Almost a year ago, FoUTASportscaster made a guestimate on the Downtown Dallas population. Anyone have more-up to-date numbers or new projections? I'm sure Sportscaster may like to offer his analysis again.
Originally Posted by FoUTAsportscaster
Sportscaster's (and my) home computer is in the shop for a few days, and as that is the primary computer he uses to access the internet, he may be away for a little while. I'll let him know you miss him though. :angel:Originally Posted by incrediculous
I tell everyone...I smile just because...I've got a city love...
No I think that's Uptown.Originally Posted by br.reese
May be crossing numbers here. Wasn't 10k the 'critical mass' number given a few years ago that was believed to be needed attract significant retail back to downtown?Originally Posted by br.reese
Highway 6, you remember correctly.
That sounds about right.Originally Posted by trolleygirl
I compiled some census tract numbers awhile ago from the 2000 Census:
(The first column is the census tract, second is population, third is land area in sq miles.)
Like I said, this is from the 2000 census, so is seven years old. I think its pretty safe to assume Uptown is over 10k people now. Which puts it at around 10k people/sq mile. Not too shabby. I would be surprised if either Oak Lawn or the Knox side of Knox/Henderson are not over 10k people/sq mile by now too. If downtown has, say 5k today, then its density is about 3128 people/sq mile. Its closing in on Plano!Code:UPTOWN: 17.02 1870 in 0.4177 sq miles 18 2361 in 0.2893 sq miles 19 1860 in 0.4385 sq miles Total pop: 6091 in 1.1455 sq miles, or 5317 people/sq mile. DOWNTOWN: 17.01 1 in 0.2359 sq miles 21 9 in 0.3606 sq miles 31.01 1911 in 0.3539 sq miles 31.02 277 in 0.6480 sq miles Total pop: 2198 in 1.5984 sq miles, or 1375 people/sq mile. KNOX: 7.01 2505 in 0.3525 sq miles 7.02 3069 in 0.3308 sq miles Total pop: 5574 in 0.6833 sq miles, or 8157 people/sq mile. OAK LAWN/TURTLE CREEK: 5 5831 in 0.5690 sq miles 6.03 4003 in 0.3910 sq miles 6.04 3869 in 0.6209 sq miles Total pop: 13703 in 1.5809 sq miles, or 8668 people/sq mile. Total pop for these four districts: 27566 in 5.0081 sq miles, or 5504 people/sq mile Without downtown: 25368 in 3.4097 sq miles, or 7440 people/sq mile.
I should make one note, the northern border I am using for Uptown is Lemmon (eastbound I think), because thats where the census tracts 17.02 and 18 end. So the entire West Village development and its immediate area is counted towards the Knox numbers and sq mileage rather than Uptown.
Last edited by sogod; 31 July 2007 at 09:56 PM.
Very interesting. May I ask, How did you find the square mileage of the census tracts. I can't seem to find it in the census tables. Never mind... I found it (or at least I found a back door way to calculate it.)Originally Posted by sogod
Last edited by Tucy; 01 August 2007 at 03:18 PM.
Its been awhile so I dont remember how I got the data file from the census website, but its a 7 meg plain ASCII text file with all the census tracts in the US, and included in the file is the land area and water area for each tract.Originally Posted by Tucy
I can email it to you if you are interested.
Also I have the racial demographic data for the four main counties. I used that to calculate the top 10 tracts (percentage wise) for whites, Asians, and white-Asian mixes in both Dallas and Collin county. But thats not really pertinent to this discussion.
Save yourself all that trouble. Tracy Curts over at the Uptown PID has more up-tp-date population numbers in Uptown. Call over there and ask him. I wrote a grant for MATA a few years ago- '92 or '93, I think it was- and while I was doing research on demographis in Uptown, the figures I had then were 11,000 residents in Upwton and a 3,100 in DTD.
Hmmm... comparing your 92-93 numbers with the census bureau's 2000 numbers, it would appear that downtown LOST 900 people in those 7-8 years, and Uptown lost almost 5,000. Did you perhaps mean to say 2001-2002 instead of '91-'92?Originally Posted by trolleygirl
In any event, it's usually best to stick with census numbers, as opposed to those produced by booster groups and other "interested" parties.
