Houston's Population Peak

[Montrose1100]

With Houston and the surrounding suburbs growing in population each year, It is hard for me to imagine Houston with anymore then the +5,000,000 people already here. Since almost everything outside of the 610 loop is layed out in a traditional "suburban" style (not that there is anything wrong with that), how many people could still continue to move & live here?

We can only sprawl so far, right..? I'm guessing Developers & City officials will eventually see this (in time) and start planning and building for more and more people. The old Farm Lands/Forests will run out, and the freeways can only be widened and stacked so much.

Given the current population estimates & projections, how much longer do you think it will take for Houston, until things change? Current projects in and out of town (i.e. the 'lifestyle centers, The Woodlands Town Center, etc.) are already Urban developements. Is this a result from current trends, population growth, or just good ideas? (maybe a combo of all 3?)

I personally don't think Houston will ever reach Tokyo's (estimated 35 million) size. -Not that I want it to, or that achieving this is some kind of goal, or "Houston should be more like NYC" kinda deal. But When (if ever) will The population "peak"?

[The Great Hizzy!]

Economic factors are usually the primary determinant. The diversification of the Houston economy over the coming decades will be an important piece of that economic machine. Take the diversification of the Port of Houston as an example. If we can continue to dwindle that overall percentage of jobs created by the energy sector, then we'll be in better shape to maintain our viability.

Another determinant is culture. People also want to be where the action is. Of course, we've also seen that the merits of culture is viewed subjectively, and who the hell is to say what will be cool 30,50,75 years from now. Regardless, it's in our best interest to continue to rediscover our cultural assets, such as our bayous, our parks, our museums and so forth.

Mobility is another, although it's a one for all cities. All cities are crowded. All cities have traffic. It will be extremely important to take a serious look at improving the diversity of transit options over the coming years so that we can facilitate any economic growth that might occur.

There are others, but those are the factors that often jump out at me first.

[Pumapayam]

The Townhouse disease will continue to spread inside the Loop.

So for every single family home demo'd, four news ones will spring up.

So in essence, it still have plently of potential to grow in population.

[TheNiche]

Economic factors are usually the primary determinant.

Ditto.

Historically, what has allowed us to diversify was that we had this massive glut of office space and inexpensive homes left over from the big energy boom of the 70's/80's. It made us a cheap alternative. Rather than drawing companies because of our population base, the way that NYC or LA can, we pull them in with our excess supply of capital. Those companies, in turn, pull in the labor force.

We simply could not be where we are today without the boom/bust volatility for which we are notorious. I'm not entirely sure that that cycle is sustainable this time around...we need more office buildings. And the TMC isn't going to be enough, by itself. Look at Dubai...it is using the Sultan's money to artificially create the conditions of Houston circa 1986. That's how they're securing their future. I'm a bit concerned that advances in energy technology could put us in the long-term position of being a Detroit. On the other hand, a major disaster in the Middle East could result in us lurching ahead of many U.S. cities in terms of population.

We're risky, long-term.

Btw...there's no shortage of land. We're the blob that swallowed SE Texas, and we'll just keep on feeding.

[Jeebus]

I'm a bit concerned that advances in energy technology could put us in the long-term position of being a Detroit. On the other hand, a major disaster in the Middle East could result in us lurching ahead of many U.S. cities in terms of population.

How could a major distaster in the middle east cause Houston the lurch ahead in population growth?

I think that our medical sector, along with strong local immigrant commerce will keep Houston alive in the event of another oil crisis. What would change would the be the development of outlying communities. I think we would begin to see urban planning take influence from some of the very immigrant cultures living here now. An example would be Vietnamese business owners constructing two-story structures with the first floor their business, and the second floor their residence.

I also think that alternative fuels will ultimately determine how much further out we grow as a metropolitan area. If we can indeed harness the ability to cheaply mass produce E-85, then the dreaded days of cramped inner-loop living, mountain bike-riding might never occur.

As stated above, there is no land shortage. As our economy continues to inflate, and fuel is still plentiful, we will still continue to build out, and not up.

EDIT: I'll add as an edit that its refreshing to finally find a thread not about politics. Thank you Montrose 1100.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Jeebus

[Montrose1100]

Wonderful answers, thank you all!

[TheNiche]

How could a major distaster in the middle east cause Houston the lurch ahead in population growth?

In the event of a major disaster--one that destroyed a substantial part of the oil infrastructure or shut down trade to that region--many Houston-based energy firms would have to very quickly ramp up their operations elsewhere in the world to meet demand. There are no better circumstances for job creation within the energy sector than when it has to quickly expand capacity.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily the most likely outcome, but it is very plausible.

