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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-17-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Austin
1,795 posts, read 2,566,373 times
Reputation: 1199

Advertisements

Why can't DFW and Houston reach 10 million? DFW metro is only 3 million short from the 10 million mark and with all the growth I would not be surprise if DFW or Houston top out at 12 million if not more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2012, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
I don't see how any of those Texas cities are going to top 10 million...ever. Houston and Dallas already encompass about 10,000 square miles apiece. I can't see any way these metros can expand much further outwards, so they're going to need to start filling in towards the city. Higher land values will follow.

With Texas' tax system having to rely on high property taxes due to no income taxes, this will drastically increase the cost of living of these cities. One of the only reasons these cities are growing at these ridiculous rates is because they offer an advantageous cost of living. Without their main draw, how can we expect these cities to continue to grow like that? Answer: we can't. On top of that, there are only so many people in Mexico. The massive influx of Mexicans to the Southwest metros will slow down soon enough.

I think ultimately, Dallas & Houston will top off somewhere around 7.5-8 million. Maybe one of them will get up to 8.5-9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
What I don't get is how so many people are predicting these Texas metros to jump past 10 million like it ain't no thang. At one point Chicago was easily the fastest growing city in the nation. It has been the #3 city population wise for decades now but still hasn't topped 10 mil. Just because these Texan cities had a good decade doesn't mean this level of growth will persist. Yes, they'll continue to grow...but it's hard to imagine they'll come anywhere close to sustaining the rate.
Again, you clearly need a lesson on Texas metro set up (well west of the Mississippi metros.

first of all the cities have not had a good decade they have had a good 50 or so years.

secondly we do not have dense areas surrounded by less dense areas. Rather we have a number of smaller towns connected by lower density suburban areas. That is why Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, LA, San Diego, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc have urban areas that are more dense than Bostons.

While Boston's metro has few economic centers with large gaps between the cites, in the western half of the country the suburban development connect these little towns for much further out.

Spring, Katy, Cypress, etc etc are all small town in the Houston area that have populations of 10K but surrounded by 200+ K suburbs. All these cities just run into each other so you don't get the gaps like you see in NE between the smaller towns.

Third, Houston metro may cover 10,000 miles, but 4.1M of the 6M in the metro leaves in 1 out of the 10 county metro. another 1M leaves very near to the central county in three other counties Montgomery, Fort Bend and Brazoria. So don't pull the wool over your eyes or anyone elses by making it seem like Houston is spread out over 10K miles. In Both Houston and DFW a supermajority of people live in 2000 sq miles not 10K sq miles.

4th I dunno what you are talking about higer land values? Don't know where you are going with it but like I said most people live in Harris, there is 9 other counties left to attract their own business and people. Counties like Austin, San Jacinto, Chambers etc are huge in land area but only have 30k people etc. we are not like you guys who have tons of smaller counties with 500K each in the east. Western counties are huge and when the census joins them they take the entire county with them.

5th, most of these cities have just as much business 30 miles from downtown as they have in downtown. You don't need to drive 35 miles to downtown but drive to the employment center closest to you. a lot of you like to think of metros as driving to the core. screw that there are 40 cores. Smart people choose to live in areas around the core where they will be working. The Port expansions are bringing in plenty of new jobs. Chambers County is near the port and basically empty. Why would that drive prices up much in Chambers? Chambers is huge. it is 600 sq miles and only has 30,00 people. The population density is far less than 100 people per sq mile.

6th you can't compare these metros to Chicago. Chicago had different things going for it and different things going against it at the moment.
LA is a more apt comparison for Houston and ATL a more apt comparison for DFW. Houston's growth is going to be driven by port activity like LA Long Beach, and DFW's growth is driven by being a centrally located regional hub.
Chicago's location benefited the city a lot because the center of the countries population was a lot closer to Chicago back in the day. Plus Chicago is located next to Canada which is a major trade partner. But less face it, Chicago is not on the coast and our trading partners are changing.

LA spanked Chicago because of trade with Asia. South America is also becoming major players. Shipping to Chicago from Asia, Central and South America is just not happening. Combine that with the center of the US population being much farther south now than when Chicago was booming furthers the justification for claiming these large southern metros are going to keep growing.

Houston is a large port city like LA but far more centrally located than LA. DFW is just as centrally located as Chicago but closer to the center of the population than Chicago. Chicago has the advantage on railroad shipping but DFW has the advantage on shipping via trucks, and their rail system isn't that bad either.

The DFW CSA is at 7M this year. Don't know how their growth rates have gone in the last two years, but I can tell you now, that your 7.5M estimate is pure crap.That would mean that DFW would have to go from 150K new people a year to 25K. Unless something very very very major happens that kind of rapid slow down is not happening. Bare in mind that the natural increase is over 500K a decade, so before this decade is over the CSA is going to meet your low ball, and we are not even talking about 2030 yet.

