HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2010, 2:29 AM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
San Antonio will most likely climb two spots to #26 when the 2010 census numbers are released, passing Orlando and Cleveland. Next SA should pass Sacramento and Cincinnati moving into the #24 spot. Pittsburgh and Portland will follow. Over the last few years San Antonio has gained more residents than each of these cities. In addition, SA has gained more over the last 10 years than all but one of these.

Since 2006, San Antonio has gained more residents than Las Vegas. That is three years and when the 2010 census numbers are released, it will be four. It is highly unlikely Vegas will pass SA within the next decade. In fact, Vegas is not expected to recover from the housing slump for at least 20 years. On the other hand SA will see a major influx of residents from BRAC in the next two years. I am sure this info. hurts some of SA's naysayers, but sometimes facts can be painful.

I also do not appreciate the back and forth, but as unfortunate as it is, I expect nothing less from a few of the Austin forumers. Do us a favor, try to restrict your post to the Austin page.

Edit: My mistake on accusing WWMiV of being an Austin forumer. I live in Houston so I guess I am a Houston forumer and not a San Antonio forumer.

Last edited by Schertz1; Mar 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2010, 3:14 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,805
Edit: giving it a rest, except for the assertion that San Antonio will outgrow Portland...

Last edited by wwmiv; Mar 30, 2010 at 5:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2010, 3:34 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
counting electric sheep
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 48,786
Come on guys, give it a rest.
__________________
Smoke marijuana, not Americans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 3:55 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice93 View Post
But you assume that San Antonio just won't grow that much at all period and that it will always be subjected to the population statistics that it is in now. No one knows for sure what will happen in 5 years. Charlotte's gain has already been slipping. In fact, many cities that once gained tremendously aren't gaining as fast anymore.
Surprisingly, San Antonio is one of those cities. It's domestic migration has been dropping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 4:12 AM
UrbanTrance's Avatar
UrbanTrance UrbanTrance is offline
Paradise
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
Surprisingly, San Antonio is one of those cities. It's domestic migration has been dropping.
Exactly, but it is still in more gain than a number of those cities that were once growing exceptionally faster than San Antonio. There were quite a few cities expected to outgrow San Antonio within the next few years that aren't even gaining at the rate they once were.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 5:09 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
Surprisingly, San Antonio is one of those cities. It's domestic migration has been dropping.
So has Houston and Dallas and Atlanta and Tampa and Phoenix and...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 5:32 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
So has Houston and Dallas and Atlanta and Tampa and Phoenix and...
Houston? Nope. Dallas, Atlanta, Tampa, and Phoenix? Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 6:42 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,805
I love San Antonio. I, for one, want San Antonio to do well.

The best way to do this is through analysis instead of speculation. "Oh Las Vegas is this, Orlando is this, San Antonio is this this this" gets us nowhere.

I'll do a simpler method than my previous one... one that drastically accounts for the slow down in growth for every city. Assume that every metropolitan area gains the same percentage that it gained this year and this year alone for the next five years straight (thereby precluding a pick up in growth, but also precluding a further slowdown - on balance this should account for any anomalistic city).

We'll start with Pittsburgh and continue to Austin - a good range of cities that will account for any change of rank on the part of San Antonio. This method should be extremely generous to San Antonio because San Antonio's growth rate has not been largely impacted by the downturn, whereas most everywhere else has.


22. Pittsburgh:
2008: 2 355 391
2009: 2 354 957
percent change: -.1%
2010: 2 352 602
2011: 2 350 249
2012: 2 347 899
2013: 2 345 551
2014: 2 343 205
2015: 2 340 862


23. Portland:
2008: 2 203 745
2009: 2 241 841
percent change: 1.7%
2010: 2 279 952
2011: 2 318 711
2012: 2 358 129
2013: 2 398 217
2014: 2 438 987
2015: 2 480 450


24. Cincinnati:
2008: 2 158 643
2009: 2 171 896
percent change: 2.6% (FASTER than San Antonio)
2010: 2 228 365
2011: 2 286 302
2012: 2 345 746
2013: 2 406 735
2014: 2 469 310
2015: 2 533 512


25. Sacramento:
2008: 2 101 138
2009: 2 127 355
percent change: 1.2%
2010: 2 152 883
2011: 2 178 718
2012: 2 204 863
2013: 2 231 321
2014: 2 258 097
2015: 2 285 194


26. Cleveland:
2008: 2 094 051
2009: 2 091 286
percent change: -.1%
2010: 2 089 195
2011: 2 087 106
2012: 2 085 019
2013: 2 082 934
2014: 2 080 851
2015: 2 078 770


