New Census Population Estimates

User avatar
CTroyMathis
Site Admin
Posts: 873
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 19:51

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by CTroyMathis »

I45Tex wrote:It is (unfortunately or not) totally normal in the labor market for cities that are valuable/expensive relative to the surrounding region to serve as "finishing schools."

These locations import recent graduates or recent immigrants and export "fleeing" established midcareer professionals who have been developing a network with job opportunities elsewhere. In many cases, living in that location has helped them to start to get the opportunity to save more money every year than they could if they stay there. Put that way, it's a specialized role that such central land can still be successful at once it has priced itself out of the greenfield subdivision competition.

I am not saying I desire to live in such an "up or out" lifestyle environment but I am saying that coastal metro core counties have been this way (driving net domestic outmigration) for decades without it being a sign of impending economic doom. I also don't believe that the greenfield subdivision suburbs are signs of economic viability either. They don't and can't generate enough of those midcareer professionals to sustain themselves, so they are on life support until they develop their own industrial base.
This is an underlying, sometimes even a bit more subtle, occurrence that is so very often overlooked. It has definitely been going on in some places for a very long time.
User avatar
LuvBigD
Posts: 24
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:14

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by LuvBigD »

Why stop with just annexing Irving? They should also annex Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, Wilmer, Hutchins, Lancaster, Duncanville, DeSoto and Grandprairie. The great thing about Lancaster is that it has a lot of the inland port in it's city boundaries as well as a lot of warehouses which has allowed it to become a huge distribution hub. Grandprairie also has a lot of warehouses as well.
User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 906
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by I45Tex »

I don't think that home rule cities are subject to any kind of mergers and acquisitions/annexations under the current Texas Constitution unless they themselves choose to disestablish.

I do imagine, at this point, several things like hospital districts and floodplain management districts could be better handled at the supra-county level, like, all counties in the entire MSA funding one district together. And maybe if those worked out well, we the people would be inclined to combine additional jurisdictions to save additional costs.
User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 724
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by The_Overdog »

I am not saying I desire to live in such an "up or out" lifestyle environment but I am saying that coastal metro core counties have been this way (driving net domestic outmigration) for decades without it being a sign of impending economic doom.
I just don't think copying coastal metros is a good idea - for one thing, if you calculate the amount of deferred GDP by shipping everyone off to Dallas and Houston instead, it's huge. And then environmental impacts. Ft Worth is less dense than Frisco. Which one is the city? IMO, all these cities should de-annex land so they will start treating the land they have as valuable. On that same front, if Ft Worth is less dense then Frisco, and Dallas less uniformly dense than it's suburbs, I just don't think it's comparable to coastal metro growth. At least those places have large swaths of 10k per sq mile.


Nor do I think suburb vs city tax base calculations apply. Frisco is in a stronger financial position than Dallas or Ft Worth are, and it's not because it's newer, it's because its land is better managed.
User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 906
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by I45Tex »

Maybe its land can be better managed because it's newer. It doesn't have a lot of complicated neighborhoods with poor schools and aged infrastructure on the one hand, which are risky to try to turn around, nor does it do anything but freeride on the region's legacy complicated megaprojects like DFW and Parkland, so the benefits already just exist without any tax encumbrance on the developments.

I don't think copying coastal metros is good, but the land values that drive generic townhomization of central Houston and Dallas don't actually drive cheaper costs per square foot nowadays if you manage that land up to a higher density. The same wires, streets and whatnot are serving a larger tax base -- if it's serving midrises and not just serving townhomes. But the residents of midrises who need that same 2000 to 3000 square feet of space a townhome provides will not get to see lower costs of living in that ZIP code as a result midrise densification; in fact, boring townhomes are already the Texas private sector's lowest entry cost model for that. Significantly lower cost of living for the same level of household purchasing power here is probably the flexibility that is required if net outmigration is going to stop.

