US Census Bureau data for Austin and other cities

[JGFrisco]

Just released today. Official census estimates for 2013.

Travis 1,120,954
Williamson 471,014
Hays 176,026
Bastrop 75,825
Caldwell 39.032

Total Austin MSA 1,883,051

[JGFrisco]

Dfw 6,749,350

[JGFrisco]

SA 2,215,000 approx.

[bigdogc]

That is crazy. 2.5% for Austin. Houston is growing like crazy too.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

For those interested

[electricron]

Dfw 6,749,350
Actually per http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/popdat/ST2014.shtm -
DFW is 6985579, about 400,000 more than your data.

FYI, here's the top 10 Texas metros.
*1)DFW (both sides) 6,985,579
1)Houston 6,484,279
2)Dallas (its side) 4,627,393
3)Fort Worth (its side) 2,358,186
4)San Antonio 2,334,263
5)Austin 1,938,858
6)McAllen 862,768
7)El Paso 862,638
8)Killeen-Temple 445,356
9)Corpus Christi 443,351
10)Brownsville-Harligen 439,437

I listed them this way because Fort Worth never gets the respect it deserves.

[The ATX]

Actually per http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/popdat/ST2014.shtm -
DFW is 6985579, about 400,000 more than your data.

FYI, here's the top 10 Texas metros.
*1)DFW (both sides) 6,985,579
1)Houston 6,484,279
2)Dallas (its side) 4,627,393
3)Fort Worth (its side) 2,358,186
4)San Antonio 2,334,263
5)Austin 1,938,858
6)McAllen 862,768
7)El Paso 862,638
8)Killeen-Temple 445,356
9)Corpus Christi 443,351
10)Brownsville-Harligen 439,437

I listed them this way because Fort Worth never gets the respect it deserves.

These numbers are all bigger than the census release because they are 2014 projections and the census numbers are for 2013.

[Jdawgboy]

Thats true. The official numbers are from july 2012 to July 2013. We are well in the middle of the 2014 cycle and from what we know currently, I would expect to see an increase in the growth come the end of next March.

[JoninATX]

Pretty much, I can say that they are pretty close has to how many people are in each of those cities currently.

[JGFrisco]

One thing I just don't understand is why the Rio Grande Valley is listed as separate MSAs for Brownsville and McAllen. Anyone who has been down there knows it is one metro area. There are lots of smaller cities, but it's really just one area, with a pop of about 1.25 million.

[JGFrisco]

Houston 2013 estimate 6,284,311

140,000 increase over 2012. That's 383 new residents every single day.

[hookem]

What isn't noted in most of the articles about the new census data:

Austin is the fastest growing "large" metro (>1m) in the country.

If you look at the top 10, everything growing at a faster rate than Austin are smaller metros. So despite the bigger rates (in smaller cities), and larger raw numbers (in much bigger metros), Austin is technically the fastest growing major city in the country. Which is certainly what it feels like.

[GoldenBoot]

The above SA Metro population estimates are incorrect. SA Metro has an estimated July 1, 2013 population of 2,277,550. I was surprised at the rates for both Austin and San Antonio. I would have expected them to be slightly higher.

I also believe that Austin's growth will be greater than it's 2012-2013 rate of 2.6% for the current year (2013-2014).

At the current estimated annual rates of growth for both Austin and San Antonio (calculated from July 1, 2010 through July 1, 2013), Austin would surpass San Antonio in total metropolitan area population by 2030 or 2031 (assuming no additional counties are added to either metropolitan area between now and then and annual growth rates remain constant at 3.00% and 1.92%, respectively). Interesting...considering nothing (i.e., economy) remains the same. Especially over this amount of time.

[GoldenBoot]

Did you know:

If Austin/San Antonio region was actually recognized as a Consolidated Statistical Area, based on current estimates, it would rank as the 14th largest CSA in the country? About 300,000 fewer than Seattle-Tacoma and almost 400,000 more than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

As I love running numbers...In a very simple run: A-SA would surpass the 5 million mark in late 2020; the 6 million mark by 2028; the 7 million mark in 2035; and almost have 8 million in 2040. By then (2040), the A-SA CSA would move up the ranking charts to become the 11th largest CSA in America; a hair above Philadelphia-Reading-Camden and just under 900,000 below Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs. Again, using current annual estimated rates of growth (from 7/1/2010 through 7/1/2013), assuming no new areas were added to said CSA, and the economic variable remains the same (which is unlikely). I'll do more of a true statistical analysis when I get more time.

[JoninATX]

The Austin- San Antonio area packs a big punch. Also what's really impressive is that a line is starting to form from the Waco area down to San Antonio. While I know it will be along time before it will truly connect, but it's still amazing to see. :cool:

[wwmiv]

One thing I just don't understand is why the Rio Grande Valley is listed as separate MSAs for Brownsville and McAllen. Anyone who has been down there knows it is one metro area. There are lots of smaller cities, but it's really just one area, with a pop of about 1.25 million.

Because hardly anyone commutes from Cameron County into Hidalgo County for work every day. 25% of the workforce of a county must commute into the core county every day.

[JGFrisco]

Because hardly anyone commutes from Cameron County into Hidalgo County for work every day. 25% of the workforce of a county must commute into the core county every day.

I understand the census people's reasoning, I just disagree with using that as the way to consider whether an area is one metro area or not. People in Fort Worth don't have to commute into Dallas to be part of the DFW MSA. And in fact, using commuting to work as the primary way of figuring whether counties are part of the same metro area is pretty outdated, given the prevalance of secondary business centers and people working at home.

[electricron]

I understand the census people's reasoning, I just disagree with using that as the way to consider whether an area is one metro area or not. People in Fort Worth don't have to commute into Dallas to be part of the DFW MSA. And in fact, using commuting to work as the primary way of figuring whether counties are part of the same metro area is pretty outdated, given the prevalance of secondary business centers and people working at home.

I'm going to disagree because you forgot why the OMB invented these statistical areas- enforcing America's equal opportunity laws. That's equal opportunities for jobs, and commuting patterns is amongst the most important factors to consider.

It's obvious San Antonio's military based economy doesn't mix in well with Austin's state government and state supported university based economy. The longer distance between the cities means there are far less commuting between them.

I don't think OMB thinks the economies are joined enough to make a CSA either.

