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 488 41.46%
No 689 58.54%
Voters: 1177. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2019, 09:12 AM
 
488 posts, read 206,784 times
Reputation: 309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
I can put my spin on that. Because now there is a definite "boom" going on in central Chicago (the Loop and the outlying portions of downtown). It is probably the biggest building boom in heart of the city in history (or at least one of them). The number of huge projects is off the charts; the number that are above 900 ft. appreciable. The number of them that are literally "large scale" is kind of mind boggling.

I don't see mature cities having a boom in population. And if you look at population for Chicago and for Chicagoland, you will see that Chicagoland's population grew and grew, even as Chicago was slipping in population.

What people don't get about Chicago is that while the city is losing many of its poorer citizens, the number of those with upper middle to upper incomes is growing.

We place far too importance to population of our cities and we seem wed to think that if population goes up, that's automatically good and if it goes down, automatically bad. It doesn't work that way. Two of our nation's most prominent, high powered cities have less than a million people: San Francisco and Boston.
A cities influence over a region has more to do with its urban core, urban area etc...population as it pertains to cities is entirely misleading..as is the case with Boston, San Fran and dc....Houston could annex another few neighboring suburbs (of which it already includes way too many) and pass Chicago’s population tomorrow..doesn’t make it a better city
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2019, 09:26 AM
 
282 posts, read 133,069 times
Reputation: 174
Eventually, but not by 2020.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:52 PM
 
324 posts, read 72,548 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa View Post
Climate change is more extremes and some get wetter, drier, more big swings or moderate. Se see more if that. Time ill tell if it becomes more the new normal.

Seems it's more likely Texas becomes drier if hotter over more tropical. Aging time will tell if so or hoax.
Exactly, the predictions are a change of averages, where the "extremes" become the new normal. These predictions cover large regional territories, ranging from a few states to the entire Earth. So while the large scale view would show one scenario on average, further details on the smaller scale could easily be present. The averages are also annual-based, so that too can harbor differences on a season-to-season basis.

There are many theories showing drier and hotter overall for Texas, but again, that's just the overall average trend across the state. Therefore, not everywhere in the state would necessarily follow that exact trend in concert. Houston and the Gulf Coast could easily become tropical rainy areas, while the rest of the state turns into desert. Anything that happens depends on what exactly changes with the wind belts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa View Post
Chicago never will need to worry about water. Ni matter what climate change might alter. But it reasons warmer and drier too. Lake Michigan will not dry up. It dies fall and rise a couple feet decades to decade. That is its cycle ands Lake Hour in and Lake Michigan match levels as one rises and drops. Technically like one lake but clearly two for what we see.
There have been suggestions that the Desert SW could start piping water from the Great Lakes in the future. If that happens, then that would cause more immediate issues with the water than with climate change in and of itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 02:02 PM
 
324 posts, read 72,548 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
We place far too importance to population of our cities and we seem wed to think that if population goes up, that's automatically good and if it goes down, automatically bad. It doesn't work that way. Two of our nation's most prominent, high powered cities have less than a million people: San Francisco and Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne999 View Post
A cities influence over a region has more to do with its urban core, urban area etc...population as it pertains to cities is entirely misleading..as is the case with Boston, San Fran and dc....Houston could annex another few neighboring suburbs (of which it already includes way too many) and pass Chicago’s population tomorrow..doesn’t make it a better city
It's just a matter of knowing how to look beyond the surface level. It's the same issue with the climate change debate. You've got to analyze the methodology of these studies, and look at the components, rather than just taking overall results at face value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 02:27 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 831,497 times
Reputation: 2306
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe View Post
Exactly, the predictions are a change of averages, where the "extremes" become the new normal. These predictions cover large regional territories, ranging from a few states to the entire Earth. So while the large scale view would show one scenario on average, further details on the smaller scale could easily be present. The averages are also annual-based, so that too can harbor differences on a season-to-season basis.

There are many theories showing drier and hotter overall for Texas, but again, that's just the overall average trend across the state. Therefore, not everywhere in the state would necessarily follow that exact trend in concert. Houston and the Gulf Coast could easily become tropical rainy areas, while the rest of the state turns into desert. Anything that happens depends on what exactly changes with the wind belts.



There have been suggestions that the Desert SW could start piping water from the Great Lakes in the future. If that happens, then that would cause more immediate issues with the water than with climate change in and of itself.
Won't be piping water from the Great Lakes...there is a treaty preventing that...with Canada, as well. Great Lakes water stays in the Great Lakes Region. And, that's why I won't purchase property in Arizona.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,576 posts, read 18,438,379 times
Reputation: 6562
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
................................................[SIZE="5"]1970[/SIZE].................................................. ............................................[SIZE="5"]2017[/SIZE]

source: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news...aign=Web-Share


Here is a map of the super rich and super poor sprawl that has taken place in Chicago represented by dark blue. Notice how middle income (cream color) has been replaced by very low income (dark orange)
Change in Total Households, 2010 to 2017, by city
Houston: +74,192 total households
Chicago: +13,767 total households

Percentage of Total Households making $100K+ in 2017, by city
Chicago: 25.55%
Houston: 23.14%

Change in Households Making $100K+, 2010 to 2017, by city
Chicago: +67,398 households
Houston: +57,340 households

Despite Houston outgaining Chicago by over 60,000 households from 2010 to 2017, a rate of nearly 5.5 to 1...Chicago still outgained Houston in number of households making $100K+ by just over 10,000 households.

