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 05-11-2010, 10:57 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739

Advertisements

I am still perplexed by cities with a density of 4,000 - christ my suburban home town was twice that

I cant believe areas with driveways and lawns are inlcuded in cities - still boggles my mind

not too mention the continuous urban population of 1,000 is the census designation for urban area - how is place with one person per football field urban? I was just looking at Om's link and I scratch my head everytime...

I guess I am old school but every vision I have of city life includes no place where there is parking that isnt on the street - I guess I am jaded
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,513,072 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
You forget the West side too though it's a small area of Chicago compared to the Northside and Southside.
Totally forgot about that! Thanks for adding that. It just shows there's even more land that can be developed in Chi-Town.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
I am still perplexed by cities with a density of 4,000 - christ my suburban home town was twice that

I cant believe areas with driveways and lawns are inlcuded in cities - still boggles my mind

not too mention the continuous urban population of 1,000 is the census designation for urban area - how is place with one person per football field urban? I was just looking at Om's link and I scratch my head everytime...

I guess I am old school but every vision I have of city life includes no place where there is parking that isnt on the street - I guess I am jaded
It's a new world my man! There is supposedly lots of in-fill going on, even in the most sprawled cities out there...hopefully that trend will continue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:08 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Totally forgot about that! Thanks for adding that. It just shows there's even more land that can be developed in Chi-Town.




It's a new world my man! There is supposedly lots of in-fill going on, even in the most sprawled cities out there...hopefully that trend will continue.
I hope so and think they will appreciate it even more then...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:12 AM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,839,624 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
I am still perplexed by cities with a density of 4,000 - christ my suburban home town was twice that

I cant believe areas with driveways and lawns are inlcuded in cities - still boggles my mind

not too mention the continuous urban population of 1,000 is the census designation for urban area - how is place with one person per football field urban? I was just looking at Om's link and I scratch my head everytime...

I guess I am old school but every vision I have of city life includes no place where there is parking that isnt on the street - I guess I am jaded
Nah, you're just use to the way cities use to be back in the day. That's how cities were in the 19th and early 20th century. Times have changed. It appears nowadays, the new rising cities in America are becoming a hybrid of both. Pretty dense areas in the core, but are still able to provide suburban housing for families...all in the city limits.

For Houston, even though the density is near 4,000 people per square mile, there are parts of the city with 10,000 people per square mile (Fondren SW area). That's mostly due to apartments though. Still, since there is a lot of vacant land in the city limits, the density will be low, but anytime anything residential is built on that land, Houston's density will only keep rising. The Inner Loop is another area where the density is much higher than the rest of the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Chicago has tons of land within their city proper that is ripe for development. Remember, Chicago's population is almost 770,000 less than what it was at its peak. That obviously means there is plenty of land in Chicago which can be developed/redeveloped. The South Side is where much of the hardship of Chicago has hit...you'll still find that many of the Northside neighborhoods are topping 20,000 and even 30,000 people per square mile.

The North Side seems to have faced very little abandonment, while the South Side has experienced an overwhelming amount of it. Plenty of area to develop there...so your theory definitely doesn't hold up.
There is plenty of development, but that's not why Chicago was losing population. It was because families were moving to its suburbs or other areas in America. Being priced out of the city basically. Those families are being replaced by young couples and singles. It's the same thing in NYC, Los Angeles, Philly, DC, etc. There was an article recently talking about the new "white flight".

Last edited by Trae713; 05-11-2010 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,513,072 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
There is plenty of development, but that's not why Chicago was losing population. It was because families were moving to its suburbs or other areas in America. Being priced out of the city basically. Those families are being replaced by young couples and singles. It's the same thing in NYC, Los Angeles, Philly, DC, etc. There was an article recently talking about the new "white flight".
How does that address what I said in any way, shape or form?

You said:
Quote:
And you can't compare Houston and Chicago. Houston still has open land in its city limits waiting for development (that is coming). Chicago doesn't have that luxury. Houston can grow both dense in the Inner Loop AND suburban growth.
And I showed that there is still plenty of land to develop within the city-limits of Chicago. The reason they were leaving is totally unrelated to whether or not there is land available for development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:23 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Nah, you're just use to the way cities use to be back in the day. That's how cities were in the 19th and early 20th century. Times have changed. It appears nowadays, the new rising cities in America are becoming a hybrid of both. Pretty dense areas in the core, but are still able to provide suburban housing for families...all in the city limits.

