The Alamo City

[northbeaumont]

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?

[WestGrayGuy]

Dallas is surrounded by ever expanding incorporated municipalities. People are rapidly moving to the brand spanking new (soulless)

[crunchtastic]

People are rapidly moving to the brand spanking new (soulless) 'burbs.

They're doing it in San Antonio too, in droves. But they have more room inside the city limits for growth.

[TheNiche]

What a go, Alamo City! To what do you attribute your growth?

The City of San Antonio has more square mileage than the City of Dallas.

[Trae]

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.

[kingwilliam]

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 December 11, 2007 by kingwilliam

[TheNiche]

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.

[kingwilliam]

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 December 11, 2007 by kingwilliam

[TheNiche]

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

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.

[kingwilliam]

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.

Because it's primarily black?

[Trae]

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 December 12, 2007 by Trae

[TheNiche]

Because it's primarily black?

Because the part that I'm talking about is really low density.

[houstonmacbro]

I naturally assumed Dallas was the 2nd largest city in Texas too. You learn something new every day.

[kingwilliam]

Because the part that I'm talking about is really low density.

Is there an uncontrollable reason for that?

[kingwilliam]

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

[Trae]

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.

[kingwilliam]

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?

[TheNiche]

Is there an uncontrollable reason for that?

I'm not familiar enough with Dallas' history. Not sure why it is, but it is.

[Trae]

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.

[kingwilliam]

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.

[westguy]

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.

[Trae]

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.

[crunchtastic]

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.

[kingwilliam]

Where did I say it was undesirable?

Read your posts.

You haven't even been here a month.

So you're not the same Trae and Gorilla that I've conversed with on numerous other forums?

[Trae]

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.

[kingwilliam]

I'm the Trae at SSP.

Trae at SSP, Trae at SSC and Gorilla at C-D.

Were did I say undesirable? Please point it out.

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."

[Trae]

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 December 13, 2007 by Trae

[houstonmacbro]

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.

[Trae]

So have I, so I really don't know what his problem is.

[ProHouston]

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.