HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 7:28 AM
kornbread kornbread is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1 View Post
I disagree. The size of DT has little to do with it; Killeen barely has a DT. Round Rock has grown because of Dell, not because of Austin. I will go further and say, "Austin owes much of it's growth to Dell". Williamson County is much larger than Hays County. But before Dell came along, I think It was the other way around. During the 80's, South Austin along IH35 was a high growth area, but after Dell that stopped.
No, not at all. Williamson county has been bigger than Hays for a long time and the majority of people who live in Williamson county work in Austin.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/population.html

The growth trend in the 80's was probably more north (183 & 35) and west; some south.

Also, while Dell most certainly contributed to growth in Austin, it started as an Austin company and had significant growth (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o.../DD/dndyy.html) before finally moving to its current headquarters in Round Rock which opened in 1994 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18726656.html).

My mention of downtown Round Rock was just to reiterate that historically there was really nothing there to identify with or be independent about except the shooting of the outlaw Sam Bass!
http://www.roundrocktexas.gov/home/index.asp?page=953
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 1:54 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmanshirt View Post
Here's how the Office of Management and Budget defines and determines what is a principal city (page 3, paragraph 1).

"In addition to identifying the more significant places in each Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area or NECTA in terms of population and employment, principal cities also are used in titling Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, Combined Statistical Areas, NETCAs, NECTA Divisions, and Combined NECTAs."
I propose that you look at differences in how principle cities are named in theory and how they are named in reality. There are always slight differences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 6:21 PM
oldmanshirt's Avatar
oldmanshirt oldmanshirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SATX > KCMO > DFW
Posts: 1,170
As far as I can see, in reality the only consistency is inconsistency. Do you have any insight in to how much regional policy plays in the naming of statistical areas? I'm curious as to why Texas metros seem more or less "conventional", while the large metros in my current state of Missouri use only the largest cities (i.e., "Kansas City, MO-KS" and "St. Louis, MO-IL") in their MSA names, despite each having other urban or suburban areas (i.e., Independence or St. Charles) that would otherwise qualify for inclusion. That's what puzzles me most, the inconsistencies from one state to the next.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 7:34 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,827
There is no uniform naming convention.

Principal cities are not necessarily mentioned in the name of the metropolitan area. St. Charles is a principle city of the St. Louis metropolitan area, and Farmington is a principle city of the CSA.

Kansas City MSA has three principle cities: Kansas City, Kansas City, and Overland Park.

It has less to do with regional policy and more to do with the various prominence nationally of each principle city. Arlington has nationally prominence, so it is named alongside Dallas and Fort Worth. McKinney does not have that prominence, and so it is not named.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 7:52 PM
oldmanshirt's Avatar
oldmanshirt oldmanshirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SATX > KCMO > DFW
Posts: 1,170
Those are principle cities only in the Kansas City and St. Louis CSAs, though. And I would argue that Overland Park, KS, as the headquarters of Sprint/Nextel and home to a signifcant node of office space, has at least as much national prominence as Arlington, TX (a city regarded within its own state as little more than a "super suburb"). Arlington is now best known as the location of the new Cowboys stadium. There has to be something regional at play here. We know that regional considerations play a role when commuter interchange between MSAs and/or mSAs are between a certain threshold and representatives of each are allowed to determine whether or not they will combine into a CSA and what that CSA will be called (see the source I posted).

I'd like to know where you're getting the source of your information.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 10:19 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1 View Post
I disagree. The size of DT has little to do with it; Killeen barely has a DT. Round Rock has grown because of Dell, not because of Austin. I will go further and say, "Austin owes much of it's growth to Dell". Williamson County is much larger than Hays County. But before Dell came along, I think It was the other way around. During the 80's, South Austin along IH35 was a high growth area, but after Dell that stopped.
Hays:
1970-27,642
1980-40,594
1990-65,614
2000-97,589
2008*-149,476
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popc/pc48209.htm

Williamson
1970-37,305
1980-76,521
1990-139,551
2000-249,967
2008*-394,193
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popc/pc48491.htm

*-estimates

Hays County growth has far from slowed since the 80s. As a matter of fact, it has accelerated since 2000.

Williamson County has been bigger than Hays County for a long time.

Of course Round Rock grew because of Dell, although it wouldn't have grown to be over 100,000 people due to a single company. Stating that the majority of Austin's growth has been attributed to Dell is a really silly comment. Dell employs ~16,000 people in Greater Austin, out of a labor market employing ~800,000. When Dell was just a relatively minor player in the PC market, Austin was already the center of a metro of a million people.

Lastly, South Austin is still a rapidly growing part of the city, and has far from stopped growing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2010, 12:26 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmanshirt View Post
Those are principle cities only in the Kansas City and St. Louis CSAs, though.

I'd like to know where you're getting the source of your information.
No, they are principle cities in the MSAs.

The link that I provided in my first post in this thread was to another thread that I started where I link to an official memo by the OMB. Here is think link again:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ins/b10-02.pdf

The information for the St. Louis metropolitan area is on page 53, the info for the St. Louis CSA is on page 115.

The information for Kansas City metropolitan area is on page 43, the info for the Kansas City CSA is on page 111.

