Jump to content

Houston's Size

Ashikaga

By Ashikaga
in General Houston Discussions

Recommended Posts

Ashikaga

Ashikaga

Posted
Posted

Back when I lived in Houston (1962-64), the city was the seventh largest city in the U.S. (Detroit was 5th and Baltimore was 6th at that time). Now Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S.

Now I have a question. Am I right or wrong when I say that Houston doesn't have as many suburb cities as Dallas does? Dallas has many suburb cities (e.g., Garland, Mesquite, etc.). I've always thought that if Dallas were to annex its suburb cities, not only would it surpass Houston in size, but it just might go to the second largest city in the U.S. (I don't think that any city would ever come close to surpassing The Big Apple).

Who out there agrees or disagrees with my belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted

Is this a trick question ?

Ok, I'll be the old owl in the tootsie roll pop commercial :

Baytown

Spring

Katy

Pearland

Texas City

Woodlands

Kingwood

Humble

Sugarland

Cy-Fair

Pasadena

Leaugue City

Dallas/FW metroplex I believe includes their suburbs chief. Just like Houston does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashikaga

Ashikaga

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is this a trick question ?

Ok, I'll be the old owl in the tootsie roll pop commercial :

Baytown

Spring

Katy

Pearland

Texas City

Woodlands

Kingwood

Humble

Sugarland

Cy-Fair

Pasadena

Leaugue City

Dallas/FW metroplex I believe includes their suburbs chief. Just like Houston does.

I thought that a suburb is a city that physically borders the main city. To the best of my knowledge, Pearland, Texas City and League City do not physically border Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ProHouston

ProHouston

Posted
Posted

Ashikaga, I think what you want to compare is the metro size of each city. If you do then Dallas is above Houston just as Boston, the Bay area, and a few others. Also, San Antonio is larger than Dallas in city size but its metro population is much lower on the list (30 something I think). Also, as I understand, Dallas can't "annex" these other cities because they are cities. Only unincorporated areas can be annexed. Therefore, Dallas is landlocked except to the south and maybe southeast. The city of Dallas should never catch Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashikaga

Ashikaga

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ashikaga, I think what you want to compare is the metro size of each city. If you do then Dallas is above Houston just as Boston, the Bay area, and a few others. Also, San Antonio is larger than Dallas in city size but its metro population is much lower on the list (30 something I think). Also, as I understand, Dallas can't "annex" these other cities because they are cities. Only unincorporated areas can be annexed. Therefore, Dallas is landlocked except to the south and maybe southeast. The city of Dallas should never catch Houston.

Well, you've enlightened me. Over here back in 1978, Port Arthur annexed Sabine Pass because the oil rigs down there would bring in additional tax revenue. But as you said, Sabine Pass was unincorporated.

After the annexation, Port Arthur wanted the additional money but they didn't want to spend it. Sabine Pass residents complained about slow response times for police and fire services. Finally, Port Arthur agreed to allocate money for at least one police officer to be in Sabine Pass 24/7 and to set up a fire station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montrose1100

Montrose1100

Posted
Posted
I thought that a suburb is a city that physically borders the main city. To the best of my knowledge, Pearland, Texas City and League City do not physically border Houston.

Yes the Houston City Limit Does.

Infact, the Houston City Limit usually follows up along a Highway/Freeway. Usually because of the Highway maitence, and to tax the ____ out of the stores along it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YakuzaIce

YakuzaIce

Posted
Posted
I think in the last census Houston surpassed Chicago in the rankings and Chicago is now the 4th largest and Houston is the 3rd largest city in the US

Yeah as red said that is completely wrong. But just wondering were you thinking it was the actual census in 2000 or one of the more recent estimates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Great Hizzy!

The Great Hizzy!

Posted
Posted
Houston is behind Chicago in every category you can think of. In city size, Houston is 800,000 behind, but closing the gap. In County size, Cook Co. is second largest to Harris Co.'s 3rd. In Metro area, Chicago is 9 million and change, to Houston's 5.3 million.

Exactly. The closest differential is city population, and that's not likely to shift for another 20-25 years minimum, assuming that Chicago loses another 200K-300K and Houston continues to add between 250K-350K each decade.

Current estimate of COH population (my own, including just a 30% retention of 200,000 Louisiana residents) is 2,122,000. Assuming no net loss or gain for Chicago (which, according to the US Census Bureau's 2004 estimate, has lost population since the 2000 Census), that city's population is approximately 2,850,000 for a difference of 728,000.

Assuming Chicago loses 200,000 residents between now and 2020 and Houston gains approximately 450,000 residents, you'd still have a net differential of 78,000 in favor of Chicago--and, remember, this is assuming that Chicago will lose 200,000 residents.

