U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you think NYC will still be the largest city in 2050?
Yes 626 81.51%
No 142 18.49%
Voters: 768. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,865 posts, read 12,810,227 times
Reputation: 5794

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
Spot five for me was all with my heart. I don't think Pheonix, or even Houston, deserve to be in the top five. Houston has something like 3,300 people per square mile. That's lower than Suburban Chicago for the most part. Same thing applys to Pheonix. I'd really like it if Philadelphia turn around. I'm sure in the 70's and 80's no one predicted NYC would turn around, but it did .
Deserve? How exactly does a city deserve a population increase? It's not like there is a panel that decides who gets to increase in population. It's all about where people want to live. No one is awarding cities spots in the top 5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:06 PM
 
464 posts, read 970,218 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newarkbomb View Post
Houston will probably surpass Chicago for sure
I think its 50 50. Huge things play into it. One of the main ones is fresh water. All sun belt cities are faced with this problem. If they can't get a hold of enough water, development can only go so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:18 PM
 
464 posts, read 970,218 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by westhou View Post
Deserve? How exactly does a city deserve a population increase? It's not like there is a panel that decides who gets to increase in population. It's all about where people want to live. No one is awarding cities spots in the top 5.
Out of context. It's because of how much Houston and Pheonix are sprawled. Houston and Pheonix are nowhere near as Urban as Philadelphia. Philadelphia has over 10,000 people per square mile, Phoenix is just below 3,000, and Houston is just over 3,300.

Basically what I'm saying is Houston and Pheonix are examples of overgrown suburbia, not that that's bad, while Philadelphia has earned the traditional meaning of a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,865 posts, read 12,810,227 times
Reputation: 5794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
Out of context. It's because of how much Houston and Pheonix are sprawled. Houston and Pheonix are nowhere near as Urban as Philadelphia. Philadelphia has over 10,000 people per square mile, Phoenix is just below 3,000, and Houston is just over 3,300.

Basically what I'm saying is Houston and Pheonix are examples of overgrown suburbia, not that that's bad, while Philadelphia has earned the traditional meaning of a city.
I don't really get why a city would have to deserve or earn a spot in the top 5 most populated cities. A city either has a larger population than another city or it doesn't. Nothing has to be deserved or earned.

In my opinion it would seem like a good thing for a "suburban" city to gain more population so that it can become more urban. If an "urban" city is already highly populated it seems that there is no reason to keep adding people in an already dense area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 06:00 PM
 
464 posts, read 970,218 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by westhou View Post
I don't really get why a city would have to deserve or earn a spot in the top 5 most populated cities. A city either has a larger population than another city or it doesn't. Nothing has to be deserved or earned.

In my opinion it would seem like a good thing for a "suburban" city to gain more population so that it can become more urban. If an "urban" city is already highly populated it seems that there is no reason to keep adding people in an already dense area.
Suburban cities cities don't really gain density over all because everything is already sprawled. I've never heard of a city reversing its sprawl. I don't even know if it's possible. I'm not saying you HAVE to earn your way into the top five, but having a dense city is the traditional view on cities, not winding avenues and subdivisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,865 posts, read 12,810,227 times
Reputation: 5794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
Suburban cities cities don't really gain density over all because everything is already sprawled. I've never heard of a city reversing its sprawl. I don't even know if it's possible. I'm not saying you HAVE to earn your way into the top five, but having a dense city is the traditional view on cities, not winding avenues and subdivisions.
I agree with you that Houston will probably never grow in density. Most of the development within the city limits is upscale highrises and midrises. If it was more affordable in the inner loop and the schools were better I would disagree with you. But I still don't think a traditional view is any better than a contemporary view. Personally I prefer a traditional view and can't wait to leave for a city more suited to my taste, but there are others out there who prefer a more suburban style city. Most of the growth in Houston will probably be outside the loop because it's more affordable and the schools are better. So I don't think the inner loop will grow much but the outer loop (metro area) will continue to see rapid growth. But I'm getting off topic so I'll leave it at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 07:19 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,567,618 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
But even than, I don't think neither Houston or Miami passes Dallas/FW if we are talking about metro areas. Dallas is growing faster than both cities and is already bigger than Houston by over 500,000 and bigger than Miami by over a million.
good point, I don't know much about Dallas admittedly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 07:21 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,567,618 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
Out of context. It's because of how much Houston and Pheonix are sprawled. Houston and Pheonix are nowhere near as Urban as Philadelphia. Philadelphia has over 10,000 people per square mile, Phoenix is just below 3,000, and Houston is just over 3,300.

Basically what I'm saying is Houston and Pheonix are examples of overgrown suburbia, not that that's bad, while Philadelphia has earned the traditional meaning of a city.
Nice post, also the density in these cities isn't a new phenomenon, many of them used to be even denser. i.e. harlem and most of chicago. I don't care what the homers say on here, I know it is two different lifestyles living in the super dense cities vs. the sprawled cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 07:30 PM
 
686 posts, read 1,515,915 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
I think its 50 50. Huge things play into it. One of the main ones is fresh water. All sun belt cities are faced with this problem. If they can't get a hold of enough water, development can only go so far.


Give me a break, the sunbelt will always have enough water, remember ther's something called desalination plants, there in florida as far as I know, and if there is a shortage more will just be built.

And also one desalination plant supplies enough water to hundreds of thousands of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 07:42 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,666,587 times
Reputation: 234
I think the south will always have water, because its right near the ocean, which causes humidity, and there are rivers. Its the southwest thats the problem....
I think chicago will be third. I dont see Houston passing it...im not sure though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top