SAN ANTONIO │ City and Metro Off-Topic Thread

[Rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Geographer

I'm from Austin but have family in San Antonio and visit it often. When I was growing up in the 1990s, San Antonio was the big city to me while Austin felt small and quiet. Bexar County is still larger than Travis county, with a 2018 Census estimate of 1.9 million for Bexar and 1.2 million for Travis. So why is San Antonio's urban and economic development inferior to Austin's?

San Antonio has some intrinsic advantages over Austin: multiple large military bases providing large scale employment regardless of economic conditions, the Riverwalk, and Six Flags. Yet Austin is much richer and has more economic development.

You do understand that the military, Six Flags, and the Riverwalk are all low paying industries right? That might just answer your your own inquiry.

[Geographer]

Originally Posted by Restless One

Oh boy, you've stepped in to now.

The best answer I can give is the University of Texas at Austin. Young, professionals, well educated, and a tech community that hires them.

As for planning, Austin has simply planned better than the planners here. Well, except for traffic. San Antonio relied on the Military and tourism for a long time. It's getting better now, but we kind of dug ourselves a hole we're still climbing out of.

Those are good points. The military discharges thousands of young, skilled people every year in San Antonio. How does those additions to the labor market compare with UT graduates? The GI Bill and Texas's tuition benefit must be a windfall for San Antonio universities.

[Restless One]

Originally Posted by Geographer

Those are good points. The military discharges thousands of young, skilled people every year in San Antonio. How does those additions to the labor market compare with UT graduates? The GI Bill and Texas's tuition benefit must be a windfall for San Antonio universities.

I have no idea, and don't care to investigate. City planning and failure to lure high paying industries to the city probably matter more anyway.

[Rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Restless One

I have no idea, and don't care to investigate. City planning and failure to lure high paying industries to the city probably matter more anyway.

Bingo.

We are a family oriented city with a mostly blue collar history. Austin is not that and frankly their infrastructure sucks. They have nice new buildings but they are sprawling from NB to round rock.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by Geographer

I'm from Austin but have family in San Antonio and visit it often. When I was growing up in the 1990s, San Antonio was the big city to me while Austin felt small and quiet. Bexar County is still larger than Travis county, with a 2018 Census estimate of 1.9 million for Bexar and 1.2 million for Travis. So why is San Antonio's urban and economic development inferior to Austin's?

San Antonio has some intrinsic advantages over Austin: multiple large military bases providing large scale employment regardless of economic conditions, the Riverwalk, and Six Flags. Yet Austin is much richer and has more economic development.

Ah good, things had been quiet here. We needed a good knock down drag out fight about comparing ourselves to Austin to liven things up.

There's a lot of angles to this, but if you had to boil it down to one thing Austin has that SA doesn't, I think it's UT. UT has been this dynamo pumping out knowledge economy workers into Austin for a very long time. SA didn't get UTSA until the 60s, and even today it obviously doesn't hold a candle to UT. Combine UT with Austin being a nice town (one that grads want to hang around in) and you've got the recipe for growth that starts to create new high paying jobs and draw in people from all over. It's the same reason Pittsburgh has been able to rebound somewhat from its Rust Belt malaise (its cluster of top notch universities combined with natural beauty and interesting local culture).

The military bases and tourism have been good economic engines for San Antonio, but River Walk waiters and Lackland drill sergeants just aren't in the same league in terms of economic development as those UT grads.

My hot take here is that if like A&M (or even a Texas State) had been placed in San Antonio back in the day instead of where they are now, San Antonio would be a radically different town

[Restless One]

Originally Posted by Rynetwo

Bingo.

We are a family oriented city with a mostly blue collar history. Austin is not that and frankly their infrastructure sucks. They have nice new buildings but they are sprawling from NB to round rock.

I'd say the sprawl is the fault of both cities, (NB is in SA'S metro, not Austins').

I'd still say UT is, and has been a driving force in Austin's ascension, and the fact that Michael Dell attended there doesn't hurt.

[Restless One]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

Ah good, things had been quiet here. We needed a good knock down drag out fight about comparing ourselves to Austin to liven things up.

