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.
That's due to rampant suburbanization in the post-war era and overall smaller household sizes; that's why almost every large city that hasn't engaged in massive annexations are less populous now than they were during the mid-20th century. If Chicago were to more than double in land area to match Houston, it would most likely rival Los Angeles for the second-largest city spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs
Oh so you use city proper statistics, the most meaningless of all statistics. Any city can look big by annexing its suburbs. If St. Louis had the land area of Houston it would be a top-10 city according to city limits.
By the way, you know where the vast majority of those Chicago residents that left the city went? The Chicago suburbs.
Same thing for St. Louis and its suburbs. Which by the way has nothing to do with this discussion, but thanks for dragging my hometown into this.
I put these together because they are basically the same arguments.
Every population projection I have ever seen shows both The City of Houston and the Greater Houston MSA either nearly catching up or surpassing both The City of Chicago and the Chicago MSA or Chicagoland as you may say, in the next 20 years. BTW did you know the area covered by the Chicago MSA is actually bigger than that of the Greater Houston MSA. So if people are voting with their feet as you say, they are by and large voting for Houston over Chicago.
Chicago MSA 10,856 sq mi (28,120 km2)
Houston MSA 10,062 sq mi (26,061 km2)
Sources Wikipedia
OuttaTheLouBurbs I just thought it was strange that you would use the logic that a bigger population made a MSA better, considering that would put St Louis in a distant back seat to both Houston and Chicago
Be careful what you wish for...Climate Change is bringing a climate similar to that of Texas to the Midwest within the many of our lifetimes. If you're 40 or younger, it's a real possibility you live to see average Chicago highs in the 50s in January...It's already happening and it's going to take centuries to reverse. Positive feedback loop is going to drastically change the world's climate systems.
I am only 31 and I have seen it change in Chicago especially in the past 5 years. Are winters have been so mild lately, but with so much gloominess and rain though. I remember growing up, winters were pretty darn cold and sunnier. Now they are much more milder, but rainy and cloudy. Much like Seattle winters.
Much better, and if Chicago didn't have the lake, I would say they are equal. But with a 20+ shoreline full of vegetation, harbors, beaches, piers, wildlife, etc., Houston just can't beat Chicago.
i'm shocked that this discussion even reached this far. Houston has like nothing aesthetically pleasing about it except maybe its skyline and a few large parks. The rest is flat and nothing but boring strip malls. No lakes, hills, historical architecture...nothing. It's not uncommon knowledge...Chicago easily.
I am only 31 and I have seen it change in Chicago especially in the past 5 years. Are winters have been so mild lately, but with so much gloominess and rain though. I remember growing up, winters were pretty darn cold and sunnier. Now they are much more milder, but rainy and cloudy. Much like Seattle winters.
I don't think the average temps were much lower in the 90s, if at all, than they are now.
Winters in reality appear to be getting snowier in the northeast at least. 6 of the top 10 snowiest winters on record in Boston have been between the 90s and now. I think a lot of people who say they remember it being worse only remember the worst.
only if you're counting outside of houston too because the north and southeast pics aren't what you would consider houston...but Woodlands suburbs and the gulf, so otherwise this is kinda cheating
I remember winter in the mid/late 90s being colder and snowier but I don't think the average temps then were much lower, if at all, than they are now.
Winters in reality appear to be getting snowier in the northeast at least. 6 of the top 10 snowiest winters on record in Boston have been between the 90s and now. I think a lot of people who say they remember it being worse only remember the worst of those winters.
There's more snow because more ice melts and water evaporates more quickly due to the earth's temperatures at the surface are hotter. People will tell you that it snowed where they live so climate change isn't real, but it's snowing more because the climate is changing. Very quickly.
i'm shocked that this discussion even reached this far. Houston has like nothing aesthetically pleasing about it except maybe its skyline and a few large parks. The rest is flat and nothing but boring strip malls. No lakes, hills, historical architecture...nothing. It's not uncommon knowledge...Chicago easily.
Greater Houston has a much greater change in elevation than Metro Chicago in a smaller area
Greater Houston Highest elevation 430 ft (131 m) Lowest elevation 0 ft (0 m), change in elevation 430 ft
Chicago MSA Highest elevation 673 ft (205 m) Lowest elevation 579 ft (176 m), change in elevation 94 ft
It appears that Chicagoland is by far the flatter area
I put these together because they are basically the same arguments.
Every population projection I have ever seen shows both The City of Houston and the Greater Houston MSA either nearly catching up or surpassing both The City of Chicago and the Chicago MSA or Chicagoland as you may say, in the next 20 years. BTW did you know the area covered by the Chicago MSA is actually bigger than that of the Greater Houston MSA. So if people are voting with their feet as you say, they are by and large voting for Houston over Chicago.
Chicago MSA 10,856 sq mi (28,120 km2)
Houston MSA 10,062 sq mi (26,061 km2)
Sources Wikipedia
OuttaTheLouBurbs I just thought it was strange that you would use the logic that a bigger population made a MSA better, considering that would put St Louis in a distant back seat to both Houston and Chicago
Chicago's urbanized area has 95% of its' MSA population in 2600 square miles or so. Just an FYI...
only if you're counting outside of houston too because the north and southeast pics aren't what you would consider houston...but Woodlands suburbs and the gulf, so otherwise this is kinda cheating
Well that's why he differentiated the city from the other areas. He never said it was the city.
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.
Any city can look big by annexing its suburbs. If St. Louis had the land area of Houston it would be a top-10 city according to city limits.
