Downtown Dallas Residential Count

[dch526]

I can't remember what the exact count was at this time last year when I updated on the old site (maybe a little over 40k) but I figured I would go ahead and get this thread going again with the updated totals. I know the vacancy % estimates may be a little off since so much has been built and those buildings haven't matured but I went ahead and kept it consistent. All of these numbers are based off the 2010 census of 1.4 persons/household in the downtown area (this is broken down in the DTD-Inside the Loop excel spreadsheet in a little more detail). If anyone sees anything incorrect or if I am missing buildings let me know and I will get them added/corrected.

The areas I included in the Downtown Count are (estimated vacancy):
- DTD Inside the Loop (7%)
- Southside (5%)
- Cedars (5%)
- Deep Ellum (3%)
- Baylor (5%)
- CityPlace (4%)
- Uptown (4%)
- Victory Park (6%)
- Design District (5%)

Overall the Downtown units/population sits at 33,781 Units an estimated population of 44,920 with 5,908 units under construction and an estimated population of 52,744 once completed.

Attached is a screenshot instead of trying to format correctly on here to make it readable.



Here is the link for the map (if you click on each highlighted area there will be separate links for each one that takes you to an excel table of the breakdown.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?hl=e ... 12405&z=13

[Tucy]

Thanks for your work in reassembling these numbers.

As you already know, you are overstating the occupancy rates. The last report from CBRE (2nd Q 2016) gives vacancy rates that would be approximately as follows (It's understood that these lower occupancy rates may not be a permanent condition, but if we're trying to come up with a reasonable estimate of current population, we really have to use current occupancy rates):

Inside the Loop: 15.2%
Uptown: 11.9%
Victory Park: 11.9%
Design District: 11.9%
Southside: 15.2%
Cedars: 15.2%
Deep Ellum: 15.2%
Baylor: 15.2%
City Place: 11.9%

Applying these reported vacancy numbers to your total unit numbers gives us current estimated populations as follows:

Inside the Loop: 9,195
Uptown: 13,302
Victory Park: 3,988
Design District: 3,009
Southside: 974
Cedars: 1,044
Deep Ellum: 2,161
Baylor: 2,879
CityPlace: 4,482

Total: 41,034

[tanzoak]

You should probably use more than 1.4 people per unit for the new construction.

Just between the '10 census and the'11-'15 ACS, average household sizes in occupied units jumped from 1.42 to 1.51 and 1.52 in DTD Inside the Loop and Uptown/Harwood, respectively. In Victory Park, it went from 1.58 to 1.94.

New units are more expensive than the existing stock, making it more likely that a couple occupies that 1BR in a new building. The increasing cost of the entire area probably increases household sizes in existing stock, as well. Plus, I'd bet that the unit sizes in the new buildings are larger than in the existing older buildings (meaning higher avg HH size), though I could be wrong about that.

[tanzoak]

Also, could you clarify how you're defining City Place, South Side, and Cedars?

[Tucy]

Also, could you clarify how you're defining City Place, South Side, and Cedars?

Southside and Cedars (as defined by DCH) are both included within CBRE's downtown area.

City Place (as defined by DCH) overlaps CBRE's downtown and uptown areas, so I applied the higher of the two occupancy rates (uptown's).

[Tucy]

You should probably use more than 1.4 people per unit for the new construction.

Just between the '10 census and the'11-'15 ACS, average household sizes in occupied units jumped from 1.42 to 1.51 and 1.52 in DTD Inside the Loop and Uptown/Harwood, respectively. In Victory Park, it went from 1.58 to 1.94.

New units are more expensive than the existing stock, making it more likely that a couple occupies that 1BR in a new building. The increasing cost of the entire area probably increases household sizes in existing stock, as well. Plus, I'd bet that the unit sizes in the new buildings are larger than in the existing older buildings (meaning higher avg HH size), though I could be wrong about that.

Interesting. Could you provide a link to the ACS numbers?

