Houston Now Sixth Largest Metropolitan Area

[Houston19514]

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.

Pretty weak, man. Especially when you consider that O'Hare, even more than IAH, is also a waypoint for people on their way to their final destinations, just as is the Port of Houston with regard to the goods.

You are ignoring the fact that it is in the port city that the business of dealing with the international shippers exists, in addition to being the place where the international ships actually dock and their crews debark. Wherever the individual containers go (and, by the way, the bulk of Houston's port traffic is NOT containerized), that ship is sailing to and from Houston. The port city is where the bulk of the export/import infrastructure (including the people) exist and work and have "connections" with foreign people and companies. The port is no doubt a good part of the reason Houston has the third largest number of foreign consulate offices.

Employing your logic, every burg and hamlet is just as global and globally-connected as every other, because they all have Wal-Marts. Ridiculous, of course.

[TheNiche]

Oh, man, this is just pathetic.

consider that O'Hare, even more than IAH, is also a waypoint for people on their way to their final destinations, just as is the Port of Houston with regard to the goods.

And why do you think it is a waypoint??? Could it be because it is more connected!? :lol:

You are ignoring the fact that it is in the port city that the business of dealing with the international shippers exists, in addition to being the place where the international ships actually dock and their crews debark. Wherever the individual containers go (and, by the way, the bulk of Houston's port traffic is NOT containerized), that ship is sailing to and from Houston. The port city is where the bulk of the export/import infrastructure (including the people) exist and work and have "connections" with foreign people and companies. The port is no doubt a good part of the reason Houston has the third largest number of foreign consulate offices.

Ship crews aren't really all that large, and for that matter, the number of people employed as stevedores is way way down since mechanization and containerization have taken over. The impact of being a port city prior to the mid-20th century was huge. Now, not so much. It is just so much more capital-intensive nowadays. Even the international shippers no longer have to have as large of an operation in any given city to coordinate business. We now have the telephone, e-mail, the internet, etc. to streamline the process.

Oh, and the bulk of Houston's cargo is liquid. It gets fed into refineries or sent to other cities in a pipeline...and it makes for an even more invisible and geographically-unimportant transfer of goods to inland locales than does container cargo. You didn't bolster your argument at all.

Employing your logic, every burg and hamlet is just as global and globally-connected as every other, because they all have Wal-Marts. Ridiculous, of course.

Um, no. I did mean to play down the importance of the movement of goods, but that is only because the supply chain can adapt to pretty much any set of conditions if there is a market to serve. The movement of people and information, on the other hand, is much more costly and important to global commerce at this stage of human existence. That is why the two best factors to consider are airports and job classifications that include accounting, legal, and high-level financial services, etc.

[713 To 214]

Pretty weak, man. Especially when you consider that O'Hare, even more than IAH, is also a waypoint for people on their way to their final destinations, just as is the Port of Houston with regard to the goods.

You are ignoring the fact that it is in the port city that the business of dealing with the international shippers exists, in addition to being the place where the international ships actually dock and their crews debark. Wherever the individual containers go (and, by the way, the bulk of Houston's port traffic is NOT containerized), that ship is sailing to and from Houston. The port city is where the bulk of the export/import infrastructure (including the people) exist and work and have "connections" with foreign people and companies. The port is no doubt a good part of the reason Houston has the third largest number of foreign consulate offices.

Employing your logic, every burg and hamlet is just as global and globally-connected as every other, because they all have Wal-Marts. Ridiculous, of course.

Actually, the vast majority of the international business transactions that form the basis for those shipments through the Port of Houston (or any other port for that matter) are conducted in other cities. I'll give you a rudimentary example:

Manufacturing Company A in Chicago executes a deal with Widgets Company B in Turkey for the delivery of 100,000 widgets to Manufacturing Company A's plant in Peoria, IL. Comerica Bank in Dallas underwrites the deal. The widgets are shipped through the Port of Houston.

Well, in the hypothetical above, the international players are Company A, Company B, and Comerica Bank. Not so much Dudley Dock Worker or the Port of Houston. The Port of Houston was just the conduit. I think that was the basic point the Pedant. . .oops sorry, The Niche, was trying to make. Can we agree on that point?

. . .and who are these foreign people that Port of Houston employees would have "connections" with?

