Forbes: Austin is #1 on the "Next Big Boom Towns" list (Spring: how much, to buy)

[texastrigirl]

Austin has been booming since the 90's. It's scary to me that it's still rated a boomtown. Enough already. It's to be utterly ruined with too much more growth too fast. I already couldn't believe the sprawl my last visit back.

[sagewithaflaw]

The article's title is a bit misleading if you think of "boom town" in the traditional sense of the word, as in towns of the California Gold Rush, where there was nothing and then they suddenly became robust cities. Austin really has been "booming" for decades. Actually, all of the big
cities of Texas have seen impressive growth in the last decade. From the 2000 to 2010 census, Dallas metro overtook Philly to become the 4th largest metro area and Houston has nearly passed Philly as well, and will soon take the #5 spot, if it hasn't already. The growth in the biggest metro areas -- New York, L.A., Chicago, & Philly - over the last decade has been 3-5% while Dallas & Houston grew by 25-28%. And the Greater Austin area's growth was 37% in the last decade. That is rather remarkable. In terms of individual city populations, Houston is still #4, Philly #5, and Dallas #9.

And of course there is the recent statistic that 37% of all U.S. jobs created in the last 2 years were in Texas - seems like a good time to be in the Lone Star State. I recently moved back to Phoenix but who knows, I might
be back in the near future...

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by texastrigirl

Austin has been booming since the 90's. It's scary to me that it's still rated a boomtown. Enough already. It's to be utterly ruined with too much more growth too fast. I already couldn't believe the sprawl my last visit back.

People said the same thing about Seattle in the late eighties.

[texastrigirl]

I'm not sure what Seattle has to do with this. But for comparison, Austin is far more a boomtown than Seattle in this decade.

Here's Austin's growth stats per Wikipedia which I believe came from the US Census page. It's just for Austin proper but that data goes all the way back to 1850 if you want it.

1960 186,545 40.8%
1970 251,808 35.0%
1980 345,496 37.2%
1990 472,020 36.6%
2000 656,562 39.1%
2010 790,390 20.4%


Here's Seattle. Quite a difference in % terms. In fact, Austin proper is bigger than Seattle proper. I learn something new every day!

1960 557,087 19.1%
1970 530,831 −4.7%
1980 493,846 −7.0%
1990 516,259 4.5%
2000 563,374 9.1%
2010 608,660 8.0%

[twange]

Meh...This forum has been filled with thousands of posts about the "end of days" here in Austin since before I moved here over 4 years ago. Simple choice: want to live in a city that's going up or down? Those are the only choices, there is no stasis. The argument and discussion should be about the ways in which Austin is growing (and what can or can't be done about that) not if it should continue to grow. As long as the U.S. population continues to expand, so will its cities. That is a cold reality. I personally hate the way most of America has turned into one long strip mall. It really doesn't have to be that way. It's just lazy.

As for the term "boomtown", it's incorrectly used for Austin, just like another poster mentioned earlier. Boomtowns are usually tied to a singular resource that eventually dries up causing the town to "bust" (i.e. gold, tourism etc...) Austin is a bit too diversified already for this to happen. The tech -growth in the 1980s might have been seen as this but has proven to be a viable part of Austin's economy. In the long-term, all cities can be viewed as boomtowns, ebbing and flowing through economic and population shift cycles. Look at the Great Lakes: for 150 years, those towns were epic in their production of jobs and manufacturing. Those cities have been dying because they failed to adapt to changing times. That will happen to Austin as well if it stubbornly refuses to adapt. By adapting, I do not mean sprawl. The 21st century city is built upon a diverse economy and a vibrant city center with a multitude of housing options and a focus on sustainable development and respect for natural resources.

It's still pretty damn nice here, not sure where the idea of "ruination" comes from. As people change and grow, their view of places change. Sometimes we need to move on to a new place that suits our current needs. Perfectly normal, I think.

On the other hand, this quote from Steinbeck comes to mind:

"I wonder why progress looks so much like destruction?"

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by texastrigirl

I'm not sure what Seattle has to do with this. But for comparison, Austin is far more a boomtown than Seattle in this decade.

Here's Austin's growth stats per Wikipedia which I believe came from the US Census page. It's just for Austin proper but that data goes all the way back to 1850 if you want it.

1960 186,545 40.8%
1970 251,808 35.0%
1980 345,496 37.2%
1990 472,020 36.6%
2000 656,562 39.1%
2010 790,390 20.4%


Here's Seattle. Quite a difference in % terms. In fact, Austin proper is bigger than Seattle proper. I learn something new every day!

