Will Chicago become 4th populous US City?

[JayhawkCO]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.  That's going to take a toll on some folks to the point where I think Houston metro's population plateaus mid-century. 

Geographically, the city has gotten to the point where more sprawl brings diminishing returns for those driving that growth and they will start to look elsewhere for another city they can turn into an endless wasteland of strip malls and McMansions. 

Or maybe Houston annexes their way into #3 and defies my armchair prediction.

Yeah what a terrible wasteland, big nice houses and tons of shopping, its awful! 

Not everyone likes same same. The newer suburbs in the Denver area are far more cookie cutter (and thus, to me, less appealing) than some of the older suburbs and obviously the city itself.

[abefroman329]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.  That's going to take a toll on some folks to the point where I think Houston metro's population plateaus mid-century. 

Geographically, the city has gotten to the point where more sprawl brings diminishing returns for those driving that growth and they will start to look elsewhere for another city they can turn into an endless wasteland of strip malls and McMansions. 

Or maybe Houston annexes their way into #3 and defies my armchair prediction.

Yeah what a terrible wasteland, big nice houses and tons of shopping, its awful! 

"Nice" by what standard?  You know the old adage about how you can only have two of the following: fast, cheap, good?  Those houses are fast and cheap.

I agree that they're big, though.

[HighwayStar]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.  That's going to take a toll on some folks to the point where I think Houston metro's population plateaus mid-century. 

Geographically, the city has gotten to the point where more sprawl brings diminishing returns for those driving that growth and they will start to look elsewhere for another city they can turn into an endless wasteland of strip malls and McMansions. 

Or maybe Houston annexes their way into #3 and defies my armchair prediction.

Yeah what a terrible wasteland, big nice houses and tons of shopping, its awful! 

"Nice" by what standard?  You know the old adage about how you can only have two of the following: fast, cheap, good?  Those houses are fast and cheap.

I agree that they're big, though.

All housing built in the post war era is fast and cheap, it does not matter where it is. So unless you are buying and refurbishing pre-war housing you have the same stuff they have.
Personally, my dream would be to buy something old school and fix it up, but baring that a nice big house at a good price is hard to beat. Few people moving to Houston are complaining about their McMansions.

[abefroman329]

All housing built in the post war era is fast and cheap, it does not matter where it is.

Hasty generalization

So unless you are buying and refurbishing pre-war housing you have the same stuff they have.

False dichotomy

a nice big house at a good price is hard to beat.

Bandwagon fallacy

Few people moving to Houston are complaining about their McMansions.

Appeal to ignorance

[SkyPesos]

Personally, my dream would be to buy something old school and fix it up

Does that include the barbed wire? 

[HighwayStar]

All housing built in the post war era is fast and cheap, it does not matter where it is.

Hasty generalization

So unless you are buying and refurbishing pre-war housing you have the same stuff they have.

False dichotomy

a nice big house at a good price is hard to beat.

Bandwagon fallacy

Few people moving to Houston are complaining about their McMansions.

Appeal to ignorance

Its not a "hasty generalization" standard construction methods are what they are. Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.
Not a "false dichotomy" as you realistically only have those two choices. To build something ground up using quality methods costs far more then renovation, so it is not a meaningful option. For it to be false  you would have to have other options, but meaningfully you don't.
How is this a "bandwagon" fallacy? More space is marginal utility positive, if that were not true price would not go up with size.
How is that an "appeal to ignorance"? People are making this choice, so clearly it must be better than any alternatives they have. More importantly, they would rather have these large houses built with standard methods than something smaller built to old quality standards. I would say it is much more ignorant for someone to claim they single-handedly know what is better for these thousands of people than they themselves do.

[HighwayStar]

Personally, my dream would be to buy something old school and fix it up

Does that include the barbed wire? 

Assuming it was somewhere more urban without cattle rubbing on the fence probabally not.

[formulanone]

Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.

99% of South Florida.

[HighwayStar]

Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.

99% of South Florida.

I'm going to need some proof...

[hotdogPi]

Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.

99% of South Florida.

I'm going to need some proof...

Try random Google Street View. If it's truly 99%, you will likely get it on your first try.

[HighwayStar]

Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.

99% of South Florida.

I'm going to need some proof...

Try random Google Street View. If it's truly 99%, you will likely get it on your first try.

How on earth am I supposed to tell if someone has plaster walls from GSV? For that matter, it is very doubtful I can tell if it is structural brick or not.

[Rothman]

Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.

99% of South Florida.

