America's city rankings set for Texas-sized shake up; Houston to edge past Chicago

[chris08876]

City limits sure. MSA/CSA no. Unless it suddenly has a Shanghai like boom where 20,000 are moving in a day from the far off rural villages in the South, but that's very unlikely. The sprawl lifestyle is not going away any time soon. One way that the MSA could beat Chicago is through annexations down the line as the edge counties grow in population.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

probably not, but perhaps Houston will look more like this in our grandchildren's lifetimes? could it happen (minus the snow, of course)?

Could be. The amount of high rise construction in Houston is very impressive. Seems like every other day something is proposed. If immigration increases, and they all flock to Houston, very well could blossom in 30-40 years (or less) to a level that is like Chicago.

Fixed: minus the snow, better weather, and a beautiful lake of course

[Tom Servo]

LOL! Who fucking cares really? Houston is more than 3 times the size of Chicago and continues to grow in size every decade. Their rise in population is a false statistic that needs an asterisk. But yeah, go Houston! Second largest city!! Whooohooo! er, I mean Yeeeeeehaw!!!



Again... the number of people who live in your town is meaningless:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

(2.27.15)-February_Aerials-WEB-36 by ChiPhotoGuy, on Flickr

[KevinFromTexas]

[miketoronto]

I am surprised it is expected to take that long for Houston for catch up to Chicago. Given that Houston covers such a vast land area, I would have thought the population growth rate would be higher each year.
Lets say the Houston area grows by 100,000 a year. You would expect Houston itself to accommodate at least half that growth?????

[chris08876]

I'm wondering how that 100,000 extra a year is being housed? Are they just building mindless cookie cutters or focusing on developing mid rises with shops, and create somewhat of a walk able environment? Some of the news on Houston in the development threads leads me to believe that, but that surely can't account for all of that growth.

I have nothing against the suburbs growing faster if they are growing in a smart manner, but mindless single family homes that all look the same is not the way to do it.

[Owlhorn]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

There really isn't any good one dimensional measurement with which to compare the size of two cities though. A city is a complex thing and there's no real non-arbitrary way to measure boundaries for comparing size. MSAs work for certain situations, City Boundaries work for others (and yes, the boundary which delineates who you mail you taxes to makes a big difference if the tax rates are vastly different on either side of said boundaries.) SO I know it goes against everything that SkyscraperPage stands for, but I'm going to go ahead and say it's pretty silly to compare the "size" of two dramatically different cities that have vastly different forms in the first place.



Nah, this is a 10 year forecast. The current slump is unlikely to last ten years and Houston's economy is diversifying. Anything can happen in ten years, but I don't see the current oil slump as reason to believe Houston's growth will be hampered in the long term. This article's predictions that Chicago will lose population steadily over the next ten years is also pretty silly. Stop me if I'm wrong, but didn't Chicago add population between 2010 and 2014?

So you're saying negative job gains in the last two quarters and possible long term low oil prices will have minimal effect?

[The North One]

Dear god why would anyone want to live in Houston?

That being said, weird government boundary technicalities are interesting and useless.

[599GTO]

Houston is the fast-food of cities. It's dirt-cheap and a big draw for those who can't afford better.

Congrats Houston

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

probably not, but perhaps houston will look more like this in our grandchildren's lifetimes? could it happen (minus the snow, of course)?


(2.27.15)-February_Aerials-WEB-36 by ChiPhotoGuy, on Flickr

Very doubtful. As you can see there is a lot of space between downtown (where picture was taken) and uptown/Galleria (skyline in the distance):


By Chris Olbekson on Flickr

However, that space between downtown and the Texas Medical Center shows some promise:


From Houston Development Thread



By Andrew Rebman on Flickr

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm wondering how that 100,000 extra a year is being housed? Are they just building mindless cookie cutters or focusing on developing mid rises with shops, and create somewhat of a walk able environment? Some of the news on Houston in the development threads leads me to believe that, but that surely can't account for all of that growth.

I have nothing against the suburbs growing faster if they are growing in a smart manner, but mindless single family homes that all look the same is not the way to do it.

It's still mostly suburban single family and suburban multifamily and they aren't mostly growing in a smart manner.

Houston's core infrastructure is underrated, the streets need fixin' but there's lots a solid street grid to work with. This is what has become of it in the last 15 years:


Memorial Park area

^^ Solid HOA's that kept together to keep their detached SFH in the very lower portion and the rest didn't stand a chance. I've liked the organic residential growth, but retail generally sucks in my opinion.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Houston is the fast-food of cities. It's dirt-cheap and a big draw for those who can't afford better.

Congrats Houston

LOLOLz. Congrats 599GTO.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

probably not, but perhaps houston will look more like this in our grandchildren's lifetimes? could it happen (minus the snow, of course)?


(2.27.15)-February_Aerials-WEB-36 by ChiPhotoGuy, on Flickr

Sorry but no, Chicago's skyline will and has continued to expand irregardless of its population decline. This statement to me is like saying Chicago will look more like Midtown in our lifetime, neither will happen.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Owlhorn

So you're saying negative job gains in the last two quarters and possible long term low oil prices will have minimal effect?

Houston still managed to add about million people in the 90s when oil was still very low. Houston will certainly not be breaking any records or be in the top 10 list of much for the foreseeable future, but the institutional boom and downstream O&G boom will soften the blow.

