2010 Census results thread for Texas (Houston, Dallas: apartment complexes, homes, safe neighborhood)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Isn't that what he's basically saying? The suburbs are no growing faster than the city (much faster).

The suburbs always grow faster than the city. every time. all.

but it is not just that the suburbs are growing much faster than in Dallas, it is growing from multiple economic centers.

if you cannot understand my posts why are you always jumping in and arguing irrelevant stuff??

no one is saying that the city is growing faster. all I said was that the bulk of the growth is still around Houston as it has always been and you have yet to discredit that. instead you are just arguing things that are common sense. geez any kid can look at any metro and see that the other cities all together get more than the central city. why would anyone argue over that?

the point I am arguing has nothing to do with that it has to dow ith patterns and I disagree with justme's assertion that the patterns in dfw and Houston are the same

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

no he is implying that Houston is following the pattern of Dallas. He said that Houston is following the Dallas trend.

no Houston is following the trend it has always been on.


Dallas had growth around the central cities for the first 100 years of its life then a push outwards for the last couple of decades.

Originally Posted by HtownLove

that maybe what you have been claiming ( I don't know where you jumped in anyway with your wrong assumptions)

but go back to his post where he is implying that Houston is changing course to what Dallas has been on for the last couple of Decades.

Houston growth pattern is much different from Dallas.

DFW has dozens of nodes. Houston has one and all growth radiates from that

Maybe you are the one who misunderstood what he's saying? I mean, you did when he was talking about Dallas County/City. It's clear Houston's suburbs are gaining much more than the city, than in the past. No one (only YOU) talked about "radial growth" and frankly, that's irrelevant. I have no idea why you're taking this so personal, but it's clear what justme02 was trying to say. You just don't get it. I'll let justme02 come in and explain it for himself.

Originally Posted by HtownLove

The suburbs always grow faster than the city. every time. all.

but it is not just that the suburbs are growing much faster than in Dallas, it is growing from multiple economic centers.

if you cannot understand my posts why are you always jumping in and arguing irrelevant stuff??

no one is saying that the city is growing faster. all I said was that the bulk of the growth is still around Houston as it has always been and you have yet to discredit that. instead you are just arguing things that are common sense. geez any kid can look at any metro and see that the other cities all together get more than the central city. why would anyone argue over that?

the point I am arguing has nothing to do with that it has to dow ith patterns and I disagree with justme's assertion that the patterns in dfw and Houston are the same

Name another time in it's history (ten year time) where League City (almost doubled in pop) or Pearland (tripled in population) grew as fast as they did? When has the Katy area ever grew as fast as it did, or the Woodlands? No one is talking about economic centers, or anything like that. Just strictly population and Houston's suburbs are now getting much larger as growth is increasing there and declining in the city. Hell, the City of Houston lost 1,900 Blacks, while unincorporated areas like Fresno gained 11,000. If you can't see that, then oh well.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

the point I am arguing has nothing to do with that it has to dow ith patterns and I disagree with justme's assertion that the patterns in dfw and Houston are the same

Go re-read my post. I said that Houston's growth was starting to shift in that direction. I never said anything about Houston being multi-polar like DFW, I said Houston's growth is starting to shift even more suburban like DFW has been for a long time.

I never once said Houston was multipolar like DFW.

Remember, just because its in Harris county doesnt make it Houston.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by justme02

Go re-read my post. I said that Houston's growth was starting to shift in that direction. I never said anything about Houston being multi-polar like DFW, I said Houston's growth is starting to shift even more suburban like DFW has been for a long time.

I never once said Houston was multipolar like DFW.

Remember, just because its in Harris county doesnt make it Houston.

Houston's growth was always suburban like Dallas. The burbs just got swallowed up. why is this census for Houston different from the last 15???

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by justme02

Go re-read my post. I said that Houston's growth was starting to shift in that direction. I never said anything about Houston being multi-polar like DFW, I said Houston's growth is starting to shift even more suburban like DFW has been for a long time.

I never once said Houston was multipolar like DFW.

Remember, just because its in Harris county doesnt make it Houston.

That's what I'm saying. He totally misread what you and I were both saying, but then tries to call me out saying I argue irrelevant stuff. LMAO.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Maybe you are the one who misunderstood what he's saying? I mean, you did when he was talking about Dallas County/City. It's clear Houston's suburbs are gaining much more than the city, than in the past. No one (only YOU) talked about "radial growth" and frankly, that's irrelevant. I have no idea why you're taking this so personal, but it's clear what justme02 was trying to say. You just don't get it. I'll let justme02 come in and explain it for himself.



