PDA

View Full Version : Austin 2050 Population Projection



CTroyMathis
19 August 2003, 11:57 PM
Well, the can was opened...

So here we go.

.................................................. .....................................


Austin population to pop


Study predicts metro area will be home to 7.8M residents in 2050

Colin Pope
Austin Business Journal Staff


Flash back to 1950: Austin is a humble Texas town, a small city where politicians and college students converge. I-35 and other major roads have yet to be considered, and the town is an oasis for the 135,000 people who live here.

Now, flash forward to 2050: The Austin area is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. It has outgrown San Antonio decades earlier, and its size and affluence rival the Boston area and eclipse the Detroit area. More than 7.8 million people now call Central Texas home.

In less than 50 years, the population of this high tech hub is projected to top 7.8 million, according to new population projections released this month by American City Business Journals Inc., the parent company of the Austin Business Journal.

The sobering projections, which mirror what others have projected in recent years, mean the Austin metro area's population in 2050 will equal the current population of Northern California's Bay Area, home to San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland.

Austin was among 729 metropolitan and micropolitan areas studied by American City Business Journals. The projection formula made the conservative assumption that areas would continue to expand or contract at roughly the same pace they have maintained since 1990.

Each area's projected growth rate was determined by averaging its 12 annualized growth rates between successive years and 2002, such as 1990-2002, 1991-2002 and 1992-2002. The formula assumed a constant rate of growth, although actual growth rates will vary.

The projection for Austin provides a staunch reality check for many of Austin's leaders, who are charged with preserving Austin for generations to come. But with an estimated population of 7.8 million in just 47 years, can Austin remain Austin?

"That's the fundamental question of our time," says Robin Rather, an Austin entrepreneur and longtime community activist.

Rather, who has helped turn several grassroots efforts into civic powerhouses, says residents and visitors have come to love Austin for its unique characteristics.

"But if the population estimates turn out to be accurate, will they still love it? That's a very, very serious question, and I don't think anyone has the answer," Rather says.

The answer, experts say, can be found only after Austin and surrounding communities come together first as a region to solve Central Texas' fundamental problems concerning water supplies and transportation.

Economists say Austin's business climate in 50 years -- or even 20 years from now -- is almost unimaginable. At the very least, it's unpredictable.

Central Texas economist Ray Perryman, founder and president of Waco-based The Perryman Group Inc., predicts Austin's future will have little to do with the tech industry that has helped Austin become a piece of the global economy.


Instead, Perryman suggests Austin will reinvent itself as the tech industry evolves and broadens. He envisions an Austin that continues to stay on top of innovative technology segments, such as the digital film industry, biotech or the growing business segment researching alternative energy sources.

But exactly what kinds of businesses will form the backbone of Austin's future economy can't be known today, says John Hockenyos, managing director of Austin-based economic research firm Texas Perspectives Inc.

It's very unlikely that we'll have the same business climate in 20 years," Hockenyos says. "In 20 years, Austin may sort of feel the same but it will look different, just as it looked different 20 years ago.

"We can only hope to preserve what underlines Austin's business climate -- the spirit of tolerance, creativity and that entrepreneurial spirit that keeps us on top of innovative business sectors."

Many of Austin's leaders are less concerned about the economy and more concerned about being able to support an economy that sustains two times, three times or even seven times as many people.

After all, experts say, market forces and technological innovations will almost unilaterally dictate how Austin's business landscape matures, so the emphasis now is on providing the infrastructure a population of 7.8 million people will need. It's that infrastructure -- roads, water supplies and energy sources -- that are most concerning to those charged with planning Austin's future.

Austin's transportation system, for instance, already is lagging behind the population curve. An immediate and long-term lack of funding offers a bleak picture for the ability to move Central Texans from Point A to Point B.

For Mike Rollins, president of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, Austin's transportation inadequacies comprise the bulk of his concern for Austin -- not just economically, but socially.

