Houston Fastest Growing US City

[RedScare]

Diversification may be important to the local economy for purposes of keeping things on an even keel (see Houston circa 1986), but it can be an inhibitor to world importance. A diverse economy by definition means that the city is not a leader in any of them. New York is not the world's leader in finance because of it's diverse economy. In fact, while reading the New York City budget (don't ask why), Mayor Bloomberg noted that the financial markets comprise nearly 50% of New York's economy...larger than oil is to Houston. Similarly, San Francisco is dominated by Silicon Valley and Charlotte by banks.

This leaves all of these cities open to being laid to waste by a recession in that particular industry. However, the concentration of an industry in a particular city or region raises the importance of that city or region in importance to the world. Houston's rise to prominence is mirrored by two occurences. One is the consolidation of oil companies in the city. The second is the current oil market dominating the news. While it is understandable why city leaders are trying to diversify the local economy, it is also worth noting that they aren't trying to run off any energy companies either.

By way of comparison, the article linked about Chicago points out that Chicago's industries are declining or leaving for various reasons. In short, Chicago is living on past laurels. Again, while many may criticize Houston's aesthetics or weather, no one is denigrating its position in the 21st century economy.

[Trae]

Did you guys know that Houston's energy companies will be moving to Las Colinas in the future? Yeah, they will be moving their global operations up there:

http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost...p;postcount=231

This guy is an idiot.

[TheNiche]

Dicersification may be important to the local economy for purposes of keeping things on an even keel (see Houston circa 1986), but it can be an inhibitor to world importance. A diverse economy by definition means that the city is not a leader in any of them. New York is not the world's leader in finance because of it's diverse economy. In fact, while reading the New York City budget (don't ask why), Mayor Bloomberg noted that the financial markets comprise nearly 50% of New York's economy...larger than oil is to Houston. Similarly, San Francisco is dominated by Silicon Valley and Charlotte by banks.

This leaves all of these cities open to being laid to waste by a recession in that particular industry. However, the concentration of an industry in a particular city or region raises the importance of that city or region in importance to the world. Houston's rise to prominence is mirrored by two occurences. One is the consolidation of oil companies in the city. The second is the current oil market dominating the news. While it is understandable why city leaders are trying to diversify the local economy, it is also worth noting that they aren't trying to run off any energy companies either.

San Francisco gets some of the Silicon Valley influence by way of proximity, but it really has a strong financial sector. But places like NYC, SF, Charlotte, Silicon Valley, and D.C. may have an advantage in that their industries aren't going to go away. They will always come back, regardless of the business cycle. Houston is like them in that all of these cities have an industry specialty but differ because technological advancement along with an intensive infrastructure development program could very nearly eliminate our industry in a matter of a decade or so.

But in the mean time, I do agree that our immense specialization comes with some nice perks, and that the energy sector is not only a hot topic but is also so global in scope probably does give us global prominence (for the time being) that exceeds any other second-tier American city.

By way of comparison, the article linked about Chicago points out that Chicago's industries are declining or leaving for various reasons. In short, Chicago is living on past laurels. Again, while many may criticize Houston's aesthetics or weather, no one is denigrating its position in the 21st century economy.

The article was discussing the City of Chicago. The region itself is actually not doing poorly; it is the 7th fastest growing metro area in the country in numerical terms. It only looks unimpressive because Charlotte and Austin look so good.

[RedScare]

But in the mean time, I do agree that our immense specialization comes with some nice perks, and that the energy sector is not only a hot topic but is also so global in scope probably does give us global prominence (for the time being) that exceeds any other second-tier American city.

Like I said, the question is whether our own residents can handle the transition from thinking regionally to thinking globally.

[TheNiche]

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.

The fact that home prices in economically stagnant areas like California and Florida (and yes, Arizona and Nevada, too, now) are on the decline may be inhibiting population emigration to places like Texas. Even though we are healthy and need more labor, many homeowners in source areas either bought or refinanced too recently and have found themselves upside down on a mortgage that they can't afford to pay down if they were to sell their home. And even if they can be enticed to move to Texas by a better-paying job, there is no guarantee that they can sell their home in a reasonable time frame.

