HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2821  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2016, 1:50 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
That water lagoon project has one in Chile on their list called San Alfonso Del Mar. Just want to note that that is one of the largest man-made swimming pools in the world, if not the largest. Pretty cool.


Secondly, wwmiv, regarding the population growth studies and the breakdown, thanks for that! I appreciate it as I find that stuff very interesting. One question though: Why would NYC's greater metro area not grow more significantly than that? 20.10 to 20.44 doesn't seem like it's doing NYC justice. Is there something I'm missing there? (don't want to stray too far off-topic since this is an Austin thread, haha).

Regarding the Austin-San Antonio region, it's sure to become a mega-metro region as things continue. Austin's and San Antonio's growth patterns are both moving northwest, but the growth around Austin in particular is so explosive that even the lesser areas are exploding more so than other metros around the country. San Marcos and New Braunfels, as well as the Kyle/Buda area (and to a lesser extent, Lockhart and Sequin), will see a lot of growth as well, connecting the two.

Do you guys think that, as Austin continues to grow, it will continue westward or would geography become more of an issue? Given that costs are higher with the hills, that is. I could see Spicewood and Marble Falls see more growth if the connectivity improves along the 71 corridor. The same could be said for Liberty Hill (already seeing some growth), Bertram, and Burnet along 29 going west. However, I personally wonder if it would begin to be more focused (than it already is) along 79, 290, and 71 on the east side. Of course, growth north could continue along the 35 corridor since it's still relatively flat as well and is a given.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2822  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2016, 3:01 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
And get this: one of the studies linked above estimates population for metros from 2014 to 2044 (a bit long-term, but I want to draw these numbers out for y'all because I find them interesting and we all love talking about this kind of stuff. I'm just gonna list all the metros over 1 million at the 2044 date and bold the cities in Texas and the two examples above.

(city: 2014 metro estimate in millions to 2044 metro forecast in millions)

New York City: 20.10 to 20.44
Los Angeles:^ 13.27 to 14.53
Dallas-Fort Worth: 6.97 to 10.93
Chicago: 9.56 to 10.48
Houston: 6.51 to 10.12
Atlanta: 5.62 to 8.49
Miami: 5.93 to 8.05
D.C.: 6.04 to 7.75
Phoenix: 4.50 to 7.49
Riverside:^ 4.45 to 7.42
Philadelphia: 6.05 to 6.37
San Francisco:^ 4.60 to 5.59
Boston: 4.74 to 5.25
Seattle: 3.68 to 4.77
Detroit: 4.30 to 4.25
Minneapolis: 3.50 to 4.18
San Diego: 3.27 to 4.17
Tampa Bay: 2.92 to 4.10
Denver: 2.76 to 4.02
Orlando: 2.33 to 3.90
Charlotte: 2.39 to 3.63
Austin: 1.95 to 3.63
San Antonio: 2.33 to 3.58
Sacramento: 2.25 to 3.31
Las Vegas: 2.07 to 3.19
Portland: 2.35 to 3.10
Baltimore: 2.79 to 3.07
St. Louis: 2.81 to 2.99
Indianapolis: 1.97 to 2.63
Kansas City: 2.07 to 2.61
San Jose:^ 1.96 to 2.53
Nashville: 1.80 to 2.45
Columbus: 2.00 to 2.42
Pittsburgh: 2.36 to 2.32
Cincinnati: 2.15 to 2.27
Raleigh: 1.25 to 2.17
Jacksonville: 1.42 to 2.06
Hampton Roads: 1.72 to 2.05
Cleveland: 2.06 to 1.97
Salt Lake City: 1.16 to 1.82
Oklahoma City: 1.34 to 1.73
Providence: 1.61 to 1.67
Milwaukee: 1.57 to 1.62
Memphis: 1.34 to 1.59
Richmond: 1.27 to 1.53
McAllen: 0.83 to 1.50
Louisville: 1.27 to 1.48
Tampa: 1.01 to 1.38
New Orleans: 1.25 to 1.30
Cape Coral: 0.68 to 1.29
Birmingham: 1.14 to 1.27
Fresno: 0.97 to 1.27
Bakersfield: 0.88 to 1.26
Hartford: 1.21 to 1.22
Albuquerque: 0.90 to 1.20
Grand Rapids: 1.03 to 1.17
Omaha: 0.91 to 1.16
Sarasota: 0.75 to 1.13
Greenville: 0.86 to 1.12
El Paso: 0.84 to 1.10
Honolulu: 0.99 to 1.08
Boise: 0.67 to 1.08
Oxnard: 0.85 to 1.06
Columbia: 0.80 to 1.06
Knoxville: 0.96 to 1.04
Worcester: 0.93 to 1.02
Ogden: 0.63 to 1.02
Rochester: 1.08 to 1.01
Charleston: 0.73 to 1.01
Stockton: 0.72 to 1.01