Regional transportation authorities have developed plans that offer relief for the next 25 years. Unfortunately, there's never going to be enough money to carry out those plans, says Bruce Byron, executive director of the Capital Area Transportation Coalition.

"We only have enough money to address one-third of the known projects, so it's not unfair to say that there is a funding crisis," Byron says. "We won't be able to address the 50-year population horizon by continuing to do transportation as we do it today."

Byron says Austin soon won't have any choice but to consider a mix of roads and rail systems, but something much more intricate and innovative than previous rail proposals, he says.

Roads are a big worry, but an even bigger problem -- although less visible -- is the area's water supply, which experts say is uncertain.

In 1999, the City of Austin signed a $100 million agreement with the Lower Colorado River Authority to ensure Austin has enough water for the next 50 years. But that contract covers only Austin. Other cities and counties have similar water agreements, but many rural areas are unsure when or how they will guarantee adequate water supplies.

It's more evidence that, as the Austin area grows, regional cooperation becomes paramount.

"Unfortunately, the regional cooperation we need is still not there yet," Hockenyos says.

"Everyone says the long-term planning is important, but when you get down to it there's a tendency to deal with the short term. We need to focus on developing regional infrastructure further, mainly transportation and water supplies, and only then will we be acting like a region."

During the next decade or two, observers say, Austin needs to solidify regional infrastructure by reaching out to smaller surrounding communities. Looking toward the 50-year horizon, they say, that regional cooperation must be extended to Austin's largest neighbor to the south: San Antonio.

During the next few decades, growth in the Austin area is projected to dramatically shift directions. Rather than a boom north toward Georgetown, the Austin area likely will stretch south to San Antonio, whose suburban growth has been creeping north along I-35, economists predict.

"I think in the future, Austin and San Antonio will be spoken about the same way Dallas and Fort Worth are today," Hockenyos says.

rantanamo
20 August 2003, 01:00 AM
Economists have so much pessimism and optimism. It may happen, but I'd hate to hear the hubub from the South Austin purists if they got that big.

psukhu
20 August 2003, 09:54 AM
I think in the future, Austin and San Antonio will be spoken about the same way Dallas and Fort Worth are today

I think it will be more like Baltimore/Washington or San Diego/LA.

Dallas and Ft Worth started working together much earlier in their history. For example, DFW airport.

JaeTex
20 August 2003, 12:17 PM
I don't think I'm a "South Austin purist", but though Austin is growing the city is dying. It's been less than 10 years since I left and though that certainly wasn't the good old days there was still something different.

Now the drag is very corporate and the glorious surrounding hills are now covered with cookie-cutter subdivisions. I'm not against progress but something special is being lost.

mikedsjr
20 August 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by JaeTex
Now the drag is very corporate and the glorious surrounding hills are now covered with cookie-cutter subdivisions. I'm not against progress but something special is being lost.

Im not against progress either, but its a matter of what do the people want currently:

Corporate America's man-made beauty that gets rid of the wildlife or natural beauty that keeps the animal habitats in tact.

I believe this is just the current trend. But i believe that one day people will realize that protecting the carnivorous wildlife habitats are a high priority for an ecosystem to work properly. And at that point we may see a shift in how subdivisions and cities are built.

The Ecosystem and its wildlife should be first priority on a cities agenda. Not that wildlife is above humans. But because without it being the highest priority, we humans have the power to extirpate ALL wildlife from their natural habitats and place them where they don't belong as their only permanent residence. Zoos.

bloodandpopcorn
21 August 2003, 12:44 AM
I doubt if Austin will acutally make that kind of progress unless they get some massive improvements on public transit done... Frankly I'm not the nature purist that mikedsjr is, I tend to prefer man-made beauty augmented by beautiful trees & parks, with wildlife etc. seperated by a 2-3 hour drive... but that's just me. I do love things like Central Park or the massive park/shrines found all over Tokyo/Osaka... but those are things that really simply complement the man-made beauty around them (usually consisting of some rather striking man-made things themselves, if much older man-made things)... I think Austin could handle it properly and leave all happy, but, it will take alot of work for them to do, I believe.

