Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well that wasn't the general appeal I was going for at all. I was just addressing it compared to its peer Dallas. I wasn't trying to make a attractive offer of how Urban Houston is but simply stating one thing I hate more than anything and thats the cut down of Houston and the brag and boost of Dallas as if the place is completely different.
Their Metropolitan Areas are interesting in that Dallas-Fort Worth, and I can admit to this is larger than Houston by 600,000 people. But the city of Houston to the city of Dallas, is definitely larger, and its a proven work that it is.
Houston as a city does have the edge when it comes to being more developed than Dallas, and its not Dallas's fault at all, its the fact that it's entire Metropolitan Area has to share with a whole different Principle city that keeps it from having one revolving core in the first place.
And as for Philadelphia and how large it can become in triple the land area, I don't doubt that. Again I was comparing completely Houston to its closest peer Dallas, and nothing more.
Can I say Houston the city is more Urban than Dallas the city? Yes I absolutely can, especially because I've worked it out and done the work myself enough to know it can. After going to both and living in both, I know I can make that claim and not have a problem backing it up.
Is Houston by far and away more developed than Dallas? Hell no, Houston only has the edge, it is in no way leaps and bounds ahead of Dallas.
Can I say Houston is more developed than Atlanta? Yes I can, Atlanta with 132 Square Miles is 560,000 people (to these population figures), Houston with 96 Square Miles (Inner Loop) is 542,000 people, with 36 square miles of land area less and only a 18,000 population difference between the two.
Can i make the claim that it is more Urban than Atlanta and be successful? Yes I can, but it would be arrogant to do so, especially considering they are both in the same boat regardless of numbers and statistics. I can definitely give it the edge, and thats it.
Can I make a claim that Houston Metropolitan Area feels vastly larger than Dallas-Fort Worth? No I cant and its that simple, same amount of land area for both, and Dallas-Fort Worth is legitimately larger by 600,000 people. It deserves the edge as a Metropolitan Area over Houston.
Just as Houston rightfully does deserve the edge over Dallas as a city.
Again to be clear, I wasn't comparing it to anyone else besides Dallas. Why? Because there is always this major misconception that the place only has people because of a reliance of "600 square miles (579)" when you can cut 224 Square miles out and make it the same size (actually 4 miles smaller) than Dallas and still be quite a good bit more populated (1.3 Million Versus 1.61 Million).
Now its up to you to decide if a single core and more developed is what you like in your Metropolitan Area versus two cores and split development. the choice is on us, Houston & Dallas-Fort Worth are developing differently despite following the same Blueprints, and people can pick and choose which method they like better. There is no clear cut winner and both have an advantage over the other (City for Houston, Metropolitan Area for Dallas-Fort Worth).
That's all I was getting at.
In parts yes, there are some developed areas of Houston on the outer side of Beltway 8 too that I included in. I also left out any Zip Code that straddled outside of the Houston city borders and shared borders with Houston & another city.
It's simple to say that Dallas did itself a major favor by not building that airport within the city limits of Dallas, and instead agreed to collaborate with Fort Worth to build one in the middle of the Metroplex. Saving both cities a 30 Square Mile large airport (Larger than Manhattan) from being in either of their city limits. However in Northern Houston, IAH takes up 21 Square Miles (Sam size as Manhattan) so I designated the city of Houston in the land area of Dallas going from everything within Inner Loop to as South, Southwest, & West as the city can go. Totaling out to a total land area of 347.2 Square Miles (Maximum).
For the most part I was content with the results, however it completely reminded me how desperately the Eastern side of Houston needs a revitalization & make over. It seems to be the forgotten side of the city that has escaped mass developments the other sides of the city have seen in the past decade. (And before that)
point taken
One thing i will say on the Atl vs Dallas vs Houston perspective, personally I do feel the most urban neighborhoods in Atlanta are more urban than Houston, at least by feel - not sure how to quantify it though because overall i trust in your stats
Now, I know this irks you a bit but this is not true. Chicago came no where close to adding above a million people this decade alone. Trust me, I would love to see my hometown Chicago do that, but it just isn't the gainer in growth like it was Pre-1950's.
