Could Austin-San Antonio become a metroplex?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Both are large cities in central Texas. Both, especially Austin, have been growing at very fast rates, and Austin in particular has been sprawling (San Antonio has been mostly contained to Bexar). Comes, Hays, and Williamson county have all grown 50% in just the past decade, and communities such as San Macros in between have sprouted up. The I-35 corridor is pretty much objectively the fastest growing part of Texas.

However one could argue that they are too physically far apart and culturally different to ever be considered part of the same metro area.

If they did become a metroplex one day it’d be interesting that Texas would be home to 2 of the largest Metroplexes in the nation

[Gass3268]

My guess is it will be a situation more like Washington/Baltimore and not Dallas/Fort worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul.

[Skill and Chance]

My guess is it will be a situation more like Washington/Baltimore and not Dallas/Fort worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul.

This.  The cities are too culturally different despite being close by.

[Brittain33]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

[ProgressiveModerate]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

Bexar is too Latino and too large (still has more than 20% more people than Travis), and Travis is too non-Hispanic white, for this to happen anytime soon. Travis and environs draws lots of out-of-staters, while Bexar and environs seems to get Mexicans. Additionally, Austin is already getting quite expensive, which should hurt the chances of the more working-class Latino population to move there long-term.
THE place to watch will be counties in between the two. Hays is already growing immensely. There's still a fair bit of empty land between the two population centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are more than twice as close as San Antonio and Austin. If the area between the two cities starts to fill up more, we'll likely see population jumps in places like far western Caldwell County, which is due immediately south of Austin.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

Bexar is too Latino and too large (still has more than 20% more people than Travis), and Travis is too non-Hispanic white, for this to happen anytime soon. Travis and environs draws lots of out-of-staters, while Bexar and environs seems to get Mexicans. Additionally, Austin is already getting quite expensive, which should hurt the chances of the more working-class Latino population to move there long-term.
THE place to watch will be counties in between the two. Hays is already growing immensely. There's still a fair bit of empty land between the two population centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are more than twice as close as San Antonio and Austin. If the area between the two cities starts to fill up more, we'll likely see population jumps in places like far western Caldwell County, which is due immediately south of Austin.

Yeah I remember there was a whole lot of open hinterlands and Schlitterbahn on the 1.5 hr drive between Austin and San Antonio in the 2000s. (Haven't been back since) They're just too far apart to become part of one contiguous metroplex.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

Bexar is too Latino and too large (still has more than 20% more people than Travis), and Travis is too non-Hispanic white, for this to happen anytime soon. Travis and environs draws lots of out-of-staters, while Bexar and environs seems to get Mexicans. Additionally, Austin is already getting quite expensive, which should hurt the chances of the more working-class Latino population to move there long-term.
THE place to watch will be counties in between the two. Hays is already growing immensely. There's still a fair bit of empty land between the two population centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are more than twice as close as San Antonio and Austin. If the area between the two cities starts to fill up more, we'll likely see population jumps in places like far western Caldwell County, which is due immediately south of Austin.

Yeah I remember there was a whole lot of open hinterlands and Schlitterbahn on the 1.5 hr drive between Austin and San Antonio in the 2000s. (Haven't been back since) They're just too far apart to become part of one contiguous metroplex.

Too far apart for now. Twenty years of sprawl would likely be enough to do the job.
(Also depends on what means by "metroplex". If it means "metropolitan area", then they arguably already qualify if the standards are low enough. The Texas Triangle does have three major points: Metro Houston, DFW, and San Antonio-Austin)

[ProgressiveModerate]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

Bexar is too Latino and too large (still has more than 20% more people than Travis), and Travis is too non-Hispanic white, for this to happen anytime soon. Travis and environs draws lots of out-of-staters, while Bexar and environs seems to get Mexicans. Additionally, Austin is already getting quite expensive, which should hurt the chances of the more working-class Latino population to move there long-term.
THE place to watch will be counties in between the two. Hays is already growing immensely. There's still a fair bit of empty land between the two population centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are more than twice as close as San Antonio and Austin. If the area between the two cities starts to fill up more, we'll likely see population jumps in places like far western Caldwell County, which is due immediately south of Austin.

