Houston Now Sixth Largest Metropolitan Area

[MidtownCoog]

They call the entire region "Chicagoland".

[Houston19514]

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.

Chicago gives you non-stop access to "more than 60 international cities" according to O'Hare's website. Houston gives you non-stop access to "more than 70 international cities" (I think it's about 74-75 now).

O'Hare handled 11.7 million international passengers last year.

IAH handled 7.4 million international passenger last year.

When you consider the population differences of the metro areas, not bad at all for Houston. In fact, Houston has more international passengers per capita than Chicago.

No doubt, there is a widely-held perception that Chicago is more international; but we all know there are countless widely-held perceptions about Houston that are simply not true or seriously outdated.

Further, I don't get the logic you are employing, H-Town Man, that somehow because they have to be here, the oil and gas companies don't count when we consider how "international" Houston is. The facts are what they are. The oil companies are very international in nature, and they are in Houston.

[skwatra]

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.

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

No not directly, but this whole discussion was about if chicago is more international then houston. first in the feel of the city, then economically. you used Boeing moving to chicago as an example of how international it is, impying this was part of your reason why chicago was more international then houston.

if this were a primary reason to leave seattle, then why not go to NYC? you don't get higher profile or more international then that in the US.

we had ethics issues, we had to lay people off at corporate, we needed a new look for the company. dallas, denver, and chicago were the choices.

competing with JSF had nothing to do with the site of HQ.

[RedScare]

No not directly, but this whole discussion was about if chicago is more international then houston. first in the feel of the city, then economically. you used Boeing moving to chicago as an example of how international it is, impying this was part of your reason why chicago was more international then houston.

if this were a primary reason to leave seattle, then why not go to NYC? you don't get higher profile or more international then that in the US.

we had ethics issues, we had to lay people off at corporate, we needed a new look for the company. dallas, denver, and chicago were the choices.

competing with JSF had nothing to do with the site of HQ.

Actually, my initial post was not about international "feel", or "perception" at all. It was merely an observation, supported by facts, that Houston is positioned to have more international commerce in the future, and that if the global economy is all it is cracked up to be, that Houston could capitalize on that better than inland, domestically focused cities.

Several posters who chose to type before reading OR researching then went off on this 'Chicago feels more international' tangent. Rather than get the debate back on target, since those posters refuse to look up anything to buttress their perception, I decided to just take potshots at their perceptions. It is far easier....and frankly, enjoyable.

[H-Town Man]

Actually, my initial post was not about international "feel", or "perception" at all. It was merely an observation, supported by facts, that Houston is positioned to have more international commerce in the future, and that if the global economy is all it is cracked up to be, that Houston could capitalize on that better than inland, domestically focused cities.

Several posters who chose to type before reading OR researching then went off on this 'Chicago feels more international' tangent. Rather than get the debate back on target, since those posters refuse to look up anything to buttress their perception, I decided to just take potshots at their perceptions. It is far easier....and frankly, enjoyable.

Actually RedScare, we did look things up to buttress our perceptions, but you never addressed them. How about the experts on globalization that are cited in the Wikipedia article that I believe Trae mentioned, or the widely reputed book that I cited that discusses "New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles" as America's three global cities? Check into those, and you will see reams of statistical data supporting the notion that Chicago is a more internationally connected city.

Further, I don't get the logic you are employing, H-Town Man, that somehow because they have to be here, the oil and gas companies don't count when we consider how "international" Houston is. The facts are what they are. The oil companies are very international in nature, and they are in Houston.

I didn't say they didn't count. Read my posts! I said that we are lucky to have an industry that gives us such strong international connections, but we haven't proven that we can attract industries that don't need to be in any one certain city, but are simply looking for a good place to do international business. I think that is a worry going into this century. It is not guaranteed that we will always be the global energy capital. If we do not want to depend on energy for our position in the global economy, then we are going to have to develop the more diverse skill sets that a city like Chicago has. Because right now, in a competition for corporations that don't need to be in any certain city but simply want a good location for which to do international business, Chicago is going to beat Houston the majority of the time.

[H-Town Man]

Chicago gives you non-stop access to "more than 60 international cities" according to O'Hare's website. Houston gives you non-stop access to "more than 70 international cities" (I think it's about 74-75 now).

O'Hare handled 11.7 million international passengers last year.

