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.
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