bron
25 December 2003, 12:18 AM
If Austin is going to be this big in 2050, then I can only imagine what DFW and Houston will be in 2050. 20 mill and 18 mill? Seems too high...they better start building high instead of wide. DFW would stretch into Oklahoma and Houston into Louisiana if they keep building like they build today!!!

bloodandpopcorn
25 December 2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by bron
DFW would stretch into Oklahoma and Houston into Louisiana if they keep building like they build today!!!

Sadly, with Texas mindsets still as they are, that's not entirely implausible... Some conglomeration of rich capitalists should just buy up all the fringe land and stop this crazed sprawl. Even with fill in coming back to Dallas and Houston, our outward motion seems unstopppable...

freewaytincan
25 December 2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by bloodandpopcorn
Sadly, with Texas mindsets still as they are, that's not entirely implausible... Some conglomeration of rich capitalists should just buy up all the fringe land and stop this crazed sprawl. Even with fill in coming back to Dallas and Houston, our outward motion seems unstopppable...


And to top it off, I DON'T EVEN LIKE AUSTIN!!!

Though I see no reason to only blame capitalists. There are plenty of lefties in the 'burbs...like I've always said, the suburban sprawl is an excercise in the irresponsible ways of Postmodernism, and Postmodernism is quite to the left, therefore, the suburbs are in fact indirectly linked to the left!

Yeah. Eat that, most liberal city in Texas (or at least it seems like it...)

jsoto3
25 December 2003, 10:24 AM
'Urban,'

Could you please explain how suburban sprawl is 'an excercise in the irresponsible ways of Postmodernism' vs. a natural, historical (pre-dating 'Postmodernism'), extremely capitalistic phenomenon?

freewaytincan
25 December 2003, 08:23 PM
Personally, I don't think you'll want me to. It wouldn't fit in three posts. But perhaps I can try...eh, dinner time for me!

Ask me again sometime. I'll be happy to explain.

tamtagon
07 May 2004, 06:48 PM
Personally, I don't think you'll want me to. It wouldn't fit in three posts. But perhaps I can try...eh, dinner time for me!

Ask me again sometime. I'll be happy to explain.

'Urban,'

Could you please explain how suburban sprawl is 'an excercise in the irresponsible ways of Postmodernism' vs. a natural, historical (pre-dating 'Postmodernism'), extremely capitalistic phenomenon?

sterling
08 May 2004, 04:15 AM
Suburban sprawl seems a by-product of the modern age. The realization that it may be obsolete belongs to post-modern thinking. Or at least I thought so....

vfib
05 June 2004, 03:48 AM
austin-san antonio?


I think it will be more like Baltimore/Washington or San Diego/LA.

Dallas and Ft Worth started working together much earlier in their history. For example, DFW airport.
according to http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/top_50_us_metroareas_asc.php
DFW and balt/dc are each considered a single metro area, but austin, SA, SD, and LA are separate most likely b/c they are not as close to each other like the other city pairs and they still have plenty of non-developed/non-populated land btwn them.

according to mapquest.com/directions

dallas-ft worth 33.21 miles (irving, grand prarie, and arlington make the empty patches come and go)
austin-san antonio 79.38 miles (still plenty of land between SA, new braunfels, san marcos, and austin)
baltimore-washington 44.74 miles (i remember plenty of undeveloped, but pretty land, in btwn the cities)
san diego-los angeles 120.62 miles (although orange county makes only 70 miles or so empty)

rantanamo
05 June 2004, 12:31 PM
I had to chastise the Houston forumers on this. Some of them seemed to think we are cheating and that DFW should always be split because FW is a different atmosphere from Dallas.

