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, 08:05 PM
 
Location: NY/FL
818 posts, read 1,151,723 times
Reputation: 421

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I actually think the decline is over now.
Cant be to sure, I'm not black and never lived in Chicago so I dont know the reason to why blacks are moving out of the city in droves apparently 200K blacks have in the last 10 years which is sad to see but makes one wonder what the reasons for it being are? IMO I agree Chicago's decline is in the process of slowing down and I cant see the black population in Chicago proper ever decline to less than 500K but these trends are horrific for any demographic to be leaving in droves to the extent they have in Chicago and NYC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Funky Town, Texas
4,137 posts, read 7,200,665 times
Reputation: 2152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
kdogg is at Texas A&M. They have the good stuff over there, compared to the PV dirt stuff.
I am miserable at the moment writing this 30 page paper. I would prefer with my current state of mind PV dirt stuff over A&M good stuff. Aggieland is making a brother earn his degree.

My apologies this good stuff got a negro in a daze... Houston can hold easily 500,000 more people with 587 square miles and tons of undeveloped land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:37 PM
 
163 posts, read 167,101 times
Reputation: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
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?
Being dense has a lot to do with it (and I'm not talking about preference in lifestyle). If people are moving to Houston in droves then obviously Houston will become more dense (even with all the extra space). More density means more demands in housing which means higher housing costs. If people are moving south because of cost of living and that cost of living becomes more expensive (hence, less attractive), then population patterns will reverse. If Chicago is "emptying out", then housing prices go down and thus we are back at square one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 09:08 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,849,231 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by nap1313 View Post
Being dense has a lot to do with it (and I'm not talking about preference in lifestyle). If people are moving to Houston in droves then obviously Houston will become more dense (even with all the extra space). More density means more demands in housing which means higher housing costs. If people are moving south because of cost of living and that cost of living becomes more expensive (hence, less attractive), then population patterns will reverse. If Chicago is "emptying out", then housing prices go down and thus we are back at square one.
But the thing is, Houston can provide both. The Inner Loop and areas near it can provide the more urban type living, while outside of the Loop, Houston can offer typical family suburban neighborhoods, like you would see in Naperville, Illinois. Both areas being much cheaper than what you would find in Chicago's equivalent. That's why I believe this density thing is so overrated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:01 PM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,208,951 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713 View Post
But the thing is, Houston can provide both. The Inner Loop and areas near it can provide the more urban type living, while outside of the Loop, Houston can offer typical family suburban neighborhoods, like you would see in Naperville, Illinois. Both areas being much cheaper than what you would find in Chicago's equivalent. That's why I believe this density thing is so overrated.
I think that is exactly the thing, why Houston many times takes heat for it's so-called "City". Naperville and Jimmy Chins is not and no one would confuse this as the city, it is the suburbs. All Cities have places exactly like this called suburbs. And you hit the nail on the head, the true urban parts of houston are in or very close to the Loop, so ~600K people today live in what is the urban core of Houston and not 2.2 million; the vast majority of which are really in what for all intents and puposes are suburban development. So yes technically they are in the municipality but lose trememdous credibility when touted as an urban enclave even remotely approaching the urban (non suburban) population of a city like Chicago. I think many people, myself included look at this and just say well this doesnt make sense, like Houston is able to justify an huge boundaried mostly suburban developed area and to me it almost like the audacity to say the urban developed (specify non suburban style) area is even REMOTELY close to Chicago, yes technically it is and will likely pass Chicago one day (and only because of the huge land boundary) - it is just lunacy to me. Houston is a large city and a very large Metro but honestly scratch the suburban devloped areas it pales in contrast to urban Chicago. And when people from Houston make claims that it is all developed or make claims that as a city (again please do not include one spec of suburban developed area in the argument) it is comparable to Chicago in developed space, well you all lose a lot of credibility, Accept that it is a mostly suburban area that just happens to have huge boundaries and even when it passes Chicago it honestly will really not be an impressive feat. the growth of the metrro and economy is very impressive but sporadically developed mostly suburban Houson city with a population larger than Chicago to me is really kind of laughable, honeslty.

on Urban (non suburban developed population) it is what 2.6 million to 600K, yep pretty close

FWIW I do think houston will infill in the core and grow as urban center, and to me the CITY part continues to get better every year.

Ok said my peace for the night


Maybe some other folks can go back to discussion of lawn cutting of their lawns (another thing to me, city area houses do not have lawns, at least not the size that require even a second of discusion) in Houston city

Last edited by kidphilly; 04-12-2011 at 10:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599
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.
If the growth pattern changes in 30 or even 20 years it would be too late by then. The current pattern is about a 200K loss for Chicago and a 200-300k Gain for Houston. So there is a 400to 500k swing each decade.

keeping on the conservative side of 400k a decade, the pattern will have to change BEFORE 15 years or else Chicago will be passed. 3 years is overkill. Keeping the current pattern for 30years puts Houston at about 2.8M and Chicago at about 2M (about where they were in 2000 but switched)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599
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.
They have been saying Houston Prices will rise with demand for decades now. Besides, I would still take Houston. The winters in Chitown are too harsh for me

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
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.
You obviously don't know Houston. Houston has been tearing down houses to build highways for almost a hundred years now. and It is not as costly as you think. Houston's houses are not built that close together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX & Miami, FL
317 posts, read 345,211 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
If the growth pattern changes in 30 or even 20 years it would be too late by then. The current pattern is about a 200K loss for Chicago and a 200-300k Gain for Houston. So there is a 400to 500k swing each decade.

keeping on the conservative side of 400k a decade, the pattern will have to change BEFORE 15 years or else Chicago will be passed. 3 years is overkill. Keeping the current pattern for 30years puts Houston at about 2.8M and Chicago at about 2M (about where they were in 2000 but switched)
Houston isn't growing by 300,000 people a decade and it most certainly didn't last decade and probably wont again in the future and no the "census challenge" wont give Houston anything more than a drop in the bucket number of people. If it does win, how much you want to bet that Houston will only get a few hundred to a few thousand people out of it, no more than 25,000 at the most?