Over the past 25+ years, my population growth estimation matrix has been pretty damn spot on. Most of these "National" estimations are extremely conservative and do not take into affect the micro environments of the cities in which they are estimating.

Having said that, based on my current calculations, regionally the Austin metro should be in the neighborhood of 3.7 million by 2035 and 4.3 million by 2040...San Antonio's metro: 3.5 million by 2035 and 3.9 million by 2040.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2823  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2016, 8:15 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
I agree with those who postulate that it may likely be built on the southeast side near the airport, but of course until there is an official announcement and more details it's just speculation.

Logically it makes sense given that we have COTA and the currently under construction Nland Surf Park nearby creating a sort of quasai tourist destination area. That part of Travis County is far from a paradise environment right now, but if these kinds of projects continue to group together, in time it could become a much larger national and international destination transforming a historically impoverished, underutilized and unattractive quadrant of the county.

There are several factors in place that make the area a bullseye. Easy access to ABIA is one. Lots of space which is not in an environmentally sensitive area, and lets be honest really needs improvement anyways. Maybe we could get rid of those rock quaries along the river eventually. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there an old covered landfill somewhere around that area too? Basically it's in need of some TLC and I don't mean the R&B group

It's strategically located with what 20 million people living within a 200 mile radius? Or somewhere around that number.

It's just a good place to have those sorts of tourist and recreational destinations.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2824  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2016, 2:08 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
I agree with those who postulate that it may likely be built on the southeast side near the airport, but of course until there is an official announcement and more details it's just speculation.

Logically it makes sense given that we have COTA and the currently under construction Nland Surf Park nearby creating a sort of quasai tourist destination area. That part of Travis County is far from a paradise environment right now, but if these kinds of projects continue to group together, in time it could become a much larger national and international destination transforming a historically impoverished, underutilized and unattractive quadrant of the county.

There are several factors in place that make the area a bullseye. Easy access to ABIA is one. Lots of space which is not in an environmentally sensitive area, and lets be honest really needs improvement anyways. Maybe we could get rid of those rock quaries along the river eventually. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there an old covered landfill somewhere around that area too? Basically it's in need of some TLC and I don't mean the R&B group

It's strategically located with what 20 million people living within a 200 mile radius? Or somewhere around that number.

It's just a good place to have those sorts of tourist and recreational destinations.

I think of Grapevine as an example of how to make a tourist destination out of nothing (with the exception of Grapevine Lake, but most of their things don't really interact with the lake too much). It's close to the airport, at an intersection of a lot of major freeways, etc. I think that this part of Travis County *could* become that, eventually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2825  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2016, 1:25 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,824
I think over the next 30 years there will be more of a migration back to the northern cities as the temperatures rise to a point where it is unsustainable for so many to live in the increasingly hotter southern cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2826  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2016, 6:38 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
I think over the next 30 years there will be more of a migration back to the northern cities as the temperatures rise to a point where it is unsustainable for so many to live in the increasingly hotter southern cities.
You have a good point. Unfortunately at the rate things are going I wouldn't be surprised. I've said I'd always live in Austin for the rest of my life but I'm starting to think it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a small place somewhere up near Seattle or something when I'm in my 60s.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2827  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2016, 6:46 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
The increase in temperature won't really be that noticeable from a "lived" point of view. It's only a few degrees, after all. The real problem is that those slight increases in temperature affect sea levels, which fucks over every town on every coast, and fucks over inland portions of California (Sacramento and Stockton), Louisiana, Florida, Virginia all the way up to D.C. along the river, same for Philadelphia and Trenton, and much of the Hudson River valley in New York all the way up to Albany.

