Funky Town Bear said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

The Austin to SA build out is mostly there already compared to Dallas to Waco.

---

As is Belton to Waco. Still a lot of nothing between Dallas and Waco

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

I disagree.

Austin to San Antonio is pretty well developed right along the interstate (several miles each side) and the same has already happened north to basically between Jarrell/ Salado at this time. If it keeps growing it will reach Belton/Temple fairly soon and not much longer Waco after that.

There is just less distance to go between the Austin sprawl already and Waco. Especially with Waco itself spreading out south along the interstate.

However, there is more distance that needs to be built up between Waco and Dallas or Waco and Fort Worth areas.

cowboycwr said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

I disagree.

Austin to San Antonio is pretty well developed right along the interstate (several miles each side) and the same has already happened north to basically between Jarrell/ Salado at this time. If it keeps growing it will reach Belton/Temple fairly soon and not much longer Waco after that.

There is just less distance to go between the Austin sprawl already and Waco. Especially with Waco itself spreading out south along the interstate.

However, there is more distance that needs to be built up between Waco and Dallas or Waco and Fort Worth areas.

---

There are still some long stretches between DFW and Hillsboro on both sides that will need to fill in. And that will take some time as DFW is hellbent on growing towards the Red River rather than growing south towards HIllsboro.

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

I disagree.

Austin to San Antonio is pretty well developed right along the interstate (several miles each side) and the same has already happened north to basically between Jarrell/ Salado at this time. If it keeps growing it will reach Belton/Temple fairly soon and not much longer Waco after that.

There is just less distance to go between the Austin sprawl already and Waco. Especially with Waco itself spreading out south along the interstate.

However, there is more distance that needs to be built up between Waco and Dallas or Waco and Fort Worth areas.

---

There are still some long stretches between DFW and Hillsboro on both sides that will need to fill in. And that will take some time as DFW is hellbent on growing towards the Red River rather than growing south towards HIllsboro.

---

That is what I was getting at.

And then if the growth stops going north there are areas east along I20and south on I45 that can be filled in before they start going even further out to Hillsboro.

Same with the Fort Worth side. Lots of room to grow north and west before they keep going south. For example 35 N or 20 W.

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

I disagree.

Austin to San Antonio is pretty well developed right along the interstate (several miles each side) and the same has already happened north to basically between Jarrell/ Salado at this time. If it keeps growing it will reach Belton/Temple fairly soon and not much longer Waco after that.

There is just less distance to go between the Austin sprawl already and Waco. Especially with Waco itself spreading out south along the interstate.

However, there is more distance that needs to be built up between Waco and Dallas or Waco and Fort Worth areas.

---

There are still some long stretches between DFW and Hillsboro on both sides that will need to fill in. And that will take some time as DFW is hellbent on growing towards the Red River rather than growing south towards HIllsboro.

---

That is what I was getting at.

And then if the growth stops going north there are areas east along I20and south on I45 that can be filled in before they start going even further out to Hillsboro.

Same with the Fort Worth side. Lots of room to grow north and west before they keep going south. For example 35 N or 20 W.

---

I live in Tarrant County. I'm well aware of what's going on here.

The reason Waco is the slowest growing metro in the population center of Texas is brcause it is old and it is poor. Change could do the Waco area sone good and keep it competitive with the faster growing metros in Central Texas.

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

I disagree.

Austin to San Antonio is pretty well developed right along the interstate (several miles each side) and the same has already happened north to basically between Jarrell/ Salado at this time. If it keeps growing it will reach Belton/Temple fairly soon and not much longer Waco after that.

There is just less distance to go between the Austin sprawl already and Waco. Especially with Waco itself spreading out south along the interstate.

However, there is more distance that needs to be built up between Waco and Dallas or Waco and Fort Worth areas.

---

There are still some long stretches between DFW and Hillsboro on both sides that will need to fill in. And that will take some time as DFW is hellbent on growing towards the Red River rather than growing south towards HIllsboro.

---

That is what I was getting at.

And then if the growth stops going north there are areas east along I20and south on I45 that can be filled in before they start going even further out to Hillsboro.

Same with the Fort Worth side. Lots of room to grow north and west before they keep going south. For example 35 N or 20 W.

---

I live in Tarrant County. I'm well aware of what's going on here.

---

I didn't say you weren't.

Funky Town Bear said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

The Austin to SA build out is mostly there already compared to Dallas to Waco.

---

Bell County will be the new Georgetown in no time...

Ask the dumbass that wrote that article what his alternative would be - leave things as they are? No new jobs, no economic growth, no new tax revenue, stagnation, depression, poverty?

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Ask the dumbass that wrote that article what his alternative would be - leave things as they are? No new jobs, no economic growth, no new tax revenue, stagnation, depression, poverty?

---

He probably thinks that the first few things will magically happen with the current people living there and no new investment. Like they will all magically get $1million per year jobs and not move out of the neighborhood.

cowboycwr said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Ask the dumbass that wrote that article what his alternative would be - leave things as they are? No new jobs, no economic growth, no new tax revenue, stagnation, depression, poverty?

