Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

New Census Population Estimates

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 436
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tucy » 27 Mar 2018 11:15

tanzoak wrote:
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
tanzoak wrote:
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.


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.


To be clear, population estimates for city level and above (i.e., county, metro, and state) are estimates as of a particular date (the recent metro estimates discussed above are as of July 1, 2017). Estimates at the smaller levels (e.g., census tracts and block groups) are rolling estimates based on 5 years of surveys.

User avatar
eddieg1
Posts: 3
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 07:12

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby eddieg1 » 01 Apr 2018 18:53

Top 10 Fastest Growing Counties in 2017
America is on the Move

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... eyre-going

User avatar
jrd1964
Posts: 390
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 06:38

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby jrd1964 » 24 May 2018 04:11

D looks at a Pew research study about economic and other gaps in urban and rural areas. The article headline says that "older" and "more diverse" now characterize Dallas County.
(charts for surrounding counties also included)

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... e-diverse/

User avatar
LuvBigD
Posts: 3
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:14

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby LuvBigD » 24 May 2018 11:29

I found the following link of 2018 U.S. city population figures. I can't tell if this states if this data is according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 436
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tucy » 24 May 2018 11:36

LuvBigD wrote:I found the following link of 2018 U.S. city population figures. I can't tell if this states if this data is according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/


It is not U.S. Census. There will not be 2018 city population figures available from the U.S. Census until this time next year. They just released the 2017 numbers today.

Fort Worth is now the 15th largest city in the U.S. Interestingly, Dallas and Fort Worth each added approximately 19,000 between 2016 and 2017.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 350
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby The_Overdog » 24 May 2018 11:52

The article headline says that "older" and "more diverse" now characterize Dallas County.

The 'more diverse' part is accurate but the older is very relative, as all the DFW counties listed have smaller by percent populations aged 65 or older than average. In other words, in general DFW is younger than average. Dallas County is more diverse than average for urban, Tarrant average, and Collin less diverse than average. Denton county is more diverse than average for suburban, but less diverse than urban counties.

Also Collin County is classified 'urban' and Denton County is 'suburban' when their starting/ending population numbers are similar because apparently those designations are based on their year 2000 populations (I think?).

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 705
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby muncien » 24 May 2018 11:54

Both cities are doing well with population gains. Fort Worth has struggled a bit with office space, but residential gains are a better bet as employers will look for available workers in the long run. As office pricing disparity grows between the two cities, Fort Worth will be well positioned to pick up some wins.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

DPatel304
Posts: 1037
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby DPatel304 » 24 May 2018 12:13

Frisco was the nation's fastest-growing city, but another D-FW city's growth was more surprising
“Fort Worth, when you look recently, has been growing steadily and now it seems like it’s popped up a little bit,” said state demographer Lloyd Potter. “I wouldn’t say it was in the doldrums, but it wasn’t growing at the same pace as some of the other areas in Texas.”

Cowtown added 18,664 residents over the year, the fourth most of any city in the country -- following close behind Dallas, which added 18,935.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/dem ... ion-census

The Dallas News giving Fort Worth an honorable mention. Obviously Frisco is the big winner here (in terms of percentage gain), but Fort Worth is doing pretty damn good as well.

As someone who doesn't get out to Fort Worth too much, I'm actually surprised at how high on the list Fort Worth is. I'm sure the size of the city is fairly common knowledge, I just had no idea.

I still feel like Dallas may steal their thunder for the time being, as there is plenty of empty land in the greater Downtown Dallas area. As land becomes more expensive and limited, I could see Fort Worth really shining as and benefiting from that.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 350
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby The_Overdog » 24 May 2018 15:26

As someone who doesn't get out to Fort Worth too much, I'm actually surprised at how high on the list Fort Worth is.


Ft Worth is the Texas equivalent of Phoenix, as most of its suburbs aren't that great and it is endlessly sprawling outwards. Ft Worth's density is along the lines of Abilene or San Angelo, approximately 50% less than Dallas, which is already relatively low. It really needs infill more than most places in TX. Fortunately to it's credit, it's done studies and hopefully will listen to those studies to improve its design.

User avatar
jrd1964
Posts: 390
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 06:38

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby jrd1964 » 24 May 2018 16:42

Here's the Star-T version. Fort Worth is now bigger than Indianapolis, and is now behind Columbus, OH, but not by much.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... 40579.html

User avatar
Mr. Amsterdam
Posts: 11
Joined: 09 Jan 2018 19:14
Location: Amsterdam

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Mr. Amsterdam » 25 May 2018 15:41

LuvBigD wrote:I found the following link of 2018 U.S. city population figures. I can't tell if this states if this data is according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/


Arlington more dense than Dallas? That is very surprising.

