Sugar Land Sociodemographic Analysis

Over the past decade, the city of Sugar Land has undergone significant population growth and witnessed changes in the housing market, while major development projects similar to Town Center (completed early 2000s) and Smart Financial Centre (completed 2017) have remained absent. Looking ahead to the future of Sugar Land, it is imperative to implement changes to housing and community infrastructure to enhance the city's sustainability. This comprehensive demographic analysis highlights the need for Sugar Land to address the challenges posed by the recent stagnant population and development growth. To tackle these issues, the city should explore policies to support housing, transportation, and mobility needs of all generational cohorts. By creating new multi-use communities, Sugar Land can attract younger generations, who are currently being overshadowed by population growth, and foster community-oriented connections that benefit various market segments and commuting patterns.

1. The population of individuals over 65 in Sugar Land is increasing at a rate that is seven times faster than that of individuals under 18.
2. The median home price in Sugar Land for 2021 is approximately $100,000 higher than the surrounding areas.
3. According to ACS data, projections for the Sugar Land housing market indicate that owner-occupied units will stabilize with no growth between 2025 and 2026, while renter-occupied units will continue to grow rapidly.
4. A slight increase in home mortgage applications has occurred since the pandemic, but the recovery is still slow and uncertain.
5. Compared to other areas in Fort Bend County, such as Richmond and Rosenberg, Sugar Land is less affordable for young families.

This analysis is based on the following data sources:

• 2022 ESRI Demographics
• ESRI Community Analyst
• U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2022 Population Estimates
• American Community Survey 1 and 5-Year Estimates Table B1003 and Texas Demographic Center Population Estimates
• American Community Survey 5-Tear Estimates Race and Ethnicity
• Simply Analytics
• Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

Note: Some sources are routinely updated by the U.S. Census, Simply Analytics, or ESRI.

Projections beyond the year 2022 were estimated by extrapolating existing trends from the 2010 Census and 2021 5-year ACS data. Trends are less certain when projecting beyond three years.

A demographic profile refers to its population's composition and characteristics, including various demographic factors that provide insights into the social, economic, and cultural makeup of the city's residents.

When comparing Sugar Land to the rest of Fort Bend County and the state of Texas, Sugar Land's population is more educated regarding those with Bachelor's degrees or higher and has a larger white-collar population. In addition, Sugar Land's median age is significantly higher than that of Fort Bend County and Texas. Sugar Land's residents are also wealthier than residents of Fort Bend County and the state when exploring the median disposable income, median household income, per capita income, and median net worth.

The term at risk population typically refers to a group of residents more vulnerable or susceptible to certain risks or challenges. The at risk profiles include information on age, poverty, languages, affordability, and diversity.

The following are important definitions for the at risk population analysis:

Wealth Index: The wealth index represents a scale of an area's wealth relative to the national level. An index of 100 represents wealth on par with the national average. An area with a wealth index below 100 has lower-than-average wealth, while an index above 100 identifies areas with above-average wealth.

Housing Affordability: When an area's HAI is greater than 100, the median income is sufficient to purchase a median-valued home. When the HAI is lower than 100, the median income is not sufficient to purchase a median-valued home.

Diversity Index: The Diversity Index is a continuum that ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity), where an area's index tends toward 100 when the population is more evenly divided across race and ethnic groups.

When looking at Sugar Land's at risk population, 17 percent of households have members with disabilities, which is more than that of Fort Bend County (15 percent) and less than the state as a whole (23 percent). In addition, Sugar Land has a larger senior population (16 percent) compared to Fort Bend County (11 percent) and Texas (14 percent). Overall, Sugar Land's population is very diverse with 54 percent of the population speaking only English, while 56 percent also speak additional languages. In Sugar Land, 6 percent of the population speaks Spanish, 15 percent speaks an Indo-European language, 18 percent speaks an Asian-Pacific Island language, and 2 percent speak other languages not mentioned here.

Sugar Land's wealth index is much higher than the national average and compared to that of Fort Bend County and Texas. Moreover, when looking at the housing affordability index (HAI), Sugar Land is very affordable for its own residents; however, this does not mean that Sugar Land is more affordable for new residents trying to move to the city, as indicated by the high median home value. Sugar Land also has a small percentage of its residents living below the poverty level. Lastly, Sugar Land's population is very diverse. The diversity index of 75 translates to a probability of 75 percent that two people randomly chosen from the Sugar Land population would belong to different racial or ethnic groups. However, Sugar Land has a lower diversity index compared to Fort Bend County and the state as a whole.