---

He probably thinks that the first few things will magically happen with the current people living there and no new investment. Like they will all magically get $1million per year jobs and not move out of the neighborhood.

---

Both of you are right. I hate to see people forced out of their homes because they can't afford taxes, but it is not like they haven't become richer either. Not revitalizing the city promotes growth in just the suburbs making Waco crumble and fall into more poverty. The people that this is hurting the most is the poor who rent. The increase in housing cost across the nation is already impacting this population. The revitalization is making it even worse for them in Waco. While it hurts them, hopefully it will also help them and their kids in the long run with better job opportunities. Gentrification can be painful, but the alternative is worse.

cowboycwr said:

---

atomicblast said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I wonder if the author feels the same way about farmers and ranchers being bought out for expansion of cities. IT has happened in every city/metroplex. An area that was once outside the city and farmland gets bought out and a suburb is built, with shopping, restaurants, etc. and the city expands.

In Waco, for example everything west of about 25th street was farmland at one point. Or even more recently, the new university High school was built on farmland.

Or a metroplex like DFW- there used to be separation between Ft. Worth-Arlington-Grand Prairie and Dallas- now it is solid growth the whole way.

---

If Texas really does hit 55 million citizens by 2050 (and if 90% of that growth does in up being in the Texas Triangle)

Its very unlikely that Waco to Austin or Waco to Dallas will also not look basically built up with little separation.

---

I think Dallas to Waco is more likely as Austin would squeeze out towards San Antonio.

---

I disagree.

Austin to San Antonio is pretty well developed right along the interstate (several miles each side) and the same has already happened north to basically between Jarrell/ Salado at this time. If it keeps growing it will reach Belton/Temple fairly soon and not much longer Waco after that.

There is just less distance to go between the Austin sprawl already and Waco. Especially with Waco itself spreading out south along the interstate.

However, there is more distance that needs to be built up between Waco and Dallas or Waco and Fort Worth areas.

---

Waco sprawl has moved far into Lorena, and Troy has become a suburb of Temple/Belton metro. There are less than 10 miles between the outskirts of Waco and Temple; Bruceville-Eddy is the last truly rural area along that stretch of I-35, and that won't last more than 10-15 years. Developers have already started making offers to ranchers in Bruceville.

Appraisal values have increased everywhere in Texas - not just in McLennan County. This was driven significantly by the confluence of an increase in demand (due to population growth) combined with a decrease in supply driven by Covid and other economic factors. Sort of a "perfect storm".

Supply has caught up - or is catching up - and building material prices have dropped considerably from 2-3 years ago (price for 4x8 sheet of OSB in 2022 was $46, today it's about $13). High property taxes are forcing small-time investors - those owning less than 5, or so, rental properties - to sell. These factors are helping to drive down prices and, consequently, appraised values. We're already seeing significant reductions in Travis county and likely most other urban counties around Texas.

"Gentrification is awesome!"

Really easy to support gentrification when it is no skin off of our affluent Baylor grad backs, as we are not affected by their side of this at all. Sure, not all of us are monied, but losing your neighborhood and then drowning in property taxes that cannot be come up with…. Come on, folks. Total tragedy for the poor usually. To see this issue only from the viewpoint of one with abundance( and read this thread as it is apparent that none of us are hurting), is to barely see the issue at all.


And I have no solution for this problem, but just realize there will be no solution till we consider both sides of the problem equally.
Sic em

Moondoggie said:

---

"Gentrification is awesome!"

Really easy to support gentrification when it is no skin off of our affluent Baylor grad backs, as we are not affected by their side of this at all. Sure, not all of us are monied, but losing your neighborhood and then drowning in property taxes that cannot be come up with…. Come on, folks. Total tragedy for the poor usually. To see this issue only from the viewpoint of one with abundance( and read this thread as it is apparent that none of us are hurting), is to barely see the issue at all.


And I have no solution for this problem, but just realize there will be no solution till we consider both sides of the problem equally.
Sic em

---

Moondoggie, I appreciate your viewpoint and your heart. Unfortunately, there isn't a good solution. Gentrification causes alot of pain to the poor, especially the poor that rent. Wages are not increasing at the same rate as cost of living.

I talked to Jimmy Dorrell, the founder of Mission Waco, years ago about it, and he admitted that he was struggling with how to help North Waco improve beyond where it already had that did not encourage gentrification.

I look at the other side though, and I see Jackson, MS. It is a failed city. It can't even provide clean drinking water to its residents. It is a great example of city mismanagement and little to no investment in the city. In the 90's when World Com was the only Fortune 500 company in Mississippi, the city basically shoved them to the suburbs. They were planning to build a new headquarters in downtown Jackson. They needed approval from the city council to have an 11 foot wide sidewalk on one side of the building, instead of the 12 foot sidewalk required. The city council told them no, and they said goodbye. The suburb that they moved to loved having high paying exec and tech jobs move there. Jackson offers no future to its residents, especially the poor ones.

I agree that is painful, but so is the alternative. I have no solutions either.