U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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 473 41.35%
No 671 58.65%
Voters: 1144. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 08-09-2015, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Houston
152 posts, read 114,979 times
Reputation: 136

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
I actually wish Houston was the 95 sq mile inner loop with a little bit outside of it. The rest of the city outside of the loop will not even have a chance to create a vibrant urban area ever because they have always been suburbs. When I say suburbs, I mean post world war 2 suburbs, not the streetcar suburbs like Houston Heights. The population would drop as well as the artificial status as being the "4th" largest city. But it would be a much better city.
How would it be better? When did a higher population density become better? Who wants to live right on top of their neighbors? People here tend to make fun of "McMansions" as I believe it has been called; but I prefer my nice roomy house in my nice spread out neighbor hood. Who wouldn't?

For the poll, I think Houston will pass Chicago up, just probably not before the end of the decade. If oil declines, Houston will not be another Detroit/Cleveland/Chicago. If the fields of oil, medical, and shipping go away, then Houston will suffer but i don't see two of those going away anytime soon.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2015, 03:47 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,669,821 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamo fan View Post
How would it be better? When did a higher population density become better? Who wants to live right on top of their neighbors? People here tend to make fun of "McMansions" as I believe it has been called; but I prefer my nice roomy house in my nice spread out neighbor hood. Who wouldn't?
Plenty of people don't prefer McMansions out in the sticks. You do realize that basically all the most desirable places on earth are fairly dense and urban, right? Even in Houston, the highest priced areas are very close to downtown.

The issue in certain U.S. cities is that there's no "there" there. There are no dense, urban neighborhoods. These cities could grow to 20 million and they still wouldn't be real cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Houston
152 posts, read 114,979 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Plenty of people don't prefer McMansions out in the sticks. You do realize that basically all the most desirable places on earth are fairly dense and urban, right?
No, I don't get it at all. What I do know that the richest people world over own real estate in downtown cities as part of necessity, but also own large spacious houses in the country as a place to get away.

I don't get the allure of urban density and all, especially the issues that come with it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Houston
152 posts, read 114,979 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post

The issue in certain U.S. cities is that there's no "there" there. There are no dense, urban neighborhoods. These cities could grow to 20 million and they still wouldn't be real cities.
That's preposterous. Does a city not count as a city if you aren't paying too much for a cramped apartment, can't hear your neighbor's music, or aren't accosted by the homeless on your way home from gullibly paying $5.00 for a cup of coffee?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,211 posts, read 25,902,249 times
Reputation: 8963
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamo fan View Post
How would it be better? When did a higher population density become better? Who wants to live right on top of their neighbors? People here tend to make fun of "McMansions" as I believe it has been called; but I prefer my nice roomy house in my nice spread out neighbor hood. Who wouldn't?

For the poll, I think Houston will pass Chicago up, just probably not before the end of the decade. If oil declines, Houston will not be another Detroit/Cleveland/Chicago. If the fields of oil, medical, and shipping go away, then Houston will suffer but i don't see two of those going away anytime soon.
Well you prefer a suburb. Most people when they visit a city are looking for an urban vibrant dense city. It would be a more cohesive, well managed, easily maintainable city. Something the majority of Houston will never have a chance to build up to. As of right now, Houston has the density of Schaumburg than it does the actual city of Chicago. Just be glad that Chicago isn't 599 sq miles itself because if it was, Houston would NEVER pass Chicago in population.

