New Census Population Estimates

[tanzoak]

The 2016 population estimates just came out. DFW was the #1 gainer!

Top 10 MSAs
1. Dallas +143k
2. Houston +125k
3. Phoenix +94k
4. Atlanta +91k
5. Seattle +72k
6. Miami +65k
7. Tampa +61k
8. Orlando +59k
9. Austin +58k
10. Washington DC +54k

The new population estimate for DFW (as of July 1, 2016) is 7,233,323.

[tanzoak]

DFW also was tops for people moving here from other places in the US, with net domestic migration of +60k.

In international migration, DFW was #9 at +26k.

DFW also came in #9 for percent gain among the 53 MSAs with at least 1 million people, at 2.0%.

And age demographics were also favorable, with the 3rd best births:deaths ratio of 2.52:1.

[eburress]

Hmmmmm...maybe you're looking at something different, but this graph has Houston in the #1 spot:

https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz ... texas.html

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Hmmmmm...maybe you're looking at something different, but this graph has Houston in the #1 spot:

https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz ... texas.html

The graph in your link states that the data is for July 2014- July 2015.


I would imagine the data referred to in the original post is for 2015-2016.

[tanzoak]

Hmmmmm...maybe you're looking at something different, but this graph has Houston in the #1 spot:

https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz ... texas.html

The graph in your link states that the data is for July 2014- July 2015.


I would imagine the data referred to in the original post is for 2015-2016.

Yeah, the new data was posted this morning. Can be found here: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tab ... Type=table

[dollaztx]

If 2016's tends continue, Dallas will become the fastest growing metro this decade:

Population Change since 2010 Census
Dallas 807,082
Houston 851,971 +44,889

2016 Growth
Dallas 143,435 +18,430 (x3 years = 55,290)
Houston 125,005

[tanzoak]

If 2016's tends continue, Dallas will become the fastest growing metro this decade:

I think it's totally possible, considering that the start of the DFW building boom just started seeing completions in the past year (and the data is as of July 1, 2016).

[Tivo_Kenevil]

There certainly are tons of multifamily projects in the works in DFW RN. I would assume the region will continue at it's exuberant pace this calendar year.

[eburress]

Hmmmmm...maybe you're looking at something different, but this graph has Houston in the #1 spot:

https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz ... texas.html

The graph in your link states that the data is for July 2014- July 2015.


I would imagine the data referred to in the original post is for 2015-2016.

Yeah, the new data was posted this morning. Can be found here: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tab ... Type=table

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying!

[Cord1936]

U.S. Census Bureau released population growth estimates for July 1, 2015-July 1, 2016 this morning:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... ounty.html

The City of Dallas was the 2nd fastest growing in Texas and the 6th fastest growing in the nation in actual numeric population increase in the last year!

Dallas grew by 20,602 people in the past year with a new City population estimate of 1,317,929 as of July 1, 2016.

Last year the City of Dallas added more residents than the City of Houston .... when did that last happen????

Houston's population growth shrank to 18,666 in the last year from 40,800 the year prior.

Population growth is a lagging indicator of economic conditions and the population growth numbers are starting to reflect Houston's economic malaise from the severe oil downturn hitting that city since late 2014.

Conversely, Dallas' population growth within the city limits is actually surging in relative terms from prior years. Not coincidentally Dallas' economy has been and is red hot.

An article in The Texas Tribune with some additional details:

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/25 ... ng-cities/

[dollaztx]

U.S. Census Bureau released population growth estimates for July 1, 2015-July 1, 2016 this morning:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... ounty.html

The City of Dallas was the 2nd fastest growing in Texas and the 6th fastest growing in the nation in actual numeric population increase in the last year!

Dallas grew by 20,602 people in the past year with a new City population estimate of 1,317,929 as of July 1, 2016.

Last year the City of Dallas added more residents than the City of Houston .... when did that last happen????

Houston's population growth shrank to 18,666 in the last year from 40,800 the year prior.

Population growth is a lagging indicator of economic conditions and the population growth numbers are starting to reflect Houston's economic malaise from the severe oil downturn hitting that city since late 2014.

Conversely, Dallas' population growth within the city limits is actually surging in relative terms from prior years. Not coincidentally Dallas' economy has been and is red hot.

