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.
Houston's city population is likely to replace Chicago at #3 in the not so distant future if growth patterns continue the way they have been the last 10 years.
WTF? You totally ignored my point. Look at the size of that cities land mass vs Chicago. If Chicago expanded to 600 Square miles Houston would be nowhere near it. Don't you see what is going on?
WTF? You totally ignored my point. Look at the size of that cities land mass vs Chicago. If Chicago expanded to 600 Square miles Houston would be nowhere near it. Don't you see what is going on?
Houston's city limit growth is primarily inside its urban loop, which is booming.
Houston doesn't hug a huge body of water like Chicago does therefore has room to expand its metro via readily available cheap land.
Chicago sprawls North to South along Lake Michigan just as bad as Houston sprawls everywhere else.
For all of its density and walk-ability dense burbs like Hoboken don't feel like they are top 5 biggest to me.
You do realize on a relative area scale Hoboken and 5-6 million other people concentrated in what would be inside the loop of Houston - You guys fail to see any of this - only can pontificate the good aspects of houston which are many and disregard where the city has short-fallings
WTF? You totally ignored my point. Look at the size of that cities land mass vs Chicago. If Chicago expanded to 600 Square miles Houston would be nowhere near it. Don't you see what is going on?
a city cannot annex land that is already densely populated. That is not fair and not what Houston did. If you look at Houston Maps for the last 50 years, Houston got new land to build the airport, new land for NASA, New Land to expand the ship channel, etc.
expanding other cities to swallow up dense suburbs? nope, that is something Houston did not do.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
You do realize on a relative area scale Hoboken and 5-6 million other people concentrated in what would be inside the loop of Houston - You guys fail to see any of this - only can pontificate the good aspects of houston which are many and disregard where the city has short-fallings
To be fair when was the last time you accepted the faults of Philadelphia. And to be honest, I've said from day one that Houston SUCKS at mass transit. I repeat, give me a megaphone, it S-U-C-K-S at mass transit haha. Houston is sprawled and we all know that. And it does have some issues.
But honest to god, when have you ever said anything negative about your own city? High poverty rate? Higher crime rate? Old and rusty looking areas, and signs of wear and tear in roads? Any of these things. Lets stop with the in fightings for once though, because I'm trying to be fair here. Houston has a lot of issues when it comes to sprawl, vibrancy, mass transit (especially), and its humid weather. There I said it, the "perfect" image of Houston isn't so perfect. How about the "perfect" god like image of Philadelphia?
Can you list problems with Philadelphia, will you be able to is what I'm asking. Because I get the impression that Philadelphia is somehow a haven for all the greatness in the USA, no problems apparently exist there and the articles that do report them are "misleading" and have "conspiracies" against Philadelphia. I say that because its not fair at all how Chicago gets beat up so much for crime when its not the worst at it.
a city cannot annex land that is already densely populated. That is not fair and not what Houston did. If you look at Houston Maps for the last 50 years, Houston got new land to build the airport, new land for NASA, New Land to expand the ship channel, etc.
expanding other cities to swallow up dense suburbs? nope, that is something Houston did not do.
I just posted the link for the map & Houston's annexation history for all to read.
Do you think they'll actually open it instead of opening their pie holes?
Houston's city limit growth is primarily inside its urban loop, which is booming.
Houston doesn't hug a huge body of water like Chicago does therefore has room to expand its metro via readily available cheap land.
Chicago sprawls North to South along Lake Michigan just as bad as Houston sprawls everywhere else.
What on earth are you rambling about? What does what you said have to do with Chicago not having 600 square miles in its city limits and thus making Houston's "#4 spot in city size" pointless except for tax reasons?I don't care if Chicago's METRO AREA sprawls north. That has nothing to do with the city size as it did not annex those areas.
okay, let me look at it slowly. You mean Houston is the 4th largest because it 2.5 times chicago? well Juneau is like 6 times the size of chicago so that should make it number 1.2 right? doesn't migration have anything to do with it? isn't places like Houston , Dallas Atlanta, getting about a million new people each decade with the land area staying the same.
I don't understand how the land area is big and the numbers just go up.
On the other Hand San Fransisco bay area is much bigger than San Antonio surrounding area. so I don't see how your comparison is valid.
are you upset that San Antonio has a big area? I don't understand these points
I just realized that Oklahoma city and Jacksonville is big too. no your points would make sense if they were number 4 too. no. It must be something more important than land.
From a tax base and planning standpoint large area are beneficial and kudos to those cities with them. To compare urban places (which to me is CITY) 620 sq miles is absurd. The inner loop is ~95 sq miles and is much sited as the urban core of Houston. This area has an ~ population of 550-600K and is still not super dense but mostly more urban. As a comparator on City comparisons this seems about accurate. So ~25% of those people who live in Houston actually live in the Urban/Cityized portion while the majority live in a more suburban setting that happens to be part one huge municipality. That is really the point.
Technically Yes Houston is the 4th largest city but when compared to equally sized land areas of cities like Boston, NYC, Chicago, DC, Philly, Baltimore, SF, Seattle, LA, San Diego etc. the city does not seem anywhere as large in its "City" portion. Now as a metro is is very large and very expansive...
a city cannot annex land that is already densely populated. That is not fair and not what Houston did. If you look at Houston Maps for the last 50 years, Houston got new land to build the airport, new land for NASA, New Land to expand the ship channel, etc.
expanding other cities to swallow up dense suburbs? nope, that is something Houston did not do.
I never said that but if Chicago had done what Houston did in the beginning and just got all that land before people lived there it would much bigger then Houston's city limits. Do you see my point?
I did not say Houston felt bigger than anything. stop twisting things.
You agreed that Houston felt like the 4th biggest city, then said Hobokon didnt feel like top 5...Translation: Houston feels bigger than Hobokon
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.
