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 might pass Chicago in population, the city can get all the people it wants, but it will take a long time for it to start competing with Chicago in history, museums, culture, importance and music.
Well, this isn't a "which is better" thread. It's about whether or not Houston has a shot at passing up Chicago's population in the next 2 decades. Besides, I don't think Houston CAN compete with Chicago's history even if it wanted to, as Chicago is an older city. That deal is kind of sealed. It would be like a 17 year old kid competing to have more wisdom and life experience than a 40 year old man.
"Importance" is subjective. Both Houston and Chicago are important for different reasons. Not sure what you mean there.
Are there any kind of annexation proposals for Chicago? Has there ever been any traction in consolidating Cook County and Chicago?
No, the city hasn't really annexed or had new vacant land development in about 55 years. There's NO talk at consolidation with Cook County and there's really nowhere left to annex or a reason to. None of the high density suburbs directly to the west or north have any desire to come into Chicago, and there's no interest from Chicago to annex any of the more poorly performing suburbs to the south.
Chicago does have large areas near wolf lake on the south side that are basically just vacant land - about 10 square miles.
Also the huge area in the city now getting attention is the Southworks Steel area. It's 600 acres right on the lakefront, basically juts out and has water on 3 sides that's been cleared and is totally vacant. Plans right now for this coveted spot are for around 14,000 housing units and 17.5 million square feet of retail, new bus lines and 125 acres of parks, a high school, 1,500 boat marina, etc.
They recently opened a 2-mile extension of Lakeshore Drive through the area and are working on utilities getting ready for development.
Personally, I wish Houston DIDN'T have so much land in it's city limits, and confined it's area to a much more reasonable size. If it were up to me it would be at least half the land it covers today. Maybe less. It skews so many angles and really makes it hard to compare certain stats to other cities.
That said, I highly doubt Houston's MSA will pass up Chicago's any time soon. Same goes for DFW (not passing Chicago any time soon). Metro Houston and metro Dallas-Ft. Worth have a history of going back and forth with each other over growth rates. They will both continue growing to be sure, but which one is most likely to pass up Chicago first is anybody's guess. Still too close to call that one, even if DFW does currently have a slight lead.
I agree with the people who are saying Houston-city will pass up Chicago-city long before MSA will pass MSA. Especially if Houston keeps annexing it's suburbs. Given THAT particular tendency Houston has, it could happen next week (sarcasm).
If it were up to me, I would shrink Houston to about the inner loop plus several areas between 610 and beltway 8 and work from there. It would be a much more respectable and manageable 140 or so square miles with about 600k plus.
If it were up to me, I would shrink Houston to about the inner loop plus several areas between 610 and beltway 8 and work from there. It would be a much more respectable and manageable 140 or so square miles with about 600k plus.
This. And there wouldn't be so much division within the city. You got people 50 miles out voting on things going within the inner loop.
If it were up to me, I would shrink Houston to about the inner loop plus several areas between 610 and beltway 8 and work from there. It would be a much more respectable and manageable 140 or so square miles with about 600k plus.
Even with those borders according to your numbers Houston would be at approximately 4200 ppsm, still low density by city data standards.
Even with those borders according to your numbers Houston would be at approximately 4200 ppsm, still low density by city data standards.
How do you figure? You don't even know where the lines would be drawn. The inner loop alone has an estimated population of 586,000, within 96 sq miles of land. Do the math and that comes out to an average of roughly 6,100 per sq mile, and that's including large areas of non-residential industrial zones, warehouse districts, office parks, the Med Center, and Memorial Park, which takes up a rather sizeable chunk of land inside the loop. Include some of the high-density areas just outside the loop like Gulfton (average density of 17,000 per sq. mile) and Uptown, and that number could increase even higher. Besides, density isn't the issue being discussed as much as manageability is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
If it were up to me, I would shrink Houston to about the inner loop plus several areas between 610 and beltway 8 and work from there. It would be a much more respectable and manageable 140 or so square miles with about 600k plus.
Yes, that number sounds even better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe
This. And there wouldn't be so much division within the city. You got people 50 miles out voting on things going within the inner loop.
Excellent point. That's exactly what I meant when I said "skewed" earlier. Kingwood has no business being part of Houston-proper. Might as well have annexed Huntsville.
Last edited by Bobloblawslawblog; 12-15-2013 at 01:55 PM..
How do you figure? You don't even know where the lines would be drawn. The inner loop alone has an estimated population of 586,000, within 96 sq miles of land. Do the math and that comes out to an average of roughly 6,100 per sq mile. Include some of the high-density areas just outside the loop like Gulfton and Uptown, and that number could increase higher. Besides, density isn't the issue as much as manageability is.
Yes, that number sounds even better.
Excellent point. That's exactly what I meant when I said "skewed" earlier. Kingwood has no business being part of Houston-proper. Might as well have annexed Huntsville.
Like I said "according to your numbers" in reference to Spade's numbers.
Like I said "according to your numbers" in reference to Spade's numbers.
Well, to quote Spade, he said "If it were up to me, I would shrink Houston to about the inner loop plus several areas between 610 and beltway 8 and work from there. It would be a much more respectable and manageable 140 or so square miles with about 600k plus.".
So, using his numbers, that would be the entire 96 square miles I referred to earlier, plus a few areas outside the loop and inside the beltway. Which areas? I have no idea. That wasn't specified. Like I said though, if that were areas like Gulfton and Uptown, it would only increase the overall density. Since the inner-loop alone is just shy of 600k, it would probably be closer to 800k using his proposed area.
Well, to quote Spade, he said "If it were up to me, I would shrink Houston to about the inner loop plus several areas between 610 and beltway 8 and work from there. It would be a much more respectable and manageable 140 or so square miles with about 600k plus.".
So, using his numbers, that would be the entire 96 square miles I referred to earlier, plus a few areas outside the loop and inside the beltway. Which areas? I have no idea. That wasn't specified. Like I said though, if that were areas like Gulfton and Uptown, it would only increase the overall density.
I still don't get how you arrived at your figure.
600,000 / 140= 4,200 ppsm, FYI i was only responding to his numbers so if you have an issue with those numbers take it up with him.
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.
