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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2011, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,339 posts, read 2,278,892 times
Reputation: 2363

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
When was Houston hit head on by a Category 5 hurricane? We see what Tropical Storm Allison did to Houston.

How many hurricanes had New Orleans gone through before Katrina? It only takes one storm.

Despite what locals seem to believe, Houston is not too important to be destroyed by a storm.

Houston doesn't have the big reservoirs inside the city like New Orleans. Houston has been through plenty of harsh and terrible hurricanes. The city of Houston is more prepared to face a severe hurricane than any other city in the nation. The state and local governments have improved their plans by learning from all of their past problems. Houston will continue to weather the storms and grow. It hasn't stopped Houston yet and I doubt it ever will. Just look at the history. The city of Houston always adapts and overcomes the problems thrown it's way. Remember the oil collapse of the mid 1980's. It slowed the city down some but it recovered to even way more prosperous times. That is why people keep moving here. The city keeps diversifying it's economy and it's population. This city is well oiled machine.

 
Old 01-22-2011, 01:51 PM
 
452 posts, read 1,239,763 times
Reputation: 406
Who honestly knows what will happen so many years from now. Cities go through booms and busts. Is it possible??? Of course anything related to population growth is possible. 1.6 million people in the city limits is a lot to add though and even if it does, Houston will still be less than half the population of the Greater Los Angeles region. Having lots of people isn't all it is cracked up to be.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,581,128 times
Reputation: 11067
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtownboogie View Post
I think that we can all agree that it's only a matter of time when Houston should pass Chicago in city population considering nothing freakish happens in the future. My question is do you think that Houston has the potential to pass up LA in the future in city population? Before giving a NO answer consider the city zoning in Houston, scarcity of water out west, and also consider how much more undeveloped land remains in Houston, add these three to the equation and I myself believe that Houston can very well rise to the #2 position. If Houston densifies (which is inevitable IMO) and the zoning doesn't change I believe Houston should pass LA in the next 60 yrs., what do you guys think?
IMHO...I don't see it happening anytime soon if ever.....it's very difficult to predict that far into the future. Immigration may slow down...migration patterns may change....our economy will shift away from oil....both LA and Houston will face severe water shortages and/or potable water may become prohibitively expensive in both cities slowing growth.

Look how fast Northeast cities grew in the past...then the economy changed and weather played a factor with migration patterns. These parameters will change again and growth rates of cities may flip-flop with our older cities growing again and Sunbelt cities shrinking......time will tell and the only thing for certain is that growth patterns will not remain as they are today.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,521 posts, read 23,120,830 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
When was Houston hit head on by a Category 5 hurricane? We see what Tropical Storm Allison did to Houston.

How many hurricanes had New Orleans gone through before Katrina? It only takes one storm.

Despite what locals seem to believe, Houston is not too important to be destroyed by a storm.
The biggest concern in Houston is storm surge, not hurricanes. Granted being further inland than Galveston may be Houston's saving grace if ever a Cat 5 were to hit, Houston would sustain plenty of wind damage no doubt, but nothing like Galveston would see...ever.

Don't think Houston is important? I guess thats why they chose to send that woman who got shot from your state of Arizona over here to Houston for medical treatment right?

Get some decent hospitals there then come talk your smack.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,639 posts, read 27,078,190 times
Reputation: 9580
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houstonians just don't quit, do they? Houston on the level of Chicago or LA? Seriously? Houston is on par with Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco.

Houston is not some stagnant small town. Like Phoenix, it has added people through both migration and annexation. Population does not somehow propel your city into the ranks of LA or Chicago. LA and especially Chicago have been HUGE cities for decades. Houston's surge to where it is now is recent. If we were to look at Houston in 1950 compared with where LA and Chicago were in 1950, we would see just how new most of the industry in Houston is. Although Houston is known by many worldwide, Chicago and LA are known by A LOT more people.

