Houston Population

[Dominax]

Is Houston's urban land gonna gain any larger than 579 sq mi

is there any opening area to build houses. Is the any area left for residents to live in the inner area.

The nigerborhoods that go north along Highway 249 and US 290 be part of Houstons city limit.

What i mean could it surround some parts of suburbs like Tomball, Jersey Village, Cypress, and more..in the northern area

[TheNiche]

Is Houston's urban land gonna gain any larger than 579 sq mi

is there any opening area to build houses. Is the any area left for residents to live in the inner area.

The nigerborhoods that go north along Highway 249 and US 290 be part of Houstons city limit.

What i mean could it surround some parts of suburbs like Tomball, Jersey Village, Cypress, and more..in the northern area

The Houston ETJ is massive, but the city limits aren't going to move until the moratorium on annexation expires. I forget which year that is, off the top of my head, but its coming up.

Woodlands, here we come.

[ricco67]

I thought Houston was over 600sq miles? Especially after we got Kingwood?

When is the moratorium supposed to expire? We need woodlands and katy.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

601 sq miles. I think some of that may be water, not sure though...........

[RedScare]

601 sq miles. I think some of that may be water, not sure though...........

According to the City of Houston Planning Department...

"The City of Houston is 639.82 square miles with more than two million people*.

*Statistics as of January 2006"

Moonman is right, also. At least 21 square miles of that is water.

The City's population estimate is 2,198,883, as of Jan. 1, 2006.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

^^ is that including Katrina victims?

[Gary]

^^ is that including Katrina victims?

I don't think so. Someone provided the 06 cencus stats a few months ago, (may have been Red) and it was my understanding that Katrina victims were not included in the 06 estimate.

[RedScare]

I don't think so. Someone provided the 06 cencus stats a few months ago, (may have been Red) and it was my understanding that Katrina victims were not included in the 06 estimate.

That was the Census estimate that did not include Katrina evacs. This number appears to include them, since it is as of Jan 2006 and it is 148,000 higher than the Jan 2005 estimate.

[Gary]

That was the Census estimate that did not include Katrina evacs. This number appears to include them, since it is as of Jan 2006 and it is 148,000 higher than the Jan 2005 estimate.

I stand corrected.

[Guest Plastic]

Really we have 5 million including all the areas like Katy and Conroe. In 20 years we're supposed to have 7-8 million.

Have the annexed the western part of 1960? 1960 from 45 to 290 would be a great place to annex. They should have annexed that instead of Kingwood. Houston's got plenty space to grow. Todays cow pasture is alwasy tommorows suburb. Moving people to the innnec city would be a problem. We'll either have to tear own alot of houses or build tall apartment buildings liek New York.

[TheNiche]

Have the annexed the western part of 1960?

The limits include just enough of 1960 to include Willowbrook Mall. Beyond that is ETJ.

[Trae]

When is Cinco Ranch, Seven Meadows, Kelliwood, areas in North Katy (Westgreen, etc.), and Grand Lakes going to get annexed. They are all in Houston's ETJ. So, everything but the places in Katy city limits will be annexed, but when?

[C2H]

Why the hell is Houston still trying to expand? It doesn't need anymore. It's already frowned down upon for sprawl and annexation in the past.

Houston needs to fix up its own innercity neighborhoods and improve QOL and transportation before gobbling up any other land. It already has trouble managing itself. The suburbs need their own identity outside of Houston. Houston should leave the suburbs alone!

[Trae]

That's what I think. I know someone who came from Colleyville, and he said in Houston, you just have Houston for fun. But in DFW, you have a whole collection of cities to go to. Yeah, Houston has different cities, but they are small, and only one reaches 100,000 (Pasadena).

[C2H]

That's what I think. I know someone who came from Colleyville, and he said in Houston, you just have Houston for fun. But in DFW, you have a whole collection of cities to go to. Yeah, Houston has different cities, but they are small, and only one reaches 100,000 (Pasadena).

On a flip side though Trae, while Houston is only one city, it is basically a Dallas/Ft. Worth wrapped up into one. Houston has everything Dallas/Ft. Worth does (minus the amusement park), has the same amount of skylines and so forth. But i just think Houston needs more suburbs because Houston is a little on the lonely side. When i'm in Dallas, I get a feeling that there's just more collection of cities, just like your friend stated.

