SA metro estimate just shy of 2 million (Houston, Dallas: rail, rating)

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by King Koopa

With how close the cities are (CNN list), for the bottom half, it would make a difference.

How so? All of the cities on the bottom half are either tied for 7th or 8th. If any of them move up one place or two (or even three), it doesn't affect us. Now if someone gets to 9 or 10 Fortune 500s, that would bump us down a notch, but that's about it. In any case, that's not the point. Earlier in this thread, someone said SA didn't have any big companies and someone else said that we only had three Fortune 500 companies. My posting was addressing those misconceptions.

[King Koopa]

SA has five on that list and is tied with seven other cities.

[oldmanshirt]

SA has 6 now, with the addition of NuStar. And TexHwyMan, I wasn't saying earlier that SA has three total, just that it has three F500 energy companies.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

The Milwaukee list says it is a larger metro than San Antonio. It list their region as a metro.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

The Milwaukee list says it is a larger metro than San Antonio. It list their region as a metro.

Good eye. I wasn't even really paying that close attention to the other areas, but yeah, they obviously are fudging the numbers a bit, and I'm not sure why. Their metro is actually only about 1.5 million, so that would give them an even higher per capita number than the "regional" number they cite, unless that "region" includes additional Fortune 500 companies that are not in the official MSA.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

And TexHwyMan, I wasn't saying earlier that SA has three total, just that it has three F500 energy companies.

Touché. After reading 10 pages of posts, that detail got lost.

[schertz1]

Originally Posted by King Koopa

This is for city limits correct, and not metro areas? SA appears to be ranked 20th on the list. Also, if it is outdated for SA, it will be outdated for other cities as well.

Doesn't matter the people you know, it matters how many overall actually commute (percentage). And yes, commuting patterns is really the only thing. If SA and Austin had commuter rail between the two, but still not enough people commuted between both, they would not be considered a CSA.

The fact it is outdated doesn't mean it affects all cities the same. F500 is just that, the largest 500 companies. If someone acquires one, how ever it happens, someone else losses one.

[oldmanshirt]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

Houston-Sugarland will always be a MSA but it can also be looked at as a CSA, for the bigger picture. Do a lot of people commute from Hunstville into Houston? Thats why they make up all these classifications. If San Antonio-New Braunfels-San Marcos-Austin grow more together in the future, they would be considered only a CSA. Never be considered just a MSA but a (Combined) CSA. Still one can break it down and separate the componets and count each separately.

As much as everyone just assumes an SA-Austin CSA is going to happen in the future, based on examples such as Tampa Bay-Orlando (4.7 million combined pop.), San Franciso-Sacramento (what, 6-9 million combined?), and Philly-NYC (28-29 million), I just don't see it happening any time soon. Those three combos that I listed are all roughly 80-something miles apart (just like SA and Austin), and none of them are CSAs with each other. Do their suburbs bump up against each other? Sure, except maybe in the case of SF-Sac. Do people intercommute between the two? Most definitely. But their urban and cultural centers are just too far apart to be considered one interconnected region. And actually, if my mental map is working, the CSAs of each are in the opposite geographic direction from each other (or at least 90 degrees difference). There's actually a metro of 560,000 in between Tampa-St. Pete-Clearwater and Orlando-Kissimmee, and it's completely separated from both by the census bureau. If a Tampa-Lakeland-Orlando CSA doesn't work, then I really don't see how an SA-Austin-San Marcos CSA is supposed to. In case you need one more example, St. Joseph and Topeka both have about 120,000 people and are both about 50 miles from downtown Kansas City, and neither of them are CSAs with KC.

What is much more realistic is that Kerrville will eventually be combined with SA to form an SA-NB-Kerrville CSA. In fact, I'd put my money on Pearsall passing 10k and becoming a CSA with SA before we'll be seeing SA-Austin

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

San Antonio and Austin have more of a relationship with each other than Tampa-Bay-Orlando or San Francisco-Sactown. These cities you mentioned all have their own sports teams and have more of a separate identity. The city governments have to want such a relationship, and both San Antonio and Austin seem to moving in that direction. Downtown-SA is 72 miles from dT AUstin. but urbanized area between them both is maybe 20-30 minutes apart now. I think in 20-30 years it will be labeled more than just Austin-San Antonio corridor.

I don;t think the cities you mentioned have any councils like the Austin-S.A-Corridor Council.

San Antonio, Austin will be the next Texas Metroplex, poll shows - San Antonio Business Journal:


Orlampa. Orlando-Tampa? They mention San Antonio and Austin.

The New Orlando: Orlampa -- The middle of somewhere -- Economy, Business and Finance, Interstate 4, University of Florida -- OrlandoSentinel.com

[King Koopa]

Originally Posted by schertz1

The fact it is outdated doesn't mean it affects all cities the same. F500 is just that, the largest 500 companies. If someone acquires one, how ever it happens, someone else losses one.

Of course it doesn't affect all cities the same, but you never know what is happening in the other cities. You can't just say it is outdated for San Antonio.