IAH handled 7.4 million international passenger last year.

When you consider the population differences of the metro areas, not bad at all for Houston. In fact, Houston has more international passengers per capita than Chicago.

More international passengers per capita is not more international passengers! If Chicago gets 58% more international passengers than Houston does, I don't think that really supports RedScare's assertion that Houston is an "international city," whereas Chicago is a "strong domestic city."

[RedScare]

More international passengers per capita is not more international passengers! If Chicago gets 58% more international passengers than Houston does, I don't think that really supports RedScare's assertion that Houston is an "international city," whereas Chicago is a "strong domestic city."

You are correct. The Brookings Institution supports my assertion that Chicago is a strong domestic city.

And, I have never stated that Houston is an "international" city. Restating my argument into something I did not say is called creating straw men.

[H-Town Man]

You are correct. The Brookings Institution supports my assertion that Chicago is a strong domestic city.

And, I have never stated that Houston is an "international" city. Restating my argument into something I did not say is called creating straw men.

lol, simply because the Brookings Institution said that American cities like New York and Chicago were less globally-oriented than certain European cities does not support the much more dubious claim that you made, that whereas Houston is an "international" city, Chicago is a "strong domestic" city. I don't think anyone at the Brookings Institution would support you on that one, but I could be wrong.

And yes, you did state that Houston is an "international" city. See post #13.

[713 To 214]

Redscare so desperately wants to prove his point (which can't be proven, by the way), that he now has begun to argue with himself. Let it go, man. You don't always have to have the last word. Besides, you're making yourself look foolish

[Houston19514]

More international passengers per capita is not more international passengers! If Chicago gets 58% more international passengers than Houston does, I don't think that really supports RedScare's assertion that Houston is an "international city," whereas Chicago is a "strong domestic city."

Yes, I am quite aware that "more international passengers per capita is not more international passengers", and I did not post those numbers to promote Redscares assertion that Chicago is a "strong domestic city." The numbers merely show that, if indeed Chicago is more "international" than Houston, it is not by the huge margin that some suggest. In fact, unless you are of the school of thought that says that bigger necessarily means more international, I think the higher international travel per capita indeed does provide evidence in favor of the assertion that Houston is more international than Chicago. (Personally, I'm ambivalent on the question... I think they are probably so close in their "internationality" that it would be impossible to conclusively come down on one side or the other.)

They call the entire region "Chicagoland".

Did you have a point?

[RedScare]

Besides, you're making yourself look foolish

Coming from an expert on these matters.

[Houston19514]

How about this:

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

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

That study has always struck me as somewhat silly and has been cited WAY more often than it deserves to be. It merely "ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law". (Those just happen to be the areas of Chicago's "expertise" if you will.)

They gave points to cities based on such things as how many accounting firms based in the city have branch offices in foreign countries, and how many branch offices.

Yes, those are indicative of "global connections," but it never seemed to me that those particular industries are any more indicative of "global connections" than, say, how many companies are based in your town and how many employees do they have in foreign countries? Or how many engineers and geologists do you have in your town who work primarily on foreign projects? Or how about the number of foreign-flagged ships that docked at your port during a year?

Edited March 27, 2007 by Houston19514

[MidtownCoog]

This is funny. A pissing match over Chicago. A ratty old town with a bunch of Fern Bars.

Raise your hand if your care about Chicago.

And if Mr. #s can't understand the concept of Chicago Land then forget about it!

[lockmat]

I think it's time to rename this thread. Anyone have ideas?

Edited March 27, 2007 by lockmat

[MidtownCoog]

Anyone have ideas?

Yes: LOCKED

[skwatra]

how many engineers and geologists do you have in your town who work primarily on foreign projects?

i work with 16 different countries on this thing called ISS, but who's counting?

[Houston19514]

This is funny. A pissing match over Chicago. A ratty old town with a bunch of Fern Bars.

Raise your hand if your care about Chicago.

And if Mr. #s can't understand the concept of Chicago Land then forget about it!

I fully understand the concept of Chicagoland; it's nothing more than the colloquial name for the Chicago metro area. What I don't understand is what a map of it has to do with anything in this thread. If it was an attempt to support your earlier statement that "Moline is to Chicago what Ft. Worth is to Dallas", well, perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with a map of Illinois. Moline is nowhere near the red blotch on your map showing Chicagoland.

