Will Houston pass Chicago in population in the next 20 years? (skyline, state)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by California Skeleton

I'm an ex Chicagoan and a widower because my wife was stabbed, robbed, and murdered in Chicago 3 years ago. Bled on the pavements and no one did anything to help her. Don't preach to me about its pathetic crime and don't preach to me that it's improving because that's a farce. You're comparing metro Chicago's murder rate to smaller cities to hide behind iron curtains. It's right behind Philly and Detroit and your not listing the growth in Chicago metro last year it was 20k. When I moved in Chicago the economy was bad and lots of foreclosures. Economists compared it to Detroit and Nevada.

I don't hate Chicago but I don't have any reason to love it anymore

That really really sucks - sorry for your loss. What you are doing though is common sometimes. Just because an event happened to you does not mean you can invalidate actual facts. Facts are still facts. I never once said that there's no homicide or that the rate is extremely low. I said that the homicide rate is not top 10 (fact) and has been cut in half since the early 90s (fact).

Improvement is not a farce for the homicide rate as it's been steadily improving since the early 1990s, which is another fact you can readily look up from the FBI. The early 90s saw over double the number of homicides that we've seen in the last large handful of years. I'm also not comparing Metro homicide rates. I'm comparing city homicide rates. And this is why rates exist - because things are unlike size and you need a percentage. That's why it's stupid to compare raw numbers. If I was comparing raw numbers, you'd have a point. But homicide rate? No, you are wrong in this case. Rates exist for the very reason of comparing things of dissimilar sizes.

Regarding Detroit: I've done this already comparing to Detroit and you're still wrong. What I'm going to do for you is this. I'm going to take the average number of homicides per community area in Chicago from 2006 - 2013 and get the average per 100K rate for each. Then I am going to sort by the rate descending and take the community areas that have the absolute highest homicide rates, and add them up to the nearest I can get to Detroit's population of 717,000. It's still not as dangerous as Detroit. Remember, this is calculating for 2006-2013 (8 years):

* West Garfield Park | 18001 people | 130 total homicides | 77.079 per 100k rate avg
* Washington Park | 11717 people | 85 total homicides | 69.344 per 100k rate avg
* Englewood | 30654 people | 197 total homicides | 63.613 per 100k rate avg
* West Englewood | 35505 people | 217 total homicides | 62.315 per 100k rate avg
* Greater Grand Crossing | 32602 people | 202 total homicides | 62.113 per 100k rate avg
* Riverdale | 6482 people | 36 total homicides | 57.853 per 100k rate avg
* Burnside | 2916 people | 14 total homicides | 55.727 per 100k rate avg
* East Garfield Park | 20567 people | 96 total homicides | 50.445 per 100k rate avg
* North Lawndale | 35912 people | 186 total homicides | 49.774 per 100k rate avg
* West Pullman | 29651 people | 134 total homicides | 45.108 per 100k rate avg
* Chatham | 31028 people | 127 total homicides | 42.703 per 100k rate avg
* South Chicago | 31198 people | 124 total homicides | 40.868 per 100k rate avg
* Fuller Park | 2876 people | 14 total homicides | 39.117 per 100k rate avg
* Humboldt Park | 56323 people | 203 total homicides | 39.06 per 100k rate avg
* Woodlawn | 25983 people | 93 total homicides | 38.487 per 100k rate avg
* South Shore | 49767 people | 192 total homicides | 37.676 per 100k rate avg
* Roseland | 44619 people | 159 total homicides | 36.98 per 100k rate avg
* Grand Boulevard | 21929 people | 76 total homicides | 36.481 per 100k rate avg
* Auburn Gresham | 48743 people | 164 total homicides | 35.39 per 100k rate avg
* New City | 44377 people | 150 total homicides | 34.365 per 100k rate avg
* Austin | 98514 people | 339 total homicides | 34.259 per 100k rate avg
* Avalon Park | 10185 people | 28 total homicides | 30.682 per 100k rate avg
* Washington Heights | 26493 people | 75 total homicides | 30.668 per 100k rate avg

* TOTAL | 716,042 people | 43.398 per 100k rate average
* Detroit | 713,777 people | 54.6 per 100K rate (2012)

I hope you understood what I did here. These are the absolute worst homicide areas of Chicago for the last 8 years, added up in equal to Detroit's population and it's still over 11 per 100K lower than Detroit. That is even counting Detroit's good areas. In no way am I saying that there's no homicide in Chicago or it's not that much - of course it is and it is still way too high. It's tragic **** going on still no matter who gets killed, especially over what seem like small matters to us. However, the data tells us that the homicide rates have drastically decreased since the early 90s.

You can also read a study done by an Associate Professor at Yale where he analyzed crime data from 1965 to 2013 and concluded that the crime rate is basically the lowest the city has seen since the early 1970s:

http://www.papachristos.org/Welcome_...ngPaper023.pdf

I'm sorry for your loss, again. That really blows, but in the end it doesn't invalidate any data. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the FBI and talk to the professor at Yale about it.


Regarding population, Chicago lost 200,000 people between the last two censuses, so an abrupt estimated population gain after that loss? It's good. The metro area has also never lost population at any single census. Also, population doesn't dictate how good or bad a city is. In that case, we'd conclude that Karachi, Pakistan is better than NYC because its population is greater by 5 million people.

[JoninATX]

You want to see high density, look up Downtown Houston, TMC, and Uptown. Google maps will not give you a accurate image because Houston like I said earlier is rapidly densifing itself. Just google it and see the amount of
projects that are currently being built.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by H'ton

Standard...you mentioned that you didn't view the development map because you are looking for urbanity and not development.

