The US Census Bureau thread

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Those areas might have a larger share as probably more counties in Texas were pushed even further into negative ground.

And including Sherman-Denison MSA (Dallas) and Huntsville (MSA) we have an extra 22,000 people between 2020-2024. So over 86.3% of the entire growth happened in those areas.

I'd bet by the end of the decade, the growth outside those will be close to zero.

That's been the case for quite a while; outside the four major metros and a handful of economically resilient smaller ones, much of the state is hemorrhaging population. It's evident when you drive through these areas...very Rust Beltish. The major cities are very much disconnected from the rest of the state where growth has been off the charts.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

A thought exercise I find interesting when considering the future of the Texas metros, but DFW in particular, is whether or not Los Angeles represents the blueprint trajectory for that style of car-oriented, polycentric sprawly growth. Because if it is, and if Dallas's growth is just following an inevitable trajectory bound by presumed limits of sprawl, then based on population numbers and growth rates DFW is displaced from L.A.'s timeline by about 40 years and would plateau around 10.5 million people.

These are lined up roughly by population numbers (not year):

(I assume a 15% growth rate for DFW this decade because as of the midpoint right now it has grown 10% and will likely cool but continue growing more modestly in the coming five years)

And a displacement of about 40 years would make some sense. After all L.A. is several decades older than Dallas, and it was always inevitable that large economic centers would develop up and down the west coast as gateways to the pacific. But for the plains region in middle of the county, where there is less geographical determination for what would drive growth of one place over another, it would take until the railroads getting built and (more importantly) intersected to know which of the countless little towns on which longitudes and which latitudes along the plains would grow up to become economic centers, and which would fade away. There was some delay in knowing Dallas would become 'Dallas.'

Such a meaningless projection for DFW onto LA exists only in a vacuum though and ignores the political and climate macro forces which have always been and continue to be in play. L.A. benefited significantly more in the post-war boom because the region was already a major economic and population center of 3 million people (with over 1.5 million in LA itself) while DFW was just peaking at the 1 million mark with Dallas proper being a city of only 400k people. I would have gone to L.A. at that time too!

[Yuri]

I'd add Inland Empire to the chart. It's Los Angeles metro area and I think the comparison would be more precise. Here the CSA:

1930 ---- 2,597,066
1940 ---- 3,252,720 --- 25.2%
1950 ---- 4,934,246 --- 51.7%
1960 ---- 7,751,616 --- 57.1%
1970 ---- 9,981,942 --- 28.8%
1980 --- 11,497,486 --- 15.2%
1990 --- 14,531,529 --- 26.4%
2000 --- 16,373,645 --- 12.7%
2010 --- 17,877,006 ---- 9.2%
2020 --- 18,644,680 ---- 4.3%

Then, we would have Dallas as such:

2040 ---- 9,898,435
2050 --- 10,809,091
2050 --- 11,272,882

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Good idea! Thanks for those.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

Good idea! Thanks for those.

One could argue Los Angeles has more geographical constraints, but the sprawling nature of Dallas would make it harder for them to keep the gravitational pull.

Another thing going against Dallas is the US population growth. Growth was much bigger between 1980-2020 (+105 million extra people) whereas between 2020-2060, the most likely scenario will be a negative growth.

Those extra 100 million helped to fuel Los Angeles growth and they won't be there for Dallas.

[JManc]

There are still parts of DFW that are exploding in growth. Kaufman county (due east of Dallas county) is off the charts in the amount of homes, infrastructure and development being built. It might slow down at some point but I suspect Dallas will outpace much of the country for the foreseeable future. Houston too. They are no longer the "boomtowns" they once were but that hasn't stopped people from coming.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

There are still parts of DFW that are exploding in growth. Kaufman county (due east of Dallas county) is off the charts in the amount of homes, infrastructure and development being built. It might slow down at some point but I suspect Dallas will outpace much of the country for the foreseeable future. Houston too. They are no longer the "boomtowns" they once were but that hasn't stopped people from coming.