-Dallas and Ft Worth's borders are not very far from each other on 183. Time a trip from the 183/114 split, to DFW Centerport. About 10 minutes in normal traffic.
-DFW has same television. Some channels in FW. Some in Dallas. Some smaller ones in the burbs. These even cross over with relationships. Ch.11(FW) partners with UPN 21(Dallas).
-Same radio
-DFW airport
-travel on TRE, 183,I-30 is sheer traffic volume. Suggests to me a ton of crossover commuting.
-Tourist spots and recreation are pretty much seen as a metroplex thing to visitors.
- There are even DFW-wide recreation leagues. I've played in baseball, softball, and basketball leagues whose membership required being in the census defined DFW metroplex. Don't remember thinking, boy is this Grandbury team a bunch of foreigners.
- Sporting teams are considered metro teams as are large major sporting events.
-NTTA
-NCTCOG

Now, let's compare this to SA-Austin
-Borders are about and hour's drive apart in virtually no traffic
-Seem to be sprawling apart(both to the north and west). A metro with crossing commuting patterns would grow together like DFW is.
- No common airport
- No mass transit link
- No common road or governmental authorities or organizations
- No teams considered the teams of both
- No common television or radio, though it is more than technologically possible

I don't even think distance would be the problem. Problem is, SA and Austin are two metros going their own ways. You could say Dallas and FW proper are going their seperate ways, but there is simply too much in conjunction. The people in the two MSAs share too much in their lives.

psukhu
05 June 2004, 12:50 PM
I used to live in Houston and I also thought it was strange that Dallas and Ft Worth were counted as one metro. :)

After living here I see that commuting patterns really tie the two MSAs together. I looked at our company phone book and saw that people lived all over DFW. Now, I live in Dallas and work in Tarrant County. My commute is 20 minutes, shorter than I had in Houston.

rantanamo
05 June 2004, 01:51 PM
Houston doesn't have the suburban reach that DFW does that would allow such commuting overlap. I don't think they(Houstonites) realize how close FW and Dallas really are. I don't think they realize how many different employment nodes there are spread out throughout the metroplex. They don't have a DFW Centerport or Las Colinas that would draw hundreds of thousands of employees out of Houston as well as cities out of another metro because their metro focus IS Houston. When I worked in Irving we had people from Argyle, Gunter, Plano, Garland, Dallas, FW, Arlington, Azle, Granbury, etc. That's why DFW is one big metro.

aceplace
05 June 2004, 02:00 PM
You could say Dallas and FW proper are going their seperate ways, but there is simply too much in conjunction. The people in the two MSAs share too much in their lives.
Rantanamo, you made some excellent points... but if I could offer an update...

The Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has now defined the DFW area as on Metropolitan Statistical Area, because of the cross-commuting and the general interdependence of the parts of the DFW area. San Antonio and Austin are definitely two separate MSAs, in their opinion.

The URL is http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t29.html

The DFW area may be comparable in physical size to LA County, which is, of course, one Metro Area.

rantanamo
05 June 2004, 04:18 PM
Not surprising at all. The region really functions as one large being. It's now time to really solidify this with more metro wide organizations.

rjlevins
05 June 2004, 06:02 PM
This is the first time that I saw this post and I have to laugh that Austin will be that big. Build something new in Austin? Be ready for 20-30 protestors who have nothing better to do with their time than to "Keep Austin Weird". The point that Austin is not sprawling to the south is true...it is sprawling to the north. I could see someone say Austin/Round Rock or Austin/Georgetown long before the idea of San Antonio/Austin comes into place. There are way too many barriers for Austin to see a boom of growth that large...some want tall buildings, some don't...some wan't a small city, some want growth. Austin will increase in national importance, I completely agree, (Under the nation of Rep. of Texas i wish) but they need to be more reasonable with their estimates. I will estimate it at 2.5 million with no real number analysis. I could see Round Rock start to develop its own downtown and become close to the same size as Austin.