No one from Miami, Dallas, or Atlanta cares to explain why their cities are on par with Houston. It's like Houston is the sibling that doesn't get enough attention and feels the need to scream out to stand out. Eventually everyone gets used to the screaming and just ignores them.
Rarely agree with you but I do here. When it comes to the most important cities, Houston is well below Los Angeles and Chicago and that isn't even up for discussion.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,809,998 times
Reputation: 4047
Before I start, I want to remind the people in this thread it was NOT created by someone in Houston, rarely ANY of the Houston threads are created by people ACTUALLY in Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houstonians just don't quit, do they?
Absolutely agree with you kind of on this one, but you're thinking about it as a one sided thing. This thread was created by someone who DOES NOT live in Houston, and obviously with a bold and extremely futuristic topic like this one its bound to get heated to which you and a few others have contributed too.

Here's a question, if someone not living in your city made a thread about your city (assuming you like the city you live in) and people were posting misconceptions and bashing, would you be at least tempted to correct it or not?

Most people would answer saying yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houston on the level of Chicago or LA?
I absolutely agree here. I also said this in the "Houston vs Chicago Amenities" thread too. There is no quantifiable way to even say Houston is more important or in the SAME tier of importance as Chicago & Los Angeles. If Houstonians are saying that, then that is by far and away absolutely reaching to higher levels that shouldn't be reached upon.

However, I think jluke was only talking about niche industries. He probably shouldn't have said "economically" because that is talking about the economy as a whole, as in everything put into consideration.

For Houston's niche industry which IS Energy by the way, I would say it is as relevant as Chicago's Commodity Exchange Industry, Chicago's Transportation Industry, & Los Angeles's Entertainment Industry.

However to note, that is the only thing I think about Houston that is presently in metamorphically terms on par (economically) with Chicago & Los Angeles.

Anything and everything else, its just reaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houston is on par with Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco.
I disagree. San Francisco is on a higher tier. Boston leads the next tier with Houston next, and then in no particular order with the rest Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Miami, & Detroit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houston is not some stagnant small town. Like Phoenix, it has added people through both migration and annexation.
No it absolutely has not. Houston has not annexed a pinch of land since 1996, which was Kingwood. There have been no annexations to the city of Houston since then and the land area remains at a constant 579 Square Miles.

From 2000-2010, Houston has increased by (in that same land area) 328,000 people. From 1996-2010, Houston has increased by over 410,000 people since then with no annexations in the city limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Population does not somehow propel your city into the ranks of LA or Chicago.
I agree. There are multiple variables for doing so that don't revolve around population figures per se.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
LA and especially Chicago have been HUGE cities for decades.
Again I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
If we were to look at Houston in 1950 compared with where LA and Chicago were in 1950, we would see just how new most of the industry in Houston is. Although Houston is known by many worldwide, Chicago and LA are known by A LOT more people.
I absolutely agree with this as well. And as they should. Like I said, if any Houstonians are making claims like the ones you're referring to, then they are absolutely reaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
No one from Miami, Dallas, or Atlanta cares to explain why their cities are on par with Houston. It's like Houston is the sibling that doesn't get enough attention and feels the need to scream out to stand out. Eventually everyone gets used to the screaming and just ignores them.
Now this is where its wrong. I don't know how often you read threads on this forum but in the City vs City area of the forum, you cant get enough of Atlanta, Houston, Miami, & Dallas. Although Miami to a lesser extent. To say Houstonians are doing so, is just hypocritical at best when people from the other places do just as much, and with one of them, even more so than people from Houston.

In my opinion this is bias and its unfair to people from a certain city to view them as such when every city to an extent and some even more so than Houston put forth the same behavior. I am a Houston poster too, but I absolutely do NOT agree with some of the Houston posters, look I do my best to say what's true about my city and move on. If it has issues I will expose them, and I think anyone from Houston reaching to Chicago or Los Angeles is insane.

