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

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

We got the City & Town estimates this morning
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/subcounty-population-estimates.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 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)

[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]

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.

[Tucy I]

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.

[R1070]

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.

[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.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

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

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.