In other words, even in the most favorable conditions, Houston's not likely to pass Chicago for another 20 years. I wonder how development patterns in Houston will evolve during that 20 years? I wonder how well city leaders and the voting public will address the city's infrastructure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eelimon

eelimon

Posted
Posted
Yeah as red said that is completely wrong. But just wondering were you thinking it was the actual census in 2000 or one of the more recent estimates.

I don't know I heard it on CNN sometime earlier this year or last. It just goes to show you can't believe everything on TV. It must have been an estimation stated as fact.

That darn left wing media*eelimon waives his fist in the air*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
I don't know I heard it on CNN sometime earlier this year or last. It just goes to show you can't believe everything on TV. It must have been an estimation stated as fact.

That darn left wing media*eelimon waives his fist in the air*

Maybe what you heard was that Houston has become the 3rd most popular vacation destination in the US, and Chicago dropped to 4th. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
Now I have a question. Am I right or wrong when I say that Houston doesn't have as many suburb cities as Dallas does? Dallas has many suburb cities (e.g., Garland, Mesquite, etc.).

Dallas has a lot more big suburbs which can give you the impression it has more suburbs.

If you look at the list of suburbs with a population over 75k you have:

HOUSTON
Pasadena	 ~145K
Sugarland	 ~75K

DALLAS
Arlington	 356K
Plano		 247K
Garland	   222K
Irving		197K
Grand Prarie  146K
Mesquite	  134K
Carrolton	 117K
Denton	   ~100K
Richardson	95K
McKinney	  93K
Lewisville	87K
Frisco	   ~77K

I'm leaving Fort Worth out because it acts more as a sister city like in Minneapolis St. Paul than a suburb, although they now do meet the governments criteria for a suburb.

To the person that didn't think the Woodlands was a part of the Houston metro, it certainly is. There are 10 counties in the Houston metro area and those are:

Austin County

Brazoria County

Chambers County

Fort Bend County

Galveston County

Harris County

Liberty County

Montgomery County

San Jacinto County

Waller County

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WesternGulf

WesternGulf

Posted
Posted

Dallas has larger suburban towns because of the square milage of the center city which is about 200 square miles smaller than Houston. Plus the suburban towns of Dallas are pretty large by themselves making for a larger population. I believe Arlington is close to 100 square miles. Plano is close to 70. Most of the larger suburbs in Dallas are over 50-60 square miles. Houston would have large suburbs if our annexing history was not out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Houston would have large suburbs if our annexing history was not out of control.

You say that as if it were a bad thing. A little research would show that virtually all urban planning experts say that Houston's aggressive actions to prevent being hemmed in by suburban municipalities will allow it to avoid the urban decay that afflicts surrounded cities. Even Dallas, though a southern city, is in danger of this phenomenon occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
Chicago Metro - 9,098,316

Houston Metro - 4,715,407

I couldn't find metro estimates for 2004 from the Census Bureau.

That's because the 2003 metro estimates are the latest from the Census.

There are 2004 estimates from other sources however, I'll give both:

2004est			   2003est
1)  New York		   18.7M				 18.6M
2)  LA				 12.9M				 12.8M
3)  Chicago			 9.4M				  9.3M 
4)  Phili			   5.8M				  5.8M
5)  DFW				 5.7M				  5.6M
6)  Miami			   5.4M				  5.3M 
7)  Houston			 5.2M				  5.1M
8)  Washington DC	   5.1M				  5.1M
9)  Atlanta			 4.7M				  4.6M
10) Detroit			 4.5M				  4.5M
11) Boston			  4.4M				  4.4M
12) San Francisco/Oak   4.1M				  4.1M

Houston passed up Washington to take the number 7 spot last year. It appears Houston will also pass up Miami eventually. Not shown on this list is DFW passed up Phili for the 4th spot since 2004. Phili, Detroit, Boston and San Francisco are barely growing. The rest are doing OK. Chicago is doing great compared to a lot of metros in the north, in many measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montrose1100

Montrose1100

Posted
Posted

July 2005 Estimate:

(City) (Metro)

Houston- 2,012,626 - 5,176,061 (Not including Louisiana Residents)

Chicago- 2,862,244 - 9,608,458

So even you estimate the Houston City to be 2,212,646, theres still a small matter of +650,000 residents between Chicago and Houston city limits... Not to mention the Metro of Chicago might not be passed up for a very long time.

That's because the 2003 metro estimates are the latest from the Census.

