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.
Anyhow, I believe that Houston will be able to pass up the population of Chicago by 2035 unless Chicago gets off the unemployment trian. Its a huge problem right now. Everyone is losing jobs and you're best bet to find one is Houston. But, if Chicago can overcome that issue, then, it will hold it's position as the third most populated in the U.S.
Well unemployment in Chicago is just as big an issue right now as almost everywhere else outside Texas and Washington DC. It's pretty much on par with other large metros. Doing better than LA, about on par with NYC and San Fran, higher than Houston, Seattle.
Chicago with its hugely diversified economy is actually lucky in that it will probably ride out this downturn better than many other areas.
This math has probably been done already, but I really don't feel the need to look through 80 pages to verify this, and I doubt this will be the first redundant piece of information posted.
Looking at straight line population growth for the century from 1900 to 2000, Chicago's population grew 170% from 1,698,575 to 2,896,016. Houston grew 438% from 44,633 to 1,953,631. If both cities grow at the same rate during this century as they did the previous century, by the year 2100, Houston will have 8.5 million residents while Chicago will have 4.9 million.
Doubtless, Houston will not continue with that level of unsustainable growth, and if it grows at half the rate, 219%, Houston will only have 4.3 million people. It will still have fewer people than Chicago. And, these numbers don't take into account the metroplex. Even if Houston surpasses Chicago in this century, Houston's metro will still be smaller. Houston's metro will have to double to just meet metro Chicago's current numbers.
This math has probably been done already, but I really don't feel the need to look through 80 pages to verify this, and I doubt this will be the first redundant piece of information posted.
Looking at straight line population growth for the century from 1900 to 2000, Chicago's population grew 170% from 1,698,575 to 2,896,016. Houston grew 438% from 44,633 to 1,953,631. If both cities grow at the same rate during this century as they did the previous century, by the year 2100, Houston will have 8.5 million residents while Chicago will have 4.9 million.
Doubtless, Houston will not continue with that level of unsustainable growth, and if it grows at half the rate, 219%, Houston will only have 4.3 million people. It will still have fewer people than Chicago. And, these numbers don't take into account the metroplex. Even if Houston surpasses Chicago in this century, Houston's metro will still be smaller. Houston's metro will have to double to just meet metro Chicago's current numbers.
Good point about the growth rates, but if you look back at Chicago in 1890, people were convinced it was going to be the largest city in the Nation.
This math has probably been done already, but I really don't feel the need to look through 80 pages to verify this, and I doubt this will be the first redundant piece of information posted.
Looking at straight line population growth for the century from 1900 to 2000, Chicago's population grew 170% from 1,698,575 to 2,896,016. Houston grew 438% from 44,633 to 1,953,631. If both cities grow at the same rate during this century as they did the previous century, by the year 2100, Houston will have 8.5 million residents while Chicago will have 4.9 million.
Doubtless, Houston will not continue with that level of unsustainable growth, and if it grows at half the rate, 219%, Houston will only have 4.3 million people. It will still have fewer people than Chicago. And, these numbers don't take into account the metroplex. Even if Houston surpasses Chicago in this century, Houston's metro will still be smaller. Houston's metro will have to double to just meet metro Chicago's current numbers.
Houston also annexed within those times, so that is why the percentage is so high.
True, but in the year 1900, there wasn't much to annex. Most of what's now in the city limits was barren, unpopulated farmland.
Besides, our 600 miles isn't too ridiculous. Juneau, a town of about 30k people has limits of over 3000 miles.