Source: 5 year US Census American Community Survey US, table B19001

--

Also regarding population, looking at the city level with just 1 number for population change is entirely misleading. Of the 77 community areas in Chicago, 45 of them have gained population from 2010 to 2017 - the total population of those population gaining areas is almost 1.7 million people today. Combined, they gained just over 100,000 people for a population change of +6.3%. Of those 45 community areas, 30 of them lost population between 2000 and 2010 - meaning that those 30 reversed their trend of population loss and have now gained population since 2010.

Of the 32 areas that lost population from 2010 to 2017, just over 50% of the total loss occurred in only 6 community areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 03:59 PM
 
847 posts, read 699,205 times
Reputation: 964
Chicago is definitely going through a New York-in-the-90s style gentrification wherein all the poor and middle class people on the North Side are replaced by extremely well off people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2019, 03:25 PM
 
27 posts, read 8,930 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by brodie734 View Post
Chicago is definitely going through a New York-in-the-90s style gentrification wherein all the poor and middle class people on the North Side are replaced by extremely well off people.
Yes, that was the point of the post I made. There is basically only rich and poor anymore in Chicago. The middle class is almost non existent. It was the best model of a diverse blue collar, "affordable" city that is becoming more and more elitist. Eventually gentrification will stretch from the South Loop to Hyde Park resembling the miles of high-rises along the north shore. I could see rents in the neighborhoods like Wicker Park/ Logan Square/Bucktown going as high as the downtown in the not too distant future. The West Loop will probably become exclusively for the ultra rich.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2019, 03:42 PM
 
27 posts, read 8,930 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Change in Total Households, 2010 to 2017, by city
Houston: +74,192 total households
Chicago: +13,767 total households

Percentage of Total Households making $100K+ in 2017, by city
Chicago: 25.55%
Houston: 23.14%

Change in Households Making $100K+, 2010 to 2017, by city
Chicago: +67,398 households
Houston: +57,340 households

Despite Houston outgaining Chicago by over 60,000 households from 2010 to 2017, a rate of nearly 5.5 to 1...Chicago still outgained Houston in number of households making $100K+ by just over 10,000 households.

Source: 5 year US Census American Community Survey US, table B19001

--

Also regarding population, looking at the city level with just 1 number for population change is entirely misleading. Of the 77 community areas in Chicago, 45 of them have gained population from 2010 to 2017 - the total population of those population gaining areas is almost 1.7 million people today. Combined, they gained just over 100,000 people for a population change of +6.3%. Of those 45 community areas, 30 of them lost population between 2000 and 2010 - meaning that those 30 reversed their trend of population loss and have now gained population since 2010.

Of the 32 areas that lost population from 2010 to 2017, just over 50% of the total loss occurred in only 6 community areas.
My post was in response to Chicago's "booming core"....It is a boom for the rich offset by the leaking poor and unemployed leaving the city. The map shows how traditional middle class neighborhoods or low income areas have been taken over by the wealthy while the poor has spread throughout the other areas leaving hardly any recognizable middle class which Chicago was always thriving with.

I don't know how good it is for the overall health of the city to become a place more for the highly educated with more gentrification. We are heading towards Indian level class disparity. I'll admit it's great for the redevelopment of the downtown and north side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2019, 04:38 PM
 
6,209 posts, read 13,654,163 times
Reputation: 3620
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
Yes, that was the point of the post I made. There is basically only rich and poor anymore in Chicago. The middle class is almost non existent. It was the best model of a diverse blue collar, "affordable" city that is becoming more and more elitist. Eventually gentrification will stretch from the South Loop to Hyde Park resembling the miles of high-rises along the north shore. I could see rents in the neighborhoods like Wicker Park/ Logan Square/Bucktown going as high as the downtown in the not too distant future. The West Loop will probably become exclusively for the ultra rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
I don't know how good it is for the overall health of the city to become a place more for the highly educated with more gentrification. We are heading towards Indian level class disparity. I'll admit it's great for the redevelopment of the downtown and north side.
This isn't just a Chicago problem. The income disparity is worsening nationwide. I think it's just very present in Chicago, which was in some ways the epitome of a blue-collar/working-class/middle-class city back in the day. That's because that image is gone now; it's been replaced by the highly educated/wealthy in the Loop, West Loop, Wicker Park, and North Side areas and the poorly educated/poor almost everywhere else. This is not something Chicago did to itself. Chicago is just able to be a poster-child of 21st Century American society.

All over the country you have the ultra wealthy sharing cities with the extremely poor. NYC has Tribeca/Soho but also East New York and a lot of the Bronx still. LA has Venice Beach, Holmby Hills, and Brentwood alongside MacArthur Park, Watts, and Skid Row.

The reason Houston has been attracting so many people is that it's cheap. Everyone knows the saying "you get what you pay for." There are reasons why the Sun Belt is so much cheaper than the rest of the country, but people just don't want to admit it. Houston is the epitome of Sun Belt. It never had the clout that Chicago had and never had its economy and status so of course they're difficult to compare.

In the end, Chicago will still be the superior city, cold weather wimps aside. If Chicago didn't get so cold int the winter, I'd bet my life savings that it would be doing better than it is right now at attracting people to the region. Those with the ability to move easily and with enough education to be hired anywhere are choosing Chicago for a reason.
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

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.

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