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 492 41.59%
No 691 58.41%
Voters: 1183. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2008, 02:58 PM
 
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,085 posts, read 11,455,793 times
Reputation: 1942

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjester View Post
The city of Houston and the Woodlands have reached a temporary agreement last year, in which the Woodlands pay some kind of "tax" to the city of Houston. However the next mayor of Houston will have to seriously consider the permanent annexation of the Woodlands.
I thought The Woodlands was planning to incorporate as a city? They should. I hope they do! I hope Houston doesn't annex ever again. Houston's suburbs shouldn't dominate the city. We don't need anymore master-planned communities thirty miles away from downtown having any say in municipal issues. They're not as invested in the city as those of us who choose to live here. And the feeling is mutual, I'm sure, as people choose to live that far away from the big, bad, dirty city of Houston for a reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2008, 03:20 PM
 
56 posts, read 102,033 times
Reputation: 14
I decided to check some of the facts that people were posting on this website with information from the U.S Census

Here are the facts:

Chicago (City)

2000 Population: 2,896,016
2008 Population: 2,997,814

up 101,798

Chicago Metro:

2000 Population: 9,077,990
2008 Population: 9,800,000 (exact number not yet given, estimated to be over 9.8 million)

Up more than 800,000!

With nearly 1 million people added to cities metro, it will be hard for Houston to catch up, and pass them as number 3. It is true however that Chicago was loosing population until a recent immigration boom from Southeastern Europe and Asia repopulated the city. Also, the state is expecting 6 million new residents by 2050 and guess where 99.9% of them will live? In Chicago or its metro. I estimate the city will be around 4 million strong and the metro around 15-16 million. And unlike Houston, most of them won't live 30+ miles from the City because of Urban sprawl. They will stay relatively close. Houston's population is growing, there is no denying it, but all this talk about how Houston thinks it could become number 3 is non sense. I'm sure if Chicago's population were becoming a problem, the city would offer tax breaks to get companies back into the city. Do you honestly think the U.S would let one of its largest/most important cities fall. I don't think so. Houston will be number 4 MAYBE, but I doubt it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 03:20 PM
 
155 posts, read 407,250 times
Reputation: 35
houston have be more urban to beat chicago have make a huge development etc in the city and that hurricaine get that fix hopefully but so far i say no right now maybe one day if it bring more of that urban style like chicago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 03:53 PM
 
492 posts, read 1,018,909 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by houstoner View Post
I thought The Woodlands was planning to incorporate as a city? They should. I hope they do! I hope Houston doesn't annex ever again. Houston's suburbs shouldn't dominate the city. We don't need anymore master-planned communities thirty miles away from downtown having any say in municipal issues. They're not as invested in the city as those of us who choose to live here. And the feeling is mutual, I'm sure, as people choose to live that far away from the big, bad, dirty city of Houston for a reason.
Look at cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, etc, etc. Where everyone who could left the city for the suburbs and their city evolved into a third world cities. Houston should continue to annex so that the suburbs can help cover for the infrastructure of the international airport, the Ship channel, the Medical Center, etc, etc. They can't just work in Houston reap the benefits that Houston brings them and not have to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 05:24 PM
 
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,085 posts, read 11,455,793 times
Reputation: 1942
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjester View Post
Look at cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, etc, etc. Where everyone who could left the city for the suburbs and their city evolved into a third world cities. Houston should continue to annex so that the suburbs can help cover for the infrastructure of the international airport, the Ship channel, the Medical Center, etc, etc. They can't just work in Houston reap the benefits that Houston brings them and not have to pay.
Spoken like a true Houstonian. There's more to life than money. For every Detroit and New Orleans, you have a city like Seattle and Chicago where people actually live IN the city because they prefer to. None of these cities are third-world. Sugar Land is its own separate city and many Sugarlandians (sp? LOL) work in Houston. Big whoop. Anyway, if The Woodlands is going to incorporate, that's that. I'd rather they keep their own lily-white enclave special and separate from the rest of the city of Houston since that's the main reason they created it and stuck it way out in BFE in the first place. They can keep it for all I care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Houston
129 posts, read 335,726 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by bracra1 View Post
I decided to check some of the facts that people were posting on this website with information from the U.S Census

Here are the facts:

Chicago (City)

2000 Population: 2,896,016
2008 Population: 2,997,814

up 101,798

Chicago Metro:

2000 Population: 9,077,990
2008 Population: 9,800,000 (exact number not yet given, estimated to be over 9.8 million)

Up more than 800,000!

