I can't really say this is news, (https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/san-antonio-austin-mega-metro-18207231.php?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR2lO8E9cMVTKhDf3nxK3Fw92xr9PEBovaOzSHsUdF-NCUpaXjLyC6KRN4w_aem_Afm0kB4kPsH9p8WrCZ7Hwwo1IdlhnHwqAjaeTd_KcQUVqJIuWAxxnOfHorsD79Kp5T0&mibextid=Zxz2cZ) but does beg the questions, what should the San Antonio-Austin Mega Metro be called?
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)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Texas_US_Congressional_District_35_%28since_2021%29.tif)
Quote from: 1 on July 27, 2023, 01:11:04 PM
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)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Texas_US_Congressional_District_35_%28since_2021%29.tif)
In Texas that reference can be stretched all the way up to Dallas/Ft. Worth.
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.
Fred.
Or...
Shipoopi.
ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
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.
Central Texas Metroplex
Or
CenTex Metroplex for short
Quote from: thisdj78 on July 27, 2023, 04:15:09 PM
Central Texas Metroplex
Or
CenTex Metroplex for short
CenTexPlex
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.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2023, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
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."
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.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 28, 2023, 07:51:21 AM
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.
Quote from: thisdj78 on July 28, 2023, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 28, 2023, 07:51:21 AM
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.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 28, 2023, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2023, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2023, 10:26:06 PM
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!
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2023, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 28, 2023, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2023, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
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:
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.
And your reply:
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2023, 02:41:38 PM
Austin could get the pull by being the capital.
Apologies if that caused confusion.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 28, 2023, 01:06:00 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2023, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 28, 2023, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2023, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
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:
Quote from: Echostatic on July 27, 2023, 02:09:54 PM
ASA. Although if the Census ever officially designates it it'll be San Antonio-Austin.
And your reply:
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2023, 02:41:38 PM
Austin could get the pull by being the capital.
Apologies if that caused confusion.
Fair enough.
Quote from: StogieGuy7The 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2023, 02:26:14 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7The 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: thisdj78 on July 28, 2023, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 28, 2023, 07:51:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2023, 11:33:34 PM
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.
San Austinio?
I wonder what the area would be like if they built 1 large airport between Austin and San Antonio and say Delta had built a hub there.
SM-G996U
Quote from: ibthebigd on July 31, 2023, 05:25:11 AM
I wonder what the area would be like if they built 1 large airport between Austin and San Antonio and say Delta had built a hub there.
SM-G996U
I watched the documentary and sounds like the window has passed on a large joint international airport. But I could see a 3rd national/regional airport there....they could just expand New Braunfel's existing airport to accommodate commercial traffic. Similar to what was done with Sanford Airport near Orlando, which is now a base for Allegiant Airlines.
I-35 and beyond: Transportation experts talk San Antonio-Austin mega-metro
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/san-antonio-austin-mega-metro-transportation-18269914.php?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR268aAQpbEapFwXtw2xrjcpGZXvu_afLIKZY1c4D3KUHaeY0cke_FQp1-Q_aem_AaPttFXj8k52JC4hxQDAXkKqxBVT5bHCaF1OPDq7inVj1qkmyDCvHN4FzRgO3pfjxJQ&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#ll2eskkohhohwg2k2hg
There is a good bit of anti-highways drivel in that article. They bring up the "failure" of Houston's $3 billion Katy Freeway expansion (traffic is even worse now than ever) without mentioning important factors. The Houston metro is continuing to see rapid population growth which equals more vehicles on local highways. Then there is the terrible design of the surface street grid across much of the metro. No access controls at all. Every driveway, side street, etc just empties out directly onto main arterials. Conflict ensues. Traffic jams on the freeways can actually be caused by gridlock taking place down on the surface streets next to the freeways. But let's build some damned bike paths to solve the f***king problem!! Morons.
Like it or not, all the major highways going in, out and around the Austin-San Antonio megapolis will need to be upgraded and expanded. The upgrades will be critical if the forecast claiming that region will double in population by 2040 comes true. That would be over 10 million people. There's already over 5 million in that region now. Not only will the highways need serious attention, but so will many of the surface streets. Major surface arterials move traffic far better when traffic signals are spaced far apart and access to lesser side streets and driveways are cut off or at least greatly limited. There has to be at least some traffic filtering on the surface street level. We see some of this design in much newer suburban developments. Houston has been a big city for so long you pretty much have to drive clear out to The Woodlands to see any such street design.
They can try building light rail and commuter rail service in the Austin-San Antonio megapolis. Doing so costs so damned much money and will only offer limited benefits. That's because the region is so spread out and was built with personal motor vehicles in mind. The combo of rail travel and walking works in very few places in the US. It doesn't even work everywhere in Europe either.
I see ASA and I'm back in high school geometry studying congruent triangles.
Quote from: cbalducc on July 30, 2023, 11:14:59 PM
San Austinio?
Could just go with San Austin, or San AntAustin? The latter looks silly but seems easy to say.
Longhornland?
Balcones Metroplex (I think I may like this one better than my first suggestion of Central Texas Metroplex)
or Hill Country Metroplex (though the words country and metroplex together is an oxymoron)
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 09, 2023, 08:29:59 AM
(though the words country and metroplex together is an oxymoron)
Different definition of "country", but isn't this what Singapore and the adjacent land in Malaysia are?