[Owlhorn]

I understand the census people's reasoning, I just disagree with using that as the way to consider whether an area is one metro area or not. People in Fort Worth don't have to commute into Dallas to be part of the DFW MSA. And in fact, using commuting to work as the primary way of figuring whether counties are part of the same metro area is pretty outdated, given the prevalance of secondary business centers and people working at home.

Don't know why DFW is used so often in these discussion with SA/Austin. People in DFW work all over the metro and its just not some big deal. I technically worked in the FW-Arlington MSA for a few years and it was like 15 minutes from my house in Dallas. When I worked in Farmers Branch, lots of people lived in places like Grapevine, Euless, Flower Mound. When I worked in McKinney, there were lots of people from Greenville, Sherman, Denton, Dallas. We share an airport, we have shared television and radio since the technologies began. The only way DFW could be closer is if Dallas and Fort Worth proper shared a border. Instead they are 10 minutes apart along 183. A lot of huge employers(larger employers than say downtown San Antonio and Austin combined) like DFW Airport, Las Colinas and Centreport along with Hays and Comal growing to about a million or 2 needs to happen. Those two metros are just not economically intertwined like DFW.

[austlar1]

Don't know why DFW is used so often in these discussion with SA/Austin. People in DFW work all over the metro and its just not some big deal. I technically worked in the FW-Arlington MSA for a few years and it was like 15 minutes from my house in Dallas. When I worked in Farmers Branch, lots of people lived in places like Grapevine, Euless, Flower Mound. When I worked in McKinney, there were lots of people from Greenville, Sherman, Denton, Dallas. We share an airport, we have shared television and radio since the technologies began. The only way DFW could be closer is if Dallas and Fort Worth proper shared a border. Instead they are 10 minutes apart along 183. A lot of huge employers(larger employers than say downtown San Antonio and Austin combined) like DFW Airport, Las Colinas and Centreport along with Hays and Comal growing to about a million or 2 needs to happen. Those two metros are just not economically intertwined like DFW.

Amen to that, but local boosters are somehow determined to make SA/Austin CSA become a reality. As things currently stand, it is an absurd concept for the reasons you state above. The economy of the DFW area, the commute patterns, the integrated freeway system, the multiple major employment nodes, the combined media market, the shared airport, sports teams, etc. I personally don't know why some folks are not happy to have the Austin metro the way it is now-simply put the fastest growing major metro in the US.

[Novacek]

Don't know why DFW is used so often in these discussion with SA/Austin. People in DFW work all over the metro and its just not some big deal. I technically worked in the FW-Arlington MSA for a few years and it was like 15 minutes from my house in Dallas. When I worked in Farmers Branch, lots of people lived in places like Grapevine, Euless, Flower Mound. When I worked in McKinney, there were lots of people from Greenville, Sherman, Denton, Dallas. We share an airport, we have shared television and radio since the technologies began. The only way DFW could be closer is if Dallas and Fort Worth proper shared a border. Instead they are 10 minutes apart along 183. A lot of huge employers(larger employers than say downtown San Antonio and Austin combined) like DFW Airport, Las Colinas and Centreport along with Hays and Comal growing to about a million or 2 needs to happen. Those two metros are just not economically intertwined like DFW.


I agree that DFW is integrated to an extent that Austin and San Antonio will probably never be. However, that's probably too high a bar. DFW is possibly the _most_ integrated of CSAs, and as you mentioned the two cities are a lot closer. But there are other CSAs that are significantly more geographically separated (example Detroit and Flint, 68 miles apart).

[wwmiv]

Austin MSA's year to year growth rate plummeted over the last three years according to the census bureau. The last year was 2.61%. The year before that was 2.99%, and the year before that was 3.13%. That's not a good trend line for us.

San Antonio's increased from 1.83, to 1.91, to 1.93 over those three years. Not the best trend should Austin still want to outgrow S.A. MSA.

[Novacek]

Austin MSA's year to year growth rate plummeted over the last three years according to the census bureau. The last year was 2.61%. The year before that was 2.99%, and the year before that was 3.13%. That's not a good trend line for us.

San Antonio's increased from 1.83, to 1.91, to 1.93 over those three years. Not the best trend should Austin still want to outgrow S.A. MSA.

I'm not really sure these estimates are accurate to two decimal places. Anytime the census displays the numbers (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb14-51_top_metro.pdf, factfinder, etc.) they only go out to a single decimal.

[wwmiv]

I'm not really sure these estimates are accurate to two decimal places. Anytime the census displays the numbers (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb14-51_top_metro.pdf, factfinder, etc.) they only go out to a single decimal.

True enough.

[JGFrisco]

I actually wasn't talking Austin/SA as a potential CMSA. I was referring to the Rio Grande Valley.

As a person who travels extensively, it's hard t explain but there is just a "feel" to a metro area. Example...Dallas and Fort Worth clearly "feel" like one big metroplex. But Washington and Baltimore do not, even though they are the same distance apart.

Part is media market type. dFW is one media market. DC and Baltimore are separate, with separate tv and radio stations.

The Valley "feels" like a single metro area. People think they are from the Valley, not one city or the other. TV and radio cover the whole area as their base market as well.

By this measure Austin and SA are really not one contiguous metro area.

[wwmiv]

People may "feel" like they are part of one big metro in the Valley, but their actions speak louder than their feelings.

[JGFrisco]

People may "feel" like they are part of one big metro in the Valley, but their actions speak louder than their feelings.

What are their "actions"? The MSA concept of using work patterns has its limits. If you have an area with a bunch of smaller cities and no "central" city, it doesn't really fly. In the Valley, there is no "central" city, but it is a community, a metro area just like Austin is.

[JGFrisco]

By the way, I missed a few things, including leaving out a few smaller counties. The official list from the census...

DFW 6,810,913
Houston 6,313,158
SA 2,277,550
Austin 1,883,051

Growth since 2010

DFW +384,699
Houston +392,742
SA +135,042
Austin +166,762

However, if you break it down to 2012-2013, SA added 43,056 residents while Austin added 47,941.

[Jdawgboy]

Look for Austin to have a rapid increase in growth once the 2014 numbers come in next year. We need to remember that what we are experiencing right now is not included with the latest statistics.

