th-america

lakewoodhobo wrote:Not a Typo: To Lure Amazon, DFW Airport Had a Plan to Offer Nearly $23 Billion Over 99 Years
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -99-years/

Wow... Kinda glad this never saw the light of day. I remember hearing about that as being a proposed amazon site and it just doesn't seem right.

muncien wrote:

lakewoodhobo wrote:Not a Typo: To Lure Amazon, DFW Airport Had a Plan to Offer Nearly $23 Billion Over 99 Years
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -99-years/

Wow... Kinda glad this never saw the light of day. I remember hearing about that as being a proposed amazon site and it just doesn't seem right.

Their idea of building a TRE spur through that site (and presumably onward to the Terminals) is fascinating, but it would be an operational nightmare - it seems like it would either result in fewer Dallas - Fort Worth frequencies or require a connection for thru travelers (Unless someone was willing to pony up for more rolling stock and O&M Funding).

Its more of an afterthought and I am sure Amazon saw through it. They had to throw it in there for the sake of the request but it's not really a valuable connection. No doubt they also promised the high-speed rail too.

I never understood proposals such as this one, or ones along the Cotton Belt line. For a company that emphasized how important public transit is, I couldn't see them seriously considering a location out in the suburbs with one proposed station.

Even if it wasn't a proposed station and it did exist, public transit is still awful out in the suburbs. If you value public transit, then even Downtown Dallas would be barely passable, in my opinion. There is certainly potential once D2 and the HSR are added, but, even then, we would still be significantly behind the northeast, so forget trying to sell a single 'proposed' station out in the 'burbs.

DPatel304 wrote:I never understood proposals such as this one, or ones along the Cotton Belt line. For a company that emphasized how important public transit is, I couldn't see them seriously considering a location out in the suburbs with one proposed station.

Even if it wasn't a proposed station and it did exist, public transit is still awful out in the suburbs. If you value public transit, then even Downtown Dallas would be barely passable, in my opinion. There is certainly potential once D2 and the HSR are added, but, even then, we would still be significantly behind the northeast, so forget trying to sell a single 'proposed' station out in the 'burbs.

Keep in mind that Seattle is relatively new to the rail-based transit game - They've only had light rail/streetcars for a decade or so, and Amazon's Seattle campus is only connected to the streetcar. Seattle is still a bus-first transit city, so I'd have a hard time taking them seriously if they said the DFW area only lost out because they had suburban proposals with only *one* rail station - our rail network still beats the heck out of Seattle's transit infrastructure (to say nothing of the ongoing dumpster fires at the WMATA and NY Subway).

TNWE wrote:

DPatel304 wrote:I never understood proposals such as this one, or ones along the Cotton Belt line. For a company that emphasized how important public transit is, I couldn't see them seriously considering a location out in the suburbs with one proposed station.

Even if it wasn't a proposed station and it did exist, public transit is still awful out in the suburbs. If you value public transit, then even Downtown Dallas would be barely passable, in my opinion. There is certainly potential once D2 and the HSR are added, but, even then, we would still be significantly behind the northeast, so forget trying to sell a single 'proposed' station out in the 'burbs.

Keep in mind that Seattle is relatively new to the rail-based transit game - They've only had light rail/streetcars for a decade or so, and Amazon's Seattle campus is only connected to the streetcar. Seattle is still a bus-first transit city, so I'd have a hard time taking them seriously if they said the DFW area only lost out because they had suburban proposals with only *one* rail station - our rail network still beats the heck out of Seattle's transit infrastructure (to say nothing of the ongoing dumpster fires at the WMATA and NY Subway).

There's no stigma in riding the bus in Seattle or other west coast cities, and that makes a big difference in ridership + investment. Rail is just one of many options.



https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... s-transit/

dfwcre8tive wrote:

TNWE wrote:

DPatel304 wrote:I never understood proposals such as this one, or ones along the Cotton Belt line. For a company that emphasized how important public transit is, I couldn't see them seriously considering a location out in the suburbs with one proposed station.

Even if it wasn't a proposed station and it did exist, public transit is still awful out in the suburbs. If you value public transit, then even Downtown Dallas would be barely passable, in my opinion. There is certainly potential once D2 and the HSR are added, but, even then, we would still be significantly behind the northeast, so forget trying to sell a single 'proposed' station out in the 'burbs.

