Houston Fastest Growing US City

[RedScare]

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html

The US Census Bureau released its July 1, 2007 population estimates this morning, and Houston added the most residents between 2006 and 2007, for a total estimated July 2007 population of 2,208,180. Fort Worth and San Antonio were also in the top 5 gainers, with Fort Worth jumping to the 17th largest city, just behind Austin.

The City of Houston estimates Houston's population at 2,231,000 as of January 1, 2008.

[houstonmacbro]

Okay, why was I surprised that Las Vegas was so far down the list. With everything you hear about them they have a LONG way to go even to get to 1 million.

And we have a long way to go to overtake Chicago.

:-(

[Trae]

I'm not worried about overtaking anyone in city limit populations.

[houstonmacbro]

I'm not worried about overtaking anyone in city limit populations.

Okay, explain.

[Trae]

What is there to explain? I'm not. I'm more about metro areas.

[houstonmacbro]

What is there to explain? I'm not. I'm more about metro areas.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I guess I think about the metro areas too. Does it change that chart much?

[ToryGattis]

Just posted my analysis. Thanks for the heads up.

[Highway6]

Gotcha.

Yeah, I guess I think about the metro areas too. Does it change that chart much?

Yah.. i think it means we have a much farther way to go to catch up to Chicago.

[HtownWxBoy]

size queens

[HtownWxBoy]

Reading about the 2020 olympics on Wikipedia...

Expected to replace Chicago as the United States' 3rd most populous city by 2020, and having been spurned by the USOC for the 2012 and 2016 summer games, Houston is expected to emerge as a possible contender.

Not sure how true that is.

[houstonmacbro]

size queens

We all know bigger's not always better.

Wink.

[HtownWxBoy]

We all know bigger's not always better.

Wink.

So very very true.

[feufoma]

We'll NEVER be on the same level as Chicago even if we surpass that city in population. Take Phoenix vs. Philly for example. Phoenix is a giant suburb and not near as urban and important as Philly.

[houstonmacbro]

So very very true.

And aren't you glad they don't have the gall to add 'halves' to this monstrosity

... LOL

[Trae]

We'll NEVER be on the same level as Chicago even if we surpass that city in population. Take Phoenix vs. Philly for example. Phoenix is a giant suburb and not near as urban and important as Philly.

Hardly.

There was an article in the Chron today, and some major urban agency said that Houston's main competitors are: Chicago, Los Angeles, and Abu Dhabi.

[Mister X]

We'll NEVER be on the same level as Chicago even if we surpass that city in population. Take Phoenix vs. Philly for example. Phoenix is a giant suburb and not near as urban and important as Philly.

Maybe it's time to buy a new crystal ball. Your old one may be out of order. I might agree with your statement if you said 'in our lifetimes' or something. But never say never. 100 years ago, who would have predicted that Houston would one day be the 4th largest city in America, or be home to more Fortune 500 companies (except for NYC) than any other city in America. 10 years ago, few people would have ever believed that Houston would be experiencing this current boom or ever have another NFL team. Who would have even believed 3 years ago that we would see mixed use urban developments popping up inside the loop.

I get what you are saying. But 'same level' can mean a lot of things. In some ways, Houston has already surpassed Chicago (population growth, job growth, ect.) Eventually, if the growth continues to surpass Chicago, Houston could end up being as urban or important as Chicago. It may be a long shot and I wouldn't expect to live to see it. But no one will ever make me believe that it isn't possible - especially if the world remains dependent on oil for the next 50 years and the people of Houston develop a taste for inner city living.

The world keeps changing. Nothing is for certain.

[roadrunner]

Hardly.

There was an article in the Chron today, and some major urban agency said that Houston's main competitors are: Chicago, Los Angeles, and Abu Dhabi.

Link?

In all reality, I consider Houston's competitors (economically, culturally, diversification, etc.) as Atlanta, Dallas, and Philadelphia. NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago are in the global space.

[banking214]

We all know bigger's not always better.

Wink.

Bigger is always better.

[Trae]

Link?

In all reality, I consider Houston's competitors (economically, culturally, diversification, etc.) as Atlanta, Dallas, and Philadelphia. NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago are in the global space.

Here you go:

INCREASE HERE

Houston added 38,932 residents from July 2006 to July 2007, more than any other city in the country, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. The increase brought Houston's population to 2,208,180. It remains the fourth largest city in the United States behind New York (8.2 million) Los Angeles (3.8 million) and Chicago (2.8 million).

Other Texas cities also showed rapid growth, the Census Bureau said. San Antonio, Fort Worth and Austin were among the top 10 in numerical increases. McKinney, Denton and Killeen were among the top 10 in percentage increases.

PANEL ADVICE

Other key recommendations from the Urban Land Institute panel, chaired by former Indianapolis Mayor William H. Hudnut III: • Study Los Angeles, Chicago, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, as Houston's global competitors.

• Develop better strategies and institutions to promote cooperation across jurisdictions within the region, possibly by creating a new regional organization to work with the Houston-Galveston Area Council.

• Connect density centers with a regional system of trails, bus service, rail transit and roads, and build a rail link from Bush Intercontinental Airport to downtown.

