Austin Census Discussion

[Tex17]

Originally Posted by Kotliz

-----
So aside from the crane (in the foreground), how is that not just a perfectly respectable skyline for a small city like Austin? There's a nice variation in height, a fairly even distribution of buildings, maybe a little "gappy" in places, but over-all, a fairly pleasing composition.

Small city like Austin? Dude, Austin hasn't been a small city for a few decades now. At the last census, it was 15th biggest in the country, and estimates are that it's now all the way up to 11th or 12th - in the nation.

[wwmiv]

We usually measure size not in terms of city limits, but rather in terms of metropolitan area. By that more accurate metric Austin is in the mid 30s of largest cities in the country.

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by Tex17

Small city like Austin? Dude, Austin hasn't been a small city for a few decades now. At the last census, it was 15th biggest in the country, and estimates are that it's now all the way up to 11th or 12th - in the nation.

35th based on the 2012 census estimate is a much better representation of the Austin area. City limit size rankings aren't worth anything regarding the total population of an area. They can be used for determining things like population density and such, but Austin is hardly the 11th or 12th biggest "city" in the country.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Tex17

Small city like Austin? Dude, Austin hasn't been a small city for a few decades now. At the last census, it was 15th biggest in the country, and estimates are that it's now all the way up to 11th or 12th - in the nation.

That also put Austin as larger than San Francisco and over twice the size of Miami. Anyone really believe that?

[KevinFromTexas]

City limit size is a useless method since some cities are landlocked and decide to become VERY dense to compensate. And then you have the other ones that aren't even landlocked and decide to annex land all around it. That adds some population, a lot of square miles and very little density. My zip code (78745) is nearly a third of the size of San Francisco in area, but is about 20 times smaller in population.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

City limit size is a useless method since some cities are landlocked and decide to become VERY dense to compensate. And then you have the other ones that aren't even landlocked and decide to annex land all around it. That adds some population, a lot of square miles and very little density. My zip code (78745) is nearly a third of the size of San Francisco in area, but is about 20 times smaller in population.

Just nitpicky here, but 78745 is about 1/4 the size of San Francisco (1/3.511 to be perfectly precise).

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Just nitpicky here, but 78745 is about 1/4 the size of San Francisco (1/3.511 to be perfectly precise).

Way too nitpicky. Kevin said 1/3.33). You said 1/3.51.

[zedaref]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Way too nitpicky. Kevin said 1/3.33). You said 1/3.51.

Kevin said a third, or 1/3, or 0.3333...

[wwmiv]

No, Hill_Country. Kevin said 1/3, but 3.511 rounds up to 4, so 1/3.511 should be rounded to 1/4 if we endeavor to round at all.

[lzppjb]

I don't get the uproar everytime someone says Austin is now ranked as the 11th largest city. That is a fact and is perfectly ok to state.

Now, whether or not that fact is appropriate for the context of the discussion is another matter completely. For example, if we're talking about market size to support a pro sports team, then metro size is obviously what should be discussed.

[wwmiv]

Because what humans in their cultural milieu and context consider a city has nothing at all to do with arbitrary city lines. That's exactly what they are: arbitrary.

Entirely. Completely. Wantonly.

They are simply a method of delivery of government services for a subset of citizens. Apart from that they serve absolutely no utility, especially w/r/t statistical analyses such as "which city is really the biggest"...

[lzppjb]

That still doesn't really change anything I said.

[BnaBreaker]

Come on man, we all know that Austin's city limit population is obviously a fact that can't be disputed, and you have every right to repeat that number in relation to others for boosterism purposes all you like as if it actually meant something, but you can't tell me that in your head you actually consider cities like Austin and Jacksonville and Indianapolis to be "bigger" than cities like Boston and Miami and Atlanta and Washington DC etc...

The reason people point out the silliness of 'boosting' a fact like that is precisely because it's so arbitrary. You might as well be claiming that you have a higher net worth than Bill Gates because you have more cash in your wallet than he does at this moment in time.

DISCLAIMER: I entered this thread because I love Austin and I'm fascinated with the incredible boom happening there, and wanted to learn more about it. I just think you should be realistic in your boosterism. That is all. haha

[smith_atx]

, this thread has turned funny because most of the 842,592 residents in the Austin City Limits don't even want it to be that big.

[pscajunguy]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Come on man, we all know that Austin's city limit population is obviously a fact that can't be disputed, and you have every right to repeat that number in relation to others for boosterism purposes all you like as if it actually meant something, but you can't tell me that in your head you actually consider cities like Austin and Jacksonville and Indianapolis to be "bigger" than cities like Boston and Miami and Atlanta and Washington DC etc...