[tamtagon]

Do any of the monitoring groups try to track commuter movement? Are commuting suburbanites going for lunch outside their building more? less? ...staying downtown after work at all? longer?

[tanzoak]

Also, could you clarify how you're defining City Place, South Side, and Cedars?

Southside and Cedars (as defined by DCH) are both included within CBRE's downtown area.

City Place (as defined by DCH) overlaps CBRE's downtown and uptown areas, so I applied the higher of the two occupancy rates (uptown's).

Sorry, that was a question for dch. Everywhere else on aligns with census tracts/block groups.

[dch526]

Tucy/tanzoak, thanks for some of the clarifications and updated numbers. I'll probably end up having to update some of the vacancy numbers based on how some the 2016 new builds stabilize in the 1st part of this year but with my lower 1.4 number it stays within a little under 1000.

I used this map to define CityPlace
http://www.cityplace.org/getdoc/cc7ab3b ... l-Map.aspx

For the Cedars/Southside I just used the DART line to split the 2. Technically, Cedars should be larger and Southside smaller but I wanted to keep the re-development by Mathews more clumped together instead of splitting.

Based on the numbers you both provided, the updated estimates would be

Inside the Loop: 9,917
Uptown: 14,574
Victory Park: 5,576
Design District: 3,145
Southside: 1057
Cedars: 1,133
Deep Ellum: 2,346
Baylor: 3,126
CityPlace: 4,911

Total: 45,784

[tanzoak]

Interesting. Could you provide a link to the ACS numbers?

Yeah, it's kind of tough to navigate, but here's where the data is from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav ... ?refresh=t

And you can use this site to see maps of what the census tracts are http://www.socialexplorer.com/6f4cdab7a0/explore

Keep in mind that the ACS is an average over a 5-year period, rather than at one point in time like the census. Also, it uses sampling rather than a count of every person.
Here're some specific numbers:

[tanzoak]

Do any of the monitoring groups try to track commuter movement? Are commuting suburbanites going for lunch outside their building more? less? ...staying downtown after work at all? longer?

Well, they do track where people commute to/from. This is from https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

This map shows where people who worked in the Dallas core (inside the orange selection area) lived in 2004:


And where Dallas core workers lived in 2014:


The scales are slightly different between the two, so not 100% comparable, but the most notable change to me is that much smaller percentage coming from Plano.

[willyk]

Nice work-- and over 10K Inside the Loop!

Is it legit to add a column for hotel rooms with average occupancy rates, and add those people to the totals? I see that as a relevant indicator of the size of the restaurant and retail market. And with that population added, I suspect that Inside the Loop would exceed Uptown.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Downtown Pop. By city.

https://greenlakebluecity.com/2017/01/0 ... n-by-city/

[DPatel304]

Downtown Pop. By city.

https://greenlakebluecity.com/2017/01/0 ... n-by-city/

That really helps put things in perspective. I'm surprised Houston is so low compared to Dallas/Austin/San Antonio.

[muncien]

The comments about Fort Worth are amusing...

I can attest that OKC and Ft. Worth in particular seem to think it is unique for having downtown revitalization, and many people in Ft. Worth (who clearly don’t make it past Tarrant County often) think it differentiates them from Dallas, which now has 150,000 people living in the neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown Dallas.

It's always seemed to me that the activity in downtown FW is mostly due to visitors than residents. Now the numbers seem to prove that. But it is good to see what they've managed to do from a visitor standpoint.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

The comments about Fort Worth are amusing...

I can attest that OKC and Ft. Worth in particular seem to think it is unique for having downtown revitalization, and many people in Ft. Worth (who clearly don’t make it past Tarrant County often) think it differentiates them from Dallas, which now has 150,000 people living in the neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown Dallas.

It's always seemed to me that the activity in downtown FW is mostly due to visitors than residents. Now the numbers seem to prove that. But it is good to see what they've managed to do from a visitor standpoint.

Prior to KWP Dallas really didn't have a public space destination that visitors were willing to travel to. FTW has always done better at that. Sundance Square and The Stockyards draw ppl to downtown.