Name another time in it's history (ten year time) where League City (almost doubled in pop) or Pearland (tripled in population) grew as fast as they did? When has the Katy area ever grew as fast as it did, or the Woodlands? No one is talking about economic centers, or anything like that. Just strictly population and Houston's suburbs are no getting much larger as growth is increasing there and declining in the city. Hell, the City of Houston lost 1,900 Blacks, while unincorporated areas like Fresno gained 11,000. If you can't see that, then oh well.

lol, you are still arguing nonsense dude. I will leave you to argue over your moot point because Houston burbs all together have always ALWAYS, gained more people than the city itsefl.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

That's what I'm saying. He totally misread what you and I were both saying, but then tries to call me out saying I argue irrelevant stuff. LMAO.

I didn't misread his point at all, he is saying it again in his clarification, he is arguing that somehow Houston pattern change, and I am saying that the pattern is still the same.

the only difference between Houston and DFW is that the growth is around many nodes in Houston while it is radially around Houston.

Houston pattern of growth has always been out out and further out. end of story

[DANNYY]

To be rather honest, the suburbs have what they have but I mainly want to see Houston infill way more than suburban expansion. Houston hasn't annexed anything at all since 1996, and the city saw 146,000 in population increase, although not up to expectations that is a lot of infill and I'm content.

Here are the New Densities:
San Antonio: 1,327,407 in 407 Square Miles is a density of 3,261 People Per Square Mile
Fort Worth: 741,206 in 292 Square Miles is a density of 2,538 People Per Square Mile
Houston: 2,099,451 in 579 Square Miles is a density of 3,626 People Per Square Mile
Dallas: 1,197,816 in 342 Square Miles is a density of 3,502 People Per Square Mile
El Paso: 649,121 in 249 Square Miles is a density of 2,606 People Per Square Mile
Austin: 790,390 in 251 Square Miles is a density of 3,148 People Per Square Mile

Props to Houston for taking the lead in density while having extremely large land boundaries. That's never easy to have a larger density than other major cities when you have large land boundaries, but for Texas its Houston's calling. The Inner Loop must be a good 5,600 people per square mile itself right about now. All of the "what is the most urban city in Texas" debates can now officially come to an end for this decade at least.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

lol, you are still arguing nonsense dude. I will leave you to argue over your moot point because Houston burbs all together have always ALWAYS, gained more people than the city itsefl.

Originally Posted by HtownLove

I didn't misread his point at all, he is saying it again in his clarification, he is arguing that somehow Houston pattern change, and I am saying that the pattern is still the same.

the only difference between Houston and DFW is that the growth is around many nodes in Houston while it is radially around Houston.

Houston pattern of growth has always been out out and further out. end of story

Sure.

Originally Posted by DANNYY

To be rather honest, the suburbs have what they have but I mainly want to see Houston infill way more than suburban expansion. Houston hasn't annexed anything at all since 1996, and the city saw 146,000 in population increase, although not up to expectations that is a lot of infill and I'm content.

Here are the New Densities:
San Antonio: 1,327,407 in 407 Square Miles is a density of 3,261 People Per Square Mile
Fort Worth: 741,206 in 292 Square Miles is a density of 2,538 People Per Square Mile
Houston: 2,099,451 in 579 Square Miles is a density of 3,626 People Per Square Mile
Dallas: 1,197,816 in 342 Square Miles is a density of 3,502 People Per Square Mile
El Paso: 649,121 in 249 Square Miles is a density of 2,606 People Per Square Mile
Austin: 790,390 in 251 Square Miles is a density of 3,148 People Per Square Mile

Props to Houston for taking the lead in density while having extremely large land boundaries. That's never easy to have a larger density than other major cities when you have large land boundaries, but for Texas its Houston's calling. The Inner Loop must be a good 5,600 people per square mile itself right about now. All of the "what is the most urban city in Texas" debates can now officially come to an end for this decade at least.

Yeah, anytime a plot of undeveloped land in Houston is developed with even a suburban style neighborhood, the density in Houston will go up. Houston's core is unmatched in density in Texas (for how large it is...don't believe there is another 95 square mile area in Texas like Houston's Inner Loop).

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Yeah, anytime a plot of undeveloped land in Houston is developed with even a suburban style neighborhood, the density in Houston will go up. Houston's core is unmatched in density in Texas (for how large it is...don't believe there is another 95 square mile area in Texas like Houston's Inner Loop).

Agreed, but that was never my point. I was trying to say that even though greater Houston grew more than it ever has this last decade, the city of Houston did not grow as much as it has nor did it take the proportion of the growth that it normally does this last decade (minus the 80's but Houston was in economic hard times then).

Greater Houston's growth is shifting primarly to the burbs moreso than it has in the past. Thats where I drew the paralell to DFW. Dallas has had to struggle with it for years, Houston is now beginning to struggle with it, and Fort Worth/Austin will be struggleing with it one day too. There comes a point in a cities life where the burbs start to take more than they normally do and thats not even specific to Texas. Cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami have also had to deal with that for years. Thats my only point.