Maybe the council should prescribe nothing but zero lot line new construction for all currently vacant land in the city limits, and that would give some clarity about how to treat it as valuable going forward. Yard space would then be reserved to central courtyards, like in the traditional domestic building types of old San Antonio.
Last edited by I45Tex on 18 Mar 2024 14:13, edited 4 times in total.
LongonBigD
Posts: 567
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 13:40
Location: Knox District

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by LongonBigD »

tamtagon wrote: I've always liked the idea of Irving merging into Dallas.
;)
The topography in Irving is so different. When I worked over there, all the concrete roads were sinking and constantly under repair. Noticing the same thing in Plano and Frisco now. Dallas can’t keep up with our own road maintenance, this would be another burden.
User avatar
Matt777
Posts: 889
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 09:10

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Matt777 »

I would think most of the losses would be in single family home dominated areas. Kids leaving the house to go off to college or get married don't get replaced as more people age in place. And also rampant would be young singles or couples taking over homes in gentrifying areas that once housed several lower income people, and now house 1 or 2 higher income people. When I bought my house, it was a combination of the above. The woman retired back to her home country of Mexico, the younger family members living under her roof went elsewhere, and a household of 4 got replaced with a household of 1 (me). But spending power/income increased, taxable value increased with my renovations, and dependence on city services probably decreased, an overall win at a cost of a 75% loss of population on my lot. And this is happening constantly in my area.

With housing prices still creeping up, demand outstripping supply, the market is still healthy for a city that was mostly fully built out long ago. The only places to grow are in the less desirable far south, or by demolishing and building up.

Population growth has been small but positive. It could be better but the numbers aren't "depressing" unless you want to view it that way based off of very limited information. Especially when most other mature cities over 1 million in population are seeing large decreases in population, and those cities are still mostly healthy somehow.

We do need to work on zoning, intelligently and strategically upzone in the face of NIMBY resistance, and make building housing easier. The zoning and permitting snafu's over the last few years are also to blame.
User avatar
dallaz
Posts: 779
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 14:50

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by dallaz »

Experts say latest census highlights trend that should concern Dallas city and county leaders

https://youtu.be/v2xFI4Ap4yE?feature=shared
User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 372
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by IcedCowboyCoffee »

We got the City & Town estimates this morning
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... mates.html

Houston: 2,314,157 (+0.51% , +11,669)
San Antonio: 1,495,295 (+1.49%, +21,970)
Dallas: 1,302,868 (+0.42%, +5,510)
Austin: 979,882 (+0.46%, +4,464)
Fort Worth: 978,468 (+2.23%, +21,365)
El Paso: 678,958 (+0.17%, +1,170)
Arlington: 398,431 (+0.93%, +3,684)

Difference between Austin and Fort Worth is only 1,414 :lol: So close!
Arlington just cracked the top 50 largest, knocking Wichita to 51st.


But here is everyone in DFW, sorted by growth rate:
Celina: 43,317 (+26.63%, +9,110)
Princeton: 28,027 (+22.29%, +5,108)
Royse City: 24,138 (+22.14%, +4,376)
Melissa: 23,571 (+21.95%, +4,242)
Anna: 27,501 (+16.89%, +3,973)
Prosper: 41,660 (+10.46%, +3,944)
Forney: 35,470 (+10.39%, +3,339)
Fate: 24,626 (+7.97%, +1,818)
Red Oak: 18,624 (+7.12%, +1,238)
Cleburne: 36,209 (+6.97%, +2,359)
Midlothian: 41,352 (+6.92%, +2,676)
Terrell: 21,480 (+6.91%, +1,389)
Heath: 11,238 (+6.03%, +639)
Little Elm: 58,496 (+5.69%, +3,148)
Sachse: 32,294 (+5.65%, +1,727)
Denton: 158,349 (+5.26%, +7,914)
Greenville: 32,717 (+5.21%, +1,619)
Weatherford: 38,109 (+5.18%, +1,878)
Azle: 14,562 (+4.33%, +605)
Waxahachie: 47,201 (+3.76%, +1,712)
Ennis: 23,686 (+3.62%, +827)
Corinth: 23,707 (+3.47%, +796)
Burleson: 55,220 (+3.28%, +1,752)
Glenn Heights: 18,793 (+2.87%, +525)
McKinney: 213,509 (+2.84%, +5,906)
Rowlett: 66,813 (+2.82%, +1,830)
Rockwall: 52,918 (+2.64%, +1,362)
Frisco: 225,007 (+2.44%, +5,366)
Keller: 46,316 (+2.36%, +1,066)
Mansfield: 78,542 (+2.35%, +1,800)
Crowley: 19,932 (+2.32%, +451)
Fort Worth: 978,468 (+2.23%, +21,365)
Granbury: 12,622 (+2.15%, +266)
Farmers Branch: 36,916 (+1.96%, +708)
Forest Hill: 14,157 (+1.84, +256)
Lewisville: 133,553 (+1.73%, +2,277)
Mineral Wells: 15,454 (+1.6%, +243)
Flowr Mound: 79,445 (+1.12%, +881)
Arlington: 398,431 (+0.93%, +3,684)
Seagoville: 19,643 (+0.66%, +129)
Dallas: 1,302,868 (+0.42%, +5,510)
Cedar Hill: 48,411 (+0.32%, +155)
Grand Prairie: 202,134 (+0.3%, +595)
Wylie: 61,078 (+0.19%, +118)
The Colony: 45,471 (+0.16%, +71)
Plano: 290,190 (+0.15%, +440)
Irving: 254,373 (+0.06%, +164)
Southlake: 31,137 (+0.06%, +18)
Allen: 111,620 (+0.04%, +45)
North Richland Hills: 70,658 (-0.05%, -35)
University Park: 24,954 (-0.12%, -31)
Highland Village: 16,100 (-0.17%, -28)
Mesquite: 147,317 (-0.22%, -329)
Lancaster: 40,215 (-0.39%, -156)
White Settlement: 18,005 (-0.45%, -82)
Benbrook: 24,336 (-0.47%, -115)
Colleyville: 25,736 (-0.48%, -123)
DeSoto: 55,740 (-0.5%, -282)
Haltom City: 45,290 (-0.54%, -248)
Watauga: 22,934 (-0.56%, -130)
Fairview: 10,790 (-0.63%, -68)
Carrollton: 132,918 (-0.65%, -866)
Saginaw: 25,139 (-0.68%, -172)
Grapevine: 50,928 (-0.69%, -356)
Highland Park: 8,642 (-0.7%, -61)
Balch Springs: 26,711 (-0.7%, -188)
Trophy Club: 13,666 (-0.73%, -100)
Euless: 59,686 (-0.82%, -491)
Bedford: 48,370 (-0.89%, -433)
Hurst: 39,304 (-0.93%, -368)
Garland: 243,470 (-0.95%, -2,325)
Addison: 17,100 (-1%, -173)
Coppell: 41,404 (-1.05%, -438)
Richardson: 117,435 (-1.06%, -1,263)
Murphy: 20,920 (-1.22%, -259)
Duncanville: 38,883 (-1.24%, -490)