An article in The Texas Tribune with some additional details:

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/25 ... ng-cities/

Nice, I wonder where that puts Dallas in regards to density. I believe it's been the densest in Texas already so this growth will only solidify that title.

[tamtagon]

So nice to see the city population make such a big increase, maybe the ~decade long urban growth planning and subsequent ~half decade long implementation have settled the foundation for significant urban habitat improvements and growing quality and variety of life.

The fantastic domestic appeal and municipal management of Plano/Frisco is building an entirely new social & economic focal point in North Texas capable of showing stand-alone metrics, perhaps even one day the evolution of satellite city in Collin County will bud into a statistical designation within the greater Dallas Metro. Certainly will be interesting to follow definition and parameter adjustment to Federal statistical areas as our cities form.

Watch greater downtown Dallas finally receive some buy-back from the suburban juggernaut.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

So Based on these numbers.. Dallas is slightly more Dense than Houston now.

Dallas - 1,317,929 /340 land sq miles
Dallas Density:3,876

Houston - 2,303,482/599 land sq miles
Houston Density: 3,845


San Antonio - 1,492,510/460 land sq miles
San Antonio Density:3,244

Austin - 947,890/297 land sq miles
Austin:3,191


The real story here is that Garland,TX is more Dense than any of the major cities.

Garland - 234,943/57 land sq miles
Density:4,121

Texas you're pathetic.

[Cord1936]

The actual square miles of land in Houston is 639 square miles (not 599).

Using that correct number results in a fairly big difference in density between the City of Dallas and City of Houston:

Dallas: 1,317,929/340 land sq miles
Dallas Density: 3,876

Houston: 2,303,482/639 land sq miles
Houston Density: 3,604

[dfwcre8tive]

So Based on these numbers.. Dallas is slightly more Dense than Houston now.

Dallas - 1,317,929 /340 land sq miles
Dallas Density:3,876

Houston - 2,303,482/599 land sq miles
Houston Density: 3,845


San Antonio - 1,492,510/460 land sq miles
San Antonio Density:3,244

Austin - 947,890/297 land sq miles
Austin:3,191


The real story here is that Garland,TX is more Dense than any of the major cities.

Garland - 234,943/57 land sq miles
Density:4,121

Texas you're pathetic.

I knew Seattle was dense (and thus, expensive) since moving here, but I didn't know the difference was so extreme. It's now the fastest-growing big city in the country. Just for a fun comparison:

Seattle - 704,352/84 land sq miles
Density: 8,391 (10th highest)

[Tivo_Kenevil]

The actual square miles of land in Houston is 639 square miles (not 599).

Using that correct number results in a fairly big difference in density between the City of Dallas and City of Houston:

Dallas: 1,317,929/340 land sq miles
Dallas Density: 3,876

Houston: 2,303,482/639 land sq miles
Houston Density: 3,604

599 is what the census bureau has listed for Houston. The 599 is from 2010. Maybe they annexed more land since then IDK.

[The_Overdog]

The real story here is that Garland,TX is more Dense than any of the major cities.

Garland, Plano, Richardson, and Arlington are the densest cities in DFW, all (except Garland) just under 4000 people per sq mile. Plano's growth numbers were unremarkable for a 'hot' city. Arlington nearly doubled it up.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

The real story here is that Garland,TX is more Dense than any of the major cities.

Garland, Plano, Richardson, and Arlington are the densest cities in DFW, all (except Garland) just under 4000 people per sq mile. Plano's growth numbers were unremarkable for a 'hot' city. Arlington nearly doubled it up.

Yeah. Not only that but if you look at the change in population from April 1,2010 from the census numbers to July 1, 2016 population estimates.

Both Dallas and Plano grew at the same rate 10%.


With all these new MF units going up in Dallas that probably was the main driving force in getting more people to live in the city. That's interesting since most of the job relocations are in the burbs.


I wonder if that says anything about the lack of housing in major cities or is it just refection of cities proactively densifying?

Frisco and McKinney obviously had better growth rates but that's expected given they're basically Green fields.

Maybe people do want to live in major cities

[tanzoak]

Here's the full list for DFW:

[Tivo_Kenevil]

I really hope Denton stops growing..
We don't need another soul less burb with
Strip malls...

The rural town feel of Denton is what makes it cool..