There's a lot of angles to this, but if you had to boil it down to one thing Austin has that SA doesn't, I think it's UT. UT has been this dynamo pumping out knowledge economy workers into Austin for a very long time. SA didn't get UTSA until the 60s, and even today it obviously doesn't hold a candle to UT. Combine UT with Austin being a nice town (one that grads want to hang around in) and you've got the recipe for growth that starts to create new high paying jobs and draw in people from all over. It's the same reason Pittsburgh has been able to rebound somewhat from its Rust Belt malaise (its cluster of top notch universities combined with natural beauty and interesting local culture).

The military bases and tourism have been good economic engines for San Antonio, but River Walk waiters and Lackland drill sergeants just aren't in the same league in terms of economic development as those UT grads.

My hot take here is that if like A&M (or even a Texas State) had been placed in San Antonio back in the day instead of where they are now, San Antonio would be a radically different town

As my posts might reveal, I agree with you. UT Austin is a worldwide, or at least nationwide, institution, and draws from all over. San Antonio's colleges and universities are largely drawing from the local population, which for whatever reason, has been conditioned to believe that SA is not on par with other cities, and has less to offer.

While I think SA has plenty to offer recent grads, as far as family life, and putting down roots, we don't have the allure of Austin, and certainly other cities, for single, young people that frankly want to party and hook up, while climbing the corporate ladder, and putting family off for later, or not at all.

Let's face it, Austin might be the "cool" city of Texas, but it ain't San Francisco, Seattle, or even Nashville these days. Austin has an unreasonable sense of self importance.

[Geographer]

UT Austin is undoubtedly a large part of Austin's success. But if having a large, famous, high quality university in town was the primary driver of urban development then Ann Arbor and College Station would be booming cities.

Why didn't San Antonio's leaders in the 1970s through 2000s have more ambition? Did they try to attract texh industries and encourage urban density? The Riverwalk and tourism industry can be a springboard to urban development, such as by using TIRZ, taxing them and using the proceeds to improve infrastructure and education, and enouraging people to live downtown. San Antonio could've expanded or rebuilt their airport to be a large hub like Houston did with Bush Intercontinental. But all that takes ambitious, capable leaders.

[UrbanTrance]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

Ah good, things had been quiet here. We needed a good knock down drag out fight about comparing ourselves to Austin to liven things up.

There's a lot of angles to this, but if you had to boil it down to one thing Austin has that SA doesn't, I think it's UT. UT has been this dynamo pumping out knowledge economy workers into Austin for a very long time. SA didn't get UTSA until the 60s, and even today it obviously doesn't hold a candle to UT. Combine UT with Austin being a nice town (one that grads want to hang around in) and you've got the recipe for growth that starts to create new high paying jobs and draw in people from all over. It's the same reason Pittsburgh has been able to rebound somewhat from its Rust Belt malaise (its cluster of top notch universities combined with natural beauty and interesting local culture).

The military bases and tourism have been good economic engines for San Antonio, but River Walk waiters and Lackland drill sergeants just aren't in the same league in terms of economic development as those UT grads.

My hot take here is that if like A&M (or even a Texas State) had been placed in San Antonio back in the day instead of where they are now, San Antonio would be a radically different town

I think another decent comparison is Columbus Ohio. For a mid west city it is doing far better than the others I think due to Ohio state and it being a good place to raise a family and the like. Of course, the Texas cities have had much more robust growth overall when compared to the rust belt.

[Geographer]

I'm not familiar with San Antonio's recent history or politics. Did city leaders rest on their laurels? How much ambition was there to grow, develop, and create wealth?

[Restless One]

Originally Posted by Geographer

I'm not familiar with San Antonio's recent history or politics. Did city leaders rest on their laurels? How much ambition was there to grow, develop, and create wealth?

If you ask me, I think there was a malaise here from the '30s through Hemisfair. We went from the biggest city in Texas to third, as Houston and Dallas made great gains in that time.

I think the powers that be were content with the Military and Tourism carrying the load, but until UTSA came on board, we didn't have the most educated workforce either. As UTSA grows, it's getting better, but we still don't attract educated, young professionals the way Dallas, Houston, and Austin do.

