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.
For both metros I used the full metro size for each.
And didn't attach any claims
Please provide your source with official census data that shows Chicagoland covers more land area than Greater Houston at an MSA, or CSA level. You have stated you used the census reporter, and above are saying you used the full size metro.
Land areas for the "full metro size" based on census reporters are as follows:
MSA
Chicago 7,194 sq mi
Houston 8,269 sq mi
I don't believe the claim that Chicagoland covers more area than Greater Houston is accurate by either metric.
Niiice I Like Learning all these facts about these cities, How many square mi is the Dallas Ft Worth Metroplex?
That's crazy to think that Chicago is bigger than Houston in square miles I thought it would be the other way around
I am not sure what the post you are referring to is referencing. However there is no metric using official government statistical formulas or boundaries where Chicago is bigger than Houston in square miles.
Houston does cover more area to get to almost every metric than Chicago does by a noticeable margin. The exception being urban area. Urban areas are calculated different than every other statistical metric. Houston should not have a larger urban footprint than Chicago when considering how significant the population differences are between the two at this point.
I am not sure what the post you are referring to is referencing. However there is no metric using official government statistical formulas where Chicago is bigger than Houston in square miles.
Houston does cover more area to get to almost every metric than Chicago does by a noticeable margin. The exception being urban area. Urban areas are calculated different than every other statistical metric. Houston should not have a larger urban footprint than Chicago when considering how significant the population differences are between the two at this point.
MSA is misleading since counties in Texas are a lot bigger than counties in Illinois. For example only a third of Ft. Bend County is developed yet all of it counts towards Houston’s MSA land area. Houston’s urbanized area (true size) takes up less land than Chicago’s and the UA measurements prove this.
MSA is misleading since counties in Texas are a lot bigger than counties in Illinois. For example only a third of Ft. Bend County is developed yet all of it counts towards Houston’s MSA land area. Houston’s urbanized area (true size) takes up less land than Chicago’s and the UA measurements prove this.
Yeah what's the point in adding the whole county with undeveloped land.
The Urban Area comparisons does show the built area in Houston is smaller than Chicago.
I don't think there will be much of a density difference between the two by the time the next census comes out.
MSA is misleading since counties in Texas are a lot bigger than counties in Illinois. For example only a third of Ft. Bend County is developed yet all of it counts towards Houston’s MSA land area. Houston’s urbanized area (true size) takes up less land than Chicago’s and the UA measurements prove this.
Did you not read the post you are quoting? That's exactly what I said. I'll use the Wikipedia numbers for urban area in hopes that they are updated to the 2023 UA definitions:
Urban area
Chicago: 8,671,746 2,338 sq mi
Houston: 5,853,575 1,753 sq mi
Urbanized areas are calculated based on contiguous census tracts at a certain density threshold. Urbanized Chicago has 2.8 million more residents than urbanized Houston, it should take up more land area than urbanized Houston. This is no way an indicator or greater sprawl, or statistical bloat.
Yeah what's the point in adding the whole county with undeveloped land.
The Urban Area comparisons does show the built area in Houston is smaller than Chicago.
I don't think there will be much of a density difference between the two by the time the next census comes out.
I still am not sure where you came up with your original numbers that made folks think Houston covers less area than Chicago at a metro level? You didn't mention anything about urban area in your initial post that triggered this discussion.
Did you not read the post you are quoting? That's exactly what I said. I'll use the Wikipedia numbers for urban area in hopes that they are updated to the 2023 UA definitions:
Urban area
Chicago: 8,671,746 2,338 sq mi
Houston: 5,853,575 1,753 sq mi
Urbanized areas are calculated based on contiguous census tracts at a certain density threshold. Urbanized Chicago has 2.8 million more residents than urbanized Houston, it should take up more land area than urbanized Houston. This is no way an indicator or greater sprawl, or statistical bloat.
Yeah I never said otherwise. Was just adding a point. Not everything is an argument.
Chicagoland - 10,856 sq mi
Greater Houston- 10,062 sq mi
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo
Please provide your source with official census data that shows Chicagoland covers more land area than Greater Houston at an MSA, or CSA level. You have stated you used the census reporter, and above are saying you used the full size metro.
Land areas for the "full metro size" based on census reporters are as follows:
MSA
Chicago 7,194 sq mi
Houston 8,269 sq mi
I don't believe the claim that Chicagoland covers more area than Greater Houston is accurate by either metric.
It is. Chicago’s built area takes up a larger amount of space than Houston’s, which is expected since Chicago is the more populous region. The densities of the two urbanized areas are relatively similar with Chicago being slightly denser. MSA isn’t the best indicator of region size since it adds lots of fluff by using entire counties, making western MSAs look larger than they are in terms of total area.
It is. Chicago’s built area takes up a larger amount of space than Houston’s, which is expected since Chicago is the more populous region. The densities of the two urbanized areas are relatively similar with Chicago being slightly denser. MSA isn’t the best indicator of region size since it adds lots of fluff by using entire counties, making western MSAs look larger than they are in terms of total area.
I think that any metric that uses municipal boundaries as a comparison between populated areas (City limits, MSA/CSA) is pretty much useless when comparing different cities/metros especially when they are from different regions. As previously mentioned, these boundaries tend to include include a lot of empty space that skews population density stats (MSA/CSA), or have remained unchanged for over a century (NE, MW) while in other regions like the sunbelt they change on a consistent basis, skewing the comparisons even further. Urbanized area while not perfect is probably the best metric we have currently for making an accurate comparison.
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.
