Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chicago is a has been city. Chicago use to be peers with NYC and LA, no more. Chicago crime rates are way higher than NYC and LA too despite having a far smaller population. Houston will surpass Chicago in population within the next several years.
#1 reason is political leadership.
Dude, stop.
The city of Houston actually has a stagnant/declining population. So does Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and most major cities in the US. American born people are starting to prefer suburbs as opposed to cities. The only major cities whose population are increasing are:
1) huge land areas where you get the "Suburbs in the City".
2) huge international immigration magnets where it can offset the bleed of Americans
Houston is both of those, but even then the population has had a slight decline over the last two years.
Its not as though, if Phoenix somehow passed Chicago they would be completely different cities.
The city of Houston actually has a stagnant/declining population. So does Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and most major cities in the US. American born people are starting to prefer suburbs as opposed to cities. The only major cities whose population are increasing are:
1) huge land areas where you get the "Suburbs in the City".
2) huge international immigration magnets where it can offset the bleed of Americans
Houston is both of those, but even then the population has had a slight decline over the last two years.
Its not as though, if Phoenix somehow passed Chicago they would be completely different cities.
Here's the thing. Nobody cares about Houston. Virtually nobody talks about Houston, visits Houston on vacation to see the sites, or thinks of Houston as a World city in any way.
That won't change if it creeps over Chicago on a population stat sheet.
Here's the thing. Nobody cares about Houston. Virtually nobody talks about Houston, visits Houston on vacation to see the sites, or thinks of Houston as a World city in any way.
That won't change if it creeps over Chicago on a population stat sheet.
I mean, Houston is an ultra international city. It is very global. It is the largest destination for immigrants in the US after NYC and Miami. It also has a world class food scene. The fact that it doesn't appeal to tourists or that people dont "talk about it" doesn't change any of that. It just means its not a huge draw for tourists (outside the black community where people come for the nightlife). But it is a huge draw for immigrants and jobs so there is that.
I lived in Chicago and I live in Houston. Both cities have things they do best and where they stand out. Chicago of course is a more interesting city to visit, has better neighborhoods, better transit, and is more walkable. Houston is more diverse, has better opportunities, more harmonious among different racial/ethnic groups, and is more affordable. Both cities have world class food (edge to Chicago), are multicultural (edge to Houston), have great cultural amenities (edge to Chicago), and are well connected globally via their airports (edge to Chicago).
Last edited by As Above So Below...; 05-16-2024 at 07:05 AM..
I mean, Houston is an ultra international city. It is very global. It is the largest destination for immigrants in the US after NYC and Miami. It also has a world class food scene. The fact that it doesn't appeal to tourists or that people dont "talk about it" doesn't change any of that. It just means its not a huge draw for tourists (outside the black community where people come for the nightlife). But it is a huge draw for immigrants and jobs so there is that.
I lived in Chicago and I live in Houston. Both cities have things they do best and where they stand out. Chicago of course is a more interesting city to visit, has better neighborhoods, better transit, and is more walkable. Houston is more diverse, has better opportunities, more harmonious among different racial/ethnic groups, and is more affordable. Both cities have world class food (edge to Chicago), are multicultural (edge to Houston), have great cultural amenities (edge to Chicago), and are well connected globally via their airports (edge to Chicago).
The more harmonious among different racial/ethnic groups is the best thing about Houston. I wish more cities were like that - and that element sounds like utopia. Chicago will never have that, unfortunately. The history runs too deep. It's an advantage newer cities have.
Honestly, the thing that keeps me away from Houston the most is the weather. And the terrible walkability. But otherwise, I'd love it.
It's just not as prevalent a city as Chicago. Maybe it will be some day but we're talking many decades from now.
The more harmonious among different racial/ethnic groups is the best thing about Houston. I wish more cities were like that - and that element sounds like utopia. Chicago will never have that, unfortunately. The history runs too deep. It's an advantage newer cities have.
Honestly, the thing that keeps me away from Houston the most is the weather. And the terrible walkability. But otherwise, I'd love it.
It's just not as prevalent a city as Chicago. Maybe it will be some day but we're talking many decades from now.
Both a great cities. Chicago is definitely the more interesting of the two and has more for the visitor. Houston is just a lot more laid back and I think that, plus the combo of being a blue collar city and ultra diverse just makes it to where people get along better.
Food and culture wise, debating the two cities is like debating your favorite Hawaiian island. One may be slightly better than another or you may have a preference for one over the other, but you cannot go wrong no matter what.
I miss the L Train soooo much! I miss the different and distinct neighborhoods. I also miss being able to take weekend trips to Wisconsin which was great. I always said if I left Houston, Chicago would be on my short list of places to move back to. I grew up in LA and I'm completely done with that place. I also love Atlanta and Detroit and Northern Virginia.
But for a tourist, yeah. Outside of NASA, shopping for the people from South of the Border, and nightlife for African Americans, Houston won't stand out against Chicago.