And good god @ Jacksonville. I thought Dallas's density was lacking.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1046
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 25 May 2018 20:17

I love ft. worth. Magnolia Ave. and Downtown Ft worth have come a long way. West seventh is growing... All great things for cowtown.

Thier plans with Trinity river will be their catalyst for more growth. This is a better, attainable, plan than is Dallas' failed attempt(s) to Integrate the Trinity

https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/a-250-mi ... fort-worth

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1046
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 25 May 2018 20:26

Mr. Amsterdam wrote:
LuvBigD wrote:I found the following link of 2018 U.S. city population figures. I can't tell if this states if this data is according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/


Arlington more dense than Dallas? That is very surprising.



And good god @ Jacksonville. I thought Dallas's density was lacking.



Yeah didn't u know the burbs are more dense. Garland is DFWs urban core.

User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 130
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby I45Tex » 28 May 2018 10:13

I'm surprised that folks have let that claim stand. The burbs are not more dense. Garland may be 57 square miles at an average density of 4100-4200 residents per square mile, but ten minutes with a ZCTA map can show you an equally extensive square mileage of central and north-central Dallas with residential density over 6000 per square mile. That is DFW's urban core.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1354
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby tamtagon » 28 May 2018 11:53

I45Tex wrote:I'm surprised that folks have let that claim stand.


Scratches beneath the surface show how that claim is for the city versus city pep rally, data are boring.... haha

This topic reminds me that Dallas is not a landlock municipality, and how much I would like to see the city limits push toward Waxahachie, Ennis, Kaufman and Terrell. Equally inspired by 1) Trinity River wilderness management and 2) regional politics management... and just a tiny bit to raise the ceiling of Dallas city population so the city can move up the list! Top 25 what-if why-not is a municipal merge of Dallas and Irving.

User avatar
fractal
Posts: 4
Joined: 30 Apr 2017 16:32

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby fractal » 29 May 2018 19:36

Saw this over at ssp:

2017 density:
Minneapolis: 7,693
Tampa: 3,398
LA: 8,533
Dallas: 3,939
Columbus: 4,048
Houston: 3,857

2010 density:
Minneapolis: 6,969
Tampa: 2,961
LA: 8,091
Dallas: 3,518
Columbus: 3,633
Houston: 3,493

City density growth, with Wikipedia land square miles:
Minneapolis: 724 in 54.9 square miles
Tampa: 458 in 113.42 square miles
LA: 424 in 468.74 square miles
Dallas: 421 in 340.5 square miles
Columbus: 415 in 217.17 square miles
Houston: 364 in 599.59 square miles

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 350
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby The_Overdog » 30 May 2018 10:40

The burbs are not more dense. Garland may be 57 square miles at an average density of 4100-4200 residents per square mile, but ten minutes with a ZCTA map can show you an equally extensive square mileage of central and north-central Dallas with residential density over 6000 per square mile. That is DFW's urban core.


Who cares? That's a tiny part of Dallas, and that much of it is less dense means that Dallas has made conscious decisions to be less dense than a suburb across 2/3s of it's landmass. The boundaries of Dallas are also not handed down by god any more than Garland or Arlington are - they represent choices made. Bad ones. Dallas could have chosen to be a small compact city like SF or Boston. It didn't.

DPatel304
Posts: 1037
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby DPatel304 » 30 May 2018 10:44

The_Overdog wrote:Who cares? That's a tiny part of Dallas, and that much of it is less dense means that Dallas has made conscious decisions to be less dense than a suburb across 2/3s of it's landmass. The boundaries of Dallas are also not handed down by god any more than Garland or Arlington are - they represent choices made. Bad ones. Dallas could have chosen to be a small compact city like SF or Boston. It didn't.


Genuinely curious here, but, aside from having a higher density, what other benefits would be to Dallas remaining a more 'compact' city?

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 350
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby The_Overdog » 30 May 2018 12:01

Genuinely curious here, but, aside from having a higher density, what other benefits would be to Dallas remaining a more 'compact' city?


More equal transportation access, tax per acre, basically everything, hence why most cities in the world are smaller in area than Dallas, or why Jacksonville is one of the largest in area cities in the US.

BTW, as not to be too negative, Dallas used to be 3200 people per acre. In the time that Garland, Plano, and Arlington (the 3 densest cities by average pop density in DFW) have gone from about about 3600-4000 per sq mile, Dallas has gone from 3200 - 3900, so it won't be much longer before Dallas is the most dense city in DFW.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1046
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 30 May 2018 20:40

Dallas can be dense all about zoning. Look at LA.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 282
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 30 May 2018 20:59

You can zone all you want, but unless people want density all you'll get is vacant lots. The truth is that density is like mass transit: 98% of the population wants it...for someone else. I know that's not a popular position here, but it's the reality.

