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.
OK, first of all, if anybody grasped the actual context of my last post... note that I said that Houston will most likely NOT catch up with Chicago on a density/urban level. I'm not taking a dog in this fight. Chicago is an older and more well-established city than Houston, that has been a big city much longer than Houston has. It developed during a pre-WW2 time when dense, urban development was par for the course. Houston saw the bulk of it's growth in a post-WW2 era when single-family, suburban-style development was more common. It would take Houston at least 50 years to catch up to Chicago's current level of density. Plus, Houston is a sunbelt city. Chicago is just a whole different animal.
.
I get the context - i'm just saying its kinda hard to ignore density and urbanity when the topic of population comes up.. Its like Kraft Dinner without the cheese is all i'm sayin
I get the context - i'm just saying its kinda hard to ignore density and urbanity when the topic of population comes up.. Its like Kraft Dinner without the cheese is all i'm sayin
Well, it actually is possible to discuss population without using density as a metric when comparing two cities as different from each other as Chicago and Houston are. It's so "apples to oranges" that the cold statistic of population is really the only thing that can be compared. Otherwise, why even start a thread comparing these two cities?
Density isn't even debatable between the two. Chicago obviously clobbers Houston in that category. The margin is much too wide. However, when two cities, regardless of their respective differences in density, are as close in population and ranking as Houston and Chicago are (3rd and 4th largest in U.S., and 2.2 million vs 2.7 million), then the margin narrows and the topic opens up for debate/speculation.
If the topic were "Will Houston become more dense and urban than Chicago in 20 years?", then the thread would probably not even make it past one page. That would be an obvious no-brainer. Yet here we are, 37 pages later, still discussing it.
Well, it actually is possible to discuss population without using density as a metric when comparing two cities as different from each other as Chicago and Houston are. It's so "apples to oranges" that the cold statistic of population is really the only thing that can be compared. Otherwise, why even start a thread comparing these two cities?
Density isn't even debatable between the two. Chicago obviously clobbers Houston in that category. The margin is much too wide. However, when two cities, regardless of their respective differences in density, are as close in population and ranking as Houston and Chicago are (3rd and 4th largest in U.S., and 2.2 million vs 2.7 million), then the margin narrows and the topic opens up for debate/speculation.
If the topic were "Will Houston become more dense and urban than Chicago in 20 years?", then the thread would probably not even make it past one page. That would be an obvious no-brainer. Yet here we are, 37 pages later, still discussing it.
Well what else are we going to discuss lol - sure Houston's inflaaaated city proper land mass may actually surpass Chicago's much more compact city proper land mass in population... Until Chicago says screw that and rightfully absorbs surrounding cities in its contiguous urbanized area and counts them as Chicago city proper - so even at that it wouldn't even get passed the first page.. In all measures Chicago would be the larger city...
Right - which means that Cook county is about 2 times more dense than Harris county..
This is true, but about half of Harris county is undeveloped rural areas. There are parts of Houston proper that extend into other counties. I'm not looking at a map right now, but I'm pretty sure the entire city of Chicago is contained within Cook county, and the rest of the county is developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Well what else are we going to discuss lol - sure Houston's inflaaaated city proper land mass may actually surpass Chicago's much more compact city proper land mass in population... Until Chicago says screw that and rightfully absorbs surrounding cities in its contiguous urbanized area and counts them as Chicago city proper - so even at that it wouldn't even get passed the first page.. In all measures Chicago would be the larger city...
You're taking a very competitive stance on this subject. I'm not. I could care less which city is bigger in 20 years. To me, size doesn't determine a preference. I like both cities pretty much equally, albeit for different reasons. Apparently you're biased. I grew up in Houston, but that doesn't make me biased. My only interest in this thread are numbers.
As far as "what else are we going to discuss?" goes, read back. Much has been discussed that has nothing to do with density. Economy, diversity, etc.
This is true, but about half of Harris county is undeveloped rural areas. There are parts of Houston proper that extend into other counties. I'm not looking at a map right now, but I'm pretty sure the entire city of Chicago is contained within Cook county, and the rest of the county is developed.
You're taking a very competitive stance on this subject. I'm not. I could care less which city is bigger in 20 years. To me, size doesn't determine a preference. I like both cities pretty much equally, albeit for different reasons. Apparently you're biased. I grew up in Houston, but that doesn't make me biased. My only interest in this thread are numbers.
As far as "what else are we going to discuss?" goes, read back. Much has been discussed that has nothing to do with density. Economy, diversity, etc.
I honestly don't know what you mean by taking a competitive stance.. I'm simply looking at stats on both cities... If not for nonsensical city boundaries - Chicago would have a much larger city proper population and the whole discussion would be moot for probably 50 years. You're the one who has a major issue with density for some reason.. I'm just underscoring that Chicago is the larger city in all measures and even accounting for Houston's growth - the stats don't support it becoming a larger city than Chicago in the true sense of the word for a looooong time.. Its not a knock against Houston - if anything people down there probably like dem bigger houses and lots... Its not necessarily a bad thing if that is the preference of the peeps. It is a decision Houston will need to make - do we become a growing sprawly metropolis - or a more compact, dense and urban one like Chicago.
You're the one who has a major issue with density for some reason.
Obviously you've been misinterpreting my posts. All I've been saying is that density really isn't relevant to discussing two cities that have developed as differently as Chicago and Houston have. You keep using density as a point of debate, whereas I keep repeating that density is undebatable between these two very different cities.
Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Its not a knock against Houston - if anything people down there probably like dem bigger houses and lots... Its not necessarily a bad thing if that is the preference of the peeps. It is a decision Houston will need to make - do we become a growing sprawly metropolis - or a more compact, dense and urban one like Chicago.
You don't seem to know much about the preferences of Houstonians. There is a real divide in Houston over this issue. The people in the inner city (inner loop) are pushing towards a more compact, dense, urban environment, and the much more conservative population that resides outside the loop keeps pushing for more sprawl.
Personally, I wish Houston would concede many of it's more suburban parts of the city to extraterritorial jurisdiction and scale back it's city limits (thereby taking a big knock in population and sliding down a couple of ranks). I think it would be a much more manageable and progressive city if it did. However, that isn't going to happen
Riverside has 900,000 population? Are you counting the metro area or the city proper? Riverside by itself does NOT have 900,000 population- it's more like 300,000.
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.