Austin's downtown has 6th street and UT.
SA has the river walk.


I can't speak to OKC.

[Tnexster]

The comments about Fort Worth are amusing...

I can attest that OKC and Ft. Worth in particular seem to think it is unique for having downtown revitalization, and many people in Ft. Worth (who clearly don’t make it past Tarrant County often) think it differentiates them from Dallas, which now has 150,000 people living in the neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown Dallas.

It's always seemed to me that the activity in downtown FW is mostly due to visitors than residents. Now the numbers seem to prove that. But it is good to see what they've managed to do from a visitor standpoint.

I have always been amused by the way FW talks up Sundance Square, they make it sound like it's second to Times Square as a destination then you go there and you wonder where the people are. I have walked through there after dinner when there is literally nobody around. Even during lunch hour I am surprised it isn't busier but then they just don't have the mass of people that exists on the Dallas side.

[rantanamo]

OKC has a really nice riverwalk downtown that's surrounded by restaurants, hotels, residential and nightlife as well as the Ford Center(NBA arena).

[ContriveDallasite]

Lastly, there are a tremendous number of cities that show 1%. These are often cities that think they have a uniquely fast-developing downtown living city, but really they need to take a look around them. I can attest that OKC and Ft. Worth in particular seem to think it is unique for having downtown revitalization, and many people in Ft. Worth (who clearly don’t make it past Tarrant County often) think it differentiates them from Dallas, which now has 150,000 people living in the neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown Dallas. All of this said, only two cities have a ratio that rounds down to 0%. Jacksonville and Houston, do better!

That last paragraph really stings. Makes you think and wonder how population distribution throughout Dallas and the CBD would be different if cities such as Frisco and Plano did not exist as employment centers.

[muncien]

I like to think that the whole concept of 'employment centers' vs 'bedroom communities' has been the problem all along. While Dallas seems to be mixing it up quite a bit now, some of these 'thriving' suburbs seem to be repeating many of the mistakes of the past. There are some signs of mixed use that should soften the effect, but it seems the overall design is not that different of 80's mentality of live here / work there, and the two exist separate from each other. That just doesn't seem like a healthy long term plan...

[The_Overdog]

That last paragraph really stings. Makes you think and wonder how population distribution throughout Dallas and the CBD would be different if cities such as Frisco and Plano did not exist as employment centers.

I don't think it would be any different actually. When downtown Dallas was the primary employment center, it had even fewer residents. It was really a city and zoning decision to define downtown as 'where the offices were' and not a place for people to live.

And then look at a place like Orlando which has barely more than 10% of its total metro population (270k of 2.3m) yet 40k people downtown and is geographically bigger and overall less dense than Plano. They may be being very liberal with what they are calling 'downtown', but that is still a conscious design choice they made that Dallas did not.

[Jbarn]

I believe the numbers in that article are way, way off. 21k for San Antonio?35k for Detroit? Really?

[The_Overdog]

I believe the numbers in that article are way, way off. 21k for San Antonio?35k for Detroit? Really?

This quotes 21k for San Antonio as well: http://dashboard.sa2020.org/progress_ty ... hoods/113/ - it doesn't give any map to determine size, but refers to the 'greater downtown area', which is smaller and measured more discretely against the inner 410 loop area.

[Tucy]

That article is a waste of time. It appears all they did was gather random statements about downtown populations from various city sources. There is no consistency on the definition of "downtown" and many of the numbers are dated and/or completely unreliable. The article even said the numbers are "apples to oranges".

[Austin55]

The comments about Fort Worth are amusing...

I can attest that OKC and Ft. Worth in particular seem to think it is unique for having downtown revitalization, and many people in Ft. Worth (who clearly don’t make it past Tarrant County often) think it differentiates them from Dallas, which now has 150,000 people living in the neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown Dallas.

It's always seemed to me that the activity in downtown FW is mostly due to visitors than residents. Now the numbers seem to prove that. But it is good to see what they've managed to do from a visitor standpoint.

