CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 These two cities arew going head to head. Keep it civilized. Which one of these cities do you think will be America's 3rd largest city first and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 26, 2004 Author Share Posted September 26, 2004 Does no one like Phoenix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Well I think most people would say Houston will be third largest because it has a substantial lead and Phoenix probably won't be able to keep up this rate over a long period of time IMO, but also you have to consider this is the Houston Architecture Forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 I've never been to Phoenix, and know very little about it. Cities require water. Will Phoenix be able to keep up with the demand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 26, 2004 Author Share Posted September 26, 2004 Is there a Phoenix Forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midtown_resident Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Perhaps the same poll should be posted at a website/discussion board that focuses on Phoenix and then we'll find out if anyone 'likes' Phoenix. btw...I LOVE Phoenix...I think it's a great place...absolutely fantastic landscape and excellent golf out there in Scottsdale. I'm not sure of the relevance of whether I like Phoenix or not in this poll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestGrayGuy Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Although Phoenix is growing quickly, Houston will become the nation's third largest city. We do it the old fashion way; we annex. Keep in mind that the master plan for the Woodlands is to become part of Houston. (easily will add 70k-100k to the population by the time it is annexed) In addition, we are experiencing some inward flight, people moving into the central city.Dbigtx has a good point, Phoenix needs water to grow. I have seen stories where the demand on water will surpass supply in the next few years in the Valley of the Sun.On a personal note, I think Phoenix is a very depressing city. There are very few trees. Yards are mostly rocks or desert terrain. If grass grows, it requires an ocean of water to maintain. Also, the freeway system there is not as evolved as Houston's. Houston will be number 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Phoenix isn't an awful place, but I can't imagine living there. I think the heat here is bad enough; at least we don't spend much of the summer well over 100 degrees. And don't give me that stuff about it being a "dry heat." It's still oppressive.Not to mention I think all the dirt and rock from the desert landscape is depressing and ugly. But there are those who think it is beautiful and love living there.To each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snickers Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 right now Chicago is the 3rd....just out of curiosity...what will Houston be doing to make it bigger than chicago. I know chicago is almost double the population right now (according to what was posted in this forum a while back).what will make houston outgrow chicago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 right now Chicago is the 3rd....just out of curiosity...what will Houston be doing to make it bigger than chicago. I know chicago is almost double the population right now (according to what was posted in this forum a while back).what will make houston outgrow chicago?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Chicago is about 2.8 million if I am not mistaken. Houston is 2.1 million. So Chicago is not double.Anyone know what Chicago Metro is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 27, 2004 Author Share Posted September 27, 2004 Chicago is also declining in population over the years, while Houston is growing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Chicago is about 2.8 million if I am not mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 27, 2004 Author Share Posted September 27, 2004 I didn't know Chicago was that big in metro, but is dropping in city limit populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knqn Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Who said Chicago was losing population? If anyone has actually visited Chicago in recent years the city is booming with construction in and out of the downtown area. Remember the 1990 census estimated Chicago at a loss in population when it had actually gained 100,000 residents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 The 2000 census is what I am looking at. It said something like -2.8%. I will look for a link. BTW, welcome to HAIF Kngn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snickers Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdfaccording to the report, the chicagoland population was up 11.1% between 1990 and 2000here is the info from the table. (pop 2000,pop1990,pop change, %change)# 5 Phoenix--Mesa, AZ MSA 3,251,876; 2,238,480 ; 1,013,396 ; 45.3%#6 Houston--Galveston--Brazoria, TX CMSA 4,669,571; 3,731,131; 938,440 ;25.2%# 7 Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI CMSA 9,157,540; 8,239,820 ; 917,720; 11.1%so - houston attracted about 20,000 more people over the ten years but chicago is still double in populationof course...phoenix beat houston and is only about a mil behind in popdo you really think either one will top chicago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Population Ranks go usually by City pop. We are only 700k away. While the CMSA shows Chi pop going up, the city pop is relatively stagnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greystone08(returns) Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Although Phoenix is growing quickly, Houston will become the nation's third largest city. We do it the old fashion way; we annex. Keep in mind that the master plan for the Woodlands is to become part of Houston. (easily will add 70k-100k to the population by the time it is annexed) In addition, we are experiencing some inward flight, people moving into the central city.Dbigtx has a good point, Phoenix needs water to grow. I have seen stories where the demand on water will surpass supply in the next few years in the Valley of the Sun.On a personal note, I think Phoenix is a very depressing city. There are very few trees. Yards are mostly rocks or desert terrain. If grass grows, it requires an ocean of water to maintain. Also, the freeway system there is not as evolved as Houston's. Houston will be number 3.