I-10 @ De Zavala - 1995
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06114/10dezavala1995.PNG


I-10 @ De Zavala - 2003
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06114/10dezavala2003.PNG



Stone Oak - 1995
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06114/stoneoak1995.PNG


Stone Oak - 2003
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06114/stoneoak2003.PNG




Great Northwest (Bandera Road area) - 1995
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06114/greatnorthwest1995.PNG


Great Northwest (Bandera Road area) - 2003
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06114/greatnorthwest2003-.PNG

That last one doesnt really fit... both pics look quite similar.

Actually the last example, the pictures may look similar on the right side but on the left side of Bandera Rd. you're tell me you can't see all that new housing or the new retail?

Also, even on the right side of Bandera Rd. you can see new housing being built in 2003.

I will make a general statement, not specific to SA - which is a wonderful city. These photos show the horrible work developers throughout the country have done. Sprawling patterns... the money-making strategy of the last 50+ years :bash: Other than that, wonderful comparison between older and newer images. The growth of SA is undeniable.

I will make a general statement, not specific to SA - which is a wonderful city. These photos show the horrible work developers throughout the country have done. Sprawling patterns... the money-making strategy of the last 50+ years :bash: Other than that, wonderful comparison between older and newer images. The growth of SA is undeniable.

Developers give the people what they want.

Just like current cinema or TV.

You can make a great movie, smart in story, strong in structure yet it will bomb. What doesn't bomb? What makes big big money? Exactly.

Look at TV, some of the best shows ever were hardly watched and quickly canceled.

Corp. america is driven by americans themselves, no matter who they want to blame.

Marjorie, I cannot speak for developments in SA, so please forgive me if I deviate from the topic. In Raleigh, developers give people what the former want, which is why buyers are willing to pay top dollars and fix older homes in areas with a better urban fabric. Whenever developers deliver a nice community - denser areas, sidewalks on both sides, minimal cul-de-sacs, garages in the back, better connectivity between neighborhoods - these homes go faster. So far I have owned 2 houses and they were/are both cookie cutters (not of the worst kind, though)... I bought them because I had no reasonable alternatives, and so did many of my neighbors.

I don't mean to be argumental, but developers do not deliver what people want. As for Holywood and TV, they try to shape our minds and alter our thoughts, hardly give us what we want, but that is another topic for discussion, not appropriate for this thread. Anyway, SA looks nice to me, and like any desirable city it will sprawl. The aerials are really nice and from what I see, these neighborhoods are not totally unconnected. Is SA relatively flat? Can anyone show population figures for the last 10 years or so?

I will make a general statement, not specific to SA - which is a wonderful city. These photos show the horrible work developers throughout the country have done. Sprawling patterns... the money-making strategy of the last 50+ years :bash: Other than that, wonderful comparison between older and newer images. The growth of SA is undeniable.

yup. at least on the last one, it looks like the sprawl got denser.

Developers give the people what they want.

Just like current cinema or TV.

You can make a great movie, smart in story, strong in structure yet it will bomb. What doesn't bomb? What makes big big money? Exactly.

Look at TV, some of the best shows ever were hardly watched and quickly canceled.

Corp. america is driven by americans themselves, no matter who they want to blame.

TV, music and mainstream entertainment is, for the majority, utter crap. horrible analogy. but sometimes, you get quality that's also a $uccess.

no need to be so defensive.

-

Is SA relatively flat?

No and Yes. San Antonio has a very diverse terrain. IN some areas its large hills in others its baby hills/hill valleys and in some areas, flat as can be.


North and Northwest is very Hilly, as it is part of the Hill Country.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/SanAntonio/photos/IH10/images/IH10W/IH10-WBfrom_CallaghanRd_overpass-Sum2003.JPG

This picture is actually taken quite near the De Zavala area shown in the first aerial picture.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/SanAntonio/photos/IH10/images/IH10W/IH10-WBapproaching_DeZavalaRd-Sum2003.JPG

The freeway does the wave.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/SanAntonio/photos/IH10/images/IH10W/IH10-EBfrom_MedicalDr_overpass-Sum2003.JPG

The flatter terrian in mainly in the far east and far northeast areas of San Antonio.
http://www.sahelicopter.com/images/2004_05_1.jpg
Construction of Steele High School (2004)

Southeast has many baby hills and little Hill Valley's like Pecan Valley.

The Southside is very green with many streams and rivers and lakes. Not flat but not hilly either.

Can anyone show population figures for the last 10 years or so?

1990 - 1,325,749
2005 - 1,946,211

Many thanks for the info :okay: Sometimes it is a bit hard to tell from the aerials. The population increase also sounds "healthy".

10 @ Medical Dr. in 1995
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06116/10medical1995.PNG

10 @ Medical Dr. in 2003
http://xs72.xs.to/pics/06116/10medical2003.PNG

Things to notice. Medical had no overpass in 1995. The lane count looked like 4 (2/2) for 10 and 2 lanes of access/frontage roads. In 2003 the lane count is 9 for 10 (4/5) ,once the GNI is complete it will be 10 lanes, and 7 lanes of access.frontage wrong.

That's what I call raping the Earth, but we all know SA is not the only city with this problem.

More glorious sprawl. Marjorie, you have argued that these developments are what America wants, but my question is, is this what YOU want to see in your city?

That's what I call raping the Earth, but we all know SA is not the only city with this problem.

That's raping the earth of cities like New York, London, Tokyo... hell, every city on the entire planet is covered in concrete.

WTF is the difference?

