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.
I'm talking about definitions as well as future growth--any sort of loosening of definitions for the metro would have both places absorbing more areas, but the areas around Chicago are more densely populated with the north being especially so. Any constrictions on population would affect each just about the same since both are relatively centralized with a core county/counties that consist of the bulk of the population. These are all things I've said before and they directly address what you say about definitions and are not just about population growth; how is this being stubborn if I'm addressing exactly what you're saying?
A recent topic just posted the likely 2013 definitions which basically shows exactly that--Houston and Chicago both added places (though Houston also dropped a county from its CSA) but Chicago added a significantly greater population. Given that the census seems perfectly fine with adjoining smaller city metros to larger city metros, there's also the possibility of Chicago just annexing some 2 million through Milwaukee as right now the MSAs border each other and the tip of Chicago's MSA is but one small county away from the core Milwaukee county.
Because of the reasons stated above and before, it is unlikely for Houston's metro to become larger than Chicago's in two decades. Also, there are projections that do take into account expansion of metro areas (not just population growth in what is currently within the metro). Why don't you try to find one or at least come up with some reasonable scenario for what definitions of MSA/CSA would have Houston become larger? Also, it was twenty years not thirty.
The definitions didn't change this time, same definitions, the new threads reflect areas added that meet the 2003 commuting requirement.
I said if the definitions CHANGED, its not certain what the relative populations will be. The definitions still set commuting at 25% for MSA 15% for CSA. Nothings has changed
Houston has a strong chance of passing Chicago in city population in the next 20 years just by population growth alone--it also has the possibility of annexing more of the municipalities around or within it (though those aren't that populous). It's true that Chicago might have a population rebound by then and grow, but looking at the general trends for Chicago and how other large US cities that have already gone through the deceleration of population loss, stabilisation, and then slowly accelerating population growth, it seems unlikely that Chicago would buck completely what other cities have done and ramp up population growth significantly faster than other cities. Meanwhile, I can see a deceleration of growth for Houston (though not guaranteed as maybe the energy industry will actually be even more lucrative in the near future) but I don't see it having a massive deceleration or even registering a population loss.
In terms of the metro area, it seems very unlikely for that to happen within 20 years. The gap is simply much too big and Chicago's metro growth in absolute numbers isn't smaller enough than Houston's metro growth.
Chicago already has a population rebound, tons of new skyscrapers and condos being added.
Chicago already has a population rebound, tons of new skyscrapers and condos being added.
The MSA has never had a population loss, so it isn't "already"; it was never different.
The city, however, had a pretty large population loss in the last Census.
I don't know how to measure "a ton", but I would say that 10 years ago, yes, there were "a ton" of new condos. In the last five years, however, Chicago has not built too many new buildings.
The definitions didn't change this time, same definitions, the new threads reflect areas added that meet the 2003 commuting requirement.
I said if the definitions CHANGED, its not certain what the relative populations will be. The definitions still set commuting at 25% for MSA 15% for CSA. Nothings has changed
Oh good then. So what model would have those going up or down do you think would actually swing it so Houston ends up with a larger number than Chicago? Is there a likely scenario where this would happen?
Houston has nowhere near the density that Chicago does. Chicago's land area is 234 miles, compared with Houston at 628 miles. Since Houston has all this room for growth, should mass urbanization take over in this city it could very well pass Chicago, however I don't see this happening. Chicago is a much older city, in the times where it experienced mass growth, urbanization was much more popular, suburbs did not exist as they do today.
I see Chicago's MSA continuing to grow, and its city population slowly growing again.
The MSA has never had a population loss, so it isn't "already"; it was never different.
The city, however, had a pretty large population loss in the last Census.
I don't know how to measure "a ton", but I would say that 10 years ago, yes, there were "a ton" of new condos. In the last five years, however, Chicago has not built too many new buildings.
Shiny new buildings doesn't mean the city is gaining population. People are still leaving the poorer sides of Chicago. Families being replaced by singles and couples.
Oh good then. So what model would have those going up or down do you think would actually swing it so Houston ends up with a larger number than Chicago? Is there a likely scenario where this would happen?
