Why is San Antonio considered a small market team...

Moderators: Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake

MrOrange
Senior
Posts: 697
And1: 417
Joined: Apr 24, 2017

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#81 » by MrOrange » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:24 pm

It is only a small market team if you look at the place they are playing. NBA has been global for quite some time. I am quite sure that a team like Spurs with its success and consistency has appeal across the NBA and internationally. It is quite clear that thanks to Manu it has an appeal in Latin America, in Europe (thanks to the long-time French connection and some other internationals). AtT arena can host something like 18.5k and the locals can fill it themselves. As far as merchandising, etc. it has a global appeal, so loads of opportunities. The same applies to all big team names in the NBA. If you don't suck you have a global audience and spectators.
Jonny Blaze
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
And1: 1,409
Joined: Jun 20, 2011

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#82 » by Jonny Blaze » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:53 pm

Village Idiot wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

I will answer a few of your questions

"For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

"

The Bay Area has not one, not two, but three large cities. Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Each of these cities has its own international airport.
The Bay Area is large enough to support multiple pro teams in the same sport
football (Raiders, 49ers)
baseball (athletics, Giants)

Boston isn't quite as big as the Bay Area. Providence, Rhode Island is not as populated as the cities in California.

Bay Area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are the only metro areas that are large enough to support multiple teams in the same sport.

If you do some critical thinking its not a hard leap to also realize that these cities are the 5 biggest metro areas in the country.
I wonder if that is a coincidence? [sarcasm]

That is why I separate the Bay Area from Boston


You made a point earlier about airports. Do you want to know what most big market cities have in common? They have multiple (large airports) in their metro area because these cities have the population and business commerce to support more than one airport.

I challenge you to name me a city that is not in the top 12 that has multiple busy airports.
The Bay area is polycentric due to geographical constrictions that are quite unique. In New England towns and townships were well established before the industrial era so it was nearly impossible politically for a city to grow beyond established limits. Municipal boundaries are fairly arbitrary and if 1,000,000 people are in one municipality (San Jose) or multiple (Providence) has zero relevance on what matters for professional sports which are number of people , how much disposable income those people have, whether they are interested in professional basketball and willing to spend time and money on a team. Personally I think MSA definition is fine for looking at butts in seats potential while CSA is a good metric for eyes on screen.

In your top 12, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta and Detroit also only have one significant commercial airpot so there is clearly no correlation between ranking and number of airports. Atlanta is the prime example of a city with only one airport with commercial service. This is deliberate and the result of decades of political strong-arming by the politicians in Atlanta, in collusion with Eastern and then Delta, to create false scarcity of supply. This, together with location and long-term airline strategy, results in Hartsfield consistently being the #1 airport globally in terms of passengers. It also has a higher passenger count than the 3 Bay Area airports combined despite having a smaller population and much smaller economy.

I think big and small market is a false dichotomy. There are certainly more possible classifications. Here are mine with criteria based on both population and GDP. Note that as I only have GDP data for the top 50 MSA's I use MSA GDPs except for those MSAs that combine directly into a CSA. This is Riverside/San Bernie ->LA, Baltimore -> Washington, San Jose -> San Francisco, Providence ->Boston

Megamarkets (populaton >18 million, GDP>1 trillion) : New York, LA

Major markets (population between 6.4 million and 10 million and GDP between 317 and 672 billion: Washington -Baltimore, Chicago, SF Bay Area, Houston, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami

Big markets (population over 3.8 million and GDP over 300 billion): Seattle, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, Phoenix

Medium size markets (population over 2 million and GDP over 100 billion) Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, Charlotte, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Austin, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City, Milwaukie

Small markets: population > 1.2 million: Nashville, Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Jacksonville, OKC, Memphis, Lousiville, Richmond, New Orleans, Hartford/Springfield, Birmingham, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids, Greenville, Harrisburg, Buffalo


I think I made it very, very, very clear that I said "most" of the top 12 cities have multiple large airports. Please point to me where I said "all" of these cities have multiple airports?

Atlanta has the busiest airport in the world.

You naming the 4 cities that do not only makes my point for me.

I challenged the other poster to name me any city outside of the top 12 that has multiple airports and he could not respond.

Dallas-Love Field, DFW Airport,
Houston- Hobby, Bush Intercontinental
Miami- Miami International, Ft Lauderdale International, Palm Beach international
Bay Area- San Francisco International, Oakland International, San Jose International
Los Angeles- LAX, John Wayne-Orange County, Ontario, Burbank
NYC- Newark, LaGuardia, JFK
Chicago- Midway, O-Haire
Washington DC- BWI, Reagan, Dulles

These are all large market cities.
Village Idiot
General Manager
Posts: 9,239
And1: 1,997
Joined: Jan 23, 2005
Location: location, location
     

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#83 » by Village Idiot » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:25 pm

Jonny Blaze wrote:
Village Idiot wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

I will answer a few of your questions
"

The Bay Area has not one, not two, but three large cities. Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Each of these cities has its own international airport.
The Bay Area is large enough to support multiple pro teams in the same sport
football (Raiders, 49ers)
baseball (athletics, Giants)

Boston isn't quite as big as the Bay Area. Providence, Rhode Island is not as populated as the cities in California.

Bay Area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are the only metro areas that are large enough to support multiple teams in the same sport.

