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 11-28-2008, 11:15 PM
 
56 posts, read 98,918 times
Reputation: 14

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by coog78 View Post
Chicago is a great city. Just because Houston will eventually pass it in population in no way takes away from that.

Chicago's population is projected to be 500,000 higher in 2030 than Houston's, which is roughly the gap that is between them today.

Chicago: 3,200,000+
Houston 2,700,000+

Quote:
Originally Posted by coog78 View Post
LA is IMHO the most overrated city on the planet
.

THANK YOU! You are one of the first people to agree with me on this. When I was about fourteen (roughly two years ago) years ago, I went to L.A and I was disappointed. It was no where near the glamor its made out to be. From the second we landed, I could tell it was really dirty (but I'm just biased being from the VERY clean Chicago), and it I felt like it WAS NOT the nations second largest city...

And believe me, Chicago outshines L.A by A LOT. As far as Houston is concerned, not even close to being on L.A's level, so why try and challenge Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2008, 11:23 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,452,539 times
Reputation: 3545
No one is challenging Chicago and I still don't see how LA is so outshined by Chicago. Can you post some reasons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2008, 11:45 PM
 
668 posts, read 2,031,729 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel713 View Post
and it's population is more diverse
They may have us on the Korean factor, but that's about it. Chicago has many ethnic historical districts developed over the course of Chicago's longer history, compared to LA. Some distinct ethnic groups that stick out: Polish (2nd largest Polish pop. outside Poland), Irish, German, Italian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, African-American, Chinese, Jewish and even a small Carribean pocket. LA just has regular white people (with no cultural or ethnic distinctions), jewish people, african-americans, Chinese, Koreans and a boatload of Mexicans. More diverse than most cities, but not really that diverse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2008, 11:47 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,452,539 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banx View Post
They may have us on the Korean factor, but that's about it. Chicago has way more history and ethnic historical districts than LA. Some distinct ethnic groups that stick out: Polish (2nd largest Polish pop. outside Poland), Irish, German, Italian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, African-American, Chinese, Jewish and even a small Carribean pocket. LA just has regular white people (with no cultural or ethnic distinctions), jewish people, african-americans, Chinese, Koreans and a boatload of Mexicans. More diverse than most cities, but not really that diverse.
Shows how much you know. Maybe you should check out the stats Montclair posted in the "Cosmopolitan City" thread.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...cities-25.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2008, 11:50 PM
 
668 posts, read 2,031,729 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel713 View Post
Shows how much you know. Maybe you should check out the stats Montclair posted in the "Cosmopolitan City" thread.
Nvm, just found it, and I wasn't that far off, a boatload of Asians and boatload of Latino's (Mexicans) and it looks like they got more native Africans too. Obviously they're going to have larger numbers in these groups though, cause it's a bigger city. Still doesn't pin point each specific cuture/ethnicity though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2008, 12:30 AM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,452,539 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banx View Post
Nvm, just found it, and I wasn't that far off, a boatload of Asians and boatload of Latino's (Mexicans) and it looks like they got more native Africans too. Obviously they're going to have larger numbers in these groups though, cause it's a bigger city. Still doesn't pin point each specific cuture/ethnicity though.
It doesn't for Chicago either, so....

And how do you know the Latinos are all Mexicans? It doesn't say that. But I like how you use the bigger city excuse now. Go with percentages then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Chicago- Lawrence and Kedzie/Maywood
2,242 posts, read 5,436,656 times
Reputation: 735
No, it won't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:54 AM
 
668 posts, read 2,031,729 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel713 View Post
And how do you know the Latinos are all Mexicans? It doesn't say that. But I like how you use the bigger city excuse now. Go with percentages then.
Well let's see, it's the biggest city near the Mexican boarder so, I dunno, maybe, just maaaaybe, it may be a majority Mexican? Certainly not Cuban I can tell u that much. I've been to LA n just about every Latino I spoke to was either from Mexico (almost all cases) with the occasional central american from like ecuador or el salvador tossed in there for effect. Mexicans completely dominate LA. While Chicago has a lot of Mexicans too, Puerto Ricans have a strong presence here that's fealt as well. I can see how maybe LA's and Chicago's diversity might be equal if u give or take a couple of groups here and there in each place, but to say LA has more diversity is just ignorant. And my "bigger city excuse" is true, they have more people which means a higher number of people in each ethnic group- duh, it's not rocket science. Have you ever even been to Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 05:16 AM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,223 posts, read 13,452,539 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banx View Post
Well let's see, it's the biggest city near the Mexican boarder so, I dunno, maybe, just maaaaybe, it may be a majority Mexican? Certainly not Cuban I can tell u that much. I've been to LA n just about every Latino I spoke to was either from Mexico (almost all cases) with the occasional central american from like ecuador or el salvador tossed in there for effect. Mexicans completely dominate LA. While Chicago has a lot of Mexicans too, Puerto Ricans have a strong presence here that's fealt as well. I can see how maybe LA's and Chicago's diversity might be equal if u give or take a couple of groups here and there in each place, but to say LA has more diversity is just ignorant. And my "bigger city excuse" is true, they have more people which means a higher number of people in each ethnic group- duh, it's not rocket science. Have you ever even been to Chicago?
No because at first your were touting that Chicago has more, etc., but then when the facts came in, LA actually has more. Therefore, why not just use percentages? Surprised you spoke to so many Latinos down in LA. Everytime I do, I rarely speak and figure out where they are from. So how many did you strike up conversations with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 08:49 AM
 
11,016 posts, read 21,581,008 times
Reputation: 10641
I still think at the end of the day the biggest issue is where are all the new houses and apartments being built? And I don't mean some highrises or new condos replacing existing buildings.

A metro by far grows the most where they're buildings massive amounts of new single family houses, condos and apartment buildings.

That's either in the central city if there's land to build on, or in the suburbs if the city is landlocked and "built out".

Chicago will grow with infill, but nowhere near as much as the suburbs, which add hundreds of thousands of people around the edges.

There are dozens of amazing suburbs in Chicago that people would die to live in - but they're not growing at all. They're mostly just stable. This is because of the obvious that there's nowhere else to build houses.

I love my neighborhood in Chicago and think it's amazing, as do many other people. at the end of the day though it's only growing by maybe 5% during this decade. There's just nowhere to put the people. Infill and increasing density will push up a population, but it's not going to be growing by 20-30% in ten years unless it was REALLY depopulated and somehow turned into a happening area overnight.
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