Keep in mind that Seattle is relatively new to the rail-based transit game - They've only had light rail/streetcars for a decade or so, and Amazon's Seattle campus is only connected to the streetcar. Seattle is still a bus-first transit city, so I'd have a hard time taking them seriously if they said the DFW area only lost out because they had suburban proposals with only *one* rail station - our rail network still beats the heck out of Seattle's transit infrastructure (to say nothing of the ongoing dumpster fires at the WMATA and NY Subway).

There's no stigma in riding the bus in Seattle or other west coast cities, and that makes a big difference in ridership + investment. Rail is just one of many options.



https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... s-transit/

You're absolutely right that "bus" isn't a dirty word in Seattle, but they don't have the capacity of rail and are susceptible to traffic congestion. Even so, I have a hard time believing that *any* city's transit network could absorb all of the hypothetical 50,000 new commuters(which is probably why they split HQ2). That's half a Texas-OU game crowd *every weekday*, and DART has to completely change the service pattern to handle that. At least the DFW south option would have used commuter rail and been at the midpoint of the line, maximizing potential capacity for both Dallas and Fort Worth commuters.

TNWE wrote:Keep in mind that Seattle is relatively new to the rail-based transit game - They've only had light rail/streetcars for a decade or so, and Amazon's Seattle campus is only connected to the streetcar. Seattle is still a bus-first transit city, so I'd have a hard time taking them seriously if they said the DFW area only lost out because they had suburban proposals with only *one* rail station - our rail network still beats the heck out of Seattle's transit infrastructure (to say nothing of the ongoing dumpster fires at the WMATA and NY Subway).

Interesting point. I've actually never been to Seattle, but, are you simply saying ours is better simply because we have more rail? In general, I do think rail is better than bus, but, at the same time, a good bus system can still trump a mediocre, sprawled out rail system as well. Again, I've never been to Seattle, so I guess it really depend on how good the bus system is.

Also, yeah Seattle is their original location, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are content with the transit there, and it doesn't necessarily mean they would be okay with something along the same lines.

DPatel304 wrote:

TNWE wrote:Keep in mind that Seattle is relatively new to the rail-based transit game - They've only had light rail/streetcars for a decade or so, and Amazon's Seattle campus is only connected to the streetcar. Seattle is still a bus-first transit city, so I'd have a hard time taking them seriously if they said the DFW area only lost out because they had suburban proposals with only *one* rail station - our rail network still beats the heck out of Seattle's transit infrastructure (to say nothing of the ongoing dumpster fires at the WMATA and NY Subway).

Interesting point. I've actually never been to Seattle, but, are you simply saying ours is better simply because we have more rail? In general, I do think rail is better than bus, but, at the same time, a good bus system can still trump a mediocre, sprawled out rail system as well. Again, I've never been to Seattle, so I guess it really depend on how good the bus system is.

Also, yeah Seattle is their original location, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are content with the transit there, and it doesn't necessarily mean they would be okay with something along the same lines.

As of right now, Seattle has one North-South LRT line, from Sea-tac to UW. They're developing a new line to the east and extensions to the north & south. There's also a commuter line running N-S, but it's heavily weighted toward commuters going into downtown.

Thanks to the Seattle Process, the city took so long to decide on what to do for rail transit that it was Bus (or Trolleybus) or nothing when it came to transit, so widespread bus adoption was borne out of necessity, not a preference for buses. The light rail also shares a tunnel through downtown with buses, so there's a bit of a BRT feel to it.

TNWE wrote:As of right now, Seattle has one North-South LRT line, from Sea-tac to UW. They're developing a new line to the east and extensions to the north & south. There's also a commuter line running N-S, but it's heavily weighted toward commuters going into downtown.

Thanks to the Seattle Process, the city took so long to decide on what to do for rail transit that it was Bus (or Trolleybus) or nothing when it came to transit, so widespread bus adoption was borne out of necessity, not a preference for buses. The light rail also shares a tunnel through downtown with buses, so there's a bit of a BRT feel to it.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. What you're describing actually sounds like what is going on in Austin at the moment. I lived there for a couple years, and I know they keep talking about expanding their rail, but it seems to get no traction each time it is proposed. I can't see them building any sort of decent rail system at this point, so buses it is for them as well.

I really do need to visit Seattle when I get a chance, it's definitely a place I think I would enjoy visiting.

Seattle's bus system is actually useful, unlike Dallas' rail system. Number of miles or number of stations is irrelevant if you're not actually providing a competitive way to get from place to place.