If you do some critical thinking its not a hard leap to also realize that these cities are the 5 biggest metro areas in the country.
I wonder if that is a coincidence? [sarcasm]

That is why I separate the Bay Area from Boston


You made a point earlier about airports. Do you want to know what most big market cities have in common? They have multiple (large airports) in their metro area because these cities have the population and business commerce to support more than one airport.

I challenge you to name me a city that is not in the top 12 that has multiple busy airports.
The Bay area is polycentric due to geographical constrictions that are quite unique. In New England towns and townships were well established before the industrial era so it was nearly impossible politically for a city to grow beyond established limits. Municipal boundaries are fairly arbitrary and if 1,000,000 people are in one municipality (San Jose) or multiple (Providence) has zero relevance on what matters for professional sports which are number of people , how much disposable income those people have, whether they are interested in professional basketball and willing to spend time and money on a team. Personally I think MSA definition is fine for looking at butts in seats potential while CSA is a good metric for eyes on screen.

In your top 12, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta and Detroit also only have one significant commercial airpot so there is clearly no correlation between ranking and number of airports. Atlanta is the prime example of a city with only one airport with commercial service. This is deliberate and the result of decades of political strong-arming by the politicians in Atlanta, in collusion with Eastern and then Delta, to create false scarcity of supply. This, together with location and long-term airline strategy, results in Hartsfield consistently being the #1 airport globally in terms of passengers. It also has a higher passenger count than the 3 Bay Area airports combined despite having a smaller population and much smaller economy.

I think big and small market is a false dichotomy. There are certainly more possible classifications. Here are mine with criteria based on both population and GDP. Note that as I only have GDP data for the top 50 MSA's I use MSA GDPs except for those MSAs that combine directly into a CSA. This is Riverside/San Bernie ->LA, Baltimore -> Washington, San Jose -> San Francisco, Providence ->Boston

Megamarkets (populaton >18 million, GDP>1 trillion) : New York, LA

Major markets (population between 6.4 million and 10 million and GDP between 317 and 672 billion: Washington -Baltimore, Chicago, SF Bay Area, Houston, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami

Big markets (population over 3.8 million and GDP over 300 billion): Seattle, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, Phoenix

Medium size markets (population over 2 million and GDP over 100 billion) Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, Charlotte, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Austin, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City, Milwaukie

Small markets: population > 1.2 million: Nashville, Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Jacksonville, OKC, Memphis, Lousiville, Richmond, New Orleans, Hartford/Springfield, Birmingham, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids, Greenville, Harrisburg, Buffalo


I think I made it very, very, very clear that I said "most" of the top 12 cities have multiple large airports. Please point to me where I said "all" of these cities have multiple airports?

Atlanta has the busiest airport in the world.

You naming the 4 cities that do not only makes my point for me.

I challenged the other poster to name me any city outside of the top 12 that has multiple airports and he could not respond.

Dallas-Love Field, DFW Airport,
Houston- Hobby, Bush Intercontinental
Miami- Miami International, Ft Lauderdale International, Palm Beach international
Bay Area- San Francisco International, Oakland International, San Jose International
Los Angeles- LAX, John Wayne-Orange County, Ontario, Burbank
NYC- Newark, LaGuardia, JFK
Chicago- Midway, O-Haire
Washington DC- BWI, Reagan, Dulles

These are all large market cities.
Then we're all in agreement that a city doesn't need to have multiple airports to be considered a "large market city".
"There are no right answers to wrong questions." - Ursula K. Le Guin
Seabass11
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,676
And1: 1,125
Joined: Jan 11, 2017
     

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#84 » by Seabass11 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:39 pm

Baseline Runner wrote:
Seabass11 wrote:So I guess if you include metro areas into market size...why stop there? Cleveland is the only NBA team in the state of Ohio which means its fan base and potential market spread to Akron (duh), Youngstown, Canton, Columbus and even Cincy. Shouldn't this be factored in when talking about market size of NBA TEAMS?

IMO there should be a difference in the market size with regards to a shoe/clothing store versus the market size of a team where your competition is other teams...much of which is dictated by location

On the other hand, California is split between LAL, LAC, SAC and GS so their market size should be split IMO. The market size of the Knicks should not include the entire metro area of NYC bc they have to split it with the Nets...Same goes for LA


Metro represents a city. A State doesn't. People in Cincinnatti have nothing in common with the people in Cleveland. They don't work in Cleveland, they dont' watch Cleveland TV, identify with Cleveland sports, many have never even been there and vice versa. Have you ever met a Clevelander that gives a **** about the Reds or Bengals? Pittsburgh, Toronto and Detroit are all closer to Cleveland than Cincinnati (**** I can't even spell the place correctly).

City lines and state lines are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Metro areas are actually very representive of real things and real places. The people in the Cleveland metro and suburbs identify with Cleveland, they work, shop, play, have friends and family throughout the area. Even the people of Akron do because it is not very far away. People of Youngstown, Toledo, or Columbus do not or only to a very small degree.


I don't care about the Reds or the Bengals because I have the Browns and the Tribe. what NBA team does Cincy have? None, so you would think if people from Cincy choose their teams based on location that their most logical choice would be the team located in their own state. For example...CLE doesn't have an NHL team...so who do I root for? The Blue Jackets. Not the Penguins who are closer, but the team in my own state.