Quote:
I don't get the allure of urban density and all, especially the issues that come with it.
I don't get the allure of the suburbs and sprawl. Same random crap just about anywhere you can go in this country. Most of the best cities in this country itself are urban and dense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Houston
152 posts, read 114,979 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Just be glad that Chicago isn't 599 sq miles itself because if it was, Houston would NEVER pass Chicago in population.
I mis represented myself somehow. I don't care if Houston ever passes Chicago. I'd just assume it stopped growing. I'd rather keep the few forested areas we still have left. I see houses and construction going up all over this town and I don't like it. To answer the question at hand I do think it will pass the city of Chicago. I also think in several decades it will pass the metro as well. Probably not before DFW does though.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 07:53 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,310,375 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by diet1 View Post
In the 50's Chicago had over 3,698,962 residents, however today is short by about a million residents, on top of that Chicago has been losing population continuously for decades, luckily last year it managed to gain 82 residents. Chicago has been suffering from a massive outflow of its native population that has been replaced by poor third world immigrants, they are hard working by the way.

You say that "Chicago is a mature city and all the land has been utilized" that does not make any sense, the real story is that new houses are not going up and lots of older houses got bulldozed.
Just for the record.... Check out some WORLD Renowned cities LOSING POPULATION TOO.
International: Cities with Declining Population Ranked by Annual Loss Rate.
PARIS, Berlin, Athens, Barcelona, Belfast, Marseille, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zürich, Madrid, Tokyo.
Toronto should not be on the list any longer. Its growing NOW Hugely. Surpassing Chicago proper in 2013. Its population is wrong. It's in the millions. PARIS is still losing population. DO WE CALL IT A HAS BEEN CITY?

Again the SOUTHSIDE of Chicago had the WORST BLIGHT REMOVED. Sadly Housing much GREAT ONCE was lost. The 60s was not kind to northern cities. BUT MANY SOUTHSIDE AREAS ARE STILL VIBRANT. Blight removed means cleared land can get NEW INFILL slowly now.... But ready in the future.

By Mature city it means. BUILT UP AND IS AS LARGE IN LAND AS IT WILL GET. THE NEWEST AREAS OF THE CITY BUILT FROM SCRATCH WAS LATE 50s early 60s. Basically for NEW.....GENERALLY SOMETHING ALREADY THERE HAD TO BE REMOVED. You can travel ALL the NORTHSIDE and there is NO LAND LEFT TO BUILD A WHOLE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD.

It is INFILL AND RESTORATION, GENTRIFICATION. Of course some new developments from removed former industry might be had? But its miles of blocks of MOST OF THE CITY ALREADY BUILT.

My streetview360° were given for example. The VIBRANT parts of the Southside remain that. Virtually ALL the NORTHSIDE remained intact. Some oldest neighborhoods around Downtown have GENTRIFIED NICELY . That is OVER 100 year old housing IS REVIVED FOR AND BY ALL THE NEW YOUNG URBAN PROFESSIONALS THAT MOVED IN. Some were originally Ethnic European neighborhoods then Latino with larger families. Then YUPPIES. They have the money and restore the GREAT OLD HOUSING THERE.

THESE ARE NOT NEW HOMES BUT If counted the NUMBERS for Chicago goes up if under NEW HOUSING. The city UTILIZED UNIFIED STREET GRIDS AND NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING LAY-OUT ON STANDARD CITY LOTS. SOME NIEGHBORHOODS had somewhat larger lots. Not much more. Some more set-backs.

You DO NOT SEE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NO SIDEWALKS OR CURBING. HOUSING WILL ALL HAVE STANDARD SET-BACKS AS THE CITY REQUIRED. You can go through STREETVIEWS of ANY CITY NEIGHBORHOOD. No matter the ERA OR HOUSING BUILT OR STYLES AND VARIETIES.

All housing will be UNIFORM From the street
Standard UNIFORM set-backs with GREEN SPACE
But for the LAST PUSH of the city NEWLY BUILT NEIGHBORHOODS TO DRIVEWAYS TO GARAGES instead of alleys. A FULL ALLEYWAY SYSTEM WAS STANDARD IN CHICAGO.
The CITY WISELY PLACED THE POWER-LINES and POLES. Down ALL THE ALLEYS. THE FRONTS THEN REMAIN FREE FROM UGLY POLLS.