That's the projection for 2010, though I am not sure how that number will be reached without some announcements soon.Originally Posted by br.reese
Nope, Uptown has roughly 25,000 people living within its 2.2 square mile borders.Originally Posted by trolleygirl
Not sure where those numbers come from, but the current definition of Uptown is Blckburn to the north, 75 to its east, Woodall to its south, I-35 to its west and the Katy trail (formerly the MKT rail line) to its NW. That boundary is 2.2 square miles.Originally Posted by sogod
Mine comes from the DMN and backed up by some documents I found in the Central Library.Originally Posted by Tucy
The population has more than doubled in the last 15 years with the numerous projects like 1999 McKinney, the Ashton, West Village, Mondarian and so forth.Originally Posted by trolleygirl
No, she didn't mean that at all, those numbers are inaccurate, at least compared everything else that I have researched.Originally Posted by Tucy
To answer Incrediculous question, the estimate is actually near Tamt's posting. It is currently around 4,200. With projects like 1414 Elm, the Merc, Mosaic (almost completed, though people are living there) and Third Rail more units will come online. Also, recently opened places like Gulf States and Republic will continue to add residents as the months pass.
After the Merc is done Forest City will move to the Continental and Atmos Complexes. That will boost residential figures too, though I don't see how that could propel them beyond 7,500 people.
How many residential units have been added downtown since 2000? (I am referring only to those that are currently open for occupancy). How many are currently under construction?Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
These are from the 2000 census, and I am using tracts 17.02, 18, and 19 as my definition of Uptown. These almost match your borders, but not quite.Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
As you can barely see from the following image of census tracts:
The border of the area formed by combining 17.02, 18, and 19 is Woodall to the South, 75 to the east, the cotton belt rail line to the west, and finally the Missouri-Kansas-Texas rail line + Lemmon (eastbound I think) forming the northern border.
The area formed by these 3 tracts is 1.1455~ sq miles, and contains 6091 people. This is according to the 2000 census.
Given that, I dont know where an additional 1.1 sq miles could come from to make uptown 2.2 sq miles in area. The missing area between what I am using for Uptown and the official Uptown area is pretty small. Even if we add all of Knox (7.01 and 7.02 running all the way to HP) we would only get to 1.8+ sq miles.
But if my numbers are wrong, and those 3 census tracts add up to around 2.2 sq miles, then DT must be like 3 or 3.5 sq miles! Cause, just visually speaking from the map I posted, we can fit like 1.5 uptowns in DT. However, I think we can agree DT is not that big.
I figured out where I found the sq mile and population numbers for census tracts on the census website. Its a confusing site so it took awhile, and a little searching on Google, to find the data again.
Halfway down the page you will see "ASCII text versions of:" and a link "Census Tracts". That has all the sq mileages and populations of every census tract in the US. To match up the tracts with places you have to find a map with the census tracts overlaid, like the partial map I posted. I dont quite remember where I found that map. Probably a search on google will help. The census tract codes for Dallas county all start with "TX48113" (for example, the 17.02 Uptown tract is code "TX48113001702").
Last edited by sogod; 05 August 2007 at 10:55 PM.
Thinking back to 2002 when I moved into the Camden Farmers Market I would go to Albertson's up Hall to McKinney. There was hardly anything new urbanist around. Most of State-Thomas' new construction simply wasn't there. All of the West Village area(it opened in 2000) That green post apt building. The Marquis. Pretty much anything in Victory or the lower McKinney area as far as residential. I know I'm leaving out other projects. The amount of multi-family since then has had to at least quadruple compared to then. The projects have gradually gotten larger as well.Originally Posted by Tucy
Sogod, I don't doubt you. I just believe the numbers are in error, either yours or mine, or perhaps both.
First, to answer your question DTD is 1.3 or 1.5 square miles, I've seen both. However, it's longest border is the Woodall Spur at 1.5 miles and is fairly square minus the Arts District. Squares by nature, as geometry teachers will tell you, automatically look like the bigger area.
