Houston second in population growth for 2008

[Trae]

Texas counties and metropolitan areas continued to attract strong population growth last year as the state added jobs while most of the country was shedding them, the Census Bureau reported today.

The Houston metropolitan area added more than 130,000 residents between July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008, the second-highest number in the country after Dallas-Fort Worth, the bureau said. Among counties, Harris County added more than 72,000 people, trailing only Maricopa County, Ariz., in growth in sheer numbers.

In percentage terms, the Austin-Round Rock metropolitan area posted 3.8 percent growth, the nation

[banking214]

I think I am starting to like the days when Texas was not as populous. I don't want our great state to end up like Cali - Too Expensive and Broke.

Population of Texas since 1990 below:

2008 - 24,326,974

2000 - 20,851,820

1990 - 16,986,510

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFP...n&pctxt=fph

[Montrose1100]

I think I am starting to like the days when Texas was not as populous. I don't want our great state to end up like Cali - Too Expensive and Broke.

Population of Texas since 1990 below:

2008 - 24,326,974

2000 - 20,851,820

1990 - 16,986,510

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFP...n&pctxt=fph

No way... Texas has way more room to grow.. Up & out. And our taxes are to our advantage.

[barracuda]

No way... Texas has way more room to grow.. Up & out. And our taxes are to our advantage.

True, we don't have as many physical barriers as California. But I think we can reach a point where the sprawl is just overwhelming to the environment and to our natural sense of well being. I don't want to have to drive two or three hours just to get out of the sprawl and traffic jams. Slow, steady growth is a good thing for the economy and job opportunities, but I think fast and unplanned growth could have the opposite effect (look at the economy in Las Vegas). Growth needs to be weighed with other factors and values.

[TheNiche]

I think that Barracuda and Montrose and Banking are all talking about very different aspects of growth. I don't think that any of them is actually responding to the others.

[barracuda]

I think that Barracuda and Montrose and Banking are all talking about very different aspects of growth. I don't think that any of them is actually responding to the others.

Montrose commented on how Texas has way more room to grow. I assume he meant more land to sprawl upon.

[Montrose1100]

True, we don't have as many physical barriers as California. But I think we can reach a point where the sprawl is just overwhelming to the environment and to our natural sense of well being. I don't want to have to drive two or three hours just to get out of the sprawl and traffic jams. Slow, steady growth is a good thing for the economy and job opportunities, but I think fast and unplanned growth could have the opposite effect (look at the economy in Las Vegas). Growth needs to be weighed with other factors and values.

Well there will always be sprawl. Hopefully Houston will densify, leading to the suburbs now eventually becoming their own job & urban centers... if we have smart growth. This is of course, my prediction, and assumption that our leaders & planners will do so in a sufficent way.

I think that Barracuda and Montrose and Banking are all talking about very different aspects of growth. I don't think that any of them is actually responding to the others.

I thought Banking was talking about the land values, in which case Texas has more liveable land then California.

Montrose commented on how Texas has way more room to grow. I assume he meant more land to sprawl upon.

I said "Up & Out". Not just out. But we do have room to grow out. My history Teacher once said "Texas has enough room to house the entire population of the World... of course, it would look like Downtown Hong Kong from border to border."

[TheNiche]

I thought Banking was talking about the land values, in which case Texas has more liveable land then California.

I'm pretty sure he was talking politics and government.

[RedScare]

Well there will always be sprawl. Hopefully Houston will densify, leading to the suburbs now eventually becoming their own job & urban centers...

Houston is becoming more dense. If Harris County is adding 73,000 people to a county whose borders did not change, it has to densify.

[TheNiche]

Houston is becoming more dense. If Harris County is adding 73,000 people to a county whose borders did not change, it has to densify.

Wow, now we have four people talking about different things.

[barracuda]

Houston is becoming more dense. If Harris County is adding 73,000 people to a county whose borders did not change, it has to densify.

It's still sprawl when much of that density goes into previously undeveloped areas in Harris County.

Well there will always be sprawl. Hopefully Houston will densify, leading to the suburbs now eventually becoming their own job & urban centers... if we have smart growth. This is of course, my prediction, and assumption that our leaders & planners will do so in a sufficent way.

Definitely. I can see this happening every day just by driving around the city. I think it's pretty obvious that higher-density development is the only way Houston and suburban centers can keep growing in the long term.

[memebag]

Definitely. I can see this happening every day just by driving around the city. I think it's pretty obvious that higher-density development is the only way Houston and suburban centers can keep growing in the long term.

