SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro News Thread

[STLtoSA]

Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX

I just wanted to point out that the cities mentioned are not larger cities based on urbanized area or the offical metro rankings, not a secondary list that combines both CSA and MSA.

Back on the subject of CSA's. This population classification consits of more than one metro area, and this is why I say its not an equal comparrison versus a single MSA.

I am quite aware that the TV market size is the first thing the NFL looks at, and the other things you mentioned, which in fact would favor San Antonio and, put it at the top of the list of possible relocation or expansion cities. San Antonio has the largest corporate base of the cities mentioned, healthy socio-economics and, is, definitely football crazy. However, TV market size isnt really a measurement of a city's size. The Indianpolis TV market is larger than San Diego's and, San Diego is just one rank above, Nashville. Which metro is bigger out of those cities?

Having a larger TV market helps more on a marketable standpont and should not be the only indicator if a region can support a team. A large Population base in close proximity to NFL venue is equally if not more important than a television set tuning in 100 miles out. Nonetheless all important factors in attracting a NFL franchise.

A future NFL city should be based on how heathly the economy is, future growth, and the regional population even if it crosses into another metro's boundaries. Austin-San Marcos should definitely be a part of San Antonio's equation. As well as all South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, Corpus Christi, and Laredo.

A San Antonio NFL team versus the Dallas Cowboys or Pittsburgh Steelers would certanly sell out over and over.

The success of the San Antonio Spurs has made the name 'San Antonio' somewhat of a household name when it comes to pro sports.

I am not sure who is confused; me or you.

I am and have been saying that San Antonio is the most viable American Market for an NFL team (outside of LA).

Maybe the 3rd time will be a charm:

Population was only used to produce a list of possible (not probable) NFL candidate cities.

I was not ranking "viability" by population. It was just a rough candidate list.

It is true that CSA and MSA are different classifications, but they can be used as a comparison; if you understand them.

For example, you can't use the San Fransisco-Oakland MSA in comparison to the Washington-Baltimore CSA. You would compare the San Jose-San Fransisco-Oakland CSA to the Washington-Baltimore CSA.

The whole point behind CSA's is to classify areas that have multiple cores.

Combined Statistical Areas defined:

A Combined Statistical Area is an aggregate of adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) (either Metropolitan Statistical Areas or Micropolitan Statistical Areas) that are linked by commuting ties.

"Commuting ties" is the key phrase. If a large enough percentage of the populations cross-commutes to the point that it is classified as a CSA, then I would say you can group the Market size.

Getting an NFL team would be great for the area. I am not sure if it will happen anytime soon, but I believe that San Antonio would have no issues supporting a franchise.

From a personal perspective, I would like to see San Antonio rally behind a possible MLS Franchise and/or MLB Franchise because they would also be great for the city...and they are more attainable.

And go support the Road Runners, that program has risen quickly. In the years to come it could/should be a perennial contender in CUSA. They have been averaging just under 30,000/game this year (29,744). In a couple of years I could see the average rise to 35,000-40,000/game. The dome is not perfect for UTSA, but it is a great home (being so far from campus hurts student attendance, however accessibility can boost other general public attendance). The dome lease also allows UTSA to use there Athletic Budget to improve other needed Student Athlete facilities without having to finance a 30,000 seat football stadium.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Originally Posted by STLtoSA

I am not sure who is confused; me or you.

I am and have been saying that San Antonio is the most viable American Market for an NFL team (outside of LA).

Maybe the 3rd time will be a charm:

I was not ranking "viability" by population. It was just a rough candidate list.

It is true that CSA and MSA are different classifications, but they can be used as a comparison; if you understand them.

For example, you can't use the San Fransisco-Oakland MSA in comparison to the Washington-Baltimore CSA. You would compare the San Jose-San Fransisco-Oakland CSA to the Washington-Baltimore CSA.

The whole point behind CSA's is to classify areas that have multiple cores.

