U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
 
Old 01-17-2011, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,313,140 times
Reputation: 4270

Advertisements

4 million people in 20 years is pretty astronomical! And I wonder where all of these people will go since Houston (and Dallas) are SO SPREAD OUT? No matter what, the cost of living will be MUCh higher because of that growth.

I don't doubt continued growth in Texas cities, but I do see a slowdown coming sometime within the next 10 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2011, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Using what growth rates?
nope, based on articles (hence the nice little words in brackets)

I stole the estimates from articles.

I don't know how much I agree with the DFW part though, that is a really short time for DFW to start to slow down. I would think they would continue to grow rapidly at least into the 30's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,313,140 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
What are you talking about?? you are not usually so off the ball.

Both Houston and Dallas are ahead of SF, Boston and DC.

Unless you are confusing MSA with CSA.

Houston is at 6.1M
DFW is at 6.6M
DC is only at 5.5M
Boston is even a million less at 4.5M
and SF is way back at 4.3M

In 2020
Houston should be at 7.9M (Major pickup predicted with the Panama Canal expansion)
DFW should be at 8.3M (major slowdown predicted in the 20's)
Chicago should be at 9.9M
Boston should be at 4.8M

In 2030
Houston should be at 10M
DFW should be at 8.5M
Chicago should be at 10.2M
Boston should be at 5.2M
I referenced this post -- I don't see brackets or a reference. Stop pretending like you know everythiing and try to conversate with facts or strong assumptions instead of snide remarks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
4 million people in 20 years is pretty astronomical! And I wonder where all of these people will go since Houston (and Dallas) are SO SPREAD OUT? No matter what, the cost of living will be MUCh higher because of that growth.

I don't doubt continued growth in Texas cities, but I do see a slowdown coming sometime within the next 10 years.
exactly, since they are so spread out, these people will fit into the gaps.

I made a post a couple of days ago about infill in Houston zip codes, a lot of these zips doubled in population in the last decade. especially the western zip codes.

Look at it this way, GH has about 10 counties.
The metropolitan area has 6.1M people
4.1of that is in one county- Harris
There are 10 other counties carrying only 2M people. ten other counties with more than 3M people less than Harris, ie lots of room for new comers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 12:54 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,559,220 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
either way you must have been tired or something cause you mentioned MSA.

And neither Houston or Chicago has much of a CSA anyway.
And even still Boston and SF have slow growing CSA's

I don't like estimating CSA's because it is the newest demographic tool so it has the least history to go on and it has the weakest interaction.

When SF combines with SJ and DC with Baltimore, we will talk.
Actually, I said Metro Area, two different things. I say metro area because not all metros have a CSA. Metro is vague and all encompassing. MSA/CSA/City/County are specific.
The Bay Area IS Combined... hence why CSA is relevant.

The west side of the bay is SF, the south is SJ, the east is Oakland. It's continuous development around the water and surrounded by mountains.
There is much more solid dev than in between than Dallas/Ft Worth.
You are only using MSA b/c it benefits Texas cities, you know (or should) that SF / DC / Boston are much larger metros. Even the Bay Area SJ/SF/Oak CSA is SMALLER than Dallas and Houston metro but you don't want to count it? You could almost combine Sacramento in to it much less San Jose and it would still be smaller than Houston.

Last edited by grapico; 01-17-2011 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 03:41 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,125 posts, read 23,642,005 times
Reputation: 11611
I like that we keep on going back to this same argument about the Bay Area when it is so obviously one single metro area. Same media market, same transit systems, shared suburbs, shared identity, shared institutions, etc. along with a continuous ring of development along the same bay (hence the Bay Area) which is obvious in satellite pictures. Blah blah blah blah.

On topic: the impact might be big depending on if this means Chicago going down for a really bad slide (which doesn't seem to be happening as its city population decline seems to have already passed its inflection point and is now going up while its metro population has never really declined at all) or if it just means Dallas and Houston are growing.