The following are policy suggestions the city of Sugar Land can implement to help support at risk populations:

1. Through creating affordable housing programs and initiatives, Sugar Land can ensure that its residents, particularly low income residents, have access to safe and stable housing. For example, rent control and developing affordable housing units can help at risk populations.
2. Improving healthcare services aids at risk populations. Establishing community clinics and increasing mobile healthcare units can help those with disabilities, senior populations, and low-income individuals. For aging populations, transportation assistance, home care, and social activities support elderly and disabled individuals in maintaining their independence and quality of life.
3. Sugar Land can offer job training along with education and skill development at community centers in order to assist at risk populations in achieving their goals, becoming self-sufficient, and through economic prosperity.
4. Additionally, due to Sugar Land's diverse population, the city can provide language and cultural services by implementing programs to serve immigrant and minority populations more effectively.
5. Collaborating with local nonprofits and community organizations can help raise awareness of additional challenges at risk populations throughout the city face and create opportunities for community building and strengthening.

In order to get a grasp on Sugar Land's future trends, it's important to understand where the population growth is coming from in both the State and County. According to data from 2021, Texas had a fertility rate of 60.7 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44, which is lower than the rate of 77.4 seen in 2005. Over the past few decades, Fort Bend County has consistently attracted new residents, but the growth rate shows mixed patterns in terms of domestic and international migration. Between 2008-2012 and 2012-2016, the growth rate among those moving from a different county in Texas to Fort Bend was 13%, which then increased to 18% between 2012-2016 and 2016-2020. However, during the same periods, the out-migration from Fort Bend to other counties in Texas increased from 17% to 21%. The growth rate among those moving from different states increased by 40% between 2008-2012 and 2012-2016, but only increased by 5% between 2012-2016 and 2016-2020. The growth rate among those moving to different states increased from 2% to 13% between 2012-2016 and 2016-2020. Finally, international migration saw an increase of 85% between 2008-2012 and 2012-2016, but then declined by -2% between 2012-2016 and 2016-2020.

Three years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, population growth patterns are returning to pre-pandemic rates. Many of the impacts experienced are either reverting to near pre-pandemic levels or fully recovering. Notably, five of the top ten counties in the country with the highest population gain between 2021 and 2022 are in Texas, with Fort Bend County ranking 7th.

Between 2020 and 2021, Fort Bend County gained 37,345 people (4%), while between 2021 and 2022, it gained an additional 29,022 people (3%). In comparison, Harris County, which ranked second among Texas counties in terms of population gain, only grew by 1% between 2021 and 2022. Collin, Denton, Bexar, and Montgomery counties also experienced growth, averaging 3% between 2021 and 2022.

The percentage growth between 2020 and 2022 was particularly high in Texas and Florida. In Texas, Montgomery County grew by 9 percentage points, followed by Collin County and Polk County. Fort Bend County grew by 7 percentage points, while Harris County grew by 1 percentage point.

The implications of the post-pandemic population growth at the State-level in general and Fort Bend County, in particular, represent challenges and opportunities. The economic impact can lead to increased labor force participation and potentially stimulate growth if the economy can absorb the labor supply. Population growth in Fort Bend County can also increase the demand for infrastructure and services such as water, energy, transportation, housing, sanitation, fire/EMS, police, and communications while increasing the need to reduce the population's contribution to carbon emissions, which can exacerbate climate change. Moreover, the county's population growth can strain healthcare and school districts' service capacity, potentially resulting in disparities in health outcomes and educational opportunities.

Population growth can vary significantly depending on a number of factors such as the rate of growth, geographic location, economic development, technological advancements, and government policies. Managing and addressing the implications of population growth requires careful and out-of-the-box planning, sustainable development strategies, and cooperation among municipalities.

Below is the historic and projected population growth for Sugar Land, Richmond, Rosenberg, Missouri City, Pearland, and Houston. Overall, Sugar Land's annual growth rate is declining while a majority of its surrounding cities increase, although some are at modest rates.

Sugar Land maintains consistent racial and ethnic composition, making it one of Texas' most diverse cities. Demographics from 2010 to 2021 and projections for 2026 show no significant changes. However, the Hispanic and non-Hispanic white populations are expected to grow between 2021 and 2026. Certain areas like Telfair, where the Asian population represents over one-third of the total population, may experience a more than-average decline due to changes in household composition, such as college-aged individuals moving away.

Various factors, including population density, school-district quality, transportation linkages, shopping and service accessibility, and distance to major employers, influence the housing market. As a crucial element in every community, housing must adapt to changing demographics and lifestyles, creating new opportunities for different residential segments and housing categories. However, with limited land available for development within the city limits, there is a need to develop creative and attractive strategies to increase population density and provide a range of housing options that meet the community's diverse needs. This challenge presents an exciting opportunity to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the community, leading to a more vibrant and desirable economy.

This section focuses on the historical change of the housing stock based in Fort Bend County. According to the U.S. Census, a housing unit is a house, apartment, mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters, which are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall.

Table: B25001 ( https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/HSG010221) 

The U.S. Census, through the American Community Survey, estimates the number of occupied housing units (Table B25002). The U.S. Census classifies a housing unit as occupied if it's where the people live during the interview or if they're briefly away for up to two months, like for a vacation or business trip. If everyone in the unit during the interview is staying for two months or less, the housing unit is labeled as vacant.