[RedScare]

The fact that home prices in economically stagnant areas like California and Florida (and yes, Arizona and Nevada, too, now) are on the decline may be inhibiting population emigration to places like Texas. Even though we are healthy and need more labor, many homeowners in source areas either bought or refinanced too recently and have found themselves upside down on a mortgage that they can't afford to pay down if they were to sell their home. And even if they can be enticed to move to Texas by a better-paying job, there is no guarantee that they can sell their home in a reasonable time frame.

Funny you should mention that. An AP article on the population numbers suggests that the reason Chicago, LA and Boston did not lose population may have been because of the credit crunch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25618740/

[wernicke]

Whew... a lot of text for one day.

[TheNiche]

Funny you should mention that. An AP article on the population numbers suggests that the reason Chicago, LA and Boston did not lose population may have been because of the credit crunch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25618740/

They were talking about Cities, not cities. Migration patterns aren't very analogous, there.

[RedScare]

They were talking about Cities, not cities. Migration patterns aren't very analogous, there.

And, you'll notice that I did not make an analogy, either. It was clear (to me, at least) that the suggestion was that the Cities did not lose additional population to their suburbs, perhaps because of the inability to get out of their homes or the inability to qualify for new ones. I have also read of the problems you have described in moving to another metro altogether. While different, they appear to be caused by the same phenomenon.

[Trae]

I think I got smarter while reading this thread.

[lockmat]

Houston is like them in that all of these cities have an industry specialty but differ because technological advancement along with an intensive infrastructure development program could very nearly eliminate our industry in a matter of a decade or so.

Could you expound for the lesser intelligent, particualrly on the "intensive infrastructure development program?"

It's possible and probably inevitable that oil will not be our energy of the future (not sure about my lifetime or not but I'll go out on a limb and say that it won't). So is it wrong to assume that the energy companies producing our new form of energy will also be mostly based out of Houston? Non-oil companies are coming here right now, right?

What markets are essential to 21st century living? I thought energy was one, but I guess it's not inevitable or pertinent that the core be in Houston?

[TheNiche]

Could you expound for the lesser intelligent, particualrly on the "intensive infrastructure development program?"

It's possible and probably inevitable that oil will not be our energy of the future (not sure about my lifetime or not but I'll go out on a limb and say that it won't). So is it wrong to assume that the energy companies producing our new form of energy will also be mostly based out of Houston? Non-oil companies are coming here right now, right?

What markets are essential to 21st century living? I thought energy was one, but I guess it's not inevitable or pertinent that the core be in Houston?

We don't really have any particular advantages in coal, nuclear, or solar. On account of the port and that we're a hub for products pipelines, we have some advantage in biofuels. Because we have coastal winds, we have some advantage in wind, but also not any more than many other cities. But these first comments are all based upon production, and production is always going to be dispersed.

What matters to a city as large as ours is being a headquarters location. And given the inherent differences between the highly specialized oil and gas businesses and other forms of energy production, I really don't see that we have any particular advantage right now...and no, I don't think that Mayor White's announcement a month or two back is at all consequential.

It may be that a technological solution may only result in dramatic increases in energy efficiency. Even if oil and gas continue to be utilized, it may not do us a great deal of good if the price is so low that we're staring the late 80's in the face again...albeit on a more permanent basis.

Say that we lost our energy sector. I think that we'd continue to grow in the long term, and the early 90's are a good indicator of how that might happen. Nothing lures new businesses like a big city with inexpensive real estate, cheap labor, and a warm climate. But it would be a while in coming, would be subject to the business cycle, and wouldn't necessarily pay as high a wage level.

[livincinco]

We don't really have any particular advantages in coal, nuclear, or solar. On account of the port and that we're a hub for products pipelines, we have some advantage in biofuels. Because we have coastal winds, we have some advantage in wind, but also not any more than many other cities. But these first comments are all based upon production, and production is always going to be dispersed.

