Stone Oak.

[Guru of Nothing]

Mookie2001 is right on target.

I'm down with urban sprawl hate.

Then again, Urban Sprawl is mighty convenient - and it's ALWAYS about convenience.

[TheWriter]

I was kidding, but Elm Creek wealthier than the Dominion Inwood, Shavano Park, Iverness, Hollywood Park, Deerfield........are the inside 1604. my family has been a tile contractor for many of the new and older homes (60years) when I was growing up I worked in many of these neighborhoods. the Dominion, and Fair Oaks were the best.

my family did custom tile work for vinny del negro, alvin robertson, chuck person(inwood), george strait and drob(the dominion).

I'm dead serious.In terms of overall worth of its residents. Elm Creek is wealthier.

[TheWriter]

San Antonio has amazing potential.

Potential in what way?

Job growth?

SA has the highest job growth in Texas.

Lowest unemployment in Texas.

Population growth?

San Antonio's metro has gone from 1,324,749 in 1990 to 1,820,719 in 2002.

The city has gone from 9th to 8th.

What potential?

[Mark in Austin]

Manny, I think you're referring to Pape-Dawson. But they have been a "payne", no doubt about it.

the results of a recent election defeating the locating of a new community college in the nursing field away from downtown or the east side when there were sites in both location that made logical sense is a good sign.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, (and I didn't follow the election, so I'm not aware of all the pertinient facts) but wouldn't locating a nursing school downtown or on the east side be a good thing for those areas? Downtown needs more employers that aren't associated with tourism, and anything to help the east side I would think would be welcomed. The fact that these locations were specifically defeated (unless there was a correlating option for it to happen on the south side) doesn't really indicate a higher awareness of the issues to me.

I do have hope though. Seems the Helotes Wal-Mart has kicked things up a little. I hope, though, that most of the public's energy is focused and spent on toughening up the regulations and development code in general. That is really the key issue that developers are hoping gets overlooked in all of the hubub over one project. If all that happens is a fight over this particular site and user, then all that energy and time will have to be duplicated every time somebody tries to do something considered irresponsible and / or undesireable. It is unlikely that this opposition level is sustainable. There's just something about a Wal-Mart that people love to fight. New neighborhoods don't generate the same level of hatred and outcry. A good example: the massive destruction at Stone Oak parkway and 281 that Buddy originally mentioned will actually be much worse than the Wal-Mart environmentally (and I would argue aesthetically, too - but that's a question of taste, as opposed to science) for a number of reasons. One, it is a bigger site. Two, Wal-Mart now has some of the most stringent erosion and sedimentation controls in the country - much more strict than anything on the books in SA or Austin. The likelyhood and magnitude of sediment discharge on the Wal-Mart site if it ever goes under construction will be much less. Three, most of the eventual homeowners will fertilize their yards. Domestic (not farm) fertilizer runoff is one of the biggest sources of aquifer pollution.

And yet, the level of outcry is several orders of magnitude less for the neighborhood. If the energy is focused on improving the regs overall (which doesn't automatically mean add more - adjusting what's there now to actually work in the real world is a good first step) instead of just fighting Wal-Mart; there will actually be a legitimate legacy left behind from the activists that will effect a real change in how things develop, instead of just (at best) drive off a Wal-Mart.

[Mark in Austin]

Potential in what way?

Job growth?

SA has the highest job growth in Texas.

Lowest unemployment in Texas.

Population growth?

San Antonio's metro has gone from 1,324,749 in 1990 to 1,820,719 in 2002.

The city has gone from 9th to 8th.

What potential?

In short, the potential to transition from a primarily blue collar city and mentality (old economy) to a white color city and mentality (new ecomony). You quoted statistics; but growth, in and of itself, shouldn't be pointed to a sign of good things happening. Check out the growth in the Houston metro area over the past 20 years: no zoning or design standards has resulted in block after block looking exactly the same over a metro area much larger than San Antonio's. Except for the humidity and dirtiest air in the country, you could pretty much describe it as Anytown, USA.

Ona more personal level, the one thing to me that Austin lacks is a cultural iden y. Besides a culture of live music / music appreciation and civic involvement, there really isn't anything that connects the City to its past. The Hispanic culture and Arts in San Antonio is a treasure I didn't appreciate until I left. The marriage of that culture with a highly educated Hispanic population will generate something very, very special, IMHO.

A good example of this is the UTSA College of Architecture. Once it moved downtown and really embraced the city, magical things started to happen. It is garnering national attention for some of the designs coming out of there - clearly influenced by Hispanic culture and themes - and at a frequency and level practically unheard of for such a young program. It isn't a coincidence that it has the highest percentage of hispanic architecture students of any major university in the country.

[TheWriter]

but growth, in and of itself, shouldn't be pointed to a sign of good things happening.

Oh no? Because people like moving to plkaces where good things aren't happening?

San Antonio economy is very diverise.

Are largest industry is Bio-sciences followed by Tourism.