[eburress]

Maybe people do want to live in major cities

I see this happening in a number of other cities, people living in-town and commuting to the 'burbs for work. Most of the time I'm in San Diego, and the traffic patterns here are pretty much opposite of what I was used to living in Dallas. It seems the majority of people here live in in-town neighborhoods (Downtown, Northpark, Southpark, Pt. Lomas, etc), but then commute north to the UTC, Sorrento Valley, or Torrey Pines areas for work. There are still plenty of people here in the 'burbs, but not nearly as many as in SD's in-town neighborhoods.

The same thing seems to be starting to happen in Dallas. People do want to live in a more urban environment, enjoying that lifestyle and its amenities, and central Dallas offers soooooo much more than soulless Plano, Frisco, etc. Really the only thing holding Dallas back is its schools, but that won't always be the case.

[Tucy]

The real story here is that Garland,TX is more Dense than any of the major cities.

Garland, Plano, Richardson, and Arlington are the densest cities in DFW, all (except Garland) just under 4000 people per sq mile. Plano's growth numbers were unremarkable for a 'hot' city. Arlington nearly doubled it up.

Yeah. Not only that but if you look at the change in population from April 1,2010 from the census numbers to July 1, 2016 population estimates.

Both Dallas and Plano grew at the same rate 10%.


With all these new MF units going up in Dallas that probably was the main driving force in getting more people to live in the city. That's interesting since most of the job relocations are in the burbs.


I wonder if that says anything about the lack of housing in major cities or is it just refection of cities proactively densifying?

Frisco and McKinney obviously had better growth rates but that's expected given they're basically Green fields.

Maybe people do want to live in major cities

Except . . . while Dallas grew by 117,218 between 2010 and 2016, the Metroplex outside of Dallas grew by 698,891 (86.6% of all growth). Even if we include Ft. Worth growth as evidence of wanting to live in major cities, we have total "major city" growth of 222,612 and 593,497 growth outside of the major cities (still 73.5% of all Metroplex growth).

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Garland, Plano, Richardson, and Arlington are the densest cities in DFW, all (except Garland) just under 4000 people per sq mile. Plano's growth numbers were unremarkable for a 'hot' city. Arlington nearly doubled it up.

Yeah. Not only that but if you look at the change in population from April 1,2010 from the census numbers to July 1, 2016 population estimates.

Both Dallas and Plano grew at the same rate 10%.


With all these new MF units going up in Dallas that probably was the main driving force in getting more people to live in the city. That's interesting since most of the job relocations are in the burbs.


I wonder if that says anything about the lack of housing in major cities or is it just refection of cities proactively densifying?

Frisco and McKinney obviously had better growth rates but that's expected given they're basically Green fields.

Maybe people do want to live in major cities

Except . . . while Dallas grew by 117,218 between 2010 and 2016, the Metroplex outside of Dallas grew by 698,891 (86.6% of all growth). Even if we include Ft. Worth growth as evidence of wanting to live in major cities, we have total "major city" growth of 222,612 and 593,497 growth outside of the major cities (still 73.5% of all Metroplex growth).

Well sure because that's where most of the housing is. That's not how I would measure demand though. What would be of more interest is what percentage of the available urban housing was absorbed in comparison to the available suburban housing.

[tamtagon]

Probably, a lot of Fort Worth growth falls under the suburban umbrella, rather than 'major city' urban density growth... or whatever terms we're using now-a-days.

There's no reason to expect suburban growth will stop, and it's not as bad or unsustainable as some may paint it. Hopefully, though, "urban" residential concentrations like Uptown and Downtown Dallas will continue to manifest, continue to become more concentrated. The share of overall growth may not be large for decades if ever, but the added tone and variety is necessary

[eburress]

That's part of the point though, the trend that's developing. 10, 20, 30 years ago, 27% of the region's new population wasn't moving into urban areas and imagine what it's going to look like 10-20 years from now. People will continue to move to Prosper, Celina, and points north because of cheap housing, schools, etc, but with Frisco and Plano long built out, even more people will move back into central Dallas and Ft. Worth as those areas continue to densify.

[The_Overdog]

10, 20, 30 years ago, 27% of the region's new population wasn't moving into urban areas and imagine what it's going to look like 10-20 years from now.