Chicago got some boom counties till very recently and they suddenly died:

McHenry:
1990 --- 183,241 --- 23.9%
2000 --- 260,077 --- 41.9%
2010 --- 308,760 --- 18.7%
2020 --- 310,229 ---- 0.5%

Kane:
1990 --- 317,471
2000 --- 404,119 --- 27.3%
2010 --- 515,269 --- 27.5%
2020 --- 516,522 ---- 0.9%

Kendall:
1990 ---- 39,413
2000 ---- 54,544 --- 38.4%
2010 --- 114,736 -- 110.4%
2020 --- 131,869 --- 14.9%

Grundy:
1990 ---- 32,337
2000 ---- 37,535 --- 16.1%
2010 ---- 50,063 --- 33.4%
2020 ---- 52,533 ---- 4.9%

Chicago MSA
1990 -- 8,053,895
2000 -- 8,948,739 -- 11.1%
2010 -- 9,294,679 --- 3.9%
2020 -- 9,454,363 --- 1.7%

And no, growth didn't go to the next line of counties: Boone, DeKalb, La Salle are all negative. Growth just stopped, abruptly.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Chicago got some boom counties till very recently and they suddenly died:

McHenry:
1990 --- 183,241 --- 23.9%
2000 --- 260,077 --- 41.9%
2010 --- 308,760 --- 18.7%
2020 --- 310,229 ---- 0.5%

Kane:
1990 --- 317,471
2000 --- 404,119 --- 27.3%
2010 --- 515,269 --- 27.5%
2020 --- 516,522 ---- 0.9%

Kendall:
1990 ---- 39,413
2000 ---- 54,544 --- 38.4%
2010 --- 114,736 -- 110.4%
2020 --- 131,869 --- 14.9%

Grundy:
1990 ---- 32,337
2000 ---- 37,535 --- 16.1%
2010 ---- 50,063 --- 33.4%
2020 ---- 52,533 ---- 4.9%

Chicago MSA
1990 -- 8,053,895
2000 -- 8,948,739 -- 11.1%
2010 -- 9,294,679 --- 3.9%
2020 -- 9,454,363 --- 1.7%

And no, growth didn't go to the next line of counties: Boone, DeKalb, La Salle are all negative. Growth just stopped, abruptly.

Those numbers are indeed from a very recent period. I can only imagine how much speculation would happen if the growth trend happened again. If the economy were on the up and up, it might go a long way towards solving the municipal debt through increased tax revenue, as well...

I wouldn't bet against Chicago. Wouldn't play the subprime gamble, lol.

[Steely Dan]

The knee-capping last decade of the great chicagoland sprawl machine was marvelous to see.

Lets hope it continues.

Chicagoland has absolute assloads of horrendous, god-awful sprawl.

More will never make it better.

INFILL! INFILL! INFILL!

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Those numbers are indeed from a very recent period. I can only imagine how much speculation would happen if the growth trend happened again. If the economy were on the up and up, it might go a long way towards solving the municipal debt through increased tax revenue, as well...

I wouldn't bet against Chicago. Wouldn't play the subprime gamble, lol.

Exactly. On the 2000's Chicago MSA was already very slow but those outer counties were growing like crazy. Kane at 27% with an already big population; Kendall at triple-digits.

Chicago seems very well positioned to rebound. It's a massive transport hub, it's rich, it has an incredibly diversified economy, it had "cheap" urban life and cheap suburbs for the crowded that like it. I believe it won't take long for its converge to the national average and maybe even surpass it on the next decades.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The knee-capping last decade of the great chicagoland sprawl machine was marvelous to see.

Lets hope it continues.

Chicagoland has absolute assloads of horrendous, god-awful sprawl.

More will never make it better.

INFILL! INFILL! INFILL!

I hope the metro area as a whole keeps growing though. Not going negative on this decade is already promising.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by Yuri

One could argue Los Angeles has more geographical constraints, but the sprawling nature of Dallas would make it harder for them to keep the gravitational pull.

Another thing going against Dallas is the US population growth. Growth was much bigger between 1980-2020 (+105 million extra people) whereas between 2020-2060, the most likely scenario will be a negative growth.

Those extra 100 million helped to fuel Los Angeles growth and they won't be there for Dallas.

100%; I don't think it's possible for DFW to ever quite reach the highs of L.A.'s metro population. Whether DFW will ever actually pass Chicago is an open question I think and not as inevitable as boosters say it is. I lean towards the likelihood that it might, but I do not think it will hold that space for long if it does. Chicago is too well positioned.

But I suspect the days of big metropolitan area shake ups are done. I think those metros greater than 6 million right now will always remain greater than 6 million, and those smaller than 6 million will never pass 6 million. As the era of national population growth wanes into population shrinkage, the bigger story will be what happens to the midsize cities.

The laying of the railroads 150 years ago really dictated who would become the major regions for the country even today. Railway-intersected cities grew economically faster than those around them, and that specific growth determined where the national highway system would be laid out half a century later. And that effect was even further reinforced by the placements of major international airports. All that gravity created by the historical movement of goods and people will basically guarantee that places like DFW and Atlanta will always have their role in their respective regions because too much major infrastructure now exists for them to ever justify trying to turn, like, OKC into a new Dallas to serve as the economic center of the southern plains instead.