Combined Statistical Areas defined:


"Commuting ties" is the key phrase. If a large enough percentage of the populations cross-commutes to the point that it is classified as a CSA, then I would say you can group the Market size.

Getting an NFL team would be great for the area. I am not sure if it will happen anytime soon, but I believe that San Antonio would have no issues supporting a franchise.

From a personal perspective, I would like to see San Antonio rally behind a possible MLS Franchise and/or MLB Franchise because they would also be great for the city...and they are more attainable.

And go support the Road Runners, that program has risen quickly. In the years to come it could/should be a perennial contender in CUSA. They have been averaging just under 30,000/game this year (29,744). In a couple of years I could see the average rise to 35,000-40,000/game. The dome is not perfect for UTSA, but it is a great home (being so far from campus hurts student attendance, however accessibility can boost other general public attendance). The dome lease also allows UTSA to use there Athletic Budget to improve other needed Student Athlete facilities without having to finance a 30,000 seat football stadium.

I understand what you are saying in regards to what constitutes a CSA, and how it is determined by the percentage of commuting patterns but that is based on employment figures, and it is not the same percentage that will travel for leisure activities such as a prime time sporting event such as the NFL. So looking at the raw population within a radius is the main factor, and not metro boundaries or other classifications such as TV market size.

When you mention the metros such as Raleigh Durham, Winston-Salem, Greensboro the triad, combined would have a similar population to the S.A.-Austin corridor and, that may very well be true but, that is too many cores to be looked at in the same light as the more unified Austin-SA corridor.

Regardless of all this, politics, will be the deciding factor if South/Central Texas will ever see NFL. By 2025 there will be over 5 million people in the 6 corridor counties
(Interstate 35) of the S.A/Austin corridor and, probably still no NFL.

[STLtoSA]

Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX

When you mention the metros such as Raleigh Durham, Winston-Salem, Greensboro the triad, combined would have a similar population to the S.A.-Austin corridor and, that may very well be true but, that is too many cores to be looked at in the same light as the more unified Austin-SA corridor.

I never grouped those together that was miaht82.

I do not believe that the Raliegh/Durham Metro and the Greensboro/Winston-Salem Metro should be combined into one area.

However, if one wants to lump Austin and San Antonio together then you might as well lump the NC cities together too. The similarities between the two regions are scary.

Distance:
Greensboro to Raleigh - 82 miles
San Antonio to Austin - 81 miles

Lewisville (far west) to Clayton (far east) - 130 miles
Castroville to Serenada - 132 miles

Population (2012 Estimates):
SA/Austin Area - 4,068,000
Raleigh/Greensboro Area - 3,610,051

The main difference is that the NC area is more fragmented with at least 4 cores where the SA/Austin area has two distinct cores.

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by STLtoSA

I never grouped those together that was miaht82.

I do not believe that the Raliegh/Durham Metro and the Greensboro/Winston-Salem Metro should be combined into one area.

However, if one wants to lump Austin and San Antonio together then you might as well lump the NC cities together too. The similarities between the two regions are scary.

Distance:
Greensboro to Raleigh - 82 miles
San Antonio to Austin - 81 miles

Lewisville (far west) to Clayton (far east) - 130 miles
Castroville to Serenada - 132 miles

Population (2012 Estimates):
SA/Austin Area - 4,068,000
Raleigh/Greensboro Area - 3,610,051

The main difference is that the NC area is more fragmented with at least 4 cores where the SA/Austin area has two distinct cores.

...and I only lumped them together to speak to the point of "regional" pull, which area and population-wise (like you pointed out) is a similar comparison. However, I also said that the two didn't compare due to the fact that alot of the population is spread out here (I live in Cary).

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Daren

I think our biggest problem is our media market. We are still very tiny.
I believe our city "leaders" should be more focused on our media market rather than street car.
How? I have no idea.

By the way, I live in S.A. and I will be driving up to Austin to see the F1 Race!

That's a point to consider...you will be driving up to Austin for ONE race.