I've said before- 10-20 years ago and until 2008 I think - only about 5-15% of the new development in DFW was multifamily at all - 85% was single family. That multi-family is now about 50%, and much of that in established areas, is a new trend for Dallas. And McKinney & Frisco (two outperformers for their size) aren't just tossing up single family by the thousands -they are also building quite a bit of multifamily in populated corridors.

I doubt DFW will ever stop growing outward -but for now that's not the only direction it's growing.

[tanzoak]

I've said before- 10-20 years ago and until 2008 I think - only about 5-15% of the new development in DFW was multifamily at all - 85% was single family. That multi-family is now about 50%, and much of that in established areas, is a new trend for Dallas. And McKinney & Frisco (two outperformers for their size) aren't just tossing up single family by the thousands -they are also building quite a bit of multifamily in populated corridors.

Yeah, I have a spreadsheet with monthly Dallas and DFW-wide permits going back to 2001. In the previous boom (June '02 - Sept '07), 22% of DFW permits were for multifamily, compared to 55% for Dallas. In this current boom (Dec '11 - Mar '17), it's 47% for DFW and 86% for Dallas.

Non-Dallas permitting has gone from 17% multifamily to 37%.

[tanzoak]

Also, Dallas holds about 18% of the metro area population, but during the last boom, it only got 12% of the permits. This boom, on the other hand, it's gotten over 20%.

While it's not significantly outperforming the metro as a whole, it at least is no longer lagging.

[tanzoak]

I knew Seattle was dense (and thus, expensive) since moving here, but I didn't know the difference was so extreme. It's now the fastest-growing big city in the country.

I'm super jealous of Seattle. Walking around town is so incredible with its seemingly never-ending supply of new buildings.

We think Dallas is undergoing a building boom, but Seattle is next level. If you look at the number of units permitted this cycle compared to 2010 population, Dallas is at 41 per thousand ppl.. Seattle is at 73.

It's such a shame that their suburbs are still pretty NIMBY (25/thou vs 37/thou for non-Dallas DFW) that it's kept prices from moderating.

Or maybe it's that the restrictiveness of the non-city has driven development towards the (welcoming) core?

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Seattle is probably the front runner for The next great American urban city.
What a great place.

[Cord1936]

The actual square miles of land in Houston is 639 square miles (not 599).

Using that correct number results in a fairly big difference in density between the City of Dallas and City of Houston:

Dallas: 1,317,929/340 land sq miles
Dallas Density: 3,876

Houston: 2,303,482/639 land sq miles
Houston Density: 3,604

Maybe they annexed more land since then IDK.

Yes, that is exactly what happened.

By the end of 2012 Houston had grown to 662 square miles total and since then Houston has grown to 667 square miles of which 639.1 square miles is land.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Annex ... istory.pdf

[Tivo_Kenevil]

The actual square miles of land in Houston is 639 square miles (not 599).

Using that correct number results in a fairly big difference in density between the City of Dallas and City of Houston:

Dallas: 1,317,929/340 land sq miles
Dallas Density: 3,876

Houston: 2,303,482/639 land sq miles
Houston Density: 3,604

Maybe they annexed more land since then IDK.

Yes, that is exactly what happened.

By the end of 2012 Houston had grown to 662 square miles total and since then Houston has grown to 667 square miles of which 639.1 square miles is land.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Annex ... istory.pdf

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification

[joshua.dodd]

Texas you're pathetic.

No, Texas is not pathetic, it's huge. Literally bigger than most countries in Europe. The Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex alone is bigger than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined.

[Cord1936]

Maybe they annexed more land since then IDK.

Yes, that is exactly what happened.

By the end of 2012 Houston had grown to 662 square miles total and since then Houston has grown to 667 square miles of which 639.1 square miles is land.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Annex ... istory.pdf

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification

You are welcome!

What is mind-boggling is Houston is DOUBLE the square miles in its city limits as compared to Dallas .... but it is not double our city population. That level of sprawl within Houston itself has to be far more difficult to manage and maintain on multiple levels.

The urban model that has emerged of Dallas is one of greater and greater density and urban concentration in its city center and urban core in particular (Downtown, Victory Park, Uptown, Design District, West Dallas, Ross corridor, Cedars, etc.) as well as throughout the city in general (dense multi-family housing springing up everywhere you look outside the core).