For a major city its alot most citys in the USA or way under 600 can you imagine how many other citys would be up there in 2 million mark Places like philly boston dallas detroit could maybe all pass Houston Atlanta could be tied up there as well thats the difference. Imagine if chicago city limits stretched out to 600 miles this topic wouldnt exist
For a major city its alot most citys in the USA or way under 600 can you imagine how many other citys would be up there in 2 million mark Places like philly boston dallas detroit could maybe all pass Houston Atlanta could be tied up there as well thats the difference. Imagine if chicago city limits stretched out to 600 miles this topic wouldnt exist
If the cities you mentioned hold their currently density levels whether it is low or high or suburban or urban, than every city except Atlanta would pass Houston. Atlanta is very spread out outside the city. A bit more than Houston. But cities do not have those large limits just to increase it's population. It's for the tax base. Trust me, if Chicago, Boston, or Detroit could could annex, they would. But that's yet another reason why looking at city populations to is irrelevant when judging a city's true size.
This math has probably been done already, but I really don't feel the need to look through 80 pages to verify this, and I doubt this will be the first redundant piece of information posted.
Looking at straight line population growth for the century from 1900 to 2000, Chicago's population grew 170% from 1,698,575 to 2,896,016. Houston grew 438% from 44,633 to 1,953,631. If both cities grow at the same rate during this century as they did the previous century, by the year 2100, Houston will have 8.5 million residents while Chicago will have 4.9 million.
Doubtless, Houston will not continue with that level of unsustainable growth, and if it grows at half the rate, 219%, Houston will only have 4.3 million people. It will still have fewer people than Chicago. And, these numbers don't take into account the metroplex. Even if Houston surpasses Chicago in this century, Houston's metro will still be smaller. Houston's metro will have to double to just meet metro Chicago's current numbers.
First of all, Chicago's population grew by 70% during that time period, not 170%. Houston's population grew by 4,277%. By those calculations, Houston will have around 85,000,000 people in its city limits by 2100. It would be one of the largest cities in the country, outside Las Vegas, which by those calcs would have around 150,000,000 people.
In the end though that's absolutely just apples to oranges. It's all about city limits annexation and available land. If Houston keeps eating up land and building the "suburbs" within the actual city limits than it will grow as big as it can given the economics and if it stays a desirable metro area to live in. If the city is penned in or stops annexing, the growth will drop off dramatically.
It's like saying I grew from 4 feet to 6 feet from age 10 to 18, so by the time I'm 26, I assume I'll be around 8 feet tall. The reasons behind the growth rate of cities is only relevant at that particular time point in their history. Houston barely moved at all in the 80's in population. Should we have assumed it was "done" growing? No - it was all about economics.
New York grew by 133% from 1900 to 2000. That means we'd have to squish another 10 million people on top of New Yorks 8 million.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 03-13-2009 at 12:56 PM..
First of all, Chicago's population grew by 70% during that time period, not 170%. Houston's population grew by 4,277%. By those calculations, Houston will have around 85,000,000 people in its city limits by 2100. It would be one of the largest cities in the country, outside Las Vegas, which by those calcs would have around 150,000,000 people.
In the end though that's absolutely just apples to oranges. It's all about city limits annexation and available land. If Houston keeps eating up land and building the "suburbs" within the actual city limits than it will grow as big as it can given the economics and if it stays a desirable metro area to live in. If the city is penned in or stops annexing, the growth will drop off dramatically.
It's like saying I grew from 4 feet to 6 feet from age 10 to 18, so by the time I'm 26, I assume I'll be around 8 feet tall. The reasons behind the growth rate of cities is only relevant at that particular time point in their history. Houston barely moved at all in the 80's in population. Should we have assumed it was "done" growing? No - it was all about economics.
New York grew by 133% from 1900 to 2000. That means we'd have to squish another 10 million people on top of New Yorks 8 million.
Yeah, but you are negating the fact that Houston is a fairly new city, in the respect that it's remodeling itself. I think it's a lot more complicated than any of us are making it.
Last edited by theSUBlime; 03-13-2009 at 01:10 PM..
It's like saying I grew from 4 feet to 6 feet from age 10 to 18, so by the time I'm 26, I assume I'll be around 8 feet tall.
The growth continues after 18. It's just out instead of up.
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.