But by definition aren't the suburbs not the city?

I mean this is where statistics become stupid to me

Adding Deleware county to philly (which maintain a large border) the population goes to 2.4 million in 250 sq miles - nearly 1/3 the size of houston and 2.5 times the density yet Houston's borders are much more suburban than this area. And here the densest 200sq miles directly around the city have 2.6 million (which actually excludes the far NE of Philly which dramtically reduces the overall density of Philly). The city itself just excluding fairmount park is 16,000 ppsm. Even LA has a density nearly twice that of Houston. It just seems odd an area that sparcely populated overall (and this caused by the expansive boundaries) are included in a city population estimate. I believe the inner loop of Houston is about on par with total LA density and a population of about 1.2-1.4 million - when there that by feel seems more like the city size to me. And i guess this is what always make me feel like How is houston bigger; it doesnt feel like it, even in metro - then you see the stats - we are comparing areas of dramitically different sizes - here they stop counting people as close as within the closest 500 sq mile radius (smaller than city of houston) from center city because it is the next metro - but those people still live here and only a 25 minute drive. I mean within a 50 mile radius here there are 12 million people (imagine saying areas 50 miles form Houston aren't included in the metro; here almost half of the population in that space aren't) and within 100 miles (roughly the CSA size of Houston) there is 35 miliion people (the size of CA; and granted that includes NYC and Baltimore (a few miles shy of DC) but just perspective). The spaces covered just still boggle my mind

Last edited by kidphilly; 05-11-2010 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,807,544 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
How does that address what I said in any way, shape or form?

You said:


And I showed that there is still plenty of land to develop within the city-limits of Chicago. The reason they were leaving is totally unrelated to whether or not there is land available for development.
Yeah the reasons why they were leaving (according to my AP-US History class in high school) was because the suburban areas were newly introduced to allow greater room for residential expanding (yards, pools, restaurants) than the inner city, suburban living after WWII was seen as a more luxurious method of living because it would give residents more privacy and space. Which is why 8/10 of those cities in the 1950 census experienced tremendous population decline.

However, if you notice, their metropolitan areas still kept gaining more people, 1950 was when Metropolitan (MSA) areas became relevant for cities.

One thing we're forgetting here is that in 1950 Houston wasn't even a big enough city to show the impact of suburban expansion having a negative population affect on the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:28 AM
 
19 posts, read 34,614 times
Reputation: 26
If everyone honestly filled out the census, you'd probably find it has already surpassed Chicago in population. However, Houston pales in comparison to Chicago's downtown. Also, Chicago's transportation (train & el's) are great!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,807,544 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindy mickle View Post
If everyone honestly filled out the census, you'd probably find it has already surpassed Chicago in population. However, Houston pales in comparison to Chicago's downtown. Also, Chicago's transportation (train & el's) are great!!!
^ LOL! What? Houston officially is 600,000-800,000 (Somewhere in that range) still behind Chicago. What do you mean if everyone filled out the census it would surpass Chicago?

Metaphorically, the census people literally go through each city and count every human soul living there, even the hobos. Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,292,026 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi View Post
Yeah the reasons why they were leaving (according to my AP-US History class in high school) was because the suburban areas were newly introduced to allow greater room for residential expanding (yards, pools, restaurants) than the inner city, suburban living after WWII was seen as a more luxurious method of living because it would give residents more privacy and space. Which is why 8/10 of those cities in the 1950 census experienced tremendous population decline.

However, if you notice, their metropolitan areas still kept gaining more people, 1950 was when Metropolitan (MSA) areas became relevant for cities.

One thing we're forgetting here is that in 1950 Houston wasn't even a big enough city to show the impact of suburban expansion having a negative population affect on the city.
Don't forget, Federal policy post-WW2 actively encouraged/subsidized suburbanization. It wasn't strictly market forces in action.
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