Houston Population Projections

[Subdude]

In another topic it was mentioned that the population of the Houston area is going to double in the next 20 years. Population growth projections are often tossed about as a means to justify infrastructure projects (light rail, Katy Freeway expansion, Grand Parkway). I dug up the actual 2004 metro area projections from the Texas State Data Center and the Office of the State Demographer. There are four scenarios. Scenario 0.0 assumes no net migration into the area, i.e. natural rate of population growth. Scenario 0.5 assumes net migration at half the rate of the average rate during the 1990s. Scenario 1.0 assumes net migration at a rate equal to that during the 1990s. The 2000-2002 scenario assumes net migration at a rate equal to that during those years (somewhat slower than during the 1990s, but before the full impact of the economic slowdown during this decade). Scenario 0.5 is recommended for long-term planning purposes.

The tablular results won't post in this format, but you can see the results at this link. The tables are at the bottom of the page.

In each scenario the

[pineda]

"It may likewise call into question the wisdom of projects such as the Grand Parkway, unless it is assumed that the migrant population will cluster in areas near the planned road."

Thank you for mentioning this point yet again. People keep clamoring that the population explosion predicted for the Greater Houston area is justification enough for the Grand Parkway, but if you really study the Census numbers as they are now and the future projections, you can easily see that the population of people moving into this area will not moving further and further out into the suburbs. They will however be filling up the denser CBD even more so than it is right now, which more than proves the point for creating either an improved light rail system or some sort of public transportation system that is efficient and affordable for the masses. Heavy construction contractors, automobile dealerships, concrete and cement companies find none of this music to their ears however and pay big bucks to lobbyists to make sure Houston keeps expanding ever outward, rather than doing infill renovation projects that would preclude their participation to a greater degree. The Grand Parkway is a 170 mile loop to nowhere that doesn't even form a circle anymore (because it is not projected to even go past 59 now) dreamed up by developers to enrich their pockets only. It is not a transportation congestion-reliever type project and it was never intended to be one. That has always been just a convenient smoke-screen used by slick talking engineers employed by the contractor firms to TxDOT.

[Houston19514]

What is it in the "census numbers as they are now and the future projections" that supposedly tells us that "the population of people moving into this area will not be moving further and further out into the suburbs", but rather will be filling up the denser CBD... Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I see nothing at all that indicates that. Other studies and statistics may indicate a slightly greater tendency towards moving into the inner city than in the past (and the boom in housing in Houston's inner city supports that), but I believe the vast majority of Houston's growth remains in the suburbs, and outer suburbs at that. What in the census numbers and future projections gives any indication that that is about to change? If Houston is going to grow by 2 or 3 million over the coming 20 years, that will of course require the construction of a large number of new dwelling units and my guess is that a rather large majority of those will be outside the beltway.

"It may likewise call into question the wisdom of projects such as the Grand Parkway, unless it is assumed that the migrant population will cluster in areas near the planned road."

Thank you for mentioning this point yet again. People keep clamoring that the population explosion predicted for the Greater Houston area is justification enough for the Grand Parkway, but if you really study the Census numbers as they are now and the future projections, you can easily see that the population of people moving into this area will not moving further and further out into the suburbs. They will however be filling up the denser CBD even more so than it is right now, which more than proves the point for creating either an improved light rail system or some sort of public transportation system that is efficient and affordable for the masses. Heavy construction contractors, automobile dealerships, concrete and cement companies find none of this music to their ears however and pay big bucks to lobbyists to make sure Houston keeps expanding ever outward, rather than doing infill renovation projects that would preclude their participation to a greater degree. The Grand Parkway is a 170 mile loop to nowhere that doesn't even form a circle anymore (because it is not projected to even go past 59 now) dreamed up by developers to enrich their pockets only. It is not a transportation congestion-reliever type project and it was never intended to be one. That has always been just a convenient smoke-screen used by slick talking engineers employed by the contractor firms to TxDOT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[pineda]

"but I believe the vast majority of Houston's growth remains in the suburbs, and outer suburbs at that"

And this belief is based upon what? What you see today is not what will be in the future. When I have more time, I will try to dig up some studies to impress upon you the need to plan intelligently for the future, not just for today. Why spend over $500 million for a 50 mile segment of the Grand Parkway (that price tag just the starting price tag for Segment F-2 alone, by the way) to serve only the part of the population wealthy enough to own cars. Why not take that same amount of money and spend it on improving inner city transportation for that segment of our population that either chooses to go without an automobile or cannot afford to own one? Paving our way out of congestion is not working.

[Subdude]

Well it will probably be a case of "all of the above". Hasn't the traditional settlement pattern often been that new immigrants move close-in where there is cheaper housing and more availability of mass transit, while the second generation moves into the the older suburbs, and residents of older suburbs drift out to new suburbs on the periphery? That would imply both new growth in the suburbs, but also greater need for transit such as light rail. That implies the political and economic problems of how to effectively allocate resources between both needs.

[Guest danax]

In any scenario, it appears that there will be a large percentage of population growth from illegal aliens. They will always seek the cheapest housing available. That means run-down apartment complexes and cheap rent houses. Usually, one cannot get a mortgage without a valid SS card so many of the illegals end up, when they save some money, buying seller financed homes, and those are usually in older neighborhoods where the mortgages have been paid off. I have 2 next to me with that exact situation. So, they will be where cheap rentals and older homes are. The CBD is likely to be unaffordable, so they will be left to the neighborhoods probably between the loop and the beltway, the older suburbs. Southern California is ahead of us in many ways and we can use them as a model for our future. Some of the formerly illegal alien populated cities are seeing a decline in that demographic due to gentrification. Corona Del Mar, which is nice but used to have a lot of illegals in old apartments, held a party when the last, ratty complex got demolished, thus completing the "cleansing".