This model of density in Dallas in general and Dallas' urban core in particular will only strengthen and gain greater momentum over time.

NBC had a very good video news coverage of this yesterday afternoon that talks about how the stunning growth of multi-family in urban Dallas is soaring ... with various great sight lines of just how urban Dallas has become.

The demand for the record number of multi-family units under construction in Dallas' core (keeping rents sky high and occupancy at historic levels) is pulling from two demographics:

Young professionals moving to Downtown Dallas from out of state PLUS a large demand from people, younger and older, leaving the suburbs for a true urban lifestyle.

This is why the City of Dallas population growth is showing such strength:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas ... 52624.html

[tamtagon]

The swaths, patches, clumps of dense urban living will be lessened and disjointed without a regional binding plan establishing growth barriers and managed wilderness areas infused into the population center.

[Austin55]

Garland looks like it's got very little in the way of empty land, nearly the entire place is single family. Dallas has huge swaths of industrial parks, and airport, the Trinity Floodplain and Forest etc etc.

RE - Seattle, it is fantastic. And very well planned. The setting is nearly impossible to beat. It is my favorite US city right now, no doubt.

[Cord1936]

The swaths, patches, clumps of dense urban living will be lessened and disjointed without a regional binding plan establishing growth barriers and managed wilderness areas infused into the population center.

Agreed.

The single greatest regional binding plan that could cement Dallas' strong population growth for decades to come is for the City to get its act together, stop talking about it, and build the Trinity Lakes and Parks.

And not some timid version but the full monty to live up to its moniker of being 11 times the size of New York City's Central Park.

It can be done in phases but the master plan needs to remain BIG and BOLD! Think like New York City and the results will be like New York City!

It will cost a lot of money but it is money well spent ...

Let that happen and what is now occurring in the city core would truly explode ... there would be dense residential lining the lakes and parks and recreation areas with many in the form of highrise and true skyscraper residential towers as we see happening even now in the core ... and this is without that type of centerpiece in place!

I believe Dallas' urban population can grow significantly if it prioritizes the Trinity Lakes and Parks as the enormous engine for growth that it will be ... as well as enhancing the quality of life for all City residents.

One only has to look at Klyde Warren Park, as small as it is, and witness the growth it has spawned. These sorts of investments in quality of life lakes and parks for the urban Dallas core will literally pay off in spades.

If the City can only get its head out of its ass long enough to realize that if they build it (Trinity Lakes and Parks), they will come and come by the tens of thousands!

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Texas you're pathetic.

No, Texas is not pathetic, it's huge. Literally bigger than most countries in Europe. The Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex alone is bigger than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined.

Calm down it was said in jest! Hahaha

[Tucy]

2017 Metro census estimates came out this morning. It should surprise no one that DFW added more people than any other metro area. What is a bit surprising is that the estimates show DFW growth slowing slightly. I would not have expected that.

2017 population estimate (July 1): 7,399,662
2016 estimate: 7,253,424
Growth 2016-2017: 146,238
Percentage growth: 2%

(The 2015-16 growth was 152,393, for a 2.15% growth rate.)

July 1, 2010 estimate: 6,451,833
2010-2017 growth: 947,829
Percentage growth 2010-2017: 14.7%

[Tivo_Kenevil]

.15% difference... We'd need more data to see if that's even significant or not. Inconclusive at best.

[tanzoak]

Yeah, I would read exactly zero into that difference. While it's "statistically" significant (MOEs for these things are around 2,000), it's not a practically meaningful difference. DFW is continuing its steady growth, which averaged 1.97% annually between 2010 and 2016.

Dallas County, by the way, added 30,686. That's 1.19% growth, continuing the trend of lagging the metro as a whole (1.30% annual growth 2010-2016).

[tanzoak]

So DFW crushed it last year.

#1 for total population growth with 146k. No one else was close. Rounding out the top 5, you had Houston (94k), Atlanta (89k), Phoenix (89k), and Washington, DC (66k). Austin was #9 with 55k.

#5 out of the 50 largest metros on a percentage basis at 2.0%, with #1 Austin blowing everyone out of the water at 2.7% (#2 Raleigh was at 2.3%). San Antonio was also in the top 10 at #7 (2.0%).

