Houston now No. 5 in population, overtakes Philadelphia

[Chicago3rd]

Houston is a city of the last century. Unlike "other" great cities in our Country that have been around for hundreds of years (I know Houston is older...but started getting its stride this past Century).

It is a city that boomed during the auto age...not the walk and horse age so of course it's skeleton is different than a 400 year old city.

Fact 1: Houston is growing very very quickly.
Fact 2: TONS and TONS of high to medium density is occurring in and around the core of the metro area (suburbs.....are suburbs...and horrible in all areas of this land for the most part).
Fact 3: Houston is very diverse and multi-cultural

So...starting with just the facts and the TOPIC at hand....it is a very exciting time in Houston. Having all this population flooding in and expecting to keep flooding in...seeing the organic growth of denser more urban areas in the City of Houston is really quiet cool. That is what I find really exciting about the continued population influx.

Of course Houston could continue to grow wrong (wrong was right in the 1950-80's folks). But I see tons and tons of actual physical evidence that growth in the city of Houston is going in the right urban direction and it is again exciting to see...and knowing that economically with the hundreds of thousands of people moving into the area that it will have more capital and energy to grow right is rather fun.

[Wizened Variations]

While in terms of the boundaries set up by Census authorities, Houston is the 5th largest city, the best way to see the size of US and Canadian metroareas is by looking at north America at night.

For example

http://www.zonu.com/fullsize-en/2009...-at-night.html

While variations in cloud cover and data processing do affect the luminosity of various Canadian and US Metropolii, and, the average densities of the metropolitan region do also, I do see a few things.

The Bay Area taken together is almost as light dense as Dallas or Houston, and covers a larger area. Baltimore-Washington and Boston are huge. The lights from numerous cities in Florida are combining into something huge, with both the Right coast collectively brighter than either Dallas or Houston, IMO. While Toronto is obviously very large (I do think that Canadian cities look like they use less lumens per/person than most US cities. The Mexican cities clearly do), Montreal is suprisingly bright.

Based upon casual analysis (adding and reducing a bit for vegetation and assuming the photos are from summer) I would say:

Boswash is still, by far the largest urban concurbation in the US.
Southern California 2nd
Chicago 3rd
Bay Area 4th
East Coast Florida 5th

To get lower down the pecking order, I suppose you have to break up the urban concurbations.

Dallas, Houston, and, Atlanta are more "stand alone" and less light networked than the top 5.

So-

New York metro (subset) 1
LA metro (subset) 2
Chicago concurbation 3
Boston metro (subset) 4
Eastern Florida concurbation 5
Washington-Baltimore combined metro (subset) 6
Bay Area (less Sack of Tomatoes, Fresno, etc) (subset) 7
Dallas metro area 8
Houston 9th

etc.

But, no doubt, Dallas, and, Houston have become huge. Like Atlanta, Phoenix, the East Coast of Florida, Denver, Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, etc., Dallas and Houston have grown quickly at the heigth of the auto age.

As such, their future problems will be especially severe....


Toronto, fortunately, has grown with more grace than the cities just mentioned- south of the 401, that is. Seattle to Vancourver BC is no longer small, either.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Xing

(general thought, not meant to apply to specific comments)

Criticism is meant to encourage people, places, and objects, to improve. I can only speak for myself when I say, I don't dislike Houston, but I think it really has to prove itself, because it's surpassing some seriously great cities. The defensive response to people's criticism reminds me of myself my first year in art school. By graduation I learned to take people's criticism. When I listened to the criticisms of my peers, my work improved. When I didn't, it was a gamble. I'm not saying doing what's in your heart is wrong, I'm saying discrediting every bit of criticism isn't wise .

This thread has, without intention, placed Houston flat on a table and spread its legs open for criticism.

Houston is a city, but "it" doesn't build or finance anything. The people within Houston do all of these things, yet you speak of "them" as though they're one, single-minded entity. No doubt everyone in Chicago doesn't like or use Mass Transit either, but they're still just as much a Chicagoan as YOU. Please don't assume that "Houston" is some borg-like being.

There's a difference between giving an opinion based on RESEARCH and the acquisition of factual information, and just spouting whatever you feel. If you haven't been to Houston, fine. I'm glad that you care about the city and other cities enough to comment on them one way or the other. But it would behoove you to take a couple of seconds and verify claims if you're going to state them. I've been to Chicago twice... the last time was in 2002. There's no possible way for me to keep up with every project that's going on there, or make an informed assessment of the city. But if I have an assumption about something, I do have a computer and the ability to research a couple of claims before I make them.

