|

10-13-2007, 01:58 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
798 posts, read 533,519 times
Reputation: 154
|
|
Houston and Dallas nowadays have many transplants from Chicago, SF, LA, NY because those people want to take advantage of the strong job growth and affordable housing. Texas cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin & San Antonio are a big draw for newcomers these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lategreattex
The reason Houston has passed Chicago as the sweatiest and fattest, (they left out butt-ugly), is because it's become overpopuated with people FROM Chicago and other parts of the midwest, just like Dallas has and unfortunately the rest of Texas if somebody doesn't put up a big ol fence on the Northern border instead of the Mexican border. No longer are you comparing Texans to Midwesterners...because they are all moving here. That is why Texas is now the most unfriendly state, the least romantic state, one of the fattest states, worst traffic, one of the top polluted states, highest crime states....you name it anything bad that Texas can be listed for is due to TRANSPLANTS!!!
|
|
|

10-13-2007, 02:49 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
2,957 posts, read 1,689,693 times
Reputation: 729
|
|
|
It's kind of pointless to compare the populations of the two cities proper, as most of Chicago's collar suburbs have higher densities than much of Houston proper.
|
|

10-13-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|
Thankful to God
Status:
"Happy, happy, happy"
(set 8 days ago)
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Houston, TX
2,199 posts, read 1,551,703 times
Reputation: 499
|
|
|
Actually you know those fattest city rating actually have nothing to do with the actual people don't you? They are based on restaurants per square mile, number of fitness centers, parks (and the weather conditions that allow people to enjoy the outdoors), etc.
|
|

10-13-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Region, Indiana/ Chicago, Illinois
751 posts, read 604,435 times
Reputation: 292
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
Back to the original question. Absolutely! Houston will eventually replace Chicago as the third largest city in the U.S.
Houston population according to 2000 Census 1,953,631
Houston population according to 2006 Census estimate 2,074,828
Gain of 121,197 residents
Chicago population according to 2000 Census 2,896,016
Chicago population according to 2006 Census estimate 2,749,283
Loss of 146,733 residents
The greater Washington, D.C. area will also eventually replace Chicago as the third largest metro economy in the U.S.
|
Source please on Washington D.C. I have never heard that claim before.
|
|

10-13-2007, 04:46 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In God
3,076 posts, read 3,717,956 times
Reputation: 316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancocal
They have already passed Chicago as the Sweatiest and fattiest.
( no offense, really there are studies on these things )
That's saying something because Chicagoans love to eat.
Fat sweaty folk aside there is more room to grow in Houston. 
|
Actually, genius, as of 2007, neither Chicago or Houston are considered "fat cities." The famous title of the Fattest City in America was given to both cities by Men's Fitness magazine, who didn't even use relevant criteria to say where the most overweight people were located. Houston actually has a relatively low average BMI. I believe it's 25. Lower than the national average of 27. And last time I checked, Chicago's was 27. So is New York's.
|
|

10-13-2007, 04:54 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In God
3,076 posts, read 3,717,956 times
Reputation: 316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapcat
Houston developers have it easy.
|
This is not always a good thing. Houston's rapid growth combined with more than enough room to grow combined with the no-zoning regulations has caused developers to build less than impressive, often times cheap buildings within a quick amount of time. That has got to change.
|
|

10-13-2007, 04:56 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In God
3,076 posts, read 3,717,956 times
Reputation: 316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster
According to Wikipedia, which got it's source from the census bureau,
Chicago: 9.6 Million
Houston: 5.6 Million
Not exactly twice, but almost.
|
Yet, not twice...as I said.
|
|

10-13-2007, 04:59 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In God
3,076 posts, read 3,717,956 times
Reputation: 316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by st. louie louie
I have to assume your talking about the city proper. Houston would not be able to surpass Chicago without annexing more land.
Unless it create more density by tearing down existing homes and building new ones closer together.
|
As long as they leave the old southern homes alone, that's fine by me.
|
|

10-13-2007, 05:06 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In God
3,076 posts, read 3,717,956 times
Reputation: 316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiddy
It's kind of pointless to compare the populations of the two cities proper, as most of Chicago's collar suburbs have higher densities than much of Houston proper.
|
Which ones, for example? None of the ones I found had a density higher than Houston.
|
|

10-13-2007, 08:17 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LaSalle Park / St. Louis
521 posts, read 424,510 times
Reputation: 158
|
|
|
Look at Cicero, Brookfield, Berwyn to name a few.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|