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 41.55%
No 692 58.45%
Voters: 1184. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2011, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,184,194 times
Reputation: 7598

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Exactly, more sprawl developments and worse traffic. I already hate driving here, it'll be even worse. Those rail lines won't do much I fear.
No other metro grew more than Houston this passed decade, and with all that grow Houston was one of the few major metros to actually improve its traffic problems. Houston went from being the number one city for worst traffic in 1985 to number 12 by 2007
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2011, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Dallas,Texas
5,497 posts, read 7,581,067 times
Reputation: 2351
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I was speaking to the people talking about lack of infrastructure. If they look at Houston the lack of infrastructure should be the last thing coming from their mouths
Oh............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:05 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,841,215 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
wow, looking at that map tells me it will me take a whole lot of people to get Houston to run out of space
And that map is just for Houston and its ETJ. Doesn't include the suburbs and their ETJs... We got a lot of space here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,184,194 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
And that map is just for Houston and its ETJ. Doesn't include the suburbs and their ETJs... We got a lot of space here.
tell me about it. I live on the SE side of Town. Across the highway from me, census tracts have been increasing by 100-600%

Plus there are so many alternatives. 288 was supposed to be on Almeda/521. They can alter this a little and put some rail lines on Almeda and improve some of the existing road ways so that the traffic between the med Center and Pearland won't be so bad. You know the beauty of this? There aint ***** on Almeda between Pearland and 610 so homes and business won't have to be moved like when 288 was being built.

So between an improved Almeda and 288 the parts of Houston between 610 and beltway 8 can easily accommodate hundreds of thousands of additional people
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,144,915 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by HUM398 View Post
what?

Current trends show Chicago losing population, and houston gaining. at one point, the houston growth will intersect the chicago decline...and that will result in a change of 3rd to 4th for Chicago.
That would be true if the growth and decline, respectively, were linear, but they aren't.....I GUARANTEE it. Mark my words, the growth patterns WILL change over the next 10, 20 and 30 years! A reach....I know, I'm a risk taker.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,144,915 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
are you serious? You don't think Houston has the infrastructure to house 500K more people?? I want some of whatever it is you PV guys smoke
I would be willing to say that Houston will NOT surpass Chicago anytime in the next 20 or 30 years. Think about it. If you could live in either city, and Chicago is much more dense, and hence closer to downtown/attractions, and Houston prices will rise with demand, Chicago's will fall with decline,......where would most people choose to live? There are too many factors to consider to just assume growth rates will stay the same -- they won't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,144,915 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
a lot of which is undeveloped. I never under stand why they are stuck on infrastructure? If you need more infrastructure and you are already built out well then tear down existing ones and build new ones. But that is a really stupid comment to begin with talking about Houston. One look at the city and room for infrastructure should be the last thing coming from your mouth. Basically 75% of the city is undeveloped or under developed.
Hahahaha! Look at this guy, he has all the answers! Are you talking about Eminent Domain? Tearing down ANYTHING for the publics' "benefit" is a very costly litigation to pursue, and imagine if what was torn down were affordable or low-income homes? I can see the riots now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:00 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,841,215 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I would be willing to say that Houston will NOT surpass Chicago anytime in the next 20 or 30 years. Think about it. If you could live in either city, and Chicago is much more dense, and hence closer to downtown/attractions, and Houston prices will rise with demand, Chicago's will fall with decline,......where would most people choose to live? There are too many factors to consider to just assume growth rates will stay the same -- they won't.
Looking at trends from the past forty years, I don't see why Houston won't pass Chicago in at least 30, if not much sooner than that. Being dense has nothing to do with it, by the way. That is so overrated on here. Not sure why you think that would all of a sudden change. Do you have anything to back that up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:01 PM
 
Location: NY/FL
818 posts, read 1,150,860 times
Reputation: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
That would be true if the growth and decline, respectively, were linear, but they aren't.....I GUARANTEE it. Mark my words, the growth patterns WILL change over the next 10, 20 and 30 years! A reach....I know, I'm a risk taker.
City of Chicago is only losing black residents in excess numbers, Hispanics and Asian population are growing while Anglo population is stable to minor decline. The only reason Chicago lost population in the census was due to excessive loss of black population to the suburbs or out of the state entirely. Chicago's black population today stands in 800K and pretend the trend continues which IMO it will as it has in every city for decades now it shows Chicago's population will never get lower than 2 million so long as Hispanics and Asians increase and Anglo's stay intact and continue reversing out migration trends.

Houston will surpass Chicago in 20-30 years in population but I suspect Houston's growth to slow down as all cities with exception to Boston and OKC have in the 2010 census shown municipal growth slowdowns in contrast to suburbs picking up.

IMO Chicago has maybe 1 or 2 more decades of population loss left and then it will be fully reversed for population gains thereafter. US2010
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,144,915 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous Past View Post
City of Chicago is only losing black residents in excess numbers, Hispanics and Asian population are growing while Anglo population is stable to minor decline. The only reason Chicago lost population in the census was due to excessive loss of black population to the suburbs or out of the state entirely. Chicago's black population today stands in 800K and pretend the trend continues which IMO it will as it has in every city for decades now it shows Chicago's population will never get lower than 2 million so long as Hispanics and Asians increase and Anglo's stay intact and continue reversing out migration trends.

IMO Chicago has maybe 1 or 2 more decades of population loss left and then it will be fully reversed for population gains thereafter. US2010
I actually think the decline is over 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. The time now is 05:06 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