Whatever the case unless Chicago losses 450,000 people next decade and Houston gains 160,000 next decade there is no way Houston will surpass Chicago by 2020 because Chicago wont be losing 450,000 next decade and never has before.

Houston's great but lets be real, it will eventually surpass Chicago in "city proper" population but it wont be for another 20 years or so granted if Chicago doesn't reverse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Social Network View Post
Houston isn't growing by 300,000 people a decade and it most certainly didn't last decade and probably wont again in the future and no the "census challenge" wont give Houston anything more than a drop in the bucket number of people. If it does win, how much you want to bet that Houston will only get a few hundred to a few thousand people out of it, no more than 25,000 at the most?


.
are you just going around pointing out things in my posts but with misinformed ideas?

Houston grew by 300K 4 out of the last 6 decades and by 200K two out of the last 6. They are challenging the last census claiming another 155K so it may turn out that the last decade was another 350Ker for Houston.I never said anything about next decade so I don't know why you are pointing that out to me. Know the facts before you go around challenging people's posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX & Miami, FL
317 posts, read 345,211 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
are you just going around pointing out things in my posts but with misinformed ideas?
No but I think you're taking my posts offensively when I don't mean it to be. I apologize yet again for any inconveniences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Houston grew by 300K 4 out of the last 6 decades and by 200K two out of the last 6.
I know Houston gained 300,000 people from the 1950's or 1960's to 2000 for every decade besides the 1980's. I'm well aware of that however it did not from 2000 to 2010.

Look at this from Houston Tomorrow's website, every city around the country grew less, you can even check that on Wikipedia when you click on the city's demographics section with their new 2010 population numbers in the chart it will show you every city across the board has half or just a little over half the rate of increase from the previous decade.

Hispanic & Asian Growth keeps some cities from shrinking, including Houston:
Quote:
ike more than half of the United States’ 100 largest cities, the City of Houston’s growth in the last decade relied on Hispanics and Asians. The City of Houston Anglo and African-American populations both declined between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census, a pattern seen in many places according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

According to recent census data, Hispanics accounted for the population growth of Philadelphia, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Omaha and Atlanta. Asians boosted the count in Anaheim, Calif.; Fort Wayne, Ind.; Baton Rouge; and Jersey City. Without influx from the two groups, all of those cities would have shrunk.

Link: Hispanic, Asian growth keep some cities from shrinking - Houston Tomorrow
Unlike the previous decades before, every city's growth has come to a remarkable slow down compared to their suburbs. Cities all across the country are now experiencing what many describe as "black flight" from the cities to the suburbs and from the Frostbelt to the Sunbelt.

As for the census challenge, I would love for Houston to gain 155,000 out of the win but it wont it seems like because the hick of an attorney that the city of Houston hired ONLY wants to stop at Houston gaining 520 new people max just so that way the redistricting goes smoothly:
Quote:
The addition of two new single-member districts, Districts J and K, was required by the city charter in 1979 as soon as the population reached that number. But Mayor Parker's plans to continue with the redistricting were challenged when 2010 census data marked the official number of inhabitants in Houston at 2,099,451 million, a little over 500 people short of the expansion requirement.

During a special session called on Tuesday, council members debated fiercely over what data could legally be used to justify finding more or less than the 2.1 million people. Redistricting consultant Jerry Wood testified that census data contained errors in drawing the boundaries of the city. When the census numbers were adjusted with the neighborhoods in question included, the population figure would exceed 2.1 million — by about 17, Wood said.

Link: It's a go for two new Houston city council districts - 2011-Mar-09 - CultureMap Houston
That's ALL the city of Houston seems to want, just 17 people more than 2.1 Million. It's no ones fault but if you're really waiting for something great to happen like Houston gaining 155,000 or even more than 40,000 from this census challenge you will be disappointed I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
They are challenging the last census claiming another 155K so it may turn out that the last decade was another 350Ker for Houston.I never said anything about next decade so I don't know why you are pointing that out to me. Know the facts before you go around challenging people's posts.
Read the question on the poll itself where you vote, I voted yes because Houston WILL surpass Chicago eventually. But read the question on the poll, it asks for 2020 and anyone knows it wont happen by 2020 unless Chicago losses 450,000 people minimum or Houston speeds up gaining population which most of us can put some thought on and say that neither are happening in the next 10 years I believe. Both of which wont happen, for Chicago hopefully a good thing to reverse population decline and grow again one day (I hope) and for Houston I fear it along with the rest of the United States is seeing suburbs grow faster than the city now.

I looked up the facts by the way, I just linked you to two articles on the facts, I don't mean any harm here but Houston isn't an aggressive city. It should be going for the full 155,000 people miscounted but the hick they hired only wants 520 people at most just to meet the target amount of "2.1 Million".

But at least Houston's politicians are thinking more about their city than Chicago's at this point, Chicago hasn't even shown a sign of suspecting that the census figures could be off. The city seems to be "content" with the decline like its no big deal. Whatever I guess.
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 08:39 AM.

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