Houston 2nd largest city in the U.S. in the future? (homes, subdivisions)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by vaughnwilliams

Even if Houston does surpass Chicago in population, Chicago will still be a great city and Houston will still be... well, still be Houston.

LOL, I bet that was what they were saying when Chicago passed Philly. Look at Chicago now in comparison to Philly.

They were saying the same darn thing when LA passed Chicago and although Chicago still has lots of respect, LA gained a whole lot.

Now you all are acting silly because the city is up and coming, but your kids are going to be looking at you like dinosaurs when you start your silly stories of "back in my day Houston was just a such and such. well guess what, all cities atart out as up starts.

NY had to push past Philly. Chicago had to push passed Philly, (we just pushed passed Philly (LOL), LA had to push past Philly, LA had to push past Philly, LA had to push past Chicago, and respect was gained eventually.

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

What would be more impressive is Houston passing Chicago in metropolitan area than city proper.

It will, they will converge at 12M in the 2030's. Greater LA is the one that is hard to foresee because it takes up a third of the most populated state in the US

.

Originally Posted by jordandubreil

this is a hating comment.

I know right.
They are all scared. For what? I dunno, they said it won't matter but if it doesn't matter why are they hating so much?

Originally Posted by bryson662001

LOL

At my age the memory isn't what it used to be. More than 60 years ago I can't remember what I was saying.

I figured that was it. I will try to remind you every now and then that more than a century has gone by since you first made that comment.

[AmberAzeneth]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

LOL, I bet that was what they were saying when Chicago passed Philly. Look at Chicago now in comparison to Philly.

They were saying the same darn thing when LA passed Chicago and although Chicago still has lots of respect, LA gained a whole lot.

Now you all are acting silly because the city is up and coming, but your kids are going to be looking at you like dinosaurs when you start your silly stories of "back in my day Houston was just a such and such. well guess what, all cities atart out as up starts.

NY had to push past Philly. Chicago had to push passed Philly, (we just pushed passed Philly (LOL), LA had to push past Philly, LA had to push past Philly, LA had to push past Chicago, and respect was gained eventually.





It will, they will converge at 12M in the 2030's. Greater LA is the one that is hard to foresee because it takes up a third of the most populated state in the US

.

I know right.
They are all scared. For what? I dunno, they said it won't matter but if it doesn't matter why are they hating so much?




I figured that was it. I will try to remind you every now and then that more than a century has gone by since you first made that comment.

Like I stated earlier,"Mainly those northeastern parts get their pride hurt".

[Bo]

Some posts above were deleted. Here's a reminder from the Terms of Service:

Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.

If you disagree with something, say so, but explain WHY.

Do not quote or talk to trolls or your posts will also be deleted. Use the report feature instead.

"Trolling" is prohibited.

[jeffredo]

I haven't seem a map of Greater Houston that shows how the suburban cities are arranged around it. Thats usually a big limiting factor in a city's population growth. If Houston finds its self hemmed in by suburban communities it will have to depend on "infilling" and higher density developments and households to grow. This is what has fueled LA's growth the last three or four decades since it has nothing left to annex around it. Houston does have 600 sq miles vs. LA's 500 sq miles. The question is whether the city or residents can or are willing to have the higher population densities that Angelenos apparently will. Being there's ample land beyond the city and its current suburbs that appears to be level and "buildable" they might not. The growth will shift to the suburbs which is what has already happened to Dallas. The LA basin is limited by mountains around it and once all the easy land was built on there wasn't much choice but to start going up or increasing household size.

[AmberAzeneth]

Originally Posted by jeffredo

I haven't seem a map of Greater Houston that shows how the suburban cities are arranged around it. Thats usually a big limiting factor in a city's population growth. If Houston finds its self hemmed in by suburban communities it will have to depend on "infilling" and higher density developments and households to grow. This is what has fueled LA's growth the last three or four decades since it has nothing left to annex around it. Houston does have 600 sq miles vs. LA's 500 sq miles. The question is whether the city or residents can or are willing to have the higher population densities that Angelenos apparently will. Being there's ample land beyond the city and its current suburbs that appears to be level and "buildable" they might not. The growth will shift to the suburbs which is what has already happened to Dallas. The LA basin is limited by mountains around it and once all the easy land was built on there wasn't much choice but to start going up or increasing household size.

