Jump to content

Houston Now Sixth Largest Metropolitan Area


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And we've got bad traffic, no mass transit, no zoning, and more people moving here each month than most American cities.

Be prepared for a meltdown!

We have traffic that is commensurate with our size, an excellent HOV system and a respectable bus system, plenty of room to grow, and no barriers to stop it.

Be prepared for greatness!

we jumped from 9th to 6th?

7th to 6th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much bigger is DFW and Philly than us? I'm actually a little surprised that Philly is bigger. But then again, I've never been there. Bad perception I guess.

DFW just barely broke through the 6,000,000 mark, so they are a little less than 1/2 million larger than Houston.

Philly I don't have numbers for, but I would guess they are a little under 6,000,000, maybe 5.9 million. Houston will likely pass Philly by the 2010 census I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have passed Miami!

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...tml?jst=b_ln_hl

Next stop... Philly and DFW!

Philly is just a question of when, but DFW is still pulling away so it'd have to start growing faster before passing. Atlanta is still growing faster than either but they've got a lot of population to make up. By 2030 any of the 3 could be the largest, they all have the potential. I think Atlanta has the biggest opportunity to surprise IMO.

Jason

Edited by JasonDFW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston is the 9th largest CMSA, or combined metro, which has not changed. I suspect this is what you're thinking of. This discussion is about the MSA rank, which has moved up to #6.

Jason

I always get mixed up with this stuff. I wish someone would just have a map with different color outlines of what each one represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philly is at 5.8 million. Since 2000 we have gained 824,000, so I think by 2010 we might be slightly ahead of Philly.

The problem with Atlanta is that whereas they are the undisputed capital of the Southeast, Houston and Dallas are the co-capitals of the South Central region, and thus tend to eat into each other's gains. What we really need to do is start pulling for Charlotte. > :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that international cities, such as Houston (port, oil, TMC), will do better long term. Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas are all strong domestic cities. If the global economy that we keep being told is the wave of the future is all that they claim it will be, the international cities should sustain stronger growth. That is not to say that Houston's population is not surpassed by Atlanta's, but overall it will be a strong and growing city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that international cities, such as Houston (port, oil, TMC), will do better long term. Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas are all strong domestic cities. If the global economy that we keep being told is the wave of the future is all that they claim it will be, the international cities should sustain stronger growth. That is not to say that Houston's population is not surpassed by Atlanta's, but overall it will be a strong and growing city.

I don't know if I'd call Chicago a "strong domestic city"... it has often been identified as one of America's three global cities (see Janet Abu-Lughod's book). Having lived there, I can tell you it feels much more international than Houston.

Houston is more international than Dallas or Atlanta due to its being the world energy capital, but this could turn around and bite us... those cities are much more diversified than we are. The U.S. has very little oil compared to other areas of the globe. Right now what is keeping Houston ahead is that we have more scientific expertise. But that gap is narrowing... when that expertise develops abroad, what will happen to Houston? Because you know, Detroit was a pretty thriving city when we dominated the auto industry... and Pittsburgh was thriving when we controlled the steel industry....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard that the energy/gas business in Houston takes up 47% of Houston's economy. I doubt that it was less than 50% for Detroit's auto industry and Pittsburgh's steel industry. Plus, the only companies of real importance in Atlanta are Turner Broadcasting, Home Depot, and Delta. They aren't as large as Houston's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'd call Chicago a "strong domestic city"... it has often been identified as one of America's three global cities (see Janet Abu-Lughod's book). Having lived there, I can tell you it feels much more international than Houston.

Houston is more international than Dallas or Atlanta due to its being the world energy capital, but this could turn around and bite us... those cities are much more diversified than we are. The U.S. has very little oil compared to other areas of the globe. Right now what is keeping Houston ahead is that we have more scientific expertise. But that gap is narrowing... when that expertise develops abroad, what will happen to Houston? Because you know, Detroit was a pretty thriving city when we dominated the auto industry... and Pittsburgh was thriving when we controlled the steel industry....

Any city with narrow streets, brownstones and a subway "feels" international. I am talking about the economy, and a quick glance at Chicago's economy shows a heavy domestic influence. As for the oil concentration biting us, the US still consumes one quarter of the world's oil, and it has to enter the US somewhere, and largely it enters and is refined in Houston. As manufacturing is shipped offshore, those refined goods come back to the US through our port.

