Houston Could Pass Chicago as Third-Largest City in U.S. in Next Decade (Aurora: town-house, living)

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

...double post..sorry

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Double post...sorry

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by beasley106

Well last time I checked the Chicagoland metro area has a little over nine million people so there is still going to be some sprawl, but when you compare it to Houston which covers an insane amount of land compared to it's population of around six million than it's no contest as far as to which city is the worst offender in this regard. Besides even many Chicago suburbs such as Naperville, Oak Park, or Evanston are still very walkable with historic pedestrian friendly downtown areas that also have "L" or commuter rail access while as far as to my knowledge Houston has no such equivalent (the closest example I could think of would be The Woodlands and even that suburb is not exactly livable without a car). Heck, there are even many areas within the city of Houston that lack public sidewalks.

Anyways I am not sure why you are complaining about the cost of train tickets to use the CTA as the one way fare is only a dollar more than the cost to use Houston's light rail system.

Greater Houston has 10,062 square miles, 6.4 million people, 630 ppsm density.

Chicago Metro has 10,,856 square miles, 9.4 million people, 1318 ppsm density.

Both cities are sprawled out. Chicago Metro is 794 square miles larger than Greater Houston. Thats a relatively small number of miles given both metro areas are over 10,000 square miles. But its quite a few more miles when you consider that it's over 800 miles from the Eastern border of Texas to the Western border of Texas, along Interstate 10. It's alot of land, either way.

The difference is, Chicago allowed itself to become completely surrounded with suburbs on 3 sides and Lake Michigan on the 4th side, leaving Chicago with virtually no room to grow and a fast dwindling tax base. Beginning in the 1950's the people who could afford it began to abandon the City of Chicago for the safety of the far flung suburbs, causing Chicago to become a city that has all the social and infrastructure problems a city with a low tax bases has. Decades ago, if Chicago had annexed as much land as it possibly could between Wisconsin and Indiana, I think Chicago would have been a much different city than it is today.

Houston, on the other hand has not allowed itself to be completely surrounded by suburbs. Houston has plenty of room to grow, and it continues to be one of the fastest growing big cities in the country, almost every year since the 1950's. Unless the bottom falls out of everything, I don't think Houston will ever have the financial problems that some of these Midwestern cities that are completely surrounded by suburbs have, such as Chicago, St Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, etc.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Greater Houston has 10,062 square miles, 6.4 million people, 630 ppsm density.

Chicago Metro has 10,,856 square miles, 9.4 million people, 1318 ppsm density.

Both cities are sprawled out. Chicago Metro is 794 square miles larger than Greater Houston. Thats a relatively small number of miles given both metro areas are over 10,000 square miles. But its quite a few more miles when you consider that it's over 800 miles from the Eastern border of Texas to the Western border of Texas, along Interstate 10. It's alot of land, either way.

The difference is, Chicago allowed itself to become completely surrounded with suburbs on 3 sides and Lake Michigan on the 4th side, leaving Chicago with virtually no room to grow and a fast dwindling tax base. Beginning in the 1950's the people who could afford it began to abandon the City of Chicago for the safety of the far flung suburbs, causing Chicago to become a city that has all the social and infrastructure problems a city with a low tax bases has. Decades ago, if Chicago had annexed as much land as it possibly could between Wisconsin and Indiana, I think Chicago would have been a much different city than it is today.

Houston, on the other hand has not allowed itself to be completely surrounded by suburbs. Houston has plenty of room to grow, and it continues to be one of the fastest growing big cities in the country, almost every year since the 1950's. Unless the bottom falls out of everything, I don't think Houston will ever have the financial problems that some of these Midwestern cities that are completely surrounded by suburbs have, such as Chicago, St Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

Chicago has 9.1 million people living in 2647 square miles. Houston has 5.8 million people living in 1793 square miles. Houston's density is almost uniform from the city all the way out to the suburbs. Chicago's core is much more dense. Cook County has almost as many people as Houston's urban area in half the space. Chicago's density falls off rapidly once the population hits a little over 6 million(Cook+DuPage). Houston is just suburban sprawl through and through.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

Chicago has 9.1 million people living in 2647 square miles. Houston has 5.8 million people living in 1793 square miles. Houston's density is almost uniform from the city all the way out to the suburbs. Chicago's core is much more dense. Cook County has almost as many people as Houston's urban area in half the space. Chicago's density falls off rapidly once the population hits a little over 6 million(Cook+DuPage). Houston is just suburban sprawl through and through.

That's funny. The figures I got are from Wikipedia, also. Click on the link and scroll down on the page to where it says "Quick Facts".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate...on?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicag...ea?wprov=sfla1

[knitgirl]

I don't give a crap about Houston and I don't care if more people eventually live there than Chicago. You couldn't pay me enough to live there.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

That's funny. The figures I got are from Wikipedia, also. Click on the link and scroll down on the page to where it says "Quick Facts".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate...on?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicag...ea?wprov=sfla1

Read what Chicago South Sider wrote. Neither of you are wrong.

