San Antonio-Austin Mega Metro

[ethanhopkin14]

I can't really say this is news, but does beg the questions, what should the San Antonio-Austin Mega Metro be called?

[hotdogPi]

35 Corridor (it's not just I-35 but also congressional district 35 is a snake gerrymander connecting the two cities)

(note: browsers might not show .tif files)

[ethanhopkin14]

35 Corridor (it's not just I-35 but also congressional district 35 is a snake gerrymander connecting the two cities)

(note: browsers might not show .tif files)

In Texas that reference can be stretched all the way up to Dallas/Ft. Worth. 

[PNWRoadgeek]

I'd say Miniplex, after the larger Metroplex. San Antonio and Austin are farther apart than Dallas and Fort Worth, but Miniplex could work perfectly due to the smaller size of the area and the fact that only 2 major interstates(I-35 and I-10) run through the area instead of 4 like the Metroplex. Or Metro 35, after I-35. Both are kinda cringe-worthy but both also can work.

[Rothman]

Fred.

Or...

Shipoopi.

[Echostatic]

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

[ethanhopkin14]

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

I think they should go with a name like Metroplex, that doesn't refer to either anchor city, to keep from valuing one over the other. 

[thisdj78]

Central Texas Metroplex

Or

CenTex Metroplex for short

[ethanhopkin14]

Central Texas Metroplex

Or

CenTex Metroplex for short

CenTexPlex

[Bobby5280]

The San Antonio-Austin mego-metro is coming? I thought it was already here. Along the I-35 corridor between the cities there isn't much rural area remaining. New Braunfels, San Marcos, Kyle, Buda among other towns have filled in most of that space. Development is spreading outward into the hill country and to the Southeast of the I-35 corridor.

It's not all that easy to create a nickname that will stick to a certain city or its metro area. I'm not big on acronyms; some of them require more syllables to say out loud than normal words. "SAS" can be confused for other things (Scandinavian Airlines, the British military's Special Air Service, etc).

"The Hill Country metro" is fitting but doesn't sound very catchy. For some reason "Alamo Nation" came to mind; it has a better ring to it. I've heard tech industry people say "Silicon Hills," but that's derivative of Silicon Valley.

[DTComposer]

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

I think they should go with a name like Metroplex, that doesn't refer to either anchor city, to keep from valuing one over the other. 

Census Bureau will always go by population, regardless of any city's relative importance governmentally, economically, or culturally - hence the Bay Area's CSA is "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland."

[StogieGuy7]

The SA-Austin corridor is indeed a rising megalopolis, but should not be compared with Dallas-Ft.Worth in that San Antonio and Austin are discreetly different markets culturally. Furthermore, unlike D/FW, they are separate media markets. Somewhat more like a Washington/Baltimore or Chicago/Milwaukee - only in the same state.

I'm sure that someone will @ me with some statement on how Dallas and Fort Worth are different too.  Yes, I am aware of that. But they form a single metropolitan area (the "metroplex") which is the same media, sports, retail, etc, market. Austin and San Antonio are completely different metros that share no such services.

[thisdj78]

The SA-Austin corridor is indeed a rising megalopolis, but should not be compared with Dallas-Ft.Worth in that San Antonio and Austin are discreetly different markets culturally. Furthermore, unlike D/FW, they are separate media markets. Somewhat more like a Washington/Baltimore or Chicago/Milwaukee - only in the same state.

I'm sure that someone will @ me with some statement on how Dallas and Fort Worth are different too.  Yes, I am aware of that. But they form a single metropolitan area (the "metroplex") which is the same media, sports, retail, etc, market. Austin and San Antonio are completely different metros that share no such services.

Los Angeles and San Diego are other comparisons. They pretty much form a Southern California megapolis but very distinct from each other.

[StogieGuy7]

The SA-Austin corridor is indeed a rising megalopolis, but should not be compared with Dallas-Ft.Worth in that San Antonio and Austin are discreetly different markets culturally. Furthermore, unlike D/FW, they are separate media markets. Somewhat more like a Washington/Baltimore or Chicago/Milwaukee - only in the same state.

I'm sure that someone will @ me with some statement on how Dallas and Fort Worth are different too.  Yes, I am aware of that. But they form a single metropolitan area (the "metroplex") which is the same media, sports, retail, etc, market. Austin and San Antonio are completely different metros that share no such services.

Los Angeles and San Diego are other comparisons. They pretty much form a Southern California megapolis but very distinct from each other.

