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 boomed like crazy in the early 80's, then when the oil bust hit mid-decade it slowed WAY down for about 10 years and didn't pick back up the pace until about the mid-90's. The MSA still continued to grow throughout the 80's though.
You're right though. It's almost impossible to predict these things long term. Many factors could come into play to alter growth rates, not just economy. I think Houston will probably continue growing at it's current rate for at least a few more years, but beyond that... who knows?
Right, I agree, just mean that the city of Houston grew by 2% in the 80's, so you wouldn't have wanted to go off that in the future. Chicago's burbs grew by 900,000 in the 90's and only 550,000 in the 2000's. Even more extreme the city grew by over 100,000 in the 90's and then had a huge black youth outflow in the 2000's which was much of a 200,000 decrease. Who knows what the future holds and what the drivers are. It's almost always a factor of economics.
Right, I agree, just mean that the city of Houston grew by 2% in the 80's, so you wouldn't have wanted to go off that in the future. Chicago's burbs grew by 900,000 in the 90's and only 550,000 in the 2000's. Even more extreme the city grew by over 100,000 in the 90's and then had a huge black youth outflow in the 2000's which was much of a 200,000 decrease. Who knows what the future holds and what the drivers are. It's almost always a factor of economics.
Eh, some of these stats are off. First, you can't use the Census 1990-2000 numbers for urban areas, because they recalculated the 1990 base under the Clinton administration, using imputation for the first time.
Point being, there probably was similar population change numbers in Chicago in both the 1990's and 2000's. It's just that the 2000 numbers are basically useless when comparing with all the other decennial counts.
And Chicago's population loss isn't because of "huge black youth outflow". The city lost a large number of whites too, and Hispanic population growth was flat. The biggest age cohorts to leave the city are 30-somethings and 40-somethings, so probably people are leaving once they have school-age children, regardless of race, which is also probably true in most major U.S. cities.
For Houston, there has been a pretty consistent boom for decades now, except for during the energy price collapse. Houston is a pretty solid bet for continued strong growth. That said, it will be a while before Houston Metro surpasses Chicago Metro. Chicago Metro is still growing, though city proper is probably declining somewhat.
All that said, you're right, one can't predict the future. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. For all we know, Houston could slow down dramatically. An energy price plunge, a tighter border and more opportunity in Mexico, rising problems with Texas property taxes and lack of educational investment, could be issues going forward.
Eh, some of these stats are off. First, you can't use the Census 1990-2000 numbers for urban areas, because they recalculated the 1990 base under the Clinton administration, using imputation for the first time.
Point being, there probably was similar population change numbers in Chicago in both the 1990's and 2000's. It's just that the 2000 numbers are basically useless when comparing with all the other decennial counts.
And Chicago's population loss isn't because of "huge black youth outflow". The city lost a large number of whites too, and Hispanic population growth was flat. The biggest age cohorts to leave the city are 30-somethings and 40-somethings, so probably people are leaving once they have school-age children, regardless of race, which is also probably true in most major U.S. cities.
For Houston, there has been a pretty consistent boom for decades now, except for during the energy price collapse. Houston is a pretty solid bet for continued strong growth. That said, it will be a while before Houston Metro surpasses Chicago Metro. Chicago Metro is still growing, though city proper is probably declining somewhat.
All that said, you're right, one can't predict the future. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. For all we know, Houston could slow down dramatically. An energy price plunge, a tighter border and more opportunity in Mexico, rising problems with Texas property taxes and lack of educational investment, could be issues going forward.
Chicago lost 180,000 black people from 2000 to 2010, the majority lived in housing projects or were on some sort of govt aid, these are people who cost the city money. While I don't know if it was black youths, they were def black.
Eh, some of these stats are off. First, you can't use the Census 1990-2000 numbers for urban areas, because they recalculated the 1990 base under the Clinton administration, using imputation for the first time.
Point being, there probably was similar population change numbers in Chicago in both the 1990's and 2000's. It's just that the 2000 numbers are basically useless when comparing with all the other decennial counts.
And Chicago's population loss isn't because of "huge black youth outflow". The city lost a large number of whites too, and Hispanic population growth was flat. The biggest age cohorts to leave the city are 30-somethings and 40-somethings, so probably people are leaving once they have school-age children, regardless of race, which is also probably true in most major U.S. cities.
For Houston, there has been a pretty consistent boom for decades now, except for during the energy price collapse. Houston is a pretty solid bet for continued strong growth. That said, it will be a while before Houston Metro surpasses Chicago Metro. Chicago Metro is still growing, though city proper is probably declining somewhat.
All that said, you're right, one can't predict the future. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. For all we know, Houston could slow down dramatically. An energy price plunge, a tighter border and more opportunity in Mexico, rising problems with Texas property taxes and lack of educational investment, could be issues going forward.