Plus I'm not sure how you can say states are just arbitrary lines drawn in the sand and go on to say that metro "areas" are something real. Metro areas are just arbitrary lines drawn in the sand as is evident by people arguing whether certain towns/cities should be included in the metro area of a bigger city...whereas states have a literal beginning and end line. I think you have that one backwards...
Seabass11
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,676
And1: 1,125
Joined: Jan 11, 2017
     

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#85 » by Seabass11 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:48 pm

Wadzup wrote:
Baseline Runner wrote:
Seabass11 wrote:So I guess if you include metro areas into market size...why stop there? Cleveland is the only NBA team in the state of Ohio which means its fan base and potential market spread to Akron (duh), Youngstown, Canton, Columbus and even Cincy. Shouldn't this be factored in when talking about market size of NBA TEAMS?

IMO there should be a difference in the market size with regards to a shoe/clothing store versus the market size of a team where your competition is other teams...much of which is dictated by location

On the other hand, California is split between LAL, LAC, SAC and GS so their market size should be split IMO. The market size of the Knicks should not include the entire metro area of NYC bc they have to split it with the Nets...Same goes for LA


Metro represents a city. A State doesn't. People in Cincinnatti have nothing in common with the people in Cleveland. They don't work in Cleveland, they dont' watch Cleveland TV, identify with Cleveland sports, many have never even been there and vice versa. Have you ever met a Clevelander that gives a **** about the Reds or Bengals? Pittsburgh, Toronto and Detroit are all closer to Cleveland than Cincinnati (**** I can't even spell the place correctly).

City lines and state lines are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Metro areas are actually very representive of real things and real places. The people in the Cleveland metro and suburbs identify with Cleveland, they work, shop, play, have friends and family throughout the area. Even the people of Akron do because it is not very far away. People of Youngstown, Toledo, or Columbus do not or only to a very small degree.


I agree that there are very little cultural similarities between Cleveland and Cincinnati, but the Cavs are definitely a regional (statewide) team. That is because they are the only NBA team in Ohio and their games are aired statewide on FS Ohio. That plays a big part in who people root for.

For example, lets say Cleveland didn't have the Indians and every Cincinnati Reds games was aired in Cleveland on Fox Sports Ohio, there is no doubt the Reds would be the most popular MLB team in Cleveland. Granted, the Reds wouldn't have nearly the following in Cleveland as the Indians have because you would lose all the casual fans who only like the Indians because they are a Cleveland team, but the Reds would be the team a majority of the baseball fans here gravitated toward (especially if they were consistently winning like the Cavs have been during the LeBron era).

Agree. I used the NHL as an example. I don't really follow the NHL but if pressed to watch, or say who "my team" is, I say the Columbus BJ's. Why? Because they are located in my state which gives me some sort of connection to them. I could say the Pens (Pitt is actually 11 miles closer to CLE than CBus is) but I don't because I have literally zero connection to pissburgh.
Texas_Lakers
Senior
Posts: 657
And1: 354
Joined: May 25, 2017
Location: San Antonio, Texas
     

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#86 » by Texas_Lakers » Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:04 pm

Jonny Blaze wrote:
LonzoBall2 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
Austin and San Antonio are two completley separate cities. They are not the same. They are 80 miles apart from each other with mostly county in between them.

Dallas and Fort Worth are the same metro area because one can live in one city and commute to the other for work, shopping, entertainment...etc. Austin and San Antonio are too far apart to do that.

Philly and New York City are also 80 miles apart from each other, are we going to argue that they should be the same metro area?

People in Austin don't root for the Spurs just because they are the closest NBA team. A person from Austin could easily be from Dallas or Houston or anywhere.


Have you driven on IH-35 from San Antonio to Austin? I make that drive on a monthly basis and I can tell you, it's NOT just country side on the side of the road between them, Schertz, Cibolo, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Buda among other small towns in-between are closing the gap on being a mostly populated area between Austin and San Antonio, in fact is one the fastest growing areas in the US.


At the moment Im typing this response to you I'm at Houston Hobby airport headed to San Antonio for business. Ive done that drive between San Antonio to New Braunfels to San Marcos to Austin for over 20 years.
I'm in San Antonio at least once a month.

Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.

Someone that lives in Ft Lauderdale can easily make it to Miami in 30 minutes or less. Same with Dallas and Ft Worth.

There is no break between Washington DC and Baltimore. That is why all those cities belong in the same metro areas.


Evidence and hard data supports my comments that some day in the near future Austin and San Antonio will combine into one large metropolitan area, now the information I'm referring to is available on the web and will not post all the links here, but feel free to research if you like.

Now, let me answer your questions.....

Quote: Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

First off, nobody said Austin and San Antonio are "currently" the same metro area so not sure where you got that from.

Quote: If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

Austin and San Antonio are working on a fast train system that will get people from/to each other city in 30 minutes or less. The project is due for the initial approvals and they are working out if it will be a private investment or if the state will finance with taxpayer money.

Quote: How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.[b]

Because I live and work in San Antonio, I know plenty of people who commute back and forth between the two cities, next time you're here in San Antonio for business take peak at the carpool parking lots along/under IH35 during the week 7AM-5PM you will see the large number of vehicles parked there as they ride on carpool passenger vans towards down-town.

As anything in life things can change in the future to help slow down the growth, but as of right now I agree with the experts who envision the amount of growth projected in the next 7-10 years to make San Antonio and Austin one large metro area.

