2010 Census results thread for Texas (Houston, Dallas: to live in, cost, metro)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
And I believe it when it comes to Houston's east end. For the past 10 years, estimates have shown that the eastern part of the loop has grown although not significantly. Yet they bleed that much population in counts? I don't buy it. If Houston does win this, expect Chicago to do the same and they should.
If Houston does, I would be surprised if Dallas doesnt follow suit.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,195 posts, read 3,916,954 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
And I believe it when it comes to Houston's east end. For the past 10 years, estimates have shown that the eastern part of the loop has grown although not significantly. Yet they bleed that much population in counts? I don't buy it. If Houston does win this, expect Chicago to do the same and they should.
Haha. The difference between Houston's situation & Chicago's (and Dallas's) situation is that for Houston the population has to be at 2.1 Million for them to gain 2 seats when they redraw the new district lines. The threshold was 2.1 Million to gain 2 new seats and Houston was only a few hundred people short.
Chicago & Dallas cant make that same case when they challenge the US Census to redo their population counts this summer, because neither were going to gain any seats for representation in the US Districts even if they got the numbers that their estimates had them as. It's just a completely different story for Houston, because for a city of its size, it literally did get screwed by the US Census even more so than Chicago did. With the situation Houston is in and with previous situations in history like this (It's happened to New York & Baltimore historically) its most likely Houston will win this challenge and will probably end up with somewhere around its 2009 estimated numbers.
What Chicago & Dallas need to do is compile information, and find another basis to challenge the US Census, for Chicago, its a very easy case. If the city can prove (by calculating effectively) that there are more people living in the city than the US Census has it as and the reported loss, it can make the case because it faced a severe population decline by 200,000 people this last decade and that limits and cutss a city larger than its credited size off from municipal funding provided by the federal government. The city can make a case on that. Other cities like San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Denver, Omaha, Kansas City, & a few others can make a case if they find good reasoning for doing so.
Hopefully this all works out though, the city of Houston seems to have their sights on what they want and I guess are making a move for it. Chicago & Dallas need to find reasoning also and get to work on this too, federal funding is at stake here. Haha.
^^^I dont disagree, however its still the same deal in Houston. The urban parts of the city are stagnant and the suburban areas (of Houston and the burbs themselves) are booming beyond belief. Give it some time and Houston will have a couple of suburbs that will be as powerful as what DFW has. The flip side of that coin is that it will come at the expense of the city of Houston.
The urban parts of the city are far from Stagnant.
Scarface did a little bit of oversimplifying when he said that the urban part of the city was the inner loop and that everything outside the loop is suburban.
Yes the most urban parts of the city are inside the loop but there are urban parts of the city outside the loop too. furthermore only half of the 95 sq mile inner loop is very active.
The parts east of 288 and 59 rather empty and more suburban than uptown and south west Houston.
You cannot honestly say that the area east of 288 within the loop is more urban than some areas of Westheimer and Richmond outside the loop.
so gaining 15K people in an area that is 452q miles is far from stagnant.
secondly while the metro gained 1M people, 700K of that occurred around the city of Houston. People want their suburban homes but still want to be as close to the city as possible.
No the suburbs won't hurt Houston like they are doing to Dallas, all of the action is still city Dependant.
Pasadena and Pearland are two of the biggest burbs and they are 95% suburban. They are mainly areas where people live but drive in to Houston to work.
The Woodlands is another big burb and does have a strong economic base, but nothing along the lines of the power house burbs in Dallas.
Apart from the Energy Burbs, Sugarland and the Woodlands, All f Houston's burbs are residential or very small. Harris County is where all the magic happens
The urban parts of the city are far from Stagnant.
Scarface did a little bit of oversimplifying when he said that the urban part of the city was the inner loop and that everything outside the loop is suburban.
Yes the most urban parts of the city are inside the loop but there are urban parts of the city outside the loop too. furthermore only half of the 95 sq mile inner loop is very active.
The parts east of 288 and 59 rather empty and more suburban than uptown and south west Houston.
You cannot honestly say that the area east of 288 within the loop is more urban than some areas of Westheimer and Richmond outside the loop.
so gaining 15K people in an area that is 452q miles is far from stagnant.
secondly while the metro gained 1M people, 700K of that occurred around the city of Houston. People want their suburban homes but still want to be as close to the city as possible. No the suburbs won't hurt Houston like they are doing to Dallas, all of the action is still city Dependant.
Pasadena and Pearland are two of the biggest burbs and they are 95% suburban. They are mainly areas where people live but drive in to Houston to work.
The Woodlands is another big burb and does have a strong economic base, but nothing along the lines of the power house burbs in Dallas.
Apart from the Energy Burbs, Sugarland and the Woodlands, All f Houston's burbs are residential or very small. Harris County is where all the magic happens
Good point that I didn't think of. The Woodlands and Sugar Land are really the only two burbs with a lot of jobs. Pearland is trying to get there (especially with its proximity to the TMC...they are trying to attract bio/nano-tech companies) and there is a lot of construction going on along I-10 in the Katy area, but it won't be like Dallas. Pasadena has a lot of industrial jobs, though. You won't see a Las Colinas or Legacy area sprout up in any of Houston's suburbs.
That isnt the point. This a competition between Dallas and Houston. Just because Houston annexes a neighborhood doesnt make it urban. Houston could annex Katy and Katy would still not be even the slightest bit urban. Just because it reads "Houston" on the adress, doesnt make it urban. Just about everything outside 610 (and a lot of stuff inside it too) in Houston is suburban.