There are not any really big incorporated suburbs that will enclose Houston. most of the bigger incorporated suburbs are all on the southwest through southeast side of the city. Houston is starting to densify and infill more. That is where most of the city's growth is coming from. There has not been a substantial annexation in 15 years. The unincorporated areas are growing too. It may eventually be annexed by the city but that can not happen until at least 2014.

[Marlin96]

Considering Chicago's only half a million over Houston, I think Houston can and will surpass Chicago in the near future, but I'm not confident about it ever being larger than L.A.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by jeffredo

I haven't seem a map of Greater Houston that shows how the suburban cities are arranged around it.

It is noy hemmed in at all, and it has a pretty huge ETJ with losts of empty space.

Here is the ETJ map:

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Annexation/docs_pdfs/etj_city_11x8.pdf

Thats

usually a big limiting factor in a city's population growth. If Houston finds its self hemmed in by suburban communities it will have to depend on "infilling" and higher density developments and households to grow. This is what has fueled LA's growth the last three or four decades since it has nothing left to annex around it. Houston does have 600 sq miles vs. LA's 500 sq miles. The question is whether the city or residents can or are willing to have the higher population densities that Angelenos apparently will. Being there's ample land beyond the city and its current suburbs that appears to be level and "buildable" they might not. The growth will shift to the suburbs which is what has already happened to Dallas. The LA basin is limited by mountains around it and once all the easy land was built on there wasn't much choice but to start going up or increasing household size.

Na, you are backing up the wrong road with Dallas. Dallas missed the chance to suck up a lot of land, Houston is no where near as hemmed in as Dallas. Houston has been seeing a lot more growth to the city than the suburbs than Dallas has. Somewhere along the lines as 3 times as much (about 8% for Dallas 30% for Houston)

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

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:


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.

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?

Wow......I got owned.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Wow......I got owned.

No you didn't dude. I know what you meant to say and I do cosign and agree with it. I agree, Houston's niche industry is on par with both Chicago's & Los Angeles's and that is DEFINITELY an amazing economical asset.

A city having a niche makes the city seem more economically vital and more "irreplaceable" if you know what I mean? Houston is irreplaceable due to that, so are Chicago (literally) & Los Angeles for their economical assets.

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

It's impossible to ignore the fact that Los Angeles has more than twice the economic output of Houston. In fact, that is the single strongest argument for why L.A. is far ahead of Houston in terms of economies.

I do agree with you. Overall, I did pin Houston in the distant third behind both Chicago & Los Angeles in terms of economical influence (for now). But I also do think there are some other things to look at rather than just the Gross Domestic Product, which even then, Houston still trails Chicago & Los Angeles in some of those regards too.

But there isn't anything wrong with it either, Chicago had its chance, and did great things for itself, Los Angeles had its chance and did great things for itself, Houston has its chance now and is doing the same. That and the fact that it added $120 Billion into its Gross Domestic Product in just 3 years. (Despite the niche industry set for inflation)

Any city with a niche industry sets to inflate their gross domestic product by a good margin, Chicago's done it, Los Angeles too, & so has Houston. New York City does it a lot, and Washington DC is straight doing it even now. Bay Area also.

Which is why other factors should be looked into too.

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

It's about cultural exportation. Houston lags behind Los Angeles in terms of culture because Houston doesn't really export any, whereas Los Angeles exports films, music, television, etc.

See I never knew what culture meant per se. I ALWAYS saw people say "opera, museums, art, theaters, murals, monuments, character" and stuff like that and didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

I always thought culture was revolving around personality and characteristic make up of a place from one group of people to another. Which is why I was like "how does one city have more culture than another to start off with?"

[bryson662001]

Does it matter that L.A. has always been a magnet because of geography (mountains, beachs etc), the weather (near perfect) and show business and those things probably won't change while people move to Houston mostly for the economy/job market and low cost of living which are not so permanent attractions?