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.
Well not only that but the point is that Fortune companies don't make up the whole economy. It's just a powerful statement that Houston is only bested by NYC in total number of Fortune 500 corporations. But there are many, many, many thousands of others companies that make up the city. Tech companies, finance/business, energy, chemicals, retail, manufacturing, etc...
Houston is a very big tech center. There are tons of jobs in finance and tech in Houston. Simply because the city has many Fortune 500 oil or gas companies does not make it reliant on oil. It just means it might have been built on that originally, decades ago, or, that is why it has so many of those Fortune 500 companies; possibly. But there are so many others. And many other large ones that don't quite fall into Fortune 500 or even Fortune 1000 but are still very large companies in other industries.
But at the same time I'm sure there are hundreds of companies in the oil industry around Houston that aren't even in the Fortune 500, it goes both ways. It was mostly just an indicator, and the only reason I said anything is because you said Houston is not reliant on oil because it has the most Fortune 500 companies outside of NYC. I basically just showed it's the total opposite of what you said.
sunbelt cities have overtaken northern cities for a very long time and so it's not a totally unrealistic expectation that *eventually* some sunbelt city will surpass NYC even. Yes it will always be big. But they have nowhere to go now.
The only way I see this happening is if/when NYC goes underwater to rising sea levels. NYC is not out of room to grow and build. You have to remember that the way that NYC builds is completely different from the way that sunbelt cities build. The way sunbelt cities build they are not able to support populations anything near the size of NYC, even with their insanely large city limits
But at the same time I'm sure there are hundreds of companies in the oil industry around Houston that aren't even in the Fortune 500, it goes both ways. It was mostly just an indicator, and the only reason I said anything is because you said Houston is not reliant on oil because it has the most Fortune 500 companies outside of NYC. I basically just showed it's the total opposite of what you said.
Probably true also, yes. It does go both ways. I didn't mention the Fortune thing to show how it wasn't reliant on oil. I mentioned that just to show what a powerful statement that is compared to NYC. It is quite profound you have to admit. But, yes, maybe a lot of that has to do with the original oil industry. It's just that TX in general, not just Houston, is really not reliant on oil industry and the whole "cowboy" image. I'll never get the pervasiveness of that image. That might be what made the state popular, and rich, at one time but there are so many industries in TX now. Tech for example being one of the huge ones. It's not just Austin that is a star of the tech scene. All the major TX cities are very large in their own right in the tech scenes. A lot of that has to do with massive migration from California, and many other states as well, but primarily California. Austin for years has been a net importer of Bay Area people for example.
Austin had 132,000 tech employees and 5485 tech companies as a of a May 10, 2016 report from the chamber of commerce. Granted, a place like NYC, that has 300k tech workers is technically larger. But Austin has just about 1mil people now (city proper) with nearly 150k (now) tech workers. NYC has 8mil people (city proper). You tell me which is a denser tech scene Austin was also ranked #2 in a Payscale report for tech startups behind only SF/San Jose. Not to mention you can live like a king for literally half or even 1/3 the price of a home in the valley. And not pay a single cent in state or local taxes either. It's no wonder they have been coming for years.
The only way I see this happening is if/when NYC goes underwater to rising sea levels. NYC is not out of room to grow and build. You have to remember that the way that NYC builds is completely different from the way that sunbelt cities build. The way sunbelt cities build they are not able to support populations anything near the size of NYC, even with their insanely large city limits
Houston is primarily only 25 to 50 feet above sea level, with much of the area adjacent to the Gulf, Galveston Bay, and the Bayous (including downtown Houston) right at sea level. If NYC goes under so does Houston (and New Orleans, and Miami, etc).
DavePA, I respect your right to your opinions and welcome your replies, but I do feel it's old news about Chicago. It may seem securely in place as the 3rd spot but it's just a very small matter of time as Chicago's population shrinks and Houston grows at a phenomenal rate. The convergence will occur by 2025 almost without question. Houston is only 400k people behind Chicago now and is growing incredibly fast (the fastest of any of the top 10 largest cities and even a contender for some of the smaller fastest growing cities).
I don't hope. I'm just making an observation. And I did clearly say I didn't want to suggest that LA *would* be passed, just that I saw it as a plausible argument in a 25 year time span. Which I thought was funny compared to the original original posters claim of 60 years. If it happens it will be way earlier. That was my main point. And I clearly said that NYC might be insurmountable. But sunbelt cities have overtaken northern cities for a very long time and so it's not a totally unrealistic expectation that *eventually* some sunbelt city will surpass NYC even. Yes it will always be big. But they have nowhere to go now.
Anyway, I do see the issue of "if" Houston will pass Chicago as a silly argument now. By 2030, if not sooner, Houston will have fairly easily 3-3.2mil people in the city proper (without any additional annexing). Chicago already doesn't even have that many people. It really is a foregone conclusion.
Simply put it is a given Houston proper will pass Chicago proper in the next few years (no one denies this now). The 2020 formal census to come? Will give a better when it will.
Like I added too. Toronto boasted it did pass Chicago in 2013. That came and went (no fireworks). But the metros are yet a decade and more matching. For fast growing Toronto's Greater Golden Horseshoe to pass Chicagoland.
That is a bit of a wrench in Houston's glory too? In Toronto will get both first. Canadian cities are now able to be in US forums.
I addressed too... Chicago could possibly pull a "surprise to annex some older inner suburbs". The irony is 40-rears ago the suburbs had the MUCH cheaper taxes. Today it has reversed in many areas just in Cook County, that Chicago and a good portion of its suburbs are in ---> to being Cheaper in Chicago. So it is no longer improbable? If the city sought it with some burbs? Just no signs the city will try? Commentary on it has begun though. But still as I pointed out. Other threads are already open on Houston overtaking Chicago.
