Do you find Austin to be overrated? (Houston, Dallas: home, organic)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by ToddATX

The numbers aren't that different.

70's +89,699
80's +120,609
90's +164,147
00's +117,475
10's to date +110,311

But the growth is all PROPORTIONAL, and in fact slower than they were in the past. Which means the amount of infrastructure needed has not changed. If you add 35% population (which is basically what was added in each of the 70s, 80s and 90s) then you need infrastructure to ALSO increase 35% to accommodate for the same quality of life. You need that same percentage more housing.

These people aren't coming here taking things away. More people means more electricians and plumbers and teachers, and police, and firemen, and everything else. It's more opportunity for small businesses to open and be successful, and as the city really grows and gets larger population then it also becomes more interesting for big business because it begins to have a big enough population to support a skilled workforce. And we have an especially skilled workforce, having the number 1 public university in the state present here.

So by your admission we have grown more in 6 years than in the whole of the 70's?

[ToddATX]

Originally Posted by cBach

Exactly. Percentage growth is a poor indicator when a town is small. You need to look at actual numerical increases and then you see how much Austin really is growing.

I covered that above. But actually it's not a poor indicator, and just plain numbers show the same thing. But it's just as hard for a city of 250k to accommodate an extra 90k residents (what happened in the 70s) as it is for a city of 465k to accommodate an extre 164k (the 90s) or a city of 650k to accommodate an extra 117k (the 00's). All of them require more roads, housing, social support (hospitals, police, fire, etc) as the rest. Numbers and percentages are absolutely what matters, it's what city planners use to accommodate for their growth.

Now, in some areas (our roads in particular), Austin has (intentionally) done a very poor job of planning for and executing accommodating that influx of people. But it's not because any more people have moved here. And it's not because the growth is not sustainable. It's just that our city leadership has been sh1te at handling it, for a variety of reasons.

So, is traffic worse then it was in the 70's/80's? Sure. You know where else it's worse? Every other major city anywhere. Houston. Dallas. All of them. And even then, our traffic even right now today, is no worse than them. Our traffic is actually much better than either Houston or Dallas.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by cBach

Exactly. Percentage growth is a poor indicator when a town is small. You need to look at actual numerical increases and then you see how much Austin really is growing.

Percentage growth is the only appropriate way to look at it.


And it's the only way that accurately measures the effects and challenges of that growth.


Yes, Liberty Hill could double it's population with a smaller absolute number of people.

And that doubling of population would totally change the feel of liberty hill. A lot more than the measly 17% growth of Austin in the 00's changed Austin.



Heck, take _half_ the absolute numerical growth of Austin in the 00s and drop it in the middle of Liberty Hill. Things would come to a standstill. And it would completely lose whatever small town feel it has.


Yet you would claim that 60x growth would be slower growth than Austin

[ToddATX]

Originally Posted by cBach

So by your admission we have grown more in 6 years than in the whole of the 70's?

# of people? Sure. Proportoinally? No. It's MUCH easier for a city of almost 800k people to take in another 110k than it is for a city of 251,000 to take in another 90k.

[ToddATX]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Heck, take _half_ the absolute numerical growth of Austin in the 00s and drop it in the middle of Liberty Hill. Things would come to a standstill. And it would completely lose whatever small town feel it has.


Yet you would claim that 60x growth would be slower growth than Austin

This guy gets it. It's not a hard concept.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Percentage growth is the only appropriate way to look at it.


And it's the only way that accurately measures the effects and challenges of that growth.


Yes, Liberty Hill could double it's population with a smaller absolute number of people.

And that doubling of population would totally change the feel of liberty hill. A lot more than the measly 17% growth of Austin in the 00's changed Austin.



Heck, take _half_ the absolute numerical growth of Austin in the 00s and drop it in the middle of Liberty Hill. Things would come to a standstill. And it would completely lose whatever small town feel it has.