Which brings me back to my point that the largest draw for people coming into Texas are the suburban areas. They are bigger draws than Dallas or the urban parts of Houston. Thats just the way it is. Overall, the people that move to Texas would rather live in Sugar Land or Frisco than inner loop Houston or Dallas. Its undeniable. The only exception to the rule seems to be immigrants from Mexico and Central America which flood Houston and Dallas at a much higher rate.
I disagree 100% with the part in bold.
People are most often priced out of the inner loop.
Given the chance I bet you a 100 bucks that 90% of the people who move to Houston would rather live in inner loop Houston than anywhere else.
The Museum District, Montrose, Rice, River Oaks, West U, Bellaire etc are just too darn expensive but highly desirable.
you can have a bigger newer House in Sugarland for a fraction of the price of Museum or River Oaks, but if things were equalized people would jump on that in a minute.
also urban means of the city. just because it is car dependant doesn't make it as you say "not the slightest bit urban" if it is of the city then how can it be not urban in the slightest? It may have suburban characteristics but urban and suburban are not mutually exclusive and suburban isn't the opposite of urban.
urban deals with economic centers and city life deferring from rural life.Suburban deals with residential life differing from urban primarily on the economics issue.
urban areas are economic centers be they densely populated or not.
suburban areas are residential centers be they densely populated or not.
rural areas are agricultural centers and by default are less dense dense. When will city-data and the media get that urban and suburban belong to the city group and go hand in hand and are not opposite. The one that is opposite is rural development.
I never once said annexing a community made Houston more urban. I'm just saying the city will never be in the situation that Dallas is in, because it has the ability to annex. So, even if most of the growth is now in the suburbs, Houston leaders could still (though they most likely won't) annex those higher growth areas and make them apart of the city.
Houston should go ahead and those 700K free people in Harris County and release some of those ginormous zip codes that are just big and empty and not providing much by way of economic value.
Man from Almeda all the way to Telephone Road is just a big expanse of nothingness in most areas. That is about an 80 square mile area, entirely in the city that is very sparsely populated
Good point that I didn't think of. The Woodlands and Sugar Land are really the only two burbs with a lot of jobs. Pearland is trying to get there (especially with its proximity to the TMC...they are trying to attract bio/nano-tech companies) and there is a lot of construction going on along I-10 in the Katy area, but it won't be like Dallas. Pasadena has a lot of industrial jobs, though. You won't see a Las Colinas or Legacy area sprout up in any of Houston's suburbs.
yeah, Pearland's boom was at first just a medical center residential area, but it is developing nicely.
But still Pearland is but up right against Houston and pretty soon will be a seemless blend into the city. The public transportation in Pearland is still non existent and the commute is terrible.
Pearland is far from attractive as the DFW burbs in terms of transport and jobs.
Pearlands growth to the detriment of Houston is laughable. Pearland poses no threat and I for one am looking forward to its continued growth and improvement.
Like I keep saying, Houston planners are geniuses for limiting rail access to the city.
But thats just it, they really arent maturing differently anymore. DFW is about 10 years behind Houston in diversity of population and Houston is about 15 years or so behind DFW in suburbanization. They will always be indiviudal of each other, but the growth patterns are starting to become more similar. Look at it this way:
-Both Dallas and Houston lost white and black residents, but gained tons of Hispanic residents and had decent sized Asian growth. Fort Worth experianced huge growth, but like Houston its mostly in suburban neighborhoods, not downtown.
-Both DFW and Greater Houston experianced the overwhelming amount of their growth in suburban areas.
-Both grew almost exactly the same in population.
-The demographic make up of their new residents is almost identical.
They may not be the same, but the growth in Texas is almost entirely suburban, not urban.
Again suburban is not the opposite of urban.
Most of DFW's growth was spread out among 4 or 5 counties while 70 percent of Houston's growth was in one counties.
while San Jacinto, Waller, Austin, Chambers, liberty county, etc remain largely rural, the county that Houston sits gained 700K people. The growth around Houston has remained largely unchanged in the last 175 years. Communities would develop around the city limits and then the city would expand those limits to absorb these people.
That is how Houston grew 100 years ago when it took in the wards, that is how it did 75 years ago when it took in Montrose and the Heights, that is how it grew 50 years ago when it took in the SW side.
Houston did not grow like previous decades simply because it went through a census without annexing anything. You do know that it could have gotten 700 addition people to add to the 200K it did grow by and then claim it grew by 900K people but it chose not to do that.
Again suburban is not the opposite of urban.
Most of DFW's growth was spread out among 4 or 5 counties while 70 percent of Houston's growth was in one counties.
Yeah, one county thats much larger than any in DFW.
But I digress. This isnt an argument of which is more mulit-polar because we both know DFW is. My point is simple and irrefutable: Houston's growth (like just about every metro area in the South) is enourmously suburban. There nothing wrong with that at all, but thats the way it is.
People are most often priced out of the inner loop.
Given the chance I bet you a 100 bucks that 90% of the people who move to Houston would rather live in inner loop Houston than anywhere else.
The Museum District, Montrose, Rice, River Oaks, West U, Bellaire etc are just too darn expensive but highly desirable.
you can have a bigger newer House in Sugarland for a fraction of the price of Museum or River Oaks, but if things were equalized people would jump on that in a minute.
Were saying the same thing. I didnt mean that if everything cost the same people would want to live in the burbs, but everything doesnt cost the same. Hell I would much rather live in San Francisco or Los Angeles than anywhere in Texas. But I cant afford the lifestyle I want in either of those cities. I can buy a 5 bedroom house on Lake Lewisville for what a bungalow in Compton runs.
So when you take into consideration cost, people in Texas overwhelmingly prefer the burbs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
