Houston Now Sixth Largest Metropolitan Area

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Chicago is way more international than Houston. That is pretty damn obvious.

I love Houston to no end, but i it is not more international than Chicago, you are most correct. :closedeyes:

That little airline called United Airlines, which is the 2nd largest in the country and the 2nd largest in the world, goes a long way to help bolster that international presence.

[RedScare]

Well, well, well. Look at these findings from a study conducted by the Brookings Institution....

It turns out that most European cities are far more globally connected than their U.S. counterparts. Nearly half of New York's economy and over 80 percent of the Chicago economy is oriented toward the U.S., while virtually all of Brussels, Helsinki and London is oriented globally, rather than to the European Union.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Well, well, well. Look at these findings from a study conducted by the Brookings Institution....

Theres no substitute for personal experience

[H-Town Man]

Well, well, well. Look at these findings from a study conducted by the Brookings Institution....

Ummm Red, that's comparing Chicago with European cities. I thought we were discussing Chicago and Houston...

How do you look up a city's international profile? This sort of thing just comes with experience... from reading things and being around people. And I'm sorry to say but, outside of energy and medicine, Houston just isn't on the map the way Chicago is in the global business world. Want examples? Look at a list of Chicago companies, and tell me how many of them had to locate there based on what industry they were in. They didn't have to: most of them chose Chicago because of its profile. Then look at all of Houston's top companies, and tell me how many would be here if it weren't for oil. Very few.

Why do you think that study mentioned New York and Chicago as examples of American cities? Why didn't it mention New York and Houston? Probably because if it did, everyone who read it would be scratching their heads, wondering "Why Houston?"

You've won a lot of arguments on this forum, but this one is not in the cards for you. Shake hands and walk out.

[ricco67]

i think that Redscare's post is quite relevant to the topic of what city is more international than another.

point being that chicago, being literally being in the center of the U.S. makes its commerce more dependent on NATIONAL industries as opposed to other cities such as houston that deal with it internationally by the sheer proximity to other continents with it's shipping and oil.

debate with red at the peril of your own ego.

[Trae]

How about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Chicago is an Alpha World City, while Houston is a Gamma World City.

[H-Town Man]

i think that Redscare's post is quite relevant to the topic of what city is more international than another.

point being that chicago, being literally being in the center of the U.S. makes its commerce more dependent on NATIONAL industries as opposed to other cities such as houston that deal with it internationally by the sheer proximity to other continents with it's shipping and oil.

debate with red at the peril of your own ego.

I'm not sure what debating with RedScare is going to do to my ego. Just because Chicago is at the center of the U.S., and thus further away from other continents than Houston (although I think this only really makes a difference with South America), does not mean its commerce is going to be more domestic. Airplanes and the internet have pretty much wiped away physical location as a determinant of how international a city's commerce can be.

I'll state it again for the record - although Houston is lucky to have an industry that has given it connections all over the world, the fact remains that Chicago is a more internationally-connected city, and thus will continue to be more attractive to corporations that want a global reach and don't have to be in any particular city. A glance at the major corporations proves my point - aside from Sysco, Continental, and Waste Management, all of Houston's major companies are here because of oil, whereas most of Chicago's major companies could be anywhere.

Now if you, RedScare, or anyone else want to debate those points, then be my guest.

[ProHouston]

How about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Chicago is an Alpha World City, while Houston is a Gamma World City.

I'd have to agree that, based on perception, Chicago is much more of an international city than Houston. However, we're quickly gaining.

[TheNiche]

Comparing Houston and Chicago is difficult because there is a significant size differential and because their economies are structured very differently. It is not enough to say that Houston has oil, port, medicine and that those are 'international' fields. The oil and port components are so closely aligned, anyway, that it is more fitting to narrow it down to oil and medicine. And medicine is misleading as some kind of a competitive stregnth because we may have a highly visible cluster of hospitals and research institutions, but that doesn't mean that other large cities don't have a significant medical presence, even if it is less centralized.