Another interesting indicator is number of jobs. Take a look at this graphic from the census.

http://i1332.photobucket.com/albums/w613/jeremysweredoski/1-tale-of-2-cit-blog%201_zpsdnzw5p1f.jpg (http://s1332.photobucket.com/user/jeremysweredoski/media/1-tale-of-2-cit-blog%201_zpsdnzw5p1f.jpg.html)

Despite the difference in population Austin and San Antonio are pretty equal when it comes to jobs. Not only that but Austin is clearly adding more jobs and by the rate of growth, we may pass San Antonio by the end of the year.

[The ATX]

If San Antonio were in another state it would be a media darling as a boom town and a great city. But since it's in Texas it doesn't get its fair share of credit or mentioned as much as the other three members of the Big Four.

[pscajunguy]

I respectfully disagree. Houston or Dallas will get these types of designs before Austin. Remember: higher design = higher average cost per SF for the buyer. As much as I would like to see it here, I do not think Austin can support this type of design we are describing in this thread...at this time.

I truly hope I am wrong.

2014 City population estimates are planned to be released on 5/20. I estimate Austin will be 912,000; what's yours?
BTW, I just heard on Public Radio that LA didn't quite reach 4,000,000 for the 1914 estimates. Have they already been released, and I couldn't find them?

[wwmiv]

BTW, I just heard on Public Radio that LA didn't quite reach 4,000,000 for the 1914 estimates. Have they already been released, and I couldn't find them?

The 1914 estimate?

[pscajunguy]

The 1914 estimate?

Yes, That's what they said. They also said that LA was 3,880,000, or something like, that in 2013, which they were! I checked!

[wwmiv]

Yes, That's what they said. They also said that LA was 3,880,000, or something like, that in 2013, which they were! I checked!

They literally accidentally said 1914 rather than 2014 on NPR?

[pscajunguy]

The 1914 estimate?
LOL. I'm sorry. The 2014 estimates. My age is finally showing!

[wwmiv]

LOL. I'm sorry. The 2014 estimates. My age is finally showing!

lol! nah, don't be sorry. I got a good chuckle out of it.

[GoldenBoot]

2014 City population estimates are planned to be released on 5/20. I estimate Austin will be 912,000; what's yours?

One metric I use says ~907,000. The other says ~911,000. So, anywhere in the neighborhood of ~910,000 would be a solid guess.

San Antonio, in case anyone cares, should be in the neighborhood of ~1.435 million (as of July 1, 2014).

[LoneStarMike]

My estimated population guess is 905,500, but I have a question.

Austin (city) Texas Quick Facts (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html)

It shows the 2010 population as 790,390. That's obviously based on the official census taken that year. It shows the Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base as 810,759. Why are these numbers so different? I clicked on those little "i" icons over on the left hand side and read what it said and I didn't understand any of it.

It also states "Population percent change, 2010 to 2013, is derived by dividing the difference between the 2013 population estimate and the April 1, 2010 estimates base by the April 1, 2010 estimates base."

If you do that, the Population percent change 2010-to 2013 is 9.2%.

In Goldenboot's signature, he shows a population increase 2010-2013 as 12.02% most likely because he's comparing the actual 2010 census to the estimated 2013 population. To get a more accurate idea of our growth rate shouldn't we be comparing 2010 estimate to 2013 estimate?

Having said all that . . . . K-e-v-i-n! Can you please move all these off-topic population posts (including mine) to a more appropriate thread - either the off topic thread or else the 2013 Census data for Austin and other cities (http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=210438) thread? (You could just drop "2013" from the thread title.) Thanks! :)

Hey - someone's got to keep us focused. Right Goldenboot? ;)

[wwmiv]

My estimated population guess is 905,500, but I have a question.

Austin (city) Texas Quick Facts (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html)

It shows the 2010 population as 790,390. That's obviously based on the official census taken that year. It shows the Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base as 810,759. Why are these numbers so different? I clicked on those little "i" icons over on the left hand side and read what it said and I didn't understand any of it.

It also states "Population percent change, 2010 to 2013, is derived by dividing the difference between the 2013 population estimate and the April 1, 2010 estimates base by the April 1, 2010 estimates base."

If you do that, the Population percent change 2010-to 2013 is 9.2%.

In Goldenboot's signature, he shows a population increase 2010-2013 as 12.02% most likely because he's comparing the actual 2010 census to the estimated 2013 population. To get a more accurate idea of our growth rate shouldn't we be comparing 2010 estimate to 2013 estimate?

Having said all that . . . . K-e-v-i-n! Can you please move all these off-topic population posts (including mine) to a more appropriate thread - either the off topic thread or else the 2013 Census data for Austin and other cities (http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=210438) thread? (You could just drop "2013" from the thread title.) Thanks! :)

Hey - someone's got to keep us focused. Right Goldenboot? ;)

Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there, but if not I support a new one as well since that is a hot topic occasionally.

[LoneStarMike]

Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Well thank you - that answers part of my question, but not the other part. If the 2010 "estimate" is more accurate than the problematic 2010 "official" count, shouldn't we be comparing the 2010 "estimate" to the 2013 "estimate" to get a truer sense of the city's growth rate? Another way to put it is: In your opinion, which figure more accurately represents our rate of growth between 2010 and 2013? 12.02% or 9.2%?

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there...

I'm pretty sure you're right considering I provided a direct link to it in the response above yours. ;)

[wwmiv]

Well thank you - that answers part of my question, but not the other part. If the 2010 "estimate" is more accurate than the problematic 2010 "official" count, shouldn't we be comparing the 2010 "estimate" to the 2013 "estimate" to get a truer sense of the city's growth rate? Another way to put it is: In your opinion, which figure more accurately represents our rate of growth between 2010 and 2013? 12.02% or 9.2%?

9.2%. That's the way the census bureau does it.


I'm pretty sure you're right considering I provided a direct link to it in the response above yours. ;)

I didn't even notice that... That's what I get for skimming.

[Novacek]

Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there, but if not I support a new one as well since that is a hot topic occasionally.

I'm pretty sure it's not that (or the majority isn't that).

The difference is annexation.

The census number includes everyone who was in the city limits at the time (2010). But in addition to growing, the city has also annexed additional areas in the past 4/5 years. If you compare the current city population to the census number, you're not only seeing growth you're also seeing that.

I believe the baseline goes back and (tries) to figure out what the total population was in the area of the current city limits, to get a better idea on what the actual growth was.

