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'd say Chicago is a little depressed and overly insensitive about Houston catching up as the third biggest US city in the next few years, whereas Houston is more ambivalent about Chicago.
It's just evolution of cities. The sunbelt is still the darling of corporate expanding. Corporate America steers population shifts. Toronto in NA already surpassed Chicago city proper in 2013 or so. Chicagoans might think .... wait a minute. Not so fast, or metro passing is a decade at current growth away.
But for Houston many will see it as a coming of age and arrival. So then it won't be ambivalent. I'm sure C-D will have threads to boast that fact then. Many factors can change in coming decades. But seems city proper passing is near. Was to be before the 2020 census. Possible and we shall see. City boundaries still are not standard between cities. But for a esteem building arrival hailed .... it will be applauded no doubt in Texas.
Yet Houstonians are the ones worried about Chicago?
News flash. No one in Houston thinks about Chicago any more than any other city. No one cared when we passed Philly many years ago, and no one will care when we pass Chicago in the future. Both fine cities that do their own thing and really don't compete at all.
I doubt that most people in Chicago are worried about Houstonians either. Other than the bean kerfluffle which was dumb to begin with, why should they be?
Like I said.... In Houston when this city proper population overtake of Chicago city proper occurs. Not a question of if it will. It is going to happen.
It will be a sort of arrival. Not that it will be the event of the year. But it will be in print and some Houstonian's will hail it as we are #3 .... how awesome is that and now Houston is America's 3rd city by size and to some importance too. Why shouldn't some who felt Houston was lessened for way too long?
As far as Chicagoans go? They have had enough news articles on the impending happening to come. That it will just be a expected non-event for them. LA passing Chicago was far more a knock in 1982 while even Chicago's core had seen the worst of its declines and the climb back just beginning more and White-Flight still ongoing but clearly peaked in scope.
Today ..... Chicago's core is booming and clearly recognized as #2 in the Nation again. If it even lost that before? So Chicagoans clearly have more pride today then IMO. When LA passed Chicago in population. The 70s were not kind to Chicago's core its once proud movie palaces had some showing XXX movies .... heck, NYC was brought to its knees that decade. Chicago's Loop got seedy and Times Square was a with its XXX shops and shows.
All that is gone for good. Hollywood and downtown LA certainly wasn't much better then. But the California dreamin' ..... still was strong. But Chicago clearly won't feel anymore #4 then it even feels #3 today yet. .... IMO. Not to lessen LA.... it clearly deserves its place as it clearly played a key roll in 20th century America. As Chicago had its roll and of course .... mighty NYC.
Houston still is writing its legacy of contribution. As that is hard to point to. NASA outside of Houston was a earlier claim to recognition and Big Oil still.
The three most populous US downtowns are, in this order:
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia
Boston, Baltimore and Washington also have sizable numbers of residents who live downtown.
As far as the percentage of city residents who live downtown is concerned, I'm not 100% sure of this, but Philadelphia may edge out Chicago in that metric. New York tops the list, though.
The three most populous US downtowns are, in this order:
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia
Boston, Baltimore and Washington also have sizable numbers of residents who live downtown.
As far as the percentage of city residents who live downtown is concerned, I'm not 100% sure of this, but Philadelphia may edge out Chicago in that metric. New York tops the list, though.
Downtown Population is usually a worthless measure because every place defines Downtown differently.
Downtown Population is usually a worthless measure because every place defines Downtown differently.
True.
There is, however, one site out there that attempts to come up with a standardized metric. I think its yardstick is the number of people living within a given radius of the city hall.
That actually works very well for Philadelphia, whose city hall sits astride the intersection of its two principal axes. But it also works for most large US cities, for their city halls are almost always in or near the middle of their central business districts.
There are some data-based uniform definitions for a "central business district." New York is unusual among US cities for having two of those: Downtown (or Lower) Manhattan (City Hall sits at its northern edge) and Midtown Manhattan (the area between roughly 34th and 59th streets).
Kansas City with St. Louis. I think KC is great and all, but the chip on their shoulder and hatred for all things St. Louis is funny. In St. Louis, no one has ANY idea that there is this rivalry. KC really does has lots of things to be boastful about though.
Disagree with this. St. Louis is more obsessed with Kansas City and its standing, while Kansas City ignores St. Louis. You see this all over these boards from the St. Louis boosters. St. Louis is still grappling unsuccessfully with the fact they're no longer the largest or most influential city in Missouri.
Most people across the country probably think that St. Louis is the largest city in Missouri because they hype it to the heavens. You're wrong. A lot of people from St. Louis promote this idea here on city-data. Kansas City is actually the largest city in Missouri.
Official census numbers:
Kansas City: 459,787
St. Louis: 319,294
St Louis is only 62nd largest city in the country while Kansas City is number 37.
There is, however, one site out there that attempts to come up with a standardized metric. I think its yardstick is the number of people living within a given radius of the city hall.
That actually works very well for Philadelphia, whose city hall sits astride the intersection of its two principal axes. But it also works for most large US cities, for their city halls are almost always in or near the middle of their central business districts.
There are some data-based uniform definitions for a "central business district." New York is unusual among US cities for having two of those: Downtown (or Lower) Manhattan (City Hall sits at its northern edge) and Midtown Manhattan (the area between roughly 34th and 59th streets).
I think they give you a general idea but anything within say 15-20% either way can be argued based off inclusion/exclusion of areas.
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.