Fobulous
21 July 2004, 01:31 PM
First of all. it's Houstonian not Houstonite.
Secondly, DFW as a metro is much bigger than Houston and Austin..but if Austin/SA will be counted as one metro than that area is huge. but like other mentioned. it will be very unlikely since they don't even share the same transporation hubs..

aceplace
21 July 2004, 01:42 PM
..but if Austin/SA will be counted as one metro than that area is huge. but like other mentioned. it will be very unlikely since they don't even share the same transporation hubs..If 20% of Bexar county (San Antonio) commuted to Austin to work, or 20% of Travis county (Austin) commuted to Bexar county to work, then and only then would they be in the same metro.

tamtagon
21 July 2004, 01:51 PM
Considering the pretty hills, the need to keep Edwards aquafer running clean, and potential air pollution, I would be all in favor of establishing an Austin to San Antonio development zone with very strict western boundaries. Make the land area long and skinny than allowing each metro to grow circularly. Double up I-35 (separating freight and communter traffic) and include multiple commuter rail lines between each CBD. With an express train from downtown San Antonio to downtown Austin in 30 minutes, I think we could see one statistical area. That's kinda fun to think about.

psukhu
21 July 2004, 02:01 PM
First of all. it's Houstonian not Houstonite.
Secondly, DFW as a metro is much bigger than Houston and Austin..but if Austin/SA will be counted as one metro than that area is huge. but like other mentioned. it will be very unlikely since they don't even share the same transporation hubs..

What are the metro populations of SA and Austin? Aren't they each under 2 million? So less than 4 million when put together?

tamtagon
21 July 2004, 02:55 PM
Something like
Antone - 1.8
Austin - 1.4
2003ish - 3.2 million in combined metros

Mixing the growth rates of San Antonio - Austin, we'll come up with about the same growth rate as DFW - 33%. We should expect 4 million people 'officially' living in the combined metros of San Antonio and Austin. In my personal expectation, I think San Antonio growth rate will increase from about 20% to about 27%. Austin will continue at about 38% increase. In other words, more people will be moving to San Antonio than historically based predictions would indicate. Primarily, the increase in SA as a residential destination will come from those considering DFW and/or Houston, but prefering a smaller, less congested metro.

simulcra
24 July 2004, 05:15 PM
It seems to me that assuming that growth rates since 1990 are going to continue in their current trends seems a fatal assumption. Austin is in a boom, and I don't it'll hold up so long into 2050.

tamtagon
24 July 2004, 05:47 PM
It seems to me that assuming that growth rates since 1990 are going to continue in their current trends seems a fatal assumption. Austin is in a boom, and I don't it'll hold up so long into 2050.

The growth rate, as a percentage will level off, but the net population gain due to relocation will continue to be a large number. Anticipating one million new transplant residents per decade until 2030 is smart. Anticipating one and a half million new transplant residents per decade between 2030 - 2050 is also smart. Metropolitian planning in Austin should reflect the accommodation of such a population, especially with regard to the environment and drinking water source.

Both Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston have experienced similar population growth. San Antonio - San Marcos - Austin - Round Rock will too. If we play our cards right, San Antonio's trading area will mussle in on Monterey and eventually be considered the primary business center for Northern Mexico - that's huge.

rantanamo
24 July 2004, 06:53 PM
Didn't Austin stop growing as fast(as a metro and the city I mean). I got this impression after I left, and the pop has not moved much at all while the big 3 have gained a lot. Am I wrong in this?

tamtagon
24 July 2004, 11:42 PM
I'm pretty sure you're right, but stop & go population increase has unfortunately been common. The city needs something besides the school, the government and the big computer company to assist more uniform growth. DFW has been extremely fortunate to experience consistent growth, increasing by about a third from census to census.

2112
28 July 2004, 01:09 PM
Hello all. I visit this forum all the time, and finally decided to join. Thats all for now. :D