[Kngkyle]

234 skyscrapers have been built in Chicago since 2000 and another 100 are either under construction or proposed, all with a declining city population. Houston may some day catch our city population, but that's about it, and I don't think anyone would really mind.. Chicago has gotten rather used to losing ranks in various metrics to New York, Los Angeles, Dubai, etc. None of that has really changed the reality on the ground. Chicago has a lot going for it. And if you are a believer in global warming, Chicago would be a pretty good investment given its virtually unlimited free clean water and shelter from almost all natural disasters. Not much to worry about here.

With that being said, Houston has come along way as a city in the past 20 years and will continue to improve, grow, and diversify. As a big proponent of the concept and lifestyle of a city, I wish Houston and it's residents the best.

[KevinFromTexas]

It's not a pissing match, folks.

Compare populations, measurement methodology, density levels, built environment/housing types, but no city vs city. That means no city bashing. If you can't offer something better than that then someone might think you don't know what you're talking about and that you have no business participating.

A more interesting route of discussion would be to compare the two based on the number of square miles of each. For example, how much more populous would Chicago be if it were the same size in square miles as Houston, and how populous would Houston be if it were the size in square miles as Chicago. I'd also be curious to see how many high rises ad what density level Houston has in the same number of square miles that Chicago covers.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

LOLOLz. Congrats 599GTO.

I wasn't joking.

Just got off of a long flight so perhaps I worded it wrong due to fatigue. Houston is a popular place for middle-class people who don't care for museums or culture and want a 'higher standard of living' (more/bigger things, in American speak) than what they could afford it they lived in an elite city.

It won't mature into Chicago as the ship sailed long ago for that type of development. The type of person attracted to Houston wants to live in a cheap, large, new construction subdivision in the far-flung suburbs, and does not want to ditch their pickup-trucks for trains and walking. It's telling that Houston has grown at a torrential pace yet the Downtown is still a scary nightmare. I was at the Four Seasons Hotel (an abomination, btw) and was terrified of walking outside. Abandoned lots, mentally ill degenerates freely roaming about, and an eery ghost-town feeling. Utterly abandoned and dire. Houstonians have little interest in working off some lbs by conducting business on foot or living an urban lifestyle and that was as clear as day.

Houston doesn't have the splendid architecture, layout or critical mass of sophisticates to ever have a Knightsbridge or Tribeca. Sprawl is Houston's signature pattern of development and the city will be in the same state 100 years from now. The optimism on skyscraperpage is cute tho .

[the urban politician]

What is happening in Chicago right now is, unfortunately, poorly represented by any statistics commonly used.

But infill is everywhere, and the skyscraper construction is like a machine--never stopping. Sure, a few other cities in sheer volume are building more (Miami, NYC of course), but what is being created in Chicago is an increasingly powerful synergy, as so much development is occurring in such a tight area. Add that to being on the forefront of new public space development, Chicago is easily one of the most exciting American cities to watch in our time because it is changing so drastically and becoming functionally a very new city compared to where it was 30 years ago.

I'll take that over mere population growth and never ending new suburban subdivisions.

[rellott]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I wasn't joking.

Just got off of a long flight so perhaps I worded it wrong due to fatigue. Houston is a popular place for middle-class people who don't care for museums or culture and want a 'higher standard of living' (more/bigger things, in American speak) than what they could afford it they lived in an elite city.

It won't mature into Chicago as the ship sailed long ago for that type of development. The type of person attracted to Houston wants to live in a cheap, large, new construction subdivision in the far-flung suburbs, and does not want to ditch their pickup-trucks for trains and walking. It's telling that Houston has grown at a torrential pace yet the Downtown is still a scary nightmare. I was at the Four Seasons Hotel (an abomination, btw) and was terrified of walking outside. Abandoned lots, mentally ill degenerates freely roaming about, and an eery ghost-town feeling. Utterly abandoned and dire. Houstonians have little interest in working off some lbs by conducting business on foot or living an urban lifestyle and that was as clear as day.

Houston doesn't have the splendid architecture, layout or critical mass of sophisticates to ever have a Knightsbridge or Tribeca. Sprawl is Houston's signature pattern of development and the city will be in the same state 100 years from now. The optimism on skyscraperpage is cute tho .

Well, that was rude.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What is happening in Chicago right now is, unfortunately, poorly represented by any statistics commonly used.

The ACS population data cited for 2010-2014 is just an estimate, and not even a reliable one. In 2010, too, we were all expecting population growth based on ACS data but the actual Census showed a decline.

So yeah, I wouldn't automatically assume that a supposed gain from 2010-2014 will translate into an actual gain come 2020. Don't forget, the South and West Sides are still major shitholes.

What would really turn the ship around in Chicago? I think it's clear that the Great White Hope of young college-educated job seekers will never be enough to repopulate the South and West Sides. For one, there aren't enough flowing in, even as we keep attracting throngs of people from around the Midwest. For two, those people keep leaving for the suburbs or their home cities after they get the work experience and boozy youth they came for.

Immigration could do it - Chicago is already the #2 or #3 city for most immigrant populations - but Chicago needs to stay on top of immigration trends. We should be working to attract this new round of Syrians, for example, and definitely the Chinese in addition to our traditional conduits from Mexico and Eastern Europe.

[NorthernDancer]

We have that international mindset that the rest of the United States never saw

There are lots of American cities more international than Houston. What a bunch of nonsense.