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 09, 2023, 08:29:59 AM
Balcones Metroplex (I think I may like this one better than my first suggestion of Central Texas Metroplex)
or Hill Country Metroplex (though the words country and metroplex together is an oxymoron)
That's all fun stuff, but it's never going to be like D/FW because Austin and SA are each distinct metropolitan areas each with their own center and their own culture. They may blend together and, in that respect, form a "megalopolis" but it won't be like the "Metroplex" which is - in essence - a single huge metropolitan area. Think more like New York/Philly or Chicago/Milwaukee or LA/San Diego.
More than eighty miles separates Austin and San Antonio. Maybe similar distance to those of Oakland and Sacramento, Philadelphia and Newark, Denver and CO Springs, Chicago and Milwaukee, and Orlando and Tampa. Correct me if I'm way off on those pairings.
I like the idea of each city having its own airport instead of a shared airport. Although if they were to share the same airport, their combined passenger numbers would be approaching those numbers at IAH and SFO putting it in the top 15 busiest; it would also be the busiest non-hub airport in the nation (should Delta add a hub in the hypothetically combined airport that would easily make it among the top ten busiest).
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on August 09, 2023, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 09, 2023, 08:29:59 AM
Balcones Metroplex (I think I may like this one better than my first suggestion of Central Texas Metroplex)
or Hill Country Metroplex (though the words country and metroplex together is an oxymoron)
That's all fun stuff, but it's never going to be like D/FW because Austin and SA are each distinct metropolitan areas each with their own center and their own culture. They may blend together and, in that respect, form a "megalopolis" but it won't be like the "Metroplex" which is - in essence - a single huge metropolitan area. Think more like New York/Philly or Chicago/Milwaukee or LA/San Diego.
My only rebuttal is that Dallas and Fort Worth are very different culturally. Dallas is still big money, real estate and insurance, high paced and now jumping on the trend of being a playground for trust fund babies while Fort Worth still seems to cling to their cow town past. Sure, there is a bit of both in each, but as for a whole, Dallas and Fort Worth have always felt like two distinct cities, not satellite versions of each other.
There are numerous examples of Binary Cities in the US. Minneapolis-St Paul, Davenport-Moline, Midland-Odessa, Gulfport-Biloxi, Tampa-St Petersburg, Allentown-Bethlehem, etc.
Dallas-Fort Worth are technically still binary cities (even with their own separate skyscraper skylines), but the DFW metroplex is a bit unique for how so many of its "suburbs" have turned into cities. Arlington, Irving, Garland, etc all feel very urban now. I think the SF Bay Area is the only other multi-city region in the US that is comparable. But growth in the Bay Area is somewhat limited by geographic features (not to mention horribly high living costs). The DFW metroplex still has lots of room grow. The metroplex will likely pass the 8 million mark in population before 2030.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 10, 2023, 02:26:43 PM
There are numerous examples of Binary Cities in the US. Minneapolis-St Paul, Davenport-Moline, Midland-Odessa, Gulfport-Biloxi, Tampa-St Petersburg, Allentown-Bethlehem, etc.
Dallas-Fort Worth are technically still binary cities (even with their own separate skyscraper skylines), but the DFW metroplex is a bit unique for how so many of its "suburbs" have turned into cities. Arlington, Irving, Garland, etc all feel very urban now. I think the SF Bay Area is the only other multi-city region in the US that is comparable. But growth in the Bay Area is somewhat limited by geographic features (not to mention horribly high living costs). The DFW metroplex still has lots of room grow. The metroplex will likely pass the 8 million mark in population before 2030.
Then you have Rio Grande Valley that is like a continuous stream of suburbs with no anchor cities.
I don't think many Americans realize more than a million people live in that cluster of small cities in the South end of Texas.
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 09, 2023, 08:29:59 AM
Balcones Metroplex (I think I may like this one better than my first suggestion of Central Texas Metroplex)
or Hill Country Metroplex (though the words country and metroplex together is an oxymoron)
How about "Balconeplex" or Balconplex, depending of the spelling? ^_^;
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 11, 2023, 04:14:18 PM
I don't think many Americans realize more than a million people live in that cluster of small cities in the South end of Texas.
Hidalgo County alone is approaching a million; plus if you add Cameron, Willacy, and Starr Counties, the RGV area totals up to almost 1.4 million.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 10, 2023, 02:26:43 PM
There are numerous examples of Binary Cities in the US. Minneapolis-St Paul, Davenport-Moline, Midland-Odessa, Gulfport-Biloxi, Tampa-St Petersburg, Allentown-Bethlehem, etc.
Dallas-Fort Worth are technically still binary cities (even with their own separate skyscraper skylines), but the DFW metroplex is a bit unique for how so many of its "suburbs" have turned into cities. Arlington, Irving, Garland, etc all feel very urban now. I think the SF Bay Area is the only other multi-city region in the US that is comparable. But growth in the Bay Area is somewhat limited by geographic features (not to mention horribly high living costs). The DFW metroplex still has lots of room grow. The metroplex will likely pass the 8 million mark in population before 2030.
Seattle-Tacoma is pretty comparable. Bellevue is a "suburb" type city with its own high-rise skyline.
The Seattle-Tacoma region is a legitimately large binary city metro. But like the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region additional growth is limited by geography. Living costs aren't as high as the Bay Area, but they're still pretty high. The DFW metroplex has had the advantage of a whole lot of wide open territory ready for additional development. If housing costs grew too expensive in one area there would always be other more affordable areas where newly arriving residents could choose to live. That's how the DFW turned into the 4th biggest metro area in the US. In current trends continue the DFW metroplex will eventually pass Chicagoland to be the 3rd most populous metro in the US.