[wwmiv]

I'm pretty sure it's not that (or the majority isn't that).

The difference is annexation.

The census number includes everyone who was in the city limits at the time (2010). But in addition to growing, the city has also annexed additional areas in the past 4/5 years. If you compare the current city population to the census number, you're not only seeing growth you're also seeing that.

I believe the baseline goes back and (tries) to figure out what the total population was in the area of the current city limits, to get a better idea on what the actual growth was.

No, you're wrong. The census bureau themselves says that the difference is largely due to count v. estimate procedures.

[Novacek]

No, you're wrong. The census bureau themselves says that the difference is largely due to count v. estimate procedures.

They say that in general (for all cities) or for Austin in particular? They certainly call out annexation as one of the correction factors. And Austin has had significant annexation post-census (for instance, the Springwoods MUD annexation probably accounts for close to 10K of that difference).

"The April 1, 2010 Population Estimates base reflects changes to the 2010 Census population from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) and other geographic program revisions."

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_PST040210.htm

[wwmiv]

They say that in general (for all cities) or for Austin in particular? They certainly call out annexation as one of the correction factors. And Austin has had significant annexation post-census (for instance, the Springwoods MUD annexation probably accounts for close to 10K of that difference).

"The April 1, 2010 Population Estimates base reflects changes to the 2010 Census population from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) and other geographic program revisions."

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_PST040210.htm

Generally, geographic revisions are not the major component for most cities.

I'm not sure the Springwoods MUD annexation occurred during the proper time of year for it to count as part of the revision here.

[Jdawgboy]

I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the city had annexed around 30K just after the official census was taken so the city was actually around 820K rather than 790k.

[wwmiv]

I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the city had annexed around 30K just after the official census was taken so the city was actually around 820K rather than 790k.

If that's the case, then yes annexations would account for the vast majority of the difference between the estimate and the count.

However, I'll note that in almost all other cases, estimation procedures account for the difference.

[LoneStarMike]

Census: San Marcos fastest-growing U.S. city — again
Austin American Statesman
May 20, 2015 (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/census-san-marcos-fastest-growing-us-city-again/nmLGM/)

Story highlights:

The U.S. Census Bureau names San Marcos the country’s fastest-growing city for the third year in a row.

Georgetown was the second-fastest growing; New Braunfels the 13th and Cedar Park 24th.

Austin was once again the fastest-growing major U.S. city, now with a population of 912,791.

[Digatisdi]

If I've got this calculated right, our density shot up from 2,758.43 people/mi² to 3,358.32 people/mi² between 2013 and 2014.

[pscajunguy]

If I've got this calculated right, our density shot up from 2,758.43 people/mi² to 3,358.32 people/mi² between 2013 and 2014.

That would be almost 25%. How did you get those figures? Either Austin would have had to have un-annexed a lot of land or grown 200,000 in one year.

[Digatisdi]

I took the population figures for 2013 and 2014 and divided them by the total land area numbers I could find respectively. One of the land numbers might be outdated.

[drummer]

It seems a bit off, to me. The population of the core and other moderately dense areas scattered throughout don't seem high enough to change the population density for the entire city that much. The urban population would have to be much higher. Granted, it's moving in that direction...I just think that's a bit of a jump for such a short time.

[The ATX]

Austin is 321 square miles. Now the math part will be easy.

[LoneStarMike]

That works out to 2843.59 people per sq mi. If the previous total was 2758.43 people per sq mi, that's an increase of 85.16 more people per sq mi or about a 3.087% increase.

Last year's population estimate was 885,400 and this year is 912,791 - an increase of 27,391 people. That works out to a 3.093% increase, so population increase and increase in density are roughly the same.

That makes a lot more sense.

[the Genral]

With San Jose now topping one million, the top ten cities in regards to population all have over one millions residents. We should be celebrating or bemoaning that distinction in about 3 years give or take a few months. But we probably have risen as high in the ranks as we ever will, at least in my life time. I wonder if our one millionth resident will get a free pass to the front of the line at Franklin's?

[Digatisdi]

That works out to 2843.59 people per sq mi. If the previous total was 2758.43 people per sq mi, that's an increase of 85.16 more people per sq mi or about a 3.087% increase.

Last year's population estimate was 885,400 and this year is 912,791 - an increase of 27,391 people. That works out to a 3.093% increase, so population increase and increase in density are roughly the same.

That makes a lot more sense.

See this kind of thing is exactly why I try to put a disclaimer about my abysmal math ability in any post that involves me doing math. Thanks for checking my bizarro-math

[The ATX]

With San Jose now topping one million, the top ten cities in regards to population all have over one millions residents. We should be celebrating or bemoaning that distinction in about 3 years give or take a few months. But we probably have risen as high in the ranks as we ever will, at least in my life time. I wonder if our one millionth resident will get a free pass to the front of the line at Franklin's?

Don't give up Genral! It may not be too long before Austin passes San Jose and moves into the 10th spot.

I did some late night math and plugged some formulas into a spreadsheet to compare the population growth of Austin and San Jose. Of course it's hard to predict too far out into the future with any accuracy, so I don't like to do population projections for more than five to 10 years out. Also, I find it best to only use the annual growth rates from the last annual census going back to the previous two decennial censuses.

Using the 2010 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin should pass San Jose to become the 10th largest city in late 2018. This may not be reflected until the 2020 census since it would be too late in the year to be reflected in the 2019 release.

Using the 2000 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin will move up to 10th in early 2018 which may be reflected in the 2019 release.

Austin also has one big advantage over San Jose besides a faster growth rate. San Jose is land locked, and population increases need to come from greater density. Austin on the other hand, can annex close to 250,000 people living in unincorporated areas in the ETJ. If Austin would change its current annexation policy and become more aggressive, the population increases would be, well do the math.

[pscajunguy]

Don't give up Genral! It may not be too long before Austin passes San Jose and moves into the 10th spot.

I did some late night math and plugged some formulas into a spreadsheet to compare the population growth of Austin and San Jose. Of course it's hard to predict too far out into the future with any accuracy, so I don't like to do population projections for more than five to 10 years out. Also, I find it best to only use the annual growth rates from the last annual census going back to the previous two decennial censuses.

