SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Texas Triangle (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240810)

JAYNYC Oct 26, 2019 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8730052)
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.

LA21st Oct 26, 2019 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey (Post 8730208)
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?

LA21st Oct 26, 2019 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey (Post 8730208)
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.

ThePhun1 Oct 26, 2019 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC (Post 8730273)
Who ever said / typed that "San Antonio is world class"? I'll wait.

Was it implied tgat I replied to refute that?

MonkeyRonin Oct 26, 2019 9:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey (Post 8730208)
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.

urban_encounter Oct 26, 2019 9:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8729958)
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.

urban_encounter Oct 26, 2019 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC (Post 8729980)
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.

Investing In Chicago Oct 26, 2019 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC (Post 8729980)
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.

JAYNYC Oct 26, 2019 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 8730331)
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?

JAYNYC Oct 26, 2019 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago (Post 8730371)
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.

jd3189 Oct 27, 2019 12:13 AM

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.

urban_encounter Oct 27, 2019 2:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8730428)
I find San Antonio to be the most interesting city cultural in Texas.


Agree 100%.

SLO Oct 27, 2019 5:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 8729714)
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.

AviationGuy Oct 27, 2019 5:55 AM

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.

JManc Oct 27, 2019 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AviationGuy (Post 8730598)
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...

mrnyc Oct 27, 2019 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8730235)
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. :haha:

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

dc_denizen Oct 27, 2019 8:55 PM

https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-yzu5...0.1280.jpg?c=2

Trae Oct 28, 2019 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb (Post 8729944)
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 (Post 8730317)
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.

Shawn Oct 28, 2019 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin (Post 8730317)
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.

Trae Oct 28, 2019 1:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8731040)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.