Perfect analogy and I don't know why I didn't think of that as I know the region well.

[rtXC1]

Central Texas Metroplex

Or

CenTex Metroplex for short

CenTexPlex

Or The CenPlex

[ethanhopkin14]

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

I think they should go with a name like Metroplex, that doesn't refer to either anchor city, to keep from valuing one over the other. 

Census Bureau will always go by population, regardless of any city's relative importance governmentally, economically, or culturally - hence the Bay Area's CSA is "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland."

Census Bureau has nothing to do with this.  This is more of the adopted nickname created by the masses.

[ethanhopkin14]

The San Antonio-Austin mego-metro is coming? I thought it was already here. Along the I-35 corridor between the cities there isn't much rural area remaining. New Braunfels, San Marcos, Kyle, Buda among other towns have filled in most of that space. Development is spreading outward into the hill country and to the Southeast of the I-35 corridor.

It's not all that easy to create a nickname that will stick to a certain city or its metro area. I'm not big on acronyms; some of them require more syllables to say out loud than normal words. "SAS" can be confused for other things (Scandinavian Airlines, the British military's Special Air Service, etc).

"The Hill Country metro" is fitting but doesn't sound very catchy. For some reason "Alamo Nation" came to mind; it has a better ring to it. I've heard tech industry people say "Silicon Hills," but that's derivative of Silicon Valley.

There is still plenty of space between New Braunfels and San Marcos to put a Denny's, 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's or overprice hamburger joint.  Why not put 12 there!

[DTComposer]

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

I think they should go with a name like Metroplex, that doesn't refer to either anchor city, to keep from valuing one over the other. 

Census Bureau will always go by population, regardless of any city's relative importance governmentally, economically, or culturally - hence the Bay Area's CSA is "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland."

Census Bureau has nothing to do with this.  This is more of the adopted nickname created by the masses.

Of course, but I was replying to this specific comment:

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

And your reply:

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

Apologies if that caused confusion.

[ethanhopkin14]

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

I think they should go with a name like Metroplex, that doesn't refer to either anchor city, to keep from valuing one over the other. 

Census Bureau will always go by population, regardless of any city's relative importance governmentally, economically, or culturally - hence the Bay Area's CSA is "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland."

Census Bureau has nothing to do with this.  This is more of the adopted nickname created by the masses.

Of course, but I was replying to this specific comment:

ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.

And your reply:

Austin could get the pull by being the capital.

Apologies if that caused confusion.

Fair enough.

[Bobby5280]

The SA-Austin corridor is indeed a rising megalopolis, but should not be compared with Dallas-Ft.Worth in that San Antonio and Austin are discreetly different markets culturally. Furthermore, unlike D/FW, they are separate media markets. Somewhat more like a Washington/Baltimore or Chicago/Milwaukee - only in the same state.

A comparison of San Antonio & Austin to the DC-Baltimore region makes some sense. Although San Antonio and Austin are actually spaced farther apart. DC & Baltimore have a "gap" between them similar in distance to the one between Fort Worth and Dallas. Much of the gap between DC and Baltimore has been covered up with development. The Patuxent Research Refuge is one noticeable stretch of green space.

The DFW region is somewhat unique. For a long time two "binary" cities defined much of the metroplex. Dallas has a city limits population of 1.3 million. Fort Worth is at 935000, so it's still one of the major two cities in the metroplex. But "DFW" doesn't feel very accurate as a description anymore. 7 other "suburbs" have over 200,000 people (Arlington has nearly 400,000). There's another 6 metroplex suburbs with over 100,000 people. Dozens of others have 10,000-100,000 residents. Los Angeles is a giant metro with a cluster of city-sized-suburbs, but LA is still the "glue" holding it all together. The DFW area feels a bit like a sprawling copy of LA, but without an ocean next to it.

[ethanhopkin14]

The SA-Austin corridor is indeed a rising megalopolis, but should not be compared with Dallas-Ft.Worth in that San Antonio and Austin are discreetly different markets culturally. Furthermore, unlike D/FW, they are separate media markets. Somewhat more like a Washington/Baltimore or Chicago/Milwaukee - only in the same state.

A comparison of San Antonio & Austin to the DC-Baltimore region makes some sense. Although San Antonio and Austin are actually spaced farther apart. DC & Baltimore have a "gap" between them similar in distance to the one between Fort Worth and Dallas. Much of the gap between DC and Baltimore has been covered up with development. The Patuxent Research Refuge is one noticeable stretch of green space.