I'm going to need some proof...

Try random Google Street View. If it's truly 99%, you will likely get it on your first try.

How on earth am I supposed to tell if someone has plaster walls from GSV? For that matter, it is very doubtful I can tell if it is structural brick or not.

Silly Barbed Wire Conspiracy Ostrich with His Head in the Sand Guy

[jgb191]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

[formulanone]

Show me someone building with structural brick or plaster on any scale, oh wait, you can't.

99% of South Florida.

I'm going to need some proof...

1) Google a realtor in that area 2) you have a car

Principal building material disclosure is pretty much a requirement for buying a domicile.

[hotdogPi]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

Chicago has worse blizzards than where I live, but I'll take occasional Massachusetts blizzards over a whole bunch of days over 110°.

[Flint1979]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

Chicago has worse blizzards than where I live, but I'll take occasional Massachusetts blizzards over a whole bunch of days over 110°.

Boston actually gets about 10 more inches of snow on average every year than Chicago does. In fact where I live is right in line with how much snow Boston gets as well. Boston is directly east of me by about 650 miles.

[NWI_Irish96]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

Chicago has worse blizzards than where I live, but I'll take occasional Massachusetts blizzards over a whole bunch of days over 110°.

Boston actually gets about 10 more inches of snow on average every year than Chicago does. In fact where I live is right in line with how much snow Boston gets as well. Boston is directly east of me by about 650 miles.

Chicago is very hit or miss. Last winter I had 30+ inches on the ground at one point. This winter there was never more than 6 inches on the ground at one time.

Michigan City up the coast to Holland and then southwest from there get the largest amount of snow. Where I grew up was just barely outside the lake effect zone. There were days where my town would get 3-4 inches of snow and as little as 10 miles to the NW had well over a foot.

[Flint1979]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

Chicago has worse blizzards than where I live, but I'll take occasional Massachusetts blizzards over a whole bunch of days over 110°.

Boston actually gets about 10 more inches of snow on average every year than Chicago does. In fact where I live is right in line with how much snow Boston gets as well. Boston is directly east of me by about 650 miles.

Chicago is very hit or miss. Last winter I had 30+ inches on the ground at one point. This winter there was never more than 6 inches on the ground at one time.

Michigan City up the coast to Holland and then southwest from there get the largest amount of snow. Where I grew up was just barely outside the lake effect zone. There were days where my town would get 3-4 inches of snow and as little as 10 miles to the NW had well over a foot.

Actually where I live we almost always get the same weather Chicago has for some reason. It was like that here too I don't think there was ever more than 6 inches on the ground here. Michigan as a state gets hit with lake effect snow pretty good, the central parts of the state not as much but still get quite a bit of snow each year. The Keweenaw Peninsula probably gets the most snow in the entire state like around 250-300 inches a year.

[webny99]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

Chicago has worse blizzards than where I live, but I'll take occasional Massachusetts blizzards over a whole bunch of days over 110°.

Boston actually gets about 10 more inches of snow on average every year than Chicago does. In fact where I live is right in line with how much snow Boston gets as well. Boston is directly east of me by about 650 miles.

Chicago is very hit or miss. Last winter I had 30+ inches on the ground at one point. This winter there was never more than 6 inches on the ground at one time.

Michigan City up the coast to Holland and then southwest from there get the largest amount of snow. Where I grew up was just barely outside the lake effect zone. There were days where my town would get 3-4 inches of snow and as little as 10 miles to the NW had well over a foot.

Yeah, I don't know about Chicago having worse blizzards than Boston. When I think of a blizzard, I think firstly of a nor'easter, the type of winter storm that hits Boston quite frequently, and secondly of a ground blizzard, the type more common in the Great Plains and upper Midwest with high winds and extremely low visibility. (And when you Google "types of blizzard", Dairy Queen's different Blizzard® options come up.  )

Chicago is also not squarely in lake effect snow territory because it's west of Lake Michigan, while the heaviest lake effect snow tends to fall downwind (east/southeast) of the lakes, as noted. The point being, it's a toss-up at best, with Chicago having slightly less snowfall while average temperatures are slightly higher in Boston.

[Flint1979]

I remember in March 2012 it hit like 80 degrees in the Great Lakes. Then the next winter was one of those deep freezes where the temp would stay below zero for long periods of time. This last winter wasn't bad at all, it snowed here yesterday but the snow has already melted. The back and forth temps though are annoying, like one day it'll be 70 and the next day it'll be in the 40's.

