SA metro estimate just shy of 2 million (San Antonio, Austin: 2009, condo)

[King Koopa]

Originally Posted by 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

Different sports teams don't have anything to do with it. The Bay Area (7 million) and Sacramento (2.1 million), along with the Stockton and Modesto metro areas are all growing together. BART is used as a commuter system for these areas, and there already are commuter lines serving the areas, too.

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

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.

Milwaukee is only half an hour away from the sprawl of Chicagoland (9.5 million).

[imaterry78259]

Originally Posted by King Koopa

SA has more buildings downtown than Corpus (as it should). Compare: SA: Buildings of San Antonio Corpus: Buildings of Corpus Christi And for fun, Austin: Buildings of Austin

Sa is 5 times the size of CC and twice the size of Austin. Philly used be sort of a low rise city until the bldg boom started in the 90's. Sa lets get the ball rolling

[King Koopa]

SA isn't twice the size of Austin. SA's metro is at 1.9 million and Austin at 1.6 million.

[NEsananto]

City wise SA is twice the size of Austin and in metro, it's slowly increasing to being back to 500K more than the Austin metro. 1.6 million verses the current 2 to 2.03 million and with BRAC, that change will only increase.

[oldmanshirt]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

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

I wouldn't put too much stock in that article. After all, they mention the "Texas Triangle" of Dallas-Houston-Austin, when its obvious just from looking at a map that the points of the triangle are Dallas-Houston-SA. And as far as megaregions go, you potentially have two in TX, with an SA-Austin-Kileen-Waco-DFW corridor along I-35, and an I-10 corridor stretching from Houston to New Orleans. There's just too much empty space separating Houston from SA and DFW to call it a "megaregion".

And how can the writer of that article base I-4 corridor projections on experiences people have had with the SA-Austin corridor when Comal and Hays counties combined aren't even half the population of Polk county (Lakeland)?? It just doesn't make sense, and I can't envision a scenario in which there would be an SA-Austin CSA before there is an "Orlampa" CSA.

And these claims of "SA is twice as big as Austin" go completely against the nature of this thread. It's metro population that's important! And in terms of metro, Austin is gaining on SA, at a rate of 20k-30k per year (2007 census estimates I believe have Austin going from 1,512,000 to 1,598,000 and SA from 1,942,000 to 1,990,000 between 2006 to 2007). Luckily for SA, it's economy is much more diversified than Austin's, and thus experiences steady growth instead of boom and bust, so I doubt we'll be seeing Austin pass SA any time soon. But as of now, they're growing faster.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by King Koopa

SA isn't twice the size of Austin. SA's metro is at 1.9 million and Austin at 1.6 million.

urbanized area almost twice, but 600,000 more people in area.
Metro area wise about 400,000.

Bexar county has more people than entire Austin 5 county metro area.City wise Over 1.3 million mostly within 300 sq miles(total city:408sq miles new undeveloped south side annexed land) square miles of city limits compared to Austins 709,000 250 square miles. The size difference shows in urban area not 50 miles away out in BFE.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by King Koopa

Different sports teams don't have anything to do with it. The Bay Area (7 million) and Sacramento (2.1 million), along with the Stockton and Modesto metro areas are all growing together. BART is used as a commuter system for these areas, and there already are commuter lines serving the areas, too.

Milwaukee is only half an hour away from the sprawl of Chicagoland (9.5 million).

They still don't show any indication that they want to merge like S.A and Austin. Sports teams is just an example.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

I wouldn't put too much stock in that article. After all, they mention the "Texas Triangle" of Dallas-Houston-Austin, when its obvious just from looking at a map that the points of the triangle are Dallas-Houston-SA. And as far as megaregions go, you potentially have two in TX, with an SA-Austin-Kileen-Waco-DFW corridor along I-35, and an I-10 corridor stretching from Houston to New Orleans. There's just too much empty space separating Houston from SA and DFW to call it a "megaregion".

And how can the writer of that article base I-4 corridor projections on experiences people have had with the SA-Austin corridor when Comal and Hays counties combined aren't even half the population of Polk county (Lakeland)?? It just doesn't make sense, and I can't envision a scenario in which there would be an SA-Austin CSA before there is an "Orlampa" CSA.

And these claims of "SA is twice as big as Austin" go completely against the nature of this thread. It's metro population that's important! And in terms of metro, Austin is gaining on SA, at a rate of 20k-30k per year (2007 census estimates I believe have Austin going from 1,512,000 to 1,598,000 and SA from 1,942,000 to 1,990,000 between 2006 to 2007). Luckily for SA, it's economy is much more diversified than Austin's, and thus experiences steady growth instead of boom and bust, so I doubt we'll be seeing Austin pass SA any time soon. But as of now, they're growing faster.

The working relationship between both cities of forming together is more active than that of any other region. Again you don't see a orlando-tampa corridor council or or Orlando-Tampa intermunicipal rail district. This region seems to be working towards it more than any other region. And becasue of this no matter what region has more people in between isn't the determing factor.

[ryneone]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

I wouldn't put too much stock in that article. After all, they mention the "Texas Triangle" of Dallas-Houston-Austin, when its obvious just from looking at a map that the points of the triangle are Dallas-Houston-SA. And as far as megaregions go, you potentially have two in TX, with an SA-Austin-Kileen-Waco-DFW corridor along I-35, and an I-10 corridor stretching from Houston to New Orleans. There's just too much empty space separating Houston from SA and DFW to call it a "megaregion".

And how can the writer of that article base I-4 corridor projections on experiences people have had with the SA-Austin corridor when Comal and Hays counties combined aren't even half the population of Polk county (Lakeland)?? It just doesn't make sense, and I can't envision a scenario in which there would be an SA-Austin CSA before there is an "Orlampa" CSA.

And these claims of "SA is twice as big as Austin" go completely against the nature of this thread. It's metro population that's important! And in terms of metro, Austin is gaining on SA, at a rate of 20k-30k per year (2007 census estimates I believe have Austin going from 1,512,000 to 1,598,000 and SA from 1,942,000 to 1,990,000 between 2006 to 2007). Luckily for SA, it's economy is much more diversified than Austin's, and thus experiences steady growth instead of boom and bust, so I doubt we'll be seeing Austin pass SA any time soon. But as of now, they're growing faster.

Agreed but you numbers are a tad off. For the 2006 population they grew a little more than 4,000 and for 2005 it was around 7,000 yes they are gaining just slowly.

[oldmanshirt]

^^^I'm not following. Are you saying Austin grew by 4k between 06-05 and 7k between 04-05, or that they outgrew SA by that many people in those years? Or something else??