Yet you would claim that 60x growth would be slower growth than Austin

let's turn it around the other way.

Since the last census, Austin has added 141k people (estimated).

NYC has added 375k

Which of those is having this conversation? Is NYC having a existential crisis about all this growth "changing the city"?

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

I don't think Austin is over rated. But thats just my opinion. I think it all depends on your expectations of Austin. I think Austin is over priced, but I also think its one of the most beautiful cities in the nation.

Austin is a very well kept town. Everywhere you go, it seems to be spruced up. Austin is a good city to just go out and drive around in. I love driving down Congress Avenue, and South First, and Lamar. About 2 or 3 Monday afternoons ago, I took a drive around Austin I got on Congress at Wm Cannon, took Congress to 6th Street, took 6th to Lamar, Lamar to 2222 west, 2222 to 620, 620 to 71, 71 to Wm Cannon in Oak Hill, Wm Cannon to South 1st, and back to my place. It was a beautiful day and a very nice leisure drive.

Another thing that really stands out about Austin, the people are so genuinely nice and friendly and polite and well-mannered, seems nearly everybody is easy to make idle chit chat with and the people love to be helpful. I don't remember the last time I ran across a rude person in Austin. That tells me that most people in Austin are happy to be in Austin.

The only things Austin lacks that most big cities have is a zoo and professional sports, but it's just a matter of time until Austin, or Austin Metro, has a good zoo and a couple of professional sports teams.

I'm very happy to be in Austin. I'm glad I got here when I did when things were still relatively cheap. I got my place paid for so I don't have to pay rent, just property taxes, about 1200 $$ a year. I'd never be afford rent in Austin today if I was having to rent.

[Denver303TJC]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Another thing that really stands out about Austin, the people are so genuinely nice and friendly and polite and well-mannered, seems nearly everybody is easy to make idle chit chat with and the people love to be helpful. I don't remember the last time I ran across a rude person in Austin. That tells me that most people in Austin are happy to be in Austin.

True, I think people are nice overall. I've been here a year and I truly only met a couple snarky and rude people, and those were both bartenders at dive bars. So, to me, that's a pretty good record of good versus bad. I think here and my hometown of Denver have a lot of friendly people, so it's not surprising to hear people call them sister cities, which is definitely good. I'm a contractor at a big tech company, so I meet people with big egos, but that will happen in any city, so I don't think it takes away from Austin.

[ToddATX]

But again that is just life. Yes, it's larger and more congested. You know who else is? Every other major city. I grew up in Houston in the 80's and early 90's. What used to be miles of giant, old woods I would drive through is now concrete everywhere. It's changed. Everywhere changes. That's life. Cities either grow or they die, you can't hold this stasis of "THIS" and no more.

And what made Austin great then still exists. In different ways, and different proportions, and with new challenges, but it's still here. It's just you not wanting change or growth. Well, it's happening everywhere. That's life. Those who learn to adapt are more able to enjoy it.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Percentage growth is the only appropriate way to look at it.


And it's the only way that accurately measures the effects and challenges of that growth.


Yes, Liberty Hill could double it's population with a smaller absolute number of people.

And that doubling of population would totally change the feel of liberty hill. A lot more than the measly 17% growth of Austin in the 00's changed Austin.



Heck, take _half_ the absolute numerical growth of Austin in the 00s and drop it in the middle of Liberty Hill. Things would come to a standstill. And it would completely lose whatever small town feel it has.


Yet you would claim that 60x growth would be slower growth than Austin

I agree with this mostly. If Liberty Hill doubled in population that would be a substantial change, no doubt about it, and larger cities can absorb population growth more easily.

I think I was referring to the amount of land consumed by the sprawl that is Austin. More raw people equals greater sprawl. So to the "eye" it appears the growth is faster. If Liberty Hill doubled it would definitely impact the streets, etc... but you could still visibly see it's not that big. But Liberty Hill doubling has much less an impact than Austin growing 100K in a half decade.