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 492 41.59%
No 691 58.41%
Voters: 1183. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-10-2010, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,573,847 times
Reputation: 449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Oh okay. I most likely read it wrong then.
No, you just made it up lol.

You're the biggest Houston homer/booster on this site by far.

Houston passing Chicago in population may, at some point, be inevitable, but only because its city limits are two and a half times the size. Metro Chicago however will always maintain a large lead. I personally don't see Houston ever taking off ahead of Chicago in terms of population anyway. I feel like they'd always be neck and neck, and would constantly switch between third, and fourth largest city. Just my theory...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2010, 01:32 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,841,215 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr View Post
No, you just made it up lol.

You're the biggest Houston homer/booster on this site by far.
I made it up? Nah, you're just overly sensitive.

Quote:
Houston passing Chicago in population may, at some point, be inevitable, but only because its city limits are two and a half times the size. Metro Chicago however will always maintain a large lead. I personally don't see Houston ever taking off ahead of Chicago in terms of population anyway. I feel like they'd always be neck and neck, and would constantly switch between third, and fourth largest city. Just my theory...
Metro Chicago won't always maintain a lead, if you look at current (and past) growth rates, but okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,639 posts, read 27,078,190 times
Reputation: 9580
The only reason why Chicago has not experienced the growth Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta has sustained is because of the weather and it's up and down economy. People would rather deal with heat over cold. If people got over the weather thing and Chicago's economy maintains a successful economy, it.will.ex.plode. Because Chicago is a relatively cheap city with great resources at a perfect location within the US. Over 450,000 people have moved to the Chicago area in the last decade by estimates. That's a pretty healthy growth no matter what way you slice it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 02:44 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,841,215 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
The only reason why Chicago has not experienced the growth Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta has sustained is because of the weather and it's up and down economy. People would rather deal with heat over cold. If people got over the weather thing and Chicago's economy maintains a successful economy, it.will.ex.plode. Because Chicago is a relatively cheap city with great resources at a perfect location within the US. Over 450,000 people have moved to the Chicago area in the last decade by estimates. That's a pretty healthy growth no matter what way you slice it.
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change

Most of the growth coming from international residents and natural increase, but I agree, Chicago is cheap compared to Florida, California, and the Northeast. It isn't cheap compared to Texas, Georgia, or NC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,243,749 times
Reputation: 29451
Lost in all this talk about Houston's metropolitan area population catching Chicago's metro population is that the Houston metro isn't even the most populous in Texas. That would be DFW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 03:46 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 2,416,574 times
Reputation: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
I made it up? Nah, you're just overly sensitive.

Metro Chicago won't always maintain a lead, if you look at current (and past) growth rates, but okay.


Really sir Houston would have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOg way to go to catch Chicago in Metro. City wise I can see Metro I dont think so
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 03:49 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 2,416,574 times
Reputation: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Lost in all this talk about Houston's metropolitan area population catching Chicago's metro population is that the Houston metro isn't even the most populous in Texas. That would be DFW.

Right they need to surpass Dallas first. Someone needs to make that that thread. Will Houston ever pass Dallas as the Largest metro
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,573,847 times
Reputation: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change

Most of the growth coming from international residents and natural increase, but I agree, Chicago is cheap compared to Florida, California, and the Northeast. It isn't cheap compared to Texas, Georgia, or NC.
Once again, none of this matters. You talk about me being overly sensitive, yet you're denying and skewing the facts for every point that is made in favor of Chicago. Yes, Chicago is loosing in terms of domestic migration, but so are New York and L.A.

I don't even fully understand what you're trying to prove by continuously bringing up domestic migration. Are you trying to infer that Houston is better than Chicago because more U.S citizens happen to move there than Chicago? By that logic, Houston would be way better than New York.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Metro Chicago won't always maintain a lead, if you look at current (and past) growth rates, but okay.
Yup, and Houston should be surpassing the continent of Europe any day now...

Last edited by Dncr; 05-10-2010 at 04:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,639 posts, read 27,078,190 times
Reputation: 9580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change

Most of the growth coming from international residents and natural increase, but I agree, Chicago is cheap compared to Florida, California, and the Northeast. It isn't cheap compared to Texas, Georgia, or NC.
It really doesn't matter how Chicago has grown though. At least not to me. Growing around 500,000 per decade is healthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2010, 04:21 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,841,215 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr View Post
Once again, none of this matters. You talk about me being overly sensitive, yet you're denying and skewing the facts for every point that is made in favor of Chicago. Yes, Chicago is loosing in terms of domestic migration, but so are New York and L.A.

I don't even fully understand what you're trying to prove by continuously bringing up domestic migration. Are you trying to infer that Houston is better than Chicago because more U.S citizens happen to move there than Chicago? By that logic, Houston would be way better than New York.
A city being "better" than another city is someone's opinion. You can't be right or wrong on that. And I already said the reason why Chicago, LA, and NYC are declining is because families are being replaced by young couples or singles. Don't know how that is skewing facts, but I guess it is to you.

Quote:
Yup, and Houston should be surpassing the continent of Europe any day now...
Okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Lost in all this talk about Houston's metropolitan area population catching Chicago's metro population is that the Houston metro isn't even the most populous in Texas. That would be DFW.
So? That just means Dallas -Fort Worth will pass up Chicagoland, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeandIke27 View Post
Really sir Houston would have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOg way to go to catch Chicago in Metro. City wise I can see Metro I dont think so
If trends continue, it'll be in about 40 years. That's a long way out, but Houston has been outgrowing Chicagoland for a while now.
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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