But its just as insane to point to all people from there in the same fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houston boosters will make the city reach the number number 2 spot just to brag that Texas houses the second most populous city in the country. It's the Texas way. I wouldn't be surprised if more annexations along with migration pushes Houston over 3 million in the next 30 years or so.
With all due respect, I don't think you know much about Houston. Houston has the power to annex yes, but its limited by appeals from High Texas Courts due to use of aggression. Houston itself lost to the case for The Woodlands & Katy.

Houston also hasn't annexed anything since 1996, and there is an agreement with the city of Houston, the state of Texas, & the unincorporated areas in the Houston Metropolitan Area that Houston cannot even try annexing anything until 2014 at the earliest. So whose to say it will when it hasn't in nearly 2 decades (will be nearly by 2014)?

Surely you don't know because we're still in 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
That said, Houston is at risk for a hurricane, which could have the same emptying effect that Katrina had with New Orleans.
Another point that is wrong.

First of all, New Orleans the city sits right on Lake Ponchartrain, the Mississippi River (largest and widest River in the United States), & Gulf of Mexico. What furthermore devastates New Orleans case in regards to Houston is that it is a bowl shaped city, Houston is absolutely not and is higher than sea level and mostly inland with the exception of the Clear Lake area of the city limits that sits on the Nassau Bay.

Allison is absolutely a dumb example of Houston being devastated by flooding. During the time of Allison, the city of Houston was not adept to its infrastructure, especially drainage and sewer systems, which caused the overwhelming flooding to result. Since then the inner areas of Houston have taken the initiatives to expand and upgrade all inner city sewer systems and drainage systems, and many of which are still taking place and being constructed as we type.

Next point, after Hurricane Ike, the Coastal Commission of the United States, saw the dangers of a hurricanes lasting affects over the Houston area, and proposed to build two 67 miles long barrier out in the Gulf of Mexico to protect the entire Houston Metropolitan Area and also one for the New York Metropolitan Area.

These barriers have recently moved into a $300 Million study and analysis phase of a 14 year long process to get them constructed and studied over, the US Government has funded them as such, and they are processing and moving on. Pretty soon the Houston area will be impenetrable to hurricane forces and will actually be used for an economical powerhouse, by placing wind farms (that they're doing right now) on Pelican Island they will harness the wind energy from those turbines generated by Hurricane Winds. How's that for using nature as an economical engine?

I think its pretty neat.

The model in Rotterdam is what they'll be using:

^^ That's the one they are modeling it after, that one is in Rotterdam, Netherlands. And the ones in New York City & Houston will be exact replicas of that according to various articles that provided that picture.

This project as far as I know has moved forward by the way to the next step for both Houston & New York City, its now in the studying and planning construction and methods phase where they find out how much soil to lift and where to put it and the side effects and all that stuff.

The Coastal Commission or whatever just granted both cities money to do research for this project, within the next 5 years it will be approved for both cities (most likely) and it will commence to be built and completed within a decade. Thus these cities will be forever protected by any flooding or natural disasters from the waters.

As due your point, Houston not only is the Energy capital of America but the world as well, wielding the largest concentration of energy corporations and energy related technology in the world. Also 40% of the potential Chemical Refineries in the country are based in the coastal Houston area, which is why Houston receives more in significant Homeland Security funding than places like Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Detroit, & Philadelphia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Los Angeles in the center of the entertainment industry and that will not change either.
It already has. New York City is now home to 5 out of the Big 6 Production Film Companies, and New York City now controls 67% of the US Cinema Industry's Market Share. Not Los Angeles, and its been happening like this since the 1990's.

New York City:
- Time Warner (The Film Subsidiary being Warner Brothers Pictures)
- News Corporation (The Film Subsidiary being 20th Century Fox)
- Viacom (The Film Subsidiary being Paramount Pictures)
- General Electric/Vivendi (The Film Subsidiary being Universal Studios)
- Sony Corporation of America (The Film Subsidiary being Columbia Pictures)

Los Angeles:
- The Walt Disney Company (The Film Subsidiary being Disney Pictures)

Los Angeles has production studios and sets for all of those companies listed above and operates a large concentration of Film Activity in the United States West Coast, but it doesn't keep the revenue it makes off the success of a lot of the films shot in Hollywood, but the actual headquarters for Universal, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, Columbia Pictures, & Paramount Pictures ARE in New York City under the moniker of their parent company's name.