Is there a special kind of cement that I don't know about that massages the earth soil and gives it foot rubs and cuts its toe nails while washing its dishes and cleaning its room?

New York city is all cement sans Central Park, yet that isn't raping the earth, but a freeway is?

The only difference between urban development and suburban development is most like one over the other and can't see past that hatred.

That's raping the earth of cities like New York, London, Tokyo... hell, every city on the entire planet is covered in concrete.

WTF is the difference?

Is there a special kind of cement that I don't know about that massages the earth soil and gives it foot rubs and cuts its toe nails while washing its dishes and cleaning its room?

New York city is all cement sans Central Park, yet that isn't raping the earth, but a freeway is?


You don't get it. Ever hear of irresponsible use of land? Again, SA is not the only city that has this, but these pics are a prime example.

You don't get it. Ever hear of irresponsible use of land? Again, SA is not the only city that has this, but these pics are a prime example.


Irresponsible use of land? How is widening a freeway irresponsible use of land?

There is no set definition for that, you have yours and I have mine. Like mine being any type of man made chemical development sure as hell is a irresponsible use of land, yet every city has it.

To kill off life that belonged to that area becfore man invaded it is sure as hell a irresponsible use of land in my opinion.

To you, its a parking lot surface or an expanded surface.

Yet miles upon miles of cement and chemicals and steel above and below surface is all good.

So you enjoy San Antonio's sprawl. Gotcha. Yeah, a lot of cities are 'enjoying' such growth nowadays. I personally don't care for sprawl and I'll tell you why. First off, every major project being built on the outskirts of town is another project NOT getting built at the core. For example, here in Charlotte, a number of big financial companies have built their headquarters in suburban office parks on the outskirts of the metropolitan area because it's cheaper. I personally favor a strong metropolitan core so I hate to see this happen.

I also enjoy pedestrian-friendly developments and areas where mass transit options are encouraged. You obviously don't care about such elements of development so you're fine with continually building outward on what was once farmland, in a very undense manner, so that the only way to interact with the development is by driving to and from it. This obviously means more traffic, leading to a need for more roads, and so the cycle continues. That's not my cup of tea, but hey, you dig the growth.

Please understand this. Pretty much every major southern city we discuss on this forum has the same kind of 'growth' occurring right now, so nothing you're showing is blowing us away. The thing is, generally, nobody on this board wants to show such growth, because we all generally prefer urban development over suburban sprawl. What you've shown us is nothing mind boggling though. It would be mind boggling if such growth WEREN'T happening.

Pretty much every major southern city we discuss on this forum has the same kind of 'growth' occurring right now, so nothing you're showing is blowing us away.

I agree, you aren't impressing anybody on this board same with the rimjob shops/hotel thread.... In fact DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Miami would look way more impressive if you took pictures of their hottest exurban areas 10 years ago and today. Many other metro areas would look about like SA

wow and arguement about sprawl in urban and suburban areas well there are pros and cons to both sides but either way some people will always like one or another or both or just not care. Seriously some of you need to calm down, on topic at least theyre filling in the suburbs help densify the area.

A lot of these pictures look like Houston's growth over the past 3-5 years. If you looked from Google Earth and then came to the exact location now, you would see a huge difference.

That's what I call raping the Earth, but we all know SA is not the only city with this problem.


:lol: Raping the Earth? If I'm not mistaken this whole forum is all for "raping the Earth."

Next time you take a flight out of somewhere, please notice how in about 10 minutes you're flying over nothing. We have a whole lot of land on this planet and it will take thousands of years to cover it all in concrete. I love seeing cities grow and pour concrete everywhere, it's more interesting. I'm all for Coruscant in the making.

:lol: Raping the Earth? If I'm not mistaken this whole forum is all for "raping the Earth."

Next time you take a flight out of somewhere, please notice how in about 10 minutes you're flying over nothing. We have a whole lot of land on this planet and it will take thousands of years to cover it all in concrete. I love seeing cities grow and pour concrete everywhere, it's more interesting. I'm all for Coruscant in the making.

OMG, I totally agree with your statement! When I fly out of Hartsfield-Jackson or Orlando International, I usually take notice that the plane is flying over an expanse of suburban 'nothingness'. Cities such as Atlanta, New York, Seattle and Boston would be so much more interesting, especially from a built environment standpoint, if their banal natural features were completely blunted out in favor of sweeping seas of man-made structures. It's almost obligatory that Man must surmount the latent threat of the savage unknown. Personally, St. Louis or Cincy could be enhanced if the rivers on which they lie were completely filled with good 'ole American concrete. I can't wait until that useless expanse of wild South American vegetation known as the Brazilian rainforest is completely obliterated by the low density suburban sprawl of an americanized Brasilia or Manaus.

</sarcasm>

Texas is large enough to fit every single person living on this planet.

I doubt anyone is running out of land.

OMG, I totally agree with your statement! When I fly out of Hartsfield-Jackson or Orlando International, I usually take notice that the plane is flying over an expanse of suburban 'nothingness'. Cities such as Atlanta, New York, Seattle and Boston would be so much more interesting, especially from a built environment standpoint, if their banal natural features were completely blunted out in favor of sweeping seas of man-made structures. It's almost obligatory that Man must surmount the latent threat of the savage unknown. Personally, St. Louis or Cincy could be enhanced if the rivers on which they lie were completely filled with good 'ole American concrete. I can't wait until that useless expanse of wild South American vegetation known as the Brazilian rainforest is completely obliterated by the low density suburban sprawl of an americanized Brasilia or Manaus.

</sarcasm>
lol good post.

Interesting,
Welcome to Suburbia