Again, it's getting better. The re purposing of Kelly AFB to a manufacturing center and port, the transformation of Brooks to retail, manufacturing, education, and living center is helping, The Pearl is a rousing success, and places like Geekdom are giving tech start ups a foothold here. We just got a late start.

That's my $.02 anyway.

[Restless One]

Just a question:

Many here are in favor of a more dense population, using mass transit as a means of transportation. Given the Coronavirus, and it's propagation in densely populated, subway oriented New York, is there anyone rethinking the need for mass transit?

I'd like to see San Antonio more central, and less sprawl, but I can't help but think that personal automobiles, and not being stuck in tubes with people that may or may not make use of personal hygiene, might be preferable during a pandemic.

And, yeah, I know there are hot spots that don't have the mass transit system of New York, but it has been mentioned as a factor in the hot spots worldwide.

[Spoiler]

Originally Posted by Restless One

Just a question:

Many here are in favor of a more dense population, using mass transit as a means of transportation. Given the Coronavirus, and it's propagation in densely populated, subway oriented New York, is there anyone rethinking the need for mass transit?

I'd like to see San Antonio more central, and less sprawl, but I can't help but think that personal automobiles, and not being stuck in tubes with people that may or may not make use of personal hygiene, might be preferable during a pandemic.

And, yeah, I know there are hot spots that don't have the mass transit system of New York, but it has been mentioned as a factor in the hot spots worldwide.

No. Contagious diseases are contagious everywhere. Sprawl won't save you from corona.

[KevinFromTexas]

Density does affect it since the more people you encounter as soon as you step out the greater the chance of getting it you'll have. It shouldn't be too surprising that taking public transportation or walking past crowds of people on the street would increase your chances of getting it. Still, you can get the virus anywhere you encounter other people. It doesn't matter if you're walking down 5th Avenue in New York or eating at a diner in a town with 400 people.

[Restless One]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

No. Contagious diseases are contagious everywhere. Sprawl won't save you from corona.

That's not what I said. I said that many experts are citing mass transit as a contributing factor to the speed of the virus, which seems reasonable. You can have personal vehicles, and not have sprawl. Yup, you would need somewhere to put them evil autos, but they could be parked most of the time.

My question is, why do we need rail, or buses, on a mass scale, if we centralize the population, build up instead of out, and make bikes or walking the new mass transit?

I'd wager that San Antonio, and most Western cities, is too far gone to ever get to an ideal situation. I'd also wager that you'd have a hard time getting people on a bus or train right about now.

[LSPaul]

Originally Posted by Restless One

That's not what I said. I said that many experts are citing mass transit as a contributing factor to the speed of the virus, which seems reasonable. You can have personal vehicles, and not have sprawl. Yup, you would need somewhere to put them evil autos, but they could be parked most of the time.

My question is, why do we need rail, or buses, on a mass scale, if we centralize the population, build up instead of out, and make bikes or walking the new mass transit?

I'd wager that San Antonio, and most Western cities, is too far gone to ever get to an ideal situation. I'd also wager that you'd have a hard time getting people on a bus or train right about now.

As someone who has traveled to Asia extensively in my former line of work, I can assure you urban congestion (or, "high density" if you prefer) definitely does increase the probability, if not the actual incidence of disease spread. In both China and Japan, masked pedestrians are very, very common and most live in multistory towers lined up like dominoes and packed buses, trains and subways as the fastest way to get around. Culture makes a difference too in that the Japanese practice scrupulous cleanliness and social-distancing is built in (bowing over handshakes) where as the Chinese struggle with sanitation and are less discriminating in what they eat. Thus, this virus has passed through Japan with little impact but China, we know the outcome (and it's probably much worse when accounting for their government's lack of transparency).

My point is the Japanese have a large population on a relatively small group of islands so they've learned, over generations, how to do the density thing right whereas the Chinese, with all their mega-cities aren't there yet. It's about a mindset that is needed to survive when living like bees in a beehive vs. out in the "wide open spaces" of suburban sprawl. American freedom, while more preferable than anything else, makes the Japanese model difficult to duplicate.

[Spoiler]

I guess we have American freedom to thank for the American infection rate being the highest in the world, 'cause it sure ain't the mass transit. Thanks, American freedom, which is more preferable than anything else!