The way that Seattle makes their bus system useful is by prioritizing buses over cars with things like making 3rd Avenue a transit-only corridor during peak hours, dedicated bus lanes elsewhere in the city, and transit signal prioritization. This makes transit faster and more reliable. They also provide a substantial high-frequency bus network, which makes transit convenient.

So yeah, Seattle's transit infrastructure is way better than Dallas', track mileage dick measuring contest notwithstanding.

Dallas’ HQ2 Super-Site Could Lure Other Big Tenant

The city of Dallas and its real estate professionals were able to amass 28 million square feet for Amazon HQ2. It's all up for grabs now.

BY JEREMIAH JENSEN

Last night at HKS Inc.’s downtown office, firm executives welcomed Mayor Mike Rawlings, Dallas Regional Chamber chief Dale Petroskey, and an intimate crowd of industry players for an HQ2 post-mortem. It was less about licking wounds and more about marveling at new opportunities.

In partnership with local developers, Dallas was able to amass a 28 million-square-foot “Super Site” of potential office space in its bid for Amazon’s HQ2—more than three times the square footage the e-commerce giant asked for in its request for proposals. The conglomeration of space from three different landholders—Hunt Consolidated, Matthews Southwest, and the KDC/Mike Hoque partnership­—spans the southern and southeastern boundaries of downtown Dallas and is still very much in play for other corporate relocation's.

The Super Site features a massive new deck park over Interstate 30, the gateway to Dallas overlooking the Trinity River, and a host of other office and residential buildings.

These renderings are very pie in the sky, but they push a lot of buttons for me. I hope someone is circling Dallas with a desire to transform the south side of DTD.

I for one am proud of what the City of Dallas and other officials pulled together to try and lure Amazon.
-incredible tax incentives
-the amassing of all the parcels as possible development sites
-collaboration of all the universities to feed a STEM system and create future tech workers
-the promise of increased connectivity with mass transit
-promise to improve DISD
-free travel by the local airlines

This was a very well planned offer. It's too bad it didn't happen and Amazon wasn't really looking to transform a metro like they promised. Well, it's beating a dead horse, but it's nice to see the proposals.

And with the coming HSR stop and plans moving forward to to create the Trinity Park, things are looking up.

https://www.dmagazine.com/commercial-re ... l-in-play/

...something like that would sure take the sizzle out of Uptown. hahaha It wouldn't really, but funny to say. Uptown will really settle in, though, when this side of downtown finally gears up for this century.

Look at the next 50 years of South Dallas through the lenses of that HQ2 fantastical cooperative of developers. Red-lined for generations into oblivion, sliced into pieces by I-45 & SH175, and pummeled intentionally and regarded as a neglect dangerous garbage dumb of a neighborhood... South Dallas is evolving out of that vial side of human nature to be the most desirable location in the South Central US. A mixture not found within a 1,000 miles: one side an actual forest of notable size providing a wilderness park, an actual big city downtown hosting the full spectrum of experience, the (emerging and fragile) entertainment array of Deep Ellum-Expo-Fair Park and finally on-track Trinity River project.

Here's a couple thoughts on this...
The two proposals for HQ2 that we have seen over the last few days (DFW & SDTD) show exactly what NOT to do, as well as exactly what 'to do'.
We've all seen pretty renderings before, but I have to admit that these are quite good.
Instead of waiting on some golden goose to make it happen, take steps now to lure people, smaller businesses and developers.
Zone the land AHEAD of time to create one cohesive area just like proposed here.
Quick giving incentives to build in areas like Uptown, and instead DOUBLE incentives to build here!
Building a stronger south side makes the whole of Dallas A LOT stronger.
Get residential portions going IMMEDIATELY. There is no such thing as a 'lead tenant' for residential...

dfwcre8tive wrote:


https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... s-transit/

One of the most telling things about this graphic is the nearly 'across the board' decline of transit ridership from the last 3-5 years. IMO, much of this has to do with a few primary factors (working remotely, living closer to your work... aka walking, but more importantly RIDE SHARING).
This is very revealing of our future expectations. In a time when Work, Weather, News, Social Interaction, and much more is available immediately at our finger tips, fewer and fewer people are to be 'burdened' with the hassle of sitting and waiting in the elements for their ride (or, multiple rides in cases of transfers) to get to them.
Our whole concept of 'public transit' needs to evolve into something very different than what it is today. I've said it before, that automated ride-share will be the death of our traditional 'bus' system. Regional rail (which can be supplemented by on demand services), and frequent schedule based services (streetcar or subway) that exist in VERY DENSE urban ares that can support them, can thrive in an automated world... but low frequency, long distance bus routes or streetcars, serving low density areas will have little to no place in our future.
I realize this is more a comment for a different thread, but since the map was brought up here, and it was a core requirement for Amazon, I figured I'd leave it here for now...