27. Orlando:
2008: 2 060 968
2009: 2 082 421
percent change: 1%
2010: 2 103 245
2011: 2 124 277
2012: 2 145 520
2013: 2 166 975
2014: 2 188 645
2015: 2 210 531


28. San Antonio
2008: 2 030 691
2009: 2 072 128
percent change: 2%
2010: 2 113 571
2011: 2 155 842
2012: 2 198 959
2013: 2 242 938
2014: 2 287 797
2015: 2 333 553


29. Kansas City:
2008: 2 040 083
2009: 2 067 585
percent change: 1.1%
2010: 2 090 328
2011: 2 113 321
2012: 2 136 568
2013: 2 160 070
2014: 2 183 831
2015: 2 207 853


30. Las Vegas:
2008: 1 879 093
2009: 1 902 843
percent change: 1.3% (This growth isn't actually too bad considering the economic dire straits that the metropolitan area is in. The sky is certainly NOT falling for Las Vegas).
2010: 1 927 580
2011: 1 952 639
2012: 1 978 013
2013: 2 003 727
2014: 2 029 775
2015: 2 056 162


31. San Jose:
2008: 1 810 646
2009: 1 839 700
percent change: 1.6%
2010: 1 869 135
2011: 1 899 041
2012: 1 929 436
2013: 1 960 307
2014: 1 991 672
2015: 2 023 539


32. Columbus:
2008: 1 779 822
2009: 1,801,848
percent change: 1.2%
2010: 1 823 470
2011: 1 845 352
2012: 1 867 496
2013: 1 889 906
2014: 1 912 585
2015: 1 935 536
end rank:

33. Charlotte:
2008: 1 706 469
2009: 1 745 524
percent change: 2.3%
2010: 1 785 671
2011: 1 826 741
2012: 1 868 756
2013: 1 911 737
2014: 1 955 707
2015: 2 000 688


34. Indianapolis
2008: 1 720 796
2009: 1 743 658
percent change: 1.3%
2010: 1 766 326
2011: 1 789 288
2012: 1 812 549
2013: 1 836 112
2014: 1 859 981
2015: 1 884 161


35. Austin
2008: 1 654 100
2009: 1 705 075
percent change: 3.1% (surpassed only by Raleigh's 3.2% among metropolitan areas over 1 million, meaning it won't be outgrown by any metropolitan area in the given time period).
2010: 1 757 932
2011: 1 812 325
2012: 1 868 507
2013: 1 926 431
2014: 1 986 150
2015: 2 047 721


End rank 22-35:

22. Cincinnati
23. Portland
24. Pittsburgh
25. San Antonio
26. Sacramento
27. Orlando
28. Kansas City
29. Cleveland
30. Las Vegas
31. Austin
32. San Jose
33. Charlotte
34. Columbus
35. Indianapolis

Does San Antonio achieve a 23 or 24 spot even with this generous method? No. It only moves up 3 spots to 25. The real superstars it seems are Cincinnati who moved up 2 spots (compared to low expectations) and Austin (which moves up four spots). I stand by my assertion that within five years it isn't likely that San Antonio will be 23 or 24, that within ten it is likely, and that within fifteen it is guaranteed.

Schertz1: I think you're most egregious mistake is assuming that San Antonio will pass Cincinnati. In fact, using this method, San Antonio will never pass Cincinnati (granted, I don't think that's realistic to assume and a more complicated method would show this as false).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 8:45 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
Houston? Nope.
Domestic migration, you're right.

However, International migration is decreasing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 1:45 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
Domestic migration, you're right.

However, International migration is decreasing.
That's exactly why I said domestic migration and not international migration. International migration has dropped everywhere because of how the economy was.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 7:07 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
That's exactly why I said domestic migration and not international migration. International migration has dropped everywhere because of how the economy was.
So was the only point of you coming into this thread and posting was to non-directly point out that Houston was probably the only city that didn't see a decrease in its domestic migration?

BTW, just looking it up, Houston's domestic migration fluctuates big time. Just a few years ago the number was in the 6,000 range consecutively then shot up post Katrina then nosedived sub 20,000 then back up. So, who really cares.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 7:24 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
So was the only point of you coming into this thread and posting was to non-directly point out that Houston was probably the only city that didn't see a decrease in its domestic migration?
I didn't say ANYTHING about Houston at all, or imply anything about the place. You brought up Houston and the other cities. I think what happened was, I posted that thing about San Antonio. You then got mad that I did and posted the other cities (including Houston since I'm from there and our past history of arguments). All I did was correct you. Was that so bad?