1. A strong economy
2. Jobs and plenty of them
3. Affordable housing
4. A friendly business climate especially to corporations currently in California looking to make a move elsewhere
5. Close proximity to the 2nd biggest US trade partner - Mexico


I could go on and on but I'm giving you facts and not my personal opinion on what I think will happen in the next 10 years.
2018 Los Angeles Rams
Uncommon
Junior
Posts: 382
And1: 417
Joined: Feb 10, 2017
Location: Orlando
       

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#87 » by Uncommon » Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:21 pm

Jonny Blaze wrote:
Village Idiot wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

I will answer a few of your questions
"

The Bay Area has not one, not two, but three large cities. Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Each of these cities has its own international airport.
The Bay Area is large enough to support multiple pro teams in the same sport
football (Raiders, 49ers)
baseball (athletics, Giants)

Boston isn't quite as big as the Bay Area. Providence, Rhode Island is not as populated as the cities in California.

Bay Area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are the only metro areas that are large enough to support multiple teams in the same sport.

If you do some critical thinking its not a hard leap to also realize that these cities are the 5 biggest metro areas in the country.
I wonder if that is a coincidence? [sarcasm]

That is why I separate the Bay Area from Boston


You made a point earlier about airports. Do you want to know what most big market cities have in common? They have multiple (large airports) in their metro area because these cities have the population and business commerce to support more than one airport.

I challenge you to name me a city that is not in the top 12 that has multiple busy airports.
The Bay area is polycentric due to geographical constrictions that are quite unique. In New England towns and townships were well established before the industrial era so it was nearly impossible politically for a city to grow beyond established limits. Municipal boundaries are fairly arbitrary and if 1,000,000 people are in one municipality (San Jose) or multiple (Providence) has zero relevance on what matters for professional sports which are number of people , how much disposable income those people have, whether they are interested in professional basketball and willing to spend time and money on a team. Personally I think MSA definition is fine for looking at butts in seats potential while CSA is a good metric for eyes on screen.

In your top 12, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta and Detroit also only have one significant commercial airpot so there is clearly no correlation between ranking and number of airports. Atlanta is the prime example of a city with only one airport with commercial service. This is deliberate and the result of decades of political strong-arming by the politicians in Atlanta, in collusion with Eastern and then Delta, to create false scarcity of supply. This, together with location and long-term airline strategy, results in Hartsfield consistently being the #1 airport globally in terms of passengers. It also has a higher passenger count than the 3 Bay Area airports combined despite having a smaller population and much smaller economy.

I think big and small market is a false dichotomy. There are certainly more possible classifications. Here are mine with criteria based on both population and GDP. Note that as I only have GDP data for the top 50 MSA's I use MSA GDPs except for those MSAs that combine directly into a CSA. This is Riverside/San Bernie ->LA, Baltimore -> Washington, San Jose -> San Francisco, Providence ->Boston

Megamarkets (populaton >18 million, GDP>1 trillion) : New York, LA

Major markets (population between 6.4 million and 10 million and GDP between 317 and 672 billion: Washington -Baltimore, Chicago, SF Bay Area, Houston, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami

Big markets (population over 3.8 million and GDP over 300 billion): Seattle, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, Phoenix

Medium size markets (population over 2 million and GDP over 100 billion) Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, Charlotte, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Austin, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City, Milwaukie

Small markets: population > 1.2 million: Nashville, Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Jacksonville, OKC, Memphis, Lousiville, Richmond, New Orleans, Hartford/Springfield, Birmingham, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids, Greenville, Harrisburg, Buffalo


I think I made it very, very, very clear that I said "most" of the top 12 cities have multiple large airports. Please point to me where I said "all" of these cities have multiple airports?

Atlanta has the busiest airport in the world.

You naming the 4 cities that do not only makes my point for me.

I challenged the other poster to name me any city outside of the top 12 that has multiple airports and he could not respond.

Dallas-Love Field, DFW Airport,
Houston- Hobby, Bush Intercontinental
Miami- Miami International, Ft Lauderdale International, Palm Beach international
Bay Area- San Francisco International, Oakland International, San Jose International
Los Angeles- LAX, John Wayne-Orange County, Ontario, Burbank
NYC- Newark, LaGuardia, JFK
Chicago- Midway, O-Haire
Washington DC- BWI, Reagan, Dulles

These are all large market cities.


Good choice not to respond to my earlier post because I would have obliterated your silly arguments. Speaking of challenges, you've still not provided a shred of proof for your opinions. And still, you look very foolish backtracking on the silly claim about airports. But I like a good challenge, even if it comes from someone that clearly has no idea what he's talking about, all the while claiming to "do this for a living. I'm still waiting on your evidence by the way.

You just disproved your own initial argument by the way. You challenged me to find a non-major city that has 2 major airports, as if that's one of the criteria that makes a city major, when at the same time, 4 cities on your silly "major city" list don't have 2 major airports. So what are you talking about? Nothing, that's what, because you have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't work in the business and it isn't your profession to know about these kinds of things because you're very clearly confused.
this is my signature.
Jonny Blaze
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
And1: 1,409
Joined: Jun 20, 2011

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#88 » by Jonny Blaze » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:25 am

LonzoBall2 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
LonzoBall2 wrote:
Have you driven on IH-35 from San Antonio to Austin? I make that drive on a monthly basis and I can tell you, it's NOT just country side on the side of the road between them, Schertz, Cibolo, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Buda among other small towns in-between are closing the gap on being a mostly populated area between Austin and San Antonio, in fact is one the fastest growing areas in the US.


At the moment Im typing this response to you I'm at Houston Hobby airport headed to San Antonio for business. Ive done that drive between San Antonio to New Braunfels to San Marcos to Austin for over 20 years.
I'm in San Antonio at least once a month.

Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.

