Will houston surpass chicago as the third largest city (live, better, rates)

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

This debate is endless, it's so simple :
Houston city will surpass Chicago city, it's impossible to avoid !

I'd rather Houston focus on continuing building up its inner loop and focusing on improving its infrastructure, transportation and the efforts to restore the Buffalo Bayou. Chicago is on a totally exceedingly different level from Houston and that won't change from some silly city population count.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by C2H (ComingtoHouston)

I'd rather Houston focus on continuing building up its inner loop and focusing on improving its infrastructure, transportation and the efforts to restore the Buffalo Bayou. Chicago is on a totally exceedingly different level from Houston and that won't change from some silly city population count.

Nor the GDP.

Chicago's a well established city, has been, and most likely unless a tornado goes downtown-always will be.

Houston right now has to focus itself to start acting like "America's 4th largest city" before it can even make a transition to 3rd.

It's going to happen at some given point, but hopefully not in the coming few decades, because H-Town has a lot of things they need to work on back home.
It's getting there though, the evidence is right in front of you and me C2H, we see how much it's changing for the better.

[buzzpost]

DFW is the fourth largest metropolitan area in the country.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Dncr

Houston has an urban area of 3.8 million and a metro of 5.8 million. Chicago has an urban area of 8.8 million and a metro of 9.8 million. How is that even remotely close?

Houston is most likely over 6 million by now. Chicago will be just under the ten million mark with the next Census. Houston is growing A LOT faster than Chicagoland. I think someone posted migration maps in another thread, and the migration away from Chicagoland is pretty staggering. Only thing keeping it in a positive number is international migration (which use to be way ahead of Houston, but now there are nearly identical). The distance between Greater Houston and Chicagoland was huge twenty and even ten years ago, but the gap is decreasing (same thing with DFW, by the way).

As for the GDP argument, Chicago can claim a lead of 277 billion dollars over Houston. The difference between Chicago and L.A was barely over 200 billion, and I wouldn't claim L.A and Chicago are close when it comes to their GDPs.

Nope. According to the BEA, the difference between Houston and Chicago is only about $117B in 2008, when it was $168B in 2000: BEA : Gross Domestic Product by Metropolitan Area

And FYI, back in 2000, Los Angeles' distance on Chicago's GDP was $110B. In 2008, the distance was $197B.

As for GDPs/Metro, Houston has no chance whatsoever. If Houston does ever surpass Chicago in city population, it will be because of low density sprawl over 600 square miles of land. By the time this does happen, Chicago and Milwaukee would have combined to form a Metro of almost 13,000,000 (using today's numbers)....and they're only getting bigger

As far as GDPs, Houston definitely has a chance. Now, with the metro areas, it'll take a while, but it could happen (with DFW surpassing Chicago first). Yes, Houston has 600 square miles, but you best believe Chicago city leaders wish they did, too. Because of the large land size, Houston has an ever increasing tax base. Actually, Houston annexes commercial areas and leaves the residential alone (surprised there haven't been lawsuits for this). But, Houston is done annexing and is actually releasing land that it could annex to its suburbs (so they can start forming their own cities...like The Woodlands).

Oh, and Inner Loop Houston is becoming more and more dense. At about 96 square miles, there are about 600,000 people in it (when there was just 450,000 back in 2000). It's only getting bigger, too, and with more transit options (light rail is under expansion and trolley and commuter rail lines will come soon).

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Houston is most likely over 6 million by now. Chicago will be just under the ten million mark with the next Census. Houston is growing A LOT faster than Chicagoland. I think someone posted migration maps in another thread, and the migration away from Chicagoland is pretty staggering. Only thing keeping it in a positive number is international migration (which use to be way ahead of Houston, but now there are nearly identical). The distance between Greater Houston and Chicagoland was huge twenty and even ten years ago, but the gap is decreasing (same thing with DFW, by the way).

Nope. According to the BEA, the difference between Houston and Chicago is only about $117B in 2008, when it was $168B in 2000: BEA : Gross Domestic Product by Metropolitan Area

And FYI, back in 2000, Los Angeles' distance on Chicago's GDP was $110B. In 2008, the distance was $197B.

As far as GDPs, Houston definitely has a chance. Now, with the metro areas, it'll take a while, but it could happen (with DFW surpassing Chicago first). Yes, Houston has 600 square miles, but you best believe Chicago city leaders wish they did, too. Because of the large land size, Houston has an ever increasing tax base. Actually, Houston annexes commercial areas and leaves the residential alone (surprised there haven't been lawsuits for this). But, Houston is done annexing and is actually releasing land that it could annex to its suburbs (so they can start forming their own cities...like The Woodlands).