What matters to a city as large as ours is being a headquarters location. And given the inherent differences between the highly specialized oil and gas businesses and other forms of energy production, I really don't see that we have any particular advantage right now...and no, I don't think that Mayor White's announcement a month or two back is at all consequential.

It may be that a technological solution may only result in dramatic increases in energy efficiency. Even if oil and gas continue to be utilized, it may not do us a great deal of good if the price is so low that we're staring the late 80's in the face again...albeit on a more permanent basis.

Say that we lost our energy sector. I think that we'd continue to grow in the long term, and the early 90's are a good indicator of how that might happen. Nothing lures new businesses like a big city with inexpensive real estate, cheap labor, and a warm climate. But it would be a while in coming, would be subject to the business cycle, and wouldn't necessarily pay as high a wage level.

I agree with you to a point, but I do believe that Houston has an advantage in areas of alternative energy due to the concentrated knowledge base that exists in the city. We have a very high concentration of engineers with energy industry knowledge that should be valuable to the growth of nuclear or solar. I also would expect that traditional energy companies who are currently based here are going to need to significantly step up their investment in alternative energies or risk missing out on this potential growth industry.

[TheNiche]

I agree with you to a point, but I do believe that Houston has an advantage in areas of alternative energy due to the concentrated knowledge base that exists in the city. We have a very high concentration of engineers with energy industry knowledge that should be valuable to the growth of nuclear or solar. I also would expect that traditional energy companies who are currently based here are going to need to significantly step up their investment in alternative energies or risk missing out on this potential growth industry.

But our engineers are pretty well specialized. I suppose we do get some advantage, but I wouldn't consider it a very big one.

Compared to an oil and gas firm, the production and installation of solar panels is more of a traditional high tech manufacturing operation that'll go wherever there is inexpensive qualified labor...and look at what happened to the computer manufacturing businesses. There are still a lot of headquarters in Silicon Valley and Austin, but the manufacturing, distribution, and service/installation side is increasingly being shifted to different cities and overseas.

The same thing goes with research. Even if the majors are investing in research, you shouldn't expect it to occur in Houston any more than in Boston or LA.

[lockmat]

Houston added third most people from July 1 '08 to today, behind NYC and LA

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...29/daily33.html

[TheNiche]

Houston added third most people from July 1 '08 to today, behind NYC and LA

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...29/daily33.html

Note that these are measuring population change within a municipality, not for a metropolitan area. The municipalities that top the list are all geographically very large, as might be expected.

[Houston19514]

Houston added third most people from July 1 '08 to today, behind NYC and LA

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...29/daily33.html

The growth was in the period July 1 '07 through July 1 '08.

Houston indeed appears to have had the third largest numerical growth and NYC was #1. But LA was NOT #2 (and the article did not say it was). I believe #2 was actually Phoenix, edging out Houston by what seems to be a statistically insignificant amount. (Phoenix added 33,184. Houston added 33,063. Notice the HBJ mistakenly told us that Houston grew by 33,184.)

[RedScare]

Houston added third most people from July 1 '08 to today, behind NYC and LA

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...29/daily33.html

Houston actually outgained LA by 7,000 residents. Phoenix came in 2nd, 123 people ahead of Houston. As hard as Phoenix was hit by the housing crisis, I wonder how that has affected their population today. Another interesting statistic, Chicago has lost population throughout the decade, including during the economic expansion. Now, as we enter our worst recession in 75 years, they ADD 21,000 people?

The Actual Census Press Release With Numbers

[citizen4rmptown]

Houston actually outgained LA by 7,000 residents. Phoenix came in 2nd, 123 people ahead of Houston. As hard as Phoenix was hit by the housing crisis, I wonder how that has affected their population today. Another interesting statistic, Chicago has lost population throughout the decade, including during the economic expansion. Now, as we enter our worst recession in 75 years, they ADD 21,000 people?

The Actual Census Press Release With Numbers

This MSNBC article points out that

Census data released Wednesday highlight a city resurgence in coastal regions and areas of the Midwest and Northeast, due to a housing crunch, recession and higher gas prices that have slowed migration to far-flung suburbs and residential hotspots in the South and West.

