Houston Could Pass Chicago as Third-Largest City in U.S. in Next Decade (Naperville: condos, house)

[nana053]

Originally Posted by DavePa

Where does this look like it is? To you.. same blocks.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8003...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8008...7i13312!8i6656

Just one thing missing? Guess hint... they are blue and black.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8008...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8056...7i13312!8i6656

I'd think the next is somewhere by me in the Northeast . Below one
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7986...7i13312!8i6656

Just some irony LOL.

I meant Houston is more like a large suburb than a city. It's downtown is getting better, but it is quite small.

Downtown Houston
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Do...!4d-95.3573194

Downtown Chicago
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Do...!4d-95.3573194

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by nana053

I meant Houston is more like a large suburb than a city. It's downtown is getting better, but it is quite small.

I Just meant that block could be in Chicago. Right down to the power-line in the alley. A developer thought Chicago-style alleys and lot was the infill they built. The last looks 80 yrs old something by me? It's new Houston infill.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by MassVt

I'm willing to bet that many of Chicago's losses are simply to a neighboring suburb, and well within the metro's boundaries. A core city's population isn't all that significant in the greater context..

No, now it's not just the city that is losing population... The Chicagoland area as a whole has lost (as did the state of Illinois). This is what happens when you keep voting in corrupt inept backroom dealing politicians. #termlimits #madigandestroyedillinois

The estimates are that the three-state Chicago metropolitan area lost 19,570 people in the year ending last June 30, dipping to 9.513 million. That's bigger than the drop of 11,324 people the year before, according to the bureau.
The region did gain a little bit since the last census in 2010, moving from 9.461 million then. But the increase of .4 percent is a small fraction of the hike in the same period by large peer cities like Los Angeles (up 3.6 percent), New York (+2.8 percent) and San Francisco (+7.7 percent

But data also suggest that African-Americans are now leaving the region at a significantly faster rate than whites, Paral added. That suggests that rising crime rates and the loss of jobs on Chicago's South and West Sides are continuing to encourage residents to look elsewhere for a better life.
Municipal figures—what happened in Chicago and cities—should be available later this year.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-year-in-a-row



Houston is the only city that will surpass Chicago for the foreseeable future, but DC/Baltimore will surely surpass Chicago CSA within a few years. Then soon after the Bay Area. In about 3 decades the CSA's of Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston will come close.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

No, now it's not just the city that is losing population... The Chicagoland area as a whole has lost (as did the state of Illinois). This is what happens when you keep voting in corrupt inept backroom dealing politicians. #termlimits #madigandestroyedillinois

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-year-in-a-row

Houston is the only city that will surpass Chicago for the foreseeable future, but DC/Baltimore will surely surpass Chicago CSA within a few years. Then soon after the Bay Area. In about 3 decades the CSA's of Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston will come close.

Have you checked out HOUSTON'S and DALLAS'S Own financial mismanagement DEBT BUILD-UP. If it did not have the influx of new residents? Then what.

Just this article a couple years old is a EYE-OPENER TO SINGLING OUT CHICAGO ALWAYS.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/b...ptcy.html?_r=0

Moody’s reported that Dallas was struggling with more pension debt, relative to its resources, than any major American city except Chicago.

Dallas has a problem that could bring it to its knees, and that could be an early test of America’s postelection commitment to safe streets and tax relief: The city’s pension fund for its police officers and firefighters is near collapse and seeking an immense bailout.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburne...-tax-increase/

Houston

Houston's -- Pension funds themselves report debts of $3.2 billion, but the real market value of Houston’s unfunded pension liability is $13.7 billion, according to a study published this year by Joshua Rauh, a finance professor and Hoover fellow at Stanford University.

Houston’s debts include $11.2 billion in outstanding bonds. If you subtract the city’s capital assets, such as buildings and roads, which aren’t likely to be sold off, and then compare the remaining liquid assets against non-pension debts, Houston is in the hole by $12.3 billion.

Add in the real pension debt, and you’re looking at a $26 billion debt for one city.

Its not just for the North or Chicago anymore..... Houston can surpass Chicago in Population as it tries to density with infill but ---->CHICAGO WILL CONTINUE TO OWN IT IN VIBRANCY AND A REAL STREET-LEVEL CITY EXPERIENCE.

The City still is Holding on WELL to its GLOBAL STATUS with Corporate America in Headquarters alone keeping it even MORE VIABLE vs. the rising cities. Even in FUTURE OUTLOOK. Toronto that surpassed the city proper population in 2013. IN NO LIST OF CITIES. IS ABOVE CHICAGO. I say the same if/when Houston does too.

~ This really isn't the Political forum. Just one response I felt is worthwhile. ~ Chicago has the sunbelt create its own ills too. Chicago's is just the Worst with more years behind its creating.