[hotdogPi]

Snowstorms where everything stops and all businesses are closed are about one storm per year on average. (School being canceled is slightly more frequent, as are annoyances that don't actually shut everything down.)

When I was mentioning Chicago vs. Boston, I was specifically thinking about lake effect (not realizing it didn't apply) and temperatures below -10°, which doesn't happen here.

[Flint1979]

Snowstorms where everything stops and all businesses are closed are about one storm per year on average. (School being canceled is slightly more frequent, as are annoyances that don't actually shut everything down.)

When I was mentioning Chicago vs. Boston, I was specifically thinking about lake effect (not realizing it didn't apply) and temperatures below -10°, which doesn't happen here.

January and February are the only two months it'd get that cold and it does get that cold at times in Chicago. Most of the time though the highs are in the 30's and lows in the upper teens but of course it can get colder than that.

[NWI_Irish96]

Snowstorms where everything stops and all businesses are closed are about one storm per year on average. (School being canceled is slightly more frequent, as are annoyances that don't actually shut everything down.)

When I was mentioning Chicago vs. Boston, I was specifically thinking about lake effect (not realizing it didn't apply) and temperatures below -10°, which doesn't happen here.

An ocean will obviously moderate temperatures more than a lake, even one as large as Lake Michigan.

That said, most people from Chicago will tell you that +10 and -10 don't really seem all that different. You reach a point where it takes a certain number of layers to go outside comfortably and beyond that, getting even colder doesn't change things.

[Rothman]

While it would be unlikely to have an other Hurricane Harvey in current lifetimes, Houston is bound to get slammed by more hurricanes and their respective massive flooding potential.

On the plus side, Houston (and most of Texas) don't have to worry about crippling blizzards that Chicago has to deal with every winter; snowfall is maybe once per decade in that part of Texas, and accumulations might even be more scarce.  And most tropical weather is limited to TDs, TSs, and maybe a Cat. 1.  A major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has been fairly rare for the Texas coast.  Harvey has been considered a once-in-a-millennium even for that magnitude of a storm.

Chicago has worse blizzards than where I live, but I'll take occasional Massachusetts blizzards over a whole bunch of days over 110°.

Boston actually gets about 10 more inches of snow on average every year than Chicago does. In fact where I live is right in line with how much snow Boston gets as well. Boston is directly east of me by about 650 miles.

Chicago is very hit or miss. Last winter I had 30+ inches on the ground at one point. This winter there was never more than 6 inches on the ground at one time.

Michigan City up the coast to Holland and then southwest from there get the largest amount of snow. Where I grew up was just barely outside the lake effect zone. There were days where my town would get 3-4 inches of snow and as little as 10 miles to the NW had well over a foot.

Yeah, I don't know about Chicago having worse blizzards than Boston. When I think of a blizzard, I think firstly of a nor'easter, the type of winter storm that hits Boston quite frequently, and secondly of a ground blizzard, the type more common in the Great Plains and upper Midwest with high winds and extremely low visibility. (And when you Google "types of blizzard", Dairy Queen's different Blizzard options come up.  )

Chicago is also not squarely in lake effect snow territory because it's west of Lake Michigan, while the heaviest lake effect snow tends to fall downwind (east/southeast) of the lakes, as noted. The point being, it's a toss-up at best, with total snowfall slightly favoring Chicago while average temperatures slightly favor Boston.

No.

Boston's average annual snowfall is 48" per season, whereas Chicago's is 36", a difference of a foot.

No need to postulate off the top of your head when data is available.

[webny99]

Yeah, I don't know about Chicago having worse blizzards than Boston. When I think of a blizzard, I think firstly of a nor'easter, the type of winter storm that hits Boston quite frequently, and secondly of a ground blizzard, the type more common in the Great Plains and upper Midwest with high winds and extremely low visibility. (And when you Google "types of blizzard", Dairy Queen's different Blizzard options come up.  )

Chicago is also not squarely in lake effect snow territory because it's west of Lake Michigan, while the heaviest lake effect snow tends to fall downwind (east/southeast) of the lakes, as noted. The point being, it's a toss-up at best, with total snowfall slightly favoring Chicago while average temperatures slightly favor Boston.

No.

Boston's average annual snowfall is 48" per season, whereas Chicago's is 36", a difference of a foot.

No need to postulate off the top of your head when data is available.

Not sure why you're saying no when that proves the point that Chicago gets less. I wasn't doing anything off the top of my head; Flint1979 already mentioned the approximate difference about 10 posts ago.