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 04-12-2011, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,177,183 times
Reputation: 7598

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Social Network View Post
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.

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:

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:

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.

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.
dude, I didn't say 300k last decade, I said 200-300k per decade, which is where Houston was at. It went from 1.9M to 2.1M
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2011, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX & Miami, FL
317 posts, read 344,689 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
dude, I didn't say 300k last decade, I said 200-300k per decade, which is where Houston was at. It went from 1.9M to 2.1M
Yeah I know. Sucks how cities aren't growing that fast anymore. The next few censuses wont really be anything of a surprise, mostly suburban growth throughout the country.

Check this one other article out too, I read a post on here about how only two cities grew at a faster rate than their suburbs so I typed it in to search and found this article immediately. Seems rather informative about what's happening in the country in terms of growth.

Article via Newgeography:
Quote:
Based upon complete census counts for 2010, historical core municipalities of the nationís major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 population) captured a smaller share of growth in the 2000s than in the 1990s.

The results for the 50 metropolitan areas (New Orleans excluded due to Hurricane Katrina and Tucson unexpectedly failed to reach 1,000,000 population) indicate that historical core municipalities accounted for 9 percent of metropolitan area growth between 2000 and 2010, compared to 15 percent in the 1990-2000 period. Overall, suburban areas captured 91 percent of metropolitan area population growth between 2000 and 2010, compared to 85 percent between 1990 and 2000.

Link: Final Census Results: Core Cities Do Worse in 2000s than 1990s | Newgeography.com
Also another one from the same source.

Boston the Outlier:
Quote:
The new 2010 census results for the Boston metropolitan area show the historical core municipality, the city of Boston, increasing its population at a greater rate than that of its suburbs. Thus far, Boston is the only historical core municipality with essentially the same boundaries as in 1950 that has experienced a growth rate greater than the suburbs in the 2000 to 2010 period. Boston grew from 589,000 to 617,000, an increase of 4.8 percent. Even so, the city remained more than 20 percent below its historic peak of 801,000 in 1950. Further, even with its faster growth, the city of Boston captured only 18 percent of the metropolitan area growth between 2000 and 2010. The city of Boston contains 14 percent of the metropolitan area population.

Link: Boston: The Outlier | Newgeography.com
This census was just unlike any other before. What it showed were a few things that caught others including the US Census off guard until the results came out. They underestimated the flight to the suburbs and the drawl of suburbs over core municipalities all across the country in their estimates, they underestimated the Hispanic growth across the country, and they underestimated the rapid flight of African American individuals from Frostbelt to Sunbelt and from core cities to suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 11:45 PM
 
1,547 posts, read 2,352,610 times
Reputation: 435
I would think it would happen in next 20 years Houston is up and comming and Chicago has already had its time . Chicago will remain a strong city I think but But Houston will surpass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,069,277 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
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



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.
They are starting to build them closer in the loop though too the point where they are attached. It's not just happening in the heights either. In fact, I think this will be the way they build homes in the inner loop from now on. Call me crazy, but if they can continue to build the innerloop the way the way they are building, I think over 1 million can fit inside there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,177,183 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironcouger View Post
I would think it would happen in next 20 years Houston is up and comming and Chicago has already had its time . Chicago will remain a strong city I think but But Houston will surpass.
oh most definitely, cities that have made marks for as long as Boston and Chicago will always be strong cities
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,177,183 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Social Network View Post
Yeah I know. Sucks how cities aren't growing that fast anymore. .
ok, tell me what was wrong with my post? the figure I used was 200k which was what Houston grew by. how has your comment on my posts changed the equation?. I said if the trends continued and I used the latests numbers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX & Miami, FL
317 posts, read 344,689 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
ok, tell me what was wrong with my post? the figure I used was 200k which was what Houston grew by. how has your comment on my posts changed the equation?. I said if the trends continued and I used the latests numbers
I'm not understanding this.

Okay lets break this down in two parts then. Part I, 1960 to 2000. And part II being 2000 to 2010.

1960 to 2000: Yes Houston grew by 300,000 people every single decade besides the Oil Bust 1980's. That's numerically.

