HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 8:18 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
San Antonio is closer to a mid-size city than world class. The biggest factor is disposable income, which has gotten larger but there's still a ways to go.
Who ever said / typed that "San Antonio is world class"? I'll wait.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 8:30 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
It's consistently just about doubled for EVERY 30 year span dating back to 1850...you think this span is going to be different when the major cities are finally Infilling and adding density at surprising rates??


Main article: Demographics of Texas
Census Pop. %±
1850 212,592 —
1860 604,215 184.2%
1870 818,579 35.5%
1880 1,591,749 94.5%
1890 2,235,527 40.4%
1900 3,048,710 36.4%
1910 3,896,542 27.8%
1920 4,663,228 19.7%
1930 5,824,715 24.9%
1940 6,414,824 10.1%
1950 7,711,194 20.2%
1960 9,579,677 24.2%
1970 11,196,730 16.9%
1980 14,229,191 27.1%
1990 16,986,510 19.4%
2000 20,851,820 22.8%
2010 25,145,561 20.6%

Est. 2018 28,701,845 14.1%
In the last 20 years, it's increased 8 million.
In the last 30 years, it's increased 12:million.

So where are you getting this 50 million figure from?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 8:37 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
It's consistently just about doubled for EVERY 30 year span dating back to 1850...you think this span is going to be different when the major cities are finally Infilling and adding density at surprising rates??


Main article: Demographics of Texas
Census Pop. %±
1850 212,592 —
1860 604,215 184.2%
1870 818,579 35.5%
1880 1,591,749 94.5%
1890 2,235,527 40.4%
1900 3,048,710 36.4%
1910 3,896,542 27.8%
1920 4,663,228 19.7%
1930 5,824,715 24.9%
1940 6,414,824 10.1%
1950 7,711,194 20.2%
1960 9,579,677 24.2%
1970 11,196,730 16.9%
1980 14,229,191 27.1%
1990 16,986,510 19.4%
2000 20,851,820 22.8%
2010 25,145,561 20.6%

Est. 2018 28,701,845 14.1%
In the last 20 years, it's increased 8 million.
In the last 30 years, it's increased 12:million.

So where are you getting this 50 million figure from?

And you yourself, post evidence Texas is slowing down.. 20.6 to 14.1 is a considerable slow down, but what do I know?. It's just facts and numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 8:39 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
Who ever said / typed that "San Antonio is world class"? I'll wait.
Was it implied tgat I replied to refute that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 9:31 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
It's consistently just about doubled for EVERY 30 year span dating back to 1850...you think this span is going to be different when the major cities are finally Infilling and adding density at surprising rates??

When growth is driven primarily by migration (as opposed to natural increase), the rate of growth is not compounded indefinitely. It's inherently going to slow as there are only so many prospective migrants available (in about 100 more years Texas' population will exceed that of the entirety of the US!) - as it already has since the 90s & 00s. And especially as boomers start to pass away in large numbers over the next few decades, we're going to see depressed growth rates across the board.

Cities also tend to reach a certain threshold where growth slows considerably. Once they reach a size where distances & congestion increases to the point where it's no longer feasible to commute from the outer edge of the city, land values rise, and the forces that have driven much of the growth in Texas (low cost of living), will start to reverse. Houston and Dallas are likely to experience the same thing as Los Angeles, which saw a skyrocketing population during the mid-century suburban boom since gradually slow down more and more as the place has increasingly filled up. Put simply, greenfield suburban growth is a lot easier than growth through intensification.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 9:52 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Sacramento~City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
San Antonio has a bigger population but Austin has more movers and shakers (government or otherwise) and a richer, more educated workforce per capita. That essentially makes them equals.
Yes that’s true and if you look at the European flight connections Austin Bergstrom has racked up it’s due to the tech business climate in Austin. Whereas I think San Antonio’s tourist industry in mostly domestic in nature (although I have no concrete facts to back that up.
__________________
“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”~~Theodor Seuss Geisel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 9:57 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Sacramento~City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
The above are two very different statements / inferences. San Antonio is the 7th largest U.S. city by population. Obviously, it's television market size is substantially smaller, but nothing about San Antonio falls into the medium-sized category, and it certainly doesn't come close to falling into the category of the two cities I mentioned (Birmingham and Richmond).
Nobody is talking about the media market and nobody is talking about the city proper. I’m talking about the metropolitan region. San Antonio is a mid sized market. Compare it to Houston, Dallas, New York or Chicago if that helps? Those are large markets.