Fair enough.

There are a few geographic barriers with Caldwell, Bastrop, and eastern Travis County, most notably how swamp it is. Not that that can't be solved with modern day technologies pretty easily, but for now it seems like the strip has been most desirable. Comal County is really what seems to be the barrier right now as there is no doubt in my mind Hays will become a fully urban/suburban county easily in our lifetimes (barring dramatic change). It'd probably take a bit of a revival of San Antonio into a working-class business hub, since Comal County suburbanization would basically be extending white San Antonio suburbs out further, which seems kind of unlikely because of how near Austin is. If there is a high speed rail or transit network developed that pretty rigoursly connects the 2, then I could see a Comal boom, especially with how expensive Austin is. Could kinda become like how Jersey City is to NYC in a way.

Also just to be clear, Comal is growing really fast as is but is relatively low population to begin with.

For now though for the reasons you mentioned they'll prolly stay distinct and separate cities for a while

Also this sounds kind of weird to say but I feel like Comal is kind of "too Republican" as is right now to become truly urbanize, though things can def change.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

Bexar is too Latino and too large (still has more than 20% more people than Travis), and Travis is too non-Hispanic white, for this to happen anytime soon. Travis and environs draws lots of out-of-staters, while Bexar and environs seems to get Mexicans. Additionally, Austin is already getting quite expensive, which should hurt the chances of the more working-class Latino population to move there long-term.
THE place to watch will be counties in between the two. Hays is already growing immensely. There's still a fair bit of empty land between the two population centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are more than twice as close as San Antonio and Austin. If the area between the two cities starts to fill up more, we'll likely see population jumps in places like far western Caldwell County, which is due immediately south of Austin.

Fair enough.

There are a few geographic barriers with Caldwell, Bastrop, and eastern Travis County, most notably how swamp it is. Not that that can't be solved with modern day technologies pretty easily, but for now it seems like the strip has been most desirable. Comal County is really what seems to be the barrier right now as there is no doubt in my mind Hays will become a fully urban/suburban county easily in our lifetimes (barring dramatic change). It'd probably take a bit of a revival of San Antonio into a working-class business hub, since Comal County suburbanization would basically be extending white San Antonio suburbs out further, which seems kind of unlikely because of how near Austin is. If there is a high speed rail or transit network developed that pretty rigoursly connects the 2, then I could see a Comal boom, especially with how expensive Austin is. Could kinda become like how Jersey City is to NYC in a way.

Also just to be clear, Comal is growing really fast as is but is relatively low population to begin with.

For now though for the reasons you mentioned they'll prolly stay distinct and separate cities for a while

Also this sounds kind of weird to say but I feel like Comal is kind of "too Republican" as is right now to become truly urbanize, though things can def change.

It's perhaps an underrated possibility that sprawl into Comal comes from Hays first as opposed to Bexar.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My guess is it will be a situation more like Washington/Baltimore and not Dallas/Fort worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul.

This.  The cities are too culturally different despite being close by.

Honestly, it's an issue of distance rather than an issue of culture. Cultures can change; travel times can't. At the end of the day, Austin and San Antonio are just too far from eachother to generate overlapping commuter flows, job centers, etc. Dallas is 30 miles from Fort Worth. Austin is 80 miles from San Antonio. No significant amount of people will go from Travis County to Bexar County and back every single day. The Baltimore-Washington analogy is still correct, but mostly in the sense that there will be two *very geographically close* metropolitan areas that nonetheless operate functionally separately. While there may be commuter flows from the furthest exurbs towards both cities, I doubt there will be truly continuous development the whole route--at some point, travel time to the CBD prohibits it. The region will integrate in that it might share institutions, some people will go back and forth 1-2x per week, airports pull from both metros, etc.--but it still remains distinctly separate. Meanwhile, Dallas-Fort Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul are functionally one city.