And Sherman for good measure:
Sherman: 47,473 (+4.79%, +2,170)
Denison: 26,343 (-0.08%, -20)
User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 372
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by IcedCowboyCoffee »

Also, just as a thought exercise:

If Dallas and Fort Worth grow by this same numeric growth every year (+5,510 and +21,365 respectively), Fort Worth would reach Dallas's current population in 2038, and Fort Worth would pass Dallas in 2044.

If Dallas and Fort Worth grow by this same growth rate every year (+0.42% and +2.23% respectively), Fort Worth would reach Dallas's current population in 2035, and Fort Worth would pass Dallas in 2040.

If we use the 3-year trend, which essentially has Dallas completely flat at -0.03%, Fort Worth would pass Dallas in only 2038.
Tnexster
Posts: 3570
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Tnexster »

You'd think that Dallas being flatlined for so long and being such a stark contrast to every other city in the region would tell Dallas leadership something but it appears not.
User avatar
Tucy I
Posts: 39
Joined: 06 Oct 2023 11:32

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Tucy I »

Tnexster wrote:You'd think that Dallas being flatlined for so long and being such a stark contrast to every other city in the region would tell Dallas leadership something but it appears not.
But it's so much easier just to claim to be land-locked, with no developable land. ;)
User avatar
R1070
Posts: 2018
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 21:00

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by R1070 »

Tnexster wrote:You'd think that Dallas being flatlined for so long and being such a stark contrast to every other city in the region would tell Dallas leadership something but it appears not.
Based on the numbers presented it's just FW that is posting the really impressive numbers. Suburbs are always going to be a major draw in America. Dallas' emptying of poorer areas and displacement of lower income homes to be replaced with lower populated townhomes, etc., hasn't helped either.
Dallas also needs to work on more housing that's reasonably and lower priced for different types of people to live near jobs in the city.
User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 832
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Hannibal Lecter »

It's interesting how many towns/cities lost population in the fastest growing metro area in the country.

IcedCowboyCoffee, do you have access to this data in a spreadsheet or table format? I'm curious to see how the growth rate compares to the DART service area. Last time I ran the numbers 97% of DFW population growth since DART's inception had occurred outside the DART service/taxation zone.
User avatar
IcedCowboyCoffee
Posts: 372
Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by IcedCowboyCoffee »

Hannibal Lecter wrote:IcedCowboyCoffee, do you have access to this data in a spreadsheet or table format?
I'm afraid not, I'm sorry; I wrote all of that out manually from the Census charts because apparently I hate my time :lol:

But, if the region's growth patterns were plotted alongside DART membership it's possible there'd be a visible correlation, but, if I had to guess, this trend is likely due to the demographic makeup and flux of those member cities that has occurred over the same time period.