Example alley STANDARD. The Trash Cans ARE CITY FURNISHED. MOST CHOSE A GARAGE. Even in neighborhoods early 1900s could later add them. But SMALLER BACK YARDS THEN RESULTED.

This streetview shows A STANDARD BACK YARD AND ALLEY. OLDER BUNGALOW BELT NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT IN THE 1920s. Ugly power-lines and poles in the alleys.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9498...7i13312!8i6656

This is the FRONTS. All standard set-backs no HAPHAZARD BUILDING. If a new home replaces a old one? It too MUST follow the set-back.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9503...7i13312!8i6656

The INTERSECTION. NOTICE FULL SIDEWALKS. ALL HAVE A STANDARD FRONT LAWN. BY CITY ZONING AND DESIGN FOLLOWED IN ALL ERAS.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9505...7i13312!8i6656

LOVELY OLD COTTAGE WOOD-FRAME HOMES. 1900 ERA. STANDARD CITY LOTS AND SET-BACKS REQUIRED EVEN THEN. ALLEYS HAVE THE POWER-LINES.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9693...7i13312!8i6656

Got to do A COUPLE PICTURES Every neighborhood is
Green and plenty of trees. Huge ones. CHICAGO'S SKYLINE IN EACH PICTURE

..Neighborhood with.OVER CHICAGO.Chicago's Downtown
WrigleyField on left..LOTS OF TREES..over Lincoln Park
Attached Thumbnails
Will houston surpass chicago as the third largest city-chicago-neighborhood-wrigley-field-.jpg   Will houston surpass chicago as the third largest city-chicago-lots-trees-.jpg   Will houston surpass chicago as the third largest city-chicago-gold-coast-downtown-__.jpg  

Last edited by steeps; 08-09-2015 at 09:09 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 08:56 PM
 
2,470 posts, read 1,996,536 times
Reputation: 1669
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps View Post
Just for the record.... Check out some WORLD Renowned cities LOSING POPULATION TOO.
International: Cities with Declining Population Ranked by Annual Loss Rate.
PARIS, Berlin, Athens, Barcelona, Belfast, Marseille, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zürich, Madrid, Tokyo.
Toronto should not be on the list any longer. Its growing NOW Hugely. Surpassing Chicago proper in 2013. Its population is wrong. It's in the millions. PARIS is still losing population. DO WE CALL IT A HAS BEEN CITY?

Again the SOUTHSIDE of Chicago had the WORST BLIGHT REMOVED. Sadly Housing much GREAT ONCE was lost. The 60s was not kind to northern cities. BUT MANY SOUTHSIDE AREAS ARE STILL VIBRANT. Blight removed means cleared land can get NEW INFILL.

By Mature city it means. BUILT UP AND IS AS LARGE IN LAND AS IT WILL GET. THE NEWEST AREAS OF THE CITY BUILT FROM SCRATCH WAS LATE 50s early 60s. Basically for NEW GENERALLY SOMETHING ALREADY THERE HAD TO BE REMOVED. You can travel ALL the NORTHSIDE and there is NO LAND LEFT TO BUILD A WHOLE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD.

It is INFILL AND RESTORATION, GENTRIFICATION. Of course some new developments from removed former industry might be had? But its miles of blocks of MOST OF THE CITY ALREADY BUILT.

My streetview360° were given for example. The VIBRANT parts of the Southside remain that. Virtually ALL the NORTHSIDE remained intact. Some oldest neighborhoods around Downtown have GENTRIFIED NICELY . That is OVER 100 year old housing IS REVIVED FOR AND BY ALL THE NEW YOUNG URBAN PROFESSIONALS THAT MOVED IN. Some were originally Ethnic European neighborhoods then Latino with larger families. Then YUPPIES. They have the money and restore the GREAT OLD HOUSING THERE.

THESE ARE NOT NEW HOMES BUT If counted the NUMBERS for Chicago goes up if under NEW HOUSING. The city UTILIZED UNIFIED STREET GRIDS AND NEIGHBIRHOOD HOUSING LAY OUT ON STANDARD CITY LOTS. SOME NIEGHBORHOODS had somewhat larger lots.