Certain neighborhoods? Yes. But overall I would disagree that the city is on the decline. The future is bright for Chicago.
Crime will continue to be an issue in troubled areas, but with proper police enforcement and a continued influx of families and young professionals, there is no doubt that the tides will begin to visibly turn on the macro scale. Schools, which are the next big issue to tackle, will naturally begin to improve as the quality of residents improve - the problem with CPS is not a lack of talent or effort on the part of the teachers, its largely the value placed on education on the student and family level.
Eh, some of these stats are off. First, you can't use the Census 1990-2000 numbers for urban areas, because they recalculated the 1990 base under the Clinton administration, using imputation for the first time.
Point being, there probably was similar population change numbers in Chicago in both the 1990's and 2000's. It's just that the 2000 numbers are basically useless when comparing with all the other decennial counts.
And Chicago's population loss isn't because of "huge black youth outflow". The city lost a large number of whites too, and Hispanic population growth was flat. The biggest age cohorts to leave the city are 30-somethings and 40-somethings, so probably people are leaving once they have school-age children, regardless of race, which is also probably true in most major U.S. cities.
What are you talking about? The urban area comparisons were going by the same set of counties from 1990 to 2000 and 2010 - the counties didn't change. Why would comparisons be useless??
Chicago's population loss isn't because of a huge black outlfow? It was 90% of the overall loss. 110,000 out of the 200,000 loss was blacks aged 0-19 years old. There was a further loss of 70,000 black adults. The white population's largest loss was driven by a 40,000 loss of white people aged 65 and over. It was offset by a 40,000 increase in the white population in their 20's, a 10,000 increase in whites under age 10, with the remaining white population trending downward.
Latinos lost their youth population, but was an overall increase because of the adult population growing. Asian grew pretty much all around.
70% of the population loss was people under the age of 19. The most stable age group was those aged 18-64, with the senior citizen population down about three times as much percentage wise as the rest of the adult population. Why would you think people in their 30's and 40's are the biggest group to leave the city?
Just look at at the census viewer online - where are you coming up with this???
Last edited by Chicago60614; 12-20-2013 at 01:07 PM..
Chicago lost 180,000 black people from 2000 to 2010, the majority lived in housing projects or were on some sort of govt aid, these are people who cost the city money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614
What are you talking about? The urban area comparisons were going by the same set of counties from 1990 to 2000 and 2010 - the counties didn't change. Why would comparisons be useless??
Chicago's population loss isn't because of a huge black outlfow? It was 90% of the overall loss. 110,000 out of the 200,000 loss was blacks aged 0-19 years old. There was a further loss of 70,000 black adults. The white population's largest loss was driven by a 40,000 loss of white people aged 65 and over. It was offset by a 40,000 increase in the white population in their 20's, a 10,000 increase in whites under age 10, with the remaining white population trending downward.
Latinos lost their youth population, but was an overall increase because of the adult population growing. Asian grew pretty much all around.
70% of the population loss was people under the age of 19. The most stable age group was those aged 18-64, with the senior citizen population down about three times as much percentage wise as the rest of the adult population. Why would you think people in their 30's and 40's are the biggest group to leave the city?
Just look at at the census viewer online - where are you coming up with this???
These are both correct. The trend is likely continuing as well. CPS is losing Black students, and gaining hispanics and whites.
From what the question was asking, the comparison between Chicago and Houston, the cities themselves. So in terms of that, I think Houston will pass Chicago, but probably in 30 years and not 10.
I would remind people what I am sure has already been mentioned on this thread: Houston's municipal boundaries are huge - 600 sq miles (larger than LA even). Chicagoland's population in the 600 sq miles around the Loop (as of the 2010 census) was about 4.3 million. That's double the population of Houston. So even if Houston overtakes Chicago at some point in the next few decades it would be an optical illusion.
These are both correct. The trend is likely continuing as well. CPS is losing Black students, and gaining hispanics and whites.
This is half-correct.
CPS is losing black students, while Hispanic and white students are stable or dropping slightly.
Long story short, CPS is losing all types of students, regardless of race, but losing black students the most, probably because the birthrates among low income African Americans has plummeted in recent decades, white and Hispanic birthrates have dropped only slightly.
Speaking of Chicago public schools...here is an interesting gif regarding the "gentrification" of schools in the city by elementary test scores. I find this to be of huge importance when discussing the city's future population trends. It seems quite apparent that there is a new generation of (largely) white young families that may be setting down roots in the city whereas previous generations tended to hightail it to the suburbs once their kids reached school age. If this trend continues, I can see Chicago start to see accelerating growth, even attracting young families from other regions and cities in search of that elusive combo of low cost-of-living, urban lifestyle, and good neighborhood schools.
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.