[Subdude]

Why the hell is Houston still trying to expand? It doesn't need anymore. It's already frowned down upon for sprawl and annexation in the past.

Houston needs to fix up its own innercity neighborhoods and improve QOL and transportation before gobbling up any other land. It already has trouble managing itself. The suburbs need their own identity outside of Houston. Houston should leave the suburbs alone!

I disagree. There are clear benefits to annexation. The primary one is that it allows the city to expand its economic base as the area grows. This means that as businesses and people gradually flow to the suburbs, the city's tax base is not "hollowed out". This is what has happened to many older cities. Houston's ETJ annexation powers give it the ability to retain its tax base as economic activity in the region moves toward more outlying areas. It is one of the best tools we have. Also, the argument that it contributes to sprawl is extremely weak. Houston isn't annexing vacant land and then building it out. Annexations are of already existing suburbs, or sprawl if you prefer.

Dallas has nothing to do with it.

[Montrose1100]

Really we have 5 million including all the areas like Katy and Conroe. In 20 years we're supposed to have 7-8 million.

Have the annexed the western part of 1960? 1960 from 45 to 290 would be a great place to annex. They should have annexed that instead of Kingwood. Houston's got plenty space to grow. Todays cow pasture is alwasy tommorows suburb. Moving people to the innnec city would be a problem. We'll either have to tear own alot of houses or build tall apartment buildings liek New York.

Excuse you, I'll be giving up quite a fight if they annex my humble suburban dwellings... (Spring). Besides, Houston owns the Willowbrook mall and anything over the rail road tracks already... Oh wait, I forgot I was talking to Plastic!

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I disagree. There are clear benefits to annexation. The primary one is that it allows the city to expand its economic base as the area grows. This means that as businesses and people gradually flow to the suburbs, the city's tax base is not "hollowed out". This is what has happened to many older cities. Houston's ETJ annexation powers give it the ability to retain its tax base as economic activity in the region moves toward more outlying areas. It is one of the best tools we have. Also, the argument that it contributes to sprawl is extremely weak. Houston isn't annexing vacant land and then building it out. Annexations are of already existing suburbs, or sprawl if you prefer.

Dallas has nothing to do with it.

Correct. Im a firm believer of, if you work in Houston you should live and pay tax in Houston. The only suburb should be an annexed suburb. I also believe all the different school systems in the Houston area should be MERGED into HISD. Would save me a HELL of a lot of money in school taxes each year!!! I wonder how many of these forclosures are due to deliquent taxes? Some of the school taxes in some of these areas are freaking INSANE!! Let the annexation by Houston and merging of school systems begin!!

[C2H]

I disagree. There are clear benefits to annexation. The primary one is that it allows the city to expand its economic base as the area grows. This means that as businesses and people gradually flow to the suburbs, the city's tax base is not "hollowed out". This is what has happened to many older cities. Houston's ETJ annexation powers give it the ability to retain its tax base as economic activity in the region moves toward more outlying areas. It is one of the best tools we have. Also, the argument that it contributes to sprawl is extremely weak. Houston isn't annexing vacant land and then building it out. Annexations are of already existing suburbs, or sprawl if you prefer.

Dallas has nothing to do with it.

I disagree with your viewpoints as well. You can't tell me that a city is not harder to manage the more it expands its borders. As far as your argument over the tax base goes, tax bases vary throughout the whole region between downtown to the beltway. If you notice, there's several hundred utility MUD districts that exist in the whole city inside the beltway. So i'm not really understanding your argument here.

I would rather see Houston effectively manage the land that it has in its core. I think the suburbs would be better off if they are independently run by their own governments. All in all, i think they need to remain independent.

BTW, i don't know what your point was in your statement " Dallas nothing to do with it". Please enlighten me.

[Guest Plastic]

First of all Houston has more skylines that Dallas. ANd why do they need to annex citites to get taxes? Can't they just taxe or collect money for individual citites themselves.

Houston si too big when compared to other cities around the nation. Even the LA Metro area has a smaller hub city(LA) than we although they are 3 times our population in metro pop. I mean the LA ciy limits are the same size as Houston or smaller. But they liek all other cities have tons and tons of surrounding cities. Half the people you here of from LA aren't really from LA they're from Pasedena,Burbank, Aneheim,Long Beach, Santa Monica, Universal City,Inglewood, and Melrose. Hoouston swallows up all the surrounding cities. If this is the way it'll go then all the surrounding cities should swallow up land too.