The list goes something like this I believe:

Bio-sciences
Tourism
Telecommunications
Manufacturing
Information Technology
Logistics
Aerospace and Aviation

15 years ago, I don't think San Antonio had any fortune 500 companies. Now we have 6.

San Antonio has 4 billionaires.

The economy isn't too shabby.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/edd/industry_dev/index.asp

[TheWriter]

Some more reading on San Antonio's economy. These are very recent articles.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...hlight=antonio

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...hlight=antonio

[Mark in Austin]

Oh no? Because people like moving to plkaces where good things aren't happening?

Nothing like oversimplification to prove a point. People move to places where there are jobs. Over the next twenty to thirty years, the single most important factor for the health of the economy is the education level of the population. When you factor in projected growth by demographic, if the current graduation / college enrollment levels continue, there will overall be a significant LOWERING of the education level in the Texas workforce. And that will be a disaster, since education level is number one with a bullit on the checklist of things major employers look for when looking for new areas for their operations.

From an article posted on Skyscraper page:

San Antonio is also placing a real emphasis on developing its residents' skills and education, and that is attracting interest from outside companies, said Ramiro Cavazos, the city's economic development director.

"We are overcoming some of the traditional perception that San Antonio didn't have a strong emphasis on that," Cavazos said.

When it comes to economic development in the San Antonio and Austin region, education is the key to future growth, said Leo Sayavedra, vice chancellor for academic and student affairs for the Texas A&M System.

[TheWriter]

I never said that wasn't true.

I've said over and over that the city needs to completely fix the schools from the ground up. From pre-k to high school.

When people were crying about a book store (they still don't really have one) I said if all the demographics were in place, they'd have one, but they aren't.,

That education is key to getting those demographics.

I understand.

But you're speaking of San Antonio as some city in Mexico with crap for an economy and a work force of day laborers.

San Antonio is a city that has for the past 20 years been under achieving its full value. And that's due to bad leadership since Henry Cisneros left office as Mayor.

It's still impressive however, that through bad leadership, through under achieving, through all that, we've been able to grow at the rate we have. Imagine were this city would be had we achieved, even overachieved with a great educational system, fantastic leadership. But I see the problems turning around. I am excited about this year Mayor election.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I think you're referring to Pape-Dawson. But they have been a "payne", no doubt about it.

Doh, yes, Pope Dawson. Freudian slip, perhaps?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, (and I didn't follow the election, so I'm not aware of all the pertinient facts) but wouldn't locating a nursing school downtown or on the east side be a good thing for those areas? Downtown needs more employers that aren't associated with tourism, and anything to help the east side I would think would be welcomed. The fact that these locations were specifically defeated (unless there was a correlating option for it to happen on the south side) doesn't really indicate a higher awareness of the issues to me.

No no. The ACCD board ruled out both those locations, even though they have lots of benefits such as what you outlined in favor of a NW Medical Center location in order to persue a partnership with the UTHSC even though it would be more expensive and was arguebly equal to the other locations.

The board placed the NW location on a bond package that was voted down. The majority of the voting was based soley on the location of that school. Had they gone with an eastside or downtown location, it would have passed easily.

I do have hope though. Seems the Helotes Wal-Mart has kicked things up a little. I hope, though, that most of the public's energy is focused and spent on toughening up the regulations and development code in general. That is really the key issue that developers are hoping gets overlooked in all of the hubub over one project. If all that happens is a fight over this particular site and user, then all that energy and time will have to be duplicated every time somebody tries to do something considered irresponsible and / or undesireable. It is unlikely that this opposition level is sustainable. There's just something about a Wal-Mart that people love to fight. New neighborhoods don't generate the same level of hatred and outcry. A good example: the massive destruction at Stone Oak parkway and 281 that Buddy originally mentioned will actually be much worse than the Wal-Mart environmentally (and I would argue aesthetically, too - but that's a question of taste, as opposed to science) for a number of reasons. One, it is a bigger site. Two, Wal-Mart now has some of the most stringent erosion and sedimentation controls in the country - much more strict than anything on the books in SA or Austin. The likelyhood and magnitude of sediment discharge on the Wal-Mart site if it ever goes under construction will be much less. Three, most of the eventual homeowners will fertilize their yards. Domestic (not farm) fertilizer runoff is one of the biggest sources of aquifer pollution.

And yet, the level of outcry is several orders of magnitude less for the neighborhood. If the energy is focused on improving the regs overall (which doesn't automatically mean add more - adjusting what's there now to actually work in the real world is a good first step) instead of just fighting Wal-Mart; there will actually be a legitimate legacy left behind from the activists that will effect a real change in how things develop, instead of just (at best) drive off a Wal-Mart.

Well also, the people of Helotes have the resources to put together a fight against Wal Mart than other residents in the city.

However, I agree in large part, and I know there was some legislation put forth by a San Antonio rep in the state legislature regarding tougher laws on areas such as the recharge zone. I have failed to keep up with it however, and I don't know how much of a chance it has to pass.