The key factor contributing to Houston's economic growth is that oil & gas companies require very specific engineering skills and that there are very powerful economies of localization that result from those companies locating within close proximity of one another because they are able to share in the same niche labor market and the same niche suppliers that aren't so easily available elsewhere. Detroit works the same way, and that is a little scary.

Chicago started out as a port city, a waypoint between the American west and the northeast. Its port made it a good regional manufacturing center in an era when transport over land was comparatively expensive. As railroads came through, its prexisting economy, already well-diversified for its day, made it a natural hub. As it rose to prominence, it gained a population base that allowed it to transition into the kind of city that is ideal for regional and eventually national corporate headquarters. They had a broad base of skill sets all located in one area. They reached a point at which their size became a growth driver in and of itself. Houston is not there yet, and is considerably further from that point than is Dallas or Atlanta, for instance, because we lack the same diversity of skill sets and employers. Just try finding a high-profile ad agency, for instance. There really aren't many (if any at all) because we're such a B2B-oriented economy. Having said that, we're a whole lot better off than we used to be. We've come a long way since 1986.

[WesternGulf]

Just ot be fair, how do people calculate this stuff? Why does SF sometimes have over 7 million people and another day it has a little over 4 million? Same for DC. If San Jose was in Houston it would be part of the metropolitan area. Considering Houston has Galveston part of its area I'm assuming.

[VelvetJ]

i've seen her twice here that i can remember.

Yeah, 16 years ago. Madonna has had several tours since then, with the last two covering the United States pretty extensively and the closest she got to us was Atlanta and Chicago. According to chatter online, many Houstonians that saw her flew to Atlanta.

I personally feel she has stayed away due to her political perceptions of Texas (she hasn't been to Dallas either), and that is just unfortunate. But oh well, Ted Nugent has been to Houston at least twice since Madonna was last here so we can pat ourselves on the back for that.

By the way, just from perception, I doubt there are very many outside of Houston that would say Houston is more International than Chicago.

[skwatra]

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.

STL doesn't have a subway or brownstones (well a few, but not worth mentioning).

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

Boeing moved corporate to Chicago because they wanted their presence in another US city. Dallas and Chicago were the two options. Houston wasn't considered because there were already 1600 employees here.

having visited Chicago more times then i can count, and going to many concerts, bars, clubs, ballgames, museums, etc. i don't think Chicago feels any more international then Houston. you find a good mix of ethnicities no matter where you go (i'm talking inside the loop) in either city. just my feel.

though this topic has shifted to international commerce, which i'll stay out of.

[H-Town Man]

STL doesn't have a subway or brownstones (well a few, but not worth mentioning).

Boeing moved corporate to Chicago because they wanted their presence in another US city. Dallas and Chicago were the two options. Houston wasn't considered because there were already 1600 employees here.

having visited Chicago more times then i can count, and going to many concerts, bars, clubs, ballgames, museums, etc. i don't think Chicago feels any more international then Houston. you find a good mix of ethnicities no matter where you go (i'm talking inside the loop) in either city. just my feel.

though this topic has shifted to international commerce, which i'll stay out of.

Boeing didn't move to Chicago just to be moving. They wanted a high-profile location that would help them in their effort to secure contracts. They chose Chicago over Dallas because, although Dallas was more affordable, Chicago had more prestige.

You're right about St. Louis. Although Chicago doesn't really have brownstones either... both are primarily brick in their older housing stock.

[skwatra]

there were a lot of reasons for the move and the choice of location. you've listed one of maybe 10 major factors.

illinois offered the biggest tax breaks and over $40 million worth of incentives.

"We believe that having our world headquarters separate from any one of our major businesses will help us to achieve our goals of growing this company.''

-then CEO Phil Condit

anyways, i agree with you on several of your points, i just don't boeing moving corporate hq to chicago really supports that its more international then houston, considering houston was not an option.

[H-Town Man]

there were a lot of reasons for the move and the choice of location. you've listed one of maybe 10 major factors.

illinois offered the biggest tax breaks and over $40 million worth of incentives.

