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.
Houston and Dallas nowadays have many transplants from Chicago, SF, LA, NY because those people want to take advantage of the strong job growth and affordable housing. Texas cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin & San Antonio are a big draw for newcomers these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lategreattex
The reason Houston has passed Chicago as the sweatiest and fattest, (they left out butt-ugly), is because it's become overpopuated with people FROM Chicago and other parts of the midwest, just like Dallas has and unfortunately the rest of Texas if somebody doesn't put up a big ol fence on the Northern border instead of the Mexican border. No longer are you comparing Texans to Midwesterners...because they are all moving here. That is why Texas is now the most unfriendly state, the least romantic state, one of the fattest states, worst traffic, one of the top polluted states, highest crime states....you name it anything bad that Texas can be listed for is due to TRANSPLANTS!!!
It's kind of pointless to compare the populations of the two cities proper, as most of Chicago's collar suburbs have higher densities than much of Houston proper.
Actually you know those fattest city rating actually have nothing to do with the actual people don't you? They are based on restaurants per square mile, number of fitness centers, parks (and the weather conditions that allow people to enjoy the outdoors), etc.
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.
Actually, genius, as of 2007, neither Chicago or Houston are considered "fat cities." The famous title of the Fattest City in America was given to both cities by Men's Fitness magazine, who didn't even use relevant criteria to say where the most overweight people were located. Houston actually has a relatively low average BMI. I believe it's 25. Lower than the national average of 27. And last time I checked, Chicago's was 27. So is New York's.
This is not always a good thing. Houston's rapid growth combined with more than enough room to grow combined with the no-zoning regulations has caused developers to build less than impressive, often times cheap buildings within a quick amount of time. That has got to change.
I have to assume your talking about the city proper. Houston would not be able to surpass Chicago without annexing more land.
Unless it create more density by tearing down existing homes and building new ones closer together.
As long as they leave the old southern homes alone, that's fine by me.
It's kind of pointless to compare the populations of the two cities proper, as most of Chicago's collar suburbs have higher densities than much of Houston proper.
Which ones, for example? None of the ones I found had a density higher than Houston.
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.
