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.
Earlier in the thread, its growth was compared to Seattle by another poster.
Lots of cities are growing all around the country....if you picked Seattle out of the hat to construct an analogy with Austin, safe to say you're assuming peer status.
Portland wouldn't be a peer of Austin either, for similar reasons as Seattle.
Growth is a very specific metric. On a percentage basis Austin is the fastest growing major US metro over the last 10,20,30,40 years.
Austin is comparable to Seattle if the topic is very fast growth, and in fact it outpaces Seattle on a relative basis. As a city overall, no Austin is not a peer of Seattle and I'm surprised that needs to be said.
From wiki: Austin metro population growth
1930 77,777 35.0%
1940 111,053 42.8%
1950 160,980 45.0%
1960 301,261 87.1%
1970 398,938 32.4%
1980 585,051 46.7%
1990 846,227 44.6%
2000 1,249,763 47.7%
2010 1,716,289 37.3%
Est. 2019 2,227,083 29.8%
Growth is a very specific metric. On a percentage basis Austin is the fastest growing major US metro over the last 10,20,30,40 years.
Austin is comparable to Seattle if the topic is very fast growth, and in fact it outpaces Seattle on a relative basis. As a city overall, no Austin is not a peer of Seattle and I'm surprised that needs to be said.
From wiki: Austin metro population growth
1930 77,777 35.0%
1940 111,053 42.8%
1950 160,980 45.0%
1960 301,261 87.1%
1970 398,938 32.4%
1980 585,051 46.7%
1990 846,227 44.6%
2000 1,249,763 47.7%
2010 1,716,289 37.3%
Est. 2019 2,227,083 29.8%
So given those numbers, why pick Seattle to compare to?
Seattle lost population in the 1970's and 1980's! As a metro, Seattle's biggest % changes happened in the 60's and are nowhere near Austin's % changes.
Las Vegas, OKC, Columbus....would all have been much more accurate analogies for population growth with Austin, but thats not the peer group boosters are aiming for so we don't see it on here!
So given those numbers, why pick Seattle to compare to?
Seattle lost population in the 1970's and 1980's! As a metro, Seattle's biggest % changes happened in the 60's and are nowhere near Austin's % changes.
Las Vegas, OKC, Columbus....would all have been much more accurate analogies for population growth with Austin, but thats not the peer group boosters are aiming for so we don't see it on here!
I never brought up Seattle in this thread, so I'm not sure what to say to that. OKC and Columbus do not compare to Austin in growth whatsoever for the record. Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte might be better comparisons. Anyway the point is that Austin has grown extremely fast. That's a fact, not hype.
Earlier in the thread, its growth was compared to Seattle by another poster.
Lots of cities are growing all around the country....if you picked Seattle out of the hat to construct an analogy with Austin, safe to say you're assuming peer status.
Portland wouldn't be a peer of Austin either, for similar reasons as Seattle.
Not at all. If I'm comparing Zion to Lebrons early years, it does not mean I think Zion is Lebron's peer right now.
The analogy is "wow, a lot of people hate Zion right now. Did Lebron get this much hate when he was younger?"'
I don't think even the most ardent Austin booster has said that Austin was Seattle. Columbus and Vegas, absolutely. Nobody thinks Austin is tier 1, that's just a fight you're looking to find, although you've never been to Austin yourself right?
Not at all. If I'm comparing Zion to Lebrons early years, it does not mean I think Zion is Lebron's peer right now.
The analogy is "wow, a lot of people hate Zion right now. Did Lebron get this much hate when he was younger?"'
I don't think even the most ardent Austin booster has said that Austin was Seattle. Columbus and Vegas, absolutely. Nobody thinks Austin is tier 1, that's just a fight you're looking to find, although you've never been to Austin yourself right?
A teenage NBA wonder and an "up and coming" city that has already been a city for 180 years that only just now is getting noticed because of a convention?
A teenage NBA wonder and an "up and coming" city that has already been a city for 180 years that only just now is getting noticed because of a convention?
I never brought up Seattle in this thread, so I'm not sure what to say to that. OKC and Columbus do not compare to Austin in growth whatsoever for the record. Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte might be better comparisons. Anyway the point is that Austin has grown extremely fast. That's a fact, not hype.
You didn't bring up Seattle (someone else did), but you did support the notion that they have comparable growth.
Austin is only just now getting into the major metro conversation, a place Seattle has been for decades and decades.
My point is not to dispute Austin growth, that is indisputable.
When there is a whole slate of metros available that Austin's growth numbers compare to and someone skips right to Seattle, I think we can all see what the underlying motivation for that is.
Alot of the mid-majors view Austin as a very staunch rival, so auto hate. Texans hate it because it's pretty liberal, even the governor, who attended UT, mentions it. It's grown so fast in the last 20 years, I think a lot of citizens of other cities are jealous.
I’ve heard you say Texans hate Austin, that’s a lie. I feel like you say this because Austin is supposed to be this “sanctuary” for West coast liberals in a sea of Red. Texans don’t generally hate other Texas cities specifically major cities believe it or not. Even Houston and Dallas tension is more rooted in friendly rivalry than an actual disdain for the other. Now I do think some Texans dislike the snobbish transplants that move to Austin and have some outdated perspective of cities outside of Austin. But Texas is a pretty unified state for the most part including Austin. Nice try non Texan!
Austin does not now have an MLS team playing. The OKC Thunder are an established NBA franchise. Even if Austin had MLS right now (they don't), NBA is a way bigger deal.
I understand Austin boosters like to think of the city being a peer to major coastal cities but in reality, OKC is a much more realistic comparison.
First of all, the OKC Thunder is a team that should be in Seattle right now.
Second, you can say "playing" all you want, but Austin now has a major pro sports team.
Finally, I'm not from Austin and I don't pump it up to be more than what it is, but this ain't 1995. Oklahoma City DOES NOT compare to Austin anymore and the gap is widening.
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.
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.