With nearly 1 million people added to cities metro, it will be hard for Houston to catch up, and pass them as number 3. It is true however that Chicago was loosing population until a recent immigration boom from Southeastern Europe and Asia repopulated the city. Also, the state is expecting 6 million new residents by 2050 and guess where 99.9% of them will live? In Chicago or its metro. I estimate the city will be around 4 million strong and the metro around 15-16 million. And unlike Houston, most of them won't live 30+ miles from the City because of Urban sprawl. They will stay relatively close. Houston's population is growing, there is no denying it, but all this talk about how Houston thinks it could become number 3 is non sense. I'm sure if Chicago's population were becoming a problem, the city would offer tax breaks to get companies back into the city. Do you honestly think the U.S would let one of its largest/most important cities fall. I don't think so. Houston will be number 4 MAYBE, but I doubt it.
Houston wont catch Chicago's metro population anytime soon..but the city it will. Houston is booming alot more than Chicago....doesnt matter which way you look at it. Chicago is a great city..but EVERYBODY is moving down to Houston. So saying that Houston has no chance of catching Chicago is a bit ridiculous. I hope Chicago does well but Houston is closing the gap without a doubt. I see a completely improved Houston in about 10 years...with the mass transit in place. Houston is changing...for the better. Chicago needs to make room....Houston got next!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,638 posts, read 27,073,493 times
Reputation: 9580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldbfree007 View Post
Houston wont catch Chicago's metro population anytime soon..but the city it will. Houston is booming alot more than Chicago....doesnt matter which way you look at it. Chicago is a great city..but EVERYBODY is moving down to Houston. So saying that Houston has no chance of catching Chicago is a bit ridiculous. I hope Chicago does well but Houston is closing the gap without a doubt. I see a completely improved Houston in about 10 years...with the mass transit in place. Houston is changing...for the better. Chicago needs to make room....Houston got next!
Chicago is building more scrapers but Houston with its infinite amount of land is building more single family homes so this may be true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 01:56 PM
 
56 posts, read 102,033 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldbfree007 View Post
Houston wont catch Chicago's metro population anytime soon..but the city it will. Houston is booming alot more than Chicago....doesnt matter which way you look at it. Chicago is a great city..but EVERYBODY is moving down to Houston. So saying that Houston has no chance of catching Chicago is a bit ridiculous. I hope Chicago does well but Houston is closing the gap without a doubt. I see a completely improved Houston in about 10 years...with the mass transit in place. Houston is changing...for the better. Chicago needs to make room....Houston got next!
First, I'd like to see where you got your information of EVERYONE moving to Houston. Its growth rate is from 2000 till 2008 is something like 1.3%, compared to Chicago's like 1.0%.

Chicago's population is about 8000 people away from hitting 3 million.
Houston's population is nearly 800,000 away.

If they have roughly the same growth rate, explain to me how Houston's going to catch up to Chicago, and pass it. There would have to be a massive tornado in Chicago for it to happen anytime within this millennium. But then again Houston has the threat of Hurricanes.