Uptown, on the otherhand isn't a square. I made copies of the map, cutout both areas and the bottom "square" of uptown is almost as big as DTD.
The uptown border of Katy trail, like Woodall, is also 1.5 miles long. The I-35 portion of the border is 1.1 mile, 75 to Blackburn is 4/5 of a mile long and the Blackburn edge is 1/2 mile.
I drew an imaginary line from the Katy/35 area to 75. It follows the Katy Trail part of the way to the Carlisle/Allen split. The northern line is parallel to Woodall and creates a rough square 1.5x1.1. So that part is roughly 1.65 square miles, though it is not a true square, but rather a quadrilateral. The area is skewed, but not by much.
That leaves roughly a triangle at the top. From the aforementioned Katy curve to the Blackburn/75 intersection, I measure 3/4 of a mile. The remainder of the Katy is 3/5 of a mile and Blackburn is 1/2 mile.
Using this website, http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/dildine/tcd.../program17.htm, I calculate the remaining are to be .15 miles, giving an area roughly 1.80 square miles. That is half-way between your source and mine.
wrong thread. please delete.
I meant to say 2002 - 2003. Oops.
I started with MATA in 99 and there was just barely starting to be the development boom. Before that, I opened a business in 1997 on McKinney Ave, anticipating new residential. (we were way ahead of the curve.) We have pictures of when the streetcars started service in 1987 and there was NOTHING in Uptown- McKinney Paza was brand new. La Tour was there. The Residences were being built. Really in the last five years is when it seems like the biggest boom has occurred.
The West Village opened in 2002. We had a big celebration about MATA extending its line up to the WV- the biggest frustration for the WV in opening its doors was directed at MATA because our tracks weren't complete- on one side, but it was really the City's fault since they were putting a 72-inch storm sewer in under the tracks. That was in April 2002. The Big Flop, er I mean, the Big Top at the Trolley Stop.
Prior to 2000, downtown had the following residential buildings:Originally Posted by Tucy
Manor House, 252 units
1900 Elm, 129
2220 Canton, ?
509 Elm, 29
Main Street Lofts, 8
Total = 912
Jackson St Loft, 8
1001 Ross, 204
Davis Building, 183
1505 Elm, 67
Camden @ Farmer's Market, 620
Farmer's Meraket Townhomes, ?
Gulf States, 68
Total = 1,442
Currently under renovation or construction:
*indicates some units are already leased while the building is being finished out
Third Rail, 84
1414 Elm, 14
One Arts Plaza, 68
New Merc Tower, 150
Perry Townhomes, ?
West End Station, 146
Total = 1,639
Announced (some like the Continental and Atmos Complex are near certainties. Others, like 500 S Ervay are doubtful):
Atmos Complex, 265
1600 Pacific, 311
211 N Ervay, 148
511 N Arkard, 209
Museum Tower, 125
500 S Ervay, 321
There was also something about a tower going over the Univision Tower garage, though I have nothing on that in my notes.
Total = 1,654
Last edited by FoUTASportscaster; 09 August 2007 at 09:31 PM.
...doing some quick math, and assuming that the renov/const + announced are all occupied by 2010, there would be around 9,600 CBD residents. Seems likely there will be more than 3293 additional CDB dwellings prepared by 2010.Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
Originally Posted by tamtagon
You expect an average occupancy of almost 1.7 people per housing unit? Seems a little high...
Why? Although a lot of singles will find DT living attractive,as will young couples and gay couples in one bedrooms, and 2 roomates in the 2 bedrooms. There are a few couples with kids living Downtown - the DMN had an articles on kids living DT a few months ago. 1.7 per unit seems right on to me.Originally Posted by Tucy
Either way - a 4x increase in 10 years is a very good thing. With the parks and retail going up - this trend should continue - and in fact, CBD should become even more desirable. I think it's great!
My wife and I have discussed this before and when it comes time to retire, we would seriously consider selling the house to move into a condo or high rise since we won't want to do exterior maint... we'll be travelling 3-6 months out of the year. The condo lifestyle seems like it'll fit our retirement plans quite well. I wonder what downtown living will be like in 20 years?
