U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2024

[-- US 175 --]

Fort Worth has much more room to grow geographically than Dallas.

[DTComposer]

I still feel like McAllen-Harlingen-Brownsville is lacking, especially since I suspect most Americans can't name either McAllen or Harlingen. The southernmost two counties in Texas have about 1.35 million people, and that's just on the US side. This would put it above the New Orleans metro, and if you exclude the Canadian side, above the Buffalo metro. It wouldn't quite reach #32, but it could have one sport.

McAllen and Brownsville metros combined would get you to #45, which is comparable to some current metros with pro teams like Buffalo, Salt Lake City, or New Orleans. But if you're going to combine McAllen and Brownsville (about 60 miles apart), then you'd need to combine Baton Rouge (880K people) with New Orleans, Provo and Ogden (1.4 million combined) with Salt Lake City, and Rochester (1 million) with Buffalo - all of which are comparable distances apart (40 to 80 miles).

Also note that McAllen and Brownsville are combined as a media market, and that's ranked #80. I'm pretty sure market size plays as much if not a bigger role than city or metro populations in determining potential sports teams locations.

There are other, comparable or larger, growing metro areas that have yet to get a "big 4" pro team - Austin is the glaring example, but also Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Louisville - and many others that only have one - Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, etc.

[Scott5114]

If Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

North Las Vegas was founded by a guy who didn't like Las Vegas, so he had the unoriginal idea to create a town that was boring, and thus it got an unoriginal, boring name.

[NWI_Irish96]

If Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

North Las Vegas was founded by a guy who didn't like Las Vegas, so he had the unoriginal idea to create a town that was boring, and thus it got an unoriginal, boring name.

There used to be an East Gary, Indiana, but when Gary turned from a destination into a place to avoid, the city changed its name to Lake Station.

[mgk920]

My read on Detroit (city) is that it was originally developed waaaaay too heavily with detached single family residential, that was the primary land use in those parts of the city that have fallen into ruin and are now slooowly being 'discovered' by today's younger crowd.  I can easily see that fate befalling MANY other places as well over the next several decades, especially 'traditional' post-WWII suburban tract areas.

Mike

[Bobby5280]

Also note that McAllen and Brownsville are combined as a media market, and that's ranked #80. I'm pretty sure market size plays as much if not a bigger role than city or metro populations in determining potential sports teams locations.

I think the biggest problem the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities faces with trying to attract something like a major sports team is the average income levels in that region. They're not very high.

There are other, comparable or larger, growing metro areas that have yet to get a "big 4" pro team - Austin is the glaring example, but also Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Louisville - and many others that only have one - Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, etc.

Other factors may be involved, such as internal politics between sports team owners and league management. Any sort of expansion to add new teams is always very difficult. Most of the other team owners have to sign off on it. The process isn't cut and dry for a major pro sports team to relocate to another city either. Lots of secret good ole boys network stuff goes on in those talks.

I doubt if the NFL will ever add more teams, but if a team chooses to relocate I think the Austin-San Antonio region could be a likely landing spot. But that's only if Jerry Jones or future Dallas Cowboys ownership doesn't stand in the way of a deal.

[DTComposer]

Also note that McAllen and Brownsville are combined as a media market, and that's ranked #80. I'm pretty sure market size plays as much if not a bigger role than city or metro populations in determining potential sports teams locations.

I think the biggest problem the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities faces with trying to attract something like a major sports team is the average income levels in that region. They're not very high.

I thought that might be a factor, but I didn't have the numbers in front of me.

There are other, comparable or larger, growing metro areas that have yet to get a "big 4" pro team - Austin is the glaring example, but also Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Louisville - and many others that only have one - Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, etc.

Other factors may be involved, such as internal politics between sports team owners and league management. Any sort of expansion to add new teams is always very difficult. Most of the other team owners have to sign off on it. The process isn't cut and dry for a major pro sports team to relocate to another city either. Lots of secret good ole boys network stuff goes on in those talks.

I doubt if the NFL will ever add more teams, but if a team chooses to relocate I think the Austin-San Antonio region could be a likely landing spot. But that's only if Jerry Jones or future Dallas Cowboys ownership doesn't stand in the way of a deal.

Absolutely. And the NFL, especially, lets the owners run the show. The Cowboys are a world-wide brand, the most valuable franchise in the world for the last 10 years (even though they haven't even been to the NFC title game, let alone the Super Bowl, in 30 years). I doubt they'd be seriously impacted by another team in Texas, but the fact that he can hold the cards on whether Austin-San Antonio, with over 5 million people, 200+ miles away from Dallas, can get a team is ludicrous.

[Stephane Dumas]

If Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

North Las Vegas was founded by a guy who didn't like Las Vegas, so he had the unoriginal idea to create a town that was boring, and thus it got an unoriginal, boring name.

There used to be an East Gary, Indiana, but when Gary turned from a destination into a place to avoid, the city changed its name to Lake Station.

I heard a similar story about East Detroit, now known as Eastpointe, to be associated with the communities of Grosse Pointe.

[GaryV]

I heard a similar story about East Detroit

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=36209.msg2984464#msg2984464

[kphoger]

I think the biggest problem the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities faces with trying to attract something like a major sports team is the average income levels in that region. They're not very high.

I thought that might be a factor, but I didn't have the numbers in front of me.

Median household income, 2019-2023
$99287 - Tarrant County, TX (Fort Worth, Arlington)
$86227 - Harris County, TX (Houston)
$85452 - Dallas County, TX (Dallas)
$84963 - Bexar County, TX (San Antonio)
$58672 - Cameron County, TX (Brownsville, Harlingen)
$57989 - Hidalgo County, TX (McAllen, Edinburg)

[Bobby5280]

Judging by the 2024 population estimates the only places in Oklahoma that seem to be growing at all are parts of the OKC Metro and a portion of the Tulsa metro, Broken Arrow in particular. Most other cities and towns around the state are either static and not growing or they're losing population. Lawton looks like it's about to drop below 90,000 for the first time since the 1990's. The 10 most populous cities in OK are listed below according to their rank in the Census Bureau document.

20 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 712,919
48 Tulsa, Oklahoma - 415,154
221 Norman, Oklahoma - 131,010
240 Broken Arrow, Oklahoma - 122,756
347 Edmond, Oklahoma - 99,040
394 Lawton, Oklahoma - 90,027
617 Moore, Oklahoma - 63,845
695 Midwest City - 58,505
809 Enid, Oklahoma - 50,519
816 Stillwater, Oklahoma - 50,138

[kurumi]

Among CT's cohort of small-by-outside-standards cities, Stamford (solid #2) is approaching 140k, but didn't make up much ground on Bridgeport, which crept back above 150k. (I think the highest census figure all-time for CT is 177,397, Hartford, 1950.)

(Another bit of trivia: in 1756, Lebanon had a higher population than Hartford (source)).

[jgb191]

It's also the first time the U.S. has two cities of 1,000,000+ in the same metropolitan area.

Yeah I thought it would be the first metro area in the continent's history with concurrent millionaire cities, but it was pointed out that a couple of Mexican metro areas already beat DFW to it, but it is the first in US/Canada history.

Another fun fact about the DFW Metroplex:  Ft. Worth is now practically the same size as Dallas' 1990 population; back then Ft. Worth hadn't even reach a half-million.  So basically Ft. Worth has more than doubled in population in the last three decades, while Dallas only gained around one-third 1/3 million since it reaching the million mark in the late 1980's.  Assuming current growth rates, Ft. Worth is projected to catch Dallas in 18 years.


As for Houston vs Chicago:  I'm still hopeful that Houston can catch Chicago for the third-largest city in the US -- and fifth largest city in the continent -- before the end of this decade.

Is Los Angeles ever going to reach four million within it's city limits?  It only gained about 125,000 since the beginning of this century (quarter-century time span).

[Bobby5280]

In the case of Los Angeles, I'm kind of surprised the city and metro overall hasn't been losing a lot more people. The city limits population got a bump of about 50,000 people between 2022-2024, but was slowly losing residents in previous years.

I think the combination of stubbornly severe living costs and new government policies on immigration could start hitting Los Angeles population numbers significantly. There has been a significant out-flow of people who were born in California but are faced with having to move to less costly areas of the state or move out of the state entirely if they don't want to be stuck living with their parents.

California has been great for attracting foreign born workers, both the high-skilled H1B Visa types as well as migrant workers toiling in the shadow economy. New federal policies are yanking the welcome mat for both. Nationally we could see a lot of highly educated, foreign-born workers move back home and take their skills with them. Computing software companies can adapt to such changes. It's not so easy for a hospital that suddenly loses a bunch of surgeons and specialists. I'm worried a "brain drain" could happen at leading universities who do a lot of cutting edge research on science, technology, health care, etc.

Regarding Houston, I thought the city had a good chance of catching Chicago in population count by 2030. However the current housing price bubble and other economic issues look like they're now stalling that growth (which is something that 2024 estimate cannot show). Depending on how bad an economic downturn materializes Houston's growth could recover in a couple of years or it might take more than a decade. Also, the city limits area of Houston has only so much room left for development. The city is pretty packed. They'll have to start razing a lot of 1-2 story buildings and replacing them with more high rise towers. It's either that or the growth will be confined to the suburbs.

I think Fort Worth has grown so much lately simply because Dallas and certain other locations have run out of room to build.

I'm also surprised Fort Worth hit the 1 million mark in population before Austin could do so. Austin's residential real estate market has been hitting the skids lately though.

[webny99]

I think Fort Worth has grown so much lately simply because Dallas and certain other locations have run out of room to build.

I'm also surprised Fort Worth hit the 1 million mark in population before Austin could do so. Austin's residential real estate market has been hitting the skids lately though.

I think these two points are closely related. Being anchored to Dallas has helped spur Fort Worth's growth, but it's also made it more sustainable. Austin doesn't have a similar economic 'base' to draw on, and the economic effects are notable.

[brad2971]

A couple of interesting population tidbits:

1. The 2024 estimates show Sioux City, IA, having 86,875 residents, with Sioux Falls, SD having 209,289 residents. As recently as the 1980 Census, Sioux City had more people within city limits than Sioux Falls did.