[TheNiche]

That study has always struck me as somewhat silly and has been cited WAY more often than it deserves to be. It merely "ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law". (Those just happen to be the areas of Chicago's "expertise" if you will.)

They gave points to cities based on such things as how many accounting firms based in the city have branch offices in foreign countries, and how many branch offices.

Yes, those are indicative of "global connections," but it never seemed to me that those particular industries are any more indicative of "global connections" than, say, how many companies are based in your town and how many employees do they have in foreign countries? Or how many engineers and geologists do you have in your town who work primarily on foreign projects? Or how about the number of foreign-flagged ships that docked at your port during a year?

While imperfect, concentrations of "advanced producer services" are a reasonably good indicator of both global and domestic economic influence, and Houston seems appropriately ranked on thier list. The number of foreign-flagged ships is next to irrelevant in the 21st century. Unless you work by the docks or at an intermodal rail terminal, you'd almost never know they were here. The perceptible foreign influence is just so minimal.

[MidtownCoog]

Moline is 175 miles out of Chicago and Chicago Land is anything within a 200 miles radius according to James O'Donnell Bennett.

I hate to quote Wiki, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicagoland

Fern Bar, anyone?

[Houston19514]

I didn't say they didn't count. Read my posts! I said that we are lucky to have an industry that gives us such strong international connections, but we haven't proven that we can attract industries that don't need to be in any one certain city, but are simply looking for a good place to do international business. I think that is a worry going into this century. It is not guaranteed that we will always be the global energy capital. If we do not want to depend on energy for our position in the global economy, then we are going to have to develop the more diverse skill sets that a city like Chicago has. Because right now, in a competition for corporations that don't need to be in any certain city but simply want a good location for which to do international business, Chicago is going to beat Houston the majority of the time.

You might have a point that Chicago is better positioned for getting new, non-energy-related companies to move there, but that does not prove that Chicago is currently a more "international" city. That just goes to prove that Chicago has a better reputation, or perhaps even that it is perceived to be more international, or has the better set of skill-sets on hand for companies looking to move. Again, none of that addresses the question of which city is more "international". The current set of companies and industries that each city has clearly does address the question of which city is more international and does not matter at all why they are here or there.

I would be very interested in seeing the data in the book you referenced. Any chance of seeing any of it on-line? See my other post regarding the "study" that was linked by Trae.

[Houston19514]

Moline is 175 miles out of Chicago and Chicago Land is anything within a 200 miles radius according to James O'Donnell Bennett.

I hate to quote Wiki, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicagoland

Fern Bar, anyone?

ROFL You have got to be kidding. It is indeed risky to quote Wiki, especially when you cherry-pick one piece of nonsense that is repeatedly and clearly contradicted on the very same page.

I know Chicago, and I know Moline, and I know Chicagoland. Moline is NOT in Chicagoland. And FWIW, neither are Decatur or Peoria.

While imperfect, concentrations of "advanced producer services" are a reasonably good indicator of both global and domestic economic influence, and Houston seems appropriately ranked on thier list. The number of foreign-flagged ships is next to irrelevant in the 21st century. Unless you work by the docks or at an intermodal rail terminal, you'd almost never know they were here. The perceptible foreign influence is just so minimal.

What nonsense. How are those services more indicative of global connection than those I listed in my earlier post? (and the study is purporting to show "global connection", not Global economic influence".) If not number of foreign flag ships (and it's hard to comprehend how that does not show global connection), then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services?

[MidtownCoog]

Enjoy the Yankee centric chit-chat. I could give a flip about Chicago.

[nmainguy]

Yes, I am quite aware that "more Did you have a point?

That is Chicago's Metropolitan Statistical Area. This topic was started regarding Houston's Metropolitan Statistical Area.

My point? None. Just a comparison.

Edited March 27, 2007 by nmainguy

[TheNiche]

What nonsense. How are those services more indicative of global connection than those I listed in my earlier post? (and the study is purporting to show "global connection", not Global economic influence".) If not number of foreign flag ships (and it's hard to comprehend how that does not show global connection), then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services?

