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.
All the people in the world wont make Houston a Chicago. Your population may or may not pass Chicago's, but Chicago is still Chicago and Houston is still Houston. You cant touch Chicago nor its uniqueness/history/etc.
That was my point in the last post...I do not believe Houston will catch chicago for decades, if at all. City proper populations have not been growing that fast for a long time now. City propers just dont magically grow by 2 million people in 2 years...the official 2005 US Census has Houston had just a smidge above 2 million, and since 2000 Houston proper had only grown by a scant 12,500 people per year, which by City Proper standards is a lot. It's the suburbs of Houston that have produced an annual MSA aboslute quantitative growth of 130,000 people per year.
Now like I say, I'm pro texas, I want to see Houston succeed...I want Dallas to succeed too, but my thing is even in the highest unliklihood that Houston proper city limits passes Chicago, it wont happen in my lifetime or probably even the next generation's. This is because Houston has had a growth rate of 12,500 people per year considering it was a full 800,000 people behind Chicago back in 05. If Chicago proper stopped growing, which it hasnt, then it would take Houston 64 years at this growth rate for its proper population to catch Chicago's. The other issue Houston has is its MSA population, which is only at 5.5 million. Chicago's is well past 9 million. At a growth rate of only 130,000 people per year, it would be hard for either Houston or Dallas (which has a MSA of 6.03 million) to catch Chicago anytime soon.
It would take 27 years at Houston's current growth rate, which is one of the healthiest and highest growth rates of any metropolitan area in the country. I do believe it is possible for Chicago to be overtaken by either Houston or Dallas MSA wise within a half century...but you got to remember Chicago's MSA is growing too.
Now it may change...b/c the other confounding variable is that the census bureau can fudge the numbers nicely by adding far out counties to one's metro areas...they do that in the CSA stats and they have added counties to the MSA stats...but overall MSA does a good job...CSA tends to overstate. In terms of UA, both Houston and Dallas are about 4-5 million short of Chicago...which is even more than the MSA difference.
Now what does all this mean? Is it important that Dallas and Houston takes over Chicago...
Well, in terms of texas pride, yes, in terms of marketing for each city, yes? For everyday citizens outside this forum...no, for lots of people, they prefer not to have the "large city" nightmares that would come with having 9-10 million people living in the area. If you think Houston and Dallas are getting big now with their 5.5 and 6.03 million people respectively, think a/b the same area having double that...granted a lot of that will go to the outlying suburbs...it's going to be a lot of people commuting into each city's urban core.
Having said all that, I'm actually pro-growth..especially if it's well planned out growth...I want both cities and their MSA's to grow...but it needs to be done right with great freeway planning, and great integration of other transportation services such as air, rail, bus, taxis.
I think both Houston and Dallas are great at planning their MSA's. Dallas as the North Texas Council working with all of its suburbs and neighboring cities...I'm sure Houston the same.
In terms of urbanized area statistic, Houston in terms of urbanized area is behind Dallas as well, and Dallas is significantly behind Chicago...
Chicago will remain America's #3 in an island all by itself. It's too far away from LA to catch up population wise, but far enough away from Dallas and Houston respectively to not be overtaken for decades and decades to come.
In terms of financial sector and world markets, Chicago is #2 behind NYC...and most people in business would agree with that...as big as LA is, Chicago trumps them for the economics side of things...after Chicago, then probably SF, then comes the Texas cities.
Last edited by metroplex2003; 06-06-2007 at 06:49 AM..
Where did Houston get the additional 2 million plus people from last year?
The official US Census has Houston growing at a scant 12-13,000 people per year since 2000. Unless if Houston has done the unthinkable, and grew by 2,000,000 people in the last year, which is faster than the fastest growing MSA stats, I wonder a/b those stats...or unless Houston did some major anexations over the last 2 years that we're unaware of.
Chicago has a sizable lead over Houston...it's roughly 40% bigger than houston, or 800,000 people lead/houston's 2,000,000 equates to roughly 40%.
Now I"m all for Houston overtaking Chicago as I['m pro-Texas....but I"m also realistic...it's not happening anytime soon. Virtually all city propers have experienced their growth already decades ago...it's now the surrounding areas that are experiencing the double digit growth rates.
I think you misunderstood me. The population figure I posted was of Houston's city population as of today. It was already over 2 million about four years ago. Houston city limits absorbed about 100,000 Katrina evacuees. I would must rather trust the city population (H-GAC). Just like I would the NCTCOG for North Texas.
Chicago's city limit populations have been declining as well. That is despite all of these condo towers popping up.
I think you misunderstood me. The population figure I posted was of Houston's city population as of today. It was already over 2 million about four years ago. Houston city limits absorbed about 100,000 Katrina evacuees. I would must rather trust the city population (H-GAC). Just like I would the NCTCOG for North Texas.
Chicago's city limit populations have been declining as well. That is despite all of these condo towers popping up.
I'm sorry, I forgot a/b the Katrina effect. That's my fault...and I meant 200,000, not 2 million.
