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.
Urban area is different than city. We are talking about cities. Urban area includes all adjacent sprawl.
So if you want to say Chicago has much more sprawl than Houston, then you are correct.
But if you want to say the City of Chicago is much larger than the City of Houston, that is incorrect.
In fact, Houston will be larger than Chicago within a decade or so.
Numbers don't lie. I don't know if you've ever seen a picture of Houston, but the most of the city is sprawl-style development...they've just got larger borders than Chicago. It's universally-accepted on this site that urban areas or MSAs are the more accurate measure of city size.
As these numbers show, Chicago is more populated and more dense over a greater-area. Is some of that sprawl? Absolutely. Name one city in this nation which doesn't suffer from sprawl.
Do us all a favor: Put your helmet back on, grab your magnifying glass, and go back to frying beetles on the sidewalk. Let people who understand facts talk for awhile.
Exactly. The numbers show Chicago has suffered the greatest population loss of any American city, and Houston is growing.
Houston will soon be larger than Chicago. This is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
I don't know if you've ever seen a picture of Houston, but the most of the city is sprawl-style development...they've just got larger borders than Chicago.
True but irrelevent.
And the sprawl in Chicago is actually less dense than in Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
It's universally-accepted on this site that urban areas or MSAs are the more accurate measure of city size.
Ok, then you agree that Chicago is 90% exurban sprawl, and only half the population of LA, right?
And you agree that Chicago can in no way compare to LA, right?
Because you claim it's "universally accepted" that MSAs are the more accurate measure of city size, and Chicago is definitely tiny compared to LA when looking at MSA.
It's much smarter to look at metro areas when comparing cities. Chicago is a much larger city than Houston, just like Dallas is a much larger city than San Antonio. Technically, San Antonio is considerably larger than San Francisco and more than twice the size of Boston. In reality, the only reason that's true is because San Antonio has 4.35 times the geographical size of Boston and SF combined. If you expanded Boston or San Francisco's city proper borders to equal San Antonio's, both cities would have a larger population than San Antonio's entire metro.
No offense, but have you ever been to school?
Besides blizzards, Chicago is known for being one of the most powerful financial services cities on the planet, and as the most important commodity and derivative center on the planet.
I wouldn't call Houston a hole...however it is very big (at least its borders are).
haha, yes, I'm a fish at University of Texas
but, idk, i don't really think about Chicago.
Texas is a large state, remember. Houston is always adding land as if we need more. We SPREAD out everything, which is why our city land area is bigger. Texas is the fastest growing state; whereas, the North and Midwest is shrinking. I think our metro will continue to grow and rival that of other states.
Sure, if S.F. added land it would be bigger than San Antonio, but Massachusetts? That's a small state, how much could Boston gain?
What makes Chicago interesting or fun compared to L.A. or NYC? D.C. seems more cool.
Houston is very dull and boring. There's no zoning here, so people put up homes and buildings wherever there want. And it is huge. Nothing is walking distance. If it were up to me, I'll move north, like NYC!
Exactly. The numbers show Chicago has suffered the greatest population loss of any American city, and Houston is growing.
Houston will soon be larger than Chicago. This is a fact.
Maybe city-proper, but not urban/MSA.
Quote:
True but irrelevent.
What's irrelevant about it? You're calling Chicago sprawly, but then blatantly ignore the fact that Houston is filled with sprawl within the city borders. Answer me this: Which do you consider to be a larger city, Boston or San Antonio? Boston has 608,000 in 48 square miles and San Antonio has 1,351,000 in 412 sq miles?
Quote:
And the sprawl in Chicago is actually less dense than in Houston.
Do you have any facts from a more reliable source than OsitoPedia to prove that?
Quote:
Ok, then you agree that Chicago is 90% exurban sprawl, and only half the population of LA, right?
When have I ever claimed Chicago to be the same size as Los Angeles? It's not 90% exurban sprawl. Sure, I suppose we could call it about half the size of Los Angeles overall.
Quote:
And you agree that Chicago can in no way compare to LA, right?
I don't agree with that. Chicago's global financial influence alone makes it one of the most important cities in the world. I know you ignore this time and time again, but the markets in Chicago are extremely important to this entire planet.
Furthermore, look at the office space (http://grubb-ellis.com/Research/Reports.aspx - broken link) in the metro-areas of the Los Angeles and Chicago:
Los Angeles: 188,854,955 square feet
Chicago: 230,061,265 square feet
And for fun: Houston: 166,708,995 square feet
I'd say Chicago is very comparable to Los Angeles...however I'd still put Los Angeles ahead of Chicago.
Quote:
Because you claim it's "universally accepted" that MSAs are the more accurate measure of city size, and Chicago is definitely tiny compared to LA when looking at MSA.
Sure, if S.F. added land it would be bigger than San Antonio, but Massachusetts? That's a small state, how much could Boston gain?
Boston already pushes into New Hampshire and Rhode Island, and--if you include the CSA--Maine.
Quote:
What makes Chicago interesting or fun compared to L.A. or NYC? D.C. seems more cool.
Chicago is filled with top-notch museums, restaurants, and sports destinations. It's where house music started, so I'm sure there are plenty of awesome clubs there too. In the summer, the Lake is beautiful and provides the most beautiful urban beach in the nation.
hmmmm, what? Are you saying Chicago has a metropolitan population of 8+ million? If so, your Houston number is wrong. It's 5,728,143.
Urbanized area is slightly different from just the metro, because urbanized area is more or less continguous areas of development while metro areas are usually defined by commuting patterns and employment--so an area that has a high enough proportion of commuters into the core can qualify as part of the metro even if its fairly far out and possibly rural.
hmmmm, what? Are you saying Chicago has a metropolitan population of 8+ million? If so, your Houston number is wrong. It's 5,728,143.
That's urban areas, not MSA.
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.