Rail lines are being constructed RIGHT NOW in Houston... more mass transit progress is being made here than at any time in the city's history. I have the right to make that claim b/c 1. I live here, which means I see the progress daily, and 2. I actually voted for it, which means I am physical part of the city's drastic shift in transit philosophy. I do wish that we had a more extensive rail system, or BRT or anything beyond freeways. But more than wish for it, I'm voting for it and supporting it at every chance that I get.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Hoston's metro extends 60 miles??! That's insane, not really in a good way, they really need to work on fighting urban sprawl.

Yes, so does Boston's and plenty of other major U.S. metros. Example: Boston to New Bedford is around 60 miles.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

That is a good point. It doesn't really apply to New York, but at least in Boston's case, I'm not sure how much of that suburban development can really be considered 'Boston sprawl' since many of the cities and towns around Boston have been there as long, if not longer, than Boston has and have naturally grown along with it.

That situation is very applicable to many other cities as well. Most of Atlanta's major suburbs pre-date the city of Atlanta and were established cities that were as large or larger than Atlanta for many years. Boston is not unique at all in this way.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Yes, so does Boston and plenty of other major U.S. metros. Boston to New Bedford is plus or minus 60 miles.

Boston is a little different than the other Northeast cities, because it's far enough from NYC that there's no overlap.

It isn't analagous to the situation with NYC and Philly, where there's a definite grey zone of suburbia that can be realistically claimed by either metro.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Xing

(general thought, not meant to apply to specific comments)

Criticism is meant to encourage people, places, and objects, to improve. I can only speak for myself when I say, I don't dislike Houston, but I think it really has to prove itself, because it's surpassing some seriously great cities. The defensive response to people's criticism reminds me of myself my first year in art school. By graduation I learned to take people's criticism. When I listened to the criticisms of my peers, my work improved. When I didn't, it was a gamble. I'm not saying doing what's in your heart is wrong, I'm saying discrediting every bit of criticism isn't wise .

This thread has, without intention, placed Houston flat on a table and spread its legs open for criticism.

I'm in the same camp as Xing.

I think Houston has some specific attributes which are incredibly progressive like it's racial diversity, yes - acceptance, and sort of to each their own style. I deeply respect that and I hope that grows there. It seems like fertile ground in that respect, and that's exciting. Like I said earlier in the thread (or maybe another one) I defended Houston on this very thing in Austin, where they (well at least specific people) were being closed minded.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Right, and the metros sprawl to border other major metros and even completely overlap (as is the case with Philly and NYC), to the point that it is impossible to accurately determine where one ends and the other begins, at least not without arbitrarily making borders.

That was the point. This does not exist in Houston. You can drive 60+ miles north or west and still be officially in Houston metro, and still not be close to another major metro area. Now, take a drive across the river from the Philly Bucks County suburbs to Trenton NJ... and ta da! You're now in the NYC metro.

drive 60 miles outside of houston in most directions and you're deep into ranch and cattle country. or the gulf.

[suburbanite]

It's going to be interesting to see how Houston and other areas deal with such a large increase in population as climate change continues to create challenges for southern cities. I imagine water supplies will be a big issue for Houston in the coming decades, not to mention a probable increase in natural disasters.

[llamaorama]

60 miles is really far. Maybe only in Greater Tokyo, Eastern China, or the Bos-Wash corridor do the suburbs ever go that far out. Oh yeah, and the metroplex east-to-west Houston is big though. 25 to 30 miles out there can be still sprawl. IMO the most far flung place that feels like a suburb might be Montgomery. Even then, when you get off 1774 and get on 45 heading south you can already see the Anadarko Tower on the horizon... Lake Conroe is neat, shame so much of it is private waterfront.

Anyways, I wonder if in the very near future(or currently) demographers could rewrite our definition of metros and cities in the US by analyzing social networks and truth commuting statistics with people's mobile phone data. To me this is why subjective qualities like "Houston is the center because it's old and has tall buildings therefore this is greater Houston" matter, because who knows if what we call metro areas really are such, or just moving, dynamic blobs of people.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

That situation is very applicable to many other cities as well. Most of Atlanta's major suburbs pre-date the city of Atlanta and were established cities that were as large or larger than Atlanta for many years. Boston is not unique at all in this way.

In Boston's case, there is roughly 200 years more of growth to be accounted for. I mean, when Atlanta was founded Boston and many of the surrounding communities were already thriving cities. Plus, there are many more towns and cities in the Boston metro in a smaller land area to account for.