So then the question is, in an era when the entire national population begins to shrink and get older, what becomes of small and midsize metro areas nearby these major centers? Will we become like Japan, where people and jobs begin consolidating even further into the existing major population centers, where the jobs expect the people to be and where people expect the jobs to be? This is of course basically what has always been happening to small U.S. towns throughout the 20th century, but it would be on an entirely different scale if it begins happening to midsize cities across the board as well. Like, are there future latter-20th-century Detroits sprinkled all over the country? And if there are, it's hard to imagine a similar positive reversal for them all the likes of which Detroit has enjoyed lately if the country's entire population is shrinking and rapidly aging.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

100%; I don't think it's possible for DFW to ever quite reach the highs of L.A.'s metro population. Whether DFW will ever actually pass Chicago is an open question I think and not as inevitable as boosters say it is. I lean towards the likelihood that it might, but I do not think it will hold that space for long if it does. Chicago is too well positioned.

But I suspect the days of big metropolitan area shake ups are done. I think those metros greater than 6 million right now will always remain greater than 6 million, and those smaller than 6 million will never pass 6 million. As the era of national population growth wanes into population shrinkage, the bigger story will be what happens to the midsize cities.

I agree that's demographically impossible for Dallas to reach Los Angeles size.

Regarding Chicago, it might happen but it's 20 years down the road at least. And 20 years are lots of time. Patterns can be radically different and the most likely scenario is Dallas to slow down as it's already.

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

The laying of the railroads 150 years ago really dictated who would become the major regions for the country even today. Railway-intersected cities grew economically faster than those around them, and that specific growth determined where the national highway system would be laid out half a century later. And that effect was even further reinforced by the placements of major international airports. All that gravity created by the historical movement of goods and people will basically guarantee that places like DFW and Atlanta will always have their role in their respective regions because too much major infrastructure now exists for them to ever justify trying to turn, like, OKC into a new Dallas to serve as the economic center of the southern plains instead.

So then the question is, in an era when the entire national population begins to shrink and get older, what becomes of small and midsize metro areas nearby these major centers? Will we become like Japan, where people and jobs begin consolidating even further into the existing major population centers, where the jobs expect the people to be and where people expect the jobs to be? This is of course basically what has always been happening to small U.S. towns throughout the 20th century, but it would be on an entirely different scale if it begins happening to midsize cities across the board as well. Like, are there future latter-20th-century Detroits sprinkled all over the country? And if there are, it's hard to imagine a similar positive reversal for them all the likes of which Detroit has enjoyed lately if the country's entire population is shrinking and rapidly aging.

Mid-sized cities have no chance on a shrinking world. We'll see Japan everywhere.

Big cities will be the only ones to have critical mass to boost a diversified and very specialized labour market, on every field. A shriking OKC type of city will create an increasing depressed the local labour market even further and making Dallas or Atlanta types even more attractive.

This scenario will be brutal for today's prosperous mid-sized urban centres in countries like the US and Brazil, both with a very complex urban structure.

Originally Posted by edale

Just because the current US regime is staunchly anti-immigration doesn't mean it will be like that forever into the future. If the US wanted to, it could grow by 50 million people by the end of the year. There is still tremendous demand to live in the US, and as a country of immigrants, we should be better able to use immigration to counter natural decline than traditionally homogenous countries like Japan.

And people might have 3 children instead of 1... It doesn't mean it will happen. And it's not the US regime that's staunchly anti-immigration. It's the society as a whole otherwise such regime wouldn't be in power today.

Natural decline will be an worldwide phenomenon. The US won't exist in a vacuum. American companies profit abroad, depend on the global economic system that will be radically altered in a shrinking Earth regardless whether US population be growing marginally. Regarding Japan, they're already adapting to population decline and today I see at an asset as population decline is irreversible during our lifetimes. Societies that best adapt, will be the most successful. The ones using band-aids will probably struggled more.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I agree that's demographically impossible for Dallas to reach Los Angeles size.

Regarding Chicago, it might happen but it's 20 years down the road at least. And 20 years are lots of time. Patterns can be radically different and the most likely scenario is Dallas to slow down as it's already.



Mid-sized cities have no chance on a shrinking world. We'll see Japan everywhere.

Big cities will be the only ones to have critical mass to boost a diversified and very specialized labour market, on every field. A shriking OKC type of city will create an increasing depressed the local labour market even further and making Dallas or Atlanta types even more attractive.

This scenario will be brutal for today's prosperous mid-sized urban centres in countries like the US and Brazil, both with a very complex urban structure.






