Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Recommended Posts

I was surprised the last time I looked on TexasFreeway.com. I've always known that Houston has always been the biggest city in Texas. I've always naturally assumed that Dallas was the second biggest. But that site said that San Antonio surpassed Dallas a few years ago. Amazing! I thought that Dallas was growing faster than any other city in Texas, but I was wrong. What a go, Alamo City! To what do you attribute your growth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The City of San Antonio has more square mileage than the City of Dallas.
407 to 345. But when you take into account that SA is home to current military installations (Fort Sam, Lackland) and 2 former military installations (Brooks, Kelly) that take up thousands of acres each you have to believe if those were traditionally developed the city population would be much more. It's something like 16,000 acres of land with just about 200-300 people living on those 16,000 acres. Kelly AFB is now Port San Antonio and Brooks AFB is now Brooks City-Base. That's just within the city limit, metro wise there are two other military installations.
Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Austin's metro areas are all growing faster than San Antonio. Yes, SA's city limits may be ahead, but not its metro area.
Well, it's a back and forth match for third in that list. Edited by kingwilliam
Link to post
Share on other sites
407 to 345. But when you take into account that SA is home to current military installations (Fort Sam, Lackland) and 2 former military installations (Brooks, Kelly) that take up thousands of acres each you have to believe if those were traditionally developed the city population would be much more. It's something like 16,000 acres of land with just about 200-300 people living on those 16,000 acres. Kelly AFB is now Port San Antonio and Brooks AFB is now Brooks City-Base. That's just within the city limit, metro wise there are two other military installations.Well, it's a back and forth match for third in that list.

SA has military bases, Dallas has south Dallas. But even factoring out the military bases from SA, its 382 to 345.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SA has military bases, Dallas has south Dallas. But even factoring out the military bases from SA, its 382 to 345.

Yes, still a difference but not a gigantic one for that matter.

P.S. I'm not too familiar with Dallas, what is the problem with south Dallas?

Edited by kingwilliam
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is because South Dallas is not really desirable. It isn't that it is predominately Black (though it may have something to do with it). The south sides of many cities always are like that. Same thing for Houston, SA, Atlanta, etc.

Well, it's a back and forth match for third in that list.

I disagree. Austin is ahead by a good 30,000 in terms of growth (raw numbers) from 2000-2006. Though SA's growth has been steady at about 30,000-34,000 every year. Austin had that one big year in 2000 which pushed it so high.

Edited by Trae
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is because South Dallas is not really desirable. It isn't that it is predominately Black (though it may have something to do with it). The south sides of many cities always are like that. Same thing for Houston, SA, Atlanta, etc.

Wow. You just continue to amaze. Firstly, whether the "south sides" of any city/metro are "undesirable" is simply a matter of coincidence, please don't assert it as some type of consonant.

I disagree. Austin is ahead by a good 30,000 in terms of growth (raw numbers) from 2000-2006. Though SA's growth has been steady at about 30,000-34,000 every year. Austin had that one big year in 2000 which pushed it so high.

Your comment wasn't about total growth numbers since 2000. You said x metro was growing faster than San Antonio. I simply clarified it by saying both metros have been going by switching positions in terms of growth (for the last few years). Nothing to "disagree" with when it's clearly simply facts.e

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. You just continue to amaze. Firstly, whether the "south sides" of any city/metro are "undesirable" is simply a matter of coincidence, please don't assert it as some type of consonant.

It just always seems that way. The south sides of a lot of cities aren't seen as desirable as the north sides. Chicago, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh are other examples.

Your comment wasn't about total growth numbers since 2000. You said x metro was growing faster than San Antonio. I simply clarified it by saying both metros have been going by switching positions in terms of growth (for the last few years). Nothing to "disagree" with when it's clearly simply facts.e

Your right about them switching off yearly, but if you look at the total numbers from 2000-2006, they don't switch off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It just always seems that way. The south sides of a lot of cities aren't seen as desirable as the north sides. Chicago, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh are other examples.

South side Chicago isn't seen as undesirable. As for LA, what do you call their "South side"?

Your right about them switching off yearly, but if you look at the total numbers from 2000-2006, they don't switch off.

Though that wasn't my point, was it? Why can't you just ever stay within the frame work of a post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
South side Chicago isn't seen as undesirable. As for LA, what do you call their "South side"?

It isn't that the South side of Chicago isn't desirable, just not as desirable as the north side. And LA's south side would be the areas down south along the Blue Light rail line. It doesn't just include the City of Los Angeles (South-Central, Hoover Street, etc.), but also areas like Compton, etc.

Though that wasn't my point, was it? Why can't you just ever stay within the frame work of a post?

It was my point. Don't know why you are getting like that, so I'll stop there with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't that the South side of Chicago isn't desirable, just not as desirable as the north side.