[UrbaNerd]

Hopefully, we dont need any other ultra freeways out side of the GP...

[Houston19514]

To review, you told us earlier in this thread that if we "study the Census numbers as they are now and the future projections, you can easily see that the population of people moving into this area will not moving further and further out into the suburbs." I asked where in the census numbers you were able to glean this prediction that population would NOT continue to move further and further out into the suburbs. I don't see it in the census numbers or projections. Since you did not bother to answer my question, but rather changed the subject, I'm guess you don't really seen any such thing in the census numbers and projections either. If you do, I'm eager for an explanation. Instead of answering my simple question of what in the census numbers you based your conclusion upon, you have promised to dig up some studies showing why we need to plan intelligently for the future. I'm all in favor of planning for the future, and hopefully intelligently. But we can't very well plan intelligently for the future if we base our projections on what we personally desire rather than on what the trends and projections really show. If we plan for a future based on your "easily seen" projection that the millions of people who will be moving to Houston will be moving into the inner city, but they in fact choose to live out in the outer suburbs, well, that doesn't strike me as very intelligent planning.

You asked upon what I based my belief regarding where Houston's growth is occurring. My use of the word "belief" was intentional. It is merely my impression based on reading various news and information sources. I don't have a source at hand, but surely you are not going to suggest that is currently incorrect, are you? And I have not seen anything to suggest that it will change drastically in the future, neither for Houston or for any other city in the USA, your personal preferences notwithstanding.

Also, please note, I did not make, and am not making, an argument in favor of the Grand Parkway. I am officialy agnostic on the Grand Parkway.

"but I believe the vast majority of Houston's growth remains in the suburbs, and outer suburbs at that"

And this belief is based upon what? What you see today is not what will be in the future. When I have more time, I will try to dig up some studies to impress upon you the need to plan intelligently for the future, not just for today. Why spend over $500 million for a 50 mile segment of the Grand Parkway (that price tag just the starting price tag for Segment F-2 alone, by the way) to serve only the part of the population wealthy enough to own cars. Why not take that same amount of money and spend it on improving inner city transportation for that segment of our population that either chooses to go without an automobile or cannot afford to own one? Paving our way out of congestion is not working.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Montrose1100]

Not only Houston, but all of Texas' population is suppose to double.

[h-townrep]

What Houston needs to do is 1st, it would be nice for us to have commuter rail go along these no sense HOV lanes. Especially sense Houston is so big, commuter rail would go good and develop our infastructure instead of concentrating on this Grand Parkway. 2) Do like Atlanta did with it's 166 it was suppose to go through the city of Atlanta like a Spur, suppose to have been a lot longer but they found that it was gonna cost a lot more and the powers in Atlanta wanted more people to live either downtown or out the city, so that shopped it in half.

Also according to some stats I have seen with our current growth and no annexation, Houston will past Chicago to become the Third largest City and move up to become the 7th largest metro. This is not including the growth spirt of Las Vegas, if so then Las Vegas would become 3rd largest.

[Montrose1100]

What Houston needs to do is 1st, it would be nice for us to have commuter rail go along these no sense HOV lanes. Especially sense Houston is so big, commuter rail would go good and develop our infastructure instead of concentrating on this Grand Parkway. 2) Do like Atlanta did with it's 166 it was suppose to go through the city of Atlanta like a Spur, suppose to have been a lot longer but they found that it was gonna cost a lot more and the powers in Atlanta wanted more people to live either downtown or out the city, so that shopped it in half.

Also according to some stats I have seen with our current growth and no annexation, Houston will past Chicago to become the Third largest City and move up to become the 7th largest metro. This is not including the growth spirt of Las Vegas, if so then Las Vegas would become 3rd largest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt Las vegas will reach that anytime soon... A city can only grow to a certain point...

But giving them what they have now, 517,017 in city and 1,612,258 in metro... They could shurly be on there way to the top ten... but I don't think it will pass up Houston, Chicago, LA or NYC.

[UrbaNerd]

Don't forget about Pheonix! That city and its metro is growing fast!

[tamtagon]

Is there any scenerio which concludes that Houston Metro will surpass DFW in population?

[UrbaNerd]

No, unless we get big enough to join with the San Antonio/Austin Metro (if you look on a metro map, we are actually only seperated by ONE county)

[Montrose1100]

No, unless we get big enough to join with the San Antonio/Austin Metro  (if you look on a metro map, we are actually only seperated by ONE county)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats crazy, only one county?!

[Subdude]

Is there any scenerio which concludes that Houston Metro will surpass DFW in population?

No, in each scenario the DFW metro area population exceeds that of Houston, and by increasingly wider margins over time. The two populations start out relatively close, but in the high growth scenario the DFW population exceeds Houston by several million. The only case in which the Houston metro population would exceed that of DFW is if migration here was significantly higher than to the Dallas area.

[houstonsemipro]

Listen, dallas metro is bigger then houston metro because of population, not of land size. Houston metro land size is bigger, and have room to produce more. So, yes houston will surpass dallas metro in population.