Tnexster
Posts: 1592
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tnexster » 30 May 2018 21:15

Hannibal Lecter wrote:You can zone all you want, but unless people want density all you'll get is vacant lots. The truth is that density is like mass transit: 98% of the population wants it...for someone else. I know that's not a popular position here, but it's the reality.


Truth, were I live density is a four letter word.


Tnexster
Posts: 1592
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tnexster » 31 Aug 2018 22:25

New residents are flocking to Dallas. Where are they coming from?

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... -from.html

User avatar
Mr. Amsterdam
Posts: 11
Joined: 09 Jan 2018 19:14
Location: Amsterdam

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Mr. Amsterdam » 14 Sep 2018 13:36

Downtown has surpassed 11,000 residents according to Patrick Kennedy who referred to Downtown Dallas Inc in the tweet.

DPatel304
Posts: 1037
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby DPatel304 » 14 Sep 2018 15:17

Wasn't 10,000 residents considered the point at which the CBD would reach 'critical mass'? Or did I make that up?

Either way, that's great news. I really think the CBD has reached a significant turning point, and the next decade will be awesome for Downtown.

User avatar
itsjrd1964
Posts: 213
Joined: 28 Jul 2018 07:38

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby itsjrd1964 » 14 Sep 2018 18:31

Now that the CBD is at this point, I wonder what the next excuse for not having a grocery store will be... 20,000?

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 350
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby joshua.dodd » 15 Sep 2018 06:52

Dallas needs to build a subway system. Not a DART light rail subway. We need an actual subway system for our most dense neighborhoods. Otherwise, we will become like another LA.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1354
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby tamtagon » 15 Sep 2018 08:46

Dallas already is like another LA, not nearly as densely populated, but getting there.

There are some stats about LA that might surprise you, so much that you'd do a double-take. Despite the nightmare truths we hear about traffic congestion, air pollution, politics, etc, whatever, Los Angeles is a World Capital and probably far more urban, walkable, sustainable, etc, whatever than many chose not to believe or acknowledge.

Coming of age after many of the potholes of suburban sprawl had been revealed through Los Angeles, Dallas (and other Sunbelt population centers) has the opportunity to side-step them. As mentioned, strong public transportation is definitely part of the solution, but before the region can affect progress, we have to overcome significant political constraints.

User avatar
I45Tex
Posts: 130
Joined: 26 Jan 2017 05:52

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby I45Tex » 16 Sep 2018 10:44

Yeah I have been seeing* some doomsaying writing about how even the SF Bay Area, messed up as it is in so many ways, has outperformed LA economically. Ever since the Cold War and increasingly lately. Much is made by these journalists and academics of LA's struggles, I guess.

But still, guess what? While nobody's going to match Silicon Valley in a percentage growth contest this decade, LA comes out ahead in overall GDP growth 2001-2016. Here are chained-dollar figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

255.99 billion/yr added in NYC-Newark-Westchester
251.37 bil/yr added by LA-Anaheim (no Inland Empire, no Ventura) **
221.46 bil/yr added in SFO+SValley
164.33 bil/yr added in DFW
154.36 bil/yr added in Hou-Galveston
118.27 bil/yr added in DC-NoVA-MD
89.11 bil/yr added in Boston (96.22 when Manchester-Nashua included)
80.96 bil/yr added in Philly-Wilmington
67.66 bil/yr added in Metro Atlanta
66.75 bil/yr added by Chicagoland

Doing a top-ten list of gainer MSAs would have to separate SF and SV, bumping Chicago from the list, but here I've grouped the two together for comparison to LA --- and LA almost beat NYC, which people think is going strong. New figures will come out on Tuesday, covering 2017. I will be keen to see if it's lapped NY performance after all.

The LA growth is really quite impressive because it is added in the existing metro footprint. While harder to find stats about than census MSA, the UA (Urbanized Area) of 1,668 square miles called "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana" now is home to at least 12.7 million Californians, up from 11.8 million in Census 2000.