I think that our medical sector, along with strong local immigrant commerce will keep Houston alive in the event of another oil crisis.

The size of Medicine as an industry is largely determined by the level of government subsidy. And it comes in many forms, sometimes direct (i.e. Medicare) and sometimes indirect (i.e. non-taxable employee benefits, including health insurance).

The Texas Medical Center definitely represents a core strength of Houston's, but it is still never going to be the employment driver that the energy sector has been. And the long-term prospects start to look a little less rosy once the boomers start to kick the bucket.

I'm not sure that our diverse immigrant population, by itself, is a core asset. Immigrant commerce tends to result in non-core employment. That is to say, they facilitate trade, but tend not to actually take part in the production process. Rather than create new wealth in our region, they're exchanging it at the secondary level. Does that make sense?

Edited October 5, 2006 by TheNiche

[Guest danax]

The Townhouse disease will continue to spread inside the Loop.

So for every single family home demo'd, four news ones will spring up.

So in essence, it still have plently of potential to grow in population.

Disease? Townhomes are how Houston is achieving big-city density and moderating sprawl to some degree. And townhomes attract a desirable citizen. A real disease scenario would be to start seeing a slew of tax-credit apartment projects built to house our low-income immigrants, in other words, a government-aided SW Houston-style expansion. That might not happen as a lot of these people have how figured out how to create density within suburban neighborhoods by filling the houses with people and converting garages into apartments, if possible. There are plenty of older tract homes around to probably handle a lot of the immigrant population for many years to come.

Also, the popularity of townhomes has caused them to pop up way outside the loop so some might consider them semi-sprawl, although I think edge-city infill is a better description . These are planned for 249 & Spring Cypress. I can't see the townhome trend going away if the cost of land continues to rise in the near Metro as single family homes will continue to be considered a wasteful use of land requiring a high sales price.

As far as capacity to physically hold a population, Houston is the ultimate sponge.

[Guest Plastic]

I think Houston will grow out to a certain oint then grow up. You might see buildings as high as Sears tower in Greenspoint or Westchase.

[houstonfella]

Houston at 600 sq miles has so much land and opportunity, that we can fill this huge city in with large amounts of apartments, corporate and medical structures, on and on, and have room for a new park. That's the Texas way. DFW has 677 square miles cities proper and hold 1.9 million. We have 600 sq miles and hold over 2 million easily. This state can start filling in the unused land and build and build and build. In our area, the energy business will take on that situation or the Texas Med Ctr or Johnson Space Ctr. The rest of the state? They have their nitch as well. Go Texas. This land is our land.

Edited October 8, 2006 by houstonfella

[Trae]

I think Houston will grow out to a certain oint then grow up. You might see buildings as high as Sears tower in Greenspoint or Westchase.

Nah....maybe as high as Library Tower in Los Angeles.

[houstonfella]

And does L.A. have a 64 story tower outside its CBD? Or a set of twin 40-story ones out there? Nah. L.A. over rated and definitely nuttin' on H-Town.

[Guest Plastic]

Hhahha I LOL at that statement.

Now anyway Does Dallas or Dallas and Ft.Worth have 677 sqaure miles?

Cause Dallas isn't nearly as big as Houston. It doesn'thave the population and shoudl be well under 1.9 million. San Antonio is largerthan The City of Dallas.

[TheNiche]

Hhahha I LOL at that statement.

Now anyway Does Dallas or Dallas and Ft.Worth have 677 sqaure miles?

Cause Dallas isn't nearly as big as Houston. It doesn'thave the population and shoudl be well under 1.9 million. San Antonio is largerthan The City of Dallas.

I and others have said this too many times for it not to have sunk in:

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF METROPOLITAN AREAS.

Edited October 9, 2006 by TheNiche

[VicMan]

I and others have said this too many times for it not to have sunk in:

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF METROPOLITAN AREAS.

Well said, TheNiche.

Plastic, the reason why SA has so many people is due to the fact that the city can annex land and grew from annexing land. SA is not hemmed in with suburban cities like Dallas is.

[h-townrep]

Well said, TheNiche.

Plastic, the reason why SA has so many people is due to the fact that the city can annex land and grew from annexing land. SA is not hemmed in with suburban cities like Dallas is.

When was the last time that San Antonio annexed an area. They can't go west because of sdesert, can't go North cause of San marcus or South bacause of Military, only North towards Austin and East towards Houston. the reason why San Antonio city wize is bigger that dallas is because people in dallas are moving to the burbs and in san Antonio people are living actually in the city.