So out of the Big 6 Film Companies in the United States, 5 of them are based out of New York City, meaning all the revenue generated for the success of their films ends up in New York City, where the parent companies are located for those Subsidiary Film Companies.

Today's Big 6: Major film studio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if we're talking about the market share each of the Big 6 hold then let me get that for you:

New York City:
- Time Warner (Warner Bros. Pictures): 20.1% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- News Corporation (20th Century Fox): 16.1% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- Viacom (Paramount Pictures): 14.3% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- General Electric/Vivendi (Universal Studios): 10.0% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- Sony Corporation of America (Columbia Pictures): 14.1%

New York City's Total: 64.8% of the TOTAL Hollywood Film Market Share

Los Angeles:
- Walt Disney Company (Disney Pictures): 11.9%

Los Angeles's Total: 11.9% of the TOTAL Hollywood Film Market Share

Other Minor Role Film Production:
And the rest of the companies that aren't big league own 23.6% of the TOTAL Film Marketing Share in USA. I don't know specifically where they are located though but with 64.8% already, New York City walks away generating more than half of the American Cinema/Film Industry's Revenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
Houston having more people than LA or Chicago will hold the same significance that San Antonio having more people than San Francisco, Denver, or Seattle has. Really, little to none.
No, not really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey View Post
LA has Hollywood, cachet, great weather... Houston has ummm...oil... I rest my case
Los Angeles has (In terms of economical prowess over Houston):
- Larger Seaport by Cargo Units
- Larger Gross Domestic Product (Economic Output) which is actually correlated because of the higher population
- Diminishing Niche Industry but still kind of there, the Film Industry
- Larger Tech base

Houston has (In economical prowess over Los Angeles):
- Larger seaport by total tonnage
- Expanding Niche Industry, which is Energy
- Larger Corporate Base
- Ever expanding Medical Services base
- Larger and ever expanding Aeronautics base
- Higher net worth and ever expanding Manufacturing base
- Higher Per Capita Income

But in contrast, economically, Chicago has them BOTH beat by a pretty wide margin with all things factored and considered in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA View Post
both LA and Houston will face severe water shortages and/or potable water may become prohibitively expensive in both cities slowing growth.
Nope. Los Angeles might, but Houston wont at all.

Houston receives 54 Inches of rain water annually. The city's newest plan is to harness and preserve that water, decontaminate it and use it as drinking water. And it's already started laying out infrastructure work to do that.

Now for Texas I want to go more in depth about water conditions here, Texas has reported that there are water shortages due to growth and that is because of two of the following reasons:
1. Water supplies exist but the technology to retrieve it yet are costly and Texas doesn't feel the need to invest in it just yet.
2. West Texas in the desert region has seen drought and water shortages, mainly El Paso's concern.

Now I hope and pray that Texas does not purchase the adequate equipment to mine water aquifers extensively to retrieve that water source (for the present, in the future its fine if they do), because I feel they would be better off going with current supply without touching that source of water for the moment it would leave more for later.

Here is a map of the large rainfall areas of Texas:


As you can see everything east of I-35 (Houston, DFW, Austin, Corpus Christi (being the exception) & San Antonio) have nothing to worry about as far as rainfall is concerned that it can utilize water form that source. There wont really be a serious case of drought in that area at all, and it can sustain the level of growth Texas is going through.

Another perception of drought in Texas that misguides most people would be that they think it is lacking in water supply due to these droughts and their frequent occurrence in certain areas of Texas. Not at all the water is there but the technology to retrieve that water source does not exist as of yet in the state. If need be when one day it becomes a serious problem it will be retrieved and water mining will become a player for Texas.