-then CEO Phil Condit

anyways, i agree with you on several of your points, i just don't boeing moving corporate hq to chicago really supports that its more international then houston, considering houston was not an option.

Agreed - there were many factors. It's one example. The brunt of my argument is that Chicago is better able to attract companies that don't have to locate in any particular city. This dovetails with what Niche said about skillset - there is just a bigger critical mass of skills in Chicago, especially in marketing, which Houston has very little of and which is very important to a retail company.

I hope that Houston can leverage this current economic boom we're in to develop more of the things that can attract non-oil companies. Downtown and quality of life enhancements especially.

[MidtownCoog]

Marketing/Advertising goes as the economy goes.

Madison Ave. was a very bad place just a few short years ago.

It's definetly not recession proof and no panacea.

[Trae]

Just ot be fair, how do people calculate this stuff? Why does SF sometimes have over 7 million people and another day it has a little over 4 million? Same for DC. If San Jose was in Houston it would be part of the metropolitan area. Considering Houston has Galveston part of its area I'm assuming.

Not enough commuters to make it an MSA (San Fran-San Jose), but enough for a CSA.

[VelvetJ]

STL doesn't have a subway or brownstones (well a few, but not worth mentioning).

No but they DO currently have 48 miles of lightrail (and growing), some of which runs underground. Does that count for anything?

[editor]

whereas Chicago's insurance, livestock, grain and pharmaceutical industries are much more domestic in nature.

Saying Chicago has a livestock industry is as antiquated and accurate as talking about Houston's cowboy industry.

Chicago's largest public companies

• Boeing
  
• Sears
  
• Walgreen's
  
• Motorola
  
• Caterpillar
  
• ADM
  
• Allstate
  
• Kraft
  
• Abbott Labs
  
• John Deere
  
• McDonald's
  

While it's perfectly accurate to state that all of those companies are "American grown" the only ones you can argue are "domestic" companies are Walgreen's, Sears, and Allstate.

[Houston19514]

Saying Chicago has a livestock industry is as antiquated and accurate as talking about Houston's cowboy industry.

Chicago's largest public companies

• Boeing
  
• Sears
  
• Walgreen's
  
• Motorola
  
• Caterpillar
  
• ADM
  
• Allstate
  
• Kraft
  
• Abbott Labs
  
• John Deere
  
• McDonald's
  

While it's perfectly accurate to state that all of those companies are "American grown" the only ones you can argue are "domestic" companies are Walgreen's, Sears, and Allstate.

Perhaps a bit more accurate in that Chicago did once have a large livestock industry, whereas Houston has never had a "cowboy" industry to speak of. ;-)

In your list of "Chicago's largest public companies", Neither Caterpillar, ADM, nor John Deere are headquartered in or near Chicago.

[MidtownCoog]

Moline is to Chicago what Ft. Worth is to Dallas.

[Houston19514]

Moline is to Chicago what Ft. Worth is to Dallas.

LOL funny, but not true. :-)

[RedScare]

Boeing didn't move to Chicago just to be moving. They wanted a high-profile location that would help them in their effort to secure contracts.

This makes sense. No one even knew what a Boeing was until they moved HQ to Chicago. Now look at 'em. Even the PRESIDENT uses one of their jets!

[H-Town Man]

This makes sense. No one even knew what a Boeing was until they moved HQ to Chicago. Now look at 'em. Even the PRESIDENT uses one of their jets!

Read the articles at the time of the move. They wanted a higher profile - they were especially concerned about securing the contract for the Joint Strike Fighter, and they new that their future would depend more and more upon securing contracts abroad.

Chicago, among many other things, gives you non-stop access to almost every important city in the world. One of the many reasons why they are a more international city than Houston is.

[skwatra]

Read the articles at the time of the move. They wanted a higher profile - they were especially concerned about securing the contract for the Joint Strike Fighter, and they new that their future would depend more and more upon securing contracts abroad.

