What is the DFW's population really? (Houston, Dallas: apartment complex, home, employment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it amusing that the NYT calls the Dallas County growth rate a paltry 6.7 when the growth rate for New York County was 3.2, just saying. While highrise buildings may be the future, the tear down and rebuilding of single family homes still seems to be the norm. That's good for construction, maybe not so much for a huge population growth (which is fine with me).
The population growth is slowed by replacing single family with singles. Since people in their twenties are more likely to be unmarried and childless, that reduces the population growth by eliminating children.
Also, the teardown of old apartment complexes in favor of new expensive apartments, or even vacant lots, further reduces the population. For about the same reason. Old apartment properties are often populated by impoverished families with children, who cannot afford single family housing. When the space occupied by a family is taken over by a college graduate on his first or second job, the population drops.
Yes, good points. The CSA (which would include Sherman and Mineral Wells, along with some others) was 6,887,383 and would be a little over 7M right now if we kept our growth rate-- which every indication is we have. We are the 4th largest MSA, 5th largest media market, and 7th largest CSA-- which is probably a better measure. The Bay Area is really one economy, not two, LA and Riverside are also, same for DC and Baltimore. If growth rates hold over the decade we would pass Boston for 6th largest CSA in 2017 and tie the Bay Area in 2020 with a population of about 8.4M.
In many ways, the CSA is not a valid way to measure or define "city". There is limited and difficult transport between parts of a CSA, but within a MSA people commute for work and entertainment.
For example, consider San Francisco and San Jose, parts of the same CSA. There is very little commuting between the San Jose suburbs and downtown San Francisco, and virtually no interaction for entertainment and leisure. The distances are just too great. I know, I was one of those exceptional people who commuted between my home in SF and my job in the Silicon Valley. The commute was around an hour and a half, through the "San Jose Crawl", and economically it was workable only through our 3-4 person carpool. Nobody else I knew was doing it.
For pretty much the same reason, driving from Sn Jose to SF for dinner and a show was also pretty outrageous. Also, there was a definite division in job boards, placement agencies, employment markets. Agencies that supplied the Silicon Valley did not work the SF area and vice versa.
Technically, the Northern California CSA extended through a distance pf about 90 miles, like the distance between downtown Dallas and downtown Waco.
Bottom line... the MSA is a good description of what you consider a physical "city", but the CSA is not. Maybe a cluster of cities in an economic region, but independent of one another.
The population growth is slowed by replacing single family with singles. Since people in their twenties are more likely to be unmarried and childless, that reduces the population growth by eliminating children.
Also, the teardown of old apartment complexes in favor of new expensive apartments, or even vacant lots, further reduces the population. For about the same reason. Old apartment properties are often populated by impoverished families with children, who cannot afford single family housing. When the space occupied by a family is taken over by a college graduate on his first or second job, the population drops.
That's not the case in Downtown, Uptown or close by. Warehouses are being converted, apartments are rebuilt with taller spaces containing more units, some tid-bits of raw land or land with derelict or underused buildings are stripped and rebuilt with apts/condos. There are dozens of vertically oriented apts/condos on the drawing board in that area. While there is little pressure on the 'burbs to go vertical the opposite is true around the inner core.
I do not see highrise building being the future of Dallas at all. Sure it will happen, but I see a larger percentage of growth to the east and the south (like what's happened the past 20 yrs to the north). (Think about it McKinney-Dallas is 30 miles, Terrell-Dallas 30mi, Waxahachie-Dallas 30mi). With land so plenty and cheap, along with lower wages (not everyone makes 6 figures in this town), the masses will not live in the city. Most of the jobs aren't in the city anyway. Folks will flock to the suburbs where they can afford the 2000sf house on their own piece of land. But, it really all depends on where the businesses set up shop (which towns give them the most incentives) and the increase in people's ability/flexibility to work from home.
To a degree, it has already started to take place. While the suburbs south and east of Dallas aren't growing as fast as some of the northern suburbs, there has been substantial growth taking place in these communities as well. The number of employers and businesses has also increased. Here are the 2010 Census figures for the southern and eastern suburbs (population 5,000+):
It was pointed out earlier that the population of Dallas County increased 6.7 percent over the last decade. Most of the cities in southern and eastern Dallas County grew at a faster rate than the county as a whole, with many also exceeding the rate for the metropolitan area as a whole (23.4 percent).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae713
South and East aren't desirable areas though. The north will always see the most growth. You would think it would be the opposite, because the terrain is nicer on the south side.
That's a bit of a generalization. There are desirable areas south and east of Dallas as well. They aren't confined only to areas north of Dallas.
One of the interesting things about city of Dallas proper, is that for the last decade it has very low emigration. Even negative in some years. Dallas proper has actually grown by a decent rate except for one factor: Torn down apartments. If you have lived in Dallas proper over the last decade, you've probably noticed the huge amount of garden style apartment complexes that have been torn down, especially in Northeast Dallas. This trend has continued this decade as well. You're probably talking about as many as 100,000 people last decade. The area north of Presbyterian Hospital was completely removed. Acres upon acres of densely packed apartments. This has greatly impacted DART to the point that it has completely changed transit numbers. One of the busiest stations, LBJ-Skillman, as well as Walnut Hill Station have seen their numbers most greatly impacted, yet you never heard anything reported about this.
You are seeing slower infill though, and this is part of the reason you often see very positive and aggressive growth numbers for Dallas proper in the next ten years. You have an increasing density, while at the same time you're seeing land freed up with less and less population penalty because of the density of the growth.
South and East aren't desirable areas though. The north will always see the most growth. You would think it would be the opposite, because the terrain is nicer on the south side.
Always?
I have a less myopic viewpoint. Undesirable can become desirable in less time than you think, vice versa.
If Dallas' vision for it's core area (Downtown/Uptown/Design District/TRP) stays intact to fruition, 25-30+ years from now, areas south of Downtown should blow up with new residents, developments and businesses seeking to be closer to the action.
Last edited by BstYet2Be; 06-09-2012 at 04:25 PM..
Reason: per OP request
When an average wage employee "needs" to work downtown (this is subjective of course) and doesn't want an hour commute, their "desirable" area will be south and east (but I suppose average wage employees may be less "desirable" to a majority of developers). 2010 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $41,282.
Last edited by BstYet2Be; 06-09-2012 at 04:26 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