Using the 2010 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin should pass San Jose to become the 10th largest city in late 2018. This may not be reflected until the 2020 census since it would be too late in the year to be reflected in the 2019 release.

Using the 2000 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin will move up to 10th in early 2018 which may be reflected in the 2019 release.

Austin also has one big advantage over San Jose besides a faster growth rate. San Jose is land locked, and population increases need to come from greater density. Austin on the other hand, can annex close to 250,000 people living in unincorporated areas in the ETJ. If Austin would change its current annexation policy and become more aggressive, the population increases would be, well do the math.

Right. San Jose is surrounded by cities, the Bay and steep rugged mountains on all sides but the south, and they can't expand much further south until they hit Morgan Hill city limits, and Morgan Hill is growing into San Jose faster than San Jose is growing into Morgan Hill. San Jose doesn't really want to provide expensive city services down there. If they grew too much down there, 101 would make IH35 seem like a country lane, and they only have room for one highway down there, because the mountains on the east and west get closer together in the south. They have filled in all the land that they can, and their height restrictions are 250 feet, virtually citywide, because of San Jose International next to downtown and Reid-Hillview airport in the south, not to mention the very stringent earthquake codes due to their silty, sandy soil. San Jose has grown about as much as it can, and considering apartment rents are even higher than San Francisco (imagine that!), they are not likely to be building many of those, and that's exactly why they don't. People could not afford it, and many people who work in San Jose commute from almost 100 miles away (Tracy and Stockton. i.e.), because of that fact. They can catch BART in Concord, halfway, and take light rail/commuter bus from the Fremont-Mission San Jose Bart Station into town. San Jose's policy of encouraging McMansions developments in gentrifying neighborhoods pretty well negates further density.
All Austin would need to do to pass San Jose is to annex not a whole lot of our ETJ, even just the pockets that are entirely encircled by the city. Austin already has to supply many of the services there.

[Jdawgboy]

These numbers are from July 2013 to July 2014 and does not include the growth that we have seen since. It was also reported at the time that the city had annexed 30,000 after the census finished counting in 2010 so the 790K number should have been 820K. Assuming the numbers since 2010 are still based off of the 790K number then it's likely our current population as of right now is closer to 960K and thats if we end up only adding 18K from July 2014 to this July. We were 4th in the nation in numerical growth from July 2013 to July 2014 with 25,667.

Funny enough Angelo Angelou had a similar figure which if I recall some on here were saying he wasn't referring to city population even though he said Austin is roughly 40k below San Jose.

Either way it's safe to say that we are somewhere between 912K and 960K given that it's just estimated numbers.

[pscajunguy]

These numbers are from July 2013 to July 2014 and does not include the growth that we have seen since. It was also reported at the time that the city had annexed 30,000 after the census finished counting in 2010 so the 790K number should have been 820K. Assuming the numbers since 2010 are still based off of the 790K number then it's likely our current population as of right now is closer to 960K and thats if we end up only adding 18K from July 2014 to this July. We were 4th in the nation in numerical growth from July 2013 to July 2014 with 25,667.

Funny enough Angelo Angelou had a similar figure which if I recall some on here were saying he wasn't referring to city population even though he said Austin is roughly 40k below San Jose.

Either way it's safe to say that we are somewhere between 912K and 960K given that it's just estimated numbers.

If you look at the City of Austin April 1 Census, it was 790,390, but the "Census Base" was 811,458 for April 1, 1980. Most other cities had the two numbers about the same, give or take a few. The estimate for 7/1 2010 was 816,622. Since then Austin has added roughly 25,000 every year. Somehow I think the new annexation figures were the difference between the 790,390 and the 811,458. At least it makes some kind of sense. Even Dallas or Houston were about the same for the 2010 Census and the "Census Base", so I don't think that was an estimated homeless number. Do you think that might be what happened?

[Tech House]

Austin's population density is under 3,000 ppsm. Really?
Moscow, Idaho, has a density of nearly 3500.
Greeley, CO, is just shy of 3100.
Plano, TX, crams 3600+ into an average section.
I want to send specially designed toilet paper to the NIMBY-enablers on the council and in all other departments, and this t.p. will list cities in declining density. When they get to Austin, they know it's time to load a new roll. Of course Austin deserves big time credit for preserving wilderness areas within its limits, but that doesn't explain away the sprawl that defines our favorite sunbelt boomtown.

I'm in Lynnwood, WA, for the month of May. This is a suburb north of Seattle. It's an area without any intelligent planning, and the sprawl goes on for tens of miles in all directions that aren't large bodies of water. Something that this area has in common with Austin is the rapid emergence of generic VMU developments that look nearly identical to one another and to all those same buildings in Austin. Developed by the same corporations, no doubt. But it's an improvement over the prior model of sprawl, a big improvement. In those areas with VMU there's more of a sense of location and community, it makes sense. But there are vast areas north and NE of Seattle where huge residential houses or projects are jammed together on tiny lots on private "roads" (shared driveways), with no place to pull over or park other than garages, and not a store within a mile in any direction. No bike lanes, no sidewalks, no shoulder, miles and miles of this in all directions. It's pretty surprising to see this in the supposedly-progressive Seattle area.

Now, about San Marcos, I wonder how that city is managing to grow so rapidly when it is so constrained in its ability to grow near downtown. Obviously the new development must be taking place mainly east of 35. It's a tricky place and I will admire anyone who manages to preserve what is "cute" and charming about the town, while simultaneously improving traffic flow, increasing density, nudging building heights upward where appropriate, and preserving the springs and river. To that person or persons, may the odds be ever in your favor.

[KevinFromTexas]

That's the problem with annexing. Sure, you gain some population, but each time you do it you're lowering your density level. And it's unreasonable to think, at least for now, that you can add density on the fringe's of the city that are going to affect the density level overall.

[drummer]

A relative in Denton County emailed me an article from the local Denton paper. It touches on the extreme growth of DFW and makes a few good mentions of the Austin and San Antonio areas as well.

http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20150522-area-growth-in-line-with-texas-trend.ece?ssimg=2306936#ssStory2306939

[Tech House]

That's the problem with annexing. Sure, you gain some population, but each time you do it you're lowering your density level. And it's unreasonable to think, at least for now, that you can add density on the fringe's of the city that are going to affect the density level overall.