• Develop a regional wastewater treatment system.

• Build high-quality, affordable housing close to downtown.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5880220.html

And why would Houston want to aim and be with cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and a declining Philly? Aim for the "big shots" out there.

[713 To 214]

Hardly.

There was an article in the Chron today, and some major urban agency said that Houston's main competitors are: Chicago, Los Angeles, and Abu Dhabi.

Ha! Competitors in what category? College grad recruitment/retention?. . .Trade?. . .Economic Growth?. . .Sports Stadiums? That's a pretty general statement, and it's certainly debatable.

[Trae]

Ha! Competitors in what category? College grad recruitment/retention?. . .Trade?. . .Economic Growth?. . .Sports Stadiums? That's a pretty general statement, and it's certainly debatable.

It didn't say. You should call them.

[Highway6]

Link?

In all reality, I consider Houston's competitors (economically, culturally, diversification, etc.) as Atlanta, Dallas, and Philadelphia. NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago are in the global space.

According to the GaWC, we are considered to be in the global space too.... as far as global importance goes, we are considered to be on par with Dallas, above Atlanta, .... Philly is considered an Up-and-comer.. and Phoenix isnt considered at all.

And as the census data shows, we are closer in population to #3 Chicago then we are #5 Phoenix.. and while Phoenix was not far behind us in population growth at #2.. Chicago was significantly behind us (8k vs 38k) in population change. Actually NYC, Chicago and LA were all near the bottom in %growth at .3%

Shouldn't we be setting our sights Up.. not down or sideways ?!

Instead of bikering with Dallas, Phoenix, or Atlanta about who is most important of the South.. we should tackle Chicago and in doing so, the 4th cardinal point of the US big 4 will be understood and settled.

Plus.. it's not like Chicago doesnt have their own problems.

"In conclusion, Chicago

[Trae]

Atlanta has had many failed annexations. The residents didn't want to be apart of the City of Atlanta. The most recent, Sandy Springs three years ago. It's population now is above 100,000.

[TheNiche]

2006-2007 Population Growth by MSA

The Chronicle didn't do justice to the analysis, and with all respect to Tory, pro-Libertarian and pro-Houston boosterism isn't very intellectually compelling...so here's my take.

In the time period for which the population growth figures were released, Houston was creating jobs at a rate that was 29% faster than even its next closest competitor, nationally--Dallas/FW. But what has appeared to happen is that our labor market has tightened significantly, meaning that we didn't have to import as many new residents to fill our labor needs as did other metro areas. The silver lining for Houston is probably wage growth, but I don't have data to support that.

Atlanta and especially Phoenix don't make much sense to me. They haven't had job growth that is as strong, but they've also been impacted pretty severely by the mortgage crisis. Florida's largest markets are doing much more poorly as a result of that, and the Miami metro area is even losing population. I think Atlanta can be mostly rationalized, but Phoenix has been struck by dropping home prices, a weak labor market in spite of respectably lower unemployment rates, and by the fact that its middle- and lower-classes tend not to be able to afford buying their own homes, which makes them more able to jump ship when the economy takes a downturn. Phoenix should be suffering a lot more.

DFW - +87,100 jobs - +162,250 people (1.86 new people per new job) - -0.7% unemployment

ATL - +59,500 jobs - +151,063 people (2.54) - -0.3% unemployment

PHO - +18,100 jobs - +132,513 people (7.32) - -0.5% unemployment

HOU - +112,100 jobs - +120,544 people (1.08) - 1.1% unemployment

Another thing that caught my eye is that although Philly hasn't been growing much (+17,128 or 0.3%), keeping pace with the likes of Columbus, OH in numerical growth and Albany, NY in percentage terms, it looks like they had another county or two added into their metro area by the Census Bureau. This means that whereas Houston would've passed by the Philly metro area of 2007, we'll have to wait until the summer of 2009 to pass the Philly metro area of 2008 and become the 5th largest metro area in the nation, behind DFW.

The Houston metro area would have to wait until 2040 for its metro area to pass up present-day Chicago (by which time Dallas looks like present-day LA) and until 2079 if both metros maintained current rates of growth (by which time Dallas looks like present-day NYC).

The really eye-popping news doesn't come from absurd long-term extrapolation of population growth among individual metros, obviously. It is by comparing regional urban clusters. The Texas cluster of metro areas grew by 422,000 last year, compared with 314,000 in the Southwest (LA, Riverside, San Diego, Vegas, Phoenix), 275,000 in the Central Southeast (Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham), and a comparatively dismal 121,000 in the Northeast Corridor. And over the next couple of years, if Texas maintains its job growth and the low unemployment rates that it has achieved in the past couple years, population growth has the potential to become extreme. Bear in mind that political apportionment still goes from the 2000 Census. If we've grown like I think we can grow over the next couple of years (while the Rust Belt continues to decay, the Northeast growing very slowly), it could be easily enough to shift the balance of power in the House and electoral colleges in 2010.