It does seem that way, and a significant number of those visitors seem to come from the burbs unfortunately. The comments about thinking things are unique over here? I don't know how to even address that. More units are coming in and around downtown though - http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6104

It's lovely to see Dallas having such success at attracting residents to live downtown.

[dukemeredith]

It's interesting to see the two cities develop their downtowns, no doubt.

Fort Worth seems to have focused on bringing amenities first and residents later;

while Dallas seems to have focused on bringing residents first and amenities later.

I'm not shy about this -- I envy Fort Worth's downtown retail. It's like West Village over there. And I'm interested to see if Downtown Dallas can (or even wishes to) become more like that.

[Dmkflyer]

I think it is easy enough to get a feel for what a city's PID is considering downtown if you've been there and relatively easy if you know something about the metros.

Dallas is considering what is within the loop as downtown and I think it is healthy and growing. Considering that there are so many people immediately surrounding downtown is even better and that is growing nicely, too. Once the area sprawled far enough, it was only natural that some of the suburbs would have employment centers sprout up, as well. Those centers are now also becoming centers with higher densities. DFW has massive suburbs, so it is to be expected. DFW went the way of LA in many aspects when it comes to sprawl.

Bringing it back home and talking about the differences between Dallas and Fort Worth. Fort Worth's downtown went through hell and then investments were made by one family, in particular, to clean it up and make it feel safe for people to visit. They did a great job of achieving that and their downtown is geared toward visitors from the burbs and from out of state and beyond. The West 7th area of Ft. Worth has become what Dallas' Uptown is to cater more to people who live there and want more of an Urban feel. That said, Fort Worth seems to take the more quaint, hold on to our heritage approach where Dallas takes a very cosmopolitan, fast paced, build approach. I think they've both served well in their own right. Dallas has a hub of business and commerce that is internationally recognized, but when people come here to visit, I still recommend Fort Worth to give them that quaint Texas feel that gets lost in Dallas. It also helps them to show that they probably assumed Texas would be Fort Worth and were surprised with the cosmopolitan flair and business of Dallas.

Back to downtown populations and such...
One thing that I have often noticed that is different about Dallas when comparing to Fort Worth is that we have a lot of nodes of older retail that are pocketed throughout the city that have kept up as centers for shops and restaurants (like Bishop Arts, Lakewood Town Center, Lover's Lane, Preston Center, etc.) and I don't really see nearly as much of that in Fort Worth. Some of those are places I would take out of towners to in heartbeat, so there are a lot of choices. Fort Worth doesn't have many like that to offer, so people take guests downtown, stockyards and maybe West 7th. It made things easier to focus on in redeveloping things. Until recently, Dallas needed more people near and some projects to take off to lure people downtown and eventually attract people to live there.

Lastly, I notice that Fort Worth still seems to be stuck in a very sprawled mentality with tens of thousands of single family homes going up north west and south. They also keep annexing away. At what point do they realize or do they at all, that it isn't just about total population and start really aiming to attract more business to downtown and not just Alliance? How is it that the second major city of the metroplex seems like they are behind Plano, Richardson, Irving, and Frisco for attracting business? At some point it seems that some level of development needs to happen downtown instead of this endless near resistance kind of vibe that I pick up on in Fort Worth. I get that they don't want to be anything like Dallas and I think that is great, but there doesn't seem to be a real plan on truly moving forward and growing in their own unique way that still ensures that they are at least the 2nd hub in this metro. It may be me, but it just seems like they are only interested in keeping a cowboy heritage and growing their population like it's the 80s until their overall population is bigger than Dallas' so they can say they are bigger. I love Fort Worth, but I think we all get it... now its time to get on the saddle.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Plano is the new little brother.

[xen0blue]

Density trumps numbers. Dallas has seen that for the past decade, Fort Worth hasn't yet got the message.

[Tnexster]

Fort Worth is still focused on being bigger than Dallas. They don't seem to care how far apart the citizens are and how much land they need to annex to make it happen, it's just about the number.