[Talbot]

Just because we have more land doesn't mean we are guarenteed to get a bigger metro pop. than Dallas in the future. There are a lot more factors than land size that factor the growth of a cities metro.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Maybe, Houston will get within a one million margin to DFW, but we will not surpass them. Is Texas scheduled to be bigger than California?

[Montrose1100]

No, in each scenario the DFW metro area population exceeds that of Houston, and by increasingly wider margins over time.  The two populations start out relatively close, but in the high growth scenario the DFW population exceeds Houston by several million.  The only case in which the Houston metro population would exceed that of DFW is if migration here was significantly higher than to the Dallas area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The DFW metro is only ahead of us by 750,000 or so... not "Millions".

[Subdude]

The DFW metro is only ahead of us by 750,000 or so... not "Millions".

Read the post before replying. It said that the populations start out relatively close. Over time the DFW population grows at a faster rate and exceeds Houston's by a larger amount. In the 2000 population base case, DFW population is greater by 446,137. In the lowest growth scenario (no migration), the projected 2040 DFW population excess is 578,661. In the highest growth scenario, the 2040 projected difference between the two metro areas is 4,362,683.

Cinco, it is probably unlikely that the Texas population will exceed that of California anytime in the near future. Texas' 2000 population was roughly 20mm, compared to about 34mm for California.

[Montrose1100]

Read the post before replying.  It said that the populations start out relatively close.  Over time the DFW population grows at a faster rate and exceeds Houston's by a larger amount.  In the 2000 population base case, DFW population  is greater by 446,137.  In the lowest growth scenario (no migration), the projected 2040 DFW population excess is 578,661.  In the highest growth scenario, the 2040 projected difference between the two metro areas is 4,362,683. 

Cinco, it is probably unlikely that the Texas population will exceed that of California anytime in the near future.  Texas' 2000 population was roughly 20mm, compared to about 34mm for California.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Houston will eventually pass up the Dallas Metro... The "Migration" here seems to be a bit faster, and has been since the 1930s... There only basing it on current rates, and populations. They can't exactly predict the future, and neither can we. Because rates change (dramatically in some cases) over the corse of a month, to years...

Its my Prediction, Houston will probibly out grow the metro with in the next 30 years...

[Willy1]

Listen, dallas metro is bigger then houston metro because of population, not of land size. Houston metro land size is bigger, and have room to produce more. So, yes houston will surpass dallas metro in population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I think Houston will eventually pass up the Dallas Metro... The "Migration" here seems to be a bit faster, and has been since the 1930s... There only basing it on current rates, and populations. They can't exactly predict the future, and neither can we. Because rates change (dramatically in some cases) over the corse of a month, to years...

Its my Prediction, Houston will probibly out grow the metro with in the next 30 years..."

Look guys, just because You WANT something to happen or WANT something to be true, it doesn't mean that it IS what you WANT it to be. You have to look at the facts before you can just state something as being true or not... I WANT to drive a Hummer or a Mercedes. I can even go out and tell people that I drive a Hummer or a Benz if I want to... But the fact is, I drive an Isuzu Trooper. And you know what - I love it. Now, if all I focused on was the fact that I don't have an H2 or a Benz, the I probably would miss the fact that I like my Trooper.

It seems that the standard rebutals to the "DFW is bigger" thing are "Houston is bigger in land size therefore we'll be bigger in population eventually" or "It takes two to be Houston; Dallas AND Ft Worth". That reminds me of the scene on the elementary school playground where one kid says to the other, "my dad can kick your dad's butt because he's bigger". It just a silly rebutal.

Houston is primarily all Houston, while DFW is made up of many suburbs. That is very true. Houston has been aggressively annexing surounding towns for decades while Dallas has not. In fact, the suburban areas surrounding Dallas actually have a greater population now than Dallas proper. So, if you compare the two areas, it's really difficult to comare them side by side... But doing so proves nothing anyway. The quality of a city has nothing to do with its size. Some of the best cities in America are small cities - Santa Fe comes to mind.

Anyway, here are some unbiased facts to read instead of getting into a pushing match in the playground sandbox...

1. The city of Houston is considerably larger than the city of Dallas.

2. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is considerably larger than the Houston Metro Area. (No one in DFW seems to even think about this, so why is it such a big deal for Houstonians?)