Although it may decrease density, doesn't annexation allow for the city to have greater jurisdiction over the manner in which development takes place in those areas? That seems like a worthy objective. And stats about density are mere indicators, no substitute for the reality they represent.

Travis County is vastly superior to Snohomish Co. in its development policies. At least you can make a modicum of sense of the way Austin's suburbs develop, whereas Snohomish is a completely discombobulated hodge podge, where every large lot becomes its own unique subdivision and there is little or no infrastructure development to compensate for the increased density. My sister's place is one of the remaining older houses with enough yard (quarter acre, maybe) to have a nice garden, but developers will eventually snatch it, add the adjacent half acre, and then build 10 crackerbox houses on their own private street. It really makes the Austin metro look positively brilliant.

[The ATX]

The City of Austin has been growing fast for a long time due to the influx of new residents much more so than by annexation. But the Lost Creek MUD is being annexed this year. Does anyone know the population of that area? I'm guessing it could be around 3K.

[LoneStarMike]

:previous: This looks to be old, because it shows Austin's population as 836,800, but whatever year it was for, it shows Lost Creek as 4,458.

http://statisticalatlas.com/place/Texas/Lost-Creek/Population

[The ATX]

:previous: This looks to be old, because it shows Austin's population as 836,800, but whatever year it was for, it shows Lost Creek as 4,458.

http://statisticalatlas.com/place/Texas/Lost-Creek/Population

That's good because it means the Lost Creek population is probably much higher now.

Edit: That's a cool website by the way LSM. Thanks for the link.

[hookem]

:previous: This looks to be old, because it shows Austin's population as 836,800, but whatever year it was for, it shows Lost Creek as 4,458.


That sounds about right. Lost Creek's population has mostly remained the same over the past few years, I suspect. There has been a little bit of new construction, and some new condos, but in general it has been completely built out for a while. It's a big annexation, though -- like annexing 3 Rollingwoods.

[KevinFromTexas]

In all likelihood the metro has already surpassed 2 million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2015/09/17/austin-surrounding-counties-among-fastest-growing.html

Austin, surrounding counties, among fastest-growing in U.S. in 2014, Census data confirms

Sep 17, 2015, 1:53pm CDT

The Austin area grew from 1,883,051 residents in 2013 to 1,943,299 residents in 2014, adding 60,248 residents for a growth rate of 3.2 percent. That equates to an average of 165 new Austin-area residents a day, including babies born here.

Hays County added 8,999 residents, according to the data. Its population grew from 176,026 in 2013 to 185,025 in 2014, a growth rate of 5.11 percent.

Williamson County north of Austin was the 10th-fastest growing county in the U.S. in 2014. It added 18,236 residents and grew from a population of 471,014 in 2013 to 489,250, a growth rate of 3.87 percent.

Bastrop County was the 23rd-fastest growing county in the U.S. in 2014. That area east of Austin added 2,244 residents and grew from a population of 75,825 in 2013 to 78,069, a growth rate of 2.96 percent.

Travis County was the was the 42nd-fastest growing county in the U.S. in 2014, adding 30,191 residents and growing from a population of 1,120,954 in 2013 to 1,151,145.

[JoninATX]

Most likely it has. I say it's near 2.1 million now. :)

[GoldenBoot]

In all likelihood the metro has already surpassed 2 million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2015/09/17/austin-surrounding-counties-among-fastest-growing.html

This data actually came out months ago.

In any case, if you take the estimated annual growth pattern from the July 1, 2010 estimate to the July 1, 2014 estimate, the Austin metro area was at 2,003,898 as of July 1, 2015. So, Austin was estimated to have surpassed the 2,000,000 mark in early June 2015.

[JoninATX]

We can all say that Austin has officially joined the 2 million club. It is now on par with the rest of the 2+ million cities.

[The ATX]

This data actually came out months ago.

In any case, if you take the estimated annual growth pattern from the July 1, 2010 estimate to the July 1, 2014 estimate, the Austin metro area was at 2,003,898 as of July 1, 2015. So, Austin was estimated to have surpassed the 2,000,000 mark in early June 2015.

Right. I can't figure out why this is news again.

My math also had the metro reaching 2 million around July 1st. But the population might not show up as two million in the 2016 census release since it may have happened after the date census uses for their annual estimates.

[Jdawgboy]

Right. I can't figure out why this is news again.

My math also had the metro reaching 2 million around July 1st. But the population might not show up as two million in the 2016 census release since it may have happened after the date census uses for their annual estimates.


This is why I don't put a a lot of emphasis on the official census numbers because they tend to be behind the current reality by 1-2 years. There's no doubt that the Austin metropolitan area has over 2 million people. There's little doubt that Austin itself will have 1 million people by the end of this year if it hasn't reached it already. Sure they probably have fairly accurate numbers, although they may under count sometimes, but their numbers are already outdated when they are released for cities like Austin that are growing very quickly.

[JoninATX]

The only 1 million metro in Texas is El Paso/ Las Cruces . Still can't believe Austin is a 2 million metro. When I moved to Austin back in 1997, the metropolitan just hit 1 million people. Now 18 years later it's twice the size.

[GoldenBoot]

-Austin's metro hit the 1,000,000 mark during fall 1995.

-Austin's city proper population is expected to surpass the 1,000,000 mark in summer 2017. I have a July 1, 2015 population estimate of 940,091 (when taking into account the July 1, 2010 thru July 1, 2014 annual growth estimations provided by the census bureau).

[wwmiv]

The only 1 million metro in Texas is El Paso/ Las Cruces . Still can't believe Austin is a 2 million metro. When I moved to Austin back in 1997, the metropolitan just hit 1 million people. Now 18 years later it's twice the size.

Point of fact: El Paso / Las Cruces is not a metro. It's only El Paso. Ergo, there are no 1 million metros in the state.

[JoninATX]

Point of fact: El Paso / Las Cruces is not a metro. It's only El Paso. Ergo, there are no 1 million metros in the state.

Ok, I stand corrected.

[The ATX]

It may be close race as to the next Texas metro to hit that 1 million mark. El Paso and McAllen are at ~837,000 and ~831,000 respectively. But the McAllen metro is growing faster.

[drummer]

The Rio Grande Valley is growing significantly. I've got some extended family down there - always amazing to see what is happening, though unfortunately a lot of it is sprawl.

[wwmiv]

El Paso metro actually isn't growing at all. There was a year in the past five where it actually lost population according to the estimates.