Chicago is a has been city. Chicago use to be peers with NYC and LA, no more. Chicago crime rates are way higher than NYC and LA too despite having a far smaller population. Houston will surpass Chicago in population within the next several years.
#1 reason is political leadership.
Houston is growing because it's annexed surrounding suburbs. Houston's area is almost 3 x the size of Chicago's. If Chicago annexed all the nearby burbs its population would be double of Houston's. If Chicago annexed just 3 nearby suburbs, Cicero, Evanston and Arlington Heights its population would be 3 million compared to Houston's 2.3 million. Houston's crime rates are way higher than NYC's and LA's despite having a fraction of it's population. So wrong on so many points.
Not only is my question, why does Chicago think it's a good idea to destroy historic neighborhoods instead of trying to re-develop them.... but also, what is the plan for all of these vacant, once used neighborhoods (primarily on the south side, though there are some areas of the west side that also have a prominence of vacant lots)? Gentrification? Industrial usage? No plan at all?
It seems gentrification has been extremely slow to grow outwards on the south side especially. Maybe some day these areas could see new life residentially, but it seems unlikely for quite some time. The red line isn't far from here, so it is prime real-estate in regards to public transit. Also right off the Dany Ryan expressway. Those give it some good potential IMO for development at some point.
I think the plan is to give away land to developers and hope they build back the neighborhood. The Invest South/West projects seem to be in limbo as its been a couple years without any updates. The Whole Foods suburban retail plaza was/is an embarrassment for such an historically prominent location but is typical of how Chicago does things.
There's no replacing what was demolished in terms of character, scale or density with today's approach to urban planning and Chicago as a whole seems to be fine with that. We've torn down more architecturally significant structures than most cities ever built and will replace it with the most banal quasi-urban design-de jour and never look back. Maybe when Brozneville and Woodlawn further transform and become too expensive there will be a spill-over and Englewood becomes attractive to investors. The city is extremely anti-gentrification however so that adds complexity when church leaders and community organizers rally against any outside investment trying to stifle progress so it appears that stagnation will continue for the foreseeable future. East Garfield Park has been "next up" for 20 years now and it's still one of the most dangerous areas in the U.S. while being a stones throw from Fulton Market that has exploded with growth.
I think the plan is to give away land to developers and hope they build back the neighborhood. The Invest South/West projects seem to be in limbo as its been a couple years without any updates. The Whole Foods suburban retail plaza was/is an embarrassment for such an historically prominent location but is typical of how Chicago does things.
There's no replacing what was demolished in terms of character, scale or density with today's approach to urban planning and Chicago as a whole seems to be fine with that. We've torn down more architecturally significant structures than most cities ever built and will replace it with the most banal quasi-urban design-de jour and never look back. Maybe when Brozneville and Woodlawn further transform and become too expensive there will be a spill-over and Englewood becomes attractive to investors. The city is extremely anti-gentrification however so that adds complexity when church leaders and community organizers rally against any outside investment trying to stifle progress so it appears that stagnation will continue for the foreseeable future. East Garfield Park has been "next up" for 20 years now and it's still one of the most dangerous areas in the U.S. while being a stones throw from Fulton Market that has exploded with growth.
East Garfield is unique because there's East Garfield the neighborhood which extends to Pulaski on the west and then there's East Garfield the official community area which ends at Independence on the west end, after that it's West Garfield Park. The vast majority of the crime in that area occurs on the western edge, west of Central Park. So if you include the crime stats of East Garfield Park community area it's a lot lower than East Garfield the neighborhood. I personally think it makes more sense to use the official boundaries since neighborhood borders and names change all the time and the name literally means East of the Park which is Central park ave. As far as Englewood blight I think Chicago should follow Detroits footsteps and just turn large blocks into praire. Move the one or two houses on that block to other blocks and consolidate them. It's not feasible to maintain all these vacant blocks with 2 or 2 houses. Not practical at all.
Houston is growing because it's annexed surrounding suburbs. Houston's area is almost 3 x the size of Chicago's. If Chicago annexed all the nearby burbs its population would be double of Houston's. If Chicago annexed just 3 nearby suburbs, Cicero, Evanston and Arlington Heights its population would be 3 million compared to Houston's 2.3 million. Houston's crime rates are way higher than NYC's and LA's despite having a fraction of it's population. So wrong on so many points.
Well, I don't know that we want to go into crime between Chicago and Houston simply because neither is going to look rosy by that metric. However, otherwise I agree. The "which is larger" thing shouldn't be focused on. Its not like if Houston is all of the sudden going to have great public transit or walkability if it passes that metric. Ive lived in both Houston and Chicago and Ive already said what I think each does better than the other in a few posts up, but I don't get any excitement over the idea that we may have more people one day.
Houston is almost 3x Chicago in square miles. It shouldn't be hard for it to pass Chicago in population.
One thing I never understood that maybe someone can share....why is Houston not right on the water? It's close, but not on it, which doesn't make sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