Wow, those renderings are insane. Definitely pie in the sky, although, given enough time, it certainly wouldn't be out of the question to see Dallas look like that (perhaps 15-20 years down the line).

The only part of the renderings that I am having a hard time with is the dense, cluster of office towers to the south of the Reunion Tower. It certainly looks amazing, and the deck park at the front door is very cool too, but this part of Downtown always seemed like a hard sell to me as it feels a bit isolated

NdoorTX wrote:Dallas’ HQ2 Super-Site Could Lure Other Big Tenant

The city of Dallas and its real estate professionals were able to amass 28 million square feet for Amazon HQ2. It's all up for grabs now.

All that sweet sweet development porn. They even have symmetrical towers
Thanks for the post!

Although they are proposing re-wilding the trinity, I actually like the rendering's pink flowering trees.
Don't know how realistic that is.

The re-wilding of the Trinity is exactly what the new Trinity Conservancy is planning more wildflowers, trees, trails with very few big built elements anywhere but on the edges where the Army Corps of Engineers may or may not allow. They want to stay away from trying to build a very boxy Central Park type of environment as much of they can. At the end of the day, new visions of the park realize they have no money and its a flood zone that we created cause we tried to control nature.

Well we know that KDC backed out of buying this land right around the nexus of the mix master but yeah these vision plans could interest a new developer.

tanzoak wrote:Seattle's bus system is actually useful, unlike Dallas' rail system. Number of miles or number of stations is irrelevant if you're not actually providing a competitive way to get from place to place.

The way that Seattle makes their bus system useful is by prioritizing buses over cars with things like making 3rd Avenue a transit-only corridor during peak hours, dedicated bus lanes elsewhere in the city, and transit signal prioritization. This makes transit faster and more reliable. They also provide a substantial high-frequency bus network, which makes transit convenient.

So yeah, Seattle's transit infrastructure is way better than Dallas', track mileage dick measuring contest notwithstanding.

Does anyone know where Dart is in its plan to revamp the bus system here, that they said was going to take 10 years to complete?

Tnexster wrote:Meanwhile...regarding Amazon.

Amid HQ2 backlash in NYC, Amazon can recall Dallas mayor’s pitch: ‘It’s easy’ in D-FW

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... sy-in-d-fw

Amazon's new HQ2 site in Long Island City is in an opportunity zone. Image courtesy of Bisnow/Saverio Mondelli

The pot continues to boil over the selection of Long Island City for HQ2. And Amazon is starting to say things like "we want to be in a community that wants us"

Amazon HQ2 In NYC Is Not a Done Deal Yet and The Critics Aren't Letting Up
by Miriam Hall, Bisnow New York, January 31, 2019

"Ultimately, either New York City or Amazon could pull out of the deal. The agreement with the city is nonbinding and many of the details have not been ironed out, despite the victorious tone Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio struck at their press conference announcing the deal in November.

This week's meeting grew heated at times. Protesters held orange signs saying “Caution: Amazon lies” while council members lobbed tough questions and criticisms at state officials and Amazon representatives."

Article: https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news/economic-development/amazon-hq2-in-nyc-is-not-a-done-deal-yet-and-the-critics-arent-letting-up-97279

Wow.. what a cluster. I'm sure they will find a way to work out some sort of deal and still end up in NYC, but there are going to be a lot of unhappy people once it is all said and done.

So, while we still won't be getting HQ2, I do think that Amazon will help speed up the process of people/companies who want to leave NYC because they feel it is already too expensive, which could work in our favor.

Wouldn't that be something?

Keep it out of Dallas...

Note to self: don't buy AMZN if the brass thought they could look to New Yorkers, Long Island ones no less, for "being wanted."

Punchline is that after all this shakes out it'll go to UTD by the art museums. Or... Cypress Waters.

I45Tex wrote:Note to self: don't buy AMZN if the brass thought they could look to New Yorkers, Long Island ones no less, for "being wanted."

Punchline is that after all this shakes out it'll go to UTD by the art museums. Or... Cypress Waters.