BUT DESPITE ALL CHICAGOS ISSUES. IT KEEPS THE DOOMSAYERS AT BAY AND WON'T DECLINE IN STATURE. DA HECK WITH POPULATION STAGNATION MEANS DECLINE IN PRESTIGE AND STATUS.

[Slats Grobnick]

Originally Posted by steeps

I doubt it... a lot could happen in that time. Houston Proper is 600 sq./miles to Chicago's 230 sq./miles. The difference is in density. Chicago last decade was said by the census to have lost 200,000 people. To this next one of a gain.... no matter how small. Is still a turnaround.

Some forget NYC lost 1 million people in the 70s and still lost in the 80s. Now it is ever increasing again.

Chicago is NOT prone to Natural disasters and never will run out of Water or have Sea levels, if they rise. Become a issue. Though Lake Michigan levels are at a all time high. Their beaches can experience more erosion. No high or low tides or city threatened.

This thread was done not long ago to. //www.city-data.com/forum/city-...dp-2020-a.html It probably should be in the General US or City vs. City one there? For a WIDER selection of feedbacks.

Even another one saying Houston already is the nations 3rd city on the Houston forum. //www.city-data.com/forum/houst...gest-city.html

Houston is growing because it's adding land. If Chicago started incorporating Evanston, Oak Law, Oak Park, Cicero, Berwyn, Schaumburg, Naperville, etc.... than Chicago would definitely beat Houston and possibly Los Angeles.

Houston's employment also relies heavily on oil and state health care industries, whose future is unstable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Slats Grobnick

Houston is growing because it's adding land. If Chicago started incorporating Evanston, Oak Law, Oak Park, Cicero, Berwyn, Schaumburg, Naperville, etc.... than Chicago would definitely beat Houston and possibly Los Angeles.

Houston's employment also relies heavily on oil and state health care industries, whose future is unstable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw

or, in other words, Houston may pass up Chicago in population, but Chicagoland will continue to be far larger than than Metropolitan Houston.
And within its own Lone Star State, second place metro Houston (6,772,470) comes in well below Texas's largest metro area, the Metroplex of Dallas and Ft Worth (7,233,323) in 2016 estimates.

City population means little. San Francisco and Boston are small cities if measured by those within city limits. Yet these are major global centers, far more so than Houston. Why? Because SF's and Boston's population are meaningless. Both the Bay Area and Metro Boston have huge populations....and it is those populations that count.

"Naperville, etc.... than Chicago would definitely beat Houston and possibly Los Angeles." And Chicago would have passed LA in population if the vote for the San Fernando Valley (I believe there was a similar one for the harbor areas around San Pedro) had gone through and those areas had seceded from the city.

Would that have changed things? Not really. Metro LA would remain, by far, the second largest metropolitan area in the nation.

Our insane fixation on population and population growth and how it relates to the importance and viability of a city and metro area. What utter insanity. New York, our A #1, king of the hill, top of the heap city, has a population of some 8 million and a metro population of 20 million.

Let's crank up the growth machine and build the city's population to 12 million and the metro to 30 million (a 150% growth for both).......would the city and the region be better places for that growth? Would they be more functional, have a better quality of life?

And since shooting for the sky is part of the game, wouldn't Manhattan be better off with 50 new 100+ story buildings.

The only thing that exists with continual growth is cancer.....and it kills its host. Insanity.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Slats Grobnick

Houston is growing because it's adding land. If Chicago started incorporating Evanston, Oak Law, Oak Park, Cicero, Berwyn, Schaumburg, Naperville, etc.... than Chicago would definitely beat Houston and possibly Los Angeles.

Houston's employment also relies heavily on oil and state health care industries, whose future is unstable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=445Z1Dc5-Rw

To be fair, Houston hasn't added land since 1996. At least any major land with population at last count. Personally, I've always said the real or city part of Houston is inside loop 610. It's the only part of the city that could actually sustain high density and it's obviously the oldest part of the city. This is also where most of the cities activities are. The city of Houston has pretty much acknowledged this as well.

[Magicalmoe]

Houston is mostly sprawl and lacks density. Any visitor to both cities knows Chicago by far is the larger city. If you want to expand city boundaries to make artificial numbers you can. Doesn't change anything. That being said the population growth of Houston is impressive. If current trends continue into the future and Houston adds more density to its core it could catch up with Chicago.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by Magicalmoe

Houston is mostly sprawl and lacks density. Any visitor to both cities knows Chicago by far is the larger city. If you want to expand city boundaries to make artificial numbers you can. Doesn't change anything. That being said the population growth of Houston is impressive. If current trends continue into the future and Houston adds more density to its core it could catch up with Chicago.

You do know Chicago's core probably hit 200,000 residents? Are you sure Houston is gonna catch up that fast --->Core to Core? Forget street-level vibrancy. That I place at .0000001% chance. Yeah its highly doubtful at best.

[rcrichlo]

Nobody who has actually been to Houston and Chicago would ever say Houston is the bigger "city".

https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/cities...ou-fit-inside/