Quote:
If the present growth trends continue (and they are inevitably prone to slow down), Austin will likely pass San Antonio (which has an estimated 2018 MSA of ~2.5M) at some point, but ironically San Antonio's core infrastructure is much more capable of supporting urban and suburban growth. |
Oh, I don’t think Austin will reach that size either. For all the reasons we’ve been going over. I’m talking hypotheticals; if Austin were to reach Seattle’s size, and if Dallas and Houston were to reach 10+ million as some forumers believe will happen, could that happen in a red state?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The question is, will the Triangle’s current growth be enough to flip Texas blue, thus allowing for the region to transform to its fullest potential? |
For those who are talking about how growth slows as a city matures, I have two points:
A: what evidence is there that any of DFW, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio are maturing? If anything, they are still young cities with plenty of growth potential left. B1. Even if you assume (without evidence from point A) that growth will slow as each of the metro areas grows, the state will still grow substantially solidifying it’s status as the most populous southern state and second most populous state in the country. B2. For instance, for the four large metros (assuming boundaries do not expand to capture new exurbs), let’s assume that the rate of growth between 2010 and 2018 will continue for the following 8 years until 2026. After that, the rate of growth will decrease by 25% for the following 8 years until 3034 as steam is let out of the engine. Then, as the brakes are slammed on to Texas’s cities’ growth engines as they finally fully mature, the last 8 years’ growth rate is 50% that of the previous 8 leading to the following population in 2042. For the remainder of Texas, I assume that the population remains stable because there are very few positive growth indicators outside of the big 4. Some areas will slightly increase, some will decrease. On balance, growth in places like Waco and Killeen will balance with losses throughout rural Texas. Total: 37,337,071 Dallas-Fort Worth: 10,645,771 Houston: 10,039,564 Austin: 3,604,672 San Antonio: 3,568,666 Balance: 9,478,398 B3. Of course, the reality is that so much could happen in the next few decades to affect international migration, domestic migration, and fertility rates, that it is difficult to project beyond a 10 to 15 year time horizon except in isolated circumstances. B4. At this point, Austin and San Antonio are likely to be a single urban entity with these populations. B5. This is still significant growth. Period. Yet still smaller than California today. B6. If nothing changes for Chicago, it’ll clearly be in the same tier with DFW and Houston at ~10 million. A consolidated Bay Area and D.C.-Baltimore would perhaps also be in this tier, but no others. None of the five will capture LA+IE let alone NYC. |
Quote:
Not only that but the Texas metro growth is suburban, and to a much smaller extent urban. |
Quote:
|
Austin's traffic is pretty bad. Even compared to Houston and Dallas. Was over there just last weekend and 35 was a total parking lot on a Sunday afternoon.
|
Quote:
Jakarta also has a sinking problem much worse than any city in America so it's more than just the crowds. Texas does need to increase its social services and I can see the property tax issue getting out of hand for residents who aren't able to afford their gentrified area. But it won't be an Illinois situation as Texas as a whole is pretty prosperous so it'll balance out over time. It could also increase its minimum wage, because areas like Austin and Dallas have had high jumps in rent/housing costs. Turning blue does not mean an area will reach its potential. Texas is fine being almost a 50/50 state, with the Texas Triangle leading the balance. I do not want it to become a California where it's an echo chamber of the same ideas. Too much redtape for residential construction, gasoline prices double that of neighboring states, poor primary schools aside from the most costly residential areas, a small middle class, and an out of control homeless population. I also don't want it to be a Mississippi with little social services and not much economic opportunity. Right now Texas is in a sweet spot. It's conservative and progressive ideas together are making it an absolute powerhouse. It has a strong middle class, relatively low-cost of entry into good school districts due to lower housing costs, increasing transit infrastructure, new corporate relocations on an almost monthly basis, recreational space growing due to philanthropy and other donations, and an overall increase in quality of life because of all these things coming together. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Demographics and cost of living are forcing the cities to densify and evolve regardless of the knuckle-draggers in Austin. There was no desire for urban planning or transit 20-30 years ago. Now there is. Millenials are taking over Texas and they want rail and walkable areas. |
Don't really have a horse in this race, but just want to interject that California was a reliably red state until the 1990s.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I dont know why anyone would be getting excited about "texas flipping blue"
What the parties champion policy wise and who they are trying to represent is currently in a massive state of flux and probably will be for another few cycles. so called "mainstream" republicans and democrats are now undetectable in their respective parties and former fringe policies are becoming centerpieces. By 2030 what the parties are will be much different from what they were in 2008. Hell 2008 Obama would hardly make it in the current democratic primary based on his policy positions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here he is with another California Governor: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...negger1984.jpg Wikipedia |
Guys, what nobody seems to understand nor comprehend here in terms of politics is:
Even if Texas turns "blue" there will always be a Yin and Yang in our political system. In other words, the US won't become a California. The balance of power, checks and balances will always exist. There will never be one single party that dominates America. This is how it is by design and this is why America rose from nothing to dominate the entire world. |
^^^ Can’t argue with that. Seemed like Cali was a equal balanced place back then. I would only hope Texas maintains a good balance of moderatism in its future. Same for Florida, another settled swing state.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 3:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.