3. Houston's square mile footprint is larger than the square mile footprint of Dallas. Houston = 579 Sq Miles. Dallas = 343 Sq Miles. However, city rankings go by population more often than area. No one really even pays attention to square miles. In fact, no one would even guess the "largest" U.S. City when it comes to land area... Houston is not the largest, and if you're going to go by that stat then Hostonians are going to be even more embarassed by who is larger than Houston according to land area. Juneau Alaska is actually the "largest U.S. City" when ranking by land area. Juneau has a land area of 3081 square miles - yep you read that correctly and that's over 5 times larger than Houston! And Juneau's population is about 31,000. Okay, so then Houston must be the largest in the lower 48, right? Wrong. Jacksonville Florida sits on 841 Square Miles and Oklahoma City sits on 607 Sq. Miles... Houston is somewhere in the neighborhood of 579 sqare miles. And, there might still be other cities that are larger than Houston - this was just a quick search. I didn't look at a complete ranking. Another thing to consider... No one would ever consider Houston or DFW to be larger than NYC in any stretch of the imagination, right? Even Los Angeles pales in comparison to NCY when it comes to size... right? Wrong again. In fact, did you know that DFW Airport is actually larger land-wise than Manhattan? That's a fact. Manhattan sits on 23 square miles of land... DFW airport sits on 29.3 square miles of land. DFW has no population, and Manhattan is one of the most - if not THE most - densly populated urban areas on Earth. All of NYC combined is only 303 square miles... yet NYC metro is home to nearly as many people as the entire state of Texas while being roughly half the size of Oklahoma City. Point is, you can't really compare Dallas and Houston on this level because it would be like trying to compare LA to NYC. One is mainly suburban sprawl (Dallas and LA) and the other is incorporated city (Houston and NYC). Of course, if you want to get really obscure and cast a hypothetical on this scenario and add some of the suburbs to Dallas then the situation would be different. Pretend for a second that Dallas suddenly annexed Plano, Richardson, and other suburbs until it was the exact same size land-wise as Houston... just for the sake of a true side-by-side comparison... Dallas MIGHT (no one knows for sure because it can't be done) be larger than Houston population-wise because it would more than double Dallas' population.

4.Houston will not surpass DFW in population unless there is some sort of economic collapse in the DFW metroplex at the same time there is some sort of economic boom in Houston. The reasons cities boom or bust is based on the local economic strength of cities - job growth, cost of living index, economic diversity, etc. The projections are pretty strong that DFW will continue to widen the population gap over Houston Metro because the DFW regional economy is one of the strongest in the nation... not just because people in Dallas "think" or "want" to be bigger than Houston. Houston also enjoys a strong economy, but the problem is that Houston has not been as successful in diversifying it's economy in the years since the oil industry collapsed. The DFW economy is one of the most resilient economies in the country, therefore it is less likely to suffer during times of economic recession and/or depression. In fact, during recent recessions, DFW actually retained its rapid growth. One projection I saw - and there are many out there - stated that the population of Houston Metro in 2030 will be around 7.2 million. DFW's projected 2030 population is 9.1 million. However, even as we speak they are tallying the latest population figures to be released in April. The growth rate in DFW is so brisk that they projections can't even keep up. For example. Fort Worth was not projected to hit 625,000 until 2010, but Fort Worth has probably already surpassed that number, or is very close to hitting it now - 5 years ahead of the projected date.

I'm sure some of you reading this will will see all this as some sort of a slap in the face to Houston. But in all honesty, the DFW area is in trouble because of the growth. Although infrastructure is in a 24/7 state of construction, they won't be able to keep up with the population demands and the air quality and transportation systems are going to lag behind which will created a difficult living environment. DFW has grown too quickly to keep up, so as the years go by traffic, congestion, and all sorts of other urban problems will become reality in DFW. These are not good things.

5. DFW is set to overtake Philly as the 4th largest metro area. It will probably happen in 2005 or 2006, if it hasn't already happened. Philly continues to slow down and DFW was only about 300,000 behind Philly in Jan 2003. DFW is adding over 150,000 per year (or somewhere close to that) therefore DFW should be neck and neck with Phily by now.

6. Fort Worth Factor. For most of her history Fort Worth has been sitting in the shadows of her sister to the east. However, that is changing quickly. Fort Worth is aggressively annexing the extra jurisdicional territory (land outside the city limits that they have first right to) in the same way that Houston has annexed in years gone by. The result is that Fort Worth is about to - or possibly already has - surpassed Dallas in area. This means that Fort Worth will not become landlocked by the surburbs around it the way that Dallas has. Experts are now projecting that Fort Worth will eventually overtake Dallas in population to become the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex - but that has nothing to do with the fact that FW is going to be larger land-wise. In this instance it's merely the result of FW trying to avoid becoming landlocked. However, the Dallas economy will probably still lead Fort Worth in job growth for decades...

7. Some believe the reason Dallas and Fort Worth merged to become "DFW" was to beat Houston in some sort of population race. This is not true. The DFW Metroplex became one metro area because the U.S. Census bureau determined that the commuter patterns in the DFW area were such that the two areas really were one larger metro area. The city governments really didn't have anything to do with it. There are tons of people who live in FW but drive to Dallas for work... Such commuting patterns led the U.S. Census bureau to reclassify the Dallas Metro and Fort Worth-Arlington Metro areas into one larger Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area. Likewise, the reverse has been true in other cities that have be split into smaller metros. San Fransisco/San Jose were divided because the silicon valley develepment in San Jose shifted commuter patterns in the Bay Area and people began moving to San Jose to be closer to their jobs in Silicon Valley. Therefore, they were no longer commutting to San Fran which had long been the local epicenter for jobs in the Bay Area. San Fran and San Jose are now two different metro areas and San Fran as slipped in the rankings as a result. Same thing happened in DC/Baltimore...