It isn't obvious to me. I think parts of Houston and the surrounding area will densify and others will sparsify. And remember, sprawl increases population density in rural and exurban areas.

[TheNiche]

Definitely. I can see this happening every day just by driving around the city. I think it's pretty obvious that higher-density development is the only way Houston and suburban centers can keep growing in the long term.

I'm pretty sure that there was supposed to be a "not" in that sentence somewhere, but I'm not sure whether it belongs one the one place or the other.

[barracuda]

It isn't obvious to me. I think parts of Houston and the surrounding area will densify and others will sparsify. And remember, sprawl increases population density in rural and exurban areas.

I'm pretty sure that there was supposed to be a "not" in that sentence somewhere, but I'm not sure whether it belongs one the one place or the other.

I'm not implying that all surrounding areas in fact will grow. I'm simply saying that, if they are going to grow, which is what this study indicates, they will have to include more dense development as available land is developed. Otherwise, the growth has no choice but to sprawl outward to the next exurb until that area fills up.

For Houston in particular, I don't see how it can increase in population over the long term when the undeveloped land is becoming scarce or is simply unavailable for development. Unless you're referring to annexation, which you didn't mention.

[banking214]

Actually, I am not sure what I was trying to convey.

I am not opposed to growth, but would like to see it done the right way. I don't think that sprawl helps a city at all. What we are seeing now, the urban core being developed and filled in is the right kind of growth. Unfortunately, not every person can afford to live in these areas and many are displaced. This is something that needs to be addressed as Houston continues to grow.

From an economic point of view, cities like more people (homeowners especially) and jobs. This just adds more money to city and county coffers. However, too much growth can be a burden on a cities infrastructure if not adequately prepared for said growth.

I am a Texan to the heart and love this state. With new people moving to Texas from all over the country and world, I hope they take pride in the fact that they are now Texans as well.

[houstonmacbro]

Good heavens. Now we'll have that many folks to contend with on Houston freeways. Growth is not always a good thing.

[Houston19514]

More at the link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6320050.html

Houston was the only metropolitan area to actually increase it's population growth over the year before.

That is what the numbers show, but that is (at least largely) an anomaly produced by Katrina. 2005-2006 Houston posted a HUGE increase because of Katrina refugees relocating to Houston. Then in 2006-2007 Houston showed relatively slower growth (compared to both the prior year and to this year and to what the sans-Katrina trend line would have been) because of the number of Katrina refugees who returned to Louisiana.

Now, the 2007-2008 numbers are back on the "normal" trend line (which, for Houston, means phenomenal growth).

[Montrose1100]

Houston is becoming more dense. If Harris County is adding 73,000 people to a county whose borders did not change, it has to densify.

Well there is still plenty of room in Harris County. Empty lots-a-plenty...

Which is good, in a way. I am still surprised when I go into Houston how different things have become since the last time I've seen certain areas (which can be anywhere from 4 months to 3 years).

I don't want every neighborhood to "densify" like 4-7 story buildings on every corner... but a lot of the developing neighborhoods in the loop have done a great job with 2-3 story town houses on tiny lots.

Although, I do like the complexes on Dallas, east of Montrose, & a lot of the newer buildings along Buffalo Bayou on Allen & Memorial.

But I honestly think Westheimer should be widened from Midtown to the Loop. A lot of the roads in Houston are too narrow, we need more Boulevards, more traffic lanes & sidewalks.

[barracuda]

But I honestly think Westheimer should be widened from Midtown to the Loop. A lot of the roads in Houston are too narrow, we need more Boulevards, more traffic lanes & sidewalks.

I agree, parts of that section of Westheimer are narrow, but I'd hate to see it widened. Westheimer is a walkable street for much of that area. There just isn't much room for widening without taking up sidewalk space and leaving some business with very little frontage.

[ToryGattis]

Growth is not always a good thing.

The traffic increase is a visible downside, but the invisible upside from various studies is that larger cities generate more wealth, productivity, and innovation per capita. Growth always seems painful at the time, but I don't think many people would want to go back to the Houston of 1975 or 1950...

[houstonmacbro]

The traffic increase is a visible downside, but the invisible upside from various studies is that larger cities generate more wealth, productivity, and innovation per capita. Growth always seems painful at the time, but I don't think many people would want to go back to the Houston of 1975 or 1950...

But what about quality of life. Some places (cities) have a fraction of Houston's population, but are far more livable. I want quality over size.

