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.
A city being "better" than another city is someone's opinion. You can't be right or wrong on that. And I already said the reason why Chicago, LA, and NYC are declining is because families are being replaced by young couples or singles. Don't know how that is skewing facts, but I guess it is to you.
You are skewing facts. Chicago has grown by over 500,000 people in the last ten years. That's incredible growth. Houston has also seen incredible growth over the past few decades. Will Houston continue to grow? Of course. Will it continue to grow the way it is now? Of course not.
Let's take a look back at Chicago in 1890. It was the second largest city in the country, and just topped one million residents. For the next 60 years, the city and surrounding area boomed. The city peaked at just over 3.6 million residents, and then began a decline. However, the metro continued to grow, yet at a slower pace.
Lets take a look at Houston in 1950. The city saw a huge increase in population and was just under 600,000 residents. The immense growth continued until the 1990's, where there was a huge decrease in the growth, which picked back up in the 2000's. What makes you think this 2.2% gain from 1990-2000 won't happen again, but be permanent this time, much like it was with Chicago?
Huge growth doesn't occur forever. Every region, every metro, every city levels out at some point. Despite your wishful thinking, Houston simply cant grow to be a metro of 10+ million in 4 decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713
If trends continue, it'll be in about 40 years. That's a long way out, but Houston has been outgrowing Chicagoland for a while now.
You are skewing facts. Chicago has grown by over 500,000 people in the last ten years. That's incredible growth. Houston has also seen incredible growth over the past few decades. Will Houston continue to grow? Of course. Will it continue to grow the way it is now? Of course not.
Hardly. Chicago has grown by less the 1% this entire decade (talking about annually). That's hardly "incredible" growth. Now, if Chicago had grew by about 500K and was a metro of about 2 million (like Austin), then that would be incredible growth. In the same time-span, Houston grew by about 1.2 million, and is a metro of just 5.9 million (probably 6 million now). Also, Chicago is right in line with NYC and LA, if you're going to say 500K is "incredible" growth for metro areas that large. It really isn't.
Don't know how I'm skewing facts. I've posted facts straight from the Census. You've provided nothing. The point is, Chicago is losing residents domestically, but is gaining in international residents (though that number is dropping), and by natural increase. Families are moving out of Chicagoland, and being replaced by young "uppies" and couples looking to experience a new city.
Quote:
Let's take a look back at Chicago in 1890. It was the second largest city in the country, and just topped one million residents. For the next 60 years, the city and surrounding area boomed. The city peaked at just over 3.6 million residents, and then began a decline. However, the metro continued to grow, yet at a slower pace.
Lets take a look at Houston in 1950. The city saw a huge increase in population and was just under 600,000 residents. The immense growth continued until the 1990's, where there was a huge decrease in the growth, which picked back up in the 2000's. What makes you think this 2.2% gain from 1990-2000 won't happen again, but be permanent this time, much like it was with Chicago?
Houston only grew that slowly because of the aftershock of the oil bust. The suburbs were still growing, but the city was still feeling the effects. That was reversed as the decade went on. Actually, the 1990s were big years for suburbs all over America and losers for the cities.
And you can't compare Houston and Chicago. Houston still has open land in its city limits waiting for development (that is coming). Chicago doesn't have that luxury. Houston can grow both dense in the Inner Loop AND suburban growth.
Quote:
Huge growth doesn't occur forever. Every region, every metro, every city levels out at some point. Despite your wishful thinking, Houston simply cant grow to be a metro of 10+ million in 4 decades.
How can it not? It grew by 1.2 million this decade alone.
And let me just say this about the metro areas. In 1970, Chicago's metro was larger than Houston's metro by 5.7 million. Last year, Chicago's metro was only ahead of Houston's by 3.7 million.
And let me just say this about the metro areas. In 1970, Chicago's metro was larger than Houston's metro by 5.7 million. Last year, Chicago's metro was only ahead of Houston's by 3.7 million.
well since you think Houston is going grow at that rate forever.Then It will be the Largets city in the USA overtaking LA also.. Since that kinda growth isnt going to stop..
well since you think Houston is going grow at that rate forever.Then It will be the Largets city in the USA overtaking LA also.. Since that kinda growth isnt going to stop..
I don't think it'll grow at that rate forever, but it'll grow fast enough to pass Chicago in 40 or so years. LA is even larger than Chicago, and aside from a three year skid because people were leaving LA in great numbers for the Inland Empire and other areas in the US, it was growing faster than Chicago. Not to mention LA's much higher international migration and natural increase compared to Chicago.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,109,363 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
Lost in all this talk about Houston's metropolitan area population catching Chicago's metro population is that the Houston metro isn't even the most populous in Texas. That would be DFW.
Drover, if you look at the OP's question he's obviously talking about the city proper population and NOT the metro.
You must be an analysts to have already predicted Houston won't surpass Chicago's population, city wise.
Since you've obviously got mad skills with prediction, can you tell me if Pittsburgh will ever grow past 500,000 mark for city proper by 2030? Please, I really want to know and need a specialists opinion on it.
Love how you try and make this look one-sided. He quoted me, I responded. Thanks.
Along with responding to anyone else so long as it gave you the opportunity to say basically the same thing over and over. We get it already. Find another drum to beat on for a while.
Drover, if you look at the OP's question he's obviously talking about the city proper population and NOT the metro.
You must be an analysts to have already predicted Houston won't surpass Chicago's population, city wise.
Since you've obviously got mad skills with prediction, can you tell me if Pittsburgh will ever grow past 500,000 mark for city proper by 2030? Please, I really want to know and need a specialists opinion on it.
I'm not trying to be rude but this post isn't coherent enough to formulate a meaningful response. Say what??
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.