Houston Metropolitan Area in 2000: 4,769,318
Houston Metropolitan Area in 2010: 6,063,453
Difference: 1,294,135 new people from 2000 to 2010.
There is no Metric on Earth that can show Los Angeles or Chicago to have grown that equal amount. Neither of them mass added the level of new residents (a lot from birth) as Houston & Dallas-Fort Worth (And Phoenix).
I have always thought from personal experience that if Atlanta were to have the same population as Philadelphia, it would resemble a Northeastern city way more than it would resemble a city west of the Mississippi River.
People need to understand Atlanta's framework is not at all the same as Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. Those cities are built on grids, those cities have a natural large boundaries with different city scape. Atlanta by design is more like Philadelphia and Miami than like Houston or Dallas. It just needs to infill and become more dense for others to notice.
I would be willing to bet otherwise! Metro Chicago in 2000 had around 9.1 million residents. In 2009, the region had over 9.8 miillion. A gain of 700,000. While it's obvious Houston grew at a much more rapid rate, the cities that people are supposedly fleeing in droves actually hold their own quite well.
Atlanta...............SLOWING! Never heard of such!
relative to other growth areas Atlanta has significantly slowed.
Their unemployement is much higher than other growth ares and their office vacancy rates are rediculous in certain areas, yes the ATL has slowed relative to other Sunbelt growth areas over the last two years
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
I would be willing to bet otherwise! Metro Chicago in 2000 had around 9.1 million residents. In 2009, the region had over 9.8 miillion. A gain of 700,000. While it's obvious Houston grew at a much more rapid rate, the cities that people are supposedly fleeing in droves actually hold their own quite well.
Chicago MSA though had 9.1 Million people and it's CSA got to 9.8 Million. Chicago's CSA was 9.2 Million in 2000. Chicago's growth for a older city isn't bad.
No one is fleeing in droves to Houston, and that is a fact. I hate the word growth it reminds me of what a hick in some rural farm says proud of his/her town for growing by like 10 people "Hey yall, we growin" man I hate that. I guess it also has to do with my hatred for the word "yall" also, LOL I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but seriously that word is just so hard for me to keep up with. (Sorry just had to make that comical)
Houston only got 450,000 new migrants this decade, the rest of the growth came from Immigration & Births. This myth that 1-2 Million people get up and leave and move to Houston, Atlanta, & Dallas-Fort Worth needs to stop. It is such a ridiculous argument when I see someone say "well its attractive enough for 2 million people to move here" no that is not why, births and immigration account for a lot of that too! (Needless to say these places are attractive in many aspects)
But the city in general just ticks me off more than anything when it comes to its city population. Seriously, Daly needs to go, and fast. Him and his father while they may have done a few nice things here and there are nothing but a menace to Chicago.
Good bye Daly, and I hope his kids never run for office either:
I hope he never decides to run for office again! Anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
point taken
One thing i will say on the Atl vs Dallas vs Houston perspective, personally I do feel the most urban neighborhoods in Atlanta are more urban than Houston, at least by feel - not sure how to quantify it though because overall i trust in your stats
I felt the opposite, I gave it to Dallas over Atlanta & Houston over Dallas. And this is with me taking my bias out. I can honestly say that I haven't seen all the areas of Atlanta fully, but I can say that the stretch of land from Reliant straight into Downtown is something I personally have not felt to be as large in Atlanta and that is one of the only two maybe three areas I would put ahead of Atlanta, otherwise I imagine them all (Houston & Atlanta) to be in the exact same ball park. Atlanta has the Downtown advantage over Houston for sure, much more thriving core than Houston & Dallas.
In Dallas, I think Fort Worth (And Metroplex Megaburbs like Irving, Arlington, etc) being there seriously cuts the place. And honestly if there was no Fort Worth, Dallas would (undoubtedly) trump both Houston & Atlanta as a city.
The difference though is, with you, I think you are more transit oriented type of developed neighborhoods. Like those type of neighborhoods that are built up from the influence of a rail line. In that case definitely Atlanta over Houston & Dallas both.
