US Census Bureau data for Austin and other cities

[wwmiv]

I think I may be a tad too aggressive here, but… this is the form I think the urban areas will take over the next few decades.

[lzppjb]

Recently, Firefly expanded their rocket testing facility in Briggs. And I think Bertram will see growth soon.

[drummer]

Man the orientation of that map took me for a loop at first, haha.

My only question is whether we would see more connectivity along the 281 corridor between Marble Falls and San Antonio given the E/W connection of 290 especially as a middle-point. That corridor has the potential to have growth contributing to both metros, even if it isn't nearly as much as what will be seen on the east side of the metros (bottom of your image). I think that could especially be impacted further if 290 ends up as an expressway all the way to I-10 someday...who knows? It would likely shift down and connect around Comfort or Kerrville rather than all the way to Junction. IF that ever happens (big IF), it would spur more growth in those areas as well - secondary to everything else, of course.

I suppose it's fair to just mark that 281 corridor with the 2070-2100 purple line (just noticed that).

[SproutingTowers]

With more population will need more fresh water supply.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by SproutingTowers

With more population will need more fresh water supply.

The Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer has yet to fully be tapped. It could provide water to more than a million additional people - mostly along the Toll-130 corridor, however.

[JoninATX]

I thought this was interesting. Texas ranks 4th in household size. Right beside Utah, California & Hawaii.

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings...size-by-state/

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

I thought this was interesting. Texas ranks 4th in household size. Right beside Utah, California & Hawaii.

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings...size-by-state/

High household sizes in Latino (and South and Southeast Asian immigrant) neighborhoods. This does NOT bode well for future sprawl as historical examples show that when immigrants and their kids intermarry and de-camp from the cities en masse, they prefer highly suburban housing. Much of the current housing boom in the south suburbs is being driven by exactly this dynamic. The vast majority of new build neighborhoods in Hays are split between Latinos and conservative whites. There are very few white liberals, very few Asians, and very few African Americans. This also doesn’t bode well for Democrats maintaining their advantage among Latinos in Texas, as they stop being exposed to white liberals in the cities and start exchanging ideas and discourse with white conservatives in the suburbs instead. Perhaps that may make both groups more moderate, or perhaps it might simply turn Tejanos into a 60-40 Republican constituency (the latter seems more likely). Latino and Asian immigrants actually intermarry with native-born whites at higher rates than did comparable generations of Irish and Italian immigrants. Republicans like to talk about how we are not integrating immigrants at a decent pace. The reality is that Latino and Asian immigrants largely do integrate themselves. And quicker, too, which is why household sizes are nowhere near where they were during the previous peaks of immigration.

The same dynamic happened (plus individual factors for each group) to not only both the Irish and Italians, but also to Jewish and Arab immigrants, to the Polish, among others, all of which ended up as highly suburban populations around the cities to which they immigrated with some exceptions (some Jewish groups who remain in cities, most Germans, Scandinavians, Scots-Irish, English/Anglo, Czech, and few others who were initial settler/founder populations and who remain largely rural today and anyone who is from the continent of Africa due to the unfortunate awful history of American slavery and racism… although that is changing more and more for the better even if much more work needs to be done). Basically, the settler populations are peoples who practiced authoritative nuclear family housing styles and the remainder are peoples who did not. Those who succeed in adapting their family housing style to authoritative nuclear family structure succeed (and are able to move up in society) after first being directed into the cities. Those who do not adapt do not succeed and are largely forced to stay in the cities by the economy. That’s just the overwhelming reality of it, for better and for worse.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

High household sizes in Latino (and South and Southeast Asian immigrant) neighborhoods. This does NOT bode well for future sprawl as historical examples show that when immigrants and their kids intermarry and de-camp from the cities en masse, they prefer highly suburban housing. Much of the current housing boom in the south suburbs is being driven by exactly this dynamic. The vast majority of new build neighborhoods in Hays are split between Latinos and conservative whites. There are very few white liberals, very few Asians, and very few African Americans. This also doesn’t bode well for Democrats maintaining their advantage among Latinos in Texas, as they stop being exposed to white liberals in the cities and start exchanging ideas and discourse with white conservatives in the suburbs instead. Perhaps that may make both groups more moderate, or perhaps it might simply turn Tejanos into a 60-40 Republican constituency (the latter seems more likely). Latino and Asian immigrants actually intermarry with native-born whites at higher rates than did comparable generations of Irish and Italian immigrants. Republicans like to talk about how we are not integrating immigrants at a decent pace. The reality is that Latino and Asian immigrants largely do integrate themselves. And quicker, too, which is why household sizes are nowhere near where they were during the previous peaks of immigration.

The same dynamic happened (plus individual factors for each group) to not only both the Irish and Italians, but also to Jewish and Arab immigrants, to the Polish, among others, all of which ended up as highly suburban populations around the cities to which they immigrated with some exceptions (some Jewish groups who remain in cities, most Germans, Scandinavians, Scots-Irish, English/Anglo, Czech, and few others who were initial settler/founder populations and who remain largely rural today and anyone who is from the continent of Africa due to the unfortunate awful history of American slavery and racism… although that is changing more and more for the better even if much more work needs to be done). Basically, the settler populations are peoples who practiced authoritative nuclear family housing styles and the remainder are peoples who did not. Those who succeed in adapting their family housing style to authoritative nuclear family structure succeed (and are able to move up in society) after first being directed into the cities. Those who do not adapt do not succeed and are largely forced to stay in the cities by the economy. That’s just the overwhelming reality of it, for better and for worse.

Those historical trends are somewhat inverted now, though. Suburbs were overwhelmingly white due to exclusionary zoning and lending practices. By the time those policies were officially outlawed in the 60s, they were perpetuated by economic factors. Minimum lot sizes and price based restrictive covenants in the suburbs kept most minorities out. Now that more urban lifestyles have become more desirable, the highest real estate values are closest to the core, especially in high-growth, wealthy cities like Austin. Moving up no longer means moving out, it means moving in. Because inner-city land prices are already so high, I think that will actually increase the trend towards sprawl development for larger households.

The problem with such long term forecasts is that we can't continue this kind of sprawl with carbon burning single occupant vehicles as the principal means of transportation without severely impacting the global climate. The planet could literally be uninhabitable by 2100 if we don't reverse course.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by H2O

Those historical trends are somewhat inverted now, though. Suburbs were overwhelmingly white due to exclusionary zoning and lending practices. By the time those policies were officially outlawed in the 60s, they were perpetuated by economic factors. Minimum lot sizes and price based restrictive covenants in the suburbs kept most minorities out. Now that more urban lifestyles have become more desirable, the highest real estate values are closest to the core, especially in high-growth, wealthy cities like Austin. Moving up no longer means moving out, it means moving in. Because inner-city land prices are already so high, I think that will actually increase the trend towards sprawl development for larger households.

The problem with such long term forecasts is that we can't continue this kind of sprawl with carbon burning single occupant vehicles as the principal means of transportation without severely impacting the global climate. The planet could literally be uninhabitable by 2100 if we don't reverse course.

Have you considered that both are moving up and out, just to different destinations and from different places?

One group is moving from inner-city poverty (away from former ghettos and places that are now gentrifying) into middle class suburbia.

The other group is moving from middle class suburbia into new build upper middle class, “luxury,” and true luxury units in inner city areas that are in the middle of or have completed gentrification.

Both groups are moving up and out (of their current neighborhoods).