Amarillo bigger than Lubbock

[habiba]

According to TWBC Amarillo will pass Lubbock and become biggest city in panhandle of Texas.

2000 Census
Amarillo: 173,627
Lubbock: 199,564

2060 Score according to TWBC Estimates
Amarillo: 267,324
Lubbock: 248,622

I always know Amarillo is better than Lubbock.

Source: www.twdb.state.tx.us/data/popwaterdemand/main.asp

[catsmeow]

Doh!

You better duck, Habiba!!

[phantom]

Don't know how bigger means better.

[zebrarick]

60 years... thats a hell of a slow growth rate. Just what Amarillo's so called leaders want.

[catsmeow]

Lubbock will always have Amarillo beat in the good restaurants and shopping categories ... thanks to TTU.

[mustakister]

zebrarick said:

60 years... thats a hell of a slow growth rate. Just what Amarillo's so called leaders want.

I for one am all for slow and steady growth. Anything else is generally very unhealthly and unstable.

[sj]

Amarillo and Lubbock had better watch out when Mobeetie gets its expansion plan together..... ;D

[lar]

If Amarillo grows that big, how will we be able to find Bushland and Pullman Switch?

[phantom]

Oui3 I am already looking for property...could be hot in 100 years or so!

[babycake]

I do not like driving in Lubbock. I hope Amarillo never gets that crazy.

[zebrarick]

mustakister said:

zebrarick said:

60 years... thats a hell of a slow growth rate. Just what Amarillo's so called leaders want.

I for one am all for slow and steady growth. Anything else is generally very unhealthly and unstable.

Jobs are all retail though. No technical jobs or white collar stuff. Not all that great in my opinion.

Wt why are you not chiming in on this?

[petiepanzer]

Amarillo is already the largest city in the Texas panhandle. The Texas panhandle ends at Tulia. Now, the 806 area code is a different story.

Lubbock might have more shopping, but I think I would rather live in Amarillo than Lubbock. I will take the smell of 'money' any day over the dirt that comes blowing into Lubbock as a result of all the cotton fields surrounding them. Lubbock just seems like it is a little more dirty, run down, and sleazy than Amarillo. All in all, I guess Amarillo is probably one of the better locations if you choose to live in West Texas. It has access to the major interstate, doesn't have the stifling heat and humidity located in other areas, and is a much shorter drive to Colorado and the mountains. Midland-Odessa is the armpit of Texas and Ector county has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the country, El Pisso is just Juarez North, I have never been particularly impressed with Abilene, and San Angelo has too many sheep shaggers, is too hot, and doesn't have access to an interstate. I don't know about Wichita Falls, though, and I hear the Davis Mountains are nice.

I hope people in Amarillo are not impressed with that type of a growth rate. Last year, when we passed 300 million Americans, they said that the U.S. population is expected to double within the next 50 years. If that is truly the case, then Amarillo needs to be over 350,000 within the same period of time just to keep up with the rest of the country. That means Amarillo is only going to grow by about 1000 to 1500 people a year. It needs to be double that rate. Las Vegas has a net increase of 7000 people a month, or 84000 people a year. So, basically, it takes Las Vegas a little more than a year to accomplish what it takes Amarillo 60 years to accomplish.

[west-texan]

petiepanzer said:

So, basically, it takes Las Vegas a little more than a year to accomplish what it takes Amarillo 60 years to accomplish.

That may help explain why it takes other universities 2 or 3 years to accomplish things that take 15 to 20 years at WTAMU.

The basic premise of this article is...that Amarillo is going to keep growing at it's snail pace...

while the slow rate of growth for Lubbock...is going to slow down even more.

BTW....the Vegas growth pattern is almost out of control...and really going too fast.

[zebrarick]

Having lived in Lubbock I could not agree with peties remarks about it being an armpit and sleazy more.

[horribilis]

Las Vegas has a net increase of 7000 people a month, or 84000 people a year. So, basically, it takes Las Vegas a little more than a year to accomplish what it takes Amarillo 60 years to accomplish.

What goes up must come down, take a look at what is happening there now. The Las Vegas economy has followed a boom and bust cycle over the last decade, and that is what others have said in this thread; slow and steady and sustainable is much preferable to volatility with wild swings in both directions.