There are 2004 estimates from other sources however, I'll give both:

2004est			   2003est
1)  New York		   18.7M				 18.6M
2)  LA				 12.9M				 12.8M
3)  Chicago			 9.4M				  9.3M 
4)  Phili			   5.8M				  5.8M
5)  DFW				 5.7M				  5.6M
6)  Miami			   5.4M				  5.3M 
7)  Houston			 5.2M				  5.1M
8)  Washington DC	   5.1M				  5.1M
9)  Atlanta			 4.7M				  4.6M
10) Detroit			 4.5M				  4.5M
11) Boston			  4.4M				  4.4M
12) San Francisco	   4.1M				  4.1M

Houston passed up Washington to take the number 7 spot last year. It appears Houston will also pass up Miami eventually. Not shown on this list is DFW passed up Phili for the 4th spot since 2004. Phili, Detroit, Boston and San Francisco are barely growing. The rest are doing OK. Chicago is doing great compared to a lot of metros in the north, in many measures.

Washington D.C./Baltimore's metro is around 7 million, and San Francisco's is around 7 million as well. Philly's, Boston's, and Detroit's are 5 million. Not to mention NYC being +20 million, and LA +15 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
Washington D.C./Baltimore's metro is around 7 million, and San Francisco's is around 7 million as well. Philly's, Boston's, and Detroit's are 5 million. Not to mention NYC being +20 million, and LA +15 million.

That's not true anymore. Washington and San Francisco are no longer 7 million+ since the government went back and reviewed things like commuting patterns and determined that San Jose isn't a part of the San Francisco metro area and Baltimore isn't a part of the Washington metro area.

Your numbers on LA are wrong for the same reason. LA is the only area I know well enough to say the census clearly did the right thing in that situation by keeping the two metro areas distinct. I assume your NY numbers are off for the same reason but I don't know NY well enough to know for sure.

Occasionally you'll find sources that group the metros by their out of date definitions, which is their choice. Here's the official census info:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estim.../PopTable01.xls

and here's 2004 estimates based on the official definitions for metros:

http://proximityone.com/msarank04.htm

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ V Lawrence

DJ V Lawrence

Posted
Posted
That's because the 2003 metro estimates are the latest from the Census.

There are 2004 estimates from other sources however, I'll give both:

2004est			   2003est
1)  New York		   18.7M				 18.6M
2)  LA				 12.9M				 12.8M
3)  Chicago			 9.4M				  9.3M 
4)  Phili			   5.8M				  5.8M
5)  DFW				 5.7M				  5.6M
6)  Miami			   5.4M				  5.3M 
7)  Houston			 5.2M				  5.1M
8)  Washington DC	   5.1M				  5.1M
9)  Atlanta			 4.7M				  4.6M
10) Detroit			 4.5M				  4.5M
11) Boston			  4.4M				  4.4M
12) San Francisco	   4.1M				  4.1M

Houston passed up Washington to take the number 7 spot last year. It appears Houston will also pass up Miami eventually. Not shown on this list is DFW passed up Phili for the 4th spot since 2004. Phili, Detroit, Boston and San Francisco are barely growing. The rest are doing OK. Chicago is doing great compared to a lot of metros in the north, in many measures.

Thanx to JasonDFW for this list. Let's break this down for a second, and see if we can figure out EXACTLY how this census thing works...

1. DFW= Dallas-Fort Worth. 5.7 million. Houston=5.2 million? Who exactlty are they including on that list for the Houston area? College Station? Galveston? Texas City, Sugarland, Bellaire, Missouri City, Stafford, Woodlands, Clear Lake, etc.? Isn't the distance between Houston-College Station or the distance between Houston- Galveston similar to the distance between the farthest eastern point of Dallas's Area to the farthest west point of the Fort Worth area?

2. I thought San Fran included Oakland in their area space.

3. Since when has Miami had over 5 million people in their area? Miami-Dade is big, but once again, who are they including? Key West?

My main complaint is that we really don't know what they (census) consider as part of a city's "area".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WesternGulf

WesternGulf

Posted
Posted

Since when is College Station part of the Houston metro? Galveston is a lot more closer to Houston than College Station. About 45-50 minutes from downtown. If I drive to College Station from downtown Houston, I could probably make it to Beaumont in the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Since when is College Station part of the Houston metro? Galveston is a lot more closer to Houston than College Station. About 45-50 minutes from downtown. If I drive to College Station from downtown Houston, I could probably make it to Beaumont in the same time.

College Station is not part of Houston Metro. Not even close. Navasota is not even part of the Metro yet. It is not the distance (98 miles) that determines it, but commuting patterns. Very few Brazos Co. residents commute to Houston or the Houston Metro. If and when they do (maybe when rail goes to B-CS), it would be included.

Houston Metro includes:

Harris

Galveston

Brazoria

Fort Bend

Waller

Austin

Montgomery

Liberty

Chambers

San Jacinto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...