Population boom

Dallas-Fort Worth could be biggest metro in U.S. by year 2100, new report says

Everyone wants to live here.

joe daniel price/Getty Images

Start spreading the news: Dallas-Fort Worth will eclipse New York City as the biggest metro area by the year 2100, a new report predicts.

An analysis by moving services site moveBuddha published June 22 says the Metroplex's population could swell to 33.91 million people in the next 77 years.

Based on current population and migration trends, in fact, America’s three biggest metropolitan areas by 2100 will be DFW (No. 1), Houston (No. 2), and Austin (No. 3), replacing New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago as the country’s most populous metros, the report predicts.

Houston's population is estimated to grow to 31.38 million, and Austin's is projected to jump to 22.29 million.

"The future of America may lie in Texas," the report's author says.

The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau says Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington is currently the fourth biggest metro in the country with a population of just under 7 million and a 10-year growth rate of about 20 percent.

DFW had the highest numeric increase in population between 2021 and 2022 of any U.S. metro (170,396 residents), followed by the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land (124,281 residents), according to the Census Bureau.

There are some risks to continued population booms, including the effects of climate change, moveBuddha points out.

"[Dallas-Fort Worth] would experience more than 130 days of 95-degree temps by 2100," the report's author says. "Water scarcity could also be an issue. But like Atlanta, landlocked [DFW] could become a top destination for people fleeing the flooding coastlines from sea level rise."

The study also comes with an obvious caveat: no one is sure what the future looks like in terms of population growth. Academics, scientists, and futurists alike haven't been able to agree on population predictions. Climate change isn't just a risk for DFW, but for the entire world, the report reminds.

"According to one GDP projection through 2099, over three-quarters of U.S. counties will suffer economically because of climate damage," the report says. "That could be from everything from heat-related deaths to sea-level rise to increased natural disasters... But if global warming is held in check, Texas may be America’s haven in 2100. New technologies may help us adapt to extreme weather and heat."

According to the report, the top 10 largest metros and their populations by 2100 will be:

No. 1 – Dallas-Fort Worth (33,907,275)
No. 2 – Houston (31,384,122)
No. 3 – Austin (22,293,980)
No. 4 – Phoenix (22,271,212)
No. 5 – New York City (20,810,467)
No. 6 – Atlanta (18,370,497)
No. 7 – Los Angeles (15,502,798)
No. 8 – Washington-Arlington, D.C.-Virginia (14,972,830)
No. 9 – Orlando (14,172,727)
No. 10 – Miami (13,779,843)

These projections were calculated using census data from 2010 and 2020, using annual compound and 10-year population growth rates for U.S. metro areas with over 250,000 people. The study then hypothesized the annual compound growth rates between 2020 and 2100 to find 2100's estimated population numbers for the same cities.

The full report and its methodology can be found on movebuddha.com.

dallas fort worth population growth census bureau reports

list news

Texas ranks among worst states to have a baby, new report says

Photo by Camylla Battani on Unsplash

The best places to have a baby are in the Midwest and the Northeast, not the South, according to the report.

Texas might be a family friendly state, but it certainly isn't baby friendly, according to a new WalletHub study.

Texas earned a dismal rank as No. 45 in WalletHub's 2026 report "Best and Worst States to Have a Baby," which compared all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on 31 "baby friendliness" metrics, such as affordability, health care accessibility, infant care costs, and others.

The top five best states to have a baby, in order, are: Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.

Texas ranked 7th worst overall in the U.S. because of how expensive it is to have a child in the state, and because of its low prevalence of healthcare professionals for mothers and children relative to other states.

Across the four main categories in the report, Texas landed 47th nationally for its medical costs, 42nd in healthcare quality, and its baby- and family-friendliness both ranked 34th best in the country.

WalletHub says the average cost for a conventional delivery in the U.S. comes out to more than $15,700, and families with health insurance have an average out-of-pocket cost of about $2,600. The report doesn't break down state-by-state charges, but it ranked Texas 35th and 36th respectively in the national comparisons of states with the lowest costs for hospital cesarean and conventional deliveries.

The cost of childcare is another factor bringing down the state's overall performance, as WalletHub says Texas has the 23rd "best" annual cost of early childcare on average.

Here's how the report broke down the rest of Texas' ranking:

No. 27 – Parental leave policy score
No. 27 – Infant mortality rate
No. 28 – Rate of low-birth weight
No. 44 – Midwives and OB-GYNs per capita
No. 36 – Pediatricians and family medicine physicians per capita
No. 33 – Childcare centers per capita

According to WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo, expecting families should consider living in the states that "minimize costs while providing top-notch care for both newborns and their mothers."

"[The best states] also continue to be good environments for parents even long after the birth, with high-quality pediatric care, affordable and accessible child care, and a strong economic environment that makes providing for a child easier,” Lupo said.

Mississippi (No. 51), Alabama (No. 50), Florida (No. 49), New Mexico (No. 48), Nevada (No. 47), and South Carolina (No. 46) all join Texas at the bottom of the list as the worst states to have a baby.

wallethub texas reports families