[paul78701]

The only 1 million metro in Texas is El Paso/ Las Cruces . Still can't believe Austin is a 2 million metro. When I moved to Austin back in 1997, the metropolitan just hit 1 million people. Now 18 years later it's twice the size.

I haven't checked the math on this, but I believe that Austin's population has been doubling every 20-25 years or so. Assuming that trend continues, we can expect 4 million people around 2035-2040. I believe that is in line with what demographers have been predicting.

If that is how it really plays out, it will be quite amazing. I don't think anybody can really picture what the metro area will look like with that many people.

[The ATX]

I haven't checked the math on this, but I believe that Austin's population has been doubling every 20-25 years or so. Assuming that trend continues, we can expect 4 million people around 2035-2040. I believe that is in line with what demographers have been predicting.

If that is how it really plays out, it will be quite amazing. I don't think anybody can really picture what the metro area will look like with that many people.

...or what I-35 will look like. :yuck:

[Tech House]

El Paso metro actually isn't growing at all. There was a year in the past five where it actually lost population according to the estimates.

A border town that loses population? Seems like that would get Trump and co. very excited.

[lzppjb]

A border town that loses population? Seems like that would get Trump and co. very excited.

All moving further inland. :P

[The ATX]

All moving further inland. :P

Yup. Everyone goes where the jobs are.

[wwmiv]

A border town that loses population? Seems like that would get Trump and co. very excited.

lolol

[wwmiv]

Just as a recap of the numbers, here are Texas's metropolitan statistical areas as of the most recent 2014 estimates:

(numbers are in millions)

Dallas-Fort Worth: 6.95
Houston: 6.49
--------------------
San Antonio: 2.33
Austin: 1.94
--------------------
El Paso: 0.84
McAllen: 0.83
--------------------
Corpus Christi: 0.45
Killeen: 0.42
Brownsville 0.42
Beaumont: 0.41
--------------------
Lubbock: 0.31
Laredo: 0.27
Waco: 0.26
Amarillo: 0.26
College Station: 0.24
Tyler: 0.22
Longview: 0.22
--------------------
Abilene: 0.17
Midland: 0.16
Odessa: 0.15
Wichita Falls: 0.15
Texarkana: 0.15
--------------------
Sherman-Denison: 0.12
San Angelo: 0.12
Victoria: 0.10

I've divided them up into tiers based on what seems to be pretty natural breaking points in their size.

[drummer]

^^ Just out of curiosity, why are Midland and Odessa separated? I'm not hugely familiar with the area or the ties between the two (only been there a couple of times), but it seems to me like it would make sense to have them together.

Second question: does the Killeen estimate include Belton and Temple?

[electricron]

^^ Just out of curiosity, why are Midland and Odessa separated? I'm not hugely familiar with the area or the ties between the two (only been there a couple of times), but it seems to me like it would make sense to have them together.

Second question: does the Killeen estimate include Belton and Temple?

Obviously there are not sufficient commuters traveling between Midland and Odessa for the US Census Bureau to place them into the same MSA.

Belton is included with Killeen, Temple, and Fort Hood MSA because it is within Bell County. The three counties of Bell, Coryell, and Lampasas make up the Killeen, Temple, and Fort Hood MSA.

MSA rules are:
In order to be designated as MSA, the region must have at least on UZA to serve as the core of the MSA.
The county that contains the UZA is called the core county of the MSA.
Additional outlying that have a high degree of economic or social integration with the core are added to the MSA.
Outlying counties qualify for inclusion in the MSA if
a) more than 25% of the employed residents commute to the core county
b) more than 25% of the jobs in the outlying county are held by residents in the core county
The boundary of an MSA is coterminous with the county boundaries that qualify for inclusion.

FYI = An UZA is a census-designated urban area with 50,000 residents or more.

[Tech House]

Obviously there are not sufficient commuters traveling between Midland and Odessa for the US Census Bureau to place them into the same MSA.

Interesting, I had been told by a couple people from the Midland-Odessa area that Odessa was the blue collar bedroom community for jobs in Midland but apparently that's more of a perception than a reality.

I'm also surprised that El Paso, a city with nearby mountains and a pleasant, 4-season climate featuring dry* air, doesn't grow as much as the sauna in the lower valley. I guess it's not strategically located enough to attract businesses.

* - "dry air" is a phenomenon that many of you may have forgotten about in association with "the outdoors." It occurs regularly during winter months in central Texas but is a near-continuous feature of El Paso. "Dry air" is generally thought of as being more pleasant, as it allows the body to shed excess heat via evaporative cooling. For anyone who is curious as to what this feels like in an outdoor context, stick around for a few weeks, it's about to get tolerable to live in Austin again.

[wwmiv]

^LOL^

El Paso also happens to be one of the safest major cities in the United States, but it doesn't have, historically, any kind of money or tax base with which to fuel any growth. Ergo, it's stuck in this kind of aggregate cycle of poverty.

McAllen, on the other hand, is also stuck in an aggregate cycle of poverty, but - because of the luck of geography - it is the nearest port of entry in the United States for immigrants from Latin America, so it happens to absorb even poorer immigrants thus making it's economic situation even worse.

[wwmiv]

Interesting, I had been told by a couple people from the Midland-Odessa area that Odessa was the blue collar bedroom community for jobs in Midland but apparently that's more of a perception than a reality.

No, they're pretty distinct cities even though the public perception is that they're closely tied together. If Midland and Ector counties continue to grow at the rate they are currently (Ector has already almost surpassed it's whole last decade growth rate in the first four years of this decade, and Midland county's rate so far has been even faster - though with more of a slow down from last decade), they'll be over .5m together by 2030, which would definitely imply a single metropolitan area by then given the small geographic area that growth would likely be within.

If their growth slows down slightly to be the average over the past 14 years, they'll be at just under 440k by 2030, still likely a single MSA by then. However, if they slow down more to their average growth over the last 24 years, they'll be at just under 400k by then. That's maybe still good enough to have enough commuter exchange for a single MSA (the reason this is the case is because as areas gain more population, there are greater numbers of people located at the periphery who then experience relative cost to travel to the next county over for employment, rather than traveling an essentially similar drive into the center of their own county), but not a sure thing. The wild card, of course, is whether all of this growth will occur within the counties themselves or without adjacent counties (thus pulling the adjecent

I think we'll see the tipping point at around 400-415k for consolidation into a single metropolitan area. Currently they're at just under 310k.