2000 to 2010: Houston only grew by 145,000 people, much less than what it normally grows by in a good and healthy decade. But what's the connection here? This decade EVERY city in America besides Oklahoma City, Providence, & Boston grew slower than the metro they are in did which includes Houston.

Reasons: There are quite a few.
- Black flight from historical metro cores to suburbs, from the Frostbelt to the Sunbelt.
- Decentralization all across the country, reflective in office space created in the last decade, more tends to be in the metro outside of the CBD than the inverse.
- Suburbs offering a "quality of life" and easy and affordable lifestyles with expanding transportation systems all across the board.
- Cities prices escalating, including Houston to where suburbs are generally better suited to handle strong growth.

My proof, here it is:



Just take a look at the rate of growth, Los Angeles is the lowest its ever been in over 100 years on growth rate with a 2.6% increase. Ignoring the 1980's Oil Bust in Houston this is the lowest (technically second lowest) rate of increase Houston has EVER seen before in its life span with a mere 7.5% increase.

Look at every city across the board on this, New York, Dallas, San Diego, San Jose, Austin, Miami, Atlanta, Tucson, and everything else and almost every single one of them will show a similar trend by rate (percentage change between the last 10 years) and then look at them numerically from the previous decade to this last decade, every single one of them added less people numerically than ever before in recent decades.

This isn't a coincidence its just the reality, the reality is that suburban areas of the country in general are greatly out pacing the core cities, which is true. Fort Bend County saw 65% growth rate, Montgomery County saw 56% growth rate, every county around Harris County saw a higher growth rate, while Harris County impressively brought in 20.7% which is great for a old and large county but not competitive enough with its suburbs.

Yes Houston will get denser with infill, by denser I mean the housing that's there now will be replaced by more compact and attached type of housing or so, more dense developments like those Spade is talking about in Inner Loop and such will take place and get rid of the lower density development, but it wont be because of rapid municipal population growth anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
420 posts, read 675,182 times
Reputation: 200
What's Boston's population, because I have a hard time believing it is 645k
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX & Miami, FL
317 posts, read 344,689 times
Reputation: 171
Houston surpassing Chicago is irrelevant, thread topics like these are about as meaningless to the real world as they can get. Fun to talk about but in no way should be able to derive the attention from the public to receive 1,880 posts, its frankly not that interesting.

Instead of topics like these I often wonder why City-Data doesn't have more threads talking about how cities are implementing how they will improve quality of life, transportation, new greenbelts, new park space, new housing, new entertainment areas, new nightlife areas, new developments, or anything cool really. I look forward to learning about new areas and to share about my own but there isn't really an addressed thread ever for those purposes.

Houston City Council views "the city of Houston" this way:


Myself? I am inclined to agree with them, however will say that the Southwest side outside of Beltway 8 is anything but rural and mostly suburban though but concur that most areas outside of Beltway 8 on East, Southeast, Northeast, and Northwest sides of Houston are fairly rural or such with forests all over. Also concur that whatever "urbanesque" grounds in Houston are in the Loop 610 and West, Southwest, and near South from there and that land in between Loop 610 and Beltway 8 are predominantly suburban.

Also the new maps are out for 2010 by Eric Fischer:

United States:

All sizes | Contiguous United States, Census 2010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5557821892/sizes/o/in/set-72157626354149574/ - broken link)

Houston:

All sizes | Race and ethnicity 2010: Houston | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560487046/sizes/o/in/set-72157626354149574/ - broken link)

Chicago:

All sizes | Race and ethnicity 2010: Chicago | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5560488484/sizes/o/in/set-72157626354149574/ - broken link)

Tell you what though, its evident that while Houston isn't as dense as Chicago but it does have a better proportion in diversity, look at all the nifty colors in Houston and the integration is the best aspect of it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
4,028 posts, read 6,399,334 times
Reputation: 1305
People go on and on about Chicago being segregated and what that means for each race. People seem to forget that it's human nature to want to be by people like you.

It is known that minorities such as blacks, even when they do have money, tend to stay in Southern Chicagoland.
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