Given a couple already. Clearly you are either not reading them or not understanding what a change in definition entails. Either way I am wasting my time carrying on this conversation with you.
I see this topic is reharshed every year. There are so many threads on this already. Lets wait till 2018 when the census gives out the second recognitions of the decade.
The first one is not going to show anything different from the census 2019. In five years we will see the clip at which both are progressing. As of now there is nothing new to go on since our last debate.
And to answer the OP, yes Houston is going to pass ChicagoLand in population in 20 years.
Why? Because metro definitions determine population rankings as much as growth does. So people who keep responding by simply saying it's not going to grow forever is giving lazy answers
The thing with metros like those in the sunbelt is that they go on forever without hitting anything major. The South East Texas area stretching from Beaumont to College Station is a fertile sea for growth but the problem is San Antonio is three hours west, DFW is five hours north and New Orleans is eight hours east. Cities for hundreds of miles in every direction are going to be growing faster than the Midwest and Houston is the only thing in that part of the country for miles.
Chicago distancewise is in a similar position between Des Moines and Pittsburgh. Difference is thete are many competitive metros in that gap but between San Antonio and New Orleans there is nothing major but Houston.
Chicago is competing with Cleveland, Detroit, Columbus, Toledo, Cinci, Indi, Grand Rapids, etc etc The biggest ones along the Houston Route between SA and Nola is beaumont and college station. So for a wide part of the area Houston is the evonomic driver.
Further more there are all these tiny counties that get tacked on to the metro. I dont know why people drive so far to work, but they do.
Anyway, i dont know how the census will define Houston or Chicagoland in 20 years, but my guess is their definition will MAKE Houston and DFW too bigger than Chicagoland.
The census always tries their hardest to make Chicago look bad anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
exactly what I am saying. The Census may throw a curve ball and say okay only core counties are the metro now. That would knock out about 6 counties from the Houston metro.
They could also decrease the interaction threshold or increase it.
When the definitions were changed in 2003 from metros with 500K and more 29 of them added counties, 13 of them lost counties, 9 metros were split into two or more metros, 23 (Including Dallas and Fort Worth) were combined into one metro.
I don't know why people are so strong in their opinion that this will never pass this or this will always have more than this. The Census has the final say. In 2002 Dallas was ranked below Atlanta and right above Nassau-Suffolk. Now NS is no longer a separate metro and Dallas jumped 6 spots passing Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, DC, Philly. Boston dropped from the 4th spot to number ten. I bet at the start of 2003 nerds were online too saying Dallas would take 60 years before it passes Boston, because at the start of the year Dallas was at 3M and Boston was at 6M. But by summer, after the census had their say Boston was down to 4M and DFW was a full million ahead. Miami jumped from a small metro ranked at 24 to number 6.
So yes I agree with you Matty. There are too many variables to say such and such will or wont happen.
Given a couple already. Clearly you are either not reading them or not understanding what a change in definition entails. Either way I am wasting my time carrying on this conversation with you.
Let me help you out here. I looked at what you wrote. I told you why it doesn't make sense when it comes to a comparison between Chicago and Houston specifically. Both Houston and Chicago are fairly centralized cities in comparison to DFW. The core counties of Chicago are more populous and no population projections have them going down, so more constraints on metro definitions is likely to have Houston on top. The counties on the peripheries of Chicago's current metro definitions are more populous than Houston's, so if the parameters for being a metro get loosened, Chicago gains more in population. If it gets loosened a lot more, then Chicago stands to absorb Milwaukee and there is no comparable population source that close by for Houston to absorb. Could something really funky with the metro definitions happen that hits some kind of sweet spot exactly that benefits Houston much more so than Chicago within two decades? Sure. Could there be something to cause a huge influx of people to Houston's metro and/or decline for Chicago that goes well beyond anything projected within two decades? Sure. How likely do you think this will happen though? Can you at least cite some specifics or studies of any sort?
You people need to start reading post more carefully wont say names...
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.
I wasn't referring to the metro.