[ToryGattis]

But what about quality of life. Some places (cities) have a fraction of Houston's population, but are far more livable. I want quality over size.

That all depends on your definition of quality of life. For a lot of people, that includes maximum career, social, and educational opportunities while being affordable - as well as access to a wide variety of amenities (like restaurants, sports, arts, culture, shopping, nonstop flights, etc.) that are only available in a large, growing, wealthy, internationally diverse city.

[TheNiche]

But what about quality of life. Some places (cities) have a fraction of Houston's population, but are far more livable. I want quality over size.

Growth is itself an indicator of quality of life. Houston is no utopia, nor is any city. But people have to live somewhere, and clearly we are preferred by a great many when you weigh all the various factors against one another.

I'd agree with you that the categorical nature of Tory's statement makes it false, however it is very interesting that so many people who live in Houston say that it is less livable than other places, yet do not live in those places or have any intention of moving there.

But discussion of what is livable is confounding. Clearly people are able to live here, even the cynics. They live here, and are able to. Live. Able. Houston is livable. Insofar as those two conditions are satisfied, any place with people currently living there has to be considered livable. It isn't an especially high threshold. Trying to pay the resident of a city a compliment by saying that their city is livable is in my mind akin to complimenting a girlfriend/boyfriend on account of that they don't have AIDS.

[Montrose1100]

I agree, parts of that section of Westheimer are narrow, but I'd hate to see it widened. Westheimer is a walkable street for much of that area. There just isn't much room for widening without taking up sidewalk space and leaving some business with very little frontage.

But parking is usually a nightmare, spilling into the surrrounding neighborhoods. It cannot stay that way... it needs to be redone, in a way that caters to the pedestrian as well as the automobile.

[memebag]

But parking is usually a nightmare, spilling into the surrrounding neighborhoods. It cannot stay that way... it needs to be redone, in a way that caters to the pedestrian as well as the automobile.

Why does that stretch of Westheimer need to cater to automobiles at all? I think keeping it narrow helps prevent it from turning into this:

[Subdude]

But parking is usually a nightmare, spilling into the surrrounding neighborhoods. It cannot stay that way... it needs to be redone, in a way that caters to the pedestrian as well as the automobile.

But how can you cater to both pedestrians and cars at the same time? I'm not saying all of Houston needs to be turned into some urban village, but keeping some areas walkable is going to mean that they are less car-friendly. Having to walk a couple of blocks to park is hardly the end of the world.

[skyphen]

Why does that stretch of Westheimer need to cater to automobiles at all? I think keeping it narrow helps prevent it from turning into this:

Exactly. Widening roads is all Houston has ever done to address increasing traffic, which has resulted in roads like the above too wide to cross on foot safely (I know from experience). Houston needs to focus on public transportation in the core, not wider roads. It would completely change the character of these neighborhoods and make them even less pedestrian-friendly and more auto-oriented than they already are. There are enough areas in Houston with wide roads and mammoth freeways... we don't need them in the core.

[musicman]

But how can you cater to both pedestrians and cars at the same time? I'm not saying all of Houston needs to be turned into some urban village, but keeping some areas walkable is going to mean that they are less car-friendly. Having to walk a couple of blocks to park is hardly the end of the world.

but car parking in adjoining neighborhoods lowers the quality of life for homeowners. there are several neighborhoods that worked to prevent parking such as this.

[barracuda]

but car parking in adjoining neighborhoods lowers the quality of life for homeowners. there are several neighborhoods that worked to prevent parking such as this.

That's always been the case. Some neighborhoods in the area have permit-only parking to handle this.

[Montrose1100]

Why does that stretch of Westheimer need to cater to automobiles at all? I think keeping it narrow helps prevent it from turning into this:

Because people still drive cars, and that road is horrible to drive on... it too narrow, and not only is the street full of potholes, but the sidewalk is bumpy too.

Eventually, something must be done to adress both issues. I'm saying to turn it into a 1960, hell you could even keep it at 4 lanes with no turning lane. But the current lanes need to be wider, and the side walks need to be wider. This stretch is too busy to be kept at its current suburban layout.

But how can you cater to both pedestrians and cars at the same time? I'm not saying all of Houston needs to be turned into some urban village, but keeping some areas walkable is going to mean that they are less car-friendly. Having to walk a couple of blocks to park is hardly the end of the world.

You can have both. And as mentioned before, the residents must find it annoying to have their streets stuffed with cars.