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, 11:48 AM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,839,624 times
Reputation: 3545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
How does that address what I said in any way, shape or form?
Were we not talking about population, etc.?

Quote:
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.
But, is there really that much land available for development? Unless some things get bulldozed (projects), right? That is, unless you have an aerial map showing these areas that you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
But by definition aren't the suburbs not the city?
Generally, but who is to say that cities nowadays can't offer suburban-style living within their municipal borders? In addition to that, they can also provide urban style living in the core.

Quote:
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 but just perspective). The spaces covered just still boggle my mind
Philly is sandwiched in the middle of the BosWash corridor. Houston doesn't have that luxury, but it is at the intersection of two future "mega-regions" (Gulf Coast and Texas Triangle).

I see what you're saying though, and I think it's strange that Mercer County is in NYC's metro. It's probably because they have more commuters to NYC than Philly though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Don't forget, Federal policy post-WW2 actively encouraged/subsidized suburbanization. It wasn't strictly market forces in action.

You could argue this (subsidy) helped the US economy overall and also specific cities like Detroit and Houston also benefited greatly by more reliance on the automobile and gas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,807,544 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Don't forget, Federal policy post-WW2 actively encouraged/subsidized suburbanization. It wasn't strictly market forces in action.
Actually your right, and in addition to that I remember another thing as well. The fear of nuclear weapons being able to incinerate city centers like downtown Chicago.
It had a lot to do with the Post WWII and entrance into the Cold War feel for that time, when the Atomic Bomb was feared across the world, and a break of war with Soviet Union was rising.
If I remember correctly they would do bomb tests that would appear randomly as a warning on Television screens, and people would practice preparing for them. Which also lead way to basements becoming more popular as well, mostly in suburban areas.

At the time, suburban growth seemed ideal to the people of Post WWII America.

Now, it can go both ways, families tend to like suburban areas more, where as bachelors like city centers more.

However, there is a significant amount of reversal too, the same gas and automobile era is coming to close, with both being the unreliable method of transportation, light rail and commuter rails are taking over. Berchert and Adam (early 20th century migration experts on urbanization) made clear models of their generation expansions for urbanization. I personally think they're models are seeing reversal now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,293,464 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
You could argue this (subsidy) helped the US economy overall and also specific cities like Detroit and Houston also benefited greatly by more reliance on the automobile and gas
You could also argue that over-reliance on the internal combustion engine has weakened us economically, politically, and ecologically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 12:06 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,176,306 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
You could also argue that over-reliance on the internal combustion engine has weakened us economically, politically, and ecologically.

Well that is complex discussion so many inter-related factors

For example the reliance on oil also requires certain defense spending which have both developed new technologies and funneled money into other industries. the flip side is this reliance allows for entities like OPEC to have greater impacts on the US economy - there is good and bad to both - along with growth of place like Houston it will be interesting to see what happens with energy (also somewhat related to houston as they are not only heavially involved in petro but alternative fuels)

Also interesting will be whether industries can learn from prior industry failings - example the Steel or Automotive industry

I mean imagine in 1930 saying US steel (then the largest company in the world) would basically be nothing 60 years later or GM in 1950 and thinking what GM would be in 2010. One thing is for sure our economy changes and is more dynamic in the last 50 years than the prior 200 combined...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 12:09 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,895,113 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post


But, is there really that much land available for development? Unless some things get bulldozed (projects), right? That is, unless you have an aerial map showing these areas that you claim.
Yes, Chicago actually does have a large amount of land, that in theory, could be developed. Most of the South-East side of the city is industrial areas that no longer serve a purpose, Parts of the near west side and west side are also largely underdeveloped. Is it as much land as Houston? No way. Is it going to be developed? Doubt it, but it does exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,807,544 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
Yes, Chicago actually does have a large amount of land, that in theory, could be developed. Most of the South-East side of the city is industrial areas that no longer serve a purpose, Parts of the near west side and west side are also largely underdeveloped. Is it as much land as Houston? No way. Is it going to be developed? Doubt it, but it does exist.
We can take cities like Sao Paulo, Hong Kong, NYC, and Chicago as examples for vertical expansion.
After having said that, density + Taller buildings = Enables more people to live within a close area of a city.
That truly is one of the greatest advantages for Chicago, the city can build up and house millions and millions of people. Look at NYC, it's home to 8 million people! And it's land area is WAYY smaller than Houston's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,513,072 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
Were we not talking about population, etc.?
I was just referring to when you said there wasn't any land to develop on in Chicago.


Quote:
But, is there really that much land available for development? Unless some things get bulldozed (projects), right? That is, unless you have an aerial map showing these areas that you claim.
There's plenty of land available for development. I can't really show any specific pictures, but go to Google Maps and check out these areas...

South of I-55 & East of I-90/I-94, all the way down to E 63rd. It's not exactly an empty field, but there are large swaths of empty lots surrounded by abandoned or near-abandoned buildings. However there are massive empty fields in South Chicago along the coast near the border of Indiana (though I'm not sure if that's apart of Chicago city-proper).

Around the United Center...then South of there, hanging to the East of W Ogden Ave to the University of Illinois-Chicago and South to W 15th St. Again, there's not tons of wide-open land. But there are plenty of project developments and abandoned buildings which would be ripe for new development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,293,464 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
South of I-55 & East of I-90/I-94, all the way down to E 63rd. It's not exactly an empty field, but there are large swaths of empty lots surrounded by abandoned or near-abandoned buildings. However there are massive empty fields in South Chicago along the coast near the border of Indiana (though I'm not sure if that's apart of Chicago city-proper).
Just a few blocks south of the Loop (chicago - Google Maps) there's a former rail yard that is slated for development when the economy turns around.

There's 500 acres on the south lakefront that used to be a huge steel mill (chicago - Google Maps) There are plans for development into an entirely new neighborhood. (Chicago, Illinois: USX South Works Redevelopment Plan)

Will it happen? Who knows. There's definitely plenty of brownfield sites which could be developed if the demand was there. Aside from these essentially blank-slate large scale projects, there's huge areas on the south and west side where every other building has been torn down. Some infill occurred during the bubble of the past few years, but there's plenty more left. Its just a matter of generating demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2010, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,513,072 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Just a few blocks south of the Loop (chicago - Google Maps) there's a former rail yard that is slated for development when the economy turns around.

There's 500 acres on the south lakefront that used to be a huge steel mill (chicago - Google Maps) There are plans for development into an entirely new neighborhood. (Chicago, Illinois: USX South Works Redevelopment Plan)

Will it happen? Who knows. There's definitely plenty of brownfield sites which could be developed if the demand was there. Aside from these essentially blank-slate large scale projects, there's huge areas on the south and west side where every other building has been torn down. Some infill occurred during the bubble of the past few years, but there's plenty more left. Its just a matter of generating demand.
Hopefully demand comes soon. It's a shame to see this area not being utilized.
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