Someone that lives in Ft Lauderdale can easily make it to Miami in 30 minutes or less. Same with Dallas and Ft Worth.

There is no break between Washington DC and Baltimore. That is why all those cities belong in the same metro areas.


Evidence and hard data supports my comments that some day in the near future Austin and San Antonio will combine into one large metropolitan area, now the information I'm referring to is available on the web and will not post all the links here, but feel free to research if you like.

Now, let me answer your questions.....

Quote: Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

First off, nobody said Austin and San Antonio are "currently" the same metro area so not sure where you got that from.

Quote: If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

Austin and San Antonio are working on a fast train system that will get people from/to each other city in 30 minutes or less. The project is due for the initial approvals and they are working out if it will be a private investment or if the state will finance with taxpayer money.

Quote: How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.[b]

Because I live and work in San Antonio, I know plenty of people who commute back and forth between the two cities, next time you're here in San Antonio for business take peak at the carpool parking lots along/under IH35 during the week 7AM-5PM you will see the large number of vehicles parked there as they ride on carpool passenger vans towards down-town.

As anything in life things can change in the future to help slow down the growth, but as of right now I agree with the experts who envision the amount of growth projected in the next 7-10 years to make San Antonio and Austin one large metro area.

1. A strong economy
2. Jobs and plenty of them
3. Affordable housing
4. A friendly business climate especially to corporations currently in California looking to make a move elsewhere
5. Close proximity to the 2nd biggest US trade partner - Mexico


I could go on and on but I'm giving you facts and not my personal opinion on what I think will happen in the next 10 years.


Im here in San Antonio as I type this.

Im going to repeat myself. Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area.

it wont happen in the next 10 years. If it does happen it will be 30 or 40 years from now.

The growth in Austin is North of the city in places like Cedar Park, Round Rock, Leander, Georgetown and Williamson County..etc.....not south.

There is 80 miles of mostly rural country between San Antonio and Austin. There is a break when you hit New Braunfels and then San Marcos, but its still mostly rural.

Go off I-35 and head either way for 2 or 3 miles and you will be in the sticks.

Are Milwaukee and Chicago the same metro area?

How about Philly and New York? All those cities are the same distance between each other as Austin and San Antonio.
User avatar
azcatz11
RealGM
Posts: 21,722
And1: 25,836
Joined: Apr 13, 2017
Location: Phoenix
   

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#89 » by azcatz11 » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:33 am

Jonny Blaze wrote:
LonzoBall2 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
At the moment Im typing this response to you I'm at Houston Hobby airport headed to San Antonio for business. Ive done that drive between San Antonio to New Braunfels to San Marcos to Austin for over 20 years.
I'm in San Antonio at least once a month.

Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.

Someone that lives in Ft Lauderdale can easily make it to Miami in 30 minutes or less. Same with Dallas and Ft Worth.

There is no break between Washington DC and Baltimore. That is why all those cities belong in the same metro areas.


Evidence and hard data supports my comments that some day in the near future Austin and San Antonio will combine into one large metropolitan area, now the information I'm referring to is available on the web and will not post all the links here, but feel free to research if you like.

Now, let me answer your questions.....

Quote: Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

First off, nobody said Austin and San Antonio are "currently" the same metro area so not sure where you got that from.

Quote: If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

Austin and San Antonio are working on a fast train system that will get people from/to each other city in 30 minutes or less. The project is due for the initial approvals and they are working out if it will be a private investment or if the state will finance with taxpayer money.

Quote: How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.[b]

Because I live and work in San Antonio, I know plenty of people who commute back and forth between the two cities, next time you're here in San Antonio for business take peak at the carpool parking lots along/under IH35 during the week 7AM-5PM you will see the large number of vehicles parked there as they ride on carpool passenger vans towards down-town.

As anything in life things can change in the future to help slow down the growth, but as of right now I agree with the experts who envision the amount of growth projected in the next 7-10 years to make San Antonio and Austin one large metro area.

1. A strong economy
2. Jobs and plenty of them
3. Affordable housing
4. A friendly business climate especially to corporations currently in California looking to make a move elsewhere
5. Close proximity to the 2nd biggest US trade partner - Mexico


I could go on and on but I'm giving you facts and not my personal opinion on what I think will happen in the next 10 years.


Im here in San Antonio as I type this.

Im going to repeat myself. Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area.

it wont happen in the next 10 years. If it does happen it will be 30 or 40 years from now.

The growth in Austin is North of the city in places like Cedar Park, Round Rock, Leander, Georgetown and Williamson County..etc.....not south.

There is 80 miles of mostly rural country between San Antonio and Austin. There is a break when you hit New Braunfels and then San Marcos, but its still mostly rural.

Go off I-35 and head either way for 2 or 3 miles and you will be in the sticks.

Are Milwaukee and Chicago the same metro area?

How about Philly and New York? All those cities are the same distance between each other as Austin and San Antonio.


The OMB designates SA & Austin as different metro's.

That's like saying PHX & Tucson are the same metro even though they are only 100 miles apart. They are not.
Jonny Blaze
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
And1: 1,409
Joined: Jun 20, 2011

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#90 » by Jonny Blaze » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:58 am

azcatz11 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
LonzoBall2 wrote:
Evidence and hard data supports my comments that some day in the near future Austin and San Antonio will combine into one large metropolitan area, now the information I'm referring to is available on the web and will not post all the links here, but feel free to research if you like.

Now, let me answer your questions.....