Metro-wise, neither greater houston or dfw seem to be particularly close to passing Chicagoland in population, and there's little certainty that these growth trends will last for the next several decades (which is how long current trends will have to run for this to happen) as anyone who looks at the demographic history of American cities can easily figure out. Possible problems Houston and DFW will run into are having to have their infrastructure and housing stock be maintained and improved for their larger populations, the problem and costs of keeping a sprawling city affordable as (and if) fuel prices continue to soar, possible water issues, and possible continued issues with illegal immigration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Actually, I said Metro Area, two different things. I say metro area because not all metros have a CSA. Metro is vague and all encompassing. MSA/CSA/City/County are specific.
The Bay Area IS Combined... hence why CSA is relevant.

The west side of the bay is SF, the south is SJ, the east is Oakland. It's continuous development around the water and surrounded by mountains.
There is much more solid dev than in between than Dallas/Ft Worth.
You are only using MSA b/c it benefits Texas cities, you know (or should) that SF / DC / Boston are much larger metros. Even the Bay Area SJ/SF/Oak CSA is SMALLER than Dallas and Houston metro but you don't want to count it? You could almost combine Sacramento in to it much less San Jose and it would still be smaller than Houston.

well normally when people say metro area they don't usually start quoting COMBINED STATISTICAL AREAS.


It doesn't matter what physical size these areas are, and honestly you guys have made that argument a zillion times already, y'all sound like broken records.

The bay area is unusually small period. It is not common for metros.

AT 7K sq miles it is much smaller than NY, Chicago, ATL, Houston, Dallas, LA, Phoenix, etc

But it doesn't matter anyway. The Bay area is not classified as a metro.

geez, you dragged me way off topic.

Back to Chicago being passed up by GH and DFW. those three are approx the same size, stick with them. SF DMV and Bos needs to figure out what they are before they can come in the picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I like that we keep on going back to this same argument about the Bay Area when it is so obviously one single metro area. Same media market, same transit systems, shared suburbs, shared identity, shared institutions, etc. along with a continuous ring of development along the same bay (hence the Bay Area) which is obvious in satellite pictures. Blah blah blah blah.

On topic: the impact might be big depending on if this means Chicago going down for a really bad slide (which doesn't seem to be happening as its city population decline seems to have already passed its inflection point and is now going up while its metro population has never really declined at all) or if it just means Dallas and Houston are growing.

Metro-wise, neither greater houston or dfw seem to be particularly close to passing Chicagoland in population, and there's little certainty that these growth trends will last for the next several decades (which is how long current trends will have to run for this to happen) as anyone who looks at the demographic history of American cities can easily figure out. Possible problems Houston and DFW will run into are having to have their infrastructure and housing stock be maintained and improved for their larger populations, the problem and costs of keeping a sprawling city affordable as (and if) fuel prices continue to soar, possible water issues, and possible continued issues with illegal immigration.

what are these associated costs of Sprawl that people always talk about?

Houston especially function as a collection of self sufficient areas in that you don't have to go ore than 5 miles to get what you want. Dallas seems more spread out in terms of going further to hunt for something.

But what is this cost that you guys keep talking about? Is it the roads??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,313,140 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
what are these associated costs of Sprawl that people always talk about?

Houston especially function as a collection of self sufficient areas in that you don't have to go ore than 5 miles to get what you want. Dallas seems more spread out in terms of going further to hunt for something.

But what is this cost that you guys keep talking about? Is it the roads??
LOTS of reasons -- City and Urban planning 101. But if you continue to build further and further away from the core for instance, the more attractive land is that is closer to the core (e.g. transportation costs are less).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2011, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,794,440 times
Reputation: 4047
Why is this conversation relevant?

Surpassing a city or a metropolitan area by population does not automatically give a place any of the following: better transit, better school system, better landmarks, better restaurants, better weather, better anything.

So why are people so hung over population metrics? It's not even a bragging right to say "I'm the 2nd largest city in America or 3rd largest city or 4th largest city". I think EVERY city here needs to market themselves better, get their names out, make themselves into an international destination, make themselves appealing to more than just migrants, work around their weather defects, and create a powerful economy.

And not to be cynical, but if we're looking at only metropolitan areas then Houston Metropolitan Area & Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex have over 3 million people before reaching Chicago. No one in the country (as far as metropolitan areas go) can look at Chicago as their prey besides Washington DC-Baltimore that are within shooting range but still more than a million away.

If we're talking about city, then yes, Houston has a shot at it, and its within shooting range. But stop the mindless arguments here, its so obvious that people here are just baiting.
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.
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