The DFW region is somewhat unique. For a long time two "binary" cities defined much of the metroplex. Dallas has a city limits population of 1.3 million. Fort Worth is at 935000, so it's still one of the major two cities in the metroplex. But "DFW" doesn't feel very accurate as a description anymore. 7 other "suburbs" have over 200,000 people (Arlington has nearly 400,000). There's another 6 metroplex suburbs with over 100,000 people. Dozens of others have 10,000-100,000 residents. Los Angeles is a giant metro with a cluster of city-sized-suburbs, but LA is still the "glue" holding it all together. The DFW area feels a bit like a sprawling copy of LA, but without an ocean next to it.

I agree with you.  I have thought in recent years the definition of the DFW area has definitely changed.  FYI, in Austin, we mostly call the whole Metroplex "Dallas" much like all soft drinks are "Coke".  Not a correct term, but I digress.  Somone says they are going to Dallas back in the 90's, they pretty much meant Dallas, Plano or Garland.  Now when someone says they are going to Dallas, they mean Arlington, Colleyville, South Lake, Grapevine, Frisco and McKinney.  It has definitely shifted to more focus on the suburbs (particularly the ones closer to Ft. Worth and north of that) than the core cities.  Basically, when someone is going to Dallas, they rarely spend any time in the city of Dallas. 

[Bobby5280]

I've marveled at how much the DFW metroplex has spread since the early 1990's. There is a bunch of places in the northern reaches of the metroplex I vividly remember as having mostly green, undeveloped space. Frisco is a good example. In 1993 it seemed like a blink-and-you-miss-it town on the outskirts of The Colony. Now that whole area is covered up with as much development as places within Dallas city limits.

The metroplex is still spreading toward the Red River. And lately it seems to be spreading in new directions -like the burst of development going on in the Northern and Northwestern outskirts of Fort Worth or certain places on the Southern outskirts. If the pace of growth continues I can easily imagine the DFW metroplex overtaking the Chicagoland metro in population rank. The Chicago region has over 9 million people. The metroplex will likely crack the 8 million mark before 2030. Chicago has been losing population lately.

The San Antonio-Austin region is legitimately huge in population. Both metros combined add up to over 5 million people. I figure it's only a matter of time before teams in the NFL and MLB relocate there (maybe the NHL too). They had a real shot at getting the Raiders, but Vegas won that contest. It looks like the Oakland A's are moving to Vegas too. However, way too many people live in the San Antonio-Austin region (including a growing number of celebrities) for it not to be represented by all the major leagues. Right now they have the Spurs and Austin FC. More teams will end up there via relocation or league expansion.

[Henry]

Maybe they should include New Braunfels in the designated area and call it the "Texas Triad", which would be a takeoff on NC's Piedmont Triad of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point.

The SA-Austin corridor is indeed a rising megalopolis, but should not be compared with Dallas-Ft.Worth in that San Antonio and Austin are discreetly different markets culturally. Furthermore, unlike D/FW, they are separate media markets. Somewhat more like a Washington/Baltimore or Chicago/Milwaukee - only in the same state.

I'm sure that someone will @ me with some statement on how Dallas and Fort Worth are different too.  Yes, I am aware of that. But they form a single metropolitan area (the "metroplex") which is the same media, sports, retail, etc, market. Austin and San Antonio are completely different metros that share no such services.

Los Angeles and San Diego are other comparisons. They pretty much form a Southern California megapolis but very distinct from each other.

Also, consider Orlando and Tampa-St. Petersburg. They're basically the Central Florida megalopolis with their own unique identities.

[thisdj78]

The San Antonio-Austin region is legitimately huge in population. Both metros combined add up to over 5 million people. I figure it's only a matter of time before teams in the NFL and MLB relocate there (maybe the NHL too). They had a real shot at getting the Raiders, but Vegas won that contest. It looks like the Oakland A's are moving to Vegas too. However, way too many people live in the San Antonio-Austin region (including a growing number of celebrities) for it not to be represented by all the major leagues. Right now they have the Spurs and Austin FC. More teams will end up there via relocation or league expansion.

If they bring in any new teams, stadiums would need be in the San Marcos-New Braunfels area to maximize draw from throughout the metro area. About 20 years ago, I drew up a concept of a multi-stadium/mixed-use complex just south of the Outlet malls.

[cbalducc]

San Austinio?