Then say that, don't say one thing and then explain it's not what you meant. Saying it's undesirable is completely different from saying it's not as desirable as X.

And LA's south side would be the areas down south along the Blue Light rail line. It doesn't just include the City of Los Angeles (South-Central, Hoover Street, etc.), but also areas like Compton, etc.

I guess you're talking about South Los Angeles as LA doesn't use a "south side" or "north side" type naming system. But even still, it's all a coincidence.

It was my point. Don't know why you are getting like that, so I'll stop there with you.

Because this isn't the first instance you've done that. You have a very hard time with keeping with the context and framework of posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

South Dallas differs from Chicago's South Side and LA's South Central because it is very rural. Dallas's most affluent areas are to the northeast below 635, and that serves as almost the heart of the city. The city is just barely holding on to these because all the wealth and jobs are fleeing north to Plano or Frisco. The abundance of undeveloped land in South Dallas hasn't been enough to reverse this momentum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then say that, don't say one thing and then explain it's not what you meant. Saying it's undesirable is completely different from saying it's not as desirable as X.

Where did I say it was undesirable?

guess you're talking about South Los Angeles as LA doesn't use a "south side" or "north side" type naming system. But even still, it's all a coincidence.

I know LA doesn't use the "South side" "north side" thing. No need to be all politically correct. You get my point and want I am trying to say.

Because this isn't the first instance you've done that. You have a very hard time with keeping with the context and framework of posts.

You haven't even been here a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then say that, don't say one thing and then explain it's not what you meant. Saying it's undesirable is completely different from saying it's not as desirable as X.

I guess you're talking about South Los Angeles as LA doesn't use a "south side" or "north side" type naming system. But even still, it's all a coincidence.

Because this isn't the first instance you've done that. You have a very hard time with keeping with the context and framework of posts.

KingWilliam, what are you out prove? Other than y'all are building a lot in San Antonio?

Manners, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the Trae at SSP. And here is what I said:

It just always seems that way. The south sides of a lot of cities aren't seen as desirable as the north sides. Chicago, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh are other examples.

Were did I say undesirable? Please point it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trae at SSP, Trae at SSC

Yeah your right. I use the same name at those forums, too. And my own that I made a while back.

You said X was undesirable. I responded. The response you gave to my retort is what you quoted. You're implying the same sentiment as your "X is undesirable."

Bold the part of my post where I said it was "undesirable".

Edited by Trae
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then say that, don't say one thing and then explain it's not what you meant. Saying it's undesirable is completely different from saying it's not as desirable as X.

I guess you're talking about South Los Angeles as LA doesn't use a "south side" or "north side" type naming system. But even still, it's all a coincidence.

Because this isn't the first instance you've done that. You have a very hard time with keeping with the context and framework of posts.

You guys need to chill out. It's really not that serious.

For the record, I have 'heard' of the South side of LA ... not sure if the city refers to it that way or the media, but I have heard of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because this isn't the first instance you've done that. You have a very hard time with keeping with the context and framework of posts.

Kingwilliam, please get off Trae's back. He's a regular here and has been for a long time. You're new, we don't appreciate new guys coming in and belittling, arguing, talking down, etc. to anyone. This board is for intelligent exchanges of information and opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, I have 'heard' of the South side of LA ... not sure if the city refers to it that way or the media, but I have heard of it.

I was born in LA and lived there until I was 17. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I heard "south side" used to describe South LA/South Central and it was also a new transplant or someone visiting.

Edited by kingwilliam
Link to post
Share on other sites
The City of San Antonio has more square mileage than the City of Dallas.

Here's the land area (not including water) of the three big Texas cities:

Houston--579.4 square miles

San Antonio--407.56 square miles

Dallas--342.5 square miles

This really surprises me. I thought Dallas would always be the second biggest. You may be right about most people up there living in its suburbs being the reason why its population hasn't grown as fast as Houston's and San Antonio.

Population:

Houston--2.1 million

San Antonio--1,296,682 (2006 estimate)

Dallas--1.2 million (2006 estimate)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the land area (not including water) of the three big Texas cities:

Houston--579.4 square miles

San Antonio--407.56 square miles

Dallas--342.5 square miles

This really surprises me. I thought Dallas would always be the second biggest. You may be right about most people up there living in its suburbs being the reason why its population hasn't grown as fast as Houston's and San Antonio.

Population:

Houston--2.1 million

San Antonio--1,296,682 (2006 estimate)

Dallas--1.2 million (2006 estimate)

I'm not surprised at all by either the land area or population rankings. Dallas is totally surrounded by smaller satellite cities--Garland, Richardson, Plano, Irving, Arlington. Of course their presence would limit Dallas' land area and population growth when compared to cities like Houston and SA which lack such clusters of suburbs. That being said, Dallas' metropolitan area is still the most populated in Texas and fifth in the nation, I think.

