When will Phoenix surpass Houston as the 4th largest city? (apartment, university)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Forevery project, building, park, and so on, I can name two that are much larger. The Biltmore area in Phoenix, Downtown, Arcadia, Westgate and the 101 corridor (Phoenix extends to 99th ave.), North Central, Uptown, development around light rail, north Phoenix. And that is not incorporating suburban growth in Glendale, Scottsdale (which many mock as a mega-Beverly Hills wanna-be because of its upscale developments.), Tempe, Chandler and even Mesa and Surprise. Mesa is the largest suburban city in the country, over 500,000 residents.

Well for one, i did not name all the projects in Houston. You seen to be thinking with that Texan mentality where bigger is better. Size means nothing if you don't know how to use it and for one, there isn't many large scale developments larger than BLVD place. DC doesn't have very many large scale areas in it's city as well but it attacts a large amount of people to those new areas.

Now with that said. There is alot going on in Houston. There will be more going in Houston because it's economy is still growing and it has one of the most vibrant in the nation. They can withstand the economic recession that is buckling the rest of the nation at this moment and the housing industry is still healthy and going strong in Houston. I didn't even name the River Oaks district which is planning to have a 66 foot tower go up and I believe that's the Ritz Carlton. Houston leads the nation in apartment demand in 2007 and it looks to continue that way in 2008.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by azriverfan

This is not true. The valley attracts more Californians than Houston.

Where did I say that Houston attracts more Californians than the Valley? I said Houston attracts a good amount of Californians but the state as a whole attracts the most Californians. Maybe I should have specified that when i mentioned that.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

Phoenix isn't the west coast, true, but it ain't a "south Rocky Mountain City" either. Phoenix is nowhere even remotely near the Rocky Mountains. Anybody who would make an idiotic statement like that probably has never been to Phoenix or the Rocky Mountains. It's called the desert southwest, dude.

Phoenix may not PHYSICALLY be on the West Coast, but IMO is a West Coast city.

Phoenix has more in common with Los Angeles and San Diego than it does with Albuquerque or El Paso.

The materialism, the size of the metro area, the work ethic, the laid back, but fast-paced nature, the fact that a very high percentage of Valley residents were Californians, the smog, the freeway culture, and the business connection to Southern California, the fact that ASU is a PAC-10 school, etc. are all reasons why Phoenix could be classified as a West Coast city.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Spade

Well for one, i did not name all the projects in Houston. You seen to be thinking with that Texan mentality where bigger is better. Size means nothing if you don't know how to use it and for one, there isn't many large scale developments larger than BLVD place. DC doesn't have very many large scale areas in it's city as well but it attacts a large amount of people to those new areas.

Now with that said. There is alot going on in Houston. There will be more going in Houston because it's economy is still growing and it has one of the most vibrant in the nation. They can withstand the economic recession that is buckling the rest of the nation at this moment and the housing industry is still healthy and going strong in Houston. I didn't even name the River Oaks district which is planning to have a 66 foot tower go up and I believe that's the Ritz Carlton. Houston leads the nation in apartment demand in 2007 and it looks to continue that way in 2008.

We seem to be going back and forth on the same topics, everything you list can be said of Phoenix: Hotel developments, condos, apartments, highrises, educational institutions, bio-technology, and so forth. The difference is, the underlying finances for Houston are tied to oil. 50% of the economy in Houston, which is much more one-dimensional source than real-estate in Phoenix where that industry accounts for 13% as just one industry but upwards of 24% if finance and banking for real estate are taken into account for the economy in Phoenix.

[tolovefromANFIELD]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Exactly, in terms of future investment, tourism, migration, and international talent like ASU and Phoenix's/Glendale's Thunderbird Grad School of International Business.

I still think you are drinking little bit too much of kool-aid. Sustainability of a region is not based on a 5 yr runup in which the main growth has been in housing and service related industries. And we all know that Phoenix is a poster child of a boom and bust. You can't just say look at how much we have grown since the beginning of the decade and asume that it shall continue. Diversification is the key, if not look at Detroit, Cleveland and Gary as to the future look of Phoenix.

You knock on Chicago, and that should be a perfect example of how to recover from a industry meltdown(manufacturing).

[Spade]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

Houston's a fast grower no doubt, not suggesting it's Pittsburgh. But it did have negative net migration domestically in the late 90s when Dallas and Austin were booming.

Phoenix has shown much more consistent growth, while Houston's has been far more up and down. Doesn't make Houston a bad place, nor is it heading for a Detroit-like population collapse, but its economy is a unique mix of Boston/NY/Chicago style international trade coupled with Atlanta/Dallas/Charlotte style cheap housing. Some might prefer that to what Phoenix offers. All I'm saying is that if I had to bet on raw population growth over the next 10-20 years, I'd take Phoenix.

Like Chicago. It will take decades for Houston to surpass Chicago and it will likewise take decades for Phoenix to surpass Houston. in 2006, 186,000 people moved to the Houston area. Phoenix has not come close to that once this decade. Over 110,000 people have moved to Houston each year since 2000. Also, I'm going to have to say Austin and Dallas experienced a little loss in the dot com bust. Austin was hit HARD earlier in this decade. They actually lost people in the city population. Dallas, while relatively still grew a healthy clip, was still hit pretty hard at the same time.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

We seem to be going back and forth on the same topics, everything you list can be said of Phoenix: Hotel developments, condos, apartments, highrises, educational institutions, bio-technology, and so forth. The difference is, the underlying finances for Houston are tied to oil. 50% of the economy in Houston, which is much more one-dimensional source than real-estate in Phoenix where that industry accounts for 13% as just one industry but upwards of 24% if finance and banking for real estate are taken into account for the economy in Phoenix.

As of 2008 though, I believe only 42 % of Houston's economy accounts for oil. It was 53% in 2003. It's dropping massively and is expected to drop under 40% by 2010. So while it is still relied on oil, it's not as much as it was before.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by tolovefromANFIELD

I still think you are drinking little bit too much of kool-aid. Sustainability of a region is not based on a 5 yr runup in which the main growth has been in housing and service related industries. And we all know that Phoenix is a poster child of a boom and bust. You can't just say look at how much we have grown since the beginning of the decade and asume that it shall continue. Diversification is the key, if not look at Detroit, Cleveland and Gary as to the future look of Phoenix.

You knock on Chicago, and that should be a perfect example of how to recover from a industry meltdown(manufacturing).

Read my post a few up, you will see what my answer is to this post.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Spade

As of 2008 though, I believe only 42 % of Houston's economy accounts for oil. It was 53% in 2003. It's dropping massively and is expected to drop under 40% by 2010. So while it is still relied on oil, it's not as much as it was before.

The Morrison Institute and Urban Land, and other non-partisan, non- financially backed research groups have Houston's oil and fuel industry in the mid 50 percentile for the economy. Your reference of 40% is most accurate for Dallas-Ft. Worth, not Houston.

[jd433]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

while we're on the topic, just re-checked the 2000-05 domestic net migration data, and Houston was actually 4th in TX, after DFW, Austin, and San Antonio

I don't underdstand why since this country doesn't grow because of the people that are already here. It tends to grow from foreign migration and birth rate.

Please understand that if people move to Phoenix from another state then the country still has the same amount of people (there is no real population growth) and these people have left a hole in the place they left behind.

But in the case of Houston the growth comes from foreign migration and birth rate this is real population growth. In other words when Houston grows in population the wole country grows.