#1 for net domestic migration with 59k, in another pretty comfortable win. Rounding out the top 5, you had Phoenix (51k), Tampa (41k), Atlanta (33k), and Charlotte (31k). Austin was #6 (30k), and San Antonio was #8 (25k).

#8 for net international migration with 31k. Houston was #5 with 43k. New York City, as always, was #1 with 160k.

#1 for total net migration with 90k. Austin was #7 with 38k.

We also have some pretty favorable age demographics. Of the 50 largest metros, we had the #4 highest rate of natural increase. Houston was #2, Austin was #3, and San Antonio was #6. Salt Lake City, of course, was #1.

[tamtagon]

This population center needs a comprehensive cover of urban growth boundaries.

[Cord1936]

^^^^^^^
A couple of graphics that tell the incredible story of the enormous growth occurring in the Dallas region.

The dominance in population growth for the Dallas region over the Houston region is growing ever greater. This will translate into other key indices such as GDP growth ... undoubtedly when 2017 GDP numbers are released in the fall of 2018 the Dallas region's GDP growth will once again be scorching and Houston's will be lackluster at best in comparison.

Further, Chicago continues to hemorrhage people. Chicago’s Cook County, sitting on the shores of Lake Michigan, lost the most people at negative 20,093 residents (its third year of declines).

Which just means that with these levels of scorching growth occurring in the Dallas region the path to overtaking Chicago as the 3rd largest metro in the nation will happen far sooner than anyone has expected.

Since 2016 Dallas/Ft. Worth has become the undisputed financial and economic powerhouse throughout the Southwest and South ... no one can even begin to approach the stunning growth occurring here on all levels.

DFW is clearly the ascendant super power region in the nation ... if Amazon's HQ2 comes to Downtown Dallas the next decade will mark a period of unbelievable sustained growth that will catapult the region to total equivalence to what is now viewed as the "Big Three" in America - New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Dallas will be considered a peer of those three mega-metro's and will emerge ever greater on the world stage as a global center of power, wealth, and influence.

That is my prediction and I think it can be taken to the bank! And it will happen sooner than any of us have speculated or imagined.

In the absence of some major global geo-political disturbance that will plunge the world as a whole into mayhem, the future is very bright and very clear for the newest economic superpower on the U.S. and World stage - DFW.

Article: https://candysdirt.com/2018/03/23/us-census-reports-big-d-became-much-bigger-d-in-2017/?utm_source=Candy+Evans+-+All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a40cf927d4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bd2a6dc536-a40cf927d4-16460437

[DPatel304]

Just for fun, here are some DFW vs. Chicago numbers. These numbers might not be completed accurate, as I just did some quick googling, but the DFW population number is from the census numbers in this topic, and the Chicago numbers are from thee wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area)
Current DFW Popuation (2017 estimate): 7,399,662
Current Chicago Population (2015 estimate): 9,472,676
Difference in population: 2,073,014

DFW gained ~140K while Chicago loses ~20K, which means the gap closes by ~160K. If this were to continue every year (which it won't), then we'd be equivalent in population with Chicago in 12.96 years. Like I said though, there are way too many variables, so we have no idea what the numbers will look like for the next decade, and these past several years have been exceptionally well for Texas, but that doesn't necessarily mean the trend will continue.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

When will Dallas proper census information be available?

[tanzoak]

When will Dallas proper census information be available?

September (as well as demographic info for counties/metros). Then tracts and block groups in December.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

When will Dallas proper census information be available?

September (as well as demographic info for counties/metros). Then tracts and block groups in December.

Cool. I wonder Dallas finally will get to 4K in pop. density.

Definitely would like to what downtown looks like.

[tanzoak]

When will Dallas proper census information be available?

September (as well as demographic info for counties/metros). Then tracts and block groups in December.

Cool. I wonder Dallas finally will get to 4K in pop. density.

Definitely would like to what downtown looks like.

Well, since it has to add 225k people to get there, probably in like 15 years.

Smaller than the city level, everything is a bit lagged. The info we get in December will be for 2013-2017, compared to what we have now, which is 2012-2016.

[Tucy]

When will Dallas proper census information be available?

September (as well as demographic info for counties/metros). Then tracts and block groups in December.

City population estimates will be released in May.