8. Houston's Skyline is bigger than Dallas'. This is true. Houston's skyline boast taller buildings and more of them than Dallas. Dallas will not overtake Houston's skyline when it comes to height because there are FAA height restrictions on how tall the buildings in downtown Dallas can be. Currently the tallest building in Downtown Dallas is the 921 foot Bank of America building. The FAA granted permission for that tower, but it is the tallest building that Dallas will ever see in its downtown core unless flight patterns at Love Field are altered to accommodate taller buildings. Fort Worth on the other hand, has no height restrictions and it is expected to start adding skyscrapers in the next couple years. This trend is due to the 99% occupancy rate in the FW CBD which has created a lack of class A office space. Additionally, there is a rising demand for high rise urban living in DT FW. Just this week, XTO energy announced plans to demolish the Landmark Tower (damaged in the 2000 tonado) and to possibly replace it with a 50-story office tower. More towers are on the way. And, once the Trinity River Plan is built in FW, more office and residential towers are expected to pop up along the new waterways as demand sores. The FW Trinity River Plan is going to double the size of downtown Fort Worth, which is already considered one of the nations best examples of urban renewal...

Well, I'm tired of typing. My point to all this is that DFW is a great city with great people - like it or not. The exact same thing can be said for Houston - it's a huge city filled with great people who are proud to live in Houston.

To me the idea of comparing cities is like comaring snow flakes. No two are alike and therefore they cannot truly be compared to one another. All of them have things that are good and bad about them. Point is, it's all subjective. Houstonians can point out all the reasons they hate DFW - the Dallatude, the skyline, the lack of things to do, whatever... DFW residents can turn around and ramble off a laundry list of things they hate about Houston - the humidity, the smog, the people, the traffic... It is and endless cycle that does nothing but waste the energy of the person who choses to fling mud at the other city.

I hope these points are met with objectiveness and not a back lash of typical elementary school "my city is better than your city" lame rebutals. If so, I'm sure this thread will be closed too...

[LAguy]

"I think Houston will eventually pass up the Dallas Metro... The "Migration" here seems to be a bit faster, and has been since the 1930s... There only basing it on current rates, and populations. They can't exactly predict the future, and neither can we. Because rates change (dramatically in some cases) over the corse of a month, to years...

Its my Prediction, Houston will probibly out grow the metro with in the next 30 years..."

Look guys, just because You WANT something to happen or WANT something to be true, it doesn't mean that it IS what you WANT it to be. You have to look at the facts before you can just state something as being true or not... I WANT to drive a Hummer or a Mercedes. I can even go out and tell people that I drive a Hummer or a Benz if I want to... But the fact is, I drive an Isuzu Trooper. And you know what - I love it. Now, if all I focused on was the fact that I don't have an H2 or a Benz, the I probably would miss the fact that I like my Trooper.

It seems that the standard rebutals to the "DFW is bigger" thing are "Houston is bigger in land size therefore we'll be bigger in population eventually" or "It takes two to be Houston; Dallas AND Ft Worth". That reminds me of the scene on the elementary school playground where one kid says to the other, "my dad can kick your dad's butt because he's bigger". It just a silly rebutal.

Houston is primarily all Houston, while DFW is made up of many suburbs. That is very true. Houston has been aggressively annexing surounding towns for decades while Dallas has not. In fact, the suburban areas surrounding Dallas actually have a greater population now than Dallas proper. So, if you compare the two areas, it's really difficult to comare them side by side... But doing so proves nothing anyway. The quality of a city has nothing to do with its size. Some of the best cities in America are small cities - Santa Fe comes to mind.

Anyway, here are some unbiased facts to read instead of getting into a pushing match in the playground sandbox...

1. The city of Houston is considerably larger than the city of Dallas.

2. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is considerably larger than the Houston Metro Area. (No one in DFW seems to even think about this, so why is it such a big deal for Houstonians?)

3. Houston's square mile footprint is larger than the square mile footprint of Dallas. Houston = 579 Sq Miles. Dallas = 343 Sq Miles. However, city rankings go by population more often than area. No one really even pays attention to square miles. In fact, no one would even guess the "largest" U.S. City when it comes to land area... Houston is not the largest, and if you're going to go by that stat then Hostonians are going to be even more embarassed by who is larger than Houston according to land area. Juneau Alaska is actually the "largest U.S. City" when ranking by land area. Juneau has a land area of 3081 square miles - yep you read that correctly and that's over 5 times larger than Houston! And Juneau's population is about 31,000. Okay, so then Houston must be the largest in the lower 48, right? Wrong. Jacksonville Florida sits on 841 Square Miles and Oklahoma City sits on 607 Sq. Miles... Houston is somewhere in the neighborhood of 579 sqare miles. And, there might still be other cities that are larger than Houston - this was just a quick search. I didn't look at a complete ranking. Another thing to consider... No one would ever consider Houston or DFW to be larger than NYC in any stretch of the imagination, right? Even Los Angeles pales in comparison to NCY when it comes to size... right? Wrong again. In fact, did you know that DFW Airport is actually larger land-wise than Manhattan? That's a fact. Manhattan sits on 23 square miles of land... DFW airport sits on 29.3 square miles of land. DFW has no population, and Manhattan is one of the most - if not THE most - densly populated urban areas on Earth. All of NYC combined is only 303 square miles... yet NYC metro is home to nearly as many people as the entire state of Texas while being roughly half the size of Oklahoma City. Point is, you can't really compare Dallas and Houston on this level because it would be like trying to compare LA to NYC. One is mainly suburban sprawl (Dallas and LA) and the other is incorporated city (Houston and NYC). Of course, if you want to get really obscure and cast a hypothetical on this scenario and add some of the suburbs to Dallas then the situation would be different. Pretend for a second that Dallas suddenly annexed Plano, Richardson, and other suburbs until it was the exact same size land-wise as Houston... just for the sake of a true side-by-side comparison... Dallas MIGHT (no one knows for sure because it can't be done) be larger than Houston population-wise because it would more than double Dallas' population.