Texas has these two cross sections for underground Aquifers that will give it an edge in sustaining population in the future.

The Edwards Aquifer which hosts its location near Austin & San Antonio is presently one of the largest aquifers in the world. And only 5.5%-10.2% of that water source can be reached due to limitations in technology for deep water drilling. Something they might want to look into later when Water becomes a major concern for the population growth.

Edwards Aquifer:


Ogallala Aquifer:


By the way from the picture above, it looks like Texas only has one river lol, thats not true, Texas has a lot of natural rivers that for some reason don't appear on that map.
Here is a list of them if anyone wants to see the rivers Texas has:
List of rivers of Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are other smaller aquifers in Texas as well but these two are among the largest ones with the largest presence. They are also among the largest aquifers in the world and carry a rich water source.
With it Texas wont have water problems for the next 76 years with the amount of water it can retrieve from both presently. With advancements it will increase potential to get more water from those two sources.
The surface to Ogallala Aquifer has seen a lot of decrease though due to water dependency but it's deep source for water has not yet been tapped, which is where most of the water supply remains.

And this does not even yet include the rivers and lakes that Texas can rely upon for water source. In general Texas will do fine in our lifetime, our children's lifetimes, and our grand children's lifetime for sure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my personal answer to this thread:

I don't know what will happen. I personally cant tell you what to expect decades in the future and what can happen. I personally do NOT see Houston overtaking Los Angeles in population. The gap is significantly massive presently.

However I think overtaking Chicago in terms of city proper population is inevitable, but I personally do think it wont be happening for another 30 years or so. Chicago has been increasing in population also and I have NO DOUBTS at all that my hometown (Chicago) will reach 3 million people by 2020-2025 again. I know Chicago will. But I also think Houston will start closing the gap between it and Chicago and stay firmly close until eventually overtaking Chicago. The 2060 projections for Houston by the state of Texas & Harris County have Houston at 3.6 Million. The 2030 projections for Chicago, the latest released for Chicago have it at 3.22 Million people.

And by the projections they display Houston city limit population gains slowing down by 50,000 people from after 2020 and onwards. I would be more than happy to provide them if anyone wants to look at them or so.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,694,755 times
Reputation: 7281
I have to disagree. I fail to see how Houston is not as economically important as Chicago or LA. It all equals out to me and that's why Houston along with Chicago and LA rank as Tier 1 cities for National Homeland Security Funding. I just don't see it any other way. When you throw in culturally; that's where Houston falls behind.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 04:38 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,182,008 times
Reputation: 7739
There are other cities than you have listed on the tier one for HLS, Houston is on the list for one reason (oil/refineries/port which are all enviable and quite the complex) as are some of the others

To the ops question, even if the city population becomes #2 the metro is a long long way off from being number 2 and wont get there if ever in any of out lifetimes
 
Old 01-22-2011, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,809,998 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
I have to disagree. I fail to see how Houston is not as economically important as Chicago or LA. It all equals out to me and that's why Houston along with Chicago and LA rank as Tier 1 cities for National Homeland Security Funding.
Actually Houston receives less in Home Land security funding than both Los Angeles & Chicago. The US Government's reasoning is larger population centers and economical centers. I agree with that.

They actually distribute Home Land Security Funding based off this tier group here actually:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
I fail to see how Houston is not as economically important as Chicago or LA. It all equals out to me
This is why Chicago (definitely) & Los Angeles (maybe) outrank Houston on an overall economical aspect. Houston has a important niche industry but that's about where its advantage economically stops because both the other cities have an equally important niche industry. Heck Chicago has two of them instead of one.

Here's more economically and this is why Houston lags behind them.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis- Manufacturing Gross Product 2008
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet $58.943 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown $53.276 Billion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $52.736 Billion
Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington $48.566 Billion

^^ Chicago leads, unmatched.