The "experts" say the average occupancy is roughly 1.5 people per units.
What "experts"? Do you have a source? And is that referring to downtown condo and apartment-type dwellings? (I think that 1.5 people per unit sounds more reasonable than 1.7, but my instinct tells me it's still probably too high.)Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
The 2000 Census shows 965 housing units in downtown Dallas, with 1175 people living in them, for an average occupancy of 1.22 people per unit? Is there any particular reason we should believe that the new condos and apartments will have significantly higher occupancy?
Yes, because the word "average" is not the same as the word "typical".Originally Posted by Tucy
The 965 housing units in downtown Dallas prior to 2000 represents a different demographic than post 2000. Bringing up an average, or arithmetic mean, is not particularly meaningful because averages are heavily influenced by extremes and statistical oddities. With a greater number of dwelling units in the part of downtown south of Woodall Rogers, the extremes and outliers will have less influence.
The population of downtown I calculated from the 2000 census (see previous post in this thread) was 2198, not 1175. That would give an average occupancy of 2.27 people per unit. That makes 1.7 sound more possible huh.Originally Posted by Tucy
Thanks for that mouthful of gibberish that told us almost nothing. You might be right that the post 2000 demographics will be different, but do you actually have evidence of that? And averages are what they are, and both post 2000 and pre-2000 will be influenced by extremes and outliers. "Typical" on the other hand tells us absolutely nothing.Originally Posted by aceplace
And keep in mind that a very large proportion of the units being built in downtown Dallas in this decade are 1 bedroom, the vast majority of which will amost certainly have 1 resident.
Except that the 2198 population includes group housing, such as dormitories, prisons, group homes, homeless shelters, etc. The number of people living in households in housing units (apartments, condos and such) in 2000 was 1175. That is the number of people who lived in the 965 units of housing. 1.22 people per unit.Originally Posted by sogod
A little more research indicates to me that 1.7 people per unit is pretty unlikely. I looked at the stats for Census Tracts 813 and 814 in Chicago, an area just north of the loop that has many high-rise condos and apartment buildings.
No. of Housing units: 11,641
1.28 people per housing unit.
I see no reason to think the numbers are likely to be any significant amount higher in downtown Dallas.
Don't take this wrong. The development in downtown Dallas and the growing population there is nothing to sneeze at. I just like to keep things realistic and accurate.
Last edited by Tucy; 11 August 2007 at 12:29 AM.
You need to show evidence they will be the same, in order to support your claims. You're the one who claims that post-2000 will be a continuation of pre-2000. Where's your evidence?Originally Posted by Tucy
An average tells us nothing about the subgroups that made up the housing stock of downtown pre-2000, or the way that it would have changed due to a massive increase in the housing supply."Typical" on the other hand tells us absolutely nothing
The extremes and outliers post 2000 will most likely to be different than the pre-2000 ones, or there is no scientific basis to assume they will be the same. Scaling up housing units by a factor of 5 or 10 introduces new dynamics and new phenomena into the urban mix.And averages are what they are, and both post 2000 and pre-2000 will be influenced by extremes and outliers
Since you also discount the significance or meaningfulness of an average, why did you bring up the 1.2 figure? Were you being sly? Confusing people who don't know better?
Last edited by aceplace; 11 August 2007 at 12:39 AM.
There is simply no reason to think that a change will have taken place. You are asking me to prove a negative. In the absence of evidence of a change (which you apparently don't have, other than blind hope), the logical presumption is that there is no significant change. To the extent there is evidence one way or the other, there might be more evidence that the average occupancy will go down, because the "massive increase in the housing supply" may be getting ahead of the demand (witness the free rent being offered in downtown complexes).Originally Posted by aceplace
And see the edit to my prior post for further evidence regarding the number of people who "typically" inhabit high-rise urban dwellings.
Last edited by Tucy; 11 August 2007 at 12:38 AM.
