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 04-05-2007, 04:13 PM
 
244 posts, read 1,017,152 times
Reputation: 199

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
No, because you have cities like New York and Chicago whose premier living oppurtunities are within the city limits. Houston is focusing on making this a trend as well, as some of its suburbs are aged.
I could say the same thing about San Antonio. Due to a lack of suburban cities, premier living (or only living, for that matter) are within city limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:13 PM
 
443 posts, read 1,359,021 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongHornGuy86 View Post
mpope, I think it's a mistake to dismiss metro population growth and just look at the growth of cities. In SA, for instance, since there are no suburbs, growth will mostly be within city limits. But in Dallas and Houston, satellite cities such as Katy or Frisco, may attract people coming to the area.

So I think that this gives an accurate representation of of city growth.
I agree, I think metro growth is as important as city growth, or should i say metro is even more important. A growing metro is healthier rather than just city limit. We don't want a very congested SA, population should be scattered in its immediate neighboring cities and towns and suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,591,271 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
The census can do what it wants to, but it still means nothing. You have to identify the city alone. You keep mentioning the area. I don't care about the area. I was talking about the city. Metro says nothing for a city's worth. At one point in time, L.A.'s metro was greater than N.Y.'s, but we all know what city has more power. Atlanta's metro is bigger than San Fransisco's, but the City of San Fransisco has more worth and more world points than the City of Atlanta. World class businesses and foundations look at the actual city populations because it says more about what a city can do for itself, rather than its surrounding area. But nevermind me. That was just my two cent. Ignore me lol.
Los Angeles' metro (and city) have never been larger than NYC. World class businesses do not look at the city. Atlanta's metro may be larger, but San Francisco's metro does not include San Jose. The commuting patterns are not enough for it. Now, there are enough commuters to consider the Bay Area a CSA. When you do, it out numbers Atlanta's CSA by two million.

Also, you will find it hard to believe how close Los Angeles is to NYC in world importance. A little quick fact, both are ranked on the same level according to the Global Cities Rank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:15 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,755,024 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongHornGuy86 View Post
I'm not so sure I follow, mpope. I'd say not a city's numeric population, but a city's educated population says what it can do for itself. Hmmm, maybe that is why San Antonio is only the fourth fastest growing city in Texas, even though population wise it is second.
I totally agree with you on that, LongHorn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Here
10,864 posts, read 11,904,421 times
Reputation: 5981
Houston saw a major surge due to Katrina evacuees settling down there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,591,271 times
Reputation: 206
Yeah, about 100,000. That is it. DFW saw some as well, and Atlanta saw 80,000. The article said there there is only about 120,000 Katrina evacuees in Texas as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:18 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,755,024 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
Los Angeles' metro (and city) have never been larger than NYC. World class businesses do not look at the city. Atlanta's metro may be larger, but San Francisco's metro does not include San Jose. The commuting patterns are not enough for it. Now, there are enough commuters to consider the Bay Area a CSA. When you do, it out numbers Atlanta's CSA by two million.

Also, you will find it hard to believe how close Los Angeles is to NYC in world importance. A little quick fact, both are ranked on the same level according to the Global Cities Rank.
Oh, but we're not talking about San Jose. Remember, we're talking about what the census said. San Fransisco metro. And yes sir, in 1990 the Los Angeles metro was larger than the New York metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,591,271 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
Oh, but we're not talking about San Jose. Remember, we're talking about what the census said. San Fransisco metro. And yes sir, in 1990 the Los Angeles metro was larger than the New York metro.
The census also said that San Jose is in San Francisco's CSA. Once commuting patterns continue to rise between San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose, expecit the Census to include San Jose in SF's-Oakland's MSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:24 PM
 
244 posts, read 1,017,152 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
I totally agree with you on that, LongHorn.
The reason why is because Dallas especially, and Houston are home to many large corporations, and in the case of Dallas, companies keep relocating there. San Antonio has a few, but I think San Antonio's location left it out of the loop when it came to attracting big business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2007, 04:31 PM
 
777 posts, read 3,394,790 times
Reputation: 378
It is much more relevant to look at metro areas rather than cities when determining size and growth. San Antonio as a city is in the top 10, but the metro area is about 30th. That reflects zoning and ability to annex land, and more established places have to grow outside smaller core areas. Again, when corporations (and, yes, pro sports franchises) look at areas, they weigh TV markets and metro growth, not arbitrary city limit lines.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:30 PM.

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