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.
I'm not sure what their populations are at present, but another factor to consider is metro area population. This has more effect on how big an entire urban area feels than just the population of the principal city. If you take that into account, the DFW areas is the biggest metro in Texas. In the sense of the entire urban agglomeration, Houston would still have to jump ahead to become the largest in its own state before it would overtake Chicago.
If you do look at only the cities proper, not entire metro areas, if Houston's population is now close to Chicago's, of course it's inevitable that Houston will become larger than Chicago before long. The big Sun Belt cities are growing. Most are growing at fast rates, while the old cities in the Northeast and Midwest are either losing population, remaining stable, or gaining population very slowly. You do the math. If these trends continue, some Sun Belt area will eventually overtake Chicago as the thrid largest metro. That will take longer than it will for the city of Houston proper (most likely Houston, since it's currently fourth in population) to move ahead of Chicago proper, but, if current population trends continue, it's inevitable that it will happen.
Actually I read an article, I wish I could post it, about a year ago that said Sociologists DONT expect Houston to surpass Chicago within the next 50 years.
They say Chicago routinely goes through booms and losses in populations as people come in and out of the city andmove to the suburbs.
The Chicago metro area is twice the size as Houstons, and while not growing as fast, is rapidly expanding.
If Houston does exceed Chicago in population, it will only be city, and not metro wise.
Actually I read an article, I wish I could post it, about a year ago that said Sociologists DONT expect Houston to surpass Chicago within the next 50 years.
They say Chicago routinely goes through booms and losses in populations as people come in and out of the city andmove to the suburbs.
The Chicago metro area is twice the size as Houstons, and while not growing as fast, is rapidly expanding.
If Houston does exceed Chicago in population, it will only be city, and not metro wise.
It's actually very possible, but I HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS. And the Chicagoland metro area is not twice the size of Houston's.
Houston still has a LOT of land it could annex. Chicago is landlocked, so any new development will have to involve tearing something else down. Houston developers have it easy. I think it's possible, but not by 2010. 2030, maybe.
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.
Houston may pass Chicago eventually but not in only 12 years. Houston is growing faster than Chicago, that's a fact but it's not growing at high enough rate that it will pass Chicago yet. Heck DFW is growing faster than Houston and already has a higher metro population (6.2 mil vs 5.6 mil). Houston should be concerned about catching DFW, not Chicago.
Houston should be concerned about catching DFW, not Chicago.
That is our number 1 priority. If we lose, I'm moving to Chicagoland and leaving Texas and DFW in the dust. Maybe I can bring some of the corrupt politics back to Texas and plant the Texas Democratic machine in Houston. Wait until Texas is the most liberal state in the nation. Forever Blue!
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.