[jimrtex]

Both are large cities in central Texas. Both, especially Austin, have been growing at very fast rates, and Austin in particular has been sprawling (San Antonio has been mostly contained to Bexar). Comes, Hays, and Williamson county have all grown 50% in just the past decade, and communities such as San Macros in between have sprouted up. The I-35 corridor is pretty much objectively the fastest growing part of Texas.

However one could argue that they are too physically far apart and culturally different to ever be considered part of the same metro area.

If they did become a metroplex one day it’d be interesting that Texas would be home to 2 of the largest Metroplexes in the nation

Only if there is the equivalent of Dalworthington Gardens. Perhaps "San Austinio Marcos Rancheros."

[It’s so Joever]

I love the Washington / Baltimore analogy - Baltimore is historically much bigger, lower education levels and affluence vs. the fast-growing seat of government / white collar metropolis

Yeah, it's a pretty good analogy.
Though, as a counterpoint to that being a case against this, one can say that Fort Worth and Dallas have always had distinct identities yet still are considered part of the same grouping on a very macro level.
It's definitely possible for their two spheres to blend together a bit over time, so eventually it's a question of "define metroplex".

I almost wonder if a sprawling Austin could kind of asorb San Antonio as like the "hub" of the heavily Hispanic area if that makes sense. It'd be a while before that could happen though.

I do think what a "Metroplex" is is really up to interpretation. Dallas =/= to Ft. Worth but they are so interlinked economically and just physically that they are often put together when talked about.

Bexar is too Latino and too large (still has more than 20% more people than Travis), and Travis is too non-Hispanic white, for this to happen anytime soon. Travis and environs draws lots of out-of-staters, while Bexar and environs seems to get Mexicans. Additionally, Austin is already getting quite expensive, which should hurt the chances of the more working-class Latino population to move there long-term.
THE place to watch will be counties in between the two. Hays is already growing immensely. There's still a fair bit of empty land between the two population centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are more than twice as close as San Antonio and Austin. If the area between the two cities starts to fill up more, we'll likely see population jumps in places like far western Caldwell County, which is due immediately south of Austin.

Yeah I remember there was a whole lot of open hinterlands and Schlitterbahn on the 1.5 hr drive between Austin and San Antonio in the 2000s. (Haven't been back since) They're just too far apart to become part of one contiguous metroplex.

I was there recently. Although there were areas which were definitely more rural/exurban, you always were within sight of a building and there were plenty of isolated housing developments throughout.
The process is starting already.

[Indy Texas]

My guess is it will be a situation more like Washington/Baltimore and not Dallas/Fort worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul.

This.  The cities are too culturally different despite being close by.

I don't think cultural homogeneity is a necessary condition.

This is less true now but Fort Worth and Dallas had very different histories and cultural reputations.

Dallas was seen as the "westernmost city in the South" and Fort Worth was seen as being where "the West" or "the Frontier" began.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My guess is it will be a situation more like Washington/Baltimore and not Dallas/Fort worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul.

This.  The cities are too culturally different despite being close by.

I don't think cultural homogeneity is a necessary condition.

This is less true now but Fort Worth and Dallas had very different histories and cultural reputations.

Dallas was seen as the "westernmost city in the South" and Fort Worth was seen as being where "the West" or "the Frontier" began.

Fort Worth's Stockyards are a case in point.

[Agonized-Statism]

I mean, that would be cool, but not unless we go full Judge Dredd and totally depopulate everything outside the mega-cities. 80-ish miles of urban sprawl is tough to fill even with Texas' growth. But will the Texas Triangle keep getting more connected, and will I-45, I-10, and I-30 be getting busier? Absolutely. We really have to start thinking in terms of clustered, networked megaregions with patches of urban, suburban, and exurban.

[Torie]

"Metroplex" is not a census term is it?