Nice try, but you know very well I was not discounting the significance or meaningfulness of the averages. For crying out loud, this whole discussion from beginning to end, has been about the average number of people likely to occupy each of the downtown housing units. Were you being sly, or just flat out dishonest?Originally Posted by aceplace
Yes there is. It is common sociological knowledge that when a community has a massive increase in its population, things do not stay the same. For example, Frisco at 40,000 people was quite a different demographic and sociological environment than Frisco at 4,000 people. It made a transition from country town to upscale suburb.Originally Posted by Tucy
In making your projection into the future, you assume that the future will be similar to the past. That is invalid when trying to predict the stock market, and equally invalid when trying to predict urban social and population trends.
Your analysis of the Chicago census tracts was interesting, but once again, your numeric averages obscure the information about the demographic subgroups, the land usage patterns, etc , of the areas you studied. You claim they are demographically similar, but why should we believe that?
From what I know, the area north of the Chicago Loop is not that similar to downtown Dallas south of Pacific. The existence of high rise buildings is not sufficient to show similarity. Your comparison assumes the areas are similar, but you have no proof that they are.
Last edited by aceplace; 11 August 2007 at 01:05 AM.
Tucy is a devoted Houstonian.
And he despises Dallas.
He loves his city, and that's cool. Gotta respect that.
I just don't understand why a devoted Houstonian would even bother posting on a Dallas board. I mean, you have 2,200,000, and we only have 1,200,000. Why even bother?
Seems very strange, and very AGGY to me.
By the way, how is AGGY going to do this seaon Tucy?
It's off-topic, but would you mind giving us a season prediction for your favorite team?
It may be tempting to peg Tucy as someone who is trying to rain on the parade of the !!GO Dallas!! Pep Squad, but I believe this:
Low vacancy rate is probably adding to what may seem an abnormally high household size, most of the existing dwellings in the CBD are occupied.Originally Posted by Tucy
Last edited by tamtagon; 11 August 2007 at 02:51 AM.
Tucy doesn't need to be "pegged" as anything.
He's from Houston. That's a fact.
And every post he makes on here has an agenda.
And trust me. It's anything BUT pro Dallas. He despises Dallas.
Your guesses at my residence and educational background are entertaining, but let's just say you should probably keep your day job and put your dreams of being a carnival mystic on hold. I am not a Houstonian. I do not despise Dallas and I am not an AGGY.Originally Posted by elmstreetdallas
The hostility to facts contrary to the booster "wisdom" on this board never ceases to amaze.
It doesn't matter how many times you type it. It doesn't even matter if you click your ruby slippers together when you type it. None of what you type is true. (Well, except I do confess to having an agenda of sorts... the pursuit of facts and a fair and objective discussion.)Originally Posted by elmstreetdallas
Yes, yes, yes. We all know that different areas of different cities may have different demographic subgroups, land use patterns, blah blah blah. But one can come up with a reasonable estimation of what to expect regarding an average occupancy per housing unit in a downtown urban setting is to look at the current situation (well, in this case, the 2000 situation) and project it into the future.Originally Posted by aceplace
Unless of course one has specific, well-founded reasons to expect some particular different circumstances will prevail, which neither you nor anyone else has even attempted to do.
Yes, the new development may, for some, mysterious and unspoken reason attract more people per unit than the pre-2000 housing stock did. But, with our present state of knowledge, it is every bit as likely that they will attract FEWER people per housing unit.
Another way to bolster the reasonable estimates is to look at roughly similarly situated census tracts in cities which have developed large high and mid-rise urban populations prior to the 2000 census. This is what I've done with the Chicago numbers. And here is another:
Census tracts 17.01 and 17.02 in downtown Denver:
Housing Units: 3733
Residents per housing unit: 1.08
Now, if you or anyone has any reasonable ideas of why we should expect a substantially higher average number of residents per unit in downtown Dallas than I have been able to find in other urban high-rise residential districts, and the historical averages in downtown Dallas itself, I'm all eyes. But the more I look at it, the more it seems highly unlikely that downtown Dallas will approach an average per unit north of 1.5.
You of course can believe whatever fantasies you like. Just be prepared for disappointment when the 2010 Census numbers come out.
Last edited by Tucy; 11 August 2007 at 08:47 AM.
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but I would like to point out some observations by an innocent bystander:
- History has a way of repeating itself, so the Chicago demographic data seems, to me, relevant. It also leads me to believe stats aren't going to swing one way or the other that quickly.
