New Census Population Estimates

[CTroyMathis]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[LongonBigD]

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.

[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.

[dallaz]

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

https://youtu.be/v2xFI4Ap4yE?feature=shared