The 2008 population figures show New York and Chicago made gains from higher births.....

So it is the recession that kept citizens in Chicago to stay, and higher births.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31669241/ns/bu...ss-us_business/

[TheNiche]

Houston actually outgained LA by 7,000 residents. Phoenix came in 2nd, 123 people ahead of Houston. As hard as Phoenix was hit by the housing crisis, I wonder how that has affected their population today. Another interesting statistic, Chicago has lost population throughout the decade, including during the economic expansion. Now, as we enter our worst recession in 75 years, they ADD 21,000 people?

The Actual Census Press Release With Numbers

Here is a link to the most recent estimates of population change by metropolitan statistical area.

Not surprisingly, Dallas and Houston round out the top of the list. We were still creating new jobs during this period of time, and probably the only two forces that prevented Texas cities from drawing in more people were that 1) households in places like Florida, Arizona, and California couldn't get out from under their mortgages so as to be able to afford to move, and 2) extreme oversupply of housing have forced a ridiculous number of foreclosures and pre-foreclosures, making areas that were the worst affected by the housing bust very attractive to households that were still gainfully employed.

One thing that is very frustrating is that the Philly metro area has seemed to take on additional counties just often enough to have avoided being overtaken by Houston for 5th place for about the last three years. We're still stuck in 6th place, but if the rates of growth for both cities were constant and the geographies will not change again, then we have probably surpassed Philly within about the last 15 days.

The top ten rankings for population change are as follows:

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (146,532)

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX (130,185)

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (115,978)

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA (114,989)

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (88,196)

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (84,227)

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (72,771)

Austin-Round Rock, TX (60,012)

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (58,406)

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (55,835)

Other Texas MSAs in the top fifty included San Antonio (46,524) (15th), McAllen (21,126) (28th), and El Paso (12,093) (49th).

The bottom five rankings for population change aren't especially shocking, and are as follows:

Pittsburgh, PA (-2,967)

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA (-4,570)

Flint, MI (-5,237)

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH (-6,594)

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (-32,413)

[Houston19514]

Again, Niche, no counties have been added to the Philadelphia metro area in recent years. We've been steadily creeping up on them and, you are quite correct, we have probably now passed them. We'll know next March or so. Here's a LINK where you can look at all of the OMB bulletin announcing updates in recent years. The Philly metro area has exactly the same counties in the most recent revisions as it had in 2003.

Here is a link to the most recent estimates of population change by metropolitan statistical area.

Not surprisingly, Dallas and Houston round out the top of the list. We were still creating new jobs during this period of time, and probably the only two forces that prevented Texas cities from drawing in more people were that 1) households in places like Florida, Arizona, and California couldn't get out from under their mortgages so as to be able to afford to move, and 2) extreme oversupply of housing have forced a ridiculous number of foreclosures and pre-foreclosures, making areas that were the worst affected by the housing bust very attractive to households that were still gainfully employed.

One thing that is very frustrating is that the Philly metro area has seemed to take on additional counties just often enough to have avoided being overtaken by Houston for 5th place for about the last three years. We're still stuck in 6th place, but if the rates of growth for both cities were constant and the geographies will not change again, then we have probably surpassed Philly within about the last 15 days.

The top ten rankings for population change are as follows:

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (146,532)

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX (130,185)

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (115,978)

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA (114,989)

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (88,196)

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (84,227)

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (72,771)

Austin-Round Rock, TX (60,012)

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (58,406)

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (55,835)

Other Texas MSAs in the top fifty included San Antonio (46,524) (15th), McAllen (21,126) (28th), and El Paso (12,093) (49th).

The bottom five rankings for population change aren't especially shocking, and are as follows:

Pittsburgh, PA (-2,967)

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA (-4,570)

Flint, MI (-5,237)

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH (-6,594)

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (-32,413)

[TheNiche]

Again, Niche, no counties have been added to the Philadelphia metro area in recent years. We've been steadily creeping up on them and, you are quite correct, we have probably now passed them. We'll know next March or so. Here's a LINK where you can look at all of the OMB bulletin announcing updates in recent years. The Philly metro area has exactly the same counties in the most recent revisions as it had in 2003.