[713 To 214]

I disagree. There are clear benefits to annexation. The primary one is that it allows the city to expand its economic base as the area grows. This means that as businesses and people gradually flow to the suburbs, the city's tax base is not "hollowed out". This is what has happened to many older cities. Houston's ETJ annexation powers give it the ability to retain its tax base as economic activity in the region moves toward more outlying areas. It is one of the best tools we have. Also, the argument that it contributes to sprawl is extremely weak. Houston isn't annexing vacant land and then building it out. Annexations are of already existing suburbs, or sprawl if you prefer.

Dallas has nothing to do with it.

1. Why would the City of Houston's municipal tax base be leaving Houston?

2. If the City of Houston annexes the outlying areas people move to, in order to get away from Houston, don't you think those people will just move again?

[RedScare]

City planners generally praise Houston's aggressive annexation policies for not letting the city get hemmed in by suburban communities, as happened to Detroit, Dallas, Chicago and others. While all cities deal with infrastructure, crime, education and poverty issues, the other cities must also deal with declining tax revenue, while Houston does not.

Almost all of the American cities began dealing with incorporating suburbs in the 60s and 70s. Houston aggressively protected its ETJ, while many others did not. Those cities are now dealing with the aftereffects of not protecting their ETJ. Houston, however, does not have that problem.

While reading SSC posters complain that Houston isn't dense enough, and reading posters here say Dallas is exciting because it has numerous cities, is amusing, it has nothing to do with the reasons cities annex, and less to do with Houston's approach. No one at City Hall cares that Phliadelphia is more dense. Everyone at City Hall cares that Houston is not hemmed in.

Anyone who doubts whether the other cities are concerned that they have been hemmed in by incorporated towns need only look at the plans they are coming up with to try to lure people back in...trying not to become the next Detroit.

Aggressive annexation is not what is WRONG with Houston, it is one of the things the city did RIGHT...regardless of what the guys on SSC think. Remember, none of them work for cities.

[713 To 214]

Just our of curiosity, I'd like to know:

1. Who are these City Planners that "generally praise Houston's aggressive annexation policies for not letting the city get hemmed in by suburban communities, as happened to Detroit, Dallas, Chicago and others."

2. What are the "aftereffects" that cities, which did not protect their ETJ, deal with?

You can try to paint ipstick on the pig all day, and in as many different shades as you'd like. However, the common complaint from many average people (residing in and out of Harris County) is that the city is too spread out. It is definetly an opinion. . .but, the fact of the matter is that it's an opinion that's shared by many. It's an issue that will ultimately have to be dealt with, rather than ignored.

[scarface]

i'm still not convinced that Houston has done right by annexing. I can't think of many bonuses the city has by being able to forever expand its borders. Sure we can cheat by taking the title of the 4th largest city.

We currently classify innercity living inside the loop as living in "Houston". Yet we still continue to swallow up every outside community which adds to Houston's forever going city limits and decreasing density. Point being, i agree with C2H and disagree with Subdude. Cities across the nation are currently undergoing trying to bring life back to the city center. Urbanism, as everyone calls it. And annexing land is not smart use of land. We will forever be known as the BLOB that ate Southeastern Texas.

Sorry Redscare, i need more convincing.

[houstonfella]

Is a blob with many different names a more unique blob than with one name? The blob that ate North Texas, er, southern OKIE, with many names is still a blob. That's life in the bigs.

[RedScare]

i'm still not convinced that Houston has done right by annexing. I can't think of many bonuses the city has by being able to forever expand its borders. Sure we can cheat by taking the title of the 4th largest city.

scarface, you're still using the SSC version of city success. This is not a race to see who has the biggest population. No one gets a trophy for being the biggest city, or even the biggest metro. The goal of local government officials is to adequately serve the ones that live here, as well as the ones who will be moving here.

The Dallas Morning News has an ongoing series about the problems that city is facing, and how to address them. The first paragraph addresses exactly what I am talking about.

