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.
So, here's a total hypothetical for you. What if Houston were to annex several of its suburbs tomorrow? No population growth or infrastructure change, just a re-draw of the city limits. And, lets say that re-draw made the city of Houston's population larger than the cities of Chicago or Los Angeles. Remember, nothing else changes, just the width of the radius of the imaginary line drawn around City Hall and the number associated with the City of Houston. What would happen? What would change?
Would Houston now be "more important" than either of those cities? Would its media market change? Would anything about its demographics or urban development change? Would it be any more or less interesting?
That Hypothetical is 100% feasible. The population of people in Houston's jurisdiction outside the city limits of any other city is at about 2M people.
Yeah not much would change, but Houston could be @ about 4.2M tomorrow if it annexes everyone in its jurisdiction. The city is already providing some city services to these people.
Anyway, you can look up the Annexation plans for Texas cities up to 2015.
The Only areas Houston intend on Annexing in the coming years are two industrial areas, not populated areas. One is an Area around The San Jac Industrial Complex and another is around the Port of Houston. These will be annexed for economic/taxation reasons
Probably in like 2,3 or maybe at worst 4 years Houston will be the true number 2 city, metro whate3ver on basically all accounts (size, imprtance, culture, number of theaters, decorated car shows, rodeos, number of tall buildings outside the CBD, museums etc.)...
Also Houston will continue to grow at the same exact rate into perpituity
I didn't say it was the biggest, just one of. You were acting like Houston had something that LA did not, I was just saying that wasn't true, and the future trade from Asia is going to dwarf any growth in the Port of Houston. Houston is certainly up and coming, it is going to be a big player in the nation. Now if Houston's CSA is 6 million and Chicago's is 10 million and not growing barely at all I could see Houston overtaking greater Chicago SOMEDAY. Whether that will make it "more important" than Chicago is up for debate as city size and importance are not synonymous. But if you think it is going to pass LA's 17 million (which is growing rather nicely, never really has stopped growing) I think you may need to re-evaluate things a bit.
I know Houston will never pass LA in population. Its already larger than Houston & Dallas/Fort Worth combined.
Houston can leave Chicago in the dust though (city not metro).
Houston can get all the people they want with there land the size of a planet compared to other cities, but Houston will never be as important as Chicago. Houston will ALWAYS be below Chicago.
This.
Los Angeles officially passed Chicago in size in the 1990 census, but even LA hasn't over taken Chicago in several key categories of importance as of yet. Chicago remains the second most important financial center in the US, and it is usually ranked within the top 10 or 15 for the world. It is also the second most globally important city in the US, and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, and Philadelphia all separate Chicago from Houston in the global importance scale.
Houston is rapidly growing, and Chicago does have plenty of problems, but total population figures alone aren't everything, and Houston has a long way to go before it becomes more important than Chicago and Los Angeles, even if it does one day become bigger than one or both of the two cities.
Los Angeles officially passed Chicago in size in the 1990 census, but even LA hasn't over taken Chicago in several key categories of importance as of yet. Chicago remains the second most important financial center in the US, and it is usually ranked within the top 10 or 15 for the world. It is also the second most globally important city in the US, and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, and Philadelphia all separate Chicago from Houston in the global importance scale.
Houston is rapidly growing, and Chicago does have plenty of problems, but total population figures alone aren't everything, and Houston has a long way to go before it becomes more important than Chicago and Los Angeles, even if it does one day become bigger than one or both of the two cities.
I know Houston will never pass LA in population. Its already larger than Houston & Dallas/Fort Worth combined.
Houston can leave Chicago in the dust though (city not metro).
maybe so, but a larger population in 3 times the area isnt going to make it a better "City", maybe better bragging rights on a list but Houston has a long way to go to come close to the city offerings of Chicago (most places do so Houston is not alone there) but ok great. It would get there with mostly a suburban build out and some moderately urban core parts, great will look good on some wiki list I suppose, on the streets and in the neighborhoods, not so much
To me what really counts will likely still have Chicago looking way into the distance in the rear view mirror, probably blocked by some dust...
In my opinion (yes its my perspective) Houston still has a long way to go on the "city" outside of population derived from a large land area to even be on the "city" level of places like Boston, DC, SF, Philly, LA, probably even Miami, Seattle, Denver, MSP and Atlanta (though more debatable) let alone Chicago. Now as a metro Houston does much better and has a bright future (as it does as a city)
So if purely a numeric list floats your boat, enjoy...
Last edited by kidphilly; 07-16-2013 at 12:04 PM..
maybe so, but a larger population in 3 times the area isnt going to make it a better "City", maybe better bragging rights on a list but Houston has a long way to go to come close to the city offerings of Chicago (most places do so Houston is not alone there) but ok great. It would get there with mostly a suburban build out and some moderately urban core parts, great will look good on some wiki list I suppose, on the streets and in the neighborhoods, not so much
To me what really counts will likely still have Chicago looking way into the distance in the rear view mirror, probably blocked by some dust...
In my opinion (yes its my perspective) Houston still has a long way to go on the "city" outside of population derived from a large land area to even be on the "city" level of places like Boston, DC, SF, Philly, LA, probably even Miami, Seattle, Denver, MSP and Atlanta (though more debatable) let alone Chicago. Now as a metro Houston does much better and has a bright future (as it does as a city)
So if purely a numeric list floats your boat, enjoy...
Houston left Chicago behind in diversity as well as those others cities you mentioned.
That's good enough for me.
Houston was recently rated the most diverse major city in America if you keep up with that sorta stuff.
Los Angeles officially passed Chicago in size in the 1990 census, but even LA hasn't over taken Chicago in several key categories of importance as of yet. Chicago remains the second most important financial center in the US, and it is usually ranked within the top 10 or 15 for the world. It is also the second most globally important city in the US, and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, and Philadelphia all separate Chicago from Houston in the global importance scale.
Houston is rapidly growing, and Chicago does have plenty of problems, but total population figures alone aren't everything, and Houston has a long way to go before it becomes more important than Chicago and Los Angeles, even if it does one day become bigger than one or both of the two cities.
You can't really compare the Houston/Chicago situation to the Los Angeles/Chicago situation in the 1990 census. The Los Angeles MSA had already passed the Chicago MSA a few decades before. So in reality Los Angeles was already the bigger city long before the 1990 census report was released.
This is true. Houston does have a very high GDP, but GDP alone isn't everything for a city's overall importance as a financial center. If it was, then LA would be considered a more important financial center than Chicago. It's not. Financial centre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
You can't really compare the Houston/Chicago situation to the Los Angeles/Chicago situation in the 1990 census. The Los Angeles MSA had already passed the Chicago MSA a few decades before. So in reality Los Angeles was already the bigger city long before the 1990 census report was released.
If you go by MSAs though, then wouldn't that push Houston further down the list? The Dallas MSA is bigger, even if Houston proper is the larger city. Or does the fact that Fort Worth is apart of that MSA overrule that idea?
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.
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.