Imagine if in 2000 we'd already had 11.8 million Texans in this shaded region of 1668 square miles:
Metroplex 1668sqmi like LA-LB UA.png



* such as https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22080
and
https://calmatters.org/articles/tale-tw ... south-now/

** that is, the MSA's estimated real GDP kept in chained 2009 dollars was 251.37 billion higher annually in 2016 ($885 billion) than back in 2001 ($633 billion)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 705
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby muncien » 18 Sep 2018 09:33

LA's biggest issue for some time has been the disparity between income and housing prices. Sure, much of coastal CA is expensive, but nearly all of it makes up with it to a degree with higher incomes. This is not so much the case with Los Angeles, however. One of the reasons transit (particularly 'bus' transit) in LA is so heavily used, is simply because many residents have no choice. I know several groups of people who pile multiple families into a single 3 bedroom house, cannot afford a car, and they all pile into Metro every day. It's not the most ideal way to live, even though it may look good for transit numbers. I'm glad I got away from that when I did, and that is not a model I would like to follow.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 455
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby tanzoak » 18 Sep 2018 10:21

muncien wrote:LA's biggest issue for some time has been the disparity between income and housing prices. Sure, much of coastal CA is expensive, but nearly all of it makes up with it to a degree with higher incomes. This is not so much the case with Los Angeles, however.


Yeah, median household income in LA and Dallas is not that different: LA is $70,000, whereas Dallas it's $67,000 (metro areas both). Housing costs, on the other hand...

Housing is even crazier in the Bay Area, but at least in SJ median household income is $117,000 and SF is $102,000 (again, metros).

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1046
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 18 Sep 2018 10:25

It's amazing that people still flock to the west coast. The desire to be there is undeniable. Great place.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 455
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby tanzoak » 18 Sep 2018 10:54

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:It's amazing that people still flock to the west coast. The desire to be there is undeniable. Great place.


Eh, except they don't really. Last year LA had net negative domestic migration of -110k, SJ of -26k, and SF of -24k. The only group of people with positive migration to California are college grads making over $110,000. Which, cool, but the state's disastrous housing policies have crushed everyone except that small segment (and it hurts them too!). Elsewhere on the West Coast, people of all types are certainly moving to Seattle, though (and to a lesser extent, Portland).

Here's some detail on CA migration from the Legislative Analyst's Office: https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 705
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby muncien » 18 Sep 2018 11:05

California has a mild climate (for the most part), and a natural beauty that few other areas can even come close to. That aspect I miss dearly. And for that reason alone, people will always want to live there, regardless of the meat bags running the state. The government there in essence gets a free pass to do whatever idiocy they see fit.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 350
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby The_Overdog » 18 Sep 2018 11:51

California is doing fine.

"Families with kids and those with only a high school education predominate among those moving from California to its top destination states (Texas, Arizona, and Nevada). College-educated 18 to 35 year olds led the way among those moving to California from its top feeder states (New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). "

So California is having to educate less children, is losing those with limited earning potential, and is gaining those with high earning potential.

Also it's not that big a deal that the median home price is disconnected from the median income because the median earner rents, they don't own. Dallas will share that same distinction in the next decade or so.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 455
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby tanzoak » 18 Sep 2018 13:13

Also it's not that big a deal that the median home price is disconnected from the median income because the median earner rents, they don't own. Dallas will share that same distinction in the next decade or so.


You have it backwards. Housing prices out of line of incomes doesn’t matter to current homeowners. It’s a massive problem for current renters, however, because they still have to pay the extremely high prices (a nice, but not luxe, 1br in uptown Oakland runs $3200/mo, my place 4 mi from downtown runs $2400) but don’t get the appreciation gains for if they want to cash out. And it’s really tough to get in for the first time: the cheapest places to buy will set you back at least $650k unless you’re really living out in the far suburbs.

Also, the idea that CA is doing fine because they’re kicking out all the poors (and poors is defined as making less than $100k lol) is not really the perspective I want to have as a human being. You don’t have to want some big redistributive welfare state to still feel that making it harder for the less fortunate to get by is not a good outcome.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 350
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby The_Overdog » 18 Sep 2018 14:19

You don’t have to want some big redistributive welfare state to still feel that making it harder for the less fortunate to get by is not a good outcome.


It may not be a morally good outcome, but it is the outcome that nearly every state in the US is going for from a legislative standpoint.

User avatar
Warrior2015
Posts: 123
Joined: 15 Jun 2018 21:19

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Warrior2015 » 18 Sep 2018 15:48

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:It's amazing that people still flock to the west coast. The desire to be there is undeniable. Great place.

Would you move to the west coast if you could?

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1046
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: New Census Population Estimates

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 18 Sep 2018 16:04

Warrior2015 wrote:
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:It's amazing that people still flock to the west coast. The desire to be there is undeniable. Great place.

Would you move to the west coast if you could?


Yeah, I could/can actually. I do love the Bay Area and am positive I could easily get transferred to CA if I asked.

However, I don't see the added financial benefit in doing so; so i'll stay put...for now.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Login