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.
Only one type of person does this. They're called Houstonians!
Keep dreaming, there. Once the energy industry collapses in the coming decades, Houston will become a ghost town. Outside of winter weather (NOT SUMMER), I can't think of one reason that Houston is appealing.
Well Houston does have more than just energy industry. They have a huge port and a huge medical center. But this isn't about Houston and you're right, nobody thinks Houston and Chicago are on the same level.
I'm pretty sure we were talking about city limits here. I wouldn't have said "double its population" if we were not. I already knew all that about the metro areas.
Still, LA does not have to double it's population to pass New York considering that New York is just over 8.0 million while LA is over 4.1 according to the state of California.
Still, LA does not have to double it's population to pass New York considering that New York is just over 8.0 million while LA is over 4.1 according to the state of California.
What does four times two equal? If you said eight, then you're correct.
Good one, except I was using Census numbers to get my four million round up for Los Angeles. Nice try though. But hey, if you want to get technical, then if you double 4.1, you get 8.2. According to the Census, that's where NYC is now (a little above 8.2).
This thread is about Chicago and L.A haha, so lets get back to them. Chicago has virtually little chance of passing L.A in actual city population because Chicago's boarders are too small, and now a days, very few middle class families want to live in Chicago, even though it is becoming a healthier city everyday.
The same is true for L.A. L.A has a huge amount of Hispanics that don't really have any choice but to live in the city because its cheaper, and as long as they keep pouring into the city, it will only increase in numbers, until eventually it hits a cap seeing as its blocked by mountains to the east, and an ocean to the west...
But whose to say that it isn't possible. Whoever thought Chicago wouldn't be the second largest city, and soon to be challeneged for spot number 3?
It doesn't really matter though, look at these two pictures and tell me which one looks like the "greater" city.
http://www.familyvacationco.com/LA2Grand/los-angeles.jpg (broken link)
Who would have guessed the first picture is nearly 1,000,000 people smaller?
Just curious, by glance what would you guess are the populations of Chicago and L.A based on these photos?
This thread is about Chicago and L.A haha, so lets get back to them. Chicago has virtually little chance of passing L.A in actual city population because Chicago's boarders are too small, and now a days, very few middle class families want to live in Chicago, even though it is becoming a healthier city everyday.
The same is true for L.A. L.A has a huge amount of Hispanics that don't really have any choice but to live in the city because its cheaper, and as long as they keep pouring into the city, it will only increase in numbers, until eventually it hits a cap seeing as its blocked by mountains to the east, and an ocean to the west...
But whose to say that it isn't possible. Whoever thought Chicago wouldn't be the second largest city, and soon to be challeneged for spot number 3?
It doesn't really matter though, look at these two pictures and tell me which one looks like the "greater" city.
Who would have guessed the first picture is nearly 1,000,000 people smaller?
Just curious, by glance what would you guess are the populations of Chicago and L.A based on these photos?
I'm not really impressed with skyscrapers so those two pics prove nothing to me. When you get to street level is where the entertainment is. Los Angeles seems like a much bigger city because it is made up of so many well known sections like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Long Beach and all those other areas that you hear about everyday. Chicago has pretty skyscrapers but those things are boring. Nice to look at but not much fun.
What a bad picture of Los Angeles you picked. You can at least be fair here.
It was a terrible picture of Chicago for that comparison as well....
Chicago would have over 17,000 people per square mile within the borders to exceed LA in population. That takes into account the airport and vast industrial and "natural" areas on the south side.
There's no way in post WWII that we are going to see Chicago's population increase by over 1 million. I LOVE the city, and couldn't imagine myself anywhere else, but we've already got a ton of people and very high densities in the residential areas within our 237 square miles. There's no rational reason why we'd increase our population THAT much barring some insane gasoline at $15 a gallon or something way out there........
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.