Clearly stated is the same info I provided in my previous post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2010, 2:44 AM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottolini View Post
Hays:
1970-27,642
1980-40,594
1990-65,614
2000-97,589
2008*-149,476
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popc/pc48209.htm

Williamson
1970-37,305
1980-76,521
1990-139,551
2000-249,967
2008*-394,193
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popc/pc48491.htm

*-estimates

Hays County growth has far from slowed since the 80s. As a matter of fact, it has accelerated since 2000.

Williamson County has been bigger than Hays County for a long time.

Of course Round Rock grew because of Dell, although it wouldn't have grown to be over 100,000 people due to a single company. Stating that the majority of Austin's growth has been attributed to Dell is a really silly comment. Dell employs ~16,000 people in Greater Austin, out of a labor market employing ~800,000. When Dell was just a relatively minor player in the PC market, Austin was already the center of a metro of a million people.

Lastly, South Austin is still a rapidly growing part of the city, and has far from stopped growing.

Silly is thinking the impact of Dell is limited to the 16,000 they employ. In addition, I said I think Hays County may have been larger at one time. If I wanted to say with certainly, I would have looked it up as you did. My opinion is based on what I observed around the Onion Creek area and Barker Rd.

Lastly, I never implied growth stopped, only that it slowed. Yes, it is now a high growth area, but when did that start and how does it compare with the other side of town?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2010, 3:43 AM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1
Silly is thinking the impact of Dell is limited to the 16,000 they employ.
Even with all the spin-off economic development, Dell-related jobs make up a fraction of the jobs in Austin. I suppose it's what your definition of "much of" is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1
In addition, I said I think Hays County may have been larger at one time. If I wanted to say with certainly, I would have looked it up as you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1
But before Dell came along, I think It was the other way around.
In recent history Williamson has been a larger county. I was just clearing that up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1
Lastly, I never implied growth stopped, only that it slowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1
During the 80's, South Austin along IH35 was a high growth area, but after Dell that stopped.
South Austin continued to experience rapid growth "after Dell". North Austin and the northern suburbs are more populous, but they always have been.

Austin's founding on the north bank of the Colorado, and inability to tame the river resulted in little development on the south side until the 1940s. That's when the LCRA built the dams that prevented catastrophic floods from washing out the bridge crossings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2010, 3:47 AM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
I don't plan to go back and forth with you Scottolini. But, a company with 16,000 employees would have a very large impact on any town and defiantly a larger one than you are willing to admit.

Also census data, like any other data, means little by itself. The groups you provided do not dispute my opinion that growth along IH35S in the Onion Creek area of Austin slowed during the 80s while accelerating on the other side of town. Again, it is my opinion and I do not intend to spend time trolling through census data and manipulating it to prove anything to you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2010, 8:08 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1 View Post
I don't plan to go back and forth with you Scottolini.
Okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1 View Post
But, a company with 16,000 employees would have a very large impact on any town and defiantly a larger one than you are willing to admit.
I am willing to admit that a company employing 16,000 people has a big impact, and had a huge impact on Round Rock. What we are in disagreement is your claim that "much of" Austin's growth is directly tied to Dell. Greater Austin's added over 600,000 people since 1995. I don't think Dell was the reason for "much of" that growth. Some? Of course. Tens of thousands even. But tens of thousands is not "much of" 600,000+ in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1 View Post
Also census data, like any other data, means little by itself. The groups you provided do not dispute my opinion that growth along IH35S in the Onion Creek area of Austin slowed during the 80s while accelerating on the other side of town. Again, it is my opinion and I do not intend to spend time trolling through census data and manipulating it to prove anything to you.
Well luckily for me I have http://recenter.tamu.edu/ bookmarked on my computer, so it's not time-consuming or difficult to get detailed population data. I already posted the Hays County data that disputes you claim, or "opinion", that it "was a high-growth area, but after Dell that stopped".

I'll let you have the last word if you want it, though. I've said all I have to say on this subject.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2010, 1:57 AM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottolini View Post
Okay.



I am willing to admit that a company employing 16,000 people has a big impact, and had a huge impact on Round Rock. What we are in disagreement is your claim that "much of" Austin's growth is directly tied to Dell. Greater Austin's added over 600,000 people since 1995. I don't think Dell was the reason for "much of" that growth. Some? Of course. Tens of thousands even. But tens of thousands is not "much of" 600,000+ in my opinion.



Well luckily for me I have http://recenter.tamu.edu/ bookmarked on my computer, so it's not time-consuming or difficult to get detailed population data. I already posted the Hays County data that disputes you claim, or "opinion", that it "was a high-growth area, but after Dell that stopped".

I'll let you have the last word if you want it, though. I've said all I have to say on this subject.
My last word is this:

1. I never said Hays County was a high growth area, only that I think
it may have been larger than Williamson County.

2. I did say South Austin was a high growth area and that the level of
growth slowed during the 80s. The census data you provided does
not even address this.

3. The census and TAMU data only provides information on growth,
by rate and real number, within a tract or recognized area. They
do not determine/provide information on how a tract performs
relative to other tracts, be they adjoining or across town.
Companies/universities conduct paid studies to determine this and
typically do not make the information available on free
websites.

4. You are much more interested in defending Austin and/or being right
than even trying to understand the post of others. When I am on the
Austin page there are many times I want to dispute the opinion of
Austin forumers, but I don't. What's bad is you probably do not have a
clue, why that is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.