is the future of america in texas?

[Steely Dan]

I take pride In my home.

But the grass out front is mother nature's responsibility.

If she wants it to be green, she'll make it rain.

I sure as shit ain't gonna spend money to make it artificially green against her will.

It's fucking grass.


And water ain't free.

But rain is!!

Free is good.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Some people take pride in their homes.

Seems like a petty and irrelevant thing to take pride in, especially given the waste and poisons involved.

[dimondpark]

we went full xeriscape and I love it.

[mhays]

I'm amazed at the amount of time, money, and effort a lot of people spend on lawns. Like every freaking WEEK they're out there for hours.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I take pride In my home.

But the grass out front is mother nature's responsibility.

If she wants it to be green, she'll make it rain.

I sure as shit ain't gonna spend money to make it artificially green against her will.

It's fucking grass.


And water ain't free.

But rain is!!

Free is good.

An advantage I have in living in the rainiest big city in the US is I have watered my lawn maybe 2 or 3 times total in the last couple of years. Disadvantage is that it needs to be cut often but we pay a lawn service to handle that.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

we went full xeriscape and I love it.

Yeah. It'll never be mistaken for a lush rainforest in Borneo but it's hard to go wrong with a proper selection of CA/Western US native plants. When done well it can be quite colorful in its own right, and much more water wise than a lawn.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

and much more water wise than a lawn.

Lawns can be stupidly "water wise" if you simply don't water them and let mother nature do her thing.

The only reason people think lawns are water intensive is because a certain subset of Americans has come to erroneously believe that they must always be a 100% saturated bright kelly green, no matter what, like they live in some damp Irish sheep's meadow or something.

That ain't necessary at all. If you just leave it alone, your grass will be fine. Trust me.

Sometimes it gets brownish yellow if you hit a dry spell, but then it immediately bounces back to green after the next big rain.


WAY too many people overthink it.

Americans seem to be good at that.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yeah. It'll never be mistaken for a lush rainforest in Borneo but it's hard to go wrong with a proper selection of CA/Western US native plants. When done well it can be quite colorful in its own right, and much more water wise than a lawn.

Oh yes. This to me looks so much better and attractive than a boring green lawn; it also attracts native birds and insects. Less watering and maintenance too. Very suitable for southern California and looks right at home.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Lawns can be stupidly "water wise" if you simply don't water them and let mother nature do her thing.

The only reason people think lawns are water intensive is because a certain subset of Americans has come to erroneously believe that they must always be a 100% saturated bright kelly green, no matter what, like they live in some damp Irish sheep's meadow or something.

That ain't necessary at all. If you just leave it alone, your grass will be fine. Trust me.

Sometimes it gets brownish yellow if you hit a dry spell, but then it immediately bounces back to green after the next big rain.


WAY too many people overthink it.

Americans seem to be good at that.

Sure, I don't doubt there are plenty of places where you don't have to water your lawn as much. But in CA, it takes significantly more water to keep a lawn looking "good" than a properly curated native garden. Initial research, selection, and planting might be time intensive in the beginning, but once established, it will be far less maintenance and water intensive than a lawn... in CA that is.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Sure, I don't doubt there are plenty of places where you don't have to water your lawn as much.

Or at all!



But yeah, considering I've never lived outside the Midwest, I don't know how these things work out west.

I'm just pushing back against the tired arguments of the anti-lawn brigade (water, chemicals, and time-consuming).

Over here in the wet half of the nation, you don't have to do any of those things to your lawn if you just chill and stop over thinking it.

[JManc]

In CA, people either let their lawns wither during a drought or plant sustainable/ local greenery or have a rock garden which makes sense rather than a thirsty lawn. I wish this expectation of a green lawn in areas with sporadic climates would give way to more sustainable set ups.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Oh yes. This to me looks so much better and attractive than a boring green lawn; it also attracts native birds and insects. Less watering and maintenance too. Very suitable for southern California and looks right at home.

looks 100,000 times more interesting than a patch of green lawn.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

don't mess with texas lol ... pretty bold ... and kinda funny to imagine ... moving company guesstimates here --




Is the future of America in Texas? Dallas, Houston and Austin are poised to replace New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago as the largest cities in the US ... but not for another 77 years

Texas' population expected to reach 96 million by 2100-- making it largest in US
Dallas expected to be home to 34 million by the turn of the century

New York City, Los Angeles will see major declines, falling to #5 and #7 largest cities

By MARYANN MARTINEZ, TEXAS BUREAU CHIEF FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 06:59 EDT, 22 October 2023 | UPDATED: 14:08 EDT, 22 October 2023


It's a new world and Texas will be at the center of it, as the Lone Star State is expected to become the most populous in the US by 2100 with a whooping 96 million residents, according to a study.

