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.
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.
Who was talking about Riverside? Riverside, Illinois? Riverside, IL only has a population of 8K and is part of Chicago's MSA.
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.
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
I haven't been misinterpreting your posts at all - I can't understand why a discussion about population can't include density and urbanity in it. If you don't like it don't respond to my posts about density... I think it is relevant as I do city proper boundaries. With the stroke of a pen Chicagoland could end this discussion right now and just amalgamate cities outside the city proper into one new city proper that are contiguous to it..
As for not knowing much about the preferences of Houstonians - apparently the stats demonstrate that Houston is a far more sprawly and sparsely populated metropolis than Chicago is up to this point in history. It is what it is.. The city has had ample opportunity to be a more dense and urban entity... It doesn't look like it'll change too much in the next 20 years either. If it does and the divide as you say goes away all the power to Houston - I think the region will be better for it in the long run!
I haven't been misinterpreting your posts at all - I can't understand why a discussion about population can't include density and urbanity in it. If you don't like it don't respond to my posts about density... I think it is relevant as I do city proper boundaries.
As for not knowing much about the preferences of Houstonians - apparently the stats demonstrate that Houston is a far more sprawly and sparsely populated metropolis than Chicago is up to this point in history. It is what it is.. The city has had ample opportunity to be a more dense and urban entity...
And the water area is not calculated into density. Please tell me I don't have to explain this to you.
No you don't - but I still don't understand the point versus what I've been stating about density, urbanity and sprawl. If Houston contained its growth in a more compact way it would be a more urban and dense form.
Chicago city proper - more populated and much more dense than Houston city proper.. More people in a much smaller area - goes to Chicago - check
Cook County - more populated and dense than Harris country.. More people in a smaller area goes to Chicago - check - the fact there is so much water in Cook county only underscores how impressive it is vs Harris re density..
Anything beyond that does not represent a cohesive city in either case... Why is this difficult? Why the resistance?
I haven't been misinterpreting your posts at all - I can't understand why a discussion about population can't include density and urbanity in it. If you don't like it don't respond to my posts about density... I think it is relevant as I do city proper boundaries. With the stroke of a pen Chicagoland could end this discussion right now and just amalgamate cities outside the city proper into one new city proper..
As for not knowing much about the preferences of Houstonians - apparently the stats demonstrate that Houston is a far more sprawly and sparsely populated metropolis than Chicago is up to this point in history. It is what it is.. The city has had ample opportunity to be a more dense and urban entity...
Actually, you clearly HAVE been misinterpreting my posts. Reading back on our exchange on the last couple of pages it's pretty obvious. Either that, or you just want to argue.
I never said a discussion about population can't include density and urbanity. I simply said that debating density issues between Houston and Chicago just doesn't make much sense, as Chicago is obviously much further ahead in that department. Do you understand that at all? Comparing the respective densities of Chicago and Houston is like comparing the blast-yield of a stick of TNT to the yield of a Black Cat firecracker. I really don't understand how bringing it up will shed any new light on the subject... but go right ahead.
I'll respond however I choose. You obviously don't like my posts either, yet you keep responding to me.
And again, you know very little about what Houstonians want for their city. Throw all the statistics you want at it. You still willfully ignored the part where I said that...
A. There is a divide between inner-city Houstonians and suburban Houstonians where the issue of urbanization is concerned, that slows progress.
B. Chicago had a pretty good head-start on Houston in becoming a big city, and has had more time to work out the kinks and plan it's development more efficiently. I guess I have to repeat this again: Houston is a sunbelt city that didn't even become a big city until well after WW2, when single-family unit development was the norm. Chicago was already a big, dense, urban city well before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Actually, you clearly HAVE been misinterpreting my posts. Reading back on our exchange on the last couple of pages it's pretty obvious. Either that, or you just want to argue.
I never said a discussion about population can't include density and urbanity. I simply said that debating density issues between Houston and Chicago just doesn't make much sense, as Chicago is obviously much further ahead in that department. Do you understand that at all? Comparing the respective densities of Chicago and Houston is like comparing the blast-yield of a stick of TNT to the yield of a Black Cat firecracker. I really don't understand how bringing it up will shed any new light on the subject... but go right ahead.
I'll respond however I choose. You obviously don't like my posts either, yet you keep responding to me.
And again, you know very little about what Houstonians want for their city. Throw all the statistics you want at it. You still willfully ignored the part where I said that
A. There is a divide between inner-city Houstonians and suburban Houstonians where the issue of urbanization is concerned, that slows progress.
B. Chicago had a pretty good head-start on Houston in becoming a big city, and has had more time to work out the kinks and plan it's development more efficiently. I guess I have to repeat this again: Houston is a sunbelt city that didn't even become a big city until well after WW2, when single-family unit development was the norm. Chicago was already a big, dense, urban city well before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
What is your actual point, anyway?
Yes you understand that perfectly well and really (Better than some others in here) - and correct me if I'm wrong, when I brought up density and urbanity a few pages back it wasn't responding to any of your posts. I actually responded to Cold Ailment by stating that Houston's growth would be a whole lot more impressive if its population was contained in a more compact area - thus supporting a more dense and urban form like Chicago.. That was it - you kinda just went off after that really... I even mentioned city boundaries favouring Chicago re population - so even that would be ended if Chicago's city proper amalgamated with cities that are contiguous to it.
- I completely agree with your points A) and B)... As I said before - I think Houston will be better off for it in the long run - the time is now to work out those kinks wouldn't you say? Ultimately we probably have similar desires for the direction we'd like Houston to take... Not sure why you are sooo snarky lol - take it easy there!
No you don't - but I still don't understand the point versus what I've been stating about density, urbanity and sprawl. If Houston contained its growth in a more compact way it would be a more urban and dense form.
I guess I do have to explain it to you:
Harris County has 759 more square miles of land than Cook County. Of that extra land area is many sprawling suburban areas, bring the average density of the county down. If Harris were only 945 sm, it's average density would be higher due to being more urban by percentage, like Cook.
Quote:
Chicago city proper - more populated and much more dense than Houston city proper.. More people in a much smaller area - goes to Chicago - check
Cook County - more populated and dense than Harris country.. More people in a smaller area goes to Chicago - check - the fact there is so much water in Cook county only underscores how impressive it is vs Harris re density..
Anything beyond that does not represent a cohesive city in either case... Why is this difficult? Why the resistance?
Urban area definitely represents a cohesive city, since an average ppsm of 1000 or more must be maintained from the core census blocks.
Your choosing to not acknowledge the urban area stats does not make them any less valid. The numbers clearly show that the Chicago urban area is not that much more dense than the Houston urban area. Plain and simple.
Have you ever been to Houston? I somehow doubt it.
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.
