Houston ends up being one of those cities that really seems to have a need to defend itself. I am by no means saying anything negative about Houston, only that a number of people don't seem to take the place seriously.
If that were the case, could the following help explain why:
San Francisco and Boston are probably the best examples of small cities that are the center pieces of very large metropolitan areas. I would imagine that few US cities contain such a small percentage of their own metropolitan area's population. Both the Bay Area and the Boston area have such huge populations that both SF and Boston can function as thrieving, exceedingly urban centers, magnets for city lovers everywhere. In a sense, SF's and Boston's populations are irrelevant; they tell you nothing as the meaningful numbers are the populations of the Bay Area and Metro Boston.
Houston is the polar opposite: a huge city in a relatively smaller metro area. Few cities can match Houston's percentile dominance of its own metropolitan area. The result: an expectation of a truly great city based on city population that may not deliver due to the smaller percentages of people outside of city limits.
Could Houston's huge population, more indicitive of the local division of space between city and suburb than of the metro area's relative importance, be a curse, causing an expectation that surely a large city can truly deliver the goods as a major center when, in fact, Metro Houston is far smaller than some people may think?
The city's population makes one think it should be compared with NY, Chgo, LA, while the metro population makes Dallas, Atlanta, etc. more comparable.> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment