US Census Bureau data for Austin and other cities

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Austin is way less sprawling than Dallas, Houston or San Antonio. So as long as Austin/Metro is growing healthy I am happy.

Houston and Dallas yes, San Antonio actually is less sprawling than Austin.

In 2020 the Austin urban area covered 619.62 miles compared to San Antonio's 613.44 miles.

Urban areas are, "a densely-settled urban core, plus surrounding developed areas that meet certain density criteria."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

[Riverranchdrone]

This chart has Austin has a smaller land area than any of the major cities in Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area

Fort Worth TX 351.9
Dallas TX 339.7
San Antonio TX 498.9
Houston TX 640.8
Austin TX 326.4

[clubtokyo]

Yeah I was always under the impression that Austin had the least amount of land area of any major city in Texas.

[Lobotomizer]

Since when do city limits land areas have anything to do with sprawl?

So are you under the impression Williamson County, which is rapidly approaching a million people, is not a part of Austin's sprawl?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Since when do city limits land areas have anything to do with sprawl?

So are you under the impression Williamson County, which is rapidly approaching a million people, is not a part of Austin's sprawl?

Certainly the parts of Williamson county that are in the city of austin are.

[Lobotomizer]

So sprawl equals how many square miles the principal city of a metro covers? This is a very interesting take, and much different than what I have been lead to believe all these years.

So according to this methodology Atlanta at only 136 square miles on it's city limits doesn't have much sprawl. Crazy! I had previously heard it referred to as the king of sprawl.

Meanwhile New York City at 472 square miles is a sprawly beast.

Or, maybe one should look at the data with a bit more nuance. I think comparing the built up, contiguous developed area without focusing on city limit or county lines makes a bit more sense. This is defined as an urban area by the census bureau, and is pretty much universally accepted as the definitive basis of a city's true size.

Otherwise you ignore reality such as the fact that Atlanta is an urban area of over 5 million people covering 2500 square miles.

By city limit population San Antonio is bigger than Dallas, but anyone that has been to both find that hard to believe, and rightfully so.

City limit population for the most part is a fairly meaningless metric for most discussions.

I figured anyone that had been on an urban development forum for any amount of time would be aware of this fact.

[tdawg]

Where'd you get that 472 sq. miles figure for NYC? NYC is 302 square miles.

[futuresooner]

Originally Posted by tdawg

Where'd you get that 472 sq. miles figure for NYC? NYC is 302 square miles.

Technically the 472 is correct as the total when water is included. Land only it is 300 sq. miles.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Houston and Dallas yes, San Antonio actually is less sprawling than Austin.

In 2020 the Austin urban area covered 619.62 miles compared to San Antonio's 613.44 miles.

Urban areas are, "a densely-settled urban core, plus surrounding developed areas that meet certain density criteria."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

Urbanized area is a useful tool, but probably not for measuring sprawl.

By Definition it’s excluding the sprawliest, lowest density part of the sprawl.

[drummer]

Quick update from KXAN and I stumbled across a news release from today (5/15) from US Census with some good data to geek out on.

Fort Worth surpasses Austin to become fourth-largest city in Texas; ATX drops to 13th nationwide
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/f...y-in-texas-atx-drops-to-13th-nationwide/


Population Growth Reported Across Cities and Towns in All U.S. Regions
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/vintage-2024-popest.html


Georgetown officially passed 100,000 people - and I feel it every day when driving basically anywhere and especially at HEB.

Also of note (a lot of this isn't really new, but it's in the release):
- Texas has 7 of the top 15 fastest growing cities between 7/1/2023 and 7/1/2024 by percentage increase
- Texas has 3 of the top 15 fastest growing cities in the same time by numeric increase
- Texas has 5 of the top 15 most populous cities based on 7/1/2024 estimates



Also of note from the KXAN article linked above:

In the KXAN viewing area, four cities appear in the top 30 fastest-growing in the state: Jarrell (28.8%), Marble Falls (24%), Dripping Springs (16.9%) and Liberty Hill (15%). Lockhart, Hutto, Leander and Bastrop all grew by at least 8%, compared to the 0.4% growth seen in Austin.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by drummer

Quick update from KXAN and I stumbled across a news release from today (5/15) from US Census with some good data to geek out on.