***But BRINGING IN AND GOING AFTER - LA within 25-years? Is what stands out to me..... with a mention of NYC in the looking glass. Why is no one speaking on that prediction of yours??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker
If I were Houston, I'd try to annex Austin, San Antonio and DFW. That should do the trick.
While a certain amount of growth is good I don't think that adding such a massive amount of people very quickly adds to the quality of life for most residents. If Houston were to grow to the size of LA the traffic would be abysmal.
***But BRINGING IN AND GOING AFTER - LA within 25-years? Is what stands out to me..... with a mention of NYC in the looking glass. Why is no one speaking on that prediction of yours??
Well, I'll give you that it's very aggressive. And if might even seem absurd or improbable to many. I didn't say it would happen though. I really want to clear that up. I just think the 60 year figure from that original link was way off. You can't probject that far ahead, too many variables and extreme economic factors can play into the situation in a six decade period. My point was mainly that if current trends did hold, then it is at least plausible, not necessarily probable, that a place like Houston could overtake the city population of LA in 25yrs. Maybe 30 but I figured it based on current growth rates. It is possible, even if a little extreme sounding. Not the total metro agglomeration, but definitely it's possible if we are just talking about official city limits.
And btw NYC I would say is safe for now . I was pretty clear about that. But if current trends continue, once again, eventually even NYC *may* not be the largest city in the US. That might be a 100 years; it may be never. But it *could* even happen much sooner if trends continue. Just saying.
Well, I'll give you that it's very aggressive. And if might even seem absurd or improbable to many. I didn't say it would happen though. I really want to clear that up. I just think the 60 year figure from that original link was way off. You can't probject that far ahead, too many variables and extreme economic factors can play into the situation in a six decade period. My point was mainly that if current trends did hold, then it is at least plausible, not necessarily probable, that a place like Houston could overtake the city population of LA in 25yrs. Maybe 30 but I figured it based on current growth rates. It is possible, even if a little extreme sounding. Not the total metro agglomeration, but definitely it's possible if we are just talking about official city limits.
And btw NYC I would say is safe for now . I was pretty clear about that. But if current trends continue, once again, eventually even NYC *may* not be the largest city in the US. That might be a 100 years; it may be never. But it *could* even happen much sooner if trends continue. Just saying.
Without the ability to annex new land, Houston's rapid growth days are coming to a close, at least within city limits. Most of the growth now is outside city limits, so the metro will keep up its growth. There will still be infill growth inside the loop, but that won't be enough to catch LA which has a lot of infill growth of its own.
You're right, I should of said that 22 out of 25 of Houston's Fortune 500 companies are in the oil and gas industries, the vast majority being in oil. If you disagree with that statement you are in flat out denial. I encourage anyone to look through the list of Houston's Fortune 500 companies I posted and you will see that I am 100% correct. Those companies are all super reliant on oil, and to say they have "some other industries" is just misleading and skewing the facts.
Yes, I was talking about the Fortune 500 companies. At least 8 of them don't have anything to do with oil in terms of their central focus, so your number of 22 is incorrect; it would really be 17.
And some of those companies within that 17 have involvement are involved with industries other than just oil. For example, Quanta Services, in addition to oil and gas, also has involvement with general developments of distributing electric power. You will see this if you look more into depth in these things, beyond the surface level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kace36
Well not only that but the point is that Fortune companies don't make up the whole economy. It's just a powerful statement that Houston is only bested by NYC in total number of Fortune 500 corporations. But there are many, many, many thousands of others companies that make up the city. Tech companies, finance/business, energy, chemicals, retail, manufacturing, etc...
Houston is a very big tech center. There are tons of jobs in finance and tech in Houston. Simply because the city has many Fortune 500 oil or gas companies does not make it reliant on oil. It just means it might have been built on that originally, decades ago, or, that is why it has so many of those Fortune 500 companies; possibly. But there are so many others. And many other large ones that don't quite fall into Fortune 500 or even Fortune 1000 but are still very large companies in other industries.
I understand that, I was just correcting a poster's statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
Houston is primarily only 25 to 50 feet above sea level, with much of the area adjacent to the Gulf, Galveston Bay, and the Bayous (including downtown Houston) right at sea level. If NYC goes under so does Houston (and New Orleans, and Miami, etc).
The difference is that NYC is actually on the ocean front, whereas Houston proper is a bit inland from the shore. The same level of sea rise that inundates NYC would simply move the coastline closer to Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota
Without the ability to annex new land, Houston's rapid growth days are coming to a close, at least within city limits. Most of the growth now is outside city limits, so the metro will keep up its growth. There will still be infill growth inside the loop, but that won't be enough to catch LA which has a lot of infill growth of its own.
Of course, this is without taking into account the various lurking variables that can influence rate of growth.
And btw NYC I would say is safe for now . I was pretty clear about that. But if current trends continue, once again, eventually even NYC *may* not be the largest city in the US. That might be a 100 years; it may be never. But it *could* even happen much sooner if trends continue. Just saying.
Once again: not gonna happen.
It's not like Houston and other sunbelt cities have unlimited land. Yeah, most of them have more land than NYC, but NYC makes much better use of its land. Like another poster said, Houston would have to just keep annexing more land for that to ever happen. A LOT more land. NYC finds new ways to build and further density on land it already has, and the way NYC is built allows for that density. Sunbelt cities do not.
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.
Austin was also ranked #2 in a Payscale report for tech startups behind only SF/San Jose. Not to mention you can live like a king for literally half or even 1/3 the price of a home in the valley. And not pay a single cent in state or local taxes either. It's no wonder they have been coming for years.