But in general off the size and from vibrancy (Not Downtown Houston) I give it to Houston above Dallas & Atlanta. On the size & Vibrancy together part. Transit & Size is Atlanta. Fort Worth is probably more vibrant than Houston, Atlanta, & Dallas though (in terms of Downtown).
I don't know exactly, because it can go anyway, depending on what you're looking for. But its undoubted that these are all true peer cities in terms of development regardless.
I want to stop my part here before someone from Atlanta gets offended and starts posting pictures of Buckhead or something with street pedestrian traffic, and then it turns into a war. I guess we'll just have to leave our perspectives as they are.
I can see how you think Atlanta has the edge, and I know why I think Houston & Dallas have the edge, and statistically also it would be in my favor. Although I can say Atlanta has better urbanity that revolves around Mixed Use development near transit lines.
And Dallas's strength is that it is slightly more walkable than Houston & Atlanta.
Chicago MSA though had 9.1 Million people and it's CSA got to 9.8 Million. Chicago's CSA was 9.2 Million in 2000. Chicago's growth for a older city isn't bad.
No one is fleeing in droves to Houston, and that is a fact. I hate the word growth it reminds me of what a hick in some rural farm says proud of his/her town for growing by like 10 people "Hey yall, we growin" man I hate that. I guess it also has to do with my hatred for the word "yall" also, LOL I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but seriously that word is just so hard for me to keep up with. (Sorry just had to make that comical)
Houston only got 450,000 new migrants this decade, the rest of the growth came from Immigration & Births. This myth that 1-2 Million people get up and leave and move to Houston, Atlanta, & Dallas-Fort Worth needs to stop. It is such a ridiculous argument when I see someone say "well its attractive enough for 2 million people to move here" no that is not why, births and immigration account for a lot of that too! (Needless to say these places are attractive in many aspects)
But the city in general just ticks me off more than anything when it comes to its city population. Seriously, Daly needs to go, and fast. Him and his father while they may have done a few nice things here and there are nothing but a menace to Chicago.
Good bye Daly, and I hope his kids never run for office either:
I hope he never decides to run for office again! Anywhere.
I felt the opposite, I gave it to Dallas over Atlanta & Houston over Dallas. And this is with me taking my bias out. I can honestly say that I haven't seen all the areas of Atlanta fully, but I can say that the stretch of land from Reliant straight into Downtown is something I personally have not felt to be as large in Atlanta and that is one of the only two maybe three areas I would put ahead of Atlanta, otherwise I imagine them all (Houston & Atlanta) to be in the exact same ball park. Atlanta has the Downtown advantage over Houston for sure, much more thriving core than Houston & Dallas.
In Dallas, I think Fort Worth (And Metroplex Megaburbs like Irving, Arlington, etc) being there seriously cuts the place. And honestly if there was no Fort Worth, Dallas would (undoubtedly) trump both Houston & Atlanta as a city.
The difference though is, with you, I think you are more transit oriented type of developed neighborhoods. Like those type of neighborhoods that are built up from the influence of a rail line. In that case definitely Atlanta over Houston & Dallas both.
But in general off the size and from vibrancy (Not Downtown Houston) I give it to Houston above Dallas & Atlanta. On the size & Vibrancy together part. Transit & Size is Atlanta. Fort Worth is probably more vibrant than Houston, Atlanta, & Dallas though (in terms of Downtown).
I don't know exactly, because it can go anyway, depending on what you're looking for. But its undoubted that these are all true peer cities in terms of development regardless.
I want to stop my part here before someone from Atlanta gets offended and starts posting pictures of Buckhead or something with street pedestrian traffic, and then it turns into a war. I guess we'll just have to leave our perspectives as they are.
I can see how you think Atlanta has the edge, and I know why I think Houston & Dallas have the edge, and statistically also it would be in my favor. Although I can say Atlanta has better urbanity that revolves around Mixed Use development near transit lines.
And Dallas's strength is that it is slightly more walkable than Houston & Atlanta.