You DO NOT SEE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NO SIDEWALKS OR CURBING. HOUSING WILL ALL HAVE STANDARD SET-BACKS AS THE CITY REQUIRED. You can go through STREETVIEWS of ANY CITY NEIGHBORHOOD. No matter the ERA OR HOUSING BUILT OR STYLES AND VARIETIES.

All housing will be UNIFORM
Standard set-backs with GREEN SPACE
But for the LAST PUSH of the city NEWLY BUILT NEIGHBORHOODS. A FULL ALLEYWAY SYSTEM WAS STANDARD.
The city WISELY PLACED THE POWER-LINES and POLES. Down ALL THE ALLEYS. THE FRONTS THEN REMAIN FREE FROM UGLY POLLS.

Example alley STANDARD. The Trash Cans ARE CITY FURNISHED. MOST CHOSE A GARAGE. Even in neighborhoods early 1900s could later add them. But SMALLER BACK YARDS THEN RESULTED.

This streetview shows A STANDARD BACK YARD AND ALLEY. OLDER BUNGALOW BELT NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT IN THE 1920s. Ugly power-lines and poles in the alleys.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9498...7i13312!8i6656

This is the FRONTS. All standard set-backs no HAPHAZARD BUILDING. If a new home replaces a old one? It too MUST follow the set-back.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9503...7i13312!8i6656

The INTERSECTION. NOTICE FULL SIDEWALKS. ALL HAVE A STANDARD FRONT LAWN. BY CITY ZONING AND DESIGN FOLLOWED IN ALL ERAS.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9505...7i13312!8i6656

LOVELY OLD COTTAGE WOOD-FRAME HOMES. 1900 ERA. STANDARD CITY LOTS AND SET-BACKS REQUIRED EVEN THEN. ALLEYS HAVE THE POWER-LINES.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9693...7i13312!8i6656

Got to do A COUPLE PICTURES Every neighborhood is Green and plenty of trees. Huge ones even.
..Neighborhood with... ..OVER CHICAGO
Wrigley Field on left..Trees over House tops !
For once I agree with everything you say about Chicago (maybe tone down a little on the CAPS...) And by all fair measures, I personally think Chicago is quite an amazing city. Houston may surpass Chicago for population one of these days, but I think Chicago will always be among the top 3 established urban metropolises in America. No offense to Houston, but I just don't get how a city without even a legit rapid transit line can claim to be a top 3 city in the country (and Houston MetroRail, while commendable, is by no means rapid transit in the sense that rapid transit operates strictly on exclusive right of way, like Chicago's L trains or Boston's MBTA subways). I've lived in highly urban environments all my life, and I'd like to stress that this is just my personal opinion of what a top city should possess. Of course different folks can have different standards for what they constitute as a real city.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 10:12 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,669,821 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamo fan View Post
No, I don't get it at all. What I do know that the richest people world over own real estate in downtown cities as part of necessity, but also own large spacious houses in the country as a place to get away.
Why would rich people own real estate in urban centers "out of necessity"? That makes no sense.

They obviously prefer to be in urban centers, or the most expensive real estate wouldn't be in these city centers. No one has to live anywhere. There is nothing forcing anyone to live in such places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamo fan View Post
I don't get the allure of urban density and all, especially the issues that come with it.
Issues like vibrancy, culture, diversity, and tons of things to do? Lots of people prefer the opera and great restaurants and live music over watching Jerry Springer, visiting the nearest WalMart and watching the grass grow.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 10:13 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,669,821 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamo fan View Post
That's preposterous. Does a city not count as a city if you aren't paying too much for a cramped apartment, can't hear your neighbor's music, or aren't accosted by the homeless on your way home from gullibly paying $5.00 for a cup of coffee?
There is no such city that I'm aware of that fits your wacky scenario.
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.


 
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.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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