Anyway, I can see Houston capping off at around 3-3.2 million in its city, but that even may be a stretch because of urban sprawl. It may end up like Atlanta and have the majority of its population lye in the suburbs. Chicago however, will probably be around 4 million by 2050 considering its about to hit 3 million this year and its so dense. Illinois is expecting an additional 6 MILLION residence by 2050, and unlike Texas, they don't have the choice of Houston, DFW, or San Antonio, they only have Chicago, and maybe Springfield or Rockford (if they ever start to develop). If anything, Dallas will become number 4 because its has Fort Worth. Together, they should be able to pass Houston before Houston can pass Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,867 posts, read 12,815,136 times
Reputation: 5794
Quote:
Originally Posted by bracra1 View Post
First, I'd like to see where you got your information of EVERYONE moving to Houston. Its growth rate is from 2000 till 2008 is something like 1.3%, compared to Chicago's like 1.0%.

Chicago's population is about 8000 people away from hitting 3 million.
Houston's population is nearly 800,000 away.

If they have roughly the same growth rate, explain to me how Houston's going to catch up to Chicago, and pass it. There would have to be a massive tornado in Chicago for it to happen anytime within this millennium. But then again Houston has the threat of Hurricanes.

Anyway, I can see Houston capping off at around 3-3.2 million in its city, but that even may be a stretch because of urban sprawl. It may end up like Atlanta and have the majority of its population lye in the suburbs. Chicago however, will probably be around 4 million by 2050 considering its about to hit 3 million this year and its so dense. Illinois is expecting an additional 6 MILLION residence by 2050, and unlike Texas, they don't have the choice of Houston, DFW, or San Antonio, they only have Chicago, and maybe Springfield or Rockford (if they ever start to develop). If anything, Dallas will become number 4 because its has Fort Worth. Together, they should be able to pass Houston before Houston can pass Chicago.
actually Dallas is not going to pass up Houston. Dallas actually got passed up by San Antonio as the second largest city in Texas. Dallas is now the 3rd largest city in Texas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 08:16 PM
 
16 posts, read 28,766 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
Nobody pays attention to CME/CBoT when talking about commodity prices. (It's actually NYMEX.) What up-and-coming financial center? The financial crisis is focused on New York and not a peep is heard from Chicago. How about the banks? BoA is integrating LaSalle the day after tomorrow and most of the banking activity (outside NYC) is located in Charlotte.
^ Yes, the financial CRISIS is centered on the banking failures in New York. The rescue is the new OTC derivatives platforms being formed in Chicago. Oh, and Nymex is owned by the CME now. And it's laughable that Charlotte considers itself some sort of banking capital. FAR more banking activity occurs in other American cities than Charlotte, Charlotte just happens to have the corporate offices of 2 major banks (one of which is being bought out).


Quote:
LA? LA has greater economic activity than Chicago. It accounts for half of California's output. The Port of LA/Long Beach is a serious competitor to the Port of Houston. Does Chicago have a port or is the lake merely ornamental? Illinois' output surely doesn't outmatch California especially with one city doing all the work.
Chicago is a more important global center of commerce and finance than LA is. Plain and simple. In the interest of time I will provide links in my next post. LA's larger GDP is simply a product of its larger size.

Quote:
Why would I care about companies I have never heard of? The well known companies are located in the suburbs instead of in The Loop. I wonder how The Loop stays busy if the big companies are in the suburbs. The small companies explain it.
Chicago's downtown is the second largest business district in the United States, by office space. And last I checked, it's only around 7-9% vacant. Enormous amounts of activity takes place there.

Quote:
But the some of the companies in Chicago are outmoded. I haven't seen Motorola phones widely available in a while. McDonalds has the greasy reputation. Sears is...never mind.
Except that it doesn't matter, since Chicago is where the PRICE OF GOLD, OIL, and the value of CURRENCY is set!

If Chicago's downtown were so irrelevent BP would have moved their entire US operations to Houston from Chicago's suburbs. Nope, they specifically sent 1000 of those jobs straight to downtown Chicago to benefit from proximity to the derivatives trading capital of the globe. Seems as if they could easily have moved them along to Houston, but they didn't for an obvious reason.

Last edited by the urban politician; 10-18-2008 at 08:38 PM..
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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