Edited March 27, 2007 by 713 To 214

[TheNiche]

Well, in the hypothetical above, the international players are Company A, Company B, and Comerica Bank. Not so much Dudley Dock Worker or the Port of Houston. The Port of Houston was just the conduit. I think that was the basic point the Pedant. . .oops sorry, The Niche, was trying to make. Can we agree on that point?

Not quite. There are freight marketing companies that do little more than organize the chain of events by which the goods make it from Company A to Company B, but my point was that they can pretty much be located anywhere on account of 21st century technology.

[Houston19514]

Oh, man, this is just pathetic.

And why do you think it is a waypoint??? Could it be because it is more connected!?

And somehow in your mind the same does not apply to IAH or the Port of Houston. Sheesh, you stepped all over your argument with that one. LOL

[TheNiche]

And somehow in your mind the same does not apply to IAH or the Port of Houston. Sheesh, you stepped all over your argument with that one. LOL

You failed to address the crux of my argument: that in the 21st century, the connections facilitating movement of people and information are of far greater importance than the connections facilitating the movement of goods.

[H-Town Man]

(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.

Well, we have so many international destinations because 30 (almost half!) of them are in Mexico. These are essentially flights for people to go home and see the relatives. I wouldn't rely too heavily on that in determining how internationalized our business is.

I can't even believe we're still arguing about which city is more international. Chicago has 58% more international passengers. Every globalization expert that anyone has been able to find considers them the more globalized city. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Worry about Dallas or Atlanta. Chicago has us beat.

You failed to address the crux of my argument: that in the 21st century, the connections facilitating movement of people and information are of far greater importance than the connections facilitating the movement of goods.

Wow, somebody gets it.

[Houston19514]

I can't even believe we're still arguing about which city is more international. Chicago has 58% more international passengers. Every globalization expert that anyone has been able to find considers them the more globalized city. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Worry about Dallas or Atlanta. Chicago has us beat.

Wow, somebody gets it.

58% more international passengers from a metropolitan area that has 78% more people. Hmmmm... that suggest to me that perhaps a greater percentage of Houston's business is in fact of an international nature than is true in Chicago... especially when one considers that Chicago probably gets a lot more international tourist traffic than does Houston.

And every globalization expert that anyone has posted here has used similar flawed analysis as I have explained earlier. Even the book you posted, while I have not had a chance to acquire it or read it, appears to have started from the assumption that only New York, LA and Chicago are global cities and then proceeds to analyze those three cities, without even considering the possibility that other cities might be just as "global" in nature.

As to "facilitating the movement of people and information"... Houston is quite-well equipped and doing quite a good job in that area. See the discussion above of international airline traffic relative to population size. See also, the recent additions to international air service at IAH many more expected to come in the next few years. See also, the rate of growth of international traffic at IAH in the range of 7-10% per year vs. 2-3% per year at Chicago.

Niche has failed to address the crux of my question regarding the various globalization "studies", perhaps I'll have better luck with you:

How are accounting, finance, advertising and law firms (which the posted studies focused on exclusively) more indicative of global connection 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?? If not number of foreign flag ships , then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services? How about the number of foreign patients who seek medical treatment in your town in a given year? All of those are ignored by the posted "studies" of globalization.

I am not drinking any Kool-Aid; I am merely insisting, as always, that we look at the facts (and that we view any expert "studies" with a critical eye). When one looks at the facts, (e.g., that Houston has higher per capita international air traffic, is more diverse, has more foreign consulates than Chicago, not to mention the obvious fact of the Port) one finds that there is plenty of reason to suspect that there is at least a possibility that the conventional wisdom that Chicago is a more international city than Houston may no longer be true. In fact, it seems quite likely that a higher percentage of people in Houston are dealing in international matters on any given day than is true in Chicago; if so, that would also seem to suggest that Houston might indeed be more international, in spite of what one feels on the streets of Chicago, or is told by so-called "globalization" experts.

[TheNiche]

58% more international passengers from a metropolitan area that has 78% more people. Hmmmm... that suggest to me that perhaps a greater percentage of Houston's business is in fact of an international nature than is true in Chicago... especially when one considers that Chicago probably gets a lot more international tourist traffic than does Houston.

Chicago is more internationally-connected as far as airline traffic is concerned because they have more international passengers. Per capita measures may be interesting, but it is nevertheless possible for a city to win a title merely by virtue of its size. This is one of those cases.