Edit: Forgot to mention that Dallas' domestic migration increase from last year, too, by about 2K.

Quote:
BTW, just looking it up, Houston's domestic migration fluctuates big time. Just a few years ago the number was in the 6,000 range consecutively then shot up post Katrina then nosedived sub 20,000 then back up. So, who really cares.
The only reason why it dropped so low after Katrina is because a lot of people went back to New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana.

Last edited by Trae; Mar 31, 2010 at 8:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 7:45 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,805
I give up. The moment someone pops up with an equation that is applied to every city equally that can show me that San Antonio can hit 24th within five years, I'll return and congratulate them and concede. However, anecdotal evidence and things like "Las Vegas won't grow" and "Cincinnati will soon be passed by San Antonio" (despite the fact that even Cincinnati - think about that for a moment - had a higher growth rate than San Antonio this past year in the midst of the worst downturn in 80 years) and "Charlotte and Austin aren't growing anymore" (despite Austin being only one of two metropolitan areas over 1 million with growth > 3%) and "Portland will be passed by San Antonio soon as well" etc etc etc don't prove anything to me.

Trae is correct. San Antonio's numbers have dropping for awhile. The only reason people come here is because the economy is good. This place has nothing else to offer. Downtown is built and organized around the tourist industry, the inner city neighborhoods are typically downtrodden, city planning is skewed towards suburbia because the city is too expansive to handle itself, no truly great public universities, etc. Most of the growth here is because low income families don't have good access to family planning. Is that really the kind of growth that is going to lead to a prosperous society? I think that that is the real argument that we should be having. Good growth v. bad growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 11:10 PM
miaht82's Avatar
miaht82 miaht82 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Triangle
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I give up. The moment someone pops up with an equation that is applied to every city equally that can show me that San Antonio can hit 24th within five years, I'll return and congratulate them and concede. However, anecdotal evidence and things like "Las Vegas won't grow" and "Cincinnati will soon be passed by San Antonio" (despite the fact that even Cincinnati - think about that for a moment - had a higher growth rate than San Antonio this past year in the midst of the worst downturn in 80 years) and "Charlotte and Austin aren't growing anymore" (despite Austin being only one of two metropolitan areas over 1 million with growth > 3%) and "Portland will be passed by San Antonio soon as well" etc etc etc don't prove anything to me.

Trae is correct. San Antonio's numbers have dropping for awhile. The only reason people come here is because the economy is good. This place has nothing else to offer. Downtown is built and organized around the tourist industry, the inner city neighborhoods are typically downtrodden, city planning is skewed towards suburbia because the city is too expansive to handle itself, no truly great public universities, etc. Most of the growth here is because low income families don't have good access to family planning. Is that really the kind of growth that is going to lead to a prosperous society? I think that that is the real argument that we should be having. Good growth v. bad growth.
Anthing else to get off your chest?

Just adding to the discussion:

The problem is that your equation is just that; your equation. There is no single equation that holds true for ALL cities. There are so many more variables than just the last two years of growth. Your equation isn't the "end-all" for all future assumptions.
That being said though, your guess is as good as any on this forum as it is all up in the air until hard numbers are shown. Could we be 25? Yes. Could we be 22? Who knows? We could also stay still or drop a couple. Did anyone see Raleigh jump 10 spots in 10 years? What about McAllen possibly passing El Paso in the next few years; did anyone see that happening 15 years ago?

Based on the 1990 census, the Census Bureau released projections for the next 35 years and in it they estimated that in 2015 Texas would have 24 million and California would have 41 million. The problem is that we (Texas) hit 24 mil (est.) in 2008 and California has struggled to get to 36 mil since hitting 33 million in 2000. It is possible, but it is highly unlikely that they will shoot up 5 million in the next 5 years to meet that estimate. However, Texas looks like it will hit 27 million in the next couple of years, a number that the Census Bureau said we wouldn't get to until 2025. So the equation they used, which was the latest growth stats for the time, was wrong.

I feel the need to defend my city (but not at the expense of putting down another.)

Based on tourism numbers, it seem that lots of people that choose to live in other cities, decide at some point that their city doesn't offer their family enough entertainment that they then choose to spend the weekend or a family vacation here. I guess this city does have something to offer after all.

What is your eqation for Good growth v. bad growth? Is San Antonio the only city that has low-income people procreating? Is every birth in SA a bad one?
I say that bad growth has somewhat been shown to us by the number of foreclosures in a city or state.

