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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2007, 07:00 PM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,766,415 times
Reputation: 510

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by metroplex2003 View Post
I agree, Houston has learned to diversify its economy. The medical center is the largest in the country.
In the world.

Quote:
Though the Chicago MSA is considerably bigger...twice that of Houston's.
Not quite. Chicago area=9.5; Houston area=5.54

Quote:
its skyline is 5 times the size of Houston despite Houston's #3 ranking.....
??

Quote:
which means there are only 2 cities in the US that among the top 10 largest skylines in the world: NYC and Chicago,
Actually, Houston has the seventh largest skyline in the world...

http://ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest...nes_Cities.htm

Quote:
On the international scale, Chicago, LA, NYC are the "Big 3".
What's the Big 3? More like, NY, the "Big 1", Chicago and Los Angeles, the "Big 2", and so on and so on....whenever I say the big four (in reference to NY, LA, CHI, HOU), I'm meaning that these are BIG cities inside and out. Regardless of their popularity or eco. These four are constantly tagged as having "the largest...in the world/country". Though, a lot of Houston's "largeness" comes from things being bigger in Texas.

I don't think there's any type of competition between Chicago. I love Chicago. Still, call me a dreamer, but I just think that Houston is sooo much more than just another Sunbelt city, and a city of its magnitude and umph has all the potential to be as great as our nation's three largest cities. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2007, 07:57 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,720,874 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
In the world.

Not quite. Chicago area=9.5; Houston area=5.54

??


Actually, Houston has the seventh largest skyline in the world...

http://ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest...nes_Cities.htm

What's the Big 3? More like, NY, the "Big 1", Chicago and Los Angeles, the "Big 2", and so on and so on....whenever I say the big four (in reference to NY, LA, CHI, HOU), I'm meaning that these are BIG cities inside and out. Regardless of their popularity or eco. These four are constantly tagged as having "the largest...in the world/country". Though, a lot of Houston's "largeness" comes from things being bigger in Texas.

I don't think there's any type of competition between Chicago. I love Chicago. Still, call me a dreamer, but I just think that Houston is sooo much more than just another Sunbelt city, and a city of its magnitude and umph has all the potential to be as great as our nation's three largest cities. Just my opinion.

HI MPOPE, I guess we're using different skyline statistics rankings. Emporis.com uses their own forumula. And you're right there is no competition between Houston and Chicago. Chicago competes with LA and NYC. And I do believe one day Houston and Dallas will both shine in the future...both cities are taking strong steps in that direction. As for population...it's a matter of boundaries...that's all...what separates Chicago and NYC is the fact that their city limits are relatively small and yet they have such a high density of population. Houston's city limits is huge...parts of the Houston city limits would be suburbs in any other city.

I'm not trying to demote Houston...I do believe it will continue to rise up this century, that was my point,....and perhaps take over Chicago...I'm pulling for that...but personally I just dont feel it's there yet, and the committee who determines world city status agress with that...hence the gamma ranking vs. the alpha...but I do believe both dallas and houston have more potential to elevate to alpha status than other cities such as philly, st. louis, detroit, even in my opinion Atlanta will not match the powers of Dallas and Houston in the long run. But then again, the people who come up with rankings are human, which means there is definitely a possibility for subjectivity...heck, they cannot even agree on skyline rankings formula. The one that I"ve used puts Hong Kong at #2 and several the Asian cities which have taller buildings than we do...but they use a forumula for that...I'm sure your source uses it's own formula as well. Houston is well out of the top 10 using the emporis forumula. Dallas ranked 6th in the US ahead of Atlanta using this forumula. Houston was #3, Honolulu #4, LA #5. But there's no telling which forumula is better.

At the end of the day though, I think we can both agree that DFW and Houston are growing at phenomenal rates that is oftentimes the envy of the country...particularly the northern cities which had their booms in the 20th century. Whether people group Houston into the category of NYC, LA, Chicago is a matter of subjectivity...I'm sure we can find people on both sides of that fence. Some people talk a/b 6 cities. NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco.....some include DC, some dont. I do get it though...city pride is huge...I take a lot of pride in Dallas....but one thing that is constant is that both DFW and Houston are growing, they're growing fast, they are what could be the future stars of this current century. THe industrial north had its time in the 20th century...unless they change their policies, it's going to be tough to compete with Houston, DFW, Atlanta. St. Louis is a perfect example of lost opportunity. A city that started the 20th century as the 4th largest in the country has dwindled down to the just barely in the top 20 largest MSA's in the country...the city population which numbered close to 1 million is now down to 350,000 people, smaller than that of Atlanta.
I believe that Dallas and Houston have done a great job, but there's still room for improvement. Dallas has missed out on many opportunities. It's still fiddling around with our Trinity River Project nearly a decade after voters approved it. THey lost the Hunt Corp entertainment project downtown to Las Colinas' downtown. So at least from the Dallas pespective it isnt perfect. But they're doubling the size of our rail lines from its current 45 miles to 90 miles in length. The TRE is 30 miles in length. The restaurant scene is booming. The Arts District is expanding and is the largest in the country.

