is the future of america in texas?

[jbermingham123]

delete

[Altoic]

I recommend a solution to the heat: La Sombrita

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Again that is just your personal preference. A lot of people love Celine Dion.

As I said, Solipsism. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone has the same preferences and experiences as you.

that is a horrifying concept to the people on this forum.

And I successfully refute all of your inanity with two simple fucking words:


Paul's


Boutique

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

whats interesting about this is that LA might not be a good comparison for the individual texas cities.

LA is unique in that it totally dominated California (and the west coast in general) during the time of greatest population growth there. But Texas as a region is a bit more polycentric.. it doesnt really have a Los Angeles.

I think a better way to look at it is to compare the "Texas Triangle" as a whole to Southern California, as a whole.

Why do you think the better comparison is to only part of the state, though, and not the whole thing? There are around 15 million Californians outside of Southern California, and many of the areas they live in are the fastest-growing in the state.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And I successfully refute all of your inanity with two simple fucking words:


Paul's


Boutique

A true masterpiece. It really changed the game.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Again that is just your personal preference. A lot of people love Celine Dion.

As I said, Solipsism. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone has the same preferences and experiences as you.

that is a horrifying concept to the people on this forum.

You joined an Urban and Skyscraper forum and you are confused why people like this way of life and support it? Would you join a knitting club and be shocked that people like knitting?

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by craigs

Why do you think the better comparison is to only part of the state, though, and not the whole thing? There are around 15 million Californians outside of Southern California, and many of the areas they live in are the fastest-growing in the state.

My point was to compare a region to a region, rather than a state to a city (as was being done before). There are benefits and drawbacks to both types of comparison.

I wanted to refute the idea that the "texas cities are slowing down their growth faster than LA in comparable years". I think if the Texas cities were close enough together to be grouped in a single CSA, the numbers would look remarkably similar the broader LA region (LA MSA + Inland Empire) in the 20th century. i made a rough attempt to bring those numbers together

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

My point was to compare a region to a region, rather than a state to a city (as was being done before). There are benefits and drawbacks to both types of comparison.

I wanted to refute the idea that the "texas cities are slowing down their growth faster than LA in comparable years". I think if the Texas cities were close enough together to be grouped in a single CSA, the numbers would look remarkably similar the broader LA region (LA MSA + Inland Empire) in the 20th century. i made a rough attempt to bring those numbers together

It’s an interesting coincidence, but I’m more inclined to think that the city vs city comparison makes more sense.

Physical infrastructure, residential and transportation, should determine the limits of a city’s peak population more than anything else.

Most people just flat out move away from a MSA once travel distances go beyond 2 hours.

Let’s suppose that Texas cities as a combined group are growing at the exact same rate as Southern California in the past.

Well…Southern California is still nowhere close to having a 30 million population after a century of growth, yet the article claims there will be multiple 30 million and 20 million cities in the future.

If Texas cities are theoretical splitting growth across 3 or 4 cities, then each of them will take longer than SoCal to reach 30 million.

The article is just flat out bunk.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

It’s an interesting coincidence, but I’m more inclined to think that the city vs city comparison makes more sense.

Physical infrastructure, residential and transportation, should determine the limits of a city’s peak population more than anything else.

Most people just flat out move away from a MSA once travel distances go beyond 2 hours.

Let’s suppose that Texas cities as a combined group are growing at the exact same rate as Southern California in the past.

Well…Southern California is still nowhere close to having a 30 million population after a century of growth, yet the article claims there will be multiple 30 million and 20 million cities in the future.

If Texas cities are theoretical splitting growth across 3 or 4 cities, then each of them will take longer than SoCal to reach 30 million.

The article is just flat out bunk.

ahh yes, total agreement there.

theres no way in hell any individual city in texas reaches 30 million by 2100, if ever. DFW and Houston i could see doubling in population... as was mentioned earlier, 15 million each is a good upper estimate.

Ironically, i think its austin that is least likely to keep growing in the long run, despite the fact that its the only city in texas investing strategically in transit. its lopsided northward development pattern strikes me as a bad sign, but i cant really put my finger on why

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

If you want a lush green lawn, you probably shouldn't live in the desert and it impacts the local ecosystem. I never understood people from Ohio who move to phoenix and insist on bringing Ohio with them. Yes, a lawn is a total water hog. I wish our HOA would let us grow native plants in our lawn rather than thirsty St. Augustine grass.

Honestly, they shouldn't even have lawns in Ohio.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JManc

If you want a lush green lawn, you probably shouldn't live in the desert and it impacts the local ecosystem. I never understood people from Ohio who move to phoenix and insist on bringing Ohio with them. Yes, a lawn is a total water hog. I wish our HOA would let us grow native plants in our lawn rather than thirsty St. Augustine grass.

It doesn't "impact" the environment. there are grasses in the desert.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Obadno

They should it would lower the urban heat island effect in desert cities immensely.

Warter usage in desert states is 75% agriculture. your lawn is not a water hog and helps cool the city.

Again that is just your personal preference. A lot of people think that having a lawn in the desert is a terrible idea. Even Celine Dion.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pip

You joined an Urban and Skyscraper forum and you are confused why people like this way of life and support it? Would you join a knitting club and be shocked that people like knitting?

I am the farthest thing from shocked

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And I successfully refute all of your inanity with two simple fucking words:


Paul's


Boutique

all I can say to Obadno, is "Check Yer Head"

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Its not an opinion though... its a fact and a policy that I think desert cities should enact.

What we should do to save water is crack down on big agg.

but nooooooO! cant do that, the little people need to suffer instead!

[mhays]

Lawns are pretty stupid and wasteful unless it's an active place like a park.

As for the population projections, they're asinine. Every million makes the next million harder. Constantly playing catchup with transportation and basic utilities is only part of that. Not to mention the stuff that's harder to control like the heat island effect that makes a place hard to live in.

[MolsonExport]

We don't need fruits and vegetables. We need lawns!

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

all I can say to Obadno, is "Check Yer Head"

Check my head? you have an anti-racism quote from LBJ of all people

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

We don't need fruits and vegetables. We need lawns!

yes. Yuma does not need to grow lettuce and alfalfa. Tucson doesn't need to grow Pecans and other nuts, the Natives shouldn't grow cotton.

All of these operations independently use more water than if every household in Arizona had a nice watered lawn.

The best part is you wouldn't even need to stop actually growing these things we could make them use more efficient watering systems (Like we do for homeowners) to be less wasteful.

Im sure Ill get more glib responses from you well informed peanuts.

[38 Geary]

Lawns make sense for large parks where people can lounge around and play soccer, volleyball, football, etc.

They don't make much sense for front yards since most people don't actually use them for any utilitarian purpose other than aesthetics. A front yard with native landscaping that can promote wildlife and a natural ecosystem like bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, etc, or one that is at least productive like planter boxes with fruits and vegetables is also better than simply a lawn.