And every globalization expert that anyone has posted here has used similar flawed analysis as I have explained earlier. Even the book you posted, while I have not had a chance to acquire it or read it, appears to have started from the assumption that only New York, LA and Chicago are global cities and then proceeds to analyze those three cities, without even considering the possibility that other cities might be just as "global" in nature.

Houston is a gamma world city. So yes, it was considered.

Niche has failed to address the crux of my question regarding the various globalization "studies", perhaps I'll have better luck with you:

How are accounting, finance, advertising and law firms (which the posted studies focused on exclusively) more indicative of global connection 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?? If not number of foreign flag ships , then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services? How about the number of foreign patients who seek medical treatment in your town in a given year? All of those are ignored by the posted "studies" of globalization.

Accounting, finance, advertising, and law firms are indicative of the pull that a city exerts upon the location of major corporate headquarters and key regional/national offices. NYC and Chicago also have major financial markets that Houston does not. Houston may have a number of big multinational corporations, but by size, we simply don't compare. And how about we look at the FDIC's Summary of Deposits data? If you insist on using per capita comparisons, how about looking at these? Compare us to Dallas, for instance, and you might consider that we only managed to be on the same level as they are on account of all those worldly geologists and engineers.

As for your other criticisms, I've already addressed most. The foreign-flagged ships thing is getting old, man. And as far as our provision of medical services to foreign nationals, I'll bet you that NYC, Chicago, and LA beat us hands down on that too...even though it really isn't a huge segment of anybody's economy.

I am not drinking any Kool-Aid; I am merely insisting, as always, that we look at the facts (and that we view any expert "studies" with a critical eye). When one looks at the facts, (e.g., that Houston has higher per capita international air traffic, is more diverse, has more foreign consulates than Chicago, not to mention the obvious fact of the Port) one finds that there is plenty of reason to suspect that there is at least a possibility that the conventional wisdom that Chicago is a more international city than Houston may no longer be true. In fact, it seems quite likely that a higher percentage of people in Houston are dealing in international matters on any given day than is true in Chicago; if so, that would also seem to suggest that Houston might indeed be more international, in spite of what one feels on the streets of Chicago, or is told by so-called "globalization" experts.

I agree that a critical eye is very useful for these studies, but this matter is so clear cut that it really isn't worth spending a lot of time on. If ever there were a leg to stand on, it would be the impact of our very large immigrant population...but since most of them are from Mexico or Central America, that kind of kills the sense of diversity that is implied by the term 'International'. ...and even then, at the end of the day, Chicago's size trumps our per capita advantage. Hands down.

[H-Town Man]

58% more international passengers from a metropolitan area that has 78% more people. Hmmmm... that suggest to me that perhaps a greater percentage of Houston's business is in fact of an international nature than is true in Chicago... especially when one considers that Chicago probably gets a lot more international tourist traffic than does Houston.

And every globalization expert that anyone has posted here has used similar flawed analysis as I have explained earlier. Even the book you posted, while I have not had a chance to acquire it or read it, appears to have started from the assumption that only New York, LA and Chicago are global cities and then proceeds to analyze those three cities, without even considering the possibility that other cities might be just as "global" in nature.

As to "facilitating the movement of people and information"... Houston is quite-well equipped and doing quite a good job in that area. See the discussion above of international airline traffic relative to population size. See also, the recent additions to international air service at IAH many more expected to come in the next few years. See also, the rate of growth of international traffic at IAH in the range of 7-10% per year vs. 2-3% per year at Chicago.

Niche has failed to address the crux of my question regarding the various globalization "studies", perhaps I'll have better luck with you:

How are accounting, finance, advertising and law firms (which the posted studies focused on exclusively) more indicative of global connection 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?? If not number of foreign flag ships , then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services? How about the number of foreign patients who seek medical treatment in your town in a given year? All of those are ignored by the posted "studies" of globalization.

I am not drinking any Kool-Aid; I am merely insisting, as always, that we look at the facts (and that we view any expert "studies" with a critical eye). When one looks at the facts, (e.g., that Houston has higher per capita international air traffic, is more diverse, has more foreign consulates than Chicago, not to mention the obvious fact of the Port) one finds that there is plenty of reason to suspect that there is at least a possibility that the conventional wisdom that Chicago is a more international city than Houston may no longer be true. In fact, it seems quite likely that a higher percentage of people in Houston are dealing in international matters on any given day than is true in Chicago; if so, that would also seem to suggest that Houston might indeed be more international, in spite of what one feels on the streets of Chicago, or is told by so-called "globalization" experts.