The city population actually is more relevant than the metro population when it comes to the economics of that city. Infastructure, more things get placed in your city by what the population is. Also depends on what type of Metro you are. If you are like dallas, San Jose, Baltimore or Philly. You actually have another large city near you that takes care of it's own economic impact. Fort Worth and Arlington both were there before Dallas and already had there own impact and then Dallas. Now Dallas impact toward it's region is more important and larger than san Antonio's but not Houstons. Houston's impact is felt all over. people in the metro of h-town are greatly impacted by Houston, even galveston has impact stemed from houston (of course if it wasn't for a hurrican in 1900 then galvston wouyld be the 2nd largest city in the US) . Now Atlanta, when I go to work, more people are going to other cities than are going into Atlant at times. So they feed of each other. The impact and the relevance of a metro or city is different. In Houston it means one thing, Dallas another and San Antonio another. No matter how you put it, if San Antonio was near Houston it would be part of our Metr because san Antonio doesn't have as strong an impact.

[houstonfella]

Hhahha I LOL at that statement.

Now anyway Does Dallas or Dallas and Ft.Worth have 677 sqaure miles?

Cause Dallas isn't nearly as big as Houston. It doesn'thave the population and shoudl be well under 1.9 million. San Antonio is largerthan The City of Dallas.

I am including the city of FW's square miles plus Dallas' square miles - NOT the metro.

Census projections indicate Houston will growth to around 10 million in the next 2-3 decades. Sounds right to me since I have been here since 1972 and Harris County was no where around 3.6 million at that time.

[houstonmacbro]

as you are starting to see, houston IS starting to grow up along with growing out.

[JasonDFW]

With Houston and the surrounding suburbs growing in population each year, It is hard for me to imagine Houston with anymore then the +5,000,000 people already here. Since almost everything outside of the 610 loop is layed out in a traditional "suburban" style (not that there is anything wrong with that), how many people could still continue to move & live here?

I didn't notice anyone respond to your first question, so here's the answers from the Texas Water Development Board:

Houston MSA: 2030 - 7.5 Million

Houston MSA: 2060 - 10.7 Million

The only other MSA I have compiled info for is DFW, but they could all be done if one had time:

DFW MSA: 2030 - 8.9 Million

DFW MSA: 2060 - 12.8 Million

They do already compile numbers for regions which somewhat approximate what we would consider the cities+suburbs, with some exceptions.

It's nice to see they suspect the rural counties to stay rural, so the growth is expected to not be as sprawly as it has been the last couple decades.

Jason

[Montrose1100]

I didn't notice anyone respond to your first question, so here's the answers from the Texas Water Development Board:

Houston MSA: 2030 - 7.5 Million

Houston MSA: 2060 - 10.7 Million

The only other MSA I have compiled info for is DFW, but they could all be done if one had time:

DFW MSA: 2030 - 8.9 Million

DFW MSA: 2060 - 12.8 Million

They do already compile numbers for regions which somewhat approximate what we would consider the cities+suburbs, with some exceptions.

It's nice to see they suspect the rural counties to stay rural, so the growth is expected to not be as sprawly as it has been the last couple decades.

Jason

Do you believe 2060 to be a peak? Or perhaps a slowing trend?

[TheNiche]

I didn't notice anyone respond to your first question, so here's the answers from the Texas Water Development Board:

Houston MSA: 2030 - 7.5 Million

Houston MSA: 2060 - 10.7 Million

The only other MSA I have compiled info for is DFW, but they could all be done if one had time:

DFW MSA: 2030 - 8.9 Million

DFW MSA: 2060 - 12.8 Million

They do already compile numbers for regions which somewhat approximate what we would consider the cities+suburbs, with some exceptions.

It's nice to see they suspect the rural counties to stay rural, so the growth is expected to not be as sprawly as it has been the last couple decades.

Jason

The TWDB, like the rest of us, hasn't got a clue what things will look like in 54 years. It could be much more dense, or it could be incredibly low-density, along the lines of several million new ranchettes. It all depends upon the pace and path of technological advancement.

[Parrothead]

The Texas Medical Center definitely represents a core strength of Houston's, but it is still never going to be the employment driver that the energy sector has been.

Could you elaborate on that please? I thought the Texas Medical Center was the largest employer in Houston?

[TheNiche]

Could you elaborate on that please? I thought the Texas Medical Center was the largest employer in Houston?