[LSPaul]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

I guess we have American freedom to thank for the American infection rate being the highest in the world, 'cause it sure ain't the mass transit. Thanks, American freedom, which is more preferable than anything else!

The American "infection rate" referenced is NOT the highest in the world. First of all the rate of infection per capita as of Sat. March 28 stands at approximately 0.04%, which is far lower than Italy, Spain or even Germany. The more testing that is done the more cases there will be confirmed which will invariably raise the "infection rate". If the leading epidemiologists are correct, they now estimate the final rate of 0.1% or 1 in 1000, the peak number in the US could be 340,000. China's number would be off the charts but they stopped testing three weeks ago to make sure the number stayed where it is once deaths started to decline. The US is the third largest country by population in the world behind China and India, which has no program for testing on a mass scale.

The "mortality" rate is the more important number, that is, number of deaths as a percentage of the number of confirmed cases. Right now the the US is about 1.5%, Italy is over 10% and China, even with their flawed numbers, is reporting about 4%.

As for the original point regarding urban congestion the highest number of both cases and fatalities, by far, are in NYC, which, I believe is the most densely populated metro in the US.

Yes, I'll take freedom and liberty over anything else. Benjamin Franklin is often quoted to have said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Spoiler]

Originally Posted by LSPaul

The American "infection rate" referenced is NOT the highest in the world. First of all the rate of infection per capita as of Sat. March 28 stands at approximately 0.04%, which is far lower than Italy, Spain or even Germany. The more testing that is done the more cases there will be confirmed which will invariably raise the "infection rate". If the leading epidemiologists are correct, they now estimate the final rate of 0.1% or 1 in 1000, the peak number in the US could be 340,000. China's number would be off the charts but they stopped testing three weeks ago to make sure the number stayed where it is once deaths started to decline. The US is the third largest country by population in the world behind China and India, which has no program for testing on a mass scale.

The "mortality" rate is the more important number, that is, number of deaths as a percentage of the number of confirmed cases. Right now the the US is about 1.5%, Italy is over 10% and China, even with their flawed numbers, is reporting about 4%.

As for the original point regarding urban congestion the highest number of both cases and fatalities, by far, are in NYC, which, I believe is the most densely populated metro in the US.

Yes, I'll take freedom and liberty over anything else. Benjamin Franklin is often quoted to have said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

My apologies; I certainly misspoke. I meant to point out that the USA now has more infected citizens than any other country in the world. As I type this, there are 123,495 people infected with covid-19 in the US. The next highest is Italy, with 92,000. There are over 500 US deaths today, so far, which is a 500% increase over yesterday. Your rate comparisons to other countries fails to take into account that the US is a couple weeks behind them. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like things here will get dramatically worse in the near future. Future flash points probably include Florida and Louisiana, two states not known for their density.

As for your jingoism, freedom and liberty have nothing to do with an incompetently managed federal pandemic response system which will probably result in a national disaster on a scale no one living has seen. I guarantee you that Franklin was not talking about adequate levels of virus testing and quarantining of the infected when he made his pithy quote.

[LSPaul]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

My apologies; I certainly misspoke. I meant to point out that the USA now has more infected citizens than any other country in the world. As I type this, there are 123,495 people infected with covid-19 in the US. The next highest is Italy, with 92,000. There are over 500 US deaths today, so far, which is a 500% increase over yesterday. Your rate comparisons to other countries fails to take into account that the US is a couple weeks behind them. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like things here will get dramatically worse in the near future. Future flash points probably include Florida and Louisiana, two states not known for their density.

As for your jingoism, freedom and liberty have nothing to do with an incompetently managed federal pandemic response system which will probably result in a national disaster on a scale no one living has seen. I guarantee you that Franklin was not talking about adequate levels of virus testing and quarantining of the infected when he made his pithy quote.

Apology accepted, however, I don't accept that I was engaged in what you call "jingoism". I don't want a federal response on the scale of China, perhaps the most repressive, nor that of Italy, probably the most incompetent. Even, South Korea, which did well, but at the expense of trashing personal privacy by posting the names of everyone who tested positive, is not a solution I would endorse. Thankfully, HIPAA laws here would never let that happen. We have little choice but to wait and see what type of response works best in the end.