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.
I think Houston is a medium sized city in a very large Metro; it most definately is real but no where near as large as a city as some of the others listed. It's metro is comparable
The population of a a city originally meant 8,000 people (I don't know what it is now), Houston has 2.1m and you think Houston is not a real City? You must be smoking some really good sh it hook a brother up. I wanna be able to talk BS just like you.
another good example that fits in well with my SW vs inner loop argument.
NOLA is half as dense as Houston overall. On a zip code level, NOLA's densest zip code is not near as dense as Houston's and yet NOLA seems more active. What does that tell you? Density doesn't mean much
So now there's a difference between a city and its metro? Without Houston, its metro area would be just like Beaumont. A city with over 2.2 million isn't medium. This is making less sense and the pages go along.
Yes to me a huge difference between city and metro, most of which is suburbs, on Metro size Chicago dwarfs Houston BTW
So you have 2.2 million people in 600 sq miles, Philly surpasses 2.2 million in about 260 sq miles( but this already into what we call the suburbs here which are more built up than what you call the city); Boston in like 280, Chicago in like 240 or 250, NYC in like 80 miles. That is the point, Houston only has 2.2 million people becuase of its land area, Are you saying Houston is built as a city in all of the 600 sq miles?
Again this is my point but whatever. This is the point these huge boundaries make comparing the populations well for lack of a better description, rediculous
MSAs or UAs or CSAs at least are somewhat normalized in criteria, city boundaries are well fairly meaningless for these comparisons. I mean do you think Houston is nearly 4 times the size of boston, that is what these population stats would suggest, preety meaningless when viewed from that perspective. Or is San Antonio more than twice the size of Boston i mean really
another good example that fits in well with my SW vs inner loop argument.
NOLA is half as dense as Houston overall. On a zip code level, NOLA's densest zip code is not near as dense as Houston's and yet NOLA seems more active. What does that tell you? Density doesn't mean much
True, but half of those people are tourists who fill up hotel rooms and walk around downtown, uptown, Mid-City and other parts of the city. And its built like NE cities so people walk to attractions. With proper planning, the SW and uptown could have been much much better. They just didn't know any better.
So you have 2.2 million people in 600 sq miles, Philly surpasses 2.2 million in about 260 sq miles( but this already into what we call the suburbs here which are more built up than what you call the city); Boston in like 280, Chicago in like 240 or 250, NYC in like 80 miles. That is the point, Houston only has 2.2 million people becuase of its land area, Are you saying Houston is built as a city in all of the 600 sq miles?
Yes, you are forgetting that not all of the 579 miles are occupied, and since all of the city's population is included in the urban area( which according to the census is more compactly populated than Philly) then yes, all of the cities POPULATION lives in city.
Yes to me a huge difference between city and metro, most of which is suburbs, on Metro size Chicago dwarfs Houston BTW
So you have 2.2 million people in 600 sq miles, Philly surpasses 2.2 million in about 260 sq miles( but this already into what we call the suburbs here which are more built up than what you call the city); Boston in like 280, Chicago in like 240 or 250, NYC in like 80 miles. That is the point, Houston only has 2.2 million people becuase of its land area, Are you saying Houston is built as a city in all of the 600 sq miles?
Again this is my point but whatever. This is the point these huge boundaries make comparing the populations well for lack of a better description, rediculous
MSAs or UAs or CSAs at least are somewhat normalized in criteria, city boundaries are well faily meaningless for these comparisons. I mean do you think Houston is nearly 4 times the size of boston, that is what these population stats would suggest, preety meaningless when viewed from that perspective. Or is San Antonio more than twice the size of Boston i mean really
OF COURSE those cities have more people in less space, they didn't have cars in those days! Houston is huge, too late to go back, doesn't matter what people live in, there's still 2.2 million in the city itself, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Over time Houston will continue to grow in its city limits and will surpass Chicago. Maybe not in 10 years, but it will happen.
Yes.....blah blah blah these sunbelt cities are spread out, its the same thing people said about LA for decades, and now that city has some very dense areas that rival any city not named New York. All it means is that if Houston ever gets to 8,000ppsm consistently it will have nearly 5 milliion people. Its not going to shrink, these cities including Houston will continue to grow an will continue to pass up the old guard......
Yes, you are forgetting that not all of the 579 miles are occupied, and since all of the city's population is included in the urban area( which according to the census is more compactly populated than Philly) then yes, all of the cities POPULATION lives in city.
So then if you use UA as the barometer, you (Htoen as provided in your response) would or must (though am sure you will change your story as you do every 3 seconds to fit whatever yourr fancy is) then agree that Houston would the 10th largest city in the country on this aspect (Urbanized Area size), behind NYC, LA, Chicago (the Chicago US dwarfs the Houston UA), Philadelphia, Miami, Boston, DC, DFW, and SF.
So on this aspect Houston would be the second largest city (based on size of the UA population) in Texas, would you not agree HTown?????
I cant speak for spade but to me the difference in vibrancy is walkable cohesion and street level activity. On these aspects there is really no comparsion. Now not everyone likes this nor do they have to but to claim this level is acheived is also not accurate
Well that is basically where I was getting at. I don't find Houston as vibrant on street level as cities in the Northeast. As the city increases in density, that will change.
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.