Economic Output by CSA:
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA $866.095 Billion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area $717,884
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area $35,080
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area $113,080

4. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $526.895 Billion
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area $520,672
Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metro Area $3,094
Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area $3,336

7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $403.202 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area $403,202

^^ Seriously dude, there's a wide gap between them and Houston.

World's Largest Financial Centers:
01. London: 772
02. New York City: 770
03. Hong Kong: 760
04. Singapore: 728
05. Tokyo: 697
06. Shangai: 693
07. Chicago: 678
08. Zurich: 669
09. Geneva: 661
10. Sydney: 660
11. Frankfurt: 659
12. Toronto 656
13. Boston: 655
13. Shenzhen: 654
14. San Francisco: 654
16. Beijing: 653
17. Washington DC: 649
18. Paris: 645
19. Taipei 639
20. Luxemborg 634

^^ Houston & Los Angeles, they don't even rank in finance at all. Another economical Chicago win along with what already is Chicago's two niche industries. 3 Aspects in total. 4 Advantages in total over Houston so far in counting.

Fortune 500 Companies Per Metropolitan Area (2010):
New York City: 71
Bay Area: 31
Chicago: 28
Houston: 25
Dallas–Fort Worth: 24
Los Angeles: 23

^^ Yet another Chicago advantage. The score right now:

Chicago- 5
Houston- 1 (tied with niche)
Los Angeles- 1 (leads GDP)

Fortune Global 500 (2010):
New York City-Newark-Bridgeport – 30
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City – 10
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose – 10
Minneapolis-St. Paul – 7
Houston-Bayton-Huntsville – 6
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainsville– 5
Baltimore-Washington DC – 5
Boston-Providence – 5
Dallas-Fort Worth – 5
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside– 5
Philadelphia-Wilmington – 5
Detroit-Warren- 4

^^ Another Chicago win.

Chicago- 6
Houston- 1
Los Angeles- 1

Top Metropolitan Areas for Venture Capital Investment:
1. Bay Area: $698 Million
2. Boston: $314 Million
3. San Diego: $138 Million
4. Los Angeles: $108 Million
5. Research Triangle : $72 Million


^^ Los Angeles starts making a comeback. The score is now:

Chicago- 6
Houston- 1
Los Angeles- 2

Top 10 Largest tech Centers in USA:
01. San Jose: 100/100
02. Seattle: 46.4/100
03. Boston: 45.2/100
04. Washington DC: 41.8/100
05. Los Angeles: 40.2/100
06. Dallas: 21.8/100
07. San Diego: 19.3/100
08. Orange County: 17.7/100
09. New York City: 16.8/100
10. San Francisco: 16.1/100
(Top 25)
11. Philadelphia
12. Atlanta
13. Edison, NJ
14. Chicago
15. Toronto
16. Oakland
17. Minneapolis-Saint Paul
18. Denver
19. Montreal
20. Austin
21. Houston
22. Huntsville
23. Phoenix
24. Wichita
25. Bethesda, MD

^^ Another comeback from Los Angeles. The score now (at what city does what best economically):

Chicago- 6
Houston- 1
Los Angeles- 3

- Houston is great at aeronautics yet Chicago can match it pound per pound on it, Los Angeles trails both.
- Houston is amazing at manufacturing yet Chicago surpasses it by economic output value for the metropolitan area, Los Angeles trails both cities now.
- Houston is amazing at its seaport but take all of transportation and put it together and Chicago obliterates Los Angeles & Houston in total cargo and tonnage. Los Angeles matches Houston in seaport.

Houston's ONLY real advantage economically over Chicago is Energy, and in contrast Chicago has Finance, Transportation, Commodities Exchange, Tech, Manufacturing, and other things it beats Houston in.

You can make a case of Houston & Los Angeles being economically on par with each other (although I strongly feel that is still reaching at this point in time) but that's about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
When you throw in culturally; that's where Houston falls behind.
I see this "culture" argument so much on this site. But what exactly defines this "strong culture" and "weak culture" thing? Like how does one city lag behind another in terms of culture?
 