They're going to NYC regardless. They may re negotiate the terms and what not .. but they knew from the beginning where they wanted be.

lakewoodhobo wrote:Facing opposition, Amazon reconsiders NY headquarters site, two officials say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... dbfb30f071

I find that Austin will be the front runner if they change their mind.

Yeah keep saying that about Austin but it has none of the things Amazon requested. The question is if they pull back from their current plans won't they adopt a new plan that spreads things out further. If they come to Texas, for example, I wouldn't put it past them to break the project up further. Dallas and Austin maybe so they can get some of both worlds? and maybe another third candidate? The previous proposals seem to be hard to swallow by one city and as time has passed officials and voters have seemingly lost their childhood enthusiasm for the project. Bring some jobs great but let's not pretend Amazon is GOD and will bless us with their golden light and solve our urban/suburban problems.

Austin is just the golden child of the media, at the moment. I agree, it doesn't seem like a good fit for Amazon.

Now that we know they want NYC/DC caliber cities, it's hard to imagine them going anywhere else. I suppose they could indeed split up the HQ once again, and somehow make that work, but they seem to favor the east coast pretty heavily, so I'm not expecting much at this point.

They're staying put. They'll probably not take the incentives due to the public criticism. However, that just makes the deal even sweeter for NYC.
The residents will despise them but I don't think the politicians truly care about the people.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:They're staying put. They'll probably not take the incentives due to the public criticism. However, that just makes the deal even sweeter for NYC.
The residents will despise them but I don't think the politicians truly care about the people.

I understand that you're dead certain about what they're doing. The WaPo wasn't, however, and the reason that NYC would be best for them is for access to talent. However, talent retention is as important as talent recruitment; and I was told that Amazon ran an internal HQ2 poll of employee preference, which Austin won by a large margin. So from a retention point of view it is untrue to say that Austin has nothing Amazon needed. It has that, which could be good enough. Some jobs related to movies will be in Queens in any event. Whether talent will be decisive in moving many jobs to a city that would have been going to Queens is a different question, but I would not expect anyone to see the need to split it up farther than "DC+Nashville+Queens+(other spot most of the NYC jobs go instead).

Dallas could be back in HQ2 hunt if New York deal falls through
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... -hunt.html

..and the media frenzy is back on.

I45Tex wrote:I understand that you're dead certain about what they're doing. The WaPo wasn't, however, and the reason that NYC would be best for them is for access to talent. However, talent retention is as important as talent recruitment; and I was told that Amazon ran an internal HQ2 poll of employee preference, which Austin won by a large margin. So from a retention point of view it is untrue to say that Austin has nothing Amazon needed. It has that, which could be good enough.

Perhaps, you're right. But I don't see Employee retention being a deciding factor over access to talent. The ability to grow in a place and have access to world class talent can't be replaced by Austin. A world city like NY has talent in spades; if someone decided to leave..there's someone already qualified next in line in the city.

Furthermore, these will be "NEW" jobs. Where employees in Seattle would prefer to live, IMO, is meaningless. The people who will be applying for these jobs will either already live in NY or willing to move there.

In addition, NYC is still a very, very appealing place to live to many. Especially if u have the $. The types of people that will be working there won't exactly be "Bru -Bru Broked ____" as Kanye once said. So i just really don't see Austin or anyone else having a shot. Amazon was dead set on being there in the first place.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Perhaps, you're right. But I don't see Employee retention being a deciding factor over access to talent.

I agree with this. Plus, it's one thing to vote "Austin" on a poll, but it's a whole different thing to actually uproot your life and move there. Also, was 'staying in Seattle' on option on the poll, or was it sorta phrased like "if you HAD to move, where would you move to".

From www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/02 ... gnets.html

Brookings used recently released migration data from the U.S. Census Bureau to identify major metros that attracted the most 25- to 34-year-olds for the period of 2012 through 2017.

The Houston area topped the list, with an average annual net migration of 14,767 young adults, followed by the Denver and Dallas areas, with an average of 12,667 and 12,665 millennials per year respectively.

The Seattle area took fourth place, with an average of 11,244, and the Austin area ranked fifth with 8,933 millennial move-ins per year.

The biggest losers of millennials between 2012 and 2017 were New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, which posted net losses of 37,648, 18,722 and 13,757 young workers, respectively.

^^ Minor details, Amazon.

Whatever the real situation is, I hope it rebounds and redounds to the benefit of Texas communities. I will say that while "there's always more talent to access" is persuasive, companies have cultures just like communities do, and both do rely on continuity for things that even the best and brightest cannot do for you if they all bounce around every 18mos. You can fill a lot of the seats with short-termers definitely but you do want to cater to those you recruit, not just plan on "promoting from outside."

