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.
Really? I tried looking for the stats today but couldn't find them. Do they have growth info released for all of the cities yet?
Anyway, commentary:
I'm really happy for them! I'm so glad that the city is recovering.
And I'm probably going to get killed for this question, but in all likelihood, it is going to happen: How long do you guys think until Houston becomes #3? I think 10-15 years. Maybe sooner if growth rates change.
I think Houston is much further than that from #3, if at all. It's recent spurt is former New Orleans residents setting up permanent housekeeping in Houston.
Plus, Chicago increased slightly for the first time in years. If fuel prices stay where they are, there'll be more growth in the city as suburbanization slows. Chicago could fairly easily hit 3 million again.
The big three are getting bigger (NYC, LA, Chicago), while Houston seems to be swelling. I'm curious to see how Houston does next year as it was hit hard by the housing crisis. We will have to see.
Yes, and the Midwest is the only region of the US where houses are still increasing in value, by some 5%. The date of next year's estimates, July 1, just passed. I wouldn't be surprised if next year's numbers show Chicago adding more people than Houston, and midwestern cities as a whole posting their best growth numbers in years.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,681,773 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demogaffe
I think Houston is much further than that from #3, if at all. It's recent spurt is former New Orleans residents setting up permanent housekeeping in Houston.
Katrina occurred three years ago. Houston's growth has much more to do with a booming economy and a low cost of living than Katrina evacuees.
Actually, we just recently annexed 9,600, so we are 40th now.
I also just looked at your link, which doesn't included the 8,300 people from a city we officially annexed in 2005 (there was a long court battle that dragged into 2007 but it was over by the estimate.)
I wonder how much bigger other cities would be if they constantly gobbled up their suburbs like Omaha does.
I wonder how much bigger other cities would be if they constantly gobbled up their suburbs like Omaha does.
I concur. I'm tiring of Sunbelt cities poking fun at Rust-Belt cities for their population growth rates when often times the largest factor behind their growth is devouring the suburbs. If Scranton gobbled up the suburbs we'd be growing too!
That particular ranking has Atlanta lower because in terms of numerical growth its smaller due to its population. But as a percentage of its current population it is at the top.
No, it has it lower due to Atlanta not adding more people than the ones above it . Atlanta is actually lower on the list percentage wise.
And I'm probably going to get killed for this question, but in all likelihood, it is going to happen: How long do you guys think until Houston becomes #3? I think 10-15 years. Maybe sooner if growth rates change.
There are many ways to answer this question. First, we can extrapolate the populations of the two cities based on their average proportional growth rates between 2000 and 2007. In this case, the amount of time for their populations to equalize is given by:
[ln(Pc/Ph)]/(rh-rc)
where Pc and Ph are the 2007 populations of Chicago and Houston respectively and rc and rh are the annual proportional growth rates of Chicago and Houston. In this case, Houston will catch Chicago in 13 years, by 2020. However, if we extrapolate the populations based on the 2006-2007 growth rates, Houston will not catch Chicago for a little under 17 years, or by 2024.
Perhaps, though we should expect the growth rate of houston to decline and that of chicago to increase. In such a case, we can view our estimate of 17 years as a lower bound.
Why should the growth rate of Houston decline, but Chicago's increase? If anything, Houston's will increase even more, because the city is starting to densify more, and is redeveloping old areas.
Why should the growth rate of Houston decline, but Chicago's increase? If anything, Houston's will increase even more, because the city is starting to densify more, and is redeveloping old areas.
Here's why: If houston continued at it's current growth rate, it would have almost 5 million people by 2050, more than doubling it's current population. This growth is not sustainable, and certainly cannot continue indefinitely. Most demographic estimates would project a decline of the growth rate towards around 1% annually, significantly below it's current rate.
Certainly density in Houston is increasing, but a continuation of (or increase in) current growth rates would lead to unprecedented increases in population density (to around 8000 people per square mile in a 600 square mile city). This is not to say that Houston's overall population will decrease, just it's annual rate of growth.
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.
. Atlanta is actually lower on the list percentage wise.