Let's really examine this "regional" notion...how many Austinites will actually drive to SA for multiple NFL games every year is the real question to ponder (especially considering the traffic issues in Austin and the corridor)? I believe: not many. At least not enough to count on to fill a portion of a stadium.

Should an Austinite have an affiliation with an NFL franchise, it's more likely Dallas or Houston. Citizens of Austin will not get "excited" about an NFL franchise in SA (and absolutely visa versa). It's too new. Is UTSA building a 100,000-seat stadium for its now-FBS football team? No. One must build its fan base. Even in a metro of 2.2 million people (let alone a "region" of 4.1 million). Thus, any argument trying to use the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA as an additional reason to place an NFL franchise in SA is misguided and weak.

The NFL is too smart and they know this fact. In actuality, the NFL focuses on TV markets, not "potential CSA size." And at last check, the SA market does not include Austin and visa versa in their respective TV markets (to which Daren has alluded). Dallas-Ft. Worth, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (as examples) are all individual TV markets. It really does not matter how "close" two cities are...it's whether or not they are considered one or two individual markets.

Furthermore, and most importantly, if SA cannot stand on its own, it should not be granted a franchise (another point to which the NFL is familiar...see: Jacksonville, Tampa). Look at two of the most storied NFL franchises: Miami and Oakland...they are both currently hurting financially in "regions" that put AUS-SAT to shame in terms of population. Carolina is having a good year (on the field), yet its franchise is still not in the most positive of financial positions.

The citizens of SA will be solely responsible for the success or failure of an NFL franchise in San Antonio. It is not the responsibility of Austin to help or sustain a franchise in another city...especially since it will not reap any benefits (should they be available).

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Carolina is having a good year (on the field), yet its franchise is still not in the most positive of financial positions.

...and yet I still see very little support, by show of Carolina gear or by verbal poll. I see more visible support for Duke football this year; added to the support for Tar Heels, Wolfpack and the Pirates and that leaves very little room for the Panthers around here. Just like San Antonio, there are many transplants living here (in the Triangle) and I see more support for the Steelers, Eagles, Giants or Patriots combined than the Panthers.

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

The citizens of SA will be solely responsible for the success or failure of an NFL franchise in San Antonio. It is not the responsibility of Austin to help or sustain a franchise in another city...especially since it will not reap any benefits (should they be available).

It may not be Austin's responsibility, but I think (to my last point in previous comment) that some transplants may offer some help, from Austin or SA, in their hunt to show support for their "home" team. If you don't believe its possible to fill seats with the opposing teams "fans", then my first exhibit would be a Spurs-Lakers game. Is that enough to put it over the top? Probably not, but it would help out some while they built up their own fan base, and of course early success would be crucial.

[Paul in S.A TX]

San Antonio can support NFL, it should not even be a debate when markets a fraction the size, can. Green Bay, New Orleans, Buffalo, seem to be going a decent job filling their stadiums, and these markets are not in the same size tier with San Antonio. A S.A. NFL team will gain support from outside the San Antonio metro, and draw spectators from all South Central Texas. If their are NFL fans in Austin, or any other city in South-Central Texas they will attend a San Antonio game, they might not be a fan of the team but, just a fan of the sport.

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX

San Antonio can support NFL, it should not even be a debate when markets a fraction the size, can. Green Bay, New Orleans, Buffalo, seem to be going a decent job filling their stadiums, and these markets are not in the same size tier with San Antonio. A S.A. NFL team will gain support from outside the San Antonio metro, and draw spectators from all South Central Texas. If their are NFL fans in Austin, or any other city in South-Central Texas they will attend a San Antonio game, they might not be a fan of the team but, just a fan of the sport.

To name three and there are many others. Furthermore, SA's DMA may never appear favorable for NFL - at least on the surface. But it too, is larger than many NFL markets.

[ski-man]

Another aspect the NFL will look at is income. Can a town/region support the costs of purchasing season tickets, psl's, and all other costs on a consistent basis. Cities may have a large population, but does a large enough portion of the population make enough income to consistently support this aspect as well. This include the needed suites and expensive boxes at an up to date stadium that will make the team and the NFL money. Just something else to think about.