As I said before, these are not guarantees. However, IF you believe the globalization gurus, Houston is better positioned to take advantage. And, there is nothing wrong with being strong in domestic commerce in the world's largest economy. I was just pointing out that Houston's 3 largest sectors, oil, port and medicine, all have global components, whereas Chicago's insurance, livestock, grain and pharmaceutical industries are much more domestic in nature.

BTW, Trae, you left out a couple of podunk Atlanta companies, Coca-Cola and RJ Reynolds.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any city with narrow streets, brownstones and a subway "feels" international. I am talking about the economy, and a quick glance at Chicago's economy shows a heavy domestic influence. As for the oil concentration biting us, the US still consumes one quarter of the world's oil, and it has to enter the US somewhere, and largely it enters and is refined in Houston. As manufacturing is shipped offshore, those refined goods come back to the US through our port.

As I said before, these are not guarantees. However, IF you believe the globalization gurus, Houston is better positioned to take advantage. And, there is nothing wrong with being strong in domestic commerce in the world's largest economy. I was just pointing out that Houston's 3 largest sectors, oil, port and medicine, all have global components, whereas Chicago's insurance, livestock, grain and pharmaceutical industries are much more domestic in nature.

BTW, Trae, you left out a couple of podunk Atlanta companies, Coca-Cola and RJ Reynolds.

I wasn't referring to narrow streets, brownstones, and a subway when I talked about Chicago's international feel. St. Louis has all those things, and doesn't feel international. There are simply, on any given day, a lot more people in Chicago who aren't from the U.S. than in Houston, and I'm not just talking about tourism. Live there for three years, go to events there, and you will understand what I mean.

I would venture to say that the four industries you mentioned for Chicago make up a much smaller portion of their economy than the major Houston industries (oil, port, and medicine). They are a city that any corporation might locate to that wants to have a global reach (like Boeing). They are not as tied to their foundation industries as we are. Their intellectual capital trumps ours. Their marketing expertise trumps ours (heck, Dallas trumps us in this category). There is a certain "critical mass" of money, talent, and international profile they have that makes them a much bigger draw to those companies that don't have to be in a certain city.

Keep in mind also that, when you take away Houston's exploration and drilling expertise and fall back on just our importation and refining, you have basically reduced petroleum to a domestic industry for us. So my comment on our status as "global energy capital" stands - all that is keeping us in the lead is our talent edge, and our lead is decreasing in this area. More than half of the students who received Ph.D.'s in American universities last year were foreign nationals. Texas A&M has by far the nation's largest Petroleum Engineering department, and 2/3 of the grad students over there barely even speak English. I have mixed feelings about energy as we look ahead in this century.

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economy, dude, economy. Looking around you and seeing foreign nationals does not make you an international city in the business sense. And moving 400 Boeing employees to Chicago did not make it an aerospace city, not when 70,000 remain in Seattle building the jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economy, dude, economy. Looking around you and seeing foreign nationals does not make you an international city in the business sense. And moving 400 Boeing employees to Chicago did not make it an aerospace city, not when 70,000 remain in Seattle building the jets.

Fine, if you won't trust me, let's look at economy then. Chicago's is over twice as big as Houston's. I didn't say Boeing made Chicago an aerospace city, I used it as an example of how Chicago can attract corporations that want a global reach, and don't have to be in a particular place. Are you reading, or just skimming?

Sorry RedScare, but the statement that Chicago is a "strong domestic city" whereas Houston is an "international city" sounds ridiculous to anyone who knows about the two places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, if you won't trust me, let's look at economy then. Chicago's is over twice as big as Houston's. I didn't say Boeing made Chicago an aerospace city, I used it as an example of how Chicago can attract corporations that want a global reach, and don't have to be in a particular place. Are you reading, or just skimming?

Sorry RedScare, but the statement that Chicago is a "strong domestic city" whereas Houston is an "international city" sounds ridiculous to anyone who knows about the two places.

Yeah, I'm reading. I read that you don't once list an industry or corporation (other than Boeing's HQ) that supports your generalized PERCEPTION of the city. That's fine, though. I gave my opinion, and backed it up with examples. I'm not the least bit surprised that someone on this forum has a knee jerk reaction to something rather than actually LOOK IT UP. Frankly, you don't even understand the point I was making in the first place, which makes me wonder why I am wasting keystrokes on this thread. How about I just drop it and you can have this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...