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.
its even more now. Unincorporated Harris County has about 1.5M people. That puts it at about 5 or 6. About the population of Philadelphia and larger than Phoenix
HTown you are not describing unincorporated Harris as a city are you. It covers like 1,200 sq miles with a density barely considered urban by ultra liberal census measures. Philadelphia would fit inside the unincorporated part of Harris nearly ten times, I fail to see relevance in comparing these places. Many many suburban counties surpass this aspect, shall we just name them all for perspective
HTown you are not describing unincorporated Harris as a city are you. It covers like 1,200 sq miles with a density barely considered urban by ultra liberal census measures. Philadelphia would fit inside the unincorporated part of Harris nearly ten times, I fail to see relevance in comparing these places. Many many suburban counties surpass this aspect, shall we just name them all for perspective
read the post that I quoted so you won't have to ask irrelevant questions.
Last edited by HtownLove; 11-15-2011 at 11:38 AM..
read the post that I quoted so you won't have to ask irrelevant questions.
and how do you know what portion of Land does Unincorporated Harris Covers?? There are about 30 other cities in Houston other than Harris, so just subtracting Houston's area from the total is kinda stupid. Also the north is forested and the east is protected wetlands so enough of your sophomoric calculations.
Ok Unincoporated Harris is the 6th largest city, yay
HTown you are not describing unincorporated Harris as a city are you. It covers like 1,200 sq miles with a density barely considered urban by ultra liberal census measures. Philadelphia would fit inside the unincorporated part of Harris nearly ten times, I fail to see relevance in comparing these places. Many many suburban counties surpass this aspect, shall we just name them all for perspective
What does this have anything to do with htown post?? Once again turning this into a pissing contest.
What does this have anything to do with htown post?? Once again turning this into a pissing contest.
He takes every opportunity to try and get people to bash Houston. That is what he is doing by bringing up city limits to areas that are not even cities. It is ridiculous how blatant his tactics are and some numbskulls fall for it and jump on the bandwagon bashing away without even knowing what people are talking about
The main issue I see with population growth in Phoenix is easy access to water. Phoenix is in a semi-arid to arid environment, meaning it gets little rainfall or moisture. Most of the public water in Phoenix is brought by underwater aquifers or brought in by canals and dams made by rivers which receive melt water from snow high up in the mountains. With aquifers, obviously, they eventually will dry up, and with very little rainfall the aquifers will probably never be replenished. With the canals, one might say they have a less limited access to water, but with such a large and quickly sprawling population (especially in the suburbs) water use is getting worrisome.
The suburbs of Phoenix are well known for valuing pristine, bright green lawns that are frankly unnatural for the environment they are in. The normal state of this land is desert, dried out land with little moisture, due to rain clouds and storm patterns being blocked by the mountains surrounding Phoenix. As more and more people move to this area, they drain the melt water at faster and faster paces. Again, since there is little precipitation in the area, the snow will not be replenished fast enough. With the increase in global temperatures, the snow melts at an even quicker pace, which means more water temporarily, but less water saved up for the next year.
Basically, Phoenix's SUBURBS are growing too fast, and the whole metropolitan area is, in the long run, unsustainable, and is just an icon of a U.S. economy based on the frivolous and vain. It stands with cities such as San Jose and even Los Angeles that ignore the natural state of nature and what SHOULD limit human population and throws caution to the wind, setting up the cities for catastrophe farther down the road.
OK.
The Phoenix metro uses less water now than 10 years ago (even with the population increase) and less per capita than two decades ago. Did you research that?
Are any of them hurting in the housing department???
Are any of them severely lacking in infrastructure compared to other large metros?
Any of them severely strained in city services compared to others?
Any of them really over crowded? I mean are natural resources hard to go around because of the flood of new people?
Could the cities provide adequate jobs for the flood of new comers prior to the economic woes??
Any of them limited in room to grow?
I think all of them were doing well in all of these ^ categories before the economic down turn.
I think that the ability to grow that fast without totally melting down means that these cities WERE able to keep up.
I love Detroit, but I think they grew too fast because the market could not handle changes and they have not been able to halt the bleeding in all these decades.
Houston was growing too fast before the mid 80's but they have since diversified their economy and their infrastructure enough since then to handle economic swings.
las Vegas and Riverside were growing too fast.
The High percentagers this past decade Raleigh, Austin, Carlotte and Company- I think were all growing at thier proper rate because they were all breaking into new sectors/ diversifying. that is they were not growing because people simply liked the area, they were moving because there were markets for growth.
The Phoenix metro uses less water now than 10 years ago (even with the population increase) and less per capita than two decades ago. Did you research that?
I see you've quoted one of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's favorite lines of misinformation. While it is true that PER CAPITA use has declined, the Phoenix metro uses far more water per acre-feet than it did ten years ago.
In fact I had done some research on it, and the water usage of Phoenix has grown, regardless of per capita use. Per capita use is irrelevant when talking about the permanence of Phoenix's water supply, as the water supply will continue to be strained as long as the population continues to grow so explosively.
Truth be told, there's been little contraction in total water usage, as the past two years has seen water usage levels rise to almost the same amounts of water per acre-feet usage since the peak in 2002.
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.
