The northward expansion of Dallas is undeniably impressive—thousands of new homes, major employers relocating, and a sense of unstoppable momentum. But beneath this growth narrative lies a set of critical omissions that deserve attention. As new subdivisions push into former ranchland, too little is being said about the infrastructure needed to support this pace of development—particularly in areas like transportation, energy resilience, water supply, and long-term municipal services. Roads are congested, public transit is nearly nonexistent, and the deregulated Texas power grid remains vulnerable under increasing strain.
Just as concerning is the lack of investment in “third spaces”—public libraries, parks, community centers, and other civic places where people can gather outside of private homes and commercial zones. Many of these new communities are built with single-use zoning and minimal coordination, resulting in environments that prioritize individual autonomy over public connection. The result is that people go from garage to office park to big box store without ever encountering unmediated public life. It’s a landscape built for consumption, not connection. Texas’s longstanding skepticism of government planning may expedite construction, but it also limits the creation of durable civic infrastructure.
Unchecked growth without coordinated policy isn’t a strength—it’s a risk. If this region wants to remain livable and resilient, it will need more than rooftops and business parks. It will need intentional investment in shared, public space and long-term planning that balances development with community. Otherwise, the northward march may one day resemble not opportunity, but overreach.
The TLP Weekend Edition posts, along with those of Ruy Teixeira are usually the best, most interesting, and ideologically inoffensive things that the TLP team generates. The partisan ideology, and avoidance of truth, has gotten so tiresome, but I guess that’s what you believe your base wants. Anyway, thanks for this one.
So construction is problematic but North Texas is booming? Hmm, seems that some easy correlation assessment is missing here.
Watching a program on the idiotic slow pace of rebuilding from the Southern California fires, and there is a company doing prefabricated dwellings that are going up in a couple of months. On-site development has the benefit of endless customization, but it is going to go away except for the most high-end properties. The future will be ordering highly customizable floorplans and designs that are manufactured in a factory and shipped to the site for assembly. Other than assembly, only foundation, ground utilities and finishing work will be required on-site labor.
The article in the economist had a good perspective from five miles high, but failed to get down to ground level where things are being built. The Economist correctly points to "fragmentation, overregulation and underinvestment", and they have very good data on the decrease of productivity.
What they fail to ponder is if larger companies are so much more efficient, with vertical integration, and adapting new technologies, why do contractors insist on contracting out to smaller firms who in turn hire subcontractors.
It's because no one wants to lose their business. Much more than 15 or 20 employees and people are hiring CPAs to help with the books and maybe a lawyer to look at the contracts and double check compliance. The lawyers and CPA have seen the same a thousand times and have an off the record heart to heart with the owner telling him he is likely breaking criminal law and could go to jail.
So the contractor hires subs and he is one step removed, and you have 450,000 small companies all slightly illegal.
When people complain about overregulation, it is usually because they've discovered that they cannot get away with doing whatever they want heedless of the negative impact on others.
The northward expansion of Dallas is undeniably impressive—thousands of new homes, major employers relocating, and a sense of unstoppable momentum. But beneath this growth narrative lies a set of critical omissions that deserve attention. As new subdivisions push into former ranchland, too little is being said about the infrastructure needed to support this pace of development—particularly in areas like transportation, energy resilience, water supply, and long-term municipal services. Roads are congested, public transit is nearly nonexistent, and the deregulated Texas power grid remains vulnerable under increasing strain.
Just as concerning is the lack of investment in “third spaces”—public libraries, parks, community centers, and other civic places where people can gather outside of private homes and commercial zones. Many of these new communities are built with single-use zoning and minimal coordination, resulting in environments that prioritize individual autonomy over public connection. The result is that people go from garage to office park to big box store without ever encountering unmediated public life. It’s a landscape built for consumption, not connection. Texas’s longstanding skepticism of government planning may expedite construction, but it also limits the creation of durable civic infrastructure.
Unchecked growth without coordinated policy isn’t a strength—it’s a risk. If this region wants to remain livable and resilient, it will need more than rooftops and business parks. It will need intentional investment in shared, public space and long-term planning that balances development with community. Otherwise, the northward march may one day resemble not opportunity, but overreach.
The TLP Weekend Edition posts, along with those of Ruy Teixeira are usually the best, most interesting, and ideologically inoffensive things that the TLP team generates. The partisan ideology, and avoidance of truth, has gotten so tiresome, but I guess that’s what you believe your base wants. Anyway, thanks for this one.
So construction is problematic but North Texas is booming? Hmm, seems that some easy correlation assessment is missing here.
Watching a program on the idiotic slow pace of rebuilding from the Southern California fires, and there is a company doing prefabricated dwellings that are going up in a couple of months. On-site development has the benefit of endless customization, but it is going to go away except for the most high-end properties. The future will be ordering highly customizable floorplans and designs that are manufactured in a factory and shipped to the site for assembly. Other than assembly, only foundation, ground utilities and finishing work will be required on-site labor.
Agree with Bai. That's what the Republicans did.
The article in the economist had a good perspective from five miles high, but failed to get down to ground level where things are being built. The Economist correctly points to "fragmentation, overregulation and underinvestment", and they have very good data on the decrease of productivity.
What they fail to ponder is if larger companies are so much more efficient, with vertical integration, and adapting new technologies, why do contractors insist on contracting out to smaller firms who in turn hire subcontractors.
It's because no one wants to lose their business. Much more than 15 or 20 employees and people are hiring CPAs to help with the books and maybe a lawyer to look at the contracts and double check compliance. The lawyers and CPA have seen the same a thousand times and have an off the record heart to heart with the owner telling him he is likely breaking criminal law and could go to jail.
So the contractor hires subs and he is one step removed, and you have 450,000 small companies all slightly illegal.
When people complain about overregulation, it is usually because they've discovered that they cannot get away with doing whatever they want heedless of the negative impact on others.
The normal language at construction sites I have seen is Spanish.