Oh, and Inner Loop Houston is becoming more and more dense. At about 96 square miles, there are about 600,000 people in it (when there was just 450,000 back in 2000). It's only getting bigger, too, and with more transit options (light rail is under expansion and trolley and commuter rail lines will come soon).

I prefer to think of Houston's actual land mass of 579 sq mi like Omshai pointed out because people always love to bash Houston's large city limits and low density to undermine its 4th largest city status. Within Houston's city limits, there's various parks and lakes. Like he said, people can't live on water and they don't live in the parks.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by C2H (ComingtoHouston)

I prefer to think of Houston's actual land mass of 579 sq mi like Omshai pointed out because people always love to bash Houston's large city limits and low density to undermine its 4th largest city status. Within Houston's city limits, there's various parks and lakes. Like he said, people can't live on water and they don't live in the parks.

This is true. Houston has some pretty big parks (bigger than any in Chicago). For example, George Bush Park is 7,800 acres. Together, the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs (which have a bunch of parks in them) make up 26,000 acres and squeeze in along I-10W, all in Houston city limits. There are other examples, too.

[OMG2010]

Yes Houston will eventually pass Chicago.. But it will be along time before it passes it's MSA which shows how huge Chicago is... Chicago is on a whole another level.. And in my opinion will always be better city than Houston.. A silly population count does nothing really.. Look at phenoix it's larger than PHilly lol.. Let Houston have the title when it comes. People are going to still look at Chicago as the bigger city...

[midwest1]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

All I have seen from Chicago posters is mindless speculation and this whole "Chicago-Milwaukee CSA" nonsense, which is embarrassing when you talk but can't prove or even provide the backbone to your claims.

I think you are missing the fact that in the 89 miles between Chicago and Milwaukee are not simply suburban sprawl and farms.

Racine is a small metro of 200,000 people and Kenosha is an urban entity in its own right, with a population of nearly 100,000. And to the south of that is the old industrial city of Waukegan, which has very ambitious plans to build thousands of homes on its lakefront near downtown. South of that is the thriving downtown Highland Park, and then south of that is booming Evanston.

The combined population of the three counties lying between Cook and Milwaukee is now well over 1,000,000 and growing at a decent rate. For those 1,000,000 people, the two metros are already merged...heck, even people in northern Cook County think of the Milwaukee airport as a viable option..

And there are plans to increase the speed on the Hiawatha line to cut the travel time to 65 minutes between Mil/Chi, and if the country ever manages to build real high-speed trains, the time could be cut to just 40 minutes, then the number of commuters would skyrocket..

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by midwest1

I think you are missing the fact that in the 89 miles between Chicago and Milwaukee are not simply suburban sprawl and farms.

Racine is a small metro of 200,000 people and Kenosha is an urban entity in its own right, with a population of nearly 100,000. And to the south of that is the old industrial city of Waukegan, which has very ambitious plans to build thousands of homes on its lakefront near downtown. South of that is the thriving downtown Highland Park, and then south of that is booming Evanston.

The combined population of the three counties lying between Cook and Milwaukee is now well over 1,000,000 and growing at a decent rate. For those 1,000,000 people, the two metros are already merged...heck, even people in northern Cook County think of the Milwaukee airport as a viable option..

And there are plans to increase the speed on the Hiawatha line to cut the travel time to 65 minutes between Mil/Chi, and if the country ever manages to build real high-speed trains, the time could be cut to just 40 minutes, then the number of commuters would skyrocket..

See now, if you can show me the number of commuters it will increase- a rough estimate by any source/link. And if you can show me that Milwaukee MSA to Chicago MSA has more than even 1% commuters (currently it only has .7% commuters) then i'll go along with that story.

But so far, I haven't seen any validation to this Chicago/Milwaukee CSA happening- anytime in the near 20 year future, especially because it doesn't have the level of commuters right now to sustain that (there has to be a specific percentage of commuters for a unified CSA). I mean if the levels are this low right now, you honestly cannot expect that by 2020 it'll be so dramatically higher...

I just want to see proof people.

And to the poster who commented above you- yeah many people still think Chicago is the more important city over Los Angeles. Obviously that mind set isn't ever going to change.
This thread is talking about Houston CITY and Chicago CITY, I don't know where the hell all this urban area nonsense comes out from when talking about "is Houston going to surpass Chicago as the third largest city".
Also, Phoenix doesn't have any major city developments going on. Houston does, there's a big difference between those two cities and how they're making their transition- like I said, we'll see.

By the way- Everyone have a good 4th of July.

[calisnuffy]

I like Texas, but Chicago has a unique place in America, I would not want it surpassed by Houston.