[Sean1187]

Thought this was interesting. The Atlantic Cities reports on "Important Buildings We Lost in 2013". The Univision Building was among them.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...ost-2013/7948/

[21bl0wed]

Originally Posted by adtobias

Did we get those 5000 jobs.

No, union got a deal to keep them in their current town.

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by 21bl0wed

No, union got a deal to keep them in their current town.

That was a completely different enterprise.

[21bl0wed]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

That was a completely different enterprise.

Not if he was referring to sa landing the boeing 777x. Sa was in the running with a few other cities to land that contract which would have added a couple thousand of jobs but Boeing and the union in Everett WA worked it out so no relocation was needed. Not sure what you're talking about.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Czech Republic energy company establishes HQ in San Antonio.

Quote:
A Czech Republic company says it has found an abundant, long-term source of energy in South Texas to help European utilities produce electricity.

The energy source has nothing to do with the Eagle Ford Shale.
The source is the hated mesquite wood.

“We looked all over the world for a stable and big source of biomass. We found the source in Texas,” Zdenek Mayer said. He's business director and CEO for GreenHeart Energy LLC, the Texas division of GreenHeart Energy, based in Duchcov, Czech Republic.

GreenHeart Energy LLC has selected San Antonio for its Texas company's headquarters — for legal, banking and accounting purposes — but most of its activities will occur near and in Corpus Christi.

"Hated mesquite wood"? Who hates mesquite wood? It's great for barbecues.

So a Czech company is going to clear cut south Texas mesquite to help European utilities? "You take our trees leaving us a desert, and we'll give you a supply of energy." Sounds like a fair deal.

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

"Hated mesquite wood"? Who hates mesquite wood? It's great for barbecues.

So a Czech company is going to clear cut south Texas mesquite to help European utilities? "You take our trees leaving us a desert, and we'll give you a supply of energy." Sounds like a fair deal.

Did you read the full article? They're only harvesting within a 100 mile radius of Corpus. So they're not turning South Texas into a desert and more importantly, they leave the root system intact and within ten years the tree is ready to be harvested again. Once they're done (whenever that is) harvesting the trees, they'll all grow back. No harm, no foul.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Still weird they're calling them 'hated'. Maybe ranchers don't like them because they take over grazing land?

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Did you read the full article? They're only harvesting within a 100 mile radius of Corpus. So they're not turning South Texas into a desert and more importantly, they leave the root system intact and within ten years the tree is ready to be harvested again. Once they're done (whenever that is) harvesting the trees, they'll all grow back. No harm, no foul.

I did read the article but I must have missed the part about leaving the root system. Thanks for pointing that out. It makes me feel better. And I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

[WorldTexas]

Google Fiber eyes San Antonio, eight other U.S. metro areas
BY JOSH BAUGH : FEBRUARY 19, 2014 :

The company will announce Wednesday on its Google Fiber blog and at press conferences around the country that San Antonio is one of nine major metro areas that could become home to a so-called “gig network” that employs fiber-optic cable to transmit data at extremely fast speeds.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...-S-5248358.php

[sirkingwilliam]

Yeah, I had been hearing more and more rumors about this happening over the last few months. This is great news.

[sirkingwilliam]

Council Expected to Approve Google Fiber Proposal on Thursday

The City of San Antonio this week will take the first steps toward getting the world's fastest internet service into your home and office, 1200 WOAI news reports.

San Antonio City Council on Thursday is expected to approve the lease of city and CPS Energy owned land for the construction of so called 'Google Fiber Huts,' the 26 foot by 11 foot prefabricated buildings which will house the brains of the Google Fiber operation.

The way Google Fiber works, a 'fiber ring' will be constructed surrounding the service area, mainly San Antonio and some close-in suburbs like Leon Valley.

Fibers will branch out from the ring to the Good Fiber Huts, where they will branch out to what are called 'fiber-hoods,' that is a group of homes served by the same hut.