Houston, San Antonio, and Austin are the #2, #3, and #4 fastest growing cities in the U.S. (Dallas: schools, live)

[savanite]

Originally Posted by MobileDave

Why do you keep talking about San Fransisco when this thread is about Texas cities? Why would any city in Texas compare itself to any city outside of Texas? You are obviously not from Texas. Stay on topic please.

The REAL cities in Texas are Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso, Ft. Worth, Amarillo, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, etc.

Fun fact: The only city in Texas listed on the most dense cities list is Mobile City in Dallas which has a density of over 10,000 people per sqm. Mobile City consist of a trailer park, liquor store, and convenience store.

Well, if the subject is the value or the significance of density per se, that opens up the issue to other examples of density around the world. An average density of 6,000 in Houston must be seen in context. As an absolute number it is meaningless.

I think your interest in analyzing the density of portions of a city, or even city neighborhoods, is a good thing, far better than looking at the average density of an entire municipality.

The cities you mentioned are not real cities, they are imaginary, in the same sense that a corporation is a fictitious person. In my view, Dallas is not "real", but the DFW urban area is real. It is a tangible physical object composed of roads, vehicles, buildings, people interacting among themselves, lots of synergy, etc. If the State of Texas disincorporated the "city of Dallas" for some reason, the physical DFW metro would continue to exist. If ETs (assuming there are any) were examining the DFW metro from another planet, they wouldn't see the "city of Dallas", they would only see the DFW metro.

So that's what I mean by it. I'll be glad to hear what you mean by a real city.

I laughed a bit at that reference to the density of Mobile City. Thanks for sharing.

[MtnLion512]

You are right that density of neighborhoods will give a better indicator of access/walkability than just the macro view of the entire city's density, which may be misleading. Not sure where those numbers would be, best thing I can think of is looking at the Walk Score of each city at the neighborhood level, and seeing which cities, if any, have any consistency in their 'walkable' nabes. Just a thought.

[savanite]

Originally Posted by MtnLion512

You are right that density of neighborhoods will give a better indicator of access/walkability than just the macro view of the entire city's density, which may be misleading. Not sure where those numbers would be, best thing I can think of is looking at the Walk Score of each city at the neighborhood level, and seeing which cities, if any, have any consistency in their 'walkable' nabes. Just a thought.

That sounds like a good approach. Although the Walk Score website has some shortcomings, it's the best we have.

Virtually every metropolitan area will have a somewhat walkable inner core, and a set of outer layers of decreasing walkability, and increasing automobile dependence. That is true of Sunbelt cities, and also older 19th century cities such as Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.

I presume that by "city" you mean metropolitan area. Municipal boundaries are drawn arbitrarily and inconsistently from one metro to another and don't really define anything. Boston city is just part of its metro's urban core, San Francisco is all of the urban core, Dallas is the urban core and outlying residential areas on the edge of the core, Houston is urban core out to and including inner ring suburbs.

[gabetx]

Getting away from the density talk and the constant talk of Houston, Dallas, or Austin.....

At Corpus Christi's current growth rate from 2000 to 2010, 10%, the city should have added 3,052 people. This would put the city's population at 308,267.

At 2020, the city would be at 335,736 people. That is assuming that the growth rate will stay at 10%. But I have a feeling this decade that Corpus Christi will grow at as fast a rate as in the 70's and 80's. My guess for 2020 that the city will be at around 350,000-355,000.

Not bad for a city it's size.

(Wow! I did math. Lol.)

[imaterry78259]

I believe SA is about to take off like crazy since a lot of the old boy system is getting kick out of town.

[case44]

Even in a down economy, we're holding our own and doing very nicely. And we're still turning dirt for new construction in a lot of places. It's as stable as can be during a time like this.

Originally Posted by dallasboi

This is the first time I ever seen Dallas gain more people than Ft. Worth..I wonder when was the last time that happened?

Ever??? You must be a real young pup. Dallas used to outgain Ft Worth consistently. Granted, Dallas is landlocked, but if planners would start developing in the empty areas, it could kick-start something new.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by case44

Even in a down economy, we're holding our own and doing very nicely. And we're still turning dirt for new construction in a lot of places. It's as stable as can be during a time like this.



Ever??? You must be a real young pup. Dallas used to outgain Ft Worth consistently. Granted, Dallas is landlocked, but if planners would start developing in the empty areas, it could kick-start something new.

Same thing can be said about Fort Worth.... Seriously, there's plenty of open land within the CORE of the city. There are some projects going up, but damn it's slower than most cities.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by Spade

Austin could find itself at number 11 next year if the growth continued this year.

Could be, I think Austin has or about to surpass Indianapolis taking in the 12th largest city this year. I would put Austin around 835,000 to 840,000 as of now.

[gabetx]

Austin is going to pass Indianapolis and Jacksonville within the next 3 years. Maybe by 2020 it could be in the top 10.

[imaterry78259]

San Antonio, I think is the city in
Texas to watch,it is going to explode