(if a 7 meter rise: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise)

Of the major cities above 1 million in 2044, if there's a 2.5 (let's round that up to 3, b/c of the interactive map's options) meter rise as a quick google search for "sea level rise by 2040" suggests is anticipated regardless of policy changes, these cities would be affected:



Destroyed:

New Orleans
Charleston
Stockton


Majorly Affected:

New York City
Houston
Cape Coral
Hampton Roads
Sacramento
San Francisco
San Jose
Seattle


Affected:

Tampa
Jacksonville
Philadelphia
Boston
San Diego
Providence
Portland
Sarasota
Riverside (inland empire, Indio/Palm Springs area)


Minimally Affected:

Los Angeles
Miami
Orlando
Richmond
D.C.
Baltimore
Hartford
Oxnard



So, no, Seattle and places to the north are not where you want to go. You want to go ... to Austin, oddly, away from the coast where the temperatures are still fine and with a booming economy and green energy attitudes. Austin is primed long-term to be weather the economic externalities of global warming.

If you double that to a 6 meter rise, Sacramento and significantly many more parts of the East Bay are now completely destroyed, Cape Coral is now totally destroyed, Miami goes from workable to a complete disaster area (though not totally destroyed), among others.

And none of this even considers the many smaller cities that are economically significant ports, tourist destinations, or otherwise meaningful cities and will be for the foreseeable future. At a 3m rise, Savannah, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington (both NC and DE, but the latter is a core city of the Philadelphia MSA), Portland (ME), Albany, Panama City, Pensacola, Mobile, Gulfport, Beaumont, Brownsville (and I' sure the effects would be felt in the McAllen/Edinburg area as well), and Olympia.

So not only are there major populated areas that are affected, but there are a significant number of small towns the cumulative population of which is equivalent to a large MSA that would have to be evacuated as well. And this doesn't even get into the broader economic consequences. The central valley of California's inundation and fundamental alteration of water flow patterns would have world wide consequences in food distribution, as that region currently produces a huge 8% (that's an economically important %) of our nation's food output.

Last edited by wwmiv; Feb 13, 2016 at 7:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2828  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2016, 7:31 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,824
Two words: water supply.


And with that the subject should change back to Austin buildings as this page of the thread is about to end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2829  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2016, 6:48 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Of the major cities above 1 million in 2044, if there's a 2.5 (let's round that up to 3, b/c of the interactive map's options) meter rise as a quick google search for "sea level rise by 2040" .....

....If you double that to a 6 meter rise.....
If we get anywhere remotely near a meter rise, let alone 3 or 6 meters, within a few decades, it will be a global catastrophe so profound that all of our thoughts about the future are just nonsense. Take the Syrian refugee crisis and amplify it a couple orders of magnitude, toss in several regional wars, famine, etc. Then top all that with tens of trillions of dollars in emergency infrastructure projects to protect and relocate urban regions. There's a semi-serious proposal to dam the Golden Gate! Imagine the cost of that, but then consider the alternative --- it would be far cheaper to wall off the Pacific at the GG than it would be to accommodate a few feet of sea level rise. And look at the world's great airports, many of them within a couple feet of sea level. I could go on and on listing the casualties of what we've done to our climate.

