U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Will Houston surpass Chicago as the 3rd largest city by 2020?
Yes 473 41.35%
No 671 58.65%
Voters: 1144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2010, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,522,621 times
Reputation: 448

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Have you seen the size of counties in Texas?
Yeah, they're huge...which is why they are also extremely deceiving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
That wasn't the point.
Then what was?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2010, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 29,811,316 times
Reputation: 7244
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindin View Post
You haven't been on streetview to judge a city again, have you?

I can't even lie....yeah.

I will say that Naperville (1454.5/sq mi) is a bit denser than Sugar Land (875.6/sq mi )though.
Sugar land is more like 2.629 per sq. miles while Naperville is more like 3.628 per sq. mile. They are almost similar in land size; except Naperville is more populated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Chicago metro
3,375 posts, read 7,052,112 times
Reputation: 1853
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
Sugar land is more like 2.629 per sq. miles while Naperville is more like 3.628 per sq. mile. They are almost similar in land size; except Naperville is more populated.
You're right that Naperville is more populated, but both you guys density estimations are wrong.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Naperville-Illinois.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sugar-Land-Texas.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 29,811,316 times
Reputation: 7244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426 View Post
You're right that Naperville is more populated, but both you guys density estimations are wrong.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Naperville-Illinois.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sugar-Land-Texas.html
I stand corrected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,200,295 times
Reputation: 4047
Also it depends on what suburbs now too. Some of them have gotten just as expensive as Houston itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
3,261 posts, read 7,636,322 times
Reputation: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
^^Yeah, Chicago's old railroad suburbs are quite nice, but they are exceptions to the rule.



Have you seen the size of counties in Texas?

That wasn't the point.
Texas counties are not that big!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,200,295 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladarron View Post
Texas counties are not that big!
By land size they are most definitely not that big!

You want to see big, then check out the ones in Arizona, there's only like 4!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
3,261 posts, read 7,636,322 times
Reputation: 678
^^^^^San Bernardino County in California is HUGE 20,105 sq mi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,237 posts, read 25,935,555 times
Reputation: 9002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladarron View Post
Texas counties are not that big!
Compared to the East Coast, they are huge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,200,295 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Compared to the East Coast, they are huge.
Compared to the West Coast, they are petite.

Haha, what does this imply about West Coast to East Coast...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top