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.
The bay area is wall to wall dense urban development from 40 miles north of San Francisco to 20 Miles South Of San Jose.......and you don't call that being in the Same Metro.....
How can Dallas/Fort Worth be included in the same Metropolitan Area and Washington and Baltimore can not....
Well Dallas and Fort Worth are simply closer to each other than Baltimore and Washington. Traveling west on I30 from Dallas, you go through Grand Prarie, Arlington, than you are in Ft. Worth. Only 29 miles apart from downtown to downtown but 10 miles apart from city to city. Many of Tarrant County residents work in Dallas County so it justifies being counted in the entire MSA. To be fair, they do split up the two metros but they call it a PMSA.
Well Dallas and Fort Worth are simply closer to each other than Baltimore and Washington. Traveling west on I30 from Dallas, you go through Grand Prarie, Arlington, than you are in Ft. Worth. Only 29 miles apart from downtown to downtown but 10 miles apart from city to city. Many of Tarrant County residents work in Dallas County so it justifies being counted in the entire MSA. To be fair, they do split up the two metros but they call it a PMSA.
One definition of Metropolitan L.A. is Los Angeles and Orange Counties. That is as far as Washington-Baltimore.
Chicago had about 3 and a half million people back in the 70's. Chicago now has about 2 and a half million people living in its city. Chicago is losing people just as fast as Detroit, becuase in from the 70's to now, Detroit has lost around around a Million. Chicago just had more people to start out with.
Houston had just under 1 million people back in the 70's, and it now has just over 2 million population.
If rates still go like this where Chicago gets more unemployment and losing more people, and Houston keeps growing like a suburb, than Houston will be the nations 3rd largest city above Chicago by atleast 2015.
unless a place like Philly gets a big boom, which would be 1 out of 1,000,000 chance of happening
Chicago is not currently losing its population. It has been undergoing a growth phase for years now. When is the last time that you've been to Chicago? Have you seen all of the projects going up?
Chicago was in the top 10 fastest growing metros last year.
Chicago losing population as fast as Detroit?? Who here believes that!!
Chicago had about 3 and a half million people back in the 70's. Chicago now has about 2 and a half million people living in its city. Chicago is losing people just as fast as Detroit, becuase in from the 70's to now, Detroit has lost around around a Million. Chicago just had more people to start out with.
Houston had just under 1 million people back in the 70's, and it now has just over 2 million population.
If rates still go like this where Chicago gets more unemployment and losing more people, and Houston keeps growing like a suburb, than Houston will be the nations 3rd largest city above Chicago by atleast 2015.
unless a place like Philly gets a big boom, which would be 1 out of 1,000,000 chance of happening
That's right, since we know that current trends can be extrapolated infinitely into the future, soon Chicago will eventually have a population of negative 1 million.
You do realize that Chicago gained population from 1990 to 2000. We'll have to wait until the 2010 census to see if Chicago is indeed currently losing population.
Chicago is not currently losing its population. It has been undergoing a growth phase for years now. When is the last time that you've been to Chicago? Have you seen all of the projects going up?
Chicago was in the top 10 fastest growing metros last year.
Chicago losing population as fast as Detroit?? Who here believes that!!
arent we talking about the real city, Chicago and Houston? not metro area? think that over
Chicago had about 3 and a half million people back in the 70's. Chicago now has about 2 and a half million people living in its city. Chicago is losing people just as fast as Detroit, becuase in from the 70's to now, Detroit has lost around around a Million. Chicago just had more people to start out with.
Houston had just under 1 million people back in the 70's, and it now has just over 2 million population.
If rates still go like this where Chicago gets more unemployment and losing more people, and Houston keeps growing like a suburb, than Houston will be the nations 3rd largest city above Chicago by atleast 2015.
unless a place like Philly gets a big boom, which would be 1 out of 1,000,000 chance of happening
What? Did you miss the fact that Chicagoland has 2 of the fastest growing counties in the nation, and Chicago was #7 on the fastest growing metro area? Chicago's metro dwarfs Houston's as well.
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.
The bay area is wall to wall dense urban development from 40 miles north of San Francisco to 20 Miles South Of San Jose.......and you don't call that being in the Same Metro.....