Population Growth Reported Across Cities and Towns in All U.S. Regions
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/vintage-2024-popest.html

I found on the above link that Hutto is the 13th fastest growing city of over 20,000 people in the US between 2023 and 2024 at 9.4% to a population of 42,661.

And the following are two quoted factoids:

"The largest numeric gains in housing units between 2023 and 2024 were in: Maricopa County, Arizona (38,000); Los Angeles County, California (32,000); Harris County, Texas (32,000); Travis County, Texas (22,000); and Collin County, Texas (18,000)."

"Jasper County, South Carolina, was the nation’s fastest-growing county in terms of housing units: its housing stock increased by 8.4% between 2023 and 2024, followed by Brunswick County, North Carolina (6.4%); Burnet County, Texas (6.3%); Caldwell County, Texas (5.7%); and Custer County, South Dakota (5.4%)."

[GoldenBoot]

City population size is a relatively insignificant metric - especially when trying to compare "large cities."

Austin's metro is still growing at a healthy pace. However, there are several impediments to growth within its city limits. Some of those are the expense of existing housing. Expense of land. Lack of available land for development (the COA is a relatively small city by square miles). Major roadblocks when it comes to the ability to develop more dense projects due to COA politics, etc. These, and several other reasons, are why we are not seeing Austin's city population grow as fast as other cities. Allowing more dense projects within city limits would not only increase population, but would also assist in bringing down the overall cost of housing. And if housing costs come down, it becomes more available to more people - possibly increasing population even more.

Cities like SA, Fort Worth, Jacksonville all have more land than Austin, and they allow denser projects. They are also more affordable than living within Austin's city limits.

[wwmiv]

I don’t disagree with the general premise nor conclusions. I’d drop Jacksonville altogether from the comparison, as merged city-counties and independent cities (as in Virginia) have stable boundaries due to a lack of ability to annex. This fundamentally affects their apparent patterns of population growth and makes any comparison to an “annexation capable” municipality apples-to-oranges.

Fort Worth is likely to put a large amount of population distance between it and Austin once the Panther Island project starts build out and environs start densifying. Austin has no comparable in-city area of appropriate greenfield development or suitable brownfield redevelopment. In order for Austin to see prolonged population growth in the coming decades, we are going to have to annex Robinson Ranch (currently limited territorial jurisdiction) and Dog’s Head. Those are the potential big ticket mixed used population centers (probably 75k-100k residents in each at full build out).

Currently agricultural land in the northeast that sits in our ETJ between Manor and Pflugerville is going to end up as moderate density suburbia and beyond that we are landlocked to the north Manor, Pflugerville, Round Rock, Cedar Park, and Jonestown. I’d expect 50-75k here.

Even though we aren’t landlocked to the east, much of the east-side is going to end up as industrial, warehousing, and associated uses. We aren’t going to add much population in the trans-SH-130 area. 50k tops.

Southeast we are landlocked by Buda, Bastrop, Creedmoor, and Mustang Ridge but there’s a LOT of agricultural land in the LTD and ETJ. Although low density, there’s enough land we could fill with 200k at standard suburban densities.

South is fully built out and pushing up against other municipalities (Buda, Hays, and Bear Creek) and city-owned preserves. Don’t expect any growth here as infill projects will only make up for decline in household sizes as children leave.

Southwest is the same, and we aren’t going to annex anything out that direction either.