I'll say what I always said pick the best of both worlds. In Dallas, you have still access to the Austin effect which wears off after you get to know Dallas and here you have total access to the much much larger talent pool, corporate satisfaction, logistics hub, transit that despite its hiccups is still better than Austin, a very valuable international airport and a city that could sadly be pushed over politically by new money as Amazon would spend. I even know people who live in Austin but during the week work in Dallas. I don't understand it myself but hey if you just can't stand Dallas for your family you can do it. WHats funny is the number of people I know who run to Dallas every time a festival or big event happens in Austin because to them the city becomes insufferable with tourists.

cowboyeagle05 wrote:I'll say what I always said pick the best of both worlds. . . here you have total access to the much much larger talent pool, corporate satisfaction, logistics hub, transit that despite its hiccups is still better than Austin, a very valuable international airport and a city that could sadly be pushed over politically by new money as Amazon would spend.

True. And they are a much broader company commercially now than just the software/Dell/IBM/SEMATECH/Whole Foods stuff in Austin, as I’m sure tamtagon has said.
North of Parmer even feels as difficult to get to on a given day from the river/lake as FW does from Dallas, and that’s 600K of the Austin MSA’s people north of there. San Antonio is not only a larger MSA (2.5 vs 2.1 million), but the lack of centricity of those 600K makes it feel more like 2.5 vs 1.5 to me... just not in a good way

cowboyeagle05 wrote:I'll say what I always said pick the best of both worlds. In Dallas, you have still access to the Austin effect which wears off after you get to know Dallas

I really feel like a lot of the appeal to Austin, these days, is largely based off of media hype. I also think that the media will eventually (probably sooner rather than later) move on to the next cool city.

I really think Fort Worth should be marketing themselves as being the next cool/hip city. Based on what I've seen in the media, it seems like Fort Worth is constantly being compared to Dallas, but I'd rather see them go a different route and try and appeal to the Austin crowd. They certainly have lovely nature access in the urban core, and cost of living seems to be pretty reasonable. You get all the perks of living in DFW, but you get to live in an urban area that is a bit more unique.

I'm not suggesting Amazon move to Fort Worth, by the way, so this post is off-topic, but, while we are on the topic of Austin, I just feel like their moment in the spotlight will start to fade and that opens the door for another 'hidden gem' to emerge.

This thought just came to me, when I saw that this Austin whiskey bar announced plans to expand to Fort Worth:
https://austin.eater.com/2019/2/1/18206 ... -worth-bar

I've never been to Nickel City, but I know they are located in the 'hipster' part of the Austin (east of 35), and I feel like establishments that are in cool parts of town have to be choosy where they expand to for fear of diminishing their 'cool' status. For example, you see a lot of the bars on West 6th opening locations in the Domain (and even in other cities like Dallas and Houston), but then you have Nickel City thinking that Fort Worth is the better fit for them. Maybe the owners see what I see, and see the potential in the Fort Worth area.

As long as Fort Worth continues to market itself as cowtown and "where the west begins" there will be no Austin-like cool factor.

I've always assumed Denton would be the next Austin.

Isn't Oak Cliff the next Austin? Denton is Denton, Dynamic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgUFcYGKYk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8awJ5T3I364

Maybe "the next Austin" wasn't the right phrase to use. You're right, Denton certainly has the live music, college town, hipster, laid back feel to it. I don't spend much time there, but it seems like it has a long ways to go before the city can obtain actual jobs and boom into more than a college town.

Fort Worth won't be Austin-like, but it has a lot of potential to be the next 'boom-town', in my opinion. I can't see Denton attracting jobs/businesses in large numbers, so I think it'll stay a college town for the foreseeable future. Oak Cliff definitely has some strong hipster vibes, but it's a suburb and will boom along with Dallas.

Fort Worth has a small, but reasonably developed urban core with a good amount of greenery. The pedestrian infrastructure seems to be decent as well, and the people are friendly and laid back. Most likely the next boom town won't be in Texas, but, if it were to be in Texas, my money is definitely on Fort Worth. Despite being a smaller town, they still have access to all the amenities that DFW has to offer, and it's not a far commute to some of the existing job centers in DFW like Downtown Dallas, Uptown, and Las Colinas.

I actually believe Corpus Christi is the top contender for next boom town. The large seaport is currently under construction there.