Chicago, among many other things, gives you non-stop access to almost every important city in the world. One of the many reasons why they are a more international city than Houston is.

Houston was not an option. I don't understand why this keeps coming up. They DID NOT move to chicago OVER houston. They didn't even consider houston because there was already a huge site here. also HQ is not the only place where Boeing secure's contracts from. the individual sites where the work is actually done plays that role. Commercial is based in seattle, Integrated Defense Systems is based in stl, Space Explorations is based in Houston. We attempted to secure CEV here, not chicago.

[skwatra]

No but they DO currently have 48 miles of lightrail (and growing), some of which runs underground. Does that count for anything?

sure, but they don't have much ridership. i'll be back there in april to check it out, haven't been back since the new extension was opened late '06. i wish it ran later, we never found it useful the 4 years i was living there.

i do like how they have it above ground most of the time, yet there are very few intersections with street traffic. of course stl is not very dense, and they opened in 1993.

[musicman]

sure, but they don't have much ridership. i'll be back there in april to check it out, haven't been back since the new extension was opened late '06. i wish it ran later, we never found it useful the 4 years i was living there.

i do like how they have it above ground most of the time, yet there are very few intersections with street traffic. of course stl is not very dense, and they opened in 1993.

i've used it for pleasure, however travel times are slow because the route is fairly circuitous. the portions that i rode did avoid mixing with vehicular traffic.

[H-Town Man]

Houston was not an option. I don't understand why this keeps coming up. They DID NOT move to chicago OVER houston. They didn't even consider houston because there was already a huge site here. also HQ is not the only place where Boeing secure's contracts from. the individual sites where the work is actually done plays that role. Commercial is based in seattle, Integrated Defense Systems is based in stl, Space Explorations is based in Houston. We attempted to secure CEV here, not chicago.

Did I say Houston was an option for the Boeing move? Please read the posts! I used Boeing as an example of Chicago's ability to attract companies that want a high profile. Then I asked, how many major companies not related to oil have we been able to attract? You can count them on three fingers: Continental, Sysco, and Waste Management. Whereas if you look at a list of Chicago's major companies (such as the one the editor posted), you see many companies that could have been anywhere.

Ugh, some people will go to any length to find an argument where there isn't one.

[RedScare]

Did I say Houston was an option for the Boeing move? Please read the posts! I used Boeing as an example of Chicago's ability to attract companies that want a high profile. Then I asked, how many major companies not related to oil have we been able to attract? You can count them on three fingers: Continental, Sysco, and Waste Management. Whereas if you look at a list of Chicago's major companies (such as the one the editor posted), you see many companies that could have been anywhere.

Ugh, some people will go to any length to find an argument where there isn't one.

Pot meet kettle.

Other than Boeing's 400 employees, how many of those companies did Chicago ATTRACT, versus the ones that started there.

BTW, there sure are a lot of food and agriculture related companies on that list. Kinda reminds me of Houston's oil laden list.

[Houston19514]

Pot meet kettle.

Other than Boeing's 400 employees, how many of those companies did Chicago ATTRACT, versus the ones that started there.

BTW, there sure are a lot of food and agriculture related companies on that list. Kinda reminds me of Houston's oil laden list.

But most of the food and agriculture related companies on that list (ADM, Caterpillar, John Deere) are NOT in or near Chicago.

Did I say Houston was an option for the Boeing move? Please read the posts! I used Boeing as an example of Chicago's ability to attract companies that want a high profile. Then I asked, how many major companies not related to oil have we been able to attract? You can count them on three fingers: Continental, Sysco, and Waste Management. Whereas if you look at a list of Chicago's major companies (such as the one the editor posted), you see many companies that could have been anywhere.

It is very possible that Houston would have been on the list of cities to be considered (and it's conceivable we could have beaten Chicago... who knows?), had it not been ruled out by the criteria of not being near any of their operations. DFW and Denver were the other two cities that were considered, after all, and Denver is neither of them is nearly as "international" as Houston.