4.Houston will not surpass DFW in population unless there is some sort of economic collapse in the DFW metroplex at the same time there is some sort of economic boom in Houston. The reasons cities boom or bust is based on the local economic strength of cities - job growth, cost of living index, economic diversity, etc. The projections are pretty strong that DFW will continue to widen the population gap over Houston Metro because the DFW regional economy is one of the strongest in the nation... not just because people in Dallas "think" or "want" to be bigger than Houston. Houston also enjoys a strong economy, but the problem is that Houston has not been as successful in diversifying it's economy in the years since the oil industry collapsed. The DFW economy is one of the most resilient economies in the country, therefore it is less likely to suffer during times of economic recession and/or depression. In fact, during recent recessions, DFW actually retained its rapid growth. One projection I saw - and there are many out there - stated that the population of Houston Metro in 2030 will be around 7.2 million. DFW's projected 2030 population is 9.1 million. However, even as we speak they are tallying the latest population figures to be released in April. The growth rate in DFW is so brisk that they projections can't even keep up. For example. Fort Worth was not projected to hit 625,000 until 2010, but Fort Worth has probably already surpassed that number, or is very close to hitting it now - 5 years ahead of the projected date.

I'm sure some of you reading this will will see all this as some sort of a slap in the face to Houston. But in all honesty, the DFW area is in trouble because of the growth. Although infrastructure is in a 24/7 state of construction, they won't be able to keep up with the population demands and the air quality and transportation systems are going to lag behind which will created a difficult living environment. DFW has grown too quickly to keep up, so as the years go by traffic, congestion, and all sorts of other urban problems will become reality in DFW. These are not good things.

5. DFW is set to overtake Philly as the 4th largest metro area. It will probably happen in 2005 or 2006, if it hasn't already happened. Philly continues to slow down and DFW was only about 300,000 behind Philly in Jan 2003. DFW is adding over 150,000 per year (or somewhere close to that) therefore DFW should be neck and neck with Phily by now.

6. Fort Worth Factor. For most of her history Fort Worth has been sitting in the shadows of her sister to the east. However, that is changing quickly. Fort Worth is aggressively annexing the extra jurisdicional territory (land outside the city limits that they have first right to) in the same way that Houston has annexed in years gone by. The result is that Fort Worth is about to - or possibly already has - surpassed Dallas in area. This means that Fort Worth will not become landlocked by the surburbs around it the way that Dallas has. Experts are now projecting that Fort Worth will eventually overtake Dallas in population to become the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex - but that has nothing to do with the fact that FW is going to be larger land-wise. In this instance it's merely the result of FW trying to avoid becoming landlocked. However, the Dallas economy will probably still lead Fort Worth in job growth for decades...

7. Some believe the reason Dallas and Fort Worth merged to become "DFW" was to beat Houston in some sort of population race. This is not true. The DFW Metroplex became one metro area because the U.S. Census bureau determined that the commuter patterns in the DFW area were such that the two areas really were one larger metro area. The city governments really didn't have anything to do with it. There are tons of people who live in FW but drive to Dallas for work... Such commuting patterns led the U.S. Census bureau to reclassify the Dallas Metro and Fort Worth-Arlington Metro areas into one larger Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area. Likewise, the reverse has been true in other cities that have be split into smaller metros. San Fransisco/San Jose were divided because the silicon valley develepment in San Jose shifted commuter patterns in the Bay Area and people began moving to San Jose to be closer to their jobs in Silicon Valley. Therefore, they were no longer commutting to San Fran which had long been the local epicenter for jobs in the Bay Area. San Fran and San Jose are now two different metro areas and San Fran as slipped in the rankings as a result. Same thing happened in DC/Baltimore...

8. Houston's Skyline is bigger than Dallas'. This is true. Houston's skyline boast taller buildings and more of them than Dallas. Dallas will not overtake Houston's skyline when it comes to height because there are FAA height restrictions on how tall the buildings in downtown Dallas can be. Currently the tallest building in Downtown Dallas is the 921 foot Bank of America building. The FAA granted permission for that tower, but it is the tallest building that Dallas will ever see in its downtown core unless flight patterns at Love Field are altered to accommodate taller buildings. Fort Worth on the other hand, has no height restrictions and it is expected to start adding skyscrapers in the next couple years. This trend is due to the 99% occupancy rate in the FW CBD which has created a lack of class A office space. Additionally, there is a rising demand for high rise urban living in DT FW. Just this week, XTO energy announced plans to demolish the Landmark Tower (damaged in the 2000 tonado) and to possibly replace it with a 50-story office tower. More towers are on the way. And, once the Trinity River Plan is built in FW, more office and residential towers are expected to pop up along the new waterways as demand sores. The FW Trinity River Plan is going to double the size of downtown Fort Worth, which is already considered one of the nations best examples of urban renewal...

Well, I'm tired of typing. My point to all this is that DFW is a great city with great people - like it or not. The exact same thing can be said for Houston - it's a huge city filled with great people who are proud to live in Houston.