I love San Antonio; it was my home, but the talk about it having some sort of airport that it neither needs nor can support is somewhat curious.
__________________
“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”~~Theodor Seuss Geisel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 11:15 PM
Investing In Chicago Investing In Chicago is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
The above are two very different statements / inferences. San Antonio is the 7th largest U.S. city by population. Obviously, it's television market size is substantially smaller, but nothing about San Antonio falls into the medium-sized category, and it certainly doesn't come close to falling into the category of the two cities I mentioned (Birmingham and Richmond).
With an MSA population of ~2.1M, San Antonio is very much a medium sized metro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 11:56 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
I love San Antonio; it was my home, but the talk about it having some sort of airport that it neither needs nor can support is somewhat curious.
Did you actually read any of my previous posts within this thread?

Where exactly did I state that San Antonio (alone) was worthy of that kind of an airport?

Or, did I actually suggest that the San Antonio / Austin REGION might need / be able to support a larger regional airport (the likes of DFW) by 2050 and beyond as the Texas Triangle continues to grow?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2019, 11:57 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago View Post
With an MSA population of ~2.1M, San Antonio is very much a medium sized metro.
So what are Birmingham and Richmond?

And San Antonio's MSA was ~2.1M in 2010. Much closer to 2.6M today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 12:13 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,993
I find San Antonio to be the most interesting city culturally in Texas. From being founded during the Spanish/ Mexican era to being the most famous battle site for Texan Independence, it has a rich history that pretty much started the lore of Texas as we know today. It's this for me, bring raised with the more Mexican, cowboy, Southwestern view, as oppose to the more Southern, "hillbilly",Bible Belt view of Texas much of the world has today.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.

Last edited by jd3189; Oct 28, 2019 at 12:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 2:12 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Sacramento~City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
I find San Antonio to be the most interesting city cultural in Texas.

Agree 100%.
__________________
“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”~~Theodor Seuss Geisel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 5:49 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Population growth rates are slowing everywhere in the US, including Texas.

This article in the Hill goes into detail...
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...sity-in-coming
I truly hope so. Let the cities and regions catch up with the growth that has already occurred.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 5:55 AM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,844
Looking back at all posts in this thread, it has an even greater amount of incorrect information than most city discussions at SSP, and some of it is from people who should know better. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 7:52 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by AviationGuy View Post
Looking back at all posts in this thread, it has an even greater amount of incorrect information than most city discussions at SSP, and some of it is from people who should know better. Sheesh.
It's a bunch of non Texans discussing what Texas is and largely ignoring insight from Texans. Typical SSP...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 8:33 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
I used to have to fly into El Paso for work (I was going to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM and it was usually easier to fly to El Paso from Boston than Roswell). One time I tried going downtown for dinner under the mistaken assumption that there must be something there. There... wasn't. Then I went to the area around UTEP thinking there must be some restaurant strip or something. There... wasn't. I guess I probably didn't go to the right place...

well there was plenty, but you can't wing it in el paso, you need to do your homework and have a game plan. a bit of pregame work pays off in spades.

its been awhile since i have last visited, but i remember on the second visit i was disappointed to find starbucks had finally made it out there. i think they were the last major city to get one and i took that as a major badge of honor for them.

anyway, as you can see on the link below on the first visit i practically went berserk with joy in old el paso:
https://www.chowhound.com/post/el-pa...n-90461?page=2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2019, 8:55 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,636
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2019, 12:41 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb View Post
Very interesting.. Since Dallas's suburbs are growing north along Central Expressway (75) towards Oklahoma and parts of 75 are being upgraded to interstate standards, I wonder will that corridor one day become part of the interstate system?
It has been the plan all along for I-45 to be an interstate from Galveston up to around Kansas City. It's slowly getting back to that as the growth is starting to warrant it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
When growth is driven primarily by migration (as opposed to natural increase), the rate of growth is not compounded indefinitely. It's inherently going to slow as there are only so many prospective migrants available (in about 100 more years Texas' population will exceed that of the entirety of the US!) - as it already has since the 90s & 00s. And especially as boomers start to pass away in large numbers over the next few decades, we're going to see depressed growth rates across the board.