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I hope Houston doesn't annex anymore, it will only forever contribute to the title of sprawl city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestGrayGuy Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Luke,It is the way of the Force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snickers Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Population Ranks go usually by City pop. We are only 700k away. While the CMSA shows Chi pop going up, the city pop is relatively stagnant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where are you getting these figures? just curious as I could not find any of just Chicago proper or Houston proper...it was all of the metro areas as listed in the census. It would also be interesting to see the figures for houston and if the "urban sprawl" is driving people out of the city limits as it has chicago in the past few years. I don't think comparing just the city limit populations is a real good way to judge the growth and stability of a city or make assumptions about it's future....in the entire metro area is where you have the population and businesses that supports that particular "city". When referring to chigago...often the "chicagoland area" is what people say because it really is the entire area that makes chicago what it is. Just as houston would not be what it is or what it is becoming with out the areas outside the 'city limits'....or any areas it plans on annexing I am not one to usually defend Chicago but I have to say, if you are just comparing the area within the city limits of the two cities...chicago will blow houston out of the water. Not only is chicago a world class city in every respect....but it has a solid infrastructure that not only supports its current population, but the population of the surrounding metro area. From what I have seen and heard of Houston, the infrastructure is not there to support the kind of growth it would take to become bigger than chicago. imho between houston and phoenix though...my money would be on houston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Cities do need water, and Houston is no exception: Where does our water come from? Underground auquifers? Our sprawl is paving over the ground and destroying the natural recharging process by cutting down trees. The other source is the Trinity River. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 If your in Houston city limits, it comes from Lake Houston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I think we're still using groundwater, but converting to surface, because many parts of the city still suffer from subsidence. I'm a bit suprised that the Department of the Interior believes Houston is at greater risk of a water crisis than Phoenix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 The suburbs get that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 According to the NHRWA, (North Houston Regional Water Authority), to which we pay a small fee every month, by the year 2030 we should be converted 100% to surface water. We currently receive our water from underground aquifers, (Evangeline is our main one), and are gradually converting from 100% dependence upon underground sources to surface water from Lake Houston. Our MUD has told us to expect tripled water bills when this finally occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Where are you getting these figures? just curious as I could not find any of just Chicago proper or Houston proper...it was all of the metro areas as listed in the census. It would also be interesting to see the figures for houston and if the "urban sprawl" is driving people out of the city limits as it has chicago in the past few years.I don't think comparing just the city limit populations is a real good way to judge the growth and stability of a city or make assumptions about it's future....in the entire metro area is where you have the population and businesses that supports that particular "city". When referring to chigago...often the "chicagoland area" is what people say because it really is the entire area that makes chicago what it is. Just as houston would not be what it is or what it is becoming with out the areas outside the 'city limits'....or any areas it plans on annexing I am not one to usually defend Chicago but I have to say, if you are just comparing the area within the city limits of the two cities...chicago will blow houston out of the water. Not only is chicago a world class city in every respect....but it has a solid infrastructure that not only supports its current population, but the population of the surrounding metro area. From what I have seen and heard of Houston, the infrastructure is not there to support the kind of growth it would take to become bigger than chicago. imho between houston and phoenix though...my money would be on houston Here are the census numbers I had for the leading cities in each metro area, along with the metro population. It's bit apples-to-oranges, since several metro areas contain more than one legal city. But I think it supports your point that city limit populations are fairly meaningless, since they mainly reflect legal factors that impact a city's ability to grow by annexation. The city of Atlanta is really small, but the metro area is close to Houston and has a huge economic impact. New York 21,199,865 8,084,316 Los Angeles CA 16,373,645 3,798,981 Chicago 9,157,540 2,886,251 Washington 7,608,070 638,614 San Fran 7,039,362 900,443 Philadelphia 6,188,463 1,492,231 Boston 5,819,100 589,281 Detroit 5,456,428 925,051 Dallas 5,221,801 1,211,467 Houston 4,669,571 2,009,834 Atlanta, GA 4,112,198 424,868 Miami 3,876,380 374,791 Seattle 3,554,760 570,426 Phoenix 3,251,876 1,371,960 Minneapolis--St. Paul 2,968,806 375,635 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 This lends some perspective to our belief that we're the Fourth Largest City - and why the rest of the nation doesn't view us that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 Your right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
111486 Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Here are the census numbers I had for the leading cities in each metro area, along with the metro population. It's bit apples-to-oranges, since several metro areas contain more than one legal city. But I think it supports your point that city limit populations are fairly meaningless, since they mainly reflect legal factors that impact a city's ability to grow by annexation. The city of Atlanta is really small, but the metro area is close to Houston and has a huge economic impact. New York 21,199,865 8,084,316Los Angeles CA 16,373,645 3,798,981Chicago 9,157,540 2,886,251Washington 7,608,070 638,614San Fran 7,039,362 900,443Philadelphia 6,188,463 1,492,231Boston 5,819,100 589,281Detroit 5,456,428 925,051Dallas 5,221,801 1,211,467Houston 4,669,571 2,009,834Atlanta, GA 4,112,198 424,868Miami 3,876,380 374,791Seattle 3,554,760 570,426Phoenix 3,251,876 1,371,960Minneapolis--St. Paul 2,968,806 375,635<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Houston is now 5,176,061Atlanta is now 4,844,526 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.