Speaking of which: the only way Austin gets to claim any of that growth is if landowners play ball and allow annexation. Current state law, as we all know, makes that much more difficult for the city to achieve. Even if everything goes right for the city, I don’t expect Austin to ever grow beyond 1.6 million without significant further changes to transportation infrastructure and land use policy

[wwmiv]

Some numbers now that 2024 city, county, and metropolitan populations estimates have all been released:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Texas (whole): 31,290,831 (+7.36%)

Houston suburbs: 5,406,057 (+12.14%)
Dallas suburbs: 4,319,608 (+3.88%)
Fort Worth suburbs: 2,114,204 (+23.02%)
Austin suburbs: 1,557,049 (+17.83%)
San Antonio suburbs: 1,236,350 (+10.04%)

Houston proper: 2,390,125 (+3.85%)
San Antonio proper: 1,526,656 (+6.41%)
Dallas proper: 1,326,087 (+1.66%)
Fort Worth proper: 1,008,106 (+9.71)
Austin proper: 993,588 (+3.30%)

Dallas exurbs: 466,529 (+8.37)
Houston exurbs: 199,958 (+5.22%)
Fort Worth exurbs: 99,357 (+10.39%)
San Antonio exurbs: 82,059 (+3.45%)

Rio Grande Valley CSAs (sum): 1,433,308 (+4.02%)
El Paso MSA: 879,392 (+1.21%)

Texas (balance): 6,402,060 (+3.57%)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Suburbs are the balance of the population within a Metropolitan Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area Division and exurbs are those statistical areas (whether Metropolitan or Micropolitan) which are in a Combined Statistical Area with one of the five major core cities. For Dallas and Fort Worth, outlying statistical area are grouped according to the adjacent Metropolitan Division.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I don’t disagree with the general premise nor conclusions. I’d drop Jacksonville altogether from the comparison, as merged city-counties and independent cities (as in Virginia) have stable boundaries due to a lack of ability to annex. This fundamentally affects their apparent patterns of population growth and makes any comparison to an “annexation capable” municipality apples-to-oranges.

Fort Worth is likely to put a large amount of population distance between it and Austin once the Panther Island project starts build out and environs start densifying. Austin has no comparable in-city area of appropriate greenfield development or suitable brownfield redevelopment. In order for Austin to see prolonged population growth in the coming decades, we are going to have to annex Robinson Ranch (currently limited territorial jurisdiction) and Dog’s Head. Those are the potential big ticket mixed used population centers (probably 75k-100k residents in each at full build out).

Currently agricultural land in the northeast that sits in our ETJ between Manor and Pflugerville is going to end up as moderate density suburbia and beyond that we are landlocked to the north Manor, Pflugerville, Round Rock, Cedar Park, and Jonestown. I’d expect 50-75k here.

Even though we aren’t landlocked to the east, much of the east-side is going to end up as industrial, warehousing, and associated uses. We aren’t going to add much population in the trans-SH-130 area. 50k tops.

Southeast we are landlocked by Buda, Bastrop, Creedmoor, and Mustang Ridge but there’s a LOT of agricultural land in the LTD and ETJ. Although low density, there’s enough land we could fill with 200k at standard suburban densities.

South is fully built out and pushing up against other municipalities (Buda, Hays, and Bear Creek) and city-owned preserves. Don’t expect any growth here as infill projects will only make up for decline in household sizes as children leave.

Southwest is the same, and we aren’t going to annex anything out that direction either.

Speaking of which: the only way Austin gets to claim any of that growth is if landowners play ball and allow annexation. Current state law, as we all know, makes that much more difficult for the city to achieve. Even if everything goes right for the city, I don’t expect Austin to ever grow beyond 1.6 million without significant further changes to transportation infrastructure and land use policy

I believe the land use reforms Austin has implemented should not be discounted when projecting the COA's growth over the coming decades.

There is room for a whole lot of new housing within the existing city limits that is now allowed in everything from skyscrapers, midrises, and most importantly small infill in neighborhood interiors.

I do not believe it's unreasonable to think that within it's existing boundaries the COA could grow it's number of housing units by 25% or more over the next forty or fifty years.

To summarize, I'd add another 200,000 or so more people to your projections to account for the COA substantially densifying.

~2 persons per housing unit(~400,000 existing housing units X 25% increase)

[wwmiv]

To clarify, those aren’t so much projections as they are an upper bound on population after recognizing that we are essentially landlocked now.

I don’t think the existing zoning reforms will lead to massive new density in periphery greenfield developments, which is where the vast majority of new housing will be built (even within CoA). Those developments will still be driven by market demand, and that’s not going to fundamentally change. Except in two places, where there likely is developer appetite for building denser: Robinson Ranch (which has sold off pieces to developers in progressively more urban-esque developments) and the Dog’s Head (which is apparently undergoing parcel agglomeration by Catellus, the same firm behind Mueller).