Cities also tend to reach a certain threshold where growth slows considerably. Once they reach a size where distances & congestion increases to the point where it's no longer feasible to commute from the outer edge of the city, land values rise, and the forces that have driven much of the growth in Texas (low cost of living), will start to reverse. Houston and Dallas are likely to experience the same thing as Los Angeles, which saw a skyrocketing population during the mid-century suburban boom since gradually slow down more and more as the place has increasingly filled up. Put simply, greenfield suburban growth is a lot easier than growth through intensification.
Yeah migration growth tends to slow over time and there's also more "competition" for the Texas cities that battle for migrant growth (NC cities, Denver, Nashville, increasingly Kansas City, etc.), but the Texas Triangle is seeing the most domestic migrants now than ever. It's also receiving more international immigrants as other regions traditionally seen as the hubs have become too costly (NYC, LA, SF, etc.). This coupled with continued major corporate relocation that has now attracted their supplies/vendors too.

I think the growth will still be high for the foreseeable future because they already have most big city amenities and are still relatively cheap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2019, 1:02 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
When growth is driven primarily by migration (as opposed to natural increase), the rate of growth is not compounded indefinitely. It's inherently going to slow as there are only so many prospective migrants available (in about 100 more years Texas' population will exceed that of the entirety of the US!) - as it already has since the 90s & 00s. And especially as boomers start to pass away in large numbers over the next few decades, we're going to see depressed growth rates across the board.

Cities also tend to reach a certain threshold where growth slows considerably. Once they reach a size where distances & congestion increases to the point where it's no longer feasible to commute from the outer edge of the city, land values rise, and the forces that have driven much of the growth in Texas (low cost of living), will start to reverse. Houston and Dallas are likely to experience the same thing as Los Angeles, which saw a skyrocketing population during the mid-century suburban boom since gradually slow down more and more as the place has increasingly filled up. Put simply, greenfield suburban growth is a lot easier than growth through intensification.
These are all really important points.

Another factor I have been mulling over: just how big can cities in the 21st century actually get in red states with anti-urban, anti-transit, small-gov, low-tax majorities in state Congresses? I’m seriously asking.

Or let’s flip this and say that were Dallas and Houston to actually pass Chicago in metro sizes and were Austin’s to reach 4-5 million, Texas would be California / New York blue.
__________________
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Harlan Ellison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2019, 1:08 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
These are all really important points.

Another factor I have been mulling over: just how big can cities in the 21st century actually get in red states with anti-urban, anti-transit, small-gov, low-tax majorities in state Congresses? I’m seriously asking.

Or let’s flip this and say that were Dallas and Houston to actually pass Chicago in metro sizes and were Austin’s to reach 4-5 million, Texas would be California / New York blue.
The problem I see is people try to equate voting Democrat as you are for transit, for urban projects, etc. Meanwhile if you vote red, then you're somehow against those things. It's not mutually exclusive. Texas cities has seen an increase in favorability for transit and urban development and it's been this way for going on 20 years now. Even the most red major Texas city, Fort Worth, has seen those increases and now has a rail line to DFW Airport and new development around its downtown.

One thing I appreciated about Texas that I didn't realize when I left for California was there is definitely a more diversity of ideas and opinions. It's not an echo chamber like California is. The housing issue in CA is way worse and it's because those same people "voting blue" tend to vote against any dense housing development because of some mundane reason like views or shadows. Like the only problem the "red state leaders" have had with Austin's growth so far has been the huge increase in homeless but that was entirely due to a city law the mayor passed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.