The bottom line is that people don't care enough. They get giddy over having a new store or movie theater near them but they don't stop to think of the consequences of the new development, and they don't pay attention to legislation that is meant to do that thinking for them.

No, thats not going to change untill the people of this country take a step back and stop caring about gay marriage and the like, and focus on the politics in their own back yards.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said that wasn't true.

I've said over and over that the city needs to completely fix the schools from the ground up. From pre-k to high school.

When people were crying about a book store (they still don't really have one) I said if all the demographics were in place, they'd have one, but they aren't.,

That education is key to getting those demographics.

I understand.

But you're speaking of San Antonio as some city in Mexico with crap for an economy and a work force of day laborers.

San Antonio is a city that has for the past 20 years been under achieving its full value. And that's due to bad leadership since Henry Cisneros left office as Mayor.

It's still impressive however, that through bad leadership, through under achieving, through all that, we've been able to grow at the rate we have. Imagine were this city would be had we achieved, even overachieved with a great educational system, fantastic leadership. But I see the problems turning around. I am excited about this year Mayor election.

First of all, fixing the public schools is a state issue, not a city one. The vast majority of this city is a blue collar city. You can tout the science industry as a leader, but it means little when the overral percentage of the workers here are in blue collar jobs or low paying white collar service industry jobs. I don't know what the average San Antonio household income is, but it's much lower than most cities in the country, hence the low cost of living.

I don't know what you want and mean by great leadership. To get more of the development you crave, you need people like you have in office right now who cator to the big business they are in bed with. But if thats what you want, it doesn't make any sense to complain about coruption, because that is exactly what this type of leadership generates.

If you mean a leadership that puts the environment and the city itself before corporations, then you aren't going to have such a large volume of growth because the city will not be as friendly to corporations. It will put up environmental legislation and make it harder and more expensive for companies to come here.

What this city needs is more growth on the already developed but neglected sections of town. It needs revitalization of the poorer portions of the city, and that involves projects such as the proposed A&M school, not a new movie theater or book store out in Stone Oak.

[TheWriter]

What does an A&M college mean if all the high school students in the Southside are dropping out or not going to college?

The Mayor and city council need to concentrate more on education.

An A&M University isn’t going to fix the schools.

[Mark in Austin]

Manny,

Thanks for the clarification on the Nursing College vote and situation... makes more sense now.

[MannyIsGod]

What does an A&M college mean if all the high school students in the Southside are dropping out or not going to college?

The Mayor and city council need to concentrate more on education.

An A&M University isn’t going to fix the schools.

I suggest you stop thinking about city council and the mayor and start talking with your state representatives. Education is not a city matter, but a state one.

[TheWriter]

I suggest you stop thinking about city council and the mayor and start talking with your state representatives. Education is not a city matter, but a state one.

When it's a public school, it sure as is a city matter.

Quit being a re .

[MannyIsGod]

When it's a public school, it sure as is a city matter.

Quit being a re .

Look, I don't know what the your thinking, but city government has very little to say/do in public schools. School Boards answer to the state, the city has no jurisdiction or any other form of say so.

This re obviously knows a bit more about it than you, but feel free to continue to disagree.

[travis2]

I know you say that in jest.

However, Elm Creek is the wealthest area of San Antonio. Wealthier than The Dominon.

Elm Creek is inside 1604 and outside 410.

Is Elm Creek off of Huebner or Wurzbach?

I think Huebner.

Wurzbach and Lockhill-Selma.

And on what do you base this claim?

[TheWriter]

Wurzbach and Lockhill-Selma.

And on what do you base this claim?

One example:

While the Dominion, Crown Ridge and Elm Creek, a gated community that Hall says has the highest average income in the city, help give District 8 a reputation for affluence

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/cit....137cba79.html

[travis2]

One example:




http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/cit....137cba79.html

OK...

Not proof, but also no reason to discount it.

[TheWriter]

OK...

Not proof, but also no reason to discount it.

Yeah, the city councilman for that district doesn't know what he's talking about.

Good job there kid.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm going to sit back,and watch travis kick your ass

[travis2]

I'm going to sit back,and watch travis kick your ass

Enjoy...

[TheWriter]

I'm going to sit back,and watch travis kick your ass

Kick my ass.

Yeah, like your "the city can't help with school" crap.

God.

[TheWriter]

Enjoy...

Oh wow, talk about a Ryu in the making.

[travis2]

Yeah, the city councilman for that district doesn't know what he's talking about.

Good job there kid.

Ummmmm...OK.

First, tell me where I made such a claim.

Second, tell me why a secondary (at minimum) source is by definition unimpeachable.

Third, regardless of (Second) above, tell me where I did in fact impeach that source.

All I did was make a neutral statement of fact. I accepted you at your word, but did not make the claim that the source you used was a perfect source.


Oh, and BTW...I'm probably older than you are. Definitely no "kid".