There is a difference between base (a.k.a. core) employment and secondary employment. The former is what creates jobs that draw people and families to our city that have money to spend on goods and services provided by secondary employment. Without the former, the latter cannot exist. Upstream and most downstream energy jobs are almost entirely base employment, while medical services tend to be much more secondary because they wouldn't exist without the population attracted by energy jobs. The exception, of course, is medical research and specialty treatment, but that's only a portion of all TMC jobs.

[houstonfella]

If we all knew what the population growth was going to be fifty years from now, we'd be friggin' geniuses. All I can say is that Texas (with its HUGE Mex. population is going to grow and grow and grow). And I'm not saying that in a bad way. Family is huge in the Mexican tradition. Houston also is a huge magnet for international people from Malaysia, Viet Nam, Korea, yada yada.... but growth is good. I think.

[Double L]

There is a difference between base (a.k.a. core) employment and secondary employment. The former is what creates jobs that draw people and families to our city that have money to spend on goods and services provided by secondary employment. Without the former, the latter cannot exist. Upstream and most downstream energy jobs are almost entirely base employment, while medical services tend to be much more secondary because they wouldn't exist without the population attracted by energy jobs. The exception, of course, is medical research and specialty treatment, but that's only a portion of all TMC jobs.

That kicked ass right there.

[TheNiche]

That kicked ass right there.

Why thank you.

[lockmat]

Is there some way for city planners to develop a new plan for the city?

My preferred way is for Houston to urbanize, like most people. But unless we implement what metro wants to do with the light rail and then some more, we won't be able to. Can you imagine urbanizing Houston and not building a better transit system? Traffic would be absolutley horrible.

I suggest city planners get together and do something like a Dallas-Fort Worth and create another CBD.

What do y'all think?

Edited December 5, 2006 by lockmat

[TheNiche]

Is there some way for city planners to develop a new plan for the city?

My preferred way is for Houston to urbanize, like most people. But unless we implement what metro wants to do with the rail and the some more, we won't be able to. Can you imagine urbanizing Houston and not building a better transit system? Traffic would be absolutley horrible.

I suggest city planners get together and do something like a Dallas-Fort Worth and create another CBD.

What do y'all think?

I think that the best thing that the City of Houston to do in order to encourage rapid urbanization is to subsidize private schools and do everything within their power to get bums off the street. The reason the suburbs are so popular is primarily that the inner city is not perceived as family-friendly.

Transportation improvements and utilities upgrades are generally good too (although attempts at urban planning often backfire, i.e. setbacks). But those are all just issues of capacity. Schools and safety affect demand. You can put in place a high level of capacity, but if the demand isn't there, nothing will happen.

Edited December 5, 2006 by TheNiche

[lockmat]

I think that the best thing that the City of Houston to do in order to encourage rapid urbanization is to subsidize private schools and do everything within their power to get bums off the street. The reason the suburbs are so popular is primarily that the inner city is not perceived as family-friendly.

Transportation improvements and utilities upgrades are generally good too (although attempts at urban planning often backfire, i.e. setbacks). But those are all just issues of capacity. Schools and safety affect demand. You can put in place a high level of capacity, but if the demand isn't there, nothing will happen.

I think you're right about schools. I don't know the facts, but I bet most people who are moving into urbanized housing are those who don't have children. To get those hesitatant parents into those spaces, they'll have to improve schools. I'm guessing even those who do have children and live in those areas are bussing their kids themselves to private schools.

But you said subsidize private schools. I'm an idiot, and you don't need to repeat it. I'm just another dumby who graduated from college recently, but what does that mean to subsidize private schools?

And I think part of the reason inner city living for families isn't popular is because middle class families just haven't even considered it. I think my generation will though.

Transit upgrades are a must. Not just to get around for whatever, but to go to and from work. If we can get people to use it for just that, it would help tremendously.

Edited December 5, 2006 by lockmat

[TheNiche]

But you said subsidize private schools. I'm an idiot, and you don't need to repeat it. I'm just another dumby who graduated from college recently, but what does that mean to subsidize private schools?

And I think part of the reason inner city living for families isn't popular is because middle class families just haven't even considered it. I think my generation will though.

Transit upgrades are a must. Not just to get around for whatever, but to go to and from work. If we can get people to use it for just that, it would help tremendously.

I suggest that the City of Houston subsidize private schools (cover a lot of their expenses to make them more economically feasible, and thus, more abundant) because the public perceptions of HISD are so terrible. Creating new schools that are accessible to middle-class families in terms of price would be more effective, IMO, than trying to change perceptions surrounding HISD.

I'm absolutely certain that transit upgrades will be necessary in time, but I'm not sure that it matters so much right at this moment. I'd rather put the money into schools and public safety.