Where the existing reforms will make a difference is in infill redevelopment on brownfield sites and redeveloping tear-down SFH lots in centrally located neighborhoods. That’s not actually a sea change in capacity. You’re likely to see a maybe 5% increase in total units on SFH lots in established neighborhoods. Densely built SFHs are what bring large population growth, because they attract families. Apartments may bring a large number of units, but vacancy rates reduce their impact and the people in occupied units don’t have kids to pad the population growth. And it isn’t like apartments just spring up wholesale replacing strip malls. Outside of the megadevelopments like Mueller and the Domain and their smaller scale cousins (The Triangle, Crestview Commons, The Grove, etc), where exactly has there been rapidly deployed redevelopment in Austin? Pretty much no corridor radiating from downtown has more than 1/10 of their lots occupied by a new build 4 over 1. And most of these radiating corridor lots have been zoned for that for two decades now. Two decades from now, I doubt the number will even be 1 in 5. The commercial upzoning to allow for apartments city-wide doesn’t actually affect all that many parcels in market-viable areas.

Yeah, all of these reforms represent an increase in capacity, but not dramatic—and that’s exactly why it was politically feasible: because it is not a fundamental sea change from where we were at before.

[Lobotomizer]

I don't have time for a long rebuttal, but I disagree wholeheartedly. The land use reforms of the last few years will be transformational over the coming decades in most corners of the city.

Here is the best article I could find that may help someone who hasn't been keeping up with what's changed. These are sweeping changes!
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/austin-lot-size-housing-affordability/

[Lobotomizer]

A few quotes from the article to summarize....

year, Austin officials have sought to peel back some of those restrictions. In December, they voted to allow homebuilders to put up to three housing units — like duplexes and triplexes — on almost any lot in the city where single-family homes are currently allowed. As of Tuesday, builders have filed 62 applications to build homes that wouldn’t have been possible without the reform, according to City of Austin records. About 60% of them are east of Interstate 35, which historically has separated wealthier white neighborhoods on the city’s west side and neighborhoods of color on the east side.

Austin also became last year the largest U.S. city to get rid of requirements that new developments include a certain amount of parking. Those requirements, advocates and housing developers argue, effectively forced builders to provide parking spots where they may have otherwise built housing

Austin officials on Friday reduced how much land the city requires single-family homes to sit on, a restriction known as a minimum lot size. Before the changes, Austin required single-family homes in much of the city to sit on at least 5,750 square feet of land.

The City Council on Friday reduced the lot-size requirement to 1,800 square feet — a move officials said they hoped would benefit first-time homebuyers.

Austin officials also voted to allow greater housing density along the city’s planned light-rail corridor — a part of the city’s voter-approved public transit initiative called Project Connect. Transportation experts have said public transit requires a certain amount of neighboring density to be viable. Increasing density along the corridor is also seen as a key prerequisite to obtaining federal dollars to support the rail line. The council also voted to allow developers to build even taller apartment buildings if they set aside a certain amount of units for lower-income households.

In addition, City Council members voted to loosen restrictions that limit how tall apartment buildings can rise based on how close they are to single-family homes. They also directed city staff to study the “potential impact on displacement of communities of color” resulting from looser zoning restrictions and explore countermeasures.

[Novacek]

I'm still not sure how much stock I put in these city numbers.

For the county/MSA numbers, they went back and retroactively corrected them, increasing them quite a bit due to miscounts especially of immigrants. Did they do so for the city numbers?

Since going back to pre-covid, the city has added like 100k additional housing units, while the population effectively hasn't budged.

[drummer]

I do think there will be a significant amount of housing along the 130 corridor - the question is whether it ever ends up as part of the City of Austin proper. And yes, I agree that city population alone isn't overly significant. The metro as a whole is growing at a healthy pace, and fortunately it's a bit more manageable than it was even five years ago. I'm okay with that. It allows cities and counties to catch up...ish.