I think it is more the mixed use but to me Midtown in Atlanta just somehow feels more urban. And honestly i am really not a transit nut by any means. I rarely take PT in Philly - do moreso in other cities
I also like FW a lot, small but a really cool DT area
I also agree with your stats, on urbanity - there are likly diffent thresholds so at different critical masses other aspects come into play
I do like some of what i saw last year in what i believe is Midtown houston - felt like it is heading in the right direction
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
I also like FW a lot, small but a really cool DT area
The Trinity River Project for Fort Worth is going to make it a very active core (even more so) in the future for the Metroplex. I like things that Fort Worth has done, Houston & Dallas can learn a lot from more successful Downtowns in Texas like San Antonio & Fort Worth (And Austin as well).
Dallas has their recreational plans going with Trinity River Project with some parks and stuff coming in.
Houston is developing a riverwalk type of thing like San Antonio in Downtown to revitalize, and adding more nightlife there and stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
I do like some of what i saw last year in what i believe is Midtown houston - felt like it is heading in the right direction
Eh, to be honest I have been to Midtown a lot, and heard lots of nice things about the area, but never spent real time there before to know the exact feel for the place.
I mostly like Neartown to be honest, I guess the setting around tall lush green trees inside the city and with the basic amenities nearby I like more. Neartown is about to rip through and become a leading area for Houston with Regent Square, and a few other developments coming in.
And of course one of my favorite areas are near Rice Village, Richmond Avenue, Memorial City, Rice Military, & Kemah! (Kemah being near the coast)
relative to other growth areas Atlanta has significantly slowed.
Their unemployement is much higher than other growth ares and their office vacancy rates are rediculous in certain areas, yes the ATL has slowed relative to other Sunbelt growth areas over the last two years
Well when SA or Houston for that matter can produce a population of even 1 million in 130 sq miles then it may at least be interesting (at 60% the city of Philly) until then they will be what they are large area wise semi urban mostly suburban huge municipalities, not all that interesting - Actually when Houston can produce an area with more population cohesively than Baltimore in the same sq milage let me know, until then they will continue to be completely useless stats that make for interesting press releases among clueless americans that consider places with less then a 5K ppsm area an actual city then get there and say where is the city.
Actually the day SA or Houston is more of city than Philly I will gladly step up and be excited, this country could use more good urban places...
Hmmm
Houston 600 sq miles(Density 3,800 ppsm) - Yep that is right sounds like a suburban town
SA 400 sq miles (Density 3,200 ppsm) - Wow less urban than a suburban city
Philly 130 sq miles (Density 12,000 ppsm) Yep I think SA is the larger city and way more urban...
San Antonio has higher density that that. I would say there is about 1.4 million people within 250 square miles. The city added over 100 square miles of undeveloped land to the south.
Before the city annexed those 100 square miles there was 1.2 million people within 300 square miles. Of that 300 square miles of land you have to take into consideration the five large military installations. We know you can't compare the density of a sunbelt city to a city like Philadephia. Smaller cities like Pittsburgh and St Louis, San Antonio and Houston are just as dense if not more.
Chicago MSA though had 9.1 Million people and it's CSA got to 9.8 Million. Chicago's CSA was 9.2 Million in 2000. Chicago's growth for a older city isn't bad.
This is sorta true, but misleading.
Yes, Metro Chicago has been growing, which is impressive for the Rust Belt, BUT all the growth is in the furthest exurbs.
New subdivisions in the corn fields are providing all the growth.
The core (Chicago and Cook County) are both shrinking.
Chicago only grew One Third (1/3rd) of what Houston grew this decade. And yes their land areas for Metropolitan Areas are virtually the same, in fact when you factor out the Bay from Houston's CSA land area it comes out to be smaller than Chicagoland by a good 1,200 square miles.
Chicagoland is at CSA level 10,856 square miles
Houston is at CSA level 10,062 square miles, and a massive proportion of the area of that is the Bay also (800 square miles).
And no people I am NOT saying Houston is more Urban than Chicago either (always have to make sure I am being understood before being taken out of context).
And yeah I am aware of the fact that Cook County has been at a population loss for a few decades now, I am actually the one who pointed that out to you earlier on in the Detroit forum with my thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Never heard of such!