Wow, I just typed a huge response to this, without realizing that Niche already tore it to shreds, especially regarding the "per capita" argument. Have a nice day you all; I am going to catch some sun.

Edited March 28, 2007 by H-Town Man

[Houston19514]

So if I may summarize Niche and H-Town Man's arguments in favor of the proposition that Chicago is a more international city than Houston, it comes down to... Because "everyone knows" Chicago is more international. No need to consider any facts or evidence to the contrary.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Houston19514

[TheNiche]

So if I may summarize Niche and H-Town Man's arguments in favor of the proposition that Chicago is a more international city than Houston, it comes down to... Because "everyone knows" Chicago is more international. No need to consider any facts or evidence to the contrary.

Oh man, did you ever miss the point!

Go back and read my last post. Explaining it to you again isn't worth my time.

[Houston19514]

Oh man, did you ever miss the point!

Go back and read my last post. Explaining it to you again isn't worth my time.

Sorry, Didn't miss any of your "points." Nor did I miss your missstatements or your introduction of subject matter that could hardly be less relevant.

I think you may have missed the point from the very beginning. You seem to be talking about how the world views Chicago (and Houston) and how "important" each is on the "world stage," so to speak. I've been talking about how much each city is dominated (or not) by world trade, activity, and people. Go back and read my posts. And pay attention this time.

[TheNiche]

Sorry, Didn't miss any of your "points." Nor did I miss your missstatements or your introduction of subject matter that could hardly be less relevant.

I think you may have missed the point from the very beginning. You seem to be talking about how the world views Chicago (and Houston) and how "important" each is on the "world stage," so to speak. I've been talking about how much each city is dominated (or not) by world trade, activity, and people. Go back and read my posts. And pay attention this time.

I know what you're talking about, but it isn't relevant to this subject. What defines a "global city" is not the level of international influence relative to its size, but only the level of international influence. Chicago has more influence on the world than does Houston. Who would argue with that, honestly?

[H-Town Man]

This whole argument reminds me of that scene in Cool Hand Luke where Paul Newman gets into a boxing match with the big guy at the prison camp. Of course Newman doesn't stand a chance going in, but every time the guy knocks him down, he keeps getting up and coming back for more. All the other prisoners are saying to give up, stay down, it's hopeless, but no, Luke (Newman's character) keeps taking the beatings. Finally everyone walks away, and Luke remains there, barely standing, claiming he won the fight.

I think we're approaching a "walk away" moment on this thread. Most of the other posters have left, I've pretty much left, I sense that Niche has had about all that he can take, and in a day or so Houston 19514 will be standing here, claiming that because Houston has more international boardings per capita (roughly half of them going to Mexico), it is a more international city than Chicago of all places.

And just as was the case with Luke, there will be something to be said for his persistence, though it's not the kind of persistence I would want for myself.

[H-Town Man]

*Please note that I am not claiming myself or Niche as "the big guy," but only the argument itself as unwinnable.

[Houston19514]

I know what you're talking about, but it isn't relevant to this subject. What defines a "global city" is not the level of international influence relative to its size, but only the level of international influence. Chicago has more influence on the world than does Houston. Who would argue with that, honestly?

You'll try to define your way out of anything won't you? Since when was the discussion related solely to the term "global city". And for that matter who are you to define for all people and all time what the term "global city" means? Sheesh, take a humble pill, man.

And, fwiw, I agree that overall, Chicago has more influence on the world than does Houston. THAT is not relevant to the subject.

[TheNiche]

You'll try to define your way out of anything won't you? Since when was the discussion related solely to the term "global city". And for that matter who are you to define for all people and all time what the term "global city" means? Sheesh, take a humble pill, man.

And, fwiw, I agree that overall, Chicago has more influence on the world than does Houston. THAT is not relevant to the subject.

[KinkaidAlum]

Sure, you can belittle IAH's international service because CO serves 31 (new service to Loreto begins this year) but by the end of the year, IAH will have non-stop service to the UAE, The Netherlands, Germany, France, England, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Japan, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Trinidad, Cayman Islands, Aruba, Bonaire, Jamaica, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Belize, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, and Honduras.

We also have one-stop service on China Airlines to Taipei, Taiwan via Seattle.

Cayman, KLM Royal Dutch, Privatair, Continental, World Sonair, Lufthansa, Grupo Taca, Aviacsa, AeroMexico, British Air, Air Canada, and Air France all have international passenger service at IAH.

