Will Houston Surpass Chicago? (Marion, Atlanta: crime, live, versus)

[Chicago3rd]

Houston has a long way to go to become more Urban...but while most of you are opinionated about either place most of you don't know about each city. 80,000 people a month are moving into the Houston metro now (so population wise....this growth ain't annexation). Lots of damage has been done by the growth pattern of suburban lifestyle in the last 50 years here in Houston....but things are changing in the core area and density is starting to become king. lots of mid rise and high rise residential units going up as we speak, large condo complexes done with a urban floor plate. 12-18 unit condos going in where two residential houses use to be. No zoning means we can have restuarants and shopping practically anywhere. We are seeing a denser city of Houston happening in the loop.

I hate comparing both cities. They have their pluses and negatives. Both have huge egos and in most cases deservedly so.
AM a Chicagoan living in Houston now. I know it will never be Chicago....but part of me really worries that at least the city of Chicago may go the way of Detroit since no one seems to be dealing with the financial crises....so I worry all that I love will slowly erode away like Detroit. Houston has started to address the suburban ills....hopefully Chicago will start to cope with its urban ills.

[i35vagabond]

Chicago made the mistake of letting itself get surrounded by suburbs, so there's really not a whole lot of room to grow. So did Detroit, St Louis, Cleveland, Cinncinatti, Atlanta, even Dallas is surrounded by suburbs. Houston is over 5 or 600 miles in area but it's all urban. And plenty of room to continue growing. I think Houston has only one suburb over 100,00, where as Dallas has several suburbs over 100,000, and some over 200,000. Dallas being surrounded by suburbs I think will hurt the city of Dallas in the long run. Not the metro area, but the city of Dallas itself. Still, I look for Houston to pass Chicago in population in the next 10 to 15 years. And both the Houston and Dallas/Ft Worth metro areas to pass Chicago metro area in 20 to 30 years. Maybe in my lifetime. I'm 58.

It's sad that all those cities are surrounded by suburbs, because if not for the main city, those suburbs wouldn't be anything but small farming towns. About the only big town up North that isn't surrounded by suburbs and hass plenty of room to grow is Indianapolis. And Indianapolis is probably the fastest growing city in the Midwest and the one town in the Midwest that could be considered actually booming. If not for Mayor Lugar who annexed practically all of Marion County in the early 70's, Indianapolis would probably be a town of about 250,000 and economically depressed, like so many of the cities in the Midwest and Northeast are. And the Colts would not be in Indianapolis and the Pacers probably would have split town in the late 70's.

[Chicago3rd]

^^^Houston is NOT a dense Urban city it is a spread out Suburban style city. I for one am always sharing this fact as a person who has lived in both. But Houston's metro is nothing to snicker at and because of it Houston has many of the same positives that make Chicago a great city. But it isn't urban....much.

Houston, the city, may one day soon pass Chicago, but Chicago will still be a urban dense city of close to 10 million while Houston will reach 7.6 in 2050. Two and one half million more folks in a metro makes a huge difference. Many people don't realize how huge Chicago's suburban landscape is. Lots of times it is as horrible as Houston's suburban style development, but has several huge advantages over Houston, many have real town centers and many have commuter rail.

[rparz]

New York is surrounded by Jersey and Connecticut, so I'm not sure how suburbanization is automatically the death knell. As far as city size, Houston may one day surpass Chicago. But, I doubt it will offer a more urban experience. While it may have more space in square miles, it may end up more like LA, where a lot of it is unusable. What do younger people care about these days? Being close to the action. Short commute times. Downtown Chicago to Wrigleyville, a 20 minute ride on the el and you're where all the action is. Sure, Houston may be larger, but can you live there without a car, get to most places in a very short time, and get all the action you want without driving? (No DUIs)

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by i35vagabond

And both the Houston and Dallas/Ft Worth metro areas to pass Chicago metro area in 20 to 30 years. Maybe in my lifetime. I'm 58.

No way. There are well over 3.5+ million more people in Chicagoland, and even if the city loses people, the metro area never has.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by thegrid

I share James Howard Kunstler's view that these southern towns that overly rely on A/C and auto transportation (i.e. unwalkable) and are poorly designed sprawled out growing monsters will not fare to well in the future.

True, but Kunstler also contends that big cities like NYC and Chicago will have to downsize and become smaller. According to Kunstler, the major American city most likely to succeed in its current form in the post-Peak Oil age is Boston, due not only to its density and walkability, but also its compactness.

