Reply With Quote
Can't really say I'm happy about this. Although I reckon we're still in the high 20's when it comes to MSA.
San Antonio Moves Up On City Population List
LAST UPDATE: 6/21/2006 5:55:44 PM
Posted By: Michael Campion
Well San Antonio just keeps on growing, the list for the top-10 most largest cities in the United States is out and the Alamo City has moved up!
According to the U.S Census Bureau, San Antonio moved from number eight in 2004 to number seven in 2005.
There are now 1,256,509 people living in San Antonio, barley edging out San Diego by just 969 people. New York City tops the list with more than 8.1 million people. Los Angeles came in second with over 3.8 residents, followed by Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...C-1DC09C7E4B1F
Can't really say I'm happy about this. Although I reckon we're still in the high 20's when it comes to MSA.
Growth stretches areas of the Sun Belt
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-figures_x.htm
Posted 6/21/2006 12:10 AM ET
By Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY
Americans' unquenchable thirst for more space and cheaper housing is creating another boom in parts of the Sun Belt and redrawing the map of the USA halfway through the decade.
The 2005 city population estimates released by the Census Bureau Wednesday show that growth is shifting from large central cities that grew rapidly years ago to smaller, outlying communities in California, Texas, Arizona and Florida.
"Smaller places are grabbing more than half the growth this decade," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Ins ution, a think tank. "It wasn't so in the 1990s."
Among the top gainers since 2000: Gilbert (near Phoenix), Miramar (Miami), Elk Grove (Sacramento), Rancho Cucamonga and Irvine (Los Angeles).
Elk Grove grew the fastest from July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005: up 12%, to 112,338.
It's not clear whether more people are moving within their state or are flocking from other regions to more remote Sun Belt communities. Big cities such as Dallas and Phoenix are not growing as fast as in recent years.
Texas is scoring big. San Antonio has overtaken San Diego as the No. 7 city, at 1.26 million. Four of the seven fastest-growing cities that have populations above 500,000 are in Texas: Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin and El Paso.
"Across Texas, we've seen a resurgence in the last two years," says Steve Murdock, Texas state demographer.
Fort Worth had the biggest gain among the nation's large cities from 2004 to 2005: up 3.5% to 624,067. San Antonio was fifth at 1.7%. Both grew at faster rates than Dallas and Houston.
"Dallas ... really has no place to grow," Murdock says. Fort Worth "still has substantial room for expansion. Same is true of San Antonio."
San Diego registered a 0.7% decline to less than 1.3 million from 2004 to 2005. State estimates, however, show the city still growing a little bit, says Beth Jarosz, analyst at the San Diego Association of Governments.
"Regardless, San Diego is growing extraordinarily slowly, and we think part of the reason is high housing prices," she says. "There's a shift away from expensive coastal areas. ... It takes a little bit of pressure off our housing market."
Other highlights:
• Washington had a 0.7% drop to 550,521, from 2004 to 2005. The nation's capital probably will slip below Nashville (549,110) and Las Vegas (545,147) by next year.
• Green Bay, Wis.; Erie, Pa.; Cambridge, Mass; and Berkeley, Calif., could slip under 100,000 by 2010.
• More cities with 100,000-plus residents shrank from 2004 to 2005 than in the previous year: 97 vs. 82. Costly coastal cities are among the new losers: New York, San Diego and Long Beach.
Frey says 20 cities went from loss to gain, including Indianapolis, Wichita, Jersey City and Fort Wayne, Ind.
The growth in San Antonio and Texas in general make sense. I'd expect a continued influx of West Coasters who can cash out 1.5 mil of equity in their price inflated homes and come to San Antonio and buy a house 3 times as big for $300k.
Did you steal this post from an N'Sync forum?
one day SA shall be my home.
the growth is nice and all I guess, but 1604 is a parking lot in the morning and most of the growth the city is seeing is along 1604. Why 1604 is 2 lanes in most places and still has traffic lights in major junctions is beyond me. Growing pains is what I guess it amounts to, so I suppose it's for the better.
, man. That 's harsh. Still...
sa is growing fast but we are still 29th in metro...the stat that really matters
more proof california sucks
dude cali doesn't suck. whats your beef?
You hit it on the head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population
Philly 5th largest. Great.
World Metro populations:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...-by-population
8. Buenos Aires
Hot. Flat. Dusty.
Just like your women.
Nothin wrong with that.
I used to like to go to SA, but it is too big, too crowded, crime is horrible and the traffic sucks.
I liked it better when it was the 12th largest city.
Well, I think, those other metro areas that get so much praisehave pretty much grown to their capabilities;
Whereas San Antonio may be 29th metro, but We are the fastest growing big city in America with LOTS of room to grow, while the other metroplexes have pretty much maxed out or getting there, many are even declining.
So, I believe that alot of these Texas cities, like SA, Austin, El Paso which have exploded, will be the future, along with Dallas and Houston.
Texas will be the next Hollywood state and the next "California" and "New York" powerhouses someday.
Lots of room to grow in Texas, and it's happening.
The scary thing to me is, I believe San Antonio just got started.
Let's hope our city leadership keeps going where Hardberger leaves off.
metro area population and per-capita income are the important numbers.
It looks to me that smaller Austin is much wealthier than SA.
This town needs more dimm-o-craps.
Not really.
San Antonio is larger and the numbers are murky because they're mixed with sections of the city that are poor.
Just look at The Shop at La Canteras trade area:
819,639 people with average household income : $72,959.
Being larger is the reason places like Phoenix or Las Vegas have such low per capitas or low household incomes.
It's pretty useless to use per capita or any type of those lists to judge a cities wealth.
Freakin' Knoxville has a higher per capita than Phoenix and SA.
Where did you find that stat? I'm not sure how broad the trade area is, but I have a hard time believing that 80% of the San Antonio population is located within that sector of the city.
http://www.generalgrowth.com/propert....asp?smuid=744
They're trade area is everything north of 410 and between 35 to the east and 151 to the rest and up to Boerne to the north.
Wow, that is very interesting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