Edit: fourth-largest MSA in the nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth

Edited by mojeaux131
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know where some of you guys have been? SA overtook Dallas in population about 3 years ago and has been talked about to death many times on this forum and others, news, etc.

I still consider Dallas to be the larger city than S/A because Dallas has a larger skyline, larger density, larger metro, and more amentities. It just feels bigger to me. The only hope for Dallas regaining the 2nd largest Texas title is the implementation of the Port in south Dallas. That should bring more jobs to that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know where some of you guys have been? SA overtook Dallas in population about 3 years ago and has been talked about to death many times on this forum and others, news, etc.

I still consider Dallas to be the larger city than S/A because Dallas has a larger skyline, larger density, larger metro, and more amentities. It just feels bigger to me. The only hope for Dallas regaining the 2nd largest Texas title is the implementation of the Port in south Dallas. That should bring more jobs to that area.

Employment is not population. If they were, then Dallas would almost certainly be #2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know where some of you guys have been? SA overtook Dallas in population about 3 years ago and has been talked about to death many times on this forum and others, news, etc.

I still consider Dallas to be the larger city than S/A because Dallas has a larger skyline, larger density, larger metro, and more amentities. It just feels bigger to me. The only hope for Dallas regaining the 2nd largest Texas title is the implementation of the Port in south Dallas. That should bring more jobs to that area.

Yes, TexasFreeway.com said that the 2004 census count showed San Antonio with 26,000 more people than Dallas. I've always thought that "biggest city" or "biggest state" meant geographical size, not population, so I looked up the land area size of each city and San Antonio (as I listed in another thread in this topic) is also larger in area than Dallas.

For example, Texas is the second-biggest state in the U.S. geographically. Population-wise, California is the largest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dallas is surrounded by ever expanding incorporated municipalities. People are rapidly moving to the brand spanking new (soulless) 'burbs.

Yes, you're right. I looked at the road maps of San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas. Dallas is surrounded by suburbs on all sides, so it can't grow geographically. San Antonio and Houston have plenty of unincorporated land around them so that they would be able to expand their respective cities. If like you said, Big D is experiencing "white flight," then its population would also shrink. Who knows? Maybe in due time Austin will become the third largest city in Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you're right. I looked at the road maps of San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas. Dallas is surrounded by suburbs on all sides, so it can't grow geographically. San Antonio and Houston have plenty of unincorporated land around them so that they would be able to expand their respective cities. If like you said, Big D is experiencing "white flight," then its population would also shrink. Who knows? Maybe in due time Austin will become the third largest city in Texas.

What prevents Dallas from annexing like Houston has done? Can't Big D annex like Houston did with Kingwood (and from what I'm hearing) soon to also be Atascocita.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. You just continue to amaze. Firstly, whether the "south sides" of any city/metro are "undesirable" is simply a matter of coincidence, please don't assert it as some type of consonant.

Your comment wasn't about total growth numbers since 2000. You said x metro was growing faster than San Antonio. I simply clarified it by saying both metros have been going by switching positions in terms of growth (for the last few years). Nothing to "disagree" with when it's clearly simply facts.e

Well, Bad, Bad Leroy Brown lived on the south side of Chicago, didn't he?

What prevents Dallas from annexing like Houston has done? Can't Big D annex like Houston did with Kingwood (and from what I'm hearing) soon to also be Atascocita.

Someone else on this forum said that a city cannot annex an incorporated area. I wonder if The Woodlands will someday be part of Houston?

Kingwood was never a city.

That's probably why it was annexed. A city is incorporated with a charter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey!

I know several people that live in TW and they are not all rich! ... although many of them ARE snobs.

My income is below the poverty level. I don't think I could act like a snob even if I tried to. I couldn't live in a place like The Woodlands unless I won a lottery. And they wouldn't want me there because I would be nouveau riche.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I know that not everyone in The Woodlands makes six figures and lives in a MacMansion. There are regular earners there as well (probably their dirty little secret, but there .. .it's out in the open now).

Also if you do a search for properties there, there are many house in the $150,000 or less range (certainly attainable by many). In fact, I just checked HAR and there are 20 pages worth of those kinds of homes.

Don't let TW folks sell you on that luxury lifestyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I know that not everyone in The Woodlands makes six figures and lives in a MacMansion. There are regular earners there as well (probably their dirty little secret, but there .. .it's out in the open now).

Also if you do a search for properties there, there are many house in the $150,000 or less range (certainly attainable by many). In fact, I just checked HAR and there are 20 pages worth of those kinds of homes.

Don't let TW folks sell you on that luxury lifestyle.

Does San Antonio have a suburb city equivalent to Houston's The Woodlands?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...