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.
As you can see, by 2035 Houston will reach where Chicago almost is right now, meaning not even in the next 30 years will it's metropolitan population overtake Chicago's. But city wise, it's a done deal.
Even at that point, Greater Houston will be playing catch up to DFW.
As you can see, by 2035 Houston will reach where Chicago almost is right now, meaning not even in the next 30 years will it's metropolitan population overtake Chicago's. But city wise, it's a done deal.
Even at that point, Greater Houston will be playing catch up to DFW.
So the assumption is expansion at the current rate - growth outward and doubling the jobs - seriously - the fringe cannot sustain that growth and infill isnt dense enough to sustain that growth
Where are the 3 million plus additional jobs coming from?
not trying to nitpick but this would mean expansive growth (outside of core) that has never taken place in any metro in the world
Plus that assumes straight line growh - look at the 80s in Houston
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,047,399 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
So the assumption is expansion at the current rate - growth outward and doubling the jobs - seriously - the fringe cannot sustain that growth and infill isnt dense enough to sustain that growth
Where are the 3 million plus additional jobs coming from?
not trying to nitpick but this would mean expansive growth (outside of core) that has never taken place in any metro in the world
Hardly any idea, just went with official projections if the rate were constant as seen in from 2000-2007. Then again the matter at hand is 30 years from now, much can change, but it's a good idea to see general projections and watch the progress (If any).
2008 Methodology for Texas Population Projections (http://txsdc.utsa.edu/cgi-bin/prj2008totnum.cgi - broken link)
Funny, I think most small towns are just as or more similar than bigger cities. I think you should visit NYC and then someplace like Jacksonville, FL or Houston and tell me they're the same.
Of course you have some differences (weather, scenery, etc.) but for the most part almost every place is the same. You have the same problems every where, people have to work, etc. The things that are really important to people are pretty much the same everywhere.
Whether you live in NYC or you live in Jacksonville you're going to get old and die either way. Again the things that are really important to people are the same everywhere. People in the blue states and people in the red states all have the same fate.
They're not alike at all if you live in one of the higher density nabes in Chicago.
It's a different experience living in a more urban neighborhood in Chicago, Boston, SF than it is in Houston or Atlanta.
Not better or worse, just very different.
Well when I was talking about places being all the same I was talking about life in general. Life is the same almost anywhere. The daily grind is always the daily grind no matter where you do your grinding.
As you can see, by 2035 Houston will reach where Chicago almost is right now, meaning not even in the next 30 years will it's metropolitan population overtake Chicago's. But city wise, it's a done deal.
Even at that point, Greater Houston will be playing catch up to DFW.
These projections aren't realistic. At all. Projections take current growth rates, and apply them basically for x numbers of years. They mean nothing, they're just something interesting to look at. Besides, Chicago will have well combined with Milwaukee by 2020 (at the latest). That will add another nearly 3 million people.
City limit wise, it's totally up in the air. I really don't see it happening. It all depends on Chicago's numbers this census. If the city continues to gentrify and affluent Northern neighborhoods start pouring into dilapitated poorer ones, Chicago wins.
I don't even see Houston passing DFW anytime soon, if at all :O.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,047,399 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
These projections aren't realistic. At all. Projections take current growth rates, and apply them basically for x numbers of years. They mean nothing, they're just something interesting to look at. Besides, Chicago will have well combined with Milwaukee by 2020 (at the latest). That will add another nearly 3 million people.
City limit wise, it's totally up in the air. I really don't see it happening. It all depends on Chicago's numbers this census. If the city continues to gentrify and affluent Northern neighborhoods start pouring into dilapitated poorer ones, Chicago wins.
I don't even see Houston passing DFW anytime soon, if at all :O.
It's not. When Dallas and FW got together, they had Texas pinned, Dallas's weakess is growth now, Fort Worth covers what Dallas is weak in.
Umm, try to keep in mind these are just projections, no need to get worked up or anything, they're just there for an idea. I even listed my source... and if it does combine with Milwaukee, won't that be just for the CSA? And not the MSA or City Proper...
And honestly man, no disrespect but the city population is something I disagree with you on. Yeah I really have doubts it's metropolitan area will beat Chicago's, but I disagree entirely with you on city proper. From 2000 to 2008 Chicago city has lost people, where as it's metro has grown 5%+. You have your opinion- cool, I have mine- and I'm sticking to it.
We'll just see. I'm not debating this any further, I am not a specialist, nor is anyone here on this thread, it's pointless getting worked up for some fictional topic that no one knows the exact answers too. I've done my part to keep the conversation going... Obviously it's headed the wrong way. I'm done here.
Chicago has grown from 2000 to 2008 and so has the metro population. And that not counting the 450,000 illegal immigrant that live within the city limits of Chicago. Chicago has about 3.5 million if you count everyone.
According to the 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the City of Chicago has 2,986,974 people. So....
Chicago city - 3 million living in (227 sq mi)
Chicago metro-10 million
Houston city - 2.2 million lving in (601 sq mi)
Houston metro-5.7 million
Chicago= The biggest most city in America your going to find outside of NYC(LA is also a big suburb)Houston=A VERY spread out suburb
H-Town beating Chi-town in pop? Not in my life time.
LA no matter what you may consider it as is a city and it's bigger than Chicago. Also, Chicago is at 9.7 million, not 10 million.
Quote:
It's not. When Dallas and FW got together, they had Texas pinned, Dallas's weakess is growth now, Fort Worth covers what Dallas is weak in.
Actually, Dallas is starting to pick back up. But yeah, FW is growing faster but that is mostly suburban growth.
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.