Well since the Port of Houston is just a waypoint for goods headed to their final destinations, I don't see that that necessarily makes us any more connected than Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, or any other city that gets their Wal-Mart goodies from our port. The logistics systems of today are so tied into one another that this kind of stuff just doesn't matter all that much. You and I will never know where all those shipping containers are headed. Goods are like that; they can be moved anywhere at just about any speed, and that's fine. As long as it isn't interrupted, the supply chain adapts easily. Moving people is another matter altogether, and Chicago moves more internationally. I hear you on the per capita argument, but the sheer numbers speak for themselves.

This topic was started regarding Houston's Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Psst...your map is outdated.

[H-Town Man]

Houston19514, you have a valid point about internationalization per capita. It shows that we are doing well for our size at getting into this globalization thing. But for my money, the fact that Chicago has more international passengers and is seen among globalization experts as being more globalized, without depending on one industry to get them there, suggests that, for the time being at least, they are in better position to compete in the global economy. I also think that, if we were anywhere else but a Houston forum, this would be a much more readily accepted claim.

By the way, as to your point about O'Hare having "more than 60" int'l non-stop destinations, while Houston has "more than 70," I found this tidbit in Wikipedia:

"O'Hare was ranked fourth in 2005 of the United States' international gateways, with only John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, Los Angeles International Airport, and Miami International Airport serving more foreign destinations."

It turns out that we are ranked seventh in international service, which certainly isn't bad. Interestingly, 30 of our "more than 70" international destinations are all in Mexico.

Here is a link to the book I mentioned:

http://www.amazon.com/New-York-Chicago-Los...9961&sr=1-1

then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services?

You would have to ask Art Vandalay about that one.

Edited March 27, 2007 by H-Town Man

[icanluv2]

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!

7th to 6th.

LOL...don't hold your breath!

[Trae]

ROFL You have got to be kidding. It is indeed risky to quote Wiki, especially when you cherry-pick one piece of nonsense that is repeatedly and clearly contradicted on the very same page.

I know Chicago, and I know Moline, and I know Chicagoland. Moline is NOT in Chicagoland. And FWIW, neither are Decatur or Peoria.

What nonsense. How are those services more indicative of global connection than those I listed in my earlier post? (and the study is purporting to show "global connection", not Global economic influence".) If not number of foreign flag ships (and it's hard to comprehend how that does not show global connection), then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services?

Really? Peoria isn't a part of Chicagoland? Then why would they even consider opening up another airport for the area there.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Trae

[TheNiche]

LOL...don't hold your breath!

Why would I? I'm not under water.

[Houston19514]

Really? Peoria isn't a part of Chicagoland? Then why would they even cnsider opening up another airport for the area there.

Yes, really. Peoria is not a part of Chicagoland, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that it never will be (at least not in the lifetimes of you, me, our children, and our childrens' children, and then some... ;-)

Check your facts, man. They aren't considering any such thing.

I presume your are thinking of the proposal to add a Chicago airport in PEOTONE.

[Houston19514]

Houston19514, you have a valid point about internationalization per capita. It shows that we are doing well for our size at getting into this globalization thing. But for my money, the fact that Chicago has more international passengers and is seen among globalization experts as being more globalized, without depending on one industry to get them there, suggests that, for the time being at least, they are in better position to compete in the global economy. I also think that, if we were anywhere else but a Houston forum, this would be a much more readily accepted claim.

By the way, as to your point about O'Hare having "more than 60" int'l non-stop destinations, while Houston has "more than 70," I found this tidbit in Wikipedia:

"O'Hare was ranked fourth in 2005 of the United States' international gateways, with only John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, Los Angeles International Airport, and Miami International Airport serving more foreign destinations."

It turns out that we are ranked seventh in international service, which certainly isn't bad. Interestingly, 30 of our "more than 70" international destinations are all in Mexico.

(1) Again, you are slipping into which city is in a better position to compete long term in the global economy. You may be right that it is Chicago (although I doubt it), but that has almost nothing to do with which city is currently the more "international".

(2) Another example of the hazards of relying on Wikipedia: They (and apparently you) are mixing up the rankings of international passenger traffic with the rankings of number of international destinations. O'Hare is indeed No. 4 in international passengers, IAH is indeed 7th (at least it was in 2005). The numbers for international destinations were taken from the respective airport websites and I have seen these numbers duplicated elsewhere. A bit surprising, but IAH has more non-stop international destinations than does Chicago. I believe IAH actually is either no. 1 or no. 2 in the country in number of international non-stop destinations.

Thanks for the link on the book. I'll take a look and see what I can find in it.