2. As recently as the 1960 Census, South Dakota had more people than Idaho did, with Rapid City having more residents than Boise. We will learn at the end of this year that Idaho surpassed Nebraska in population, and in all likelihood, Idaho will surpass New Mexico by 2030 Census. South Dakota, meanwhile, has a 2024 estimated 924,669 residents.

[mgk920]

Chicago and Dallas (along with many others) are also landlocked by suburbs. That is why I put MUCH more credence in metro numbers than I do in city limit numbers.

Mike

[Scott5114]

I think the combination of stubbornly severe living costs and new government policies on immigration could start hitting Los Angeles population numbers significantly. There has been a significant out-flow of people who were born in California but are faced with having to move to less costly areas of the state or move out of the state entirely if they don't want to be stuck living with their parents.

I wouldn't be too sure. There are considerable benefits to living in California (good-paying jobs, employee-friendly labor laws, good healthcare by American standards, government benefits like MediCal, etc.) For expensive as California is, you really do get a lot of bang for the buck there.

It is not uncommon for people to move to Las Vegas to try to take advantage of the comparatively lower cost of living, only to realize that California was a better deal for them after all and move back, even if it means they have to live with their parents.

Lucille Bluth's line "I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona" is actually the reality for a decent amount of Californians.

You might see outflow from Los Angeles to cheaper California cities, though.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like every Central Valley city along 99 for example...  Almost every other new neighborhood is coming from the Bay Area or Los Angeles. 

[webny99]

2. As recently as the 1960 Census, South Dakota had more people than Idaho did, with Rapid City having more residents than Boise. We will learn at the end of this year that Idaho surpassed Nebraska in population, and in all likelihood, Idaho will surpass New Mexico by 2030 Census. South Dakota, meanwhile, has a 2024 estimated 924,669 residents.

Boise metro alone is close to South Dakota in population. Even so, I think we can put South Dakota on watch to hit 1 million by the next census. Current trend would put it at 980k, so it'll be close.

[jgb191]

I wouldn't be too sure. There are considerable benefits to living in California (good-paying jobs, employee-friendly labor laws, good healthcare by American standards, government benefits like MediCal, etc.) For expensive as California is, you really do get a lot of bang for the buck there.

I believe I mentioned this on another thread, but I know of a California couple that thought moving to Texas was a money-saving move, but to their disappointment they found out not so much. 

1) They left their comfortable mild climate of San Francisco to the semi-tropical swamp of "Humid Houston"

2) Their dream was to own their own home, and saw what seemed to them like "more affordable" lifestyle to own one in SE Texas.  They were absolutely blindsided by the state's burdening property taxes (plus homeowners insurance plus HOA fees, etc) which they never had to deal with renting in SF.

3)  Neither of them ever driven a car before -- apparently no need to in the Bay Area.  So now they have to learn to drive and buy a car, buy insurance, and purchase fuel time and time again.

4)  While cost of living is arguable lower in Texas than in the Bay Area, they also overlooked the fact that the pay/income is lower in this state too and not as many benefits for employees.  I read somewhere about 10-15 percent less pay for the similar positions/responsibilities.


They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.  So yeah I absolutely concur that Californians in some ways do have it better than we Texans do....it really does depend on the person and situation.

[Rothman]

I wouldn't be too sure. There are considerable benefits to living in California (good-paying jobs, employee-friendly labor laws, good healthcare by American standards, government benefits like MediCal, etc.) For expensive as California is, you really do get a lot of bang for the buck there.

I believe I mentioned this on another thread, but I know of a California couple that thought moving to Texas was a money-saving move, but to their disappointment they found out not so much. 

1) They left their comfortable mild climate of San Francisco to the semi-tropical swamp of "Humid Houston"

2) Their dream was to own their own home, and saw what seemed to them like "more affordable" lifestyle to own one in SE Texas.  They were absolutely blindsided by the state's burdening property taxes (plus homeowners insurance plus HOA fees, etc) which they never had to deal with renting in SF.

3)  Neither of them ever driven a car before -- apparently no need to in the Bay Area.  So now they have to learn to drive and buy a car, buy insurance, and purchase fuel time and time again.

4)  While cost of living is arguable lower in Texas than in the Bay Area, they also overlooked the fact that the pay/income is lower in this state too and not as many benefits for employees.  I read somewhere about 10-15 percent less pay for the similar positions/responsibilities.


They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.  So yeah I absolutely concur that Californians in some ways do have it better than we Texans do....it really does depend on the person and situation.

To be fair, those people sound like outliers on the naivete scale, especially on the car front.

[SEWIGuy]

I know a couple California natives who moved to the upper midwest, love it, and never plan on moving back.

However I know many more upper midwest natives who have moved to California and aren't leaving. One of my best friends from high school used to be a lawyer in San Franciso, and now is a high priced real estate agent, and some of the stuff he is selling is amazing. Way out of my price range, but I see why people who have money live out there.

[kphoger]

2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

[Rothman]

2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.