What could or could not elevate these metros to reach 4-5 mil? (rates, crime)
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.
Because I thought your premise was Austin’s growth was on the verge of being choked off by congestion. If that wasn’t your point, ignore.
I think his point from the start was that if traffic is bad at current densities what will it be like when the density doubles.
I think he detailed that well in that post.
I have made the point myself also.
Building further and further out doesn't help either. It just places people on highways longer.
Building new employment nodes doesn't help much either.
I have also made the point that the draw of Austin is that is not DFW and Houston. Creating an expansive metro will be Creating what it has been purporting to resist for decades
I think his point from the start was that if traffic is bad at current densities what will it be like when the density doubles.
I think he detailed that well in that post.
I have made the point myself also.
Building further and further out doesn't help either. It just places people on highways longer.
Building new employment nodes doesn't help much either.
I have also made the point that the draw of Austin is that is not DFW and Houston. Creating an expansive metro will be Creating what it has been purporting to resist for decades
Its a very confusing endgame.
As of today, Austin is pretty much a glorified Columbus (except Columbus is considerably denser).
Austin's slate of skyscrapers shows they are gunning for DFW and Houston with regards to being a corporate powerhouse.
You had significant complaining about congestion at times when Austin was Dakotas/New Mexico level density.
I'm seeing a similar trajectory as San Antonio-a city disproportionately large within a middling metro. I predict this because the city seems incredibly popular and the suburbs much less so. Living "only 20 minutes from downtown Austin" doesn't seem like its going to cut it for people who like this area.
I think his point from the start was that if traffic is bad at current densities what will it be like when the density doubles.
I think he detailed that well in that post.
I have made the point myself also.
Building further and further out doesn't help either. It just places people on highways longer.
Building new employment nodes doesn't help much either.
I have also made the point that the draw of Austin is that is not DFW and Houston. Creating an expansive metro will be Creating what it has been purporting to resist for decades
I don't understand why you are speaking about this as a hypothetical? They are literally building massive semiconductor factories in Taylor, TX. Elon Musk's companies are investing heavily between Del Valle and Bastrop. Netflix and Disney are building large facilities in San Marcos and Bastrop. The Domain / North Burnet area is adding a bunch of 300'+ high rises. There are new Domain-like developments popping up all over the metro (e.g. this sort of thing on Riverside). Etc, etc...
You'll see high densities downtown, by the university, and in some TOD areas on the rail lines, but the most growth will come from sprawling out, certainly. The only cities that avoid growing that way are the ones with geographical limitations or strict urban growth boundaries (which we definitely won't ever have in Texas).
I don't understand why you are speaking about this as a hypothetical? They are literally building massive semiconductor factories in Taylor, TX. Elon Musk's companies are investing heavily between Del Valle and Bastrop. Netflix and Disney are building large facilities in San Marcos and Bastrop. The Domain / North Burnet area is adding a bunch of 300'+ high rises. There are new Domain-like developments popping up all over the metro (e.g. this sort of thing on Riverside). Etc, etc...
You'll see high densities downtown, by the university, and in some TOD areas on the rail lines, but the most growth will come from sprawling out, certainly. The only cities that avoid growing that way are the ones with geographical limitations or strict urban growth boundaries (which we definitely won't ever have in Texas).
The difference here appears to be that suburbs are popular in DFW and Houston.
From hearing native Austinites upset about getting priced out of the city, you get the feeling they'd sooner move to different city than move out to the Austin burbs. Its not like Austin just materialized in a cosmic flash 30 years ago. Its been there for hundreds of years and its suburbs never boomed while Houston's and DFW's exploded.
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 977,160 times
Reputation: 1406
Of the whole list, I can see Minneapolis with 3.7 million very easily reaching 4 million by organic, albeit slow growth in the next 10-15 years. But, 5 million? That could take decades.
Tampa already has 3.2 million and is growing at a decent clip. If nearby Bradenton (Manatee) were somehow consolidated with it, that would add 400k. But Bradenton is just way too far (45 min drive) from Tampa, considering the geography of the area. Manatee County is not even in Tampa's CSA. So idk. I can see Tampa reaching 4 million in maybe 20 years or more on its own as an MSA. I do not see 5 million in the cards for Tampa.
San Diego, Denver, and Charlotte could still reach the 4 million milestone each, if they play the long game correctly (would take decades, probably).
Nobody else on the list will conceivably reach 4-5 million. I mean, 4 million would require most of the other MSA's to almost double in size. I feel like the whole Austin thing will cool off eventually.
Salt Lake City could almost become a 4 million MSA if Provo and Ogden were consolidated with it. Problem there is that they are just WAY too far away to be combined together. Ogden is 40 miles north of SLC and Provo is 45 miles south of SLC. Way too far / separated.
The difference here appears to be that suburbs are popular in DFW and Houston.
From hearing native Austinites upset about getting priced out of the city, you get the feeling they'd sooner move to different city than move out to the Austin burbs. Its not like Austin just materialized in a cosmic flash 30 years ago. Its been there for hundreds of years and its suburbs never boomed while Houston's and DFW's exploded.