To me the idea of comparing cities is like comaring snow flakes. No two are alike and therefore they cannot truly be compared to one another. All of them have things that are good and bad about them. Point is, it's all subjective. Houstonians can point out all the reasons they hate DFW - the Dallatude, the skyline, the lack of things to do, whatever... DFW residents can turn around and ramble off a laundry list of things they hate about Houston - the humidity, the smog, the people, the traffic... It is and endless cycle that does nothing but waste the energy of the person who choses to fling mud at the other city.

I hope these points are met with objectiveness and not a back lash of typical elementary school "my city is better than your city" lame rebutals. If so, I'm sure this thread will be closed too...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WOW, this is the single best response to the never ending Houston/Dallas debate! if anyone insisted on the continuous debate then they are just plain stupid. sometimes people just have to learn to forget personal bias and ego and stop the madness! it's not always a little boys pissing contest.

[MidtownCoog]

Houston/Dallas debate!

Read more carefully. It's obviously now the Houston/DFW debate.

[N Judah]

Look guys, just because You WANT something to happen or WANT something to be true, it doesn't mean that it IS what you WANT it to be. You have to look at the facts before you can just state something as being true or not... I WANT to drive a Hummer or a Mercedes. I can even go out and tell people that I drive a Hummer or a Benz if I want to... But the fact is, I drive an Isuzu Trooper. And you know what - I love it. Now, if all I focused on was the fact that I don't have an H2 or a Benz, the I probably would miss the fact that I like my Trooper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not denying that DFW is/will be larger than Houston, but that was just a bad analogy (or maybe some seriously passive-aggressive trolling).

We're talking about what *will* or *could* be, not what *is*. The possibility, whether you like it or not, exists for Houston to become larger than DFW. It's definitely not as far-fetched as you seem to wish it would be.

[LTAWACS]

In another topic it was mentioned that the population of the Houston area is going to double in the next 20 years.  Population growth projections are often tossed about as a means to justify infrastructure projects (light rail, Katy Freeway expansion, Grand Parkway).  I dug up the actual 2004 metro area projections from the Texas State Data Center and the Office of the State Demographer.  There are four scenarios.  Scenario 0.0 assumes no net migration into the area, i.e. natural rate of population growth.  Scenario 0.5 assumes net migration at half the rate of the average rate during the 1990s.  Scenario 1.0 assumes net migration at a rate equal to that during the 1990s.  The 2000-2002 scenario assumes net migration at a rate equal to that during those years (somewhat slower than during the 1990s, but before the full impact of the economic slowdown during this decade).  Scenario 0.5 is recommended for long-term planning purposes.

The tablular results won't post in this format, but you can see the results at this link.    The tables are at the bottom of the page. 

In each scenario the

[Houston19514]

*  *  *

4.Houston will not surpass DFW in population unless there is some sort of economic collapse in the DFW metroplex at the same time there is some sort of economic boom in Houston. The reasons cities boom or bust is based on the local economic strength of cities - job growth, cost of living index, economic diversity, etc. The projections are pretty strong that DFW will continue to widen the population gap over Houston Metro because the DFW regional economy is one of the strongest in the nation... not just because people in Dallas "think" or "want" to be bigger than Houston. Houston also enjoys a strong economy, but the problem is that Houston has not been as successful in diversifying it's economy in the years since the oil industry collapsed. The DFW economy is one of the most resilient economies in the country, therefore it is less likely to suffer during times of economic recession and/or depression. In fact, during recent recessions, DFW actually retained its rapid growth. One projection I saw - and there are many out there - stated that the population of Houston Metro in 2030 will be around 7.2 million. DFW's projected 2030 population is 9.1 million. However, even as we speak they are tallying the latest population figures to be released in April. The growth rate in DFW is so brisk that they projections can't even keep up. For example. Fort Worth was not projected to hit 625,000 until 2010, but Fort Worth has probably already surpassed that number, or is very close to hitting it now - 5 years ahead of the projected date.

I'm sure some of you reading this will will see all this as some sort of a slap in the face to Houston. But in all honesty, the DFW area is in trouble because of the growth. Although infrastructure is in a 24/7 state of construction, they won't be able to keep up with the population demands and the air quality and transportation systems are going to lag behind which will created a difficult living environment. DFW has grown too quickly to keep up, so as the years go by traffic, congestion, and all sorts of other urban problems will become reality in DFW. These are not good things.

5. DFW is set to overtake Philly as the 4th largest metro area. It will probably happen in 2005 or 2006, if it hasn't already happened. Philly continues to slow down and DFW was only about 300,000 behind Philly in Jan 2003. DFW is adding over 150,000 per year (or somewhere close to that) therefore DFW should be neck and neck with Phily by now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the unemotional fact-based posting. It was rather refreshing. Now, if I may quibble, just a bit. (All based on facts, no emotion here). Regarding the various projections of future populations. Most of those projections are based on the assumption that past growth rates will continue, which makes them almost meaningless. On the other hand, the most recent Census estimates show the Houston Metropolitan Area growing faster than the D-FW metropolitan area (measuring from 2000 to 2003). It will be interesting to see the next batch of estimates.