I'm not saying that Boston doesn't sprawl to some degree, but it's much more of a case of Boston and surrounding towns like Cambridge, Revere, Somerville and Brookline growing into each other over the course of nearly 400 years rather than a core city rapidly expanding in the auto age to the point where it's outlying developments begin swallowing once small villages and transforming them into sprawling suburbs in a matter of a few decades. The term "sprawl", after all, refers to a distinct type of development, not development in general, and a sizable portion of the development in Boston metro happened before sprawl really even existed, at least in it's current hyper-inefficient form.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It's going to be interesting to see how Houston and other areas deal with such a large increase in population as climate change continues to create challenges for southern cities. I imagine water supplies will be a big issue for Houston in the coming decades, not to mention a probable increase in natural disasters.

I think one of the biggest hurdles for Texas cities is Texas itself. Slashing school budgets and denying healthcare to hundreds of thousands of people might provide short-term solutions to budget woes or easy wins in the culture wars, but the long-term ramifications will be severe and felt throughout the state (including the cities). It's great that Houston has an openly gay mayor, but that doesn't change the state's ass-backwards laws against homosexuality. I don't deny the cultural identity and amenities of Houston, Dallas, or Austin, but, as a gay man, I would never live in a state so openly hostile to me, regardless of how nice its cities are.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

as a gay man, I would never live in a state so openly hostile to me, regardless of how nice its cities are.

To change views, you must be visible.

[Owlhorn]

interesting, never notice or hear of anything that would prevent a gay person from living in Dallas or Houston. Sorry, but that's just a big stereotype. The thing is, places like Houston, Dallas and Phoenix are filled with people that come from your(highly critical SSP mafia) cities around the world. They are causing places like The Woodlands, Katy, Frisco or McKinney, Texas to boom. I know plenty of out of state or even out of country colleagues who wouldn't even take a look at living in the older(and prettier) more established neigbhorhoods in Texas. Instead, like everyone else they are enamored with the 3000 sq ft and big yard they can get for $250,000. My new neighbors from Chicago told me of the hard decision not to buy a house in Frisco. A friend of mine just bought a house in Frisco. Interesting that her immediate neighbors are from Bangladesh, India, DC and, LA and SF and even talked about their city experiences. So they come to our metro and sprawl it the hell out.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Based upon casual analysis (adding and reducing a bit for vegetation and assuming the photos are from summer) I would say:

Boswash is still, by far the largest urban concurbation in the US.
Southern California 2nd
Chicago 3rd
Bay Area 4th
East Coast Florida 5th

Are you counting the entire southern Great Lakes shoreline as the "Chicago" conurbation and if so, it is an easy #2 behind the Northeast Megalopolis. About 36 million people live along the lakes between Green Bay, WI and Utica, NY. That doesn't even include the Canadian side either, where you have another 10 million or so.

If you break it down, then you have three primary agglomerations:

Lake Michigan (centered on Chicago) - 16.9 million ~30,000 sq. mi. - 550 ppsm
-Chicago
-Milwaukee
-Grand Rapids
-Madison
-Fort Wayne
-Rockford
-Kalamazoo
-South Bend
-Green Bay
-Appleton

Lake Erie (centered on Cleveland) - 16.7 million - ~42,000 sq. mi. - 400 ppsm
-Detroit
-Cleveland
-Pittsburgh
-Akron
-Toledo
-Youngstown
-London
-Lansing
-Flint
-Canton
-Ann Arbor
-Erie
-Saginaw

Lake Ontario (centered on Buffalo) - 12.4 million - ~23,000 sq. mi. - 540 ppsm
-Toronto
-Buffalo
-Rochester
-Hamilton
-Syracuse
-Kitchener
-Oshawa
-Utica
-Binghamton

Collectively the three regions cover around 95,000 sq. mi. (or roughly the size of the U.K) and have a population of 46 million. Put another way, the three combined regions have about the same population as Spain, but in less than half the land area. Interestingly, all three regions have exactly three metro areas with at least 1 million people, including one with at least 5 million people.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by vjhe

Yes Xing, however you have been here long enough to know that what goes on here at this site with regard to Houston is a bit beyond simply not being able to take constructive criticism. I have been a member here for a while ( I was here before the site was overhauled and we all had to re-register resulting in new joining dates) and it has basically been the same thing over all of these years. Whenever anything is posted that places Houston in a positive light, it has to be "proven" how that positive is illigitmate and undeserving. After a while, it really does get old.