I seem to use this same methodology every year and always predict an imminent advancement for Houston, yet it never happens--even when my growth assumptions turned out to be very reasonable. If they're not changing the geography, then I can't think of anything else that might be going on unless they're just changing the base estimate of population in such a way as they've managed to stave off being surpassed by Houston for several years.

[Houston19514]

I seem to use this same methodology every year and always predict an imminent advancement for Houston, yet it never happens--even when my growth assumptions turned out to be very reasonable. If they're not changing the geography, then I can't think of anything else that might be going on unless they're just changing the base estimate of population in such a way as they've managed to stave off being surpassed by Houston for several years.

Or, perish the thought, there is a flaw in your methodology. ;-)

[TheNiche]

Or, perish the thought, there is a flaw in your methodology. ;-)

Nah, the extrapolation of trend lines is simple math. There's something else going on that's screwing with things.

[Houston19514]

Nah, the extrapolation of trend lines is simple math. There's something else going on that's screwing with things.

LOL I knew it couldn't be that. ;-) If your methodology was correct, then you must have been using the wrong numbers.

I'm curious what you've been doing. Every extrapolation I've done has brought me to mid-2009 as the point where we overtake Philadelphia. I just re-did a couple and came to the same result. I just extrapolated the 2000-2001 growth rates out through the decade and came out with July 1, 2009 numbers of

Houston: 5,851,912

Philly: 5,827,674

The intervening years were remarkably close to the actual census estimates as well. For example, for 2008 the extrapolation gave me

Houston: 5,716,433

Philly: 5,812,562

The 2008 Census estimates give us:

Houston: 5,728,143

Philly: 5,838,471

I also just extrapolated the 2000-2002 growth rate out through the decade and it likewise gives 2009 as the likely year we bypass Philly. Again, the intervening numbers were surprisingly close to the census estimates for those years; for 2008:

Houston: 5,776,439

Philly: 5,837,832

[TheNiche]

I just extrapolated the 2000-2001 growth rates out through the decade and came out with July 1, 2009 numbers of

I don't doubt your results using what may be a revised dataset, but I think you missed the point. If you're so motivated, find the posts where I've discussed this and compare your base figures to the ones I've cited previously.

[Houston19514]

I don't doubt your results using what may be a revised dataset, but I think you missed the point. If you're so motivated, find the posts where I've discussed this and compare your base figures to the ones I've cited previously.

LOL No revised data set being used, my friend and no point has been missed. Just the same old data set correctly applied. But just to humor you, I looked for the posts where you've discussed this to compare my base figures to the ones you've cited previously... but I could find none. All you've done on this topic is repeatedly (and incorrectly) tell us that Philly metro has added counties, delaying the day we overtake them; oh, and once I think you projected that you thought we should overtake them in 2008, but did not share any of your calculations.

Edit:

Ahhh, I found another post of yours and with it the source of your problem. It was indeed bad methodology. Here is the relevant part of your post from, I believe, December 13, 2007:

"The most recent U.S. Census estimates of population growth put the Houston MSA at the top of the list. If the year-over-year rate of population growth in Houston were maintained at the current rate of 187,380 per year and other cities also experienced straight-line growth at the same rate as in the previous year:

* Houston would surpass the present population of Philadelphia next month (Jan. 2008).

* Houston would surpass the future population of Philadelphia in four months (Mar. 2008)."

The methodology problem is that the numbers your reference are the 2005-2006 census growth estimates. That growth number included the influx of Louisiana residents post-Katrina. Any projections of future population growth based on that year's growth are inherently flawed, indeed worthless.

[TheNiche]

The methodology problem is that the numbers your reference are the 2005-2006 census growth estimates. That growth number included the influx of Louisiana residents post-Katrina. Any projections of future population growth based on that year's growth are inherently flawed, indeed worthless.

Well done. The methodology is reasonable in most years, just not that one.