For a little bit more fun, if they pick up growth a bit more (which isn't unreasonable as a projection possibility given that the economy has been growing fast more recently than it was at the beginning of the decade), they'll by at just under 610k by 2030.

Just because I love doing this stuff, here's the 100k benchmarks under each scenario. Some of these become unrealistic as time passes, of course, as growth patterns do not remain static over time. The area will probably experience patches of each of these growth rate categories. I think the faster growth rate is probably the one to watch over the next two to three years, followed by the fast rate in the couple of years after that, and a settling down into the mid-level growth rate for the couple of years after that. After that who knows.

Current (fast) growth:
400k - 2022
500k - 2029
600k - 2035
700k - 2040
800k - 2044
900k - 2048
1mil - 2051 (totally unrealistic long term)

Mid-level growth:
400k - 2026
500k - 2036
600k - 2045
700k - 2052

Slower growth:
400k - 2031
500k - 2045
600k - 2056

Faster growth:
400k - 2020
500k - 2026
600k - 2030
700k - 2033
800k - 2037
900k - 2040
1mil - 2042
etc. (totally unrealistic long-term)

[wwmiv]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/09/23/texas-towns-led-the-country-in-economic-growth-in-2014/

The fastest growing economies in the U.S. last year were largely found deep in the heart of Texas.

Half of the 16 U.S. metro areas where the economy grew at a 6% rate or better last year were in Texas, led by the energy-rich Midland region’s 24.1% advance in gross domestic product, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

1. Midland (24.1%)
2. San Angelo (11.4%)
6. Dallas-Fort Worth (8.5%)
8. Victoria (6.7%)
10. Corpus Christi (6.5%)
12. Odessa (6.3%)
13. Tyler (6.2%)
14. Austin (6.1%)
20. Beaumont (5.7%)
36. Bryan-College Station (4.0%)
46. San Antonio (3.8%)
48. Laredo (3.7%)
64. Longview (3.3%)
84. Lubbock (2.8%)
103. Waco (2.5%)
104. McAllen (2.5%)
108. Amarillo (2.4%)
----------------------------- (national growth rate at 2.3%)
127. Wichita Falls (2.1%)
150. Houston (1.8%)
208. Brownsville (1.0%)
227. El Paso (0.7%)
232. Abilene (0.6%)
253. Sherman-Denison (0.3%)
257. Killeen-Temple (0.3%)
325. Texarkana (-1.0%)

Notes on the major cities:

Dallas-Fort Worth: a major increase in growth, which suggests that Houston may not be able to catch up w/r/t population any time soon (5.4%, 5.3%, and now 8.5%).

Austin: Our growth went back up a bit (6.3% to 4.7% to 6.1%), thankfully.

San Antonio: slightly decreased growth, but basically stable (4.8% to 4.7% to 3.8%).

McAllen: same thing (3.9% both previous years to 2.5% over the past year).

Houston: Houston's growth has slowed down significantly, from 7.1% to 6.5% to 1.8%.

El Paso: There's a reason why El Paso hasn't had fast population growth, and that's because it hasn't had any economic drivers (slow growth in the MSA GDP each year, 2.0%, 1.9%, and .7%)

I'm gonna do another post here in a moment ranking Texas metros with their 2014 GDP per capita, now that we have these numbers from the Commerce Dept.

[JoninATX]

Houston is growing that slow? I knew the O/G industry suffering, but I expected atleast 3% of growth rate for Houston.

[Jdawgboy]

Houston is growing that slow? I knew the O/G industry suffering, but I expected atleast 3% of growth rate for Houston.

I guess because it is so large it's kinda difficult to see the slow down especially since there is still a lot of construction going on. If the slow down continues after the buildings under construction are complete it will be much more noticable when no more cranes rise.

[Novacek]

Houston is growing that slow? I knew the O/G industry suffering, but I expected atleast 3% of growth rate for Houston.

Houston is really odd, especially since that's the 2014 growth number, and the other big energy centers were still going gangbusters.

[wwmiv]

Houston is growing that slow? I knew the O/G industry suffering, but I expected atleast 3% of growth rate for Houston.

Well, other cities that rely on the oil boom had good growth (Midland, Odessa, Tyler).

[wwmiv]

Here's some quick plots that I did:

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/wendellmayes/1_zpsyruhdvwe.jpeg

Here you have all Texas metros and a simple line of best fit. Those above the line are doing better economically given their population and those below it are doing worse economically given their population. Interestingly, compared to Texas metros, Austin (I think it's pretty clear which dot is Austin...) is actually doing worse economically than what you'd expect given its population (ignoring all the possible endogeneity issues present...). If the line of best fit incorporated all metros and rural areas as well, Austin would almost certainly be above the line (given that, well, the rest of the country and particularly rural areas are performing so badly relative to Texas, which would drag down the line).



http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/wendellmayes/2_zpsac6ytonk.jpeg

Here we have the same line of best fit, but zoomed in on the bottom corner, and with labels. Notice how horribly El Paso and particularly McAllen are doing. Despite being smaller by many times, Midland has a larger economy than either. Notice also that although Odessa is growing at a breakneck pace as well, that its economic size is more what you'd expect for the size of city that it is.

[wwmiv]

As for GMP per capita (I've rounded, since these are based on estimates and are thus prone to error):

Midland: $164k
Houston: $70k
Dallas-Fort Worth: $66k
Odessa: $61k
Austin: $55k
Victoria: $53k
Longview: $50k
Beaumont: $48k
Corpus Christi: $48k
Tyler: $47k
Wichita Falls: $43k
Amarillo: $42k
San Antonio: $41k
San Angelo: $40k
Lubbock: $38k
Waco: $38k
Abilene: $37k
Killeen-Temple: $35k
Bryan-College Station: $34k
El Paso: $31k
Sherman-Denison: $31k
Texarkana: $30k
Laredo: $26k
Brownsville: $20k
McAllen: $20k

[JoninATX]

Makes some sense. Houston is an odd ball, the city is littered with cranes and it seems construction is endless. So hopefully the city won't be as bas as it was back in the 1980's. On the bright side, the city and metropolitan are growing.