The reason people point out the silliness of 'boosting' a fact like that is precisely because it's so arbitrary. You might as well be claiming that you have a higher net worth than Bill Gates because you have more cash in your wallet than he does at this moment in time.

DISCLAIMER: I entered this thread because I love Austin and I'm fascinated with the incredible boom happening there, and wanted to learn more about it. I just think you should be realistic in your boosterism. That is all. haha

The funny thing about it, is if you had an Austin-San Antonio MSA, it would be larger than Boston's, Miami's, Atlanta's Or DC's. It's all relative. And SA is as close to Austin as Ft. Lauderdale is to Miami, and it's basically one city. And VERY MUCH LARGER Than Atlanta.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

The funny thing about it, is if you had an Austin-San Antonio MSA, it would be larger than Boston's, Miami's, Atlanta's Or DC's. It's all relative. And SA is as close to Austin as Ft. Lauderdale is to Miami, and it's basically one city. And VERY MUCH LARGER Than Atlanta.

I will have to disagree, while you are right the Austin/ San Antonio MSA would be large 4.2 million to be exact but Atlanta, Boston, Miami, & D.C would still be larger well above 5 million.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

The funny thing about it, is if you had an Austin-San Antonio MSA, it would be larger than Boston's, Miami's, Atlanta's Or DC's. It's all relative. And SA is as close to Austin as Ft. Lauderdale is to Miami, and it's basically one city. And VERY MUCH LARGER Than Atlanta.

Man, are you ever way off here.

Downtown Miami is only 28 miles from downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Austin to San Antonio downtown to downtown is more like 79. Orlando and Tampa is a much more realistic comparison, distance wise and interaction wise.

As far as your last sentence, not even close. We're fast approaching 6 million at this point.

Like BnaBreaker said above, I enjoy the hell out of keeping up with this thread as I'm fascinated with all the changes going on in Austin. I never comment though, but this post was so over the top I couldn't let it go.

[KevinFromTexas]

Besides, the way metros are classified, Austin and San Antonio will likely never be part of the same metro. The reason is metros are classified based on a certain percentage of workforce commuters from one city commuting to another. Counties are used as the base. The entire county of Bexar County where San Antonio is only has about 2,000 commuters into Travis County. And that is out of 1.7 million of Bexar County's total population. For San Antonio to be added to Austin's metro, there would have to be 425,000 daily commuters into Travis County. That just isn't going to happen. And for Austin to be added to San Antonio's metro there would have to be 275,000 commuters from Austin to San Antonio.

From this article:
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-m..._new_gran.html

Metro areas are derived from commuting data.

Outlying counties qualify to be part of the metro area if 25 percent of its workforce commutes to the central county, he said.

Read that article. Some metros can even lose counties if the commuter percentage drops below 25 percent. That article is talking about Grand Rapids, Michigan, and that very thing happened to their metro. They lost two counties in their metro.

Now I could see Austin and San Antonio becoming a "MSA" - a metropolitan Statistical Area and or a "CSA" - a combined statistical area.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Now I could see Austin and San Antonio becoming a "MSA" - a metropolitan Statistical Area and or a "CSA" - a combined statistical area.

I actually think we'll eventually see this happen, Kevin.

Are Buda, Kyle, San Marcos & New Braunfels all exploding with growth enough to actually connect the two in the near future - or is there still a lot of open land between them all once you get away from the freeway? I'm wondering if there is a lot of commuting overlap that goes on between any or all of these places.

Just curious, as I'm not familiar with your area on a personal level at all.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

I actually think we'll eventually see this happen, Kevin.

Are Buda, Kyle, San Marcos & New Braunfels all exploding with growth enough to actually connect the two in the near future - or is there still a lot of open land between them all once you get away from the freeway? I'm wondering if there is a lot of commuting overlap that goes on between any or all of these places.

Just curious, as I'm not familiar with your area on a personal level at all.

Its odd but I think that Williamson County is the fastest growing county in all of Texas and that county does not include those towns you are talking about. You'd figure that the region between Austin and San Antonio would be the fastest growing region which I think includes Hays County and Comal County. I don't know what the growth rate for that region is.

I find it odd really because you'd think people would be moving where it is more centrally located, but they are moving to Round Rock and Cedar Park of all places. It's a bit more boring out there imo, as opposed to being closer to San Antonio/Mexico. Anyone have an idea why people are moving to those parts of the Austin Metro?