I see crews out just about daily around town putting in sidewalks & bike paths. That being said, I'm pretty much working in the NW part of town these days. Hopefully this is going on all over.

It wouldn’t have been deleted, though it probably would have been moved to the San Antonio City and Metro thread as that would be a more appropriate place for it. Would you like it moved there or would you like it kept here?

I disagree, although there are many streets without sidewalks on the east and west sides, the great majority seem to be in older neighborhoods within 410 on the northeast side, north central and southeast side.

But yes, this is a very welcomed development. Finally the city is actually addressing this issue with the older neighborhoods here.

A lot of it boils down to numbers, as indicated by this table from the original article:
https://3snpdc2ba9m5uwuk62n8cs84-wpe...3926251601.jpg
Check out districts 3 and 7, and compare to district 8. Something is very wrong with this to me. I'm glad that mayor Nirenberg is finally taking on infrastructure through the "equity lens" as he put it. About time. The Domionion area and Stone Oak neighborhoods have miles of beautiful sidewalks rarely used by anyone (entirely car-dependent neighborhoods) while the inner city districts are clearly underserved. It's obvious that wealthy districts on the periphery have have historically had council representation that serves them at expense of others. One has to wonder what those motivations are.

Also, I posted this in the urban core thread because to me it pertained specifically to the urban core for these reasons, but I admit that's bias on my part, so I guess move it wherever it's most appropriate.

Neither District 3 or 7 are within the urban core. The urban core is fine when it comes to sidewalks. It’s the older neighborhoods that are 40-50 years old, all within Loop 410, which haven’t been a priority for the city in the last twenty years for the most part

Also, I will move these post to the San Antonio Coty and Metro thread.

I guess in San Antonio due to its sprawl I consider the urban core to include what's inside the 410 loop.

And in that case much of those districts are indeed part of that landscape. As are the same neighborhoods you mention.

Actually, the urban core is essentially downtown and a few of the fringe areas just outside of downtown, River North, Lower Broadway, the Pearl, Midtown, Dignowity Hill, Sunset Station, Southtown (Lavaca, King William), Lone Star, near west side side/cattleman Square.

I prefer to think of the urban core as something between the spaces mentioned above (although I understand "San Antonio's urban core" has a precise meaning for civic purposes). My definition would mean the city as it was just prior to WWII, a time before car culture took over urban design. My urban core extends roughly to Hildebrand to the north, Southcross to the south, Walters to the east and Gen McMullen to the west. This area is where sidewalks are most needed, especially along roads like Fredericksbug and Hildebrand.

I like this. I would definitely consider the urban core to include all the neighborhoods up to Hildrebrand and both east and west of 1-10 near Fredericksburg. I guess we all have slightly different views of what the "urban core" means to each one of us! Interesting.

The city of San Antonio is teaming up with IKE Smart City to set up 11 of their interactive kiosks throughout city including and mainly in the downtown and urban core. 7 will be at VIA stations while four will not be.

The 11 intial locations are:

• Centro Plaza (VIA station)
• Five Points (VIA station)
• Medical Center Transit Station (VIA station)
• Kel-Lac Transit Center (VIA station)
• Randolph Park & Ride (VIA station)
• Ingram Transit Center (VIA station)
• Deco District - Mary Louise (VIA station)
• Houston/Losoya
• Alamodome Plaza North
• Buena Vista / IH 35 - 1
• Cesar Chavez / IH 35 – 1

Hopefully this will encourage more growth in downtown

U.S. Treasury picks 24 census tracts in San Antonio to get Trump tax benefits

The areas selected by the Treasury include large chunks of the East Side near Fort Sam Houston, much of downtown San Antonio, areas of the West Side close to downtown along Commerce St., Port San Antonio, Kelly Air Force Base, portions of the South Side, Stinson Municipal Airport, the Brooks master planned community and the Northeast Corridor — which includes a stretch of Perrin Beitel and Nacogdoches roads that extend to O’Connor Road

https://m.mysanantonio.com/business/...#photo-7569677

Yes, it should and will!!!:cheers:

https://therivardreport.com/ruins-re...way-by-county/


This is good news. Preserving a somewhat quirky piece of San Antonio history, and one of the things that make SA unique. :tup:

ETA: Can't wait to buy this book:

https://therivardreport.com/300-comm...ries-together/

City’s population growth largest in nation, census data shows

https://www.expressnews.com/news/loc...n-12939249.php

That's great news. But, let's be realistic. That pertains to city proper population. Our city (proper) is one of the largest in the nation in terms a physical size.

SA's metro population, while growing nicely, is not on nearly the same percentage pace as the city proper has shown over the past few years. Nonetheless, we growing, overall, at a better pace than we did between 2000 and 2010.

Percentage wise, the metro population is growing at a larger percentage. 1.6% for city versus 2% for the metro area.

I honestly would hate to see the growth rate go much faster. I know alot of people on these forums make it a "we're first, we win" competition when it comes to these damn lists, but is this really a list SA wants to be first on? With fast growth comes a whole host of headaches for existing and new residents alike. I would prefer to see SA towards the bottom of these "fastest growing cities" lists if not off of them. Its great to see all of the development coming in, and I think SA probably has a solid pace of growth right now. If it could stick with it and maybe a little under, it could be somewhat sustainable. Just my opinion, please don't crucify me.:runaway:

That's moot! I think his point was that SA is not quite near the top in metro growth.

The metro's 2% growth includes SA proper's 1.6%. More than 60% of all growth is coming from the city proper (the city constitutes a little more than 60% of the metro's overall population).

I’m not sure how it’s moot when he specifically made a claim that I refuted. If you want to interpret what he said to be something else, you’re more than welcome to, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he stated was what he stated nor does it moot the point.

Also, where did you pull that 60%number from? The metro growth was 48,000. Meaning, if the city growth was 24,000, then another 24,000 was attributed to the metro. So, 50% was city and 50% was metro.

It’s definitely a double edge sword. But, with how much land area SA city proper covers, absorbing the new populous is an easier task than say Philly or CHicago adding that same population in an already dense and built out landscape.