Natural decline will be an worldwide phenomenon. The US won't exist in a vacuum. American companies profit abroad, depend on the global economic system that will be radically altered in a shrinking Earth regardless whether US population be growing marginally. Regarding Japan, they're already adapting to population decline and today I see at an asset as population decline is irreversible during our lifetimes. Societies that best adapt, will be the most successful. The ones using band-aids will probably struggled more.

Dallas and Chicago metro populations are only 1 million apart, so it's quite possible that DFW will exceed Chicago in perhaps 20 years even with a slowdown in the DFW rate and Chicago rebounding to a likely slow population increase...I guess an intriguing speculation is whether Houston metro will exceed Chicago's. There were some predictions that it could in perhaps 30 or 40 years, but Houston perhaps may be more vulnerable to major slowdown in growth due to climate risk and also economic risks... I am not sure small metros in the US are doomed as the US has had a preference for sprawl and large open spaces rather than crowded spaces; US people tend to move more often than other citizens of other countries; and smaller metros are cheaper for both businesses and people, and both business and people follow the money. Of the top 20 metros, only Dallas and Houston have significantly high growth rates, and I don't see any other big metros, especially in the top 10, taking their place once their growth slows.

[Yuri]

As I said, Dallas won’t surpass Chicago in less than 20 years and 20 years it’s a lot of time. Who imagined in the 2000’s that Los Angeles CSA would grow slower than New York’s in the 2010’s? Things might change quickly.

Immigration policies and political instability aside, I don’t see things changing for Dallas on the next 10 years (and 10 years is 2036, let’s not forget). However, I wouldn’t risk any guessing beyond that. Everything might happen. Dallas might even go to negative. Los Angeles plunged from double-digit growth to negative in less than 20 years. Same for most of the Rust Belt metropolises back in the 1970’s.

Regarding the mid-sized cities, one thing is a metro area of 500k-1 million growing fast. The actual growth fuel more growth and regular jobs are created continuously. That’s what happened in the US and it’s even more pronounced in Brazil right now. A completely different thing is a shrinking/stagnant mid-sized metro area: Syracuse, Toledo, Youngstown. People keep leaving looking for better job markets.

In a shrinking environment everything changes: firstly, the high prices on big metro areas become a lesser issue and they will offer all kinds of jobs, on health, finance, tech, on very specific niche that a a stagnated mid-sized city can not offer. You want to be a bank executive or being a doctor in a renowned hospital, that’s the big city. If you want to have just a regular job, being a developer, a fast growing mid sized city can do this for you. In the future, it won’t work: we’ll have to go after everybody who are flocking into bigger centers, following the jobs.

I risk to say in the US this phenomenon will be even stronger. Americans like to move and unlike Britain, France, Russia or Japan, they don’t have only one or two big and kinda expensive metropolises. The US is very decentralized and we have as much as 20 big cities for people to choose.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

But I suspect the days of big metropolitan area shake ups are done. I think those metros greater than 6 million right now will always remain greater than 6 million, and those smaller than 6 million will never pass 6 million. As the era of national population growth wanes into population shrinkage, the bigger story will be what happens to the midsize cities.

I think metro Phoenix has a good shot at six million, even with the impending boomer die-off. If it does reach that milestone, though, it may not stay there for long.

[Steely Dan]

Immigration posts moved to.the immigration thread:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=238745

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by craigs

I think metro Phoenix has a good shot at six million, even with the impending boomer die-off. If it does reach that milestone, though, it may not stay there for long.

I'd say Phoenix is the worst-equipped big city to deal with a shrunk US/World that I referred on the previous post. I'd rank it below Detroit, for instance.

Its economy is all based on the continuous growth itself and not indigenous industries. Things like healthcare sprung from this constant flow of people moving in. As soon as the flow shrinks or disappears altoghether, what jobs they'll provide for possible newcomers?

I do believe the US will follow the rest of the world and big cities will capture all growth. The difference is the US has lots of big cities and a very geographically sprawled economy. I'd bet on Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Charlotte, Atlanta, Columbus, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles. I mentioned 20 cities or so and the others would be matter guessing.

[Crawford]

Outside of the boomers from colder places like Chicago, Phoenix seems like a big pressure release valve for high housing cost in Southern CA. I'm pretty sure there's a big flow of middle-class homeowners from Orange and San Diego Counties to Phoenix area (and then they flood the OC/SD beaches come summer).