Where do you get this? The suburbs added 400k between 2010 and 2020. The metro grew by 33%, the most of any metro (and it was #3 in 2010 and #2 in 2000).
Of the whole list, I can see Minneapolis with 3.7 million very easily reaching 4 million by organic, albeit slow growth in the next 10-15 years. But, 5 million? That could take decades.
Tampa already has 3.2 million and is growing at a decent clip. If nearby Bradenton (Manatee) were somehow consolidated with it, that would add 400k. But Bradenton is just way too far (45 min drive) from Tampa, considering the geography of the area. Manatee County is not even in Tampa's CSA. So idk. I can see Tampa reaching 4 million in maybe 20 years or more on its own as an MSA. I do not see 5 million in the cards for Tampa.
San Diego, Denver, and Charlotte could still reach the 4 million milestone each, if they play the long game correctly (would take decades, probably).
Nobody else on the list will conceivably reach 4-5 million. I mean, 4 million would require most of the other MSA's to almost double in size. I feel like the whole Austin thing will cool off eventually.
Salt Lake City could almost become a 4 million MSA if Provo and Ogden were consolidated with it. Problem there is that they are just WAY too far away to be combined together. Ogden is 40 miles north of SLC and Provo is 45 miles south of SLC. Way too far / separated.
There used to be a large rural area between Bradenton and Tampa. Now it has mostly filled in so it’s conceivable. The thing is, Bradenton/Sarasota are really their own thing and despite not being far I don’t consider them as part of Tampa Bay.
Orlando’s MSA will surpass Tampa before too long. Both cities are growing, but Tampa is limited to growing north and east whereas Orlando’s sprawl goes in all directions. No geographic constraints is a big advantage for Orlando over the other Florida cities. As I mentioned earlier, I think it can hit 5M and will be the largest city on the list.
Last edited by FL_Expert; 08-08-2022 at 11:10 PM..
I think his point from the start was that if traffic is bad at current densities what will it be like when the density doubles.
I think he detailed that well in that post.
I have made the point myself also.
Building further and further out doesn't help either. It just places people on highways longer.
Building new employment nodes doesn't help much either.
I have also made the point that the draw of Austin is that is not DFW and Houston. Creating an expansive metro will be Creating what it has been purporting to resist for decades
And I think my point was Austin’s commute times are fairly average. All traffic is bad of course, but Austin’s is not exceedingly so. It’s quite a bit less than places like Nashville and Orlando, let alone a really bad traffic area.
As far as morphing into something it has resisted, oh well. Growth is its own monster, and you can’t turn it off easily, and certainly no one making decisions in Austin have appeared to even try and hit the metaphorical brakes. It’s been full-steam ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
The difference here appears to be that suburbs are popular in DFW and Houston.
From hearing native Austinites upset about getting priced out of the city, you get the feeling they'd sooner move to different city than move out to the Austin burbs. Its not like Austin just materialized in a cosmic flash 30 years ago. Its been there for hundreds of years and its suburbs never boomed while Houston's and DFW's exploded.
No one likes getting priced out of an area, so of course you’ll hear grumbling. As mentioned above though, Austin’s suburbs have exploded. During the 2010’s, excluding Austin proper, they grew by about 400,000 people. Which means suburban Austin grew 43% last decade, or twice as fast as Austin city. There is absolutely nothing to suggest anything about Austin is hitting a ceiling.
And I think my point was Austin’s commute times are fairly average. All traffic is bad of course, but Austin’s is not exceedingly so. It’s quite a bit less than places like Nashville and Orlando, let alone a really bad traffic area.
As far as morphing into something it has resisted, oh well. Growth is its own monster, and you can’t turn it off easily, and certainly no one making decisions in Austin have appeared to even try and hit the metaphorical brakes. It’s been full-steam ahead.
No one likes getting priced out of an area, so of course you’ll hear grumbling. As mentioned above though, Austin’s suburbs have exploded. During the 2010’s, excluding Austin proper, they grew by about 400,000 people. Which means suburban Austin grew 43% last decade, or twice as fast as Austin city. There is absolutely nothing to suggest anything about Austin is hitting a ceiling.
The nature of a metro area is that it's a collection of independent cities and counties. On top of that, in Texas we even have independent school districts, which collect tax on par with cities. There isn't anything Austin can do to prevent growth in Taylor, Bastrop, Kyle, Georgetown, Dripping Springs, etc. Even within Austin, the state supercedes the city. (See the massive I35 expansion for example, which the city of Austin generally wants nothing to do with).
Growth will slow down of course, but could the metro do say 28% in 2030, 22% in 2040, and 15% in 2050? I think that could happen for sure.
At the time that article ran, Austin's population density would have been somewhere between that of Sioux Falls and Albuquerque.
As evidenced by this very forum, Austin still apparently struggles with congestion, all without a single area of significant population density (by major metro standards).
That being said, we're supposed to believe its just going to double its metro area size? COL in Austin recently passed the 600K median-I'm thinking people are starting to wake up to the fact that they're paying NYC prices for a Columbus-level city.
West Campus has significant density. It’s density is roughly 35,000 ppsm and growing. Some of its census blocks are the densest parts of Texas if not the whole South at around 70,000 ppsm.
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.