1960 557,087 19.1%
1970 530,831 −4.7%
1980 493,846 −7.0%
1990 516,259 4.5%
2000 563,374 9.1%
2010 608,660 8.0%

What it has to do with it is that every place changes and for many locales that includes growth. Many earlier residents lament the change. My point is that you LOVE Seattle now that you have moved there, but there are many long time residents there that are decrying the changes/growth and say that it has become unrecognizable to them. I know because I am one of those old time residents that ended up moving because I didn't like the changes.

[sagewithaflaw]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

What it has to do with it is that every place changes and for many locales that includes growth. Many earlier residents lament the change. My point is that you LOVE Seattle now that you have moved there, but there are many long time residents there that are decrying the changes/growth and say that it has become unrecognizable to them. I know because I am one of those old time residents that ended up moving because I didn't like the changes.

There will always be the segment of people who lament a city or region's growth - like twange said, nothing stays static. And there are those who will make the decision to leave an area that has become too congested, too expensive (happens to many Californians) & decide somewhere else is better - I know a lot of parents with families decide to leave based on quality of life factor for their children (schools, etc). But I think the vast majority base their moves on economic decisions - for instance, the mass exodus of people from Detroit and other industrial/Great Lakes cities was due to loss of jobs & an inability to support themselves or their family, not because the winters were too rough.

Seattle's growth spurt was spurned by economics too - the heydays and rise of Microsoft, Amazon, AT&T, etc. The growth there has plateaued somewhat, just like many other big cities like New York, LA, Chicago, etc. because it's become saturated. Even though the city of Austin has outgrown the city of Seattle, the Seattle metro area still has 2x the population of the Greater Austin area.

With the country's economic and employment struggles in the last few years, people are flocking to where the jobs are, where the economy is more stable, and where the housing market is favorable. Right now, this happens to be Texas. It may or may not be favorable in the long run - but I think things like job prospects & housing trump concerns over the perceived trendiness or entertainment options when it comes to the average individual or family's priorities on deciding to move. Certainly, quality of life issues factor in to every decision - no even sure what point I'm trying to make anymore - I guess I just see the last few decades of growth in Texas due to economic reasons rather than disgruntled folks moving away from their areas mainly because they didn't like local change. Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety/security come before anything else.

[twange]

Originally Posted by sagewithaflaw

Certainly, quality of life issues factor in to every decision - no even sure what point I'm trying to make anymore - I guess I just see the last few decades of growth in Texas due to economic reasons rather than disgruntled folks moving away from their areas mainly because they didn't like local change. Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety/security come before anything else.

Agreed. I moved to Austin for two reasons: We wanted a change in lifestyle and we wanted to advance our careers (for us, those two things are interdependent on each other). The fact that Austin is "hip" wasn't really a determining factor, although it is nice that people seem to think of Austin as a favorable place to live and I like the city's vibrancy even if I'm not into all of the party stuff going on downtown. Being from Cleveland, I'm not really used to people speaking favorably about my city It seems like every time I turn around, something new is happening. I like that, keeps me paying attention.

It took me a long time to leave Ohio. I felt very guilty, like I was just contributing to its problems by leaving. But the truth is, I couldn't advance myself professionally by staying. That's why most people move. Now and always.

[buffettjr]

Originally Posted by eepstein

Austinite's tax dollars at work! And which is the only college town on this list?

Can someone help me understand how tax dollars work to get our city posted on top 10 lists in magazines? I've seen this claimed a lot. Thanks.

[eepstein]

The job creation stats are a bit misleading. Yes, Texas did create more jobs than any other state, but the VAST MAJORITY of those jobs are minimum or lower wage jobs. With regards to mid and high level paying jobs, Texas didn't do any better overall than many other southern/western states.

Originally Posted by sagewithaflaw

The article's title is a bit misleading if you think of "boom town" in the traditional sense of the word, as in towns of the California Gold Rush, where there was nothing and then they suddenly became robust cities. Austin really has been "booming" for decades. Actually, all of the big
cities of Texas have seen impressive growth in the last decade. From the 2000 to 2010 census, Dallas metro overtook Philly to become the 4th largest metro area and Houston has nearly passed Philly as well, and will soon take the #5 spot, if it hasn't already. The growth in the biggest metro areas -- New York, L.A., Chicago, & Philly - over the last decade has been 3-5% while Dallas & Houston grew by 25-28%. And the Greater Austin area's growth was 37% in the last decade. That is rather remarkable. In terms of individual city populations, Houston is still #4, Philly #5, and Dallas #9.

And of course there is the recent statistic that 37% of all U.S. jobs created in the last 2 years were in Texas - seems like a good time to be in the Lone Star State. I recently moved back to Phoenix but who knows, I might
be back in the near future...