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Outside of the boomers from colder places like Chicago, Phoenix seems like a big pressure release valve for high housing cost in Southern CA. I'm pretty sure there's a big flow of middle-class homeowners from Orange and San Diego Counties to Phoenix area (and then they flood the OC/SD beaches come summer).

And when prices accomodate in California and the lack of constant explosive growth that's the whole engine of Phoenix economy. Once this engine is dead, all those people will have to look for jobs elsewhere.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by craigs

I think metro Phoenix has a good shot at six million, even with the impending boomer die-off. If it does reach that milestone, though, it may not stay there for long.

Certainly maybe but I'm really not sure. For me it feels like a coin toss. The last census estimates put Phoenix at 5,186,958 with a growth rate of +1.66% (+84,938) for the 2023-2024 time period. So the question is what the timeline would be to cover that 800,000 gap.

If Phoenix kept up 1.66% growth every year it would get them past the 6 million mark in 2033.

BUT, that year the state grew by +1.5% and the current estimate for 2025 has Arizona's growth down from +1.5% to +0.9% (+67,394).
If Phoenix again represents 77% of the state's growth for the year that would put Phoenix's growth around +1% (+52,365) for the upcoming metro estimates. This is down from +1.66% the year before.
At +1% every year it would take until 2039 for Phoenix reach 6 million which is certainly within the realm of possibility.

The problem with me projecting using these current state estimates we just got and with the upcoming metro estimates is that they estimate growth between July 2024 to July 2025--meaning they capture 6 months of business as usual and 6 months of anything but. What portion of these new growth numbers are stuffed into those first six months? We probably won't have a good sense of that until we get the July 2025-July 2026 estimates a year from now.
Will Phoenix then still have at least +1% growth? Seems unlikely. >+1% growth for July 2025-July 2026 seems a tough reach for any metro to be honest. That would be a huge drop off considering we saw 7 metro areas with >2% growth rates for 2023-2024. Even if growth rates rebound down the line that will still be several years of hampered growth delaying the 6 million milestone for Phoenix even further.

Just going down the list of other <6 million metros to complete this thought exercise, next comes Boston at 5 million. Maybe Boston has a chance to bridge that 1 million gap to reach 6 million, but with it's 2023-2024 growth rate it would take until 2040 to do so. Who knows what the rate will be for 2024-2025.

Then next comes Riverside which I kind of just lump with L.A., and then next San Francisco which I just lump with San Jose. Which then begs the question of why I'm not just talking about the CSAs instead of the MSAs and yeah in that case I'd change it to any CSA larger than 7 million will stay above 7 million and any CSA less than 7 million will never reach 7 million. Miami CSA at 7.3 is questionable though.

But continuing down the list of metros:

Next comes Detroit at 4.4 million. If it could continue its 2024 growth rate of .71% it would take until 2068 to reach 6 million.

Next Seattle at 4.1 million it would take until 2047 if it could keep it's 2024 growth rate of 1.63%.

These are far enough timelines that we're talking about when the country will have rapidly aged and likely shrunk so these growth rates will be difficult to hang onto.



And the metros fewer than 4 million start to see some absurd impossible-to-actually-predict timelines to reach 6 million. These of course are meaningless and I'm just posting them for fun.

Minneapolis at 3.7 million with its 2024 growth rate of .95% would take until 2074 to reach 6 million.

Tampa at 3.4 million with its 2024 growth rate of 1.5% would take until 2062 to reach 6 million.

San Diego at 3.3 million with its 2024 growth rate of .39% would take until 2179 to reach 6 million.

Denver at 3 million with its 2024 growth rate of 1.05% would take until 2089 to reach 6 million.

Orlando at 2.9 million with its 2024 growth rate of 2.65% (the best rate among the large metros that year) would take until 2052 to reach 6 million.

Charlotte at 2.9 million and +2.17% would take until 2059.

Baltimore at 2.9 at +.4% would take until the year 2210

St. Louis 2.8 million / +.23% per year / Reaches 6 million in year 2354
San Antonio 2.8 million / +1.74% / Year 2069
Austin 2.6 million / +2.33% / Year 2062
Portland 2.5 million / +.64% / Year 2159
Sacramento 2.5 million / +1.18% / Year 2100
Pittsburgh 2.4 million / +.02% / Year 6544
Las Vegas 2.4 million / +1.89% / Year 2073
Cincinnati 2.3 million / +.88% / Year 2134
Kansas City 2.2 million / +1.11% / Year 2113
Columbus 2.2 million / +1.38% / Year 2097
Indianapolis 2.2 million / +1.24% / Year 2107
Cleveland 2.2 million / +0.26% / Year 2416
Nashville 2.2 million / +1.73% / Year 2084