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.
Yeah I already know our metropolitan area won't be surpassing Chicago's in this half of the century for sure. And I really doubt DFW will either, even though they have a 700,000 lead on us, I highly doubt their metropolitan area is going to pass Chicago on by either in this half of the century.
^ Projections state that even by 2040 we're still going to be 5th as far as metropolitan area goes, meaning obviously NYC, LA, Chicago will be the first three and DFW will be 4th, then us. The metro is a done deal for Chicago, they're keeping that title for a long time to come.
And I don't even want to get started about CSA, we're actually really far behind in that! Lol...
2040 is only thirty years away. Let's see what happens with an extra ten or so years. The GHP didn't go that far in your study. They only went to 2030.
Quote:
But yes, I am sure by 2035-2040 Houston surely will take over as the 3rd largest city, UNLESS Chicago somehow manages to reverse decades of suburban growth and attract more to the city, because Chicago's been working really hard on improving living conditions downtown (Not that they needed it) and the young population in Chicago is attracted more to the downtown area.
Chicago is going to have to start attracting families back to the city before it gain start gaining population.
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.
Chicago has tons of land within their city proper that is ripe for development. Remember, Chicago's population is almost 770,000 less than what it was at its peak. That obviously means there is plenty of land in Chicago which can be developed/redeveloped. The South Side is where much of the hardship of Chicago has hit...you'll still find that many of the Northside neighborhoods are topping 20,000 and even 30,000 people per square mile.
The North Side seems to have faced very little abandonment, while the South Side has experienced an overwhelming amount of it. Plenty of area to develop there...so your theory definitely doesn't hold up.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,086,679 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713
DFW doesn't have a 700K lead on us...
2040 is only thirty years away. Let's see what happens with an extra ten or so years. The GHP doesn't go that far...
Chicago is going to have to start attracting families back to the city before it gain start gaining population.
DFW doesn't? Wait so would it be more or less than 700K?
Haha man, I just realized I'm going to be some really old guy by then...
^^ Look at 1950 on that table, what a very interesting year, that's when suburban growth started, and look at all those cities that were affected greatly by it!
^^ Look at 1950 on that table, what a very interesting year, that's when suburban growth started, and look at all those cities that were affected greatly by it!
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,086,679 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713
Very interesting. Thanks for that Census history.
I saw Buffalo on the census for two decades straight and was like "WTF?!?!" because that city now gets SOOO overlooked, same with Cincinnati and St. Louis.
Both cities urban areas are about the same though (Houston and Dallas), with Houston taking up less land area and being slightly denser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi
I saw Buffalo on the census for two decades straight and was like "WTF?!?!" because that city now gets SOOO overlooked, same with Cincinnati and St. Louis.
Interesting to see New Orleans on the list, too. People forget how large that city was back in the day.
Chicago has tons of land within their city proper that is ripe for development. Remember, Chicago's population is almost 770,000 less than what it was at its peak. That obviously means there is plenty of land in Chicago which can be developed/redeveloped. The South Side is where much of the hardship of Chicago has hit...you'll still find that many of the Northside neighborhoods are topping 20,000 and even 30,000 people per square mile.
The North Side seems to have faced very little abandonment, while the South Side has experienced an overwhelming amount of it. Plenty of area to develop there...so your theory definitely doesn't hold up.
You forget the West side too though it's a small area of Chicago compared to the Northside and Southside.
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.