[i35vagabond]

I bet the people in Chicago back in the day were saying the very same thing about LA when it was still quite a bit smaller than Chicago but it was catching up, that LA metro area would never pass Chicago, and how its not dense or walkable and all this other b.s. I'm hearing y'all spout off. Now the LA metro is what, about nearly twice the size of Chicago?

What y'all fail to realize, just how fast the Houston area is growing and continues to grow and shows no signs of slowing down.

1950, Houston had about 600,000 in the city and 800,000 in Harris County. Now, Houston has 2.1 mil and Harris County has over 4 mil. 1950 Chicago had about 3.6 mil and Cook County was around 4.5 mil. and now Cook County is 5.3 and Chicago is about 2,7.

1950 Chicago metro was 5.9 mil. In 2010 Chicago metro was 9.6 In 1950, Harris County was the Houston metro, about 800,000.

You honestly think the Houston metro isn't gonna pass Chicago metro in population? It's just a matter of time until it happens. Sorry. I know you don't like hearing it, but it's gonna happen. Just when it happens is what is debatable. Houston is liable to overtake LA metro eventually, although that's probably a hundred years off. But you can also count on Dallas metro passing Chicago metro about the same time Houston does. Look for Chicago metro slip to # 5 or #6 if you want to count DC.

One more thing...There are thousands and thousands of people in the Houston area who are from Chicago area. Matter of fact, I bet money there's more Chicago area natives in Houston than there are Houston area natives in Chicago.

To get a good idea of what the future holds, you have to take a look at the past.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by i35vagabond

I bet the people in Chicago back in the day were saying the very same thing about LA when it was still quite a bit smaller than Chicago but it was catching up, that LA metro area would never pass Chicago, and how its not dense or walkable and all this other b.s. I'm hearing y'all spout off. Now the LA metro is what, about nearly twice the size of Chicago?

What y'all fail to realize, just how fast the Houston area is growing and continues to grow and shows no signs of slowing down.

1950, Houston had about 600,000 in the city and 800,000 in Harris County. Now, Houston has 2.1 mil and Harris County has over 4 mil. 1950 Chicago had about 3.6 mil and Cook County was around 4.5 mil. and now Cook County is 5.3 and Chicago is about 2,7.

1950 Chicago metro was 5.9 mil. In 2010 Chicago metro was 9.6 In 1950, Harris County was the Houston metro, about 800,000.

You honestly think the Houston metro isn't gonna pass Chicago metro in population? It's just a matter of time until it happens. Sorry. I know you don't like hearing it, but it's gonna happen. Just when it happens is what is debatable. Houston is liable to overtake LA metro eventually, although that's probably a hundred years off. But you can also count on Dallas metro passing Chicago metro about the same time Houston does. Look for Chicago metro slip to # 5 or #6 if you want to count DC.

One more thing...There are thousands and thousands of people in the Houston area who are from Chicago area. Matter of fact, I bet money there's more Chicago area natives in Houston than there are Houston area natives in Chicago.

To get a good idea of what the future holds, you have to take a look at the past.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Sounds familiar.

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by i35vagabond

One more thing...There are thousands and thousands of people in the Houston area who are from Chicago area. Matter of fact, I bet money there's more Chicago area natives in Houston than there are Houston area natives in Chicago.

Chicago natives are all over this country. Keep in mind the city lost 200k residents between 2000 and 2010. The metro isn't booming.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

^^^Houston is NOT a dense Urban city it is a spread out Suburban style city. I for one am always sharing this fact as a person who has lived in both. But Houston's metro is nothing to snicker at and because of it Houston has many of the same positives that make Chicago a great city. But it isn't urban....much.

Houston, the city, may one day soon pass Chicago, but Chicago will still be a urban dense city of close to 10 million while Houston will reach 7.6 in 2050. Two and one half million more folks in a metro makes a huge difference. Many people don't realize how huge Chicago's suburban landscape is. Lots of times it is as horrible as Houston's suburban style development, but has several huge advantages over Houston, many have real town centers and many have commuter rail.

You're going by metro or urbanized area density.

The urban, dense city of Chicago, at around 2.7, much more dense at 12,000 pp/sqmi versus Houstons 3,000 pp/sq mi at 2.2 million. The metro area of 9-10 million is only a little higher population density than Houstons 5-6 million because Chicagoland is still made up of about 2/3 mid-low density suburbs by actual area.