Anyway, I'm completely off topic, so I apologize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2007, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland area
554 posts, read 2,279,429 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post

Actually, Houston has the seventh largest skyline in the world...

http://ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest...nes_Cities.htm
Sorry, but that chart does not state that Houston has the seventh largest skyline in the world. That chart says, based on the ten tallest buildings, the average height. For example, NYC only has 2 buildings over 1,000 ft in height, but has way more buildings than Chicago, yet Chicago is ranked higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 12:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,604,303 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by metroplex2003 View Post
This goes back to my argument of the traditional northern cities with urban cores and the sunbelt cities (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, LA). These cities are designed differently. Not as dense, not as compact. THese cities rely on freeways rather than rail. It depends on what you want. Houston is great for its low cost of living, buying large houses. Population wise, it's the 4th largest city in the country in a just barely above 2 million people, but the 6th largest MSA in the country in at 5.5 million.
Atlanta just clears 5 million people in its metro, but only has 480,000 people in the city limits. DFW has 6.04 million with Dallas proper having roughly 1 million.

Chicago proper in at 2.8 million, but metro Chicago raises up to 8-9 million.

But at the end of the day, it comes to preferences, do you like the urban core, walking city? or do you like the low cost of living, nicer weather, great freeway infrastructure, and the convenience of strip malls?

The sunbelt cities are nice b/c of weather and b/c people prefer that type of living as opposed to the cities like NY, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Wash DC...the traditionally built cities.

There's positives to both....personally I prefer the sunbelt. I just plainly do not like subzero temps or extended winters. I'm originally from the Midwest...been there done that....now in DFW for 4 years and quite happy. Both DFW and Houston have one of the strongest economies in the country. Cost of living compared to our northern cities with similar populations are hands down cheaper. Both cities have 20+ Fortune 500 companies headquartered here. Both have great air access...DFW is the world headquarters of both Southwest and American. Houston is the world headquarters of Continental, the number 1 rated legacy carrier.
Both are adding roughly 1 million per decade to their MSA's...Houston should overtake Philly by the end of the decade, and DFW will continue to inch up and close the gap between Chicago MSA and DFW MSA.

I do like Chicago...of the traditional northern cities, I probably rate Chicago the best (if weather is not a factor). This would include DC, NYC, Boston, SF, Philly, Detroit, St. Louis, Seattle, Cleveland. CHicago is clean, and if you like the walkable high dense urban core, then Chicago is a nice place.

But for sunbelt cities, all of them are nice....I do prefer Texas though...so DFW and Houston are up there...
You'd be surprised to know that LA is denser than Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 05:19 AM
 
609 posts, read 2,720,874 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409 View Post
In the world.

Not quite. Chicago area=9.5; Houston area=5.54

??




http://ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest...nes_Cities.htm

What's the Big 3? More like, NY, the "Big 1", Chicago and Los Angeles, the "Big 2", and so on and so on....whenever I say the big four (in reference to NY, LA, CHI, HOU), I'm meaning that these are BIG cities inside and out. Regardless of their popularity or eco. These four are constantly tagged as having "the largest...in the world/country". Though, a lot of Houston's "largeness" comes from things being bigger in Texas.

I don't think there's any type of competition between Chicago. I love Chicago. Still, call me a dreamer, but I just think that Houston is sooo much more than just another Sunbelt city, and a city of its magnitude and umph has all the potential to be as great as our nation's three largest cities. Just my opinion.
Sorry mpope, I was using estimates in my mind...yes, 5.54 x 2 does not equal 9.5...but in earlier posts, I've laid out the exact numbers...so Houston MSA is more than half the size of Chicago's, but 58% the size of Chicago (not half). But again, I do feel Houston's MSA is growing at a much more rapid rate...thus, it could catch Chicago in the next 1/2 to 3/4 century. But then again, so could DFW. Actually, Houston has the seventh largest skyline in the world...
Emporis.com uses a different forumula.
So I guess we'll never know which skyline is truly tallest. emporis places several asian cities using a forumula of number of floors per area I believe. Height wise, many of the world's tallest buildings now reside in asia or in Dubai.

As for LA being more dense...perhaps in the surrounding area around its downtown...I was referring to the urban core of chicago...ie Downtown, Mich Ave, Lincoln Park....but then again, LA could be more dense...I did not look into exact numbers comparing each other's urban cores.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,604,303 times
Reputation: 206
Chicago grew by a little more than 400,000 since 2000. Atlanta gained 890,000, DFW gained 842,000?, and Houston gained 825,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 09:17 AM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,766,415 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92 View Post
Sorry, but that chart does not state that Houston has the seventh largest skyline in the world. That chart says, based on the ten tallest buildings, the average height. For example, NYC only has 2 buildings over 1,000 ft in height, but has way more buildings than Chicago, yet Chicago is ranked higher.
My fault. I shamelessly admit that chart indeed does not say that Houston has the seventh largest skyline, but it does say that it has the third tallest skyline in the country and still seventh tallest in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,005 posts, read 69,389,357 times
Reputation: 10115
Its still alot better looking than Dallas' modern junk. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,627 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
You'd be surprised to know that LA is denser than Chicago.
I was jussst about to get ready to say this. I love both Houston and Chicago. I love them for different reasons but I lean slighly towards Chicago because I like the snow and the urbanity that Chicago has. I want to take a break from the extended summers and premature beginnings of spring in Texas. But it's fun watching Houston become more dense and urban especially inside the loop. If I do find myself living in Houston. It will be inside the loop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 10:09 AM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,766,415 times
Reputation: 510
What is this talk about Los Angeles being more dense than Chicago? Chicago's density is 12,604 and Los Angeles' is 8,567/sq mi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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.
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