I know not exactly in Waco but still a day trip for folks in Waco.

Apparently a website for it went up today. www.universalkidsresort.com. No real details about anything. Just looks like it got an official website though.

Not sure if the map is really official or some sort of place holder with very general concepts. I personally cant make heads or tails of recognizeable IPs the park is themed to from the map. My kids are grown so I may not even know what they have in terms of IPs from the last dozen years.

The name is somewhat underwhelming in my opinion for a theme park brand generally regarded as right up with Disney.

PartyBear said:

---

I know not exactly in Waco but still a day trip for folks in Waco.

Apparently a website for it went up today. www.universalkidsresort.com. No real details about anything. Just looks like it got an official website though.

Not sure if the map is really official or some sort of place holder with very general concepts. I personally cant make heads or tails of recognizeable IPs the park is themed to from the map. My kids are grown so I may not even know what they have in terms of IPs from the last dozen years.

The name is somewhat underwhelming in my opinion for a theme park brand generally regarded as right up with Disney.

---

I am still confused (for climate reasons) why its going in at Frisco and not in say San Marcos?

DFW can have some colder winters, more rains, more cloudy days, etc.

I think I would have looked in the Austin area if I was them as well. At least the southern side of DFW like Burleson or some place comparable on 35 East a little closer to the areas on 35 from DFW area to SA instead of the northern side toward Oklahoma if they just had to do it in DFW area.

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I know not exactly in Waco but still a day trip for folks in Waco.

Apparently a website for it went up today. www.universalkidsresort.com. No real details about anything. Just looks like it got an official website though.

Not sure if the map is really official or some sort of place holder with very general concepts. I personally cant make heads or tails of recognizeable IPs the park is themed to from the map. My kids are grown so I may not even know what they have in terms of IPs from the last dozen years.

The name is somewhat underwhelming in my opinion for a theme park brand generally regarded as right up with Disney.

---

I am still confused (for climate reasons) why its going in at Frisco and not in say San Marcos?

DFW can have some colder winters, more rains, more cloudy days, etc.

---

It's meant to be a new style of park for Universal that is smaller and more reliant on the local market. There's a lot more kids in DFW than in AUS/SA (8m vs 5m people).

I know they have said that. However building a resort on the property indicates they plan on alot more than one day per visit customers. I think by regional they mean the population of the Texas Triangle or even broader than that really not just DFW residents. Kind of like Disneyland and Universal Hollywood are regional (fed mainly from LA/SD areas but main customer base is all of California.

PartyBear said:

---

I know they have said that. However building a resort on the property indicates they plan on alot more than one day per visit customers. I think by regional they mean the population of the Texas Triangle or even broader than that really not just DFW residents. Kind of like Disneyland and Universal Hollywood are regional (fed mainly from LA/SD areas but main customer base is all of California.

---

Can be but you'll get a lot more annual passes sold in DFW than in San Marcos. I'd also think that DFW/DAL > AUS/SAT plays a part in the out-of-town portion.

Passengers:
DFW: 35,345,138
AUS: 10,382,573
DAL: 7,819,129
SAT: 4,751,610

Nonstop routes:
DFW: 254
AUS: 96
DAL: 70
SAT: 45

That's a lot of nonstop flights to DFW, though it's still a nice little ride from DFW to the proposed park.

There are also two existing major parks in San Antonio/Austin vs only one in DFW which means less competition for the local market.

PartyBear said:

---

I know they have said that. However building a resort on the property indicates they plan on alot more than one day per visit customers. I think by regional they mean the population of the Texas Triangle or even broader than that really not just DFW residents. Kind of like Disneyland and Universal Hollywood are regional (fed mainly from LA/SD areas but main customer base is all of California.

---

Seems like there are several resorts already on the north side of DFW that are doing well.

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I know not exactly in Waco but still a day trip for folks in Waco.

Apparently a website for it went up today. www.universalkidsresort.com. No real details about anything. Just looks like it got an official website though.

Not sure if the map is really official or some sort of place holder with very general concepts. I personally cant make heads or tails of recognizeable IPs the park is themed to from the map. My kids are grown so I may not even know what they have in terms of IPs from the last dozen years.

The name is somewhat underwhelming in my opinion for a theme park brand generally regarded as right up with Disney.

---

I am still confused (for climate reasons) why its going in at Frisco and not in say San Marcos?