- Most construction in DT is indeed 1 bedroom, isn't it? Wouldn't that help ensure the occupancy rates would stay lower (say in the 1.2-1.3 range)?
- Statements like Frisco @ 40K was different than Frisco @ 4K are irrelevant because no demographic/statistical data was provided. It sounds logical, but no data was provided to explain WHY that statement rings true.
- Who cares where someone lives. If you want to debunk their assertions, use facts and examples to do so. Maybe this is my flaw... I'm an engineer. You know us pesky engineers.
- In the end, aren't we theorizing? When will census data come out? Let's make this interesting, have people put their theories and guestimates in writing. Then revisit this when the data comes out to see who was right or wrong.
Come on. Some of you all are now just sounding foolish. Someone (Tucy) brings an ounce of intelligence and statistical evidence to a discussion, and you guys crap all over it. If you disagree, get evidence to the contrary. You are making me embarrassed to associate myself with Dallas. Not every criticism (for god's sake, he wasn't even criticizing, just pointing out some facts) means that someone hates your city and has a huge agenda against it. Can you grow up, please, or stop posting on the grown-ups forum and wasting space? Some of us are looking for accurate information on topics we're interested in, but your allegations of twisted anti-Dallas allegiances do not quite fall into that category.
Times weighs down on you like an old, ambiguous dream. You keep on moving, trying to slip through it. But even if you go to the ends of the earth, you won't be able to escape it.
I'll grant you that it is reasonable, based on your previous assumptions, but on the other hand, is it realistic? The plain fact is that we just don't know.Originally Posted by Tucy
Your major weakness is your claim to be comparing equivalent neighborhoods. Are they really equivalent? How do we believe you? Another problem is your assumption that the demographic processes pre 2000 are equivalent to those after 2000. Again, that is an unproven hypothesis. Perhaps you are comparing a district with a lot of single room occupancy dwellings to an urban neighborhood of empty nesters, i.e., retired couples? Who knows.
Personally, I am also skeptical of a figure of 1.7, but for different reasons. As for your figure of 1.2, it is unwarranted, because your dependence on overall averages ignores the various dynamics that various subgroups can generate.
So what am I doing here? Trying to prove a point? No. I'm performing the essential act of the scientific method, I am critiquing your claims, and finding their flaws. If I do a good job, whatever survives will be better than what entered the process.
OK.Originally Posted by LH_Newbie
History may or may not repeat itself, but that does not mean that a particular Chicago neighborhood is similar to a specific Dallas neighborhood.- History has a way of repeating itself, so the Chicago demographic data seems, to me, relevant. It also leads me to believe stats aren't going to swing one way or the other that quickly.
We don't know that for a fact. We don't know the relative population of couples to singles, even if we knew the proportiion of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments.- Most construction in DT is indeed 1 bedroom, isn't it? Wouldn't that help ensure the occupancy rates would stay lower (say in the 1.2-1.3 range)?
The point is that size does matter. Frisco at 4,000 people was a country town, at 40,000, it was a suburb. When you increase the size of a system, you introduce problems due to size that were insignificant at the smaller size. You're an engineer, you should know.Statements like Frisco @ 40K was different than Frisco @ 4K are irrelevant because no demographic/statistical data was provided. It sounds logical, but no data was provided to explain WHY that statement rings true.
Facts and examples are not always necessary. You debunk a hypothesis by showing that it uses unproven assumptions, violates known laws and principles, is internally inconsistent, etc.- Who cares where someone lives. If you want to debunk their assertions, use facts and examples to do so. Maybe this is my flaw... I'm an engineer. You know us pesky engineers.
No, I haven't a clue how many people will live in downtown Dallas by the 2010 census. Heck, we don't even agree on the DEFINITION of downtown Dallas. And we sure do not have a way to predict how many units the economy, or individual developers, will grind out, or how fashion and public interest will affect the outcome.- In the end, aren't we theorizing? When will census data come out? Let's make this interesting, have people put their theories and guestimates in writing. Then revisit this when the data comes out to see who was right or wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)