The vast majority of Chicago's population is concentrated in a much smaller area; much of that 10,000+ sq miles is farm land and rural areas, while included in the CHicago metro area, are not where people live. Compare that with Houston, which has fairly uniform density throughout it's metro area.

Most would agree, the Chicago model is much more efficient, ideal, urban overall.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Read what Chicago South Sider wrote. Neither of you are wrong.

The vast majority of Chicago's population is concentrated in a much smaller area; much of that 10,000+ sq miles is farm land and rural areas, while included in the CHicago metro area, are not where people live. Compare that with Houston, which has fairly uniform density throughout it's metro area.

Most would agree, the Chicago model is much more efficient, ideal, urban overall.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by DavePa

Where does this look like it is? To you.. same blocks.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8003...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8008...7i13312!8i6656

Just one thing missing? Guess hint... they are blue and black.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8008...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8056...7i13312!8i6656

I'd think the next is somewhere by me in the Northeast . Below one
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7986...7i13312!8i6656

Just some irony LOL.

To be fair, that is not very "Northeastern" like, where are the sidewalks? And when there is sidewalk why is it so far away from the street curb? I think that is the gripe that so many people have when referring to the "4th largest city in the country".

I mean even Fredericksburg, VA is built more urban than that in some places:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fr...605399!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fr...605399!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3032...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fr...605399!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2952...8i6656!6m1!1e1

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by prhill

Does not help the population either when we now have people from the Lincoln park, lakeview areas on the news each night talking about how they are moving out of the city now as crime has even reached those parts of the city. Same in Bucktown and Wicker park. Hell people cannot even drive into the city now as expressways have to be keep being closed down due to shootings on them.

?? They're building housing like mad all over Lakeview and Lincoln Park. There are 4,412 new units going up in 21 large developments and then dozens of smaller 2-4 unit buildings going up on residential streets from around North Ave to Irving Park and the lake to Ashland. Bucktown and Wicker Park are seeing even far more than that, Milwaukee Ave is like a mile long construction site with all the projects going on there, driven by the hotness of the neighborhood and the 606 trail. The north lakefront and then Wicker Park Bucktown certainly aren't hurting or depopulating. Crime there hasn't spiked or gone crazy over the past 10 years, although with social media and facebook, etc. the perception CERTAINLY has changed that it's far worse. Instead it's just that you see every single little thing that happens for better or worse.

Areas on the west side and south side are and continue to be the dire areas of the city of Chicago. Some stable/nice areas are losing residents due to physically larger housing sizes and smaller household populations moving into areas that used to have large household sizes and smaller units (mostly these areas are all gentrifying and going from more lower class to rich).

The big demographic changer in Chicago right now is the black population. The numbers have been changing very quickly, which is causing a lot of upheaval in many west/south areas.

2000: 1,065,012
2010: 887,608
2015: 850,821
Diff: -214,191

There are now more white people in the city, about 25,000, as their numbers are growing, than black people. That hasn't happened in many decades, and if you told someone in 2000 that there would be more white people than black people they'd think you were crazy. The nosedive is very concerning.

The other big key is the overwhelming component of Chicago's population loss from 2000 to 2015 is people aged 0-17. It's losing its children, not the adults. Number of underage children:

2000: 759,841
2010: 621,630
2015: 603,446
Diff: -156,395

The city actually has roughly the same population of those aged 18-64 as it did in 2000, although the population of those under 18 and above 64 has dropped by almost 200,000.

Hence the city actually has 41,470 more housing units than it had in the year 2000. Since 2000 there have been 112,490 new housing units built in Chicago, most all downtown, the near south areas, north lakefront and northwest side of the city. At the same time 71,020 units have been lost. Either to abandonment on the south and west sides, and also a large chunk has been older multi-unit buildings being torn down and replaced by luxury single family homes on the north side, or replaced by larger buildings with larger units, although fewer units.

Employment in the city it also at a high not seen since before de-industrialization in the middle of the 20th century. There were 1,155,332 people employed in the city in 2016, up around 144,000 from 2010 after the recession, and above previous highs back in the year 2000.

Downtown has seen the biggest jump, especially the last few years with between 10,000 and 26,500 jobs created in the immediate downtown area every year for the past six years. Downtown employment is up 20% from 2010, and up 10% from its previous all-time high in the year 2000 when the economy was booming in Chicago. There are nearly 600,000 jobs downtown with more and more corporate headquarters coming in all the time. That's been a HUGE push with the current administration and mayor, bringing jobs into downtown, as downtown is the biggest asset the metro area has right now to try and kickstart the rest of the economy back to solid growth. Downtown growth doesn't help south or west sides....but it's something and you always need something.

You can see the employment change in the number of L train rides per weekday. From 676,000 back 10 years ago to an average of 827,000 today. I pulled the September numbers for each year to compare, up 22% in a decade.