Quote: Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

First off, nobody said Austin and San Antonio are "currently" the same metro area so not sure where you got that from.

Quote: If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

Austin and San Antonio are working on a fast train system that will get people from/to each other city in 30 minutes or less. The project is due for the initial approvals and they are working out if it will be a private investment or if the state will finance with taxpayer money.

Quote: How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.[b]

Because I live and work in San Antonio, I know plenty of people who commute back and forth between the two cities, next time you're here in San Antonio for business take peak at the carpool parking lots along/under IH35 during the week 7AM-5PM you will see the large number of vehicles parked there as they ride on carpool passenger vans towards down-town.

As anything in life things can change in the future to help slow down the growth, but as of right now I agree with the experts who envision the amount of growth projected in the next 7-10 years to make San Antonio and Austin one large metro area.

1. A strong economy
2. Jobs and plenty of them
3. Affordable housing
4. A friendly business climate especially to corporations currently in California looking to make a move elsewhere
5. Close proximity to the 2nd biggest US trade partner - Mexico


I could go on and on but I'm giving you facts and not my personal opinion on what I think will happen in the next 10 years.


Im here in San Antonio as I type this.

Im going to repeat myself. Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area.

it wont happen in the next 10 years. If it does happen it will be 30 or 40 years from now.

The growth in Austin is North of the city in places like Cedar Park, Round Rock, Leander, Georgetown and Williamson County..etc.....not south.

There is 80 miles of mostly rural country between San Antonio and Austin. There is a break when you hit New Braunfels and then San Marcos, but its still mostly rural.

Go off I-35 and head either way for 2 or 3 miles and you will be in the sticks.

Are Milwaukee and Chicago the same metro area?

How about Philly and New York? All those cities are the same distance between each other as Austin and San Antonio.


The OMB designates SA & Austin as different metro's.

That's like saying PHX & Tucson are the same metro even though they are only 100 miles apart. They are not.


You are correct.
This debate comes up often. People from San Antonio get tired of being called a small market and not being considered on the level of Dallas or Houston.

They will say "Well if you combine San Antonio and Austin then we are big enough to get an NFL team"

It doesn't work like that.
You can drive from Boston to Providence Rhode Island in 30 or 40 minutes.
Dallas is a straight 20 minute shot to Ft Worth.
There is nothing but suburbia between Washington DC and Baltimore. Baltimore is about 40 miles from DC.
Miami to Ft Lauderdale and then to Palm Beach can all be done in under an hour. There is nothing but suburbia in between these cities.

Same with Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco.

That is why all those cities belong to the same metro area. You could easily live in one city and commute to the other.

Austin and San Antonio are too far apart. If Austin were located were New Braunfels (36 miles from San Antonio) or even San Marcos (50 miles from San Antonio) was located you could maybe argue them being in the same metro area.

I've never heard of anyone in my life that commuted between Austin and San Antonio. The only shopping people in Austin would do down south would be at the Outlet Mall in San Marcos.
User avatar
azcatz11
RealGM
Posts: 21,722
And1: 25,836
Joined: Apr 13, 2017
Location: Phoenix
   

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#91 » by azcatz11 » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:13 am

Jonny Blaze wrote:
azcatz11 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
Im here in San Antonio as I type this.

Im going to repeat myself. Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area.

it wont happen in the next 10 years. If it does happen it will be 30 or 40 years from now.

The growth in Austin is North of the city in places like Cedar Park, Round Rock, Leander, Georgetown and Williamson County..etc.....not south.

There is 80 miles of mostly rural country between San Antonio and Austin. There is a break when you hit New Braunfels and then San Marcos, but its still mostly rural.

Go off I-35 and head either way for 2 or 3 miles and you will be in the sticks.

Are Milwaukee and Chicago the same metro area?

How about Philly and New York? All those cities are the same distance between each other as Austin and San Antonio.


The OMB designates SA & Austin as different metro's.

That's like saying PHX & Tucson are the same metro even though they are only 100 miles apart. They are not.


You are correct.
This debate comes up often. People from San Antonio get tired of being called a small market and not being considered on the level of Dallas or Houston.

They will say "Well if you combine San Antonio and Austin then we are big enough to get an NFL team"

It doesn't work like that.
You can drive from Boston to Providence Rhode Island in 30 or 40 minutes.
Dallas is a straight 20 minute shot to Ft Worth.
There is nothing but suburbia between Washington DC and Baltimore. Baltimore is about 40 miles from DC.
Miami to Ft Lauderdale and then to Palm Beach can all be done in under an hour. There is nothing but suburbia in between these cities.

Same with Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco.

That is why all those cities belong to the same metro area. You could easily live in one city and commute to the other.

Austin and San Antonio are too far apart. If Austin were located were New Braunfels (36 miles from San Antonio) or even San Marcos (50 miles from San Antonio) was located you could maybe argue them being in the same metro area.

I've never heard of anyone in my life that commuted between Austin and San Antonio.
The only shopping people in Austin would do down south would be at the Outlet Mall in San Marcos.


I haven't either. I used to travel regularly to SA / Austin / Houston. They are all def 3 separate cities. Anyone who lives in that region would tell you the same thing.
Texas_Lakers
Senior
Posts: 657
And1: 354
Joined: May 25, 2017
Location: San Antonio, Texas
     

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#92 » by Texas_Lakers » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:00 am

LMAO, sounds more like one's personal opinion than relay of facts and data. Done wasting time discussing on the topic, time to move on.
2018 Los Angeles Rams
Chinook
Head Coach
Posts: 6,124
And1: 3,461
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
       

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#93 » by Chinook » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:08 am

People do commute from SA to Austin (not so much the other way since who on Earth would pay Austin housing prices to commute so far?). There are a number of folks in my office who do. They hate it, but it's what it is.