There is no more room for development north of the Trinity River, and the city's economic growth has slowed to a crawl. City Hall needs desperately to grow Dallas' tax base, but it faces a terrible irony: The only place to do that is in the southern sector, an area it has befouled and neglected for decades.

The entire article is here.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2004/d...ernsector2.html

Now, this is not to pick on Dallas. I picked this article because I knew where to find it. But, it is a good example of what I am talking about. Plano, Richardson, and Addison, among other towns, receive huge amounts of property tax and sales tax from development within their borders, tax money that the City of Dallas does not get. Dallas needs that revenue, but it goes elsewhere. Richardson's telecom corridor funnels revenue to them, not Dallas. Without tax revenue, Dallas cannot hire more police, build more parks, repave streets and all of the other things that make the city great.

Now, look at Houston. If Houston had stopped annexing in the 1970s, Humble would have taken Deerbrook Mall and Kingwood. Spring might have incorporated, taking in Greenspoint Mall and all of the office buildings and hotels. The Energy Corridor may have become the City of West Houston. Clear Lake would have incorporated. Willowbrook Mall may have become Cypress.

Big deal, you say? The City of Houston gets millions of dollars of sales tax revenue from all of those malls. It gets tens of millions more in property taxes from the office buildings. If all of the wealthy suburbs incorporated and took the tax money with them, the City would have been left with the poor neighborhoods. Taxes would have to increase dramatically, or none of the city projects that cost money would get funded.

All of Houston's suburbs depend on Houston being healthy. There is a natural tension between the city and the burbs, but no intelligent suburbanite wants to see Houston die. It is the only reason those suburbs exist. The same logic applies to Dallas. However, each suburban town still competes with Dallas to take its businesses, corporations, stadiums and residents. It's the nature of the beast.

Again, no one cares about population or density. That is the popularity contest we engage in on these forums. City leaders are concerned about the non-sexy things like police, water and sewer systems and libraries and parks. And those things take money. And money comes from tax revenue. And, if a city cannot annex, revenue becomes harder to come by.

EDIT: Oh yeah, about the blobs. Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are all roughly the same size sprawling blobs. Only Houston can get tax revenue from its blob.

[Coaster]

but, the fact of the matter is that it's an opinion that's shared by many.

It's also a matter of fact that this is an opinion that is NOT shared by many. At least not enough to keep large numbers of people from moving into the Houston metro blob.

[TheNiche]

scarface, you're still using the SSC version of city success. This is not a race to see who has the biggest population. No one gets a trophy for being the biggest city, or even the biggest metro. The goal of local government officials is to adequately serve the ones that live here, as well as the ones who will be moving here.

Excellent post, Red. I'd lost interest in this topic earlier on and wasn't keeping up with it, but I'm sure glad that you have.

Seems like a lot of people get confused when it comes to political boundaries and development patterns. Political boundaries usually mean very little in the scope of an entire metroplitan area.

[ricco67]

Excellent post, Red. I'd lost interest in this topic earlier on and wasn't keeping up with it, but I'm sure glad that you have.

Seems like a lot of people get confused when it comes to political boundaries and development patterns. Political boundaries usually mean very little in the scope of an entire metroplitan area.

I have to agree, that's a very good post, Red.

Another thing is that some cities have actually put in limits on where people can build. In one city (forgot which one) made it so you cannot build anything outside the city limits. You could literally cross the highway from a developed community and not see a single light pole across the freeway. Limiting the amount of land you can build on increases the value as the supply/demand equation starts taking over.

Let's use S.F. as an example. It's basically landlocked on all sides by different towns. Since the city couldn't expand (I don't know the politics there, so I won't attempt to guess), that left a limited amount of land to build on. As the land was developed, it appreciated in value.

As everyone knows, San Fransisco is a VERY expensive place to live and work in. All this by the fact that's only about 46 square miles!

While our sprawl may not be very popular, it actually keeps Houston a viable city to be able to support the surrounding communities.

[Guest Plastic]

Everything inside the city limits is Houston. Everything inside he Beltwasy is inner city. We consider ouw whole area Houston.

It was funny living in Dallas when I'd hear people call in on radiostations when asked where they stay they'd say Dallas. Well that's obvious. WHen we say Housotn we mean the whole metropolitain area, when they say Dallas the mean actual city of Dallas. Although I do hear som e morons saying they're calling from Houston. That's specific[/sarcasm]