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 473 41.35%
No 671 58.65%
Voters: 1144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2007, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,448,261 times
Reputation: 206

Advertisements

As of 2006, Houston has a population of 2,144,491 and a density of 3,701 per square mile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2007, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Denver
692 posts, read 2,373,209 times
Reputation: 364
Quote:
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.
Thank you for recognizing genius.

( pssst the little smiley denotes: all in good humor )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2007, 09:18 PM
 
Location: moving again
4,383 posts, read 15,042,004 times
Reputation: 1575
i think its possible for houston to pass chicago in the city, but in metro area, i don't think so, but i could easily be wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2007, 10:27 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,611,298 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by st. louie louie View Post
Look at Cicero, Brookfield, Berwyn to name a few.
Okay, a few, but it isn't like there are many. Aurora, the biggest suburb, isn't even denser. Believe it or not, Houston is not so "un-dense". And it isn't like those towns you listed had a much higher density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2007, 10:30 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,611,298 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancocal View Post
Thank you for recognizing genius.

( pssst the little smiley denotes: all in good humor )
Yeah, right. And you noting that there were "really studies on these things" was also a joke?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2007, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Chicago
4,665 posts, read 8,712,821 times
Reputation: 3105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
Which ones, for example? None of the ones I found had a density higher than Houston.
If you are applying the population density of Houston as a whole to collar city suburbs, that's not what I am saying. That way you are allowing the sections of Houston which are dense and urban to skew the many areas within Houston that are suburban in nature.

For example, compare this area in SW Houston to Elmwood Park

Perhaps if Chicago annexed all the suburbs east of 355 and north of I-80, it would be a more accurate population comparison of the two areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2007, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Denver
692 posts, read 2,373,209 times
Reputation: 364
Quote:
Yeah, right. And you noting that there were "really studies on these things" was also a joke?
yup, lighten up you'll live longer.
seriously... an entire city can be fatter.. it's hilarious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 12:35 AM
 
150 posts, read 636,283 times
Reputation: 87
It's funny how much houstonian's have to defend their city. There is so much hate for Houston in the rest of the country. Personally I think people still think there are nothing but redneck hillbillies down here. And by the way, dont want to go there again, but Houston proper vs Dallas proper, NO COMPARISON! Dallas AND Fort Worth vs Houston, you got yourself two comparable metros. Chicago is an amazing city, but Houston WILL get bigger, metro and proper, Houston adds between 150k to 200k a year, while chicago around 30k to 40k. It doesnt mean that Houston will be a better city, If I had to choose I would choose Chicago hands down, but you can't deny Houston's phenominal growth. Houston and DFW populations are about the same, DFW has only about 400k more people, when you that many more people spread out between three large cities (Dallas, Arlington, Fort Worth) you really can't tell the difference. So please let's stop listing that as a major advantage for DFW. Both metros are very comparable and equal in many ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,448,261 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam View Post
i think its possible for houston to pass chicago in the city, but in metro area, i don't think so, but i could easily be wrong
Houston is growing twice as fast as Chicago's metro area, but Chicagoland is already twice as big, so it will be a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 09:02 AM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,611,298 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiddy View Post
If you are applying the population density of Houston as a whole to collar city suburbs, that's not what I am saying. That way you are allowing the sections of Houston which are dense and urban to skew the many areas within Houston that are suburban in nature.

For example, compare this area in SW Houston to Elmwood Park

Perhaps if Chicago annexed all the suburbs east of 355 and north of I-80, it would be a more accurate population comparison of the two areas.
I'm not talking about certain areas of Houston. I'm talking about the whole city.

And there are parts of Houston that are suburban. So what? That's the South, for you.
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.

2005-2018, 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