U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2008, 05:11 AM
 
Location: Katy, Texas
37 posts, read 23,276 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio View Post
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: (http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2007/03/26/daily41.html - broken link)


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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexHwyMan View Post
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).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2008, 05:23 AM
 
3,219 posts, read 7,990,524 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Koopa View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Katy, Texas
37 posts, read 23,276 times
Reputation: 10
SA isn't twice the size of Austin. SA's metro is at 1.9 million and Austin at 1.6 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 05:56 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
251 posts, read 633,079 times
Reputation: 71
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 06:37 AM
 
Location: NW KCMO 64151
483 posts, read 1,424,547 times
Reputation: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio View Post
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.

Last edited by oldmanshirt; 03-25-2008 at 06:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 08:36 AM
 
2,559 posts, read 5,260,118 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Koopa View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 08:40 AM
 
2,559 posts, read 5,260,118 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Koopa View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 10:54 AM
 
2,559 posts, read 5,260,118 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmanshirt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 11:57 AM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,224,829 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmanshirt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 05:21 PM
 
Location: NW KCMO 64151
483 posts, read 1,424,547 times
Reputation: 103
^^^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??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top