Old 01-22-2011, 05:11 PM
 
452 posts, read 1,239,763 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
It already has. New York City is now home to 5 out of the Big 6 Production Film Companies, and New York City now controls 67% of the US Cinema Industry's Market Share. Not Los Angeles, and its been happening like this since the 1990's.

New York City:
- Time Warner (The Film Subsidiary being Warner Brothers Pictures)
- News Corporation (The Film Subsidiary being 20th Century Fox)
- Viacom (The Film Subsidiary being Paramount Pictures)
- General Electric/Vivendi (The Film Subsidiary being Universal Studios)
- Sony Corporation of America (The Film Subsidiary being Columbia Pictures)

Los Angeles:
- The Walt Disney Company (The Film Subsidiary being Disney Pictures)

Los Angeles has production studios and sets for all of those companies listed above and operates a large concentration of Film Activity in the United States West Coast, but it doesn't keep the revenue it makes off the success of a lot of the films shot in Hollywood, but the actual headquarters for Universal, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, Columbia Pictures, & Paramount Pictures ARE in New York City under the moniker of their parent company's name.

So out of the Big 6 Film Companies in the United States, 5 of them are based out of New York City, meaning all the revenue generated for the success of their films ends up in New York City, where the parent companies are located for those Subsidiary Film Companies.

Today's Big 6: Major film studio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if we're talking about the market share each of the Big 6 hold then let me get that for you:

New York City:
- Time Warner (Warner Bros. Pictures): 20.1% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- News Corporation (20th Century Fox): 16.1% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- Viacom (Paramount Pictures): 14.3% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- General Electric/Vivendi (Universal Studios): 10.0% of the total Hollywood Filming Market Share
- Sony Corporation of America (Columbia Pictures): 14.1%

New York City's Total: 64.8% of the TOTAL Hollywood Film Market Share

Los Angeles:
- Walt Disney Company (Disney Pictures): 11.9%

Los Angeles's Total: 11.9% of the TOTAL Hollywood Film Market Share

Other Minor Role Film Production:
And the rest of the companies that aren't big league own 23.6% of the TOTAL Film Marketing Share in USA. I don't know specifically where they are located though but with 64.8% already, New York City walks away generating more than half of the American Cinema/Film Industry's Revenues.
No, not really.
Sony Corporation of America is a subsidiary of Sony Corporation based in Tokyo, Japan. In the end all that money ends up in the hands of Japan. So really NYC has 4. GE is also in the process of selling the majority of NBC Universal to Comcast of Philadelphia. After the Comcast deal, conglomerates based in NYC will have majority stake in roughly 50% of the market.

Some of the other independent studios based in Los Angeles include DreamWorks Animation (Shrek, Madagascar, How to Train Your Dragon, etc...), Summit Entertainment (private, ex.. made Hurt Locker, Letters to Juliet, Twilight Series, Push, Knowing, etc.. and growing rapidly), and Lions Gate Entertainment (ex.. Saw Series, Expendables, Transporter Series,)

With regards to the film industry, most of the work and employment is still in L.A. It is still a major industry here and just because the headquarters are in an office building in New York City does not make the thousands and thousands of employees and work done at studios like Columbia Pictures, Warner Brothers Pictures, Paramount Pictures, etc... less important in the film world. The magic of the movies comes from the people working at the subsidiaries and making the films here in Hollywood mainly. To take that away from the hardworking people that actually made that film you enjoy isn't very fair.


Houston's niche is energy for example. Most oil companies are headquartered elsewhere though. Of the 6 largest public oil companies in the world, only 1 is headquartered in Houston. Chevron is based in the Bay Area, ConocoPhilips in the Houston Area, and then Dallas has ExonMobil. Cities can have a large operation of companies, but not necessarily be their headquarters and still be very influential in that industry.

Last edited by coo77; 01-22-2011 at 05:20 PM..
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.


Closed Thread

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.
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