Speaking as a Houston forumer who doesn't post much anymore, I'm sure I speak for most of us when I say we have become more defensive than when we first joined. Heck, I have even seen some former "haters" come to the city's defense from time to time due to the nature of the "constructive" criticism that is sometimes bestowed.

Any Houston forumer will be the first to tell you we want more rail and most other things that would please most people here. The city has been and is moving in those directions. But despite the city's strides over the years it just seem to not really register here.

I know the perception of Houston has been modified to a lot of forumers over the years, but at the same time, some things never change.

Houston takes a lot of criticism on the forum -- some of it deserved, but most of it exaggerated and unfounded... and coming from an ignorant point of view. Over the past decade, Houston has still sprawled too much (and so has everywhere else really), but I think that Houston is doing a very good job investing in the city inside the 610 loop -- a much better job than what many older, "more urban" cities have accomplished. And as others have noted, Houston is MUCH more diverse, vibrant, urban, and interesting than it gets credit for.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Boston is a little different than the other Northeast cities, because it's far enough from NYC that there's no overlap.

It isn't analagous to the situation with NYC and Philly, where there's a definite grey zone of suburbia that can be realistically claimed by either metro.

Truth

Originally Posted by JManc

drive 60 miles outside of houston in most directions and you're deep into ranch and cattle country. or the gulf.

You're right, and you're still technically in the Houston metro. That's the thing -- there is a rather definitive rural "end" to what is considered metro Houston (even though these far outlying areas maybe should not be considered part of a metropolitan area), with no other major population centers bordering.

You can't do that in the case of Philadelphia. Drive 60 miles and you are well into the NYC metro, Baltimore metro, etc. Philly metro is "separated" from the NYC metro, Baltimore metro and others in name only... by wholly arbitrary decisions which somehow determine lines on a map, and result in arbitrary data for us to talk about.

For instance, Galveston (with a population of around what, 50,000 or so?) is roughly 60 miles away and still within the Houston metro. Yet, the Lehigh Valley is also roughly 60 miles away from Philadelphia and yet somehow an entirely different metro -- the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton metro, with a population of over 800,000 -- and one that is in the Philadelphia media market. And this area is certainly every bit as connected to Philadelphia (or to NYC) as Galveston is to Houston.

It's not a knock on Houston at all, so I hope that I'm not conveying it that way. Houston is undoubtedly very big, and its metro may be bigger than Philadelphia's. But how would we know? That's all I have been saying -- we can't. They're just very different situations, yet we attempt to use the same metrics to describe and rate them.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

60 miles is really far. Maybe only in Greater Tokyo, Eastern China, or the Bos-Wash corridor do the suburbs ever go that far out. Oh yeah, and the metroplex east-to-west

Go 60 miles north from Miami and you are still in 10,000 people per square mile development and you wouldn't have even reached West Palm Beach yet...

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Collectively the three regions cover around 95,000 sq. mi. (or roughly the size of the U.K) and have a population of 46 million. Put another way, the three combined regions have about the same population as Spain, but in less than half the land area. Interestingly, all three regions have exactly three metro areas with at least 1 million people, including one with at least 5 million people.

I don't think you can combine all three of those regions and put it above Southern California. If you do that, you might as well extend BosWash down to Atlanta.

[Private Dick]

^ Who's combining what three regions?

EDIT: Sorry, nevermind. I see you were talking about the "Great Lakes megalopolis". I agree though. Really a stretch to combine as one area though. MAJOR breaks in population centers along the lakeshores... not to mention inland areas.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

In Boston's case, there is roughly 200 years more of growth to be accounted for. I mean, when Atlanta was founded Boston and many of the surrounding communities were already thriving cities. Plus, there are many more towns and cities in the Boston metro in a smaller land area to account for.

I'm not saying that Boston doesn't sprawl to some degree, but it's much more of a case of Boston and surrounding towns like Cambridge, Revere, Somerville and Brookline growing into each other over the course of nearly 400 years rather than a core city rapidly expanding in the auto age to the point where it's outlying developments begin swallowing once small villages and transforming them into sprawling suburbs in a matter of a few decades. The term "sprawl", after all, refers to a distinct type of development, not development in general, and a sizable portion of the development in Boston metro happened before sprawl really even existed, at least in it's current hyper-inefficient form.

So you don't think that this same thing happens in every other large metro? I'm using Atlanta as an example because I'm most familiar with it, but it obviously applies to many other cities as well. The suburbs didn't simply appear out of nowhere. They were towns/cities that predated the city of Atlanta by many years and they grew along with the city, eventually growing together. It doesn't matter that Boston is 400 years old and Atlanta is 200, a very similar thing happened in both places.