Some quick hits:

-There's no immediate plans to build a railway between SA and Austin. There are a lot of people who would say they'd welcome it. It comes down to money, and that's just not there, especially from Austin, which seems extremely reluctant to pay for any improvements to our transportation system.

- Austin is mostly growing northward, but Kyle is or used to be the fastest-growing city in the nation. Most of the work is in the north half of the city, though, so that's where the movement is.

-Austin and SA are EXTREMELY different culturally. With there being so much room to expand away from each other, I doubt you'll ever see the two be more than neighbors.

-That said, putting a team in a NB or SM might get support from Austinite fans. But good luck on getting both teams -- or either team, really -- to pay for a stadium outside of their city limits. I'd definitely want to watch SA NFL games over the Cowboys and Texans, I am not sure they'd be popular enough to kick Dallas off the screen.
Chinook
Head Coach
Posts: 6,124
And1: 3,461
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
       

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#94 » by Chinook » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:12 am

LonzoBall2 wrote:LMAO, sounds more like one's personal opinion than relay of facts and data. Done wasting time discussing on the topic, time to move on.


It's your fault that you act like you're the only person to drive between Austin and SA. Some of us do it a lot, and not just for work. You're entitled to your opinion, but stop belittling what everyone else is staying, ESPECIALLY when you try to pass off "they are planning on putting in a high-speed rail" as a fact or data point (not to mention that even if that weren't disingenuous, such railways between DC and NY are already popular without considering them the same metro area).
Texas_Lakers
Senior
Posts: 657
And1: 354
Joined: May 25, 2017
Location: San Antonio, Texas
     

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#95 » by Texas_Lakers » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:21 am

Chinook wrote:
LonzoBall2 wrote:LMAO, sounds more like one's personal opinion than relay of facts and data. Done wasting time discussing on the topic, time to move on.


It's your fault that you act like you're the only person to drive between Austin and SA. Some of us do it a lot, and not just for work. You're entitled to your opinion, but stop belittling what everyone else is staying, ESPECIALLY when you try to pass off "they are planning on putting in a high-speed rail" as a fact or data point (not to mention that even if that weren't disingenuous, such railways between DC and NY are already popular without considering them the same metro area).


Dude, everyone else? really, you're just mad cause you felt I was being condescending by a response I made to you few comments back. I know I'm not the only person driving in this part of the woods man calm down!
2018 Los Angeles Rams
Chinook
Head Coach
Posts: 6,124
And1: 3,461
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
       

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#96 » by Chinook » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:26 am

LonzoBall2 wrote:
Chinook wrote:
LonzoBall2 wrote:LMAO, sounds more like one's personal opinion than relay of facts and data. Done wasting time discussing on the topic, time to move on.


It's your fault that you act like you're the only person to drive between Austin and SA. Some of us do it a lot, and not just for work. You're entitled to your opinion, but stop belittling what everyone else is staying, ESPECIALLY when you try to pass off "they are planning on putting in a high-speed rail" as a fact or data point (not to mention that even if that weren't disingenuous, such railways between DC and NY are already popular without considering them the same metro area).


Dude, everyone else? really, you're just mad cause you felt I was being condescending by a response I made to you few comments back. I know I'm not the only person driving in this part of the woods man calm down!


Honestly, I didn't even remember that was you. I responded because you've been throwing a fit for a while in this thread about people not agreeing with you. It's fine to agree to disagree, but there's much more to this conversation than this "my facts versus your opinion" argument that you've made.
User avatar
LakerLegend
RealGM
Posts: 12,641
And1: 6,915
Joined: Jun 15, 2002
Location: SoCal

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#97 » by LakerLegend » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:34 am

azcatz11 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
azcatz11 wrote:
The OMB designates SA & Austin as different metro's.

That's like saying PHX & Tucson are the same metro even though they are only 100 miles apart. They are not.


You are correct.
This debate comes up often. People from San Antonio get tired of being called a small market and not being considered on the level of Dallas or Houston.

They will say "Well if you combine San Antonio and Austin then we are big enough to get an NFL team"

It doesn't work like that.
You can drive from Boston to Providence Rhode Island in 30 or 40 minutes.
Dallas is a straight 20 minute shot to Ft Worth.
There is nothing but suburbia between Washington DC and Baltimore. Baltimore is about 40 miles from DC.
Miami to Ft Lauderdale and then to Palm Beach can all be done in under an hour. There is nothing but suburbia in between these cities.

Same with Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco.

That is why all those cities belong to the same metro area. You could easily live in one city and commute to the other.

Austin and San Antonio are too far apart. If Austin were located were New Braunfels (36 miles from San Antonio) or even San Marcos (50 miles from San Antonio) was located you could maybe argue them being in the same metro area.

I've never heard of anyone in my life that commuted between Austin and San Antonio.
The only shopping people in Austin would do down south would be at the Outlet Mall in San Marcos.


I haven't either. I used to travel regularly to SA / Austin / Houston. They are all def 3 separate cities. Anyone who lives in that region would tell you the same thing.


There are parts of the LA metro that are almost 100 miles apart. Maybe even longer if I play around with maps, and as diverse as you can get. So I would never say never.