We will continue to have a large number of retirees and especially military retirees moving into the area since we have the amenities offered to this bunch (PX, commisary, VA and healthcare facilities, Air Force Village I & II.)
In the past few years, we've had alot of wounded warriors stick around permanently since there aren't too many places around the country that offers them the convenience and expertise to better their recoveries.
In the upcoming year, we will have 12,000 more jobs at Fort Sam Houston alone, not to mention all the jobs that will follow that DOD $$.
San Antonio is slowly becoming a major player in Cyber Security; the potential for growth in this field is not known but it could be pretty sizeable, especially with the NSA, and the AF Cyber Command here.
Tacoma production will start up soon and the CAT plant will be up and running by next year, both offering thousands of new jobs.
It may not be your definition of good growth, but it seems that there might be numerous reasons to believe that SA will fare better than some (not all) cities.

There is no way of knowing what the numbers will show in 5 or 10 years; who knows where the next Detroit is, which city will follow Pittsburghs' trends, or what cities are meeting a bit of a threshold, as one can assume happened to cities that hovered around 5% growth in 10 years. To me that is smart, controlled growth. Any guess or assumption is as good as any other.
Just to pick one out of the bunch though: Cincinnati had 1.4 million in 1970; that new 400K in 5 years your eqaution inputs in there seems like a bit of a stretch when you take into account that it took them 40 years to increase by 700K.
I don't think that SA is better than any other city; every city has a place in the National and in some cases, International picture. The defintion you gave of SA is/was mostly every large city in the US at some point or another. Suburbia? We're not the only city with that. Run down inner city? Mostly every city had that happen since the Great White Flight, Interstate Highway construction and the introduction of suburbs; some never recover from it. Like I said before, all we can do is speculate; the numbers will show what they show.

__________________
The Raleigh Connoisseur
It is the city trying to escape the consequences of being a city
while still remaining a city. It is urban society trying to eat its
cake and keep it, too.
- Harlan Douglass, The Suburban Trend, 1925
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 11:16 PM
oldmanshirt's Avatar
oldmanshirt oldmanshirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SATX > KCMO > DFW
Posts: 1,170
I'm glad I started this thread. Really seems to be going well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 11:28 PM
kornbread kornbread is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I give up. The moment someone pops up with an equation that is applied to every city equally that can show me that San Antonio can hit 24th within five years, I'll return and congratulate them and concede. However, anecdotal evidence and things like "Las Vegas won't grow" and "Cincinnati will soon be passed by San Antonio" (despite the fact that even Cincinnati - think about that for a moment - had a higher growth rate than San Antonio this past year in the midst of the worst downturn in 80 years) and "Charlotte and Austin aren't growing anymore" (despite Austin being only one of two metropolitan areas over 1 million with growth > 3%) and "Portland will be passed by San Antonio soon as well" etc etc etc don't prove anything to me.
I did think about it for a moment and thought "how can a city that increased by 13K have more growth than a city that increased by nearly 42K?"

Quote:
24. Cincinnati:
2008: 2 158 643
2009: 2 171 896
percent change: 2.6% (FASTER than San Antonio)
using your formula and (assuming the numbers you posted are correct):
( 1 - 2158643/2171896) * 100 = 0.6% (not 2.6%)

Who really knows what is going to happen?
Oh yeah...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 11:50 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 3,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by kornbread View Post
I did think about it for a moment and thought "how can a city that increased by 13K have more growth than a city that increased by nearly 42K?"



using your formula and (assuming the numbers you posted are correct):
( 1 - 2158643/2171896) * 100 = 0.6% (not 2.6%)

Who really knows what is going to happen?
Oh yeah...
I made a mistake. Instead of calculating the numbers myself, I eyeballed them from the spreadsheets posted on the census website and instead glanced at the Clarksville growth rate... Good catch. I concede. Using this method, San Antonio would definitely surpass Cincinnati and therefore attain the 24th position.

However, it would probably be better to strike a balance between this method and the first method so as to account for a rebound in population growth in multiple places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 11:51 PM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
Cincinnati grew by .6%, not 2.6%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2010, 4:35 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
I didn't say ANYTHING about Houston at all, or imply anything about the place. You brought up Houston and the other cities. I think what happened was, I posted that thing about San Antonio. You then got mad that I did and posted the other cities (including Houston since I'm from there and our past history of arguments). All I did was correct you. Was that so bad?
Directly and indirectly your posts are always pro Houston so please don't try to play dumb.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2010, 5:15 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
counting electric sheep
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 48,786
^Well, he does live there. Your's are pro San Antonio, mine are pro Austin (and pro San Antonio).
__________________
Smoke marijuana, not Americans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 4:15 PM.

     

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