[lockmat]

2079

lol

[RedScare]

2006-2007 Population Growth by MSA

Atlanta and especially Phoenix don't make much sense to me. They haven't had job growth that is as strong, but they've also been impacted pretty severely by the mortgage crisis. Florida's largest markets are doing much more poorly as a result of that, and the Miami metro area is even losing population. I think Atlanta can be mostly rationalized, but Phoenix has been struck by dropping home prices, a weak labor market in spite of respectably lower unemployment rates, and by the fact that its middle- and lower-classes tend not to be able to afford buying their own homes, which makes them more able to jump ship when the economy takes a downturn. Phoenix should be suffering a lot more.

Consider that the estimates are for July 2007. The housing and subprime crises were heating up at that time, but really exploded at or past July of last year. Additionally, Arizona's strict employment law on employing illegal immigrants did not take effect until January, though even that law may not have as much of an effect as first thought, as Arizonans have not shown much inclination to enforce it. If effects are to be seen, look for them to show up in the 2008 estimates.

[RedScare]

We'll NEVER be on the same level as Chicago even if we surpass that city in population. Take Phoenix vs. Philly for example. Phoenix is a giant suburb and not near as urban and important as Philly.

The argument could be made that Houston is already a competitor of Chicago. On a global scale, Houston's big 3 of energy, medicide and the Port are currently on the rise, with oil perhaps the number 1 issue in the world today. While recognizing that many will obsess over aesthetic criteria, such as density, architecture or transit, if one considers what is actually taking place in the company boardrooms of those downtown office buildings, Houston has no reason to feel inferior. In fact, Houston's problem is not whether it will be an important city globally, but rather, whether it's residents can grasp the concept.

[TheNiche]

Consider that the estimates are for July 2007. The housing and subprime crises were heating up at that time, but really exploded at or past July of last year. Additionally, Arizona's strict employment law on employing illegal immigrants did not take effect until January, though even that law may not have as much of an effect as first thought, as Arizonans have not shown much inclination to enforce it. If effects are to be seen, look for them to show up in the 2008 estimates.

You're right that the worst of it came in the latter part of 2007, but it really had been an ongoing process since 2006.

One way or another, I would concur that the 2007-2008 population growth estimates are likely to be more favorable to Houston.

[TheNiche]

The argument could be made that Houston is already a competitor of Chicago. On a global scale, Houston's big 3 of energy, medicide and the Port are currently on the rise, with oil perhaps the number 1 issue in the world today. While recognizing that many will obsess over aesthetic criteria, such as density, architecture or transit, if one considers what is actually taking place in the company boardrooms of those downtown office buildings, Houston has no reason to feel inferior. In fact, Houston's problem is not whether it will be an important city globally, but rather, whether it's residents can grasp the concept.

Yes and no. These are all net figures.

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA, Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD, Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH are all growing more slowly than McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX, both in numerical and in percentage terms. But McAllen (about 1/8 the size of Philly) is not on par with any of those cities in corporate boardrooms.

In the same sense, Houston's chief competitors really are Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, and I'd speculate that third-tier sunbelt markets like Austin, San Antonio, Nashville, Charlotte, Orlando, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, or the Research Triangle are as competitive or more competitive with Houston as are the top-tier metro areas.

I'm observing that Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix are diverting economic growth from highly-regulated unionized areas that they're most aligned with geographically (specifically by way of air travel). Dallas has the Midwest, Atlanta has the Northeast, and Phoenix has California. Those cities seem to reflect their donor regions economically. In contrast, Houston may have diversified its economic base significantly since the 80's, but such a large proportion of our recent growth has been energy (and we've been stealing energy jobs incrementally from everyone, all over the country) that it has crowded out growth in other sectors. And frankly, I don't think that the economic diversification stats are all that accurate. There are lots of engineering, architecture, high-tech, and manufacturing jobs in Houston that are considered part of core employment but not lumped into the energy sector on the basis of a technicality even though they are very much related to and dependent upon energy and even though they do not benefit us very much insofar as most non-energy sectors are concerned. Really, the only other major industry that we have a concentration in is medicine...and even then to the exclusion of Pharma.

So in a lot of ways, Houston has its own thing going on. We have to be looked at through the lens of one-and-a-half industries. You can't examine Dallas in the same way. We are analogous to (but not very competitive with) Silicon Valley and D.C. ...but also to Pittsburgh and Detroit.

[ToryGattis]

Great analysis, Niche. I'll admit mine was a surface view based on a few minutes in Excel. You really worked over the numbers.

As far as explaining Atlanta and Phoenix, I have theories. Atlanta, IMHO, benefits from being the only major metro in the southeast (excluding FL). If you live there and want to move to the "big city" for more opportunity, and stay within a day's drive of home, it's your only real option, regardless of how its local economy is doing (which has been relatively weak for a while).

I'm convinced a ton of people in CA were waiting for the top of the real estate market to then cash out of their house and move to Vegas, Phoenix, Portland, or Seattle for a cheaper home while still being a short, cheap Southwest flight from extended friends and family. Many, of course, called the top too late, so even after the CA market was headed down, people were still cashing out and streaming to those four cities based on their personal preferences - regardless of the lack of job growth in any of them. It's a lag effect, and may continue for a while and even accelerate as more CA baby boomers retire.