Also, there has already been a significant increase in heat-related problems in central Texas, and I find it to be quite noticeable. Summers aren't the same as they were in the 90s. And this winter hasn't even happened, it's scary. We depend on hard freezes over periods of days in this region, for preventing the northward spread of tropical pests and invasive species, and we haven't come anywhere near having a decent freeze this year. We're having sustained April weather in February.

Granted, you can't just look at regional weather and say that it's a sign of global warming, and there has been some record cold in various parts of the world this winter. But that's all part of the situation, totally consistent with the havoc that we're causing in the global climate system. I don't think very many people really comprehend how dramatic it is to warm an entire biosphere by a degree, let alone two, three, and beyond. We're only in the very beginning of what's to come. Shit's going to get real, well ahead of the IPCC's overly-cautious and optimistic forecasts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2830  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2016, 2:08 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
Totally agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2831  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2016, 5:36 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
I found an interesting PDF regarding long term climate change specific to Austin which the city released. It was done in 2014 but it's still relevant because the 3 scenarios the article covers have not changed and indeed we are already seeing the changes. I've studied meteorology and long term climate over the years and based on my own thoughts plus close observation, the city hit the hammer right on the nail.

This discussion can be moved to the off topic thread in which I will post up the link but will also post here since it started here for those that may be interested but might not go to the off topic thread. I'll also post my in-depth analysis on some of the take aways from the PDF.

https://austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...s_research.pdf


Getting back to updates, has there been any recent news regarding the lot at 4th and Colorado?
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2832  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2016, 7:25 PM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 360, St. Edwards
Posts: 12,346
The Magdalena

Quote:
This new five-story boutique hotel and residences will sit in the heart of Austin’s hip South Congress District. The 70,000-square-foot hotel offers over a hundred keys with ground floor restaurant, bar, and event space. The initial design concept has divided the hotel into five distinct buildings connected by exterior circulation and courtyards. The client has high sustainability goals, including net zero energy and water. The project will start construction first quarter of 2016.
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2833  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2016, 5:33 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
That site is currently a run down apartment complex that, at least I'm fairly certain, was vacant last time I was in town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2834  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2016, 4:01 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Isn't that also the land that the Austin Opera House used to occupy? Looks like a nice use for it, tucking a hotel back behind the storefronts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2835  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2016, 4:22 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,429
Looks like it will back up to the Hotel St. Cecilia property. Is Liz Lambert involved in this new hotel project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2836  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2016, 4:26 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,429
And the answer to my question is "Yes". I guess maybe this has been discussed earlier somewhere on these threads, but it is news to me. http://www.bunkhousegroup.com/upcoming-projects/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2837  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2016, 4:03 AM
427MM's Avatar
427MM 427MM is offline
Love Austin
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,238
This new four way stop at Waller and E. 6th is amazing! Makes life so much more...possible.



Ah, really love this place



Wow, the Fairmont is going to be quite a treat



From Rainey



From E. Cesar Chavez



The Independent



Alexan--e. 6th (live this side of town!)



And Hook 'em (from the new Gates Complex/Computer Engineering)

__________________
How long will Austinites tolerate NIMBY politicians?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2838  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2016, 4:40 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
Nice!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2839  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2016, 9:25 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Great photos!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2840  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2016, 3:07 AM
claustrum claustrum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 10
The Stateman reports the city's hitting the reboot button on the Seaholm intake facility redesign. Apparently the concern was that the selected design doesn't "respect the architectural integrity of this iconic building".

Quote:
Under city code, that historic designation means that any redevelopment should involve “minimal changes to character defining features and avoid removal or destruction of important features and spaces,” McGee wrote. “They also require that changes be undertaken in a manner that is reversible.”

Among the finalists that residents were invited to vote on last fall, however, one proposal called for a cylindrical stairway in the middle of the building, a roof garden and a boat dock for canoes or paddleboards. The other rendering kept more of the building’s original look, but added a mural wall facing the lake.
No explanation as to why city officials only remembered that the building was on the National Register of Historic Places after the fact...
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 > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:17 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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