DFW can have some colder winters, more rains, more cloudy days, etc.

---

AS others have said probably more to do with the larger metroplex in DFW than Aus/SA.

Probably also with the fact that some of the fastest growing cities are Frisco and others in DFW.

Access to DFW airport versus the smaller Aus/SA ones.

and finally probably some consideration of what Frisco gave in terms of pricing/tax breaks compared to San Marcos, Georgetown, etc.

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

PartyBear said:

---

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

---

I hope we're working on making desalination cheaper.

BaylorHistory said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

---

I hope we're working on making desalination cheaper.

---

Israel already does that really well...you would hope Texas could do that just for the Houston metro area and have a large positive effect.

[Israel is moving rapidly toward a sustainable water future. The country now draws and desalinates 75 percent of its drinking water from the Mediterranean Sea. And where the US reclaims just 4 percent of its wastewater for agricultural purposes, Israel repurposes nearly 90 percent.]

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/10/global-engineering-trek-israel-water/

PartyBear said:

---

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

---

I have actually thought a lot about this while driving on 35. There are stretches where 9at least right along the interstate) it has become almost solid growth.

For example, Waco to West used to be a lot more open space. Now things are being built right along 35 from almost West all the way to Waco.

The same for Waco to Temple. Or even West north to Hillsboro. And again when you get further north on 35E or 35W. On 35W for example Grandview is seeing the growth coming south from Alvarado and it is almost solid from Alvarado on.

Now in many of those areas you get off the frontage road and the growth stops or is minimal but then there are subdivisions a little further back off the interstate popping up as well.

PartyBear said:

---

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

---

That will never happen...unless D.C. decides to import in millions of people from the SSA region (Sub-Saharan Africa)

And honestly there might not even been enough SSAs by 2100 to make that happen.

2.1 is the fertility rate necessary for replacement.

American ethnic groups:

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 2.1
Hispanic: 1.8
Black American (non-Hispanic): 1.6
White (non-Hispanic): 1.5
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 1.4
Asian: 1.3

https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

WORLD
2.3
AFRICA
4.3
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
1.9
EUROPE
1.5
ASIA
1.9
MENA (Middle East/North Africa)
2.5


World fertility rates also continue to drop

https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/fertility/map/region

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

---

That will never happen...unless D.C. decides to import in millions of people from the SSA region (Sub-Saharan Africa)

And honestly there might not even been enough SSAs by 2100 to make that happen.

2.1 is the fertility rate necessary for replacement.

American ethnic groups:

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 2.1
Hispanic: 1.8
Black American (non-Hispanic): 1.6
White (non-Hispanic): 1.5
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 1.4
Asian: 1.3

https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

WORLD
2.3
AFRICA
4.3
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
1.9
EUROPE
1.5
ASIA
1.9
MENA (Middle East/North Africa)
2.5


World fertility rates also continue to drop

https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/fertility/map/region

---

Those stats don't include interstate and intrastate migration. That's how 90% of the DFW boom is occurring.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

By 2100 DFW is projected to be the largest metro area in the US surpassing NYC which has been the largest through US history thus far. I also read that Austin/SA area will hit 8 million in the next 20 years I believe though it may have said 30 years. The 35 corridor in Texas is decades from being just one megalopolis.

---

That will never happen...unless D.C. decides to import in millions of people from the SSA region (Sub-Saharan Africa)

And honestly there might not even been enough SSAs by 2100 to make that happen.

2.1 is the fertility rate necessary for replacement.

American ethnic groups:

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 2.1
Hispanic: 1.8
Black American (non-Hispanic): 1.6
White (non-Hispanic): 1.5
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 1.4
Asian: 1.3

https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

WORLD
2.3
AFRICA
4.3
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
1.9
EUROPE
1.5
ASIA
1.9
MENA (Middle East/North Africa)
2.5


World fertility rates also continue to drop

https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/fertility/map/region

---

Those stats don't include interstate and intrastate migration. That's how 90% of the DFW boom is occurring.

---

Yea, that's probably a good point.

The future will be about who can get the increasingly stagnant population to move to their location...since natural population increase simply will not be happening.

Places like the USA are far head of other countries...and places like Texas and Florida within the USA are ahead of the rest of the States.

I remember dying to make it to stuckeys on the way to Dallas as a kid. There was nothing there to really see

The good old days.

Dirt is moving on this one