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 05-24-2010, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,573,668 times
Reputation: 449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
You do realize that Houston is ahead of the 2010 projection by about 500,000 right? That's why the projections OmShahi posted are more correct. Basically, the 2015 projection, from what you posted, is about where Houston is at now.
It's actually slightly less than 400,000

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
DFW is the same as Houston. It reached the 2010 number two years ago. So, going by what Texas "recommends", DFW is ahead of the projection by about two years, and Houston is ahead by the "recommended" projection by about five.
Yes, Texan cities are experiencing rapid growth, but can we really expect them to grow like this forever? There's no denying Texas has had a great decade, and even century before that. But show me someone who thinks Texas will continue to grow by 20%+ for the next 20, 30, or 40 years, and I will show you an absolute moron. Cheap housing will rapidly disappear as land becomes more scarce in the metro, gas prices are going to increase no matter what, and Houston has little to no public transit to combat this issue. The same can be said for DFW. I believe we're going to stabilize in growth over this coming century. The way cities rank in 2050 is pretty much how they will stay, unless some catastrophic disaster occurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
You do realize all cities have annexed right? That's like saying NYC is at 8 million only because it annexed Brooklyn, etc., over 100 years ago. Do you hold a grudge against NYC? Houston is done annexing and is now getting denser in its city limits (with ANY kind of residential development).
I think he's trying to say they annexed differently. It doesn't make much sense, but New York annexed Brooklyn in the 1890's. Had it not, Chicago would have become the nations largest city. That's off topic. People don't hold a grudge against NYC because it's NYC. Probably the most hyped up city on this board. What NYC has going for it is that it's dense and has a colossal skyline. Houston is a sprawled out city, and even if it's becoming more dense, it's is still less dense than many other cities and their suburbs. Houston pushing 4,000 people per square mile is a step in the right direction, but it's definitely nothing to brag about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:18 PM
 
2,097 posts, read 5,872,580 times
Reputation: 918
What is the densest area of Houston? I've always wondered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,687,715 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr View Post

Yes, Texan cities are experiencing rapid growth, but can we really expect them to grow like this forever? There's no denying Texas has had a great decade, and even century before that. But show me someone who thinks Texas will continue to grow by 20%+ for the next 20, 30, or 40 years, and I will show you an absolute moron. Cheap housing will rapidly disappear as land becomes more scarce in the metro, gas prices are going to increase no matter what, and Houston has little to no public transit to combat this issue. The same can be said for DFW. I believe we're going to stabilize in growth over this coming century. The way cities rank in 2050 is pretty much how they will stay, unless some catastrophic disaster occurs.

I'd give it another 20 years before we start to slow down. However, Texas has tons of land and room to grow. Houston is beginning to build up in it's core; so I feel we can definately deal with the expected population increase.

I think he's trying to say they annexed differently. It doesn't make much sense, but New York annexed Brooklyn in the 1890's. Had it not, Chicago would have become the nations largest city. That's off topic. People don't hold a grudge against NYC because it's NYC. Probably the most hyped up city on this board. What NYC has going for it is that it's dense and has a colossal skyline. Houston is a sprawled out city, and even if it's becoming more dense, it's is still less dense than many other cities and their suburbs. Houston pushing 4,000 people per square mile is a step in the right direction, but it's definitely nothing to brag about.

High density is a negative in many people's eyes; so that's subjective. I prefer the layout of Houston more; I like my space and privacy. I'd like better transit, but my car is fine for now.
^^^^
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:24 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,838,336 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr View Post
It's actually slightly less than 400,000
No, it's actually closer to 500K. Especially if you consider the metro area is still growing, and didn't stop when they last took the estimates.

Quote:
Yes, Texan cities are experiencing rapid growth, but can we really expect them to grow like this forever? There's no denying Texas has had a great decade, and even century before that. But show me someone who thinks Texas will continue to grow by 20%+ for the next 20, 30, or 40 years, and I will show you an absolute moron. Cheap housing will rapidly disappear as land becomes more scarce in the metro, gas prices are going to increase no matter what, and Houston has little to no public transit to combat this issue. The same can be said for DFW. I believe we're going to stabilize in growth over this coming century. The way cities rank in 2050 is pretty much how they will stay, unless some catastrophic disaster occurs.
How will cheap housing rapidly disappear? Do you know how much land there is in and around these metro areas in Texas? Plenty. And Houston has mass transportation. Just not as much "rail transit", but there are so many proposals for new rail/trolley lines. Not to mention to light rail lines are under construction now, with two more starting soon. That, and Houston has an excellent Park and Ride service that trumps almost any commuter rail service in the country (by amount of riders).

We'll see some growth stabilizing in this country, but maybe not in Texas yet. A lot of people from other areas of the country continue to move here. No one can honestly say how much (or how little) Texas will grow in the next coming years. It's all opinions and based on past trends (which actually favor Texas' continued growth).

Quote:
I think he's trying to say they annexed differently. It doesn't make much sense, but New York annexed Brooklyn in the 1890's. Had it not, Chicago would have become the nations largest city. That's off topic. People don't hold a grudge against NYC because it's NYC. Probably the most hyped up city on this board. What NYC has going for it is that it's dense and has a colossal skyline. Houston is a sprawled out city, and even if it's becoming more dense, it's is still less dense than many other cities and their suburbs. Houston pushing 4,000 people per square mile is a step in the right direction, but it's definitely nothing to brag about.
But density is just something people on online forums like to brag about. The fact is, Houston is getting denser. The "real" Houston (Inner Loop), is getting MUCH denser. I'm betting if Houston's city limits were just the Inner Loop and a couple of surrounding areas, it would get more respect on these forums since it would be denser, but that's very trivial. Just because a city is sprawled out more than another does not make it less of a city. Just a different kind of city. In Houston, you can get cheap suburban living, as well as urban living, all in the city limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,687,715 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeSoHood View Post
What is the densest area of Houston? I've always wondered.
The Gulfton area. Which is over about 17k.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 11:07 PM
 
Location: At the center of the universe!
1,179 posts, read 1,757,009 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Agree comparing cities with such different sizes is apples to oranges; the cities of Chicago, SF, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore all could fit inside the Houston boundaries with room to spare
This is why I just compare metros usually. When you're talking two metro areas you're talking two pretty large areas. Chicago's land area grows exponentially when you take into account all of its many suburbs. If you compare the Chicago metro and the Houston metro now we're talking apples to apples. In this case Houston has a long way to go to catch up with Chicago.

Everybody is arguing statistics and projections in here but what really matters is Chicago and Houston are both pretty good cities. I don't care what anybody says. If you stay in each city for a while you'll find plenty of good things about both cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,438,252 times
Reputation: 1440
Houston will surpass Chicago, it had a demographic advantage in 2008:

Houston population under age 5: 8.6%
Chicago population under age 5: 7.6%

Houston population who is senior (65 and more): 9.1%
Chicago population who is senior (65 and more): 10.3%

In the future, more births for Houston and more deaths for Chicago.So Houston = winner !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,805,335 times
Reputation: 4047
I think the best thing we all can do is just sit back and watch what goes down from now on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,438,252 times
Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi View Post
I think the best thing we all can do is just sit back and watch what goes down from now on.
Or buying a Delorean
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 09:53 PM
 
Location: At the center of the universe!
1,179 posts, read 1,757,009 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
Or buying a Delorean
Back to the Future - those were pretty cool movies. The 80s was a great decade!
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. The time now is 08:25 PM.

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