In 77 years, New York, Chicago and LA will be replaced by Texas cities as the largest in the nation, a study from moveBuddha claims.

The moving company made the bold projections by applying 2010-2020 Census growth rates to the top U.S. metropolitan areas.


more:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/texas/a...Chicago-largest-cities-not-77-years.html

lol

[harls]

Originally Posted by Doady

lol

Why lol?

Everyone is moving there.

(kinda suspect on that graphic that says Phoenix, TX tho..)

[BG918]

Originally Posted by lio45

At current densities Dallas would sprawl into Oklahoma and Houston into Louisiana, so assigning ALL the projected population gains of these metros to "Texas" (as if they voted and paid taxes there and contributed to Texas' weight nationally) is incorrect

Phoenix would occupy half of Arizona as you correctly calculate, but it would at least still be in Arizona! (edit: or not! see post below)

DFW already sprawls into Oklahoma. The growth along 75 is just insane.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by harls

Why lol?

Everyone is moving there.

(kinda suspect on that graphic that says Phoenix, TX tho..)

Title of graph: "Texas Poised to Become the Most Populous State in US"

Actual graph: 2,100 population of the most populous MSAs in the US (yes, 2,100, not 2100)

So:
"poised" = 2,100
"state" = MSA

Labels on the bars for current population have 0 or 1 decimal places, while the labels for all of the projected population bars have 2 decimal places. New York is projected to go from 19 million to 20.81 million. Somehow the projected population is more precise than the current, measured, verifiable population by 2 decimal places.

Y axis goes up to 50 million even though the major units are increments of 10 million and the highest population total is less than 40 million.

Labels for both variables of Y axis (population, year) are underneath the X axis instead of the beside the Y axis (population) and in a legend (year).

No label for the X axis.

The word "million" appears 15 times on the graph.

Title of the graph is not capitalized while the Y axis label is capitalized.

Title of the graph should say "in the US", not "in US".

The labels of the major units of the Y axis are aligned to the left instead of to the right.

The labels of the major units of the Y axis have 0 decimal places even though the labels on the bars have up to 2 decimal places.

Exactly which year represents the "current population" is not indicated.

Then of course there's the idea that in 2,100 there will be 2 Texas cities with population over of 30 million, and 2 more with population of over of 20 million, one of them being Phoenix, based on two measurements of population over a 10 year span.

If a kid submits this to their math teacher in high school, they would get a failing grade. But else do you expect from the Daily Mail besides news reporting that is below high school standards.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by harls

Why lol?

Everyone is moving there.

(kinda suspect on that graphic that says Phoenix, TX tho..)

You missed reading about the great Texas-Arizona war. Arizona lost..::

[lio45]

Among other interesting things, this bar chart tells us that with 100% certainty it’s a Texas team that’ll be winning this baseball season.

[llamaorama]

As a Texan, I hope not

Texas is so mediocre, I think we only succeed because most competing states have serious problems.

Oh yes. This to me looks so much better and attractive than a boring green lawn; it also attracts native birds and insects. Less watering and maintenance too. Very suitable for southern California and looks right at home.

It looks nice, but in an area with higher rainfall, like Dallas-Fort Worth, it would be full of weeds. It also looks like a fantastic place for a venomous snake to hide.

I think east of the 100th parallel it still makes sense to have a mowed lawn, it just doesn't have to be verdant green 100% of the time by juicing it with chemicals and daily watering. We should just accept short yellow grass that's not uniform and may be mixed with "weeds". Let Hank Hill be mad.

[ocman]

People thinking they can predict 100 years. Okay...