Emirates will launch service this winter and be daily by this time next year.

Korean is rumored to be starting non-stops to Seoul soon as well.

Plus, Continental is a MUCH better and MUCH more economically sound carrier than United. When the 787s come on-line in two years, many more markets will open up at IAH. Speculation from aviation insiders state that IAH might see new CO service to London Heathrow, Madrid, Frankfurt, Rome, Moscow, Dubai, Delhi, Mumbai, Santiago, Sydney, Seoul, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.

[KimberlySayWhat]

The Chronicle has just gotten around to it:

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4689569.html

It's mainly about how immigration has impacted the growth.

[Montrose1100]

oh gurl, he put you on FRONT Street!

[Deut28Thirteen]

I dont want to start anything with this topic (it was very heated) but it was interesting and I think people were confusing international know city with a city of global impact. Chicago is more an international city with Houston being more of a Global city because of its oil industry. But both, Houston and Chicago, are both international know and have a Global impact. That thing about Alpha and Gamma cities is some BS. How do they have SanFran over Moscow. Why is D.C. not an Alpha city? It is the capital of America, and no city should be up there in the Alpha cities if D.C. is not. I dont care who NYC and Chi town think they are, D.C. is the Economic and Political power of America there for it is the Worlds or a leat one of them. Houston has more fortune 500 companies than any other american city other than New York City. Forbes ranks Houston as one of the best metro areas For Business far ahead of Chicago's metro area.

How did this turn into Houston vs. Chicago? "Houston now Sixth-Largest metropolitan area"

Edited June 25, 2007 by Deut28Thirteen

[wxman]

I think Houston will be 4th place for a while. There really is no stiff competition closing in. We *might* be able to close in on Chicago as their population is growing much slower and sometimes even losing population. We stand at 2.1 million and I believe they are at 2.8 million. As far as Metro wise, we will continue to climb the ranks. We won't surpass NY, LA, or Dallas. As far as Harris County, we currently 3rd most populous. We have stiff competition from Maricopa County (Phoenix) which is only like 100,000 people behind Harris. We may slip to 4th place as the most populous county in the country. Atlanta is competition, but they are a couple hundred thousand behind us and we continue to grow at the same pace if not a little faster than they are.

[713 To 214]

Why is D.C. not an Alpha city? It is the capital of America, and no city should be up there in the Alpha cities if D.C. is not.

Therefore, should Austin be considered more global/international/alpha/beta/gamma/whatever than Dallas or Houston, because it is the capital of Texas. Have you ever even been to D.C? I can understand why it's ranked that way.

Edited July 29, 2007 by 713 To 214

[Trae]

I think Houston will be 4th place for a while. There really is no stiff competition closing in. We *might* be able to close in on Chicago as their population is growing much slower and sometimes even losing population. We stand at 2.1 million and I believe they are at 2.8 million. As far as Metro wise, we will continue to climb the ranks. We won't surpass NY, LA, or Dallas. As far as Harris County, we currently 3rd most populous. We have stiff competition from Maricopa County (Phoenix) which is only like 100,000 people behind Harris. We may slip to 4th place as the most populous county in the country. Atlanta is competition, but they are a couple hundred thousand behind us and we continue to grow at the same pace if not a little faster than they are.

90% (or more) of Phoenix's metro is in Maricopa County.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Trae

[jmancuso]

continental flies into gatwick, not heathrow.

[TheNiche]

Therefore, should Austin be considered more global/international/alpha/beta/gamma/whatever than Dallas or Houston, because it is the capital of Texas. Have you ever even been to D.C? I can understand why it's ranked that way.

Austin is a state capitol. The governor (thankfully) cannot deploy an army to quash a dictatorship or what have you, and the legislature meets only once every two years and (also thankfully) lacks the power or resolve to meddle in global affairs.

[houstonmacbro]

Capitals have been moved before. I mean, Rio used to be the capital of Brazil, but now it's moved to Brazilia. I say let's move the capital to someplace cool ... like ... Corpus Christi.

[Trae]

Austin was named the permanent state capital in the late-1800's. There were many votes before that to move the capital though.

[TheNiche]

Austin was named the permanent state capital in the late-1800's. There were many votes before that to move the capital though.

...not to mention a thwarted military expedtion by Houstonians to retake the Capitol title thereafter.