Houston ranked 5th in metro population (Dallas, San Antonio: high crime, pollution, medical center)

[kittyhawk]

Originally Posted by cBach

I'll tell you why. It's percentage versus actual numbers. 100 people gained in Austin is a far greater percentage than 150 gained in Houston.

Also, I analyzed the latest census figures and saw that there is a net outflow from Houston to Austin. In other words, more people moved to Austin from Houston than vice versa. So, assuming that the population net inflows from other states/countries (Austin's is a larger percentage wise than Houston's even though Houston's is numerically larger) levels off at some time, then the net inflows within Texas would matter most, and that is where Austin is winning the battle.

Your assumption is absurd. Austin infrastructure will never be able to handle an additional 5 million people--even with some significant development. I don't think anyone in Austin would aspire to become this either. As people from Houston and DFW move to Austin, Austin starts to exhibit the same "issues" that you are saying those areas have now. If it grows much more, it won't be so attractive anymore.

Currently, Austin's size is the proverbial "sweet spot" (not quite a big city but has all the amenities) that seems to be attracting people.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by cBach

I'll tell you why. It's percentage versus actual numbers. 100 people gained in Austin is a far greater percentage than 150 gained in Houston.

Also, I analyzed the latest census figures and saw that there is a net outflow from Houston to Austin. In other words, more people moved to Austin from Houston than vice versa. So, assuming that the population net inflows from other states/countries (Austin's is a larger percentage wise than Houston's even though Houston's is numerically larger) levels off at some time, then the net inflows within Texas would matter most, and that is where Austin is winning the battle.

but of course the out flow to Austin would be larger. It is elementary by boy..

Simple osmosis.Houston has more people to give.

And your assertion on percentage is absurd. Smaller cities are easier to achieve higher percentages, but how on earth would Austin catch up if they are gaining less in their prime??????

Why would you think that people coming in from outside would level off while people moving to Austin would stay the same?

Austin will have to develop more major industries if it wants to keep up that growth for decades to come.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk

Your assumption is absurd. Austin infrastructure will never be able to handle an additional 5 million people--even with some significant development. I don't think anyone in Austin would aspire to become this either. As people from Houston and DFW move to Austin, Austin starts to exhibit the same "issues" that you are saying those areas have now. If it grows much more, it won't be so attractive anymore.

Currently, Austin's size is the proverbial "sweet spot" (not quite a big city but has all the amenities) that seems to be attracting people.

yes you bring in excellent points.
Long time Austin residents are already complain about the growth. Austin out flow will increase as more people come in. People will seek more serene areas around the Hill Country area.

The only way Austin area will have as many people as Houston would be if they created an extremely huge metro by combining with SA and some other counties. but even then, they would get second billing in the metro.

that would be a ridiculously large metro in terms of land area

[SouthernBoy205]

Ok, Amber, December 21, 2010 has passed!

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by A&M Bulldawg

Ok, Amber, December 21, 2010 has passed!

wait till february

[SouthernBoy205]

For the metro updates?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

but of course the out flow to Austin would be larger. It is elementary by boy..

Simple osmosis.Houston has more people to give.

And your assertion on percentage is absurd. Smaller cities are easier to achieve higher percentages, but how on earth would Austin catch up if they are gaining less in their prime??????

Why would you think that people coming in from outside would level off while people moving to Austin would stay the same?

Austin will have to develop more major industries if it wants to keep up that growth for decades to come.

Htownlove,

That's where you are wrong. Houston is like LA circa 1970 right now. Growing like mad but beginning to face problems like horrible traffic, smog, air pollution, etc... Oddly enough, LA has addressed a lot of those issues with environmentalism and the LA basin has increased population density quite a bit and completed subway lines, etc... that have alleviated some of the problems where the pollution levels in 2010 are far lower in LA than they were in 1979 despite having many millions more people.

Austin is LA circa 1950. We are not near our prime, and if we plan well we can learn from the mistakes of LA and Houston.

We may not have the best roads, but our commute times are still lower than Houston's and we have among the lowest crime rates in the country, compared to Houston having among the highest crime rates (and don't mention Katrina, you had high crime prior to Katrina). This is important to most people.

You can live with your nose in the sand, but only so long. Everyone I've met from Houston that moved to Austin said nobody could pay them to ever live in Houston again. Those that I know that moved to Houston did it "for a career move, but I'll be back in a few years as I hate Houston."

Also, the Austin-San Antonio corridor with eventually become one MSA, and many counties in the Hill Country will too, so if people move to the Hill country that won't be an issue.

[cBach]

[quote=HtownLove;17151349]but of course the out flow to Austin would be larger. It is elementary by boy..

Why would you think that people coming in from outside would level off while people moving to Austin would stay the same?

quote]

The same reason why the Intermountain West grew faster percentage-wise than California even when California was posting bigger gains numerically during the 1980's and 1990's. You have to look at trends in percentages and see that the trending is for increased percentages to Austin and decreased percentages to Houston. You could argue the decreased percentages to Houston are because numerically it's harder to keep the same percentage, but that doesn't explain the increased percentage to Austin. There is a higher percentage of people moving to Austin in 2010 than there was in 1990, and there are more people here.

This is the phenomenon that saw Las Vegas rise from a small metro of 250,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005. Houston never saw that kind of growth, it was more of a sustained constant growth.

You said most people in Austin didn't like the growth. That's true and I don't like it either, but that doesn't mean it's not happening! Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I can wish it away, just as how you imagine Houston becoming larger than Chicago and it ain't happening either... I go by facts not wishes.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Comparing the Austin metro to Greater Houston or DFW is absurd. There are completely different animals. Austin would be better compared to Raleigh, Tucson, or Oklahoma City.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by justme02

Comparing the Austin metro to Greater Houston or DFW is absurd. There are completely different animals. Austin would be better compared to Raleigh, Tucson, or Oklahoma City.

In 2010 I agree, but we're talking 2050 and if we extrapolate current trends, Austin just may be in the same league then. Of course, the point of much of my argument was that other than analyzing what happened in the past, we really can't predict any further than a few years out anyway. I could make a case that Austin would be larger than Houston in 2050, just as some posters here could make a case that Houston would be larger than Chicago, or aghast: Dallas. Of course, one could make arguments against those presumptions as well, hence my 1950 LA analogy and how they thought LA would surpass NYC.

If anyone needs some articles on this I would be happy to provide the source.