Your statement that D-FW is about to overtake Philly as the nation's 4th largest metro area, while possibly true, does not exactly give a full picture. The new census definitions cause some oddities when looking at what is now known as Metropolitan Statistical Areas. I think the more accurate and useful comparison is really to Combined Statistical Areas (CSA). In the case of D-FW (and Houston as well) almost the entire Combined Statistical Area is also in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); but in the case of many of the other largest metro areas, large chunks of the areas are left out of the core MSA. Thus, if you compare D-FW MSA to other MSAs, you are comparing almost the entire D-FW CSA to, for example, San Francisco without San Jose, etc; Boston without Worcester etc.; Washington DC without Baltimore. I believe the CSA rankings are as follows (using 2000 census numbers):

1. New York City

2. Los Angeles

3. Chicago

4. Washington-Baltimore

5. San Franscisco

6. Philadelphia

7. Boston

8. Detroit

9. Dallas-Fort Worth

10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale

11. Houston

It's likely that D-FW has overtaken Detroit as the eighth largest CSA since the 2000 census.

The MSA rankings, using 2000 census numbers:

1. New York City

2. Los Angeles

3. Chicago

4. Philadelphia

5. Dallas-Fort Worth

6. Miami-Fort Lauderdale

7. Washington DC

8. Houston

9. Detroit

10. Boston

11. Atlanta

12. San Franscisco

See what I mean? I can't take very seriously any ranking that says that both Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are larger metropolitan areas than either Boston or San Francisco. As has been said before, "just because You WANT something to happen or WANT something to be true, it doesn't mean that it IS what you WANT it to be"

[Willy1]

Thanks for the unemotional fact-based posting.  It was rather refreshing.  Now, if I may quibble, just a bit.  (All based on facts, no emotion here).  Regarding the various projections of future populations.  Most of those projections are based on the assumption that past growth rates will continue, which makes them almost meaningless. On the other hand, the most recent Census estimates show the Houston Metropolitan Area growing faster than the D-FW metropolitan area (measuring from 2000 to 2003).  It will be interesting to see the next batch of estimates.

Your statement that D-FW is about to overtake Philly as the nation's 4th largest metro area, while possibly true, does not exactly give a full picture.  The new census definitions cause some oddities when looking at what is now known as Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  I think the more accurate and useful comparison is really to Combined Statistical Areas (CSA).  In the case of D-FW (and Houston as well) almost the entire Combined Statistical Area is also in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); but in the case of many of the other largest metro areas, large chunks of the areas are left out of the core MSA.  Thus, if you compare D-FW MSA to other MSAs, you are comparing almost the entire D-FW CSA to, for example, San Francisco without San Jose, etc; Boston without Worcester etc.; Washington DC without Baltimore.    I believe the CSA rankings are as follows (using 2000 census numbers):

1.  New York City

2.  Los Angeles

3.  Chicago

4.  Washington-Baltimore

5.  San Franscisco

6.  Philadelphia

7.  Boston

8.  Detroit

9.  Dallas-Fort Worth

10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale

11.  Houston

It's likely that D-FW has overtaken Detroit as the eighth largest CSA since the 2000 census.

The MSA rankings, using 2000 census numbers: 

1.  New York City

2.  Los Angeles

3.  Chicago

4.  Philadelphia

5.  Dallas-Fort Worth

6.  Miami-Fort Lauderdale

7.  Washington DC

8.  Houston

9.  Detroit

10.  Boston

11.  Atlanta

12.  San Franscisco

See what I mean?  I can't take very seriously any ranking that says that both Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are larger metropolitan areas than either Boston or San Francisco.  As has been said before, "just because You WANT something to happen or WANT something to be true, it doesn't mean that it IS what you WANT it to be"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I totally agree with you. The DFW at #5 thing is a little misleading because certainly there are areas of the country that have fallen down the list. I mentioned it a bit in my post when I was talking about the San Fran/San Jose thing... I just didn't go into full detail about it because, in all honesty, I was tired of typing. LOL. But, it's true that some of the larger metro areas took a hit to their rankings when they were divided by the Census Bureau. However, the Census Bureau is the "official" counter of populations so it's one of those situations where you have to ask yourself whether or not their methods are accurate. Obviously San Fran/San Jose is a larger combined metro area than DFW... But, according to the Census Bureau the commuter patterns that dictate whether or not an area qualifies as a true "Combined Metro Stat Area" no longer support San Fran/San Jose being one metro area. It seems that - by the Census Bureau's definitions - the DFW area is growing more unified, while cities like DC/Baltimore and San Fran/San Jose are becoming more independant of each other. That said, it is possible that as Fort Worth grows into being a more self-reliant economic engine, FW-Arlington migth once again be removed from DFW and Dallas and FW could once again be two different metro areas. Something to think about...

As for which one is growing faster, Hoston v. DFW... I've seen both. When I was looking today I found one stat that showed Dallas grew at 8.52% over a 3 or 4 year period, while Houston grew at 7.21%. I also found a page that listed DFW as growing at the second fastest rate of any of the top 10 metro areas, just behind Atlanta over the past 20 years... So, there are stats out there to support both. Only time will tell which will grow faster in the years to come. One thing is for sure. Both will continue to march up the list rather than down the list of biggest metro/urban areas and both will continue to represent the great state of Texas very well... Both are destined to be among the world's largest metropolitan areas...

I think it's safe to say that Texas boasts not just one, but two "largest"... Houston is the largest city in Texas while DFW is the largest Metro area.

[Houston19514]

^ Can you give me a source for the 8.52% and 7.21% growth rates?

My source is the US Census Bureau (combined with my calculator) According to the July 31, 2003 county estimates, when compared with the April 1, 2000 Census, the Dallas Combined Statistical Area grew by 6.75721 %. In the same period, the Houston Combined Statistical Area grew by 7.49594 %.