Well, if you spend anytime looking how cities are developed you would noticed that they are built in LAYERS and increase their urbanity over time.

At the turn of the 20th century Houston had a close knit- somewhat dense downtown with street cars suburbs linked to downtown. That layer was replaced with a layer that most, even myself did not like. Well NOW there a new layer is being built. I would actually say that new layer started around 1998-1999.

The development map is important because a number of the new developments in Houston are concerned with density and urban issues. The city has invested time and money in steering the development of the city...our Mayor has successfully steered developers into building 3 urban parks in or touching downtown, they are a pedestrian rich convention district, there are a dozen or so new residential buildings going up in downtown and a new Retail district is being planned.

We are not New York...or Philadelphia...or San Francisco.

Houston was created in 1836. New York was created in 1624 and has a 212 year head start over Houston!

BUT I can honestly say that Houston is further along in its 178th Year of existence than than New York was when it was 178 years old, in 1802. Central Park wouldn't even be around for another 60+ years...and the New York in the early to mid 1800s was nothing impressive at all.

In fact, you can find many, many, descriptions of New York form that time. Most were from snobby Europeans eager to point out what is wrong with the New York City. They boastfully stated that New York will NEVER be as civilized of a city as the Londons' and Paris' of Europe.

Eerily familiar to some of the comments here.

What a bewildering comparison. You are comparing NY's development from 1624 to 1802 to Houston's from 1836 to today? You cannot be serious. In 1802 the population of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES was less than 6 million (less than metro Houston today). And ... well there were some other differences between then and now -- most of the country was rural, we still had slavery and technology and urbanity were at their infancy.

But it's okay, nobody is trying to compare Houston to NY anyway. How about we compare Houston to a city that was founded around the same time as it was? Like Chicago

No wonder you think Houston's development is impressive when your frame of reference is what cities looked like 200 years ago.

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Google maps will not give you a accurate image because Houston like I said earlier is rapidly densifing itself.

Google maps are from AUGUST 2013. Is your lame argument that real time street level conditions in Houston from AUGUST 2013 are not to be used to determine "accuracy"?

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by Standard111

It hasn't been "rapidly densifying". It has been sprawling and "somewhat densifying", probably mostly because of higher household sizes in Mexican neighborhoods, and a good amount of suburban-style multifamily development.

But overall density is quite low and increased density doesn't necessarily lead to increased urbanity. Orange County, CA is much denser than in past decade, doesn't mean Orange County is suddenly urban and walkable; means more crowded and sprawled and higher household sizes.

And love the "disregard the Google maps" comment. Quite hilarious. Let's ignore the actual conditions on street level from August 2013. LOL. I'm sure Houston was completely demolished and rebuilt in the last few months.

So I guess all the projects U/C are sprawling out? Yes in a way it has, but it's also been densifing at the same time. Actually you'll be surprised on google maps. Just look up Westheimer. To a degree mostly it's the same but as I said earlier, alot of projects have recently started so it doesn't give a good image.

[ChazG]

Originally Posted by Red John

Yes, the city of Houston's leaders (the mayor, Parker) have set the timetable close to the next census when they annex in the area surrounding Exxon-Mobil's new campus and some additional extra territorial jurisdiction (which has 1.6 million people).

This will happen by 2020, they plan on annexing a bunch, areas with large populations already.

So with this new annexation will this put the city of Houston slightly ahead of the city of Chicago or slightly behind them?...Just curious

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

You want to see high density, look up Downtown Houston, TMC, and Uptown. Google maps will not give you a accurate image because Houston like I said earlier is rapidly densifing itself. Just google it and see the amount of
projects that are currently being built.

I Google-mapped Uptown Houston and this is what I got:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Uptow...,90.09,,0,8.86

Sorry, but this is not dense or walkable or particularly urban by any definition. It looks more like Tysons Corner.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by H'ton

Fusion, have you been keeping up with the rapid urbanization phase that is happening in Houston right NOW? Especially in the CBD and other already walkable parts of the city. This will only boost inner loop population and density. Here's a link to a map showing all of the activity:

Houston Developments - devmap.io

This is where this entire conversation started and pay attention to the bold. He only said this in remark that Houston was making strides. Nobody said Houston would equal Chicago if ever. Nobody said the inner loop in its entirety is super dense, urban, or walkable. Google maps does not show the multitude of various projects that got off the ground the past few months and won't show the thousands of units getting off the ground this month. I only showed the links that Houston is still developing and maturing but somehow this is met with negativity. I really don't know why certain cities are discussed on this forum. Because the moment it's mentioned, it brings out the opportunists to bash away.

[marothisu]

This is one of the densest census tracts of Houston. Definitely not that walkable. It's just a big suburban style apartment or condo development:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7163...bLFrDQEhWQ!2e0


In any case, the poster before was saying that Houston is improving with it, not that it was amazing with regards to urbanity.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Spade

This is where this entire conversation started and pay attention to the bold. He only said this in remark that Houston was making strides. Nobody said Houston would equal Chicago if ever. Nobody said the inner loop in its entirety is super dense, urban, or walkable. Google maps does not show the multitude of various projects that got off the ground the past few months and won't show the thousands of units getting off the ground this month. I only showed the links that Houston is still developing and maturing but somehow this is met with negativity. I really don't know why certain cities are discussed on this forum. Because the moment it's mentioned, it brings out the opportunists to bash away.

You may not be saying that inner loop "in its entirety is super dense" but you guys are definitely conveying the impression that it is somewhat high density and has some walkable neighborhoods. Which frankly seems like a laughable assertion when its densest section (outside the CBD) looks like Tysons Corner. Unless, that is, you think Tysons Corner is high density urbanity, in which case we are just talking past each other.