A list of the mature inner ring suburb cities of Dallas and a list of DART member cities would nearly be 1:1. Historically what has played out in these inner suburbs is the cohort of the enormous boomer generation moved in from the 1960s through the 1990s and began having children, and it would be beginning about +30 years ago (the beginning of DART membership) up through the 2010s that these particular children began moving out. The parents remained in their home, so new couples/families had to look even further north to find single-family housing. And with all that in mind, the oldest boomer generation members are now 78--roughly the U.S. life expectancy.

Moderate amounts of people are still moving to these suburbs, but in the net appearance of these suburbs' population change over the past 20 or so years the impact of those new moves would be nullified by multiple overwhelming factors that would get more pronounced over time:
1) There not being nearly as many new incoming families as there used to be due to single-family zoning being completely built out, and existing units remain occupied by their original owners (fewer new families so fewer children being born in these particular cities)
2) The Millenial/Gen X children of those original families moving out (and having to look elsewhere even if they wanted to stay in their hometown just because of constrained supply causing ballooning housing costs), pushing rapid growth to the second and third ring suburbs.
3) And, beginning just recently, the largest generation in the history of the US--who have been the primary residents of these suburbs--will begin to shrink in size.

I suspect all of these particular inner ring cities will continue to contract year after year not because people are fleeing it and not because people aren't still moving in, but simply because sadly more of its residents will pass away. New people will move in but their Millenial/Gen X children have already planted their families in second and third rings suburbs, and Gen Z and its following generation will be substantially smaller generations than the Boomer generation is.

Anyways, that's my theory at least. I don't personally have the time to dig into it at the moment but if it is accurate it would appear in the numbers (number of new births/school district enrollment over time against average resident age over time would be pretty informative). I'm also a tremendous idiot though, so that's an important factor to keep in mind. :D
User avatar
Tucy I
Posts: 39
Joined: 06 Oct 2023 11:32

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Tucy I »

DART cities:

Addison: Addison: 17,100 (-1%, -173)
Carrollton: 132,918 (-0.65%, -866)
Cockerel Hill: 3,633. (-1.27%, -46)
Dallas: 1,302,868 (+0.42%, +5,510)
Farmers Branch: 36,916 (+1.96%, +708)
Garland: 243,470 (-0.95%, -2,325)
Glenn Heights: 18,793 (+2.87%, +525)
Highland Park: 8,642 (-0.7%, -61)
Irving: 254,373 (+0.06%, +164)
Plano: 290,190 (+0.15%, +440)
Richardson: 117,435 (-1.06%, -1,263)
Rowlett: 66,813 (+2.82%, +1,830)
University Park: 24,954 (-0.12%, -31)

Trinity Metro Cities:
Fort Worth: 978,468 (+2.23%, +21,365)
Blue Mound: 2,308 (-1%, -24)
Grapevine: 50,928 (-0.69%, -356)
North Richland Hills: 70,658 (-0.05%, -35)

Net population change in DART cities: +4,412
Net population change in Trinity Metro cities: +20,950

Population change of DFW Metro area: +152,598
Population change of Dallas-Plan-Irving Metro Division: +107,131
Population change of Fort-Worth-Arlington-Grapevine Division: 45,467
Tnexster
Posts: 3570
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Tnexster »

^Interesting since most of these DART cities build TOD's near DART stations which usually feature lots of dense living. It's almost like the drive for transit systems and density pushes more people out than it brings in.
User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 906
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by I45Tex »

San Antonio & FW are gaining resi "units" primarily because they are still suburbanizing raw land within their city limits, of course.

By the time any jurisdiction's primary resi unit growth requires vertical construction, however, the place no longer has that option of burning it down and starting from a competitively low price point like them (SA, FW, Greenville, Terrell). IcedCowboyCoffee is right that in effect the Boomers are not "forcing people out" so much as "already there." When they all sell out at once you will see that it wasn't density per se that was propping up housing prices
User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 2107
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Post by Tivo_Kenevil »

Tnexster wrote:^Interesting since most of these DART cities build TOD's near DART stations which usually feature lots of dense living. It's almost like the drive for transit systems and density pushes more people out than it brings in.
LMAO.... How much of the Residential use land do you actually believe DART owns in these cities?
Post Reply