However, with the population otherwise growing at 12,500 people per year, it would be hard for Houston to catch chicago. the difference is 600,000 people or 48 years to catch chicago at the pre-Katrina rate assuming Chicago doesnt grow. Now if Chicago continues to decline by about 10,000 people per year, that number could be cut in half to 24 and occur within our lifetimes...however, for that to happen would be for Chicago to roll over and play dead and not do anything a/b the recent declines after making gains from 1990-2000 ( + 108,290). I just cannot see that happening. St. Louis is example where the city took active steps to stop the hemorrhaging. Chicago by nature has traditionally taken measures to stop population bleeding in the past, so I do not think they will just lose population for the next 24 years. It maybe stagnant, but probably not lose continously.
However, Chicago has been relatively stagnant compared to the sunbelt cities...if the sunbelt continues to grow at its projected rate, Chicago at some point later in the century will be overtaken, likely first by Dallas in terms of MSA stats then followed by Houston. And of course, Houston is the only city that would take over Chicago from a city limits perspective. Afterall, Dallas proper is completely bound by suburbs. San Antonio has lots of space to expand, but it would take them way too long.
But for now, even after 24 years in the best possible circumstances that Houston takes over Chicago as the nation's 3rd most populous city, there would still be questions on which city is more major b/c of the MSA and UA stats. Chicago is our nation's 2nd financial center behind NYC and has alpha world status. With Houston competing with Dallas for corporate HQ relocations and Dallas winning the last several years, it will be harder for Houston to elevate its status more....number of people does not always equate.
But to emphasize the importance of going just beyond the city proper limits when looking at stats, Atlanta is the major example of that. It is considered a major US city, yet it only has 483,000 people in its city limits. City limits are just boundaries...but the overall region tends to be more reflective...whether you use Urbanized Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area. Companies look at that more. This is why Atlanta is home to two major airline hubs (Air Tran and Delta), and why Louisville, Kentucky has no major airline hub despite being bigger than Atlanta proper and being more centralized than Atlanta proper. This is why Dallas and Houston have American and Continental and San Antonio lacks a major hub. This is why St. Louis has an American Hub despite being smaller than Kansas City. St. Louis has 2.8 million people compared to KC's 1.8 million and St. Louis has more corporations.
Katrina is likely a one time effect, unless other family members of Katrina follow the katrina families to Houston. I guess we will see these numbers over the next few years. But I'm not sure the Katrina influx was a good thing for Houston. It appears looking at the latest numbers that Houston is struggling to find appropriate infrastructure to keep up with the sudden 200,000 increase in its population, all of which went into the city limits of Houston.
But I tend to believe Katrina is a one time effect...and that Houston should go back to its normal rate of growth and join the other cities in relatively little city proper limit growth rates. Most growth takes place in the suburbs.
This is just one reason why city population numbers are irrelevant. Even in Chicago is passed by Houston, there is no doubt in my mind that people will still see Chicago as the much bigger city. Same exact thing with San Antonio and Dallas. San Antonio passed Dallas in population 2 years ago. Do you really believe the San Antonio area is bigger than Dallas? NO.
This is just one reason why city population numbers are irrelevant. Even in Chicago is passed by Houston, there is no doubt in my mind that people will still see Chicago as the much bigger city. Same exact thing with San Antonio and Dallas. San Antonio passed Dallas in population 2 years ago. Do you really believe the San Antonio area is bigger than Dallas? NO.
This is just one reason why city population numbers are irrelevant. Even in Chicago is passed by Houston, there is no doubt in my mind that people will still see Chicago as the much bigger city. Same exact thing with San Antonio and Dallas. San Antonio passed Dallas in population 2 years ago. Do you really believe the San Antonio area is bigger than Dallas? NO.
I know. I always hated city populations as compared to metro populations. Either way, Houston may pass Chicago in both ranking, so its a win-win situation .
I know. I always hated city populations as compared to metro populations. Either way, Houston may pass Chicago in both ranking, so its a win-win situation .
NOt denying that it will, but it's going to take a long long long time. And even it did, it may not elevate its stature any...as in the case of San Antonio surpassing Dallas. But at a pre and post-katrina growth rate of 12,500...you're looking at 48 years assuming Chicago stops its hemorrhaging.
But it's important to people here in Texas...we Texans like to market ourselves...we are kings of marketing...and we take a lot of pride in our cities...so if we can claim ourselves to have the 3rd most populous city in the country...then that's great...but I do feel that it wouldn't tell the whole story just as in the St. Louis vs. KC example, Atlanta vs. Louisville, or San Antonio vs Dallas.
All the people in the world wont make Houston a Chicago. Your population may or may not pass Chicago's, but Chicago is still Chicago and Houston is still Houston. You cant touch Chicago nor its uniqueness/history/etc.
I don't think anyone down here would dream of trying to do so. We're trying to make Houston its own grand city. I really don't even want Houston's population to surpass Chicago's. In fact, I'm sure that plenty of people would agree that it's important that Houston's population did not surpass Chicago's. I just don't want anyone to surpass Houston. The biggest four should remain the biggest four; however, It would be perfectly fine with me if it ended up like this:
New York, New York
Chicago, Illinois
Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, California
I am NOT talking about MSAs. I hate MSAs. Do not use that term around me.
In terms of urbanized area statistic, Houston in terms of urbanized area is behind Dallas as well, and Dallas is significantly behind Chicago...
What exactly does this mean?
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.
Your population may or may not pass Chicago's, but Chicago is still Chicago and Houston is still Houston. You cant touch Chicago nor its uniqueness/history/etc. 
.