Both Houston and DFW will be over 8.5M by 2030 based on current metro definitions and sizes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Austin
1,795 posts, read 2,566,373 times
Reputation: 1199
Also look at Los Angeles it has a mega population and covers greater distances than Houston or DFW. Personally I don't see a major slow down aleast for the time being in Texas cities. There is alot going on right now like the Houston ship channel expansion, large corporate companies relocating here, Medical expansion, and low cost of living, ect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX View Post
Also look at Los Angeles it has a mega population and covers greater distances than Houston or DFW.
LA actually has a mega population in not that much area. ten years ago LA had 11M in less than 3000 sq miles. Houston and DFW had just about 4M in just over 1000 sq miles. But I know what you are saying about the metro sizes. Although non of these metros use up all the land they are given LA is a good example of how far out these metros can get.

Quote:
Personally I don't see a major slow down aleast for the time being in Texas cities. There is alot going on right now like the Houston ship channel expansion, large corporate companies relocating here, Medical expansion, and low cost of living, ect.
I agree. by 2030 there MAY be a slow down but by then a lot of growth would have already been covered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 01:28 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,148,414 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX View Post
Why can't DFW and Houston reach 10 million? DFW metro is only 3 million short from the 10 million mark and with all the growth I would not be surprise if DFW or Houston top out at 12 million if not more.

In less than 20 years? I guess anything is possible but to me this seems like less than likely

To scale to taht size is huge and drain to resources and increases costs for both business and residents. Just dont see it. The easy part of fast growth is most done in these places
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
In less than 20 years? I guess anything is possible but to me this seems like less than likely

To scale to taht size is huge and drain to resources and increases costs for both business and residents. Just dont see it. The easy part of fast growth is most done in these places
not saying that it is going to happen here, but for an example in 20 years LA posted these numbers:

1950-1970- more than 4 Million new bodies added
1970-1990- more than 4.5M added

1950-1990- population went from 4.9M to 14.5M
3M isn't all that much in comparison, LA did it in the 80's (just the 80's) but like I said I am not saying that DFW will grow that quickly

Chicago's metro never had such rapid growth. The city did some phenomenal numbers but not the metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 01:55 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,148,414 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
not saying that it is going to happen here, but for an example in 20 years LA posted these numbers:

1950-1970- more than 4 Million new bodies added
1970-1990- more than 4.5M added

1950-1990- population went from 4.9M to 14.5M
3M isn't all that much in comparison, LA did it in the 80's (just the 80's) but like I said I am not saying that DFW will grow that quickly

Chicago's metro never had such rapid growth. The city did some phenomenal numbers but not the metro.

But look at the density in which LA added (plus not for nothing but it was the CA coast, dramtic scenery and weather not really replicated anywhere else). Houston and DFW need far more new infrastructure per resident compared to how LA grew; dont see Houston doubling their development density to capitalize on existing infrastructure at the LA level (especially not within 30 years). Also LA was the huge grower for most of the time (Maybe SOCAL) and there is more to compete with. Unless more mexicans immigrate to DFW and Houston I personally dont see it. Will they grow, yes, matching those rates. To me highly doubtful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
But look at the density in which LA added (plus not for nothing but it was the CA coast, dramtic scenery and weather not really replicated anywhere else). Houston and DFW need far more new infrastructure per resident compared to how LA grew; dont see Houston doubling their development density to capitalize on existing infrastructure at the LA level (especially not within 30 years). Also LA was the huge grower for most of the time (Maybe SOCAL) and there is more to compete with. Unless more mexicans immigrate to DFW and Houston I personally dont see it. Will they grow, yes, matching those rates. To me highly doubtful.
1. I said it was not the same

2. You never know.

3. My prediction for the two was 8.5M, but go ahead, wouldn't want to deprive you of the usual jab against your favorite targets

4. Houston will not have to double the density at all. 70% of the metro is at a density level below 100 people per sq mile. It has plenty of developable room without having to up its infrastructure to double density. the 4M other people does NOT have to be in Harris County.There are 9 others that are empty. How many times must people remind you that all metros are not built the same???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 02:52 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,148,414 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
1. I said it was not the same

2. You never know.

3. My prediction for the two was 8.5M, but go ahead, wouldn't want to deprive you of the usual jab against your favorite targets

4. Houston will not have to double the density at all. 70% of the metro is at a density level below 100 people per sq mile. It has plenty of developable room without having to up its infrastructure to double density. the 4M other people does NOT have to be in Harris County.There are 9 others that are empty. How many times must people remind you that all metros are not built the same???

Then it would require more infrastructure to support another 2 million or so away from the core, my point originally. The 8 million range seems more realistic thogh
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2012, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Then it would require more infrastructure to support another 2 million or so away from the core, my point originally.
not really. 2M over 9 counties over 8500 sq miles???
that is 225K per county or 235 people per sq mile. That is almost dang near rural.
I don't honestly see it as a stretch to get an area up to 275 ppsm. Counties like Brazoria and Montgomery got 223K without that much infrastructure changes.

Have you been to the outlying areas by any chance?
Austin or Chambers county for example?? I don't think you guys realize how empty those things are. The Roads in those places are not too bad already.
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