Edit: I just found two northern and southernmost parts of the Greater Los Angeles area that are 125 miles apart.
Jonny Blaze
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
And1: 1,409
Joined: Jun 20, 2011

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#98 » by Jonny Blaze » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:42 am

Lakerfan17 wrote:
azcatz11 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
You are correct.
This debate comes up often. People from San Antonio get tired of being called a small market and not being considered on the level of Dallas or Houston.

They will say "Well if you combine San Antonio and Austin then we are big enough to get an NFL team"

It doesn't work like that.
You can drive from Boston to Providence Rhode Island in 30 or 40 minutes.
Dallas is a straight 20 minute shot to Ft Worth.
There is nothing but suburbia between Washington DC and Baltimore. Baltimore is about 40 miles from DC.
Miami to Ft Lauderdale and then to Palm Beach can all be done in under an hour. There is nothing but suburbia in between these cities.

Same with Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco.

That is why all those cities belong to the same metro area. You could easily live in one city and commute to the other.

Austin and San Antonio are too far apart. If Austin were located were New Braunfels (36 miles from San Antonio) or even San Marcos (50 miles from San Antonio) was located you could maybe argue them being in the same metro area.

I've never heard of anyone in my life that commuted between Austin and San Antonio.
The only shopping people in Austin would do down south would be at the Outlet Mall in San Marcos.


I haven't either. I used to travel regularly to SA / Austin / Houston. They are all def 3 separate cities. Anyone who lives in that region would tell you the same thing.


There are parts of the LA metro that are almost 100 miles apart. Maybe even longer if I play around with maps, and as diverse as you can get. So I would never say never.[/quo
The difference is that the Los Angeles metro area is continuous. If you were to drive from Inglewood to Riverside or Moreno Valley that is probably a 60 or 70 mile drive. That entire drive is populated with suburbs.

Same as driving from Palmdale to Irvine.

Austin and San Antonio are not connected. There is 80 miles of not much (Kyle, San Marcos and New Braunfels) between Austin and San Antonio.

If Austin extended South as much as it does North it could potentially merge with San Antonio. That sort of growth won't happen for a long time.
User avatar
LakerLegend
RealGM
Posts: 12,641
And1: 6,915
Joined: Jun 15, 2002
Location: SoCal

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#99 » by LakerLegend » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:47 am

Jonny Blaze wrote:
Lakerfan17 wrote:
azcatz11 wrote:
I haven't either. I used to travel regularly to SA / Austin / Houston. They are all def 3 separate cities. Anyone who lives in that region would tell you the same thing.


There are parts of the LA metro that are almost 100 miles apart. Maybe even longer if I play around with maps, and as diverse as you can get. So I would never say never.[/quo
The difference is that the Los Angeles metro area is continuous. If you were to drive from Inglewood to Riverside or Moreno Valley that is probably a 60 or 70 mile drive. That entire drive is populated with suburbs.

Same as driving from Palmdale to Irvine.

Austin and San Antonio are not connected. There is 80 miles of not much (Kyle, San Marcos and New Braunfels) between Austin and San Antonio.

If Austin extended South as much as it does North it could potentially merge with San Antonio. That sort of growth won't happen for a long time.


Keep in mind:

1. Texas is flat. Now I've never been to that particular area but, but development would be easy geographically speaking.

2. Texas is experiencing a growth surge with the cost of living being pretty cheap especially with Austin being a tech hub to my knowledge.

The distance between OC and San Diego is about 90 miles, relatively sparsely populated so I know the vast distance we are talking about here.

If it's sparsely populated it definitely would take a timespan measured in decades.
Jonny Blaze
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
And1: 1,409
Joined: Jun 20, 2011

Re: Why is San Antonio considered a small market team... 

Post#100 » by Jonny Blaze » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:18 pm

Lakerfan17 wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:
Lakerfan17 wrote:


There are parts of the LA metro that are almost 100 miles apart. Maybe even longer if I play around with maps, and as diverse as you can get. So I would never say never.[/quo
The difference is that the Los Angeles metro area is continuous. If you were to drive from Inglewood to Riverside or Moreno Valley that is probably a 60 or 70 mile drive. That entire drive is populated with suburbs.

Same as driving from Palmdale to Irvine.

Austin and San Antonio are not connected. There is 80 miles of not much (Kyle, San Marcos and New Braunfels) between Austin and San Antonio.

If Austin extended South as much as it does North it could potentially merge with San Antonio. That sort of growth won't happen for a long time.


Keep in mind:

1. Texas is flat. Now I've never been to that particular area but, but development would be easy geographically speaking.

2. Texas is experiencing a growth surge with the cost of living being pretty cheap especially with Austin being a tech hub to my knowledge.

The distance between OC and San Diego is about 90 miles, relatively sparsely populated so I know the vast distance we are talking about here.

If it's sparsely populated it definitely would take a timespan measured in decades.


That is an interesting comment.

I'm from Texas.
I cover Austin and San Antonio for my work. Im in San Antonio as we speak. I couldn't tell you how many times I've done the drive Up I-35 from Austin to Dallas.


The area in between San Antonio and Austin is NOT FLAT.

It is called the Hill Country. Development would not be as easy as you think it is.

Bound on the east by the Balcones Escarpment, the Hill Country reaches into the far northern portions of San Antonio and the western portions of Austin. As a result of springs discharging water stored in the Edwards Aquifer, several cities such as Austin, San Marcos, and New Braunfels were settled at the base of the Balcones Escarpment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Hill_Country

Return to The General Board