The following maps display values above and below the mean or average for the total occupied housing units at the Census block group level in Fort Bend, as defined by the U.S. Census. Blue upward arrows indicate block groups with values above the average, while red downward arrows indicate block groups with values below the mean for occupied housing units at the block level.

Housing tenure is a financial arrangement and ownership structure under which someone has the right to live in a housing unit. The U.S. Census classifies tenure into two categories: owner-occupied, in which the occupant owns their own home, and renter-occupied, in which rent is paid by the occupant to a landlord (see Table B25003 U.S. Census)

Based on housing tenure data, it appears that over the next three years, most growth in owner-occupied housing units will occur in areas outside of Sugar Land as development expands outward toward Richmond, Rosenberg, Needville, Fairchilds, and Pleak.

It is projected that between 2020 and 2026, there will be a significant increase in the number of renter-occupied units; this growth may be attributable mainly due to current and future home prices that make homeownership less attainable or affordable; as a consequence, potential home buyers may encounter difficulties saving for a down payment or qualifying for a mortgage. Furthermore, the growing demand for rental properties could increase rent, impacting residents' overall cost of living and creating a less stable housing market that affects the economic viability of the city, property values, and investment opportunities. From a planning perspective, the trend of renter vs. owner-occupied units across the County can influence public policy decisions, particularly those related to housing affordability, and the supply of rental housing, which includes public, affordable, and market housing, is a crucial consideration in housing policy discussions.

When comparing the median home value in Sugar Land to its surrounding cities from 2010 to 2021, Sugar Land's median home value is significantly higher and continues to increase. For example, although median home values in Missouri City and Houston increased at higher rates from 2020 to 2021, the median home value in Sugar Land in 2021 was still about $100,000 higher than that of Missouri City, Pearland, and Houston. As a result of Sugar Land's high median home values, young families and young adults looking to move to Houston and cities outside of the loop will gravitate more toward Richmond and Rosenberg, as housing in those areas is much more affordable.

Analysis of loan application records from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act between 2018 and 2021 in Fort Bend and Harris Counties offers a glimpse of the age distribution of recent loan mortgage applications.

The age makeup of loan applications between Fort Bend and Harris counties show similar patterns; however, a notable difference is that Harris County seems to attract younger people below 45 years of age than Fort Bend County. 50% of loan applications in Harris County are from individuals below 45 years of age, while in Fort Bend County, loan applications from people under 45 years represent 46%. Fort Bend County, in comparison, has a slight advantage in loan applications from people between 35-44 years of age than Harris County, 30% vs. 27%, respectively.

Homebuying activity took a significant hit in 2020, as loan applications for home purchases plunged by 33 percentage points while refinancing applications skyrocketed by 137 percentage points. This shift in demand can be attributed to the pandemic-induced economic uncertainty and the ultra-low mortgage rates that spurred homeowners to refinance. Although there has been a slight uptick of 7 percentage points in home purchase applications, the latest data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act indicates that the recovery is still slow and uncertain.

The goal of conducting a suitability analysis is to pinpoint optimal living areas for a target population. The analysis is based on specific criteria that are individually weighted according to pre-defined characteristics of the target population. To determine the suitability of each area, the calculated score for each criterion is expressed as a percentage difference between the value of the site and the chosen target value. Below, we focus on five scenarios: housing affordability, young professionals with small children, three generational homes, empty nesters, and retired downsizers.

Methods: We provide specific findings for each city by using the natural breaks classification method (Jenks). This method groups similar block-group values to maximize the differences between classes and within cities. We present each scenario for Fort Bend County to allow for easier comparisons between cities.

The index considers the inverse of median household income and median home value, along with the percent of an individual's income spent on their mortgage, and ranges from 0 to 1. First, the percent of income spent on the mortgage is placed at the ideal point of 28%, which is the national average. Next, by using the inverse of variables, this indicates that a lower value of the variable is more suitable in the analysis. For example, a lower median home value is more affordable than a high median home value. A value closer to zero suggests less affordable areas, while a value closer to one suggests more affordable areas.

The index is composed of the percent of the population that is a millennial (born 1981-1998), the percent of the population that is 25+ with a bachelor's degree, the percent of the population that is 0-4 years old, and the housing affordability index. A value closer to zero suggests less suitable areas, while a value closer to one suggests more suitable areas.

This index includes the percent of the population that is 65-69 years old, the percent of the population that is 30-34 years old, and the percent of the population that is 0-4 years old living in a particular area. Here, we utilize 0-4 year olds for the third generation as the national median average to give birth is 30 years old. Due to data availability, we cannot estimate that all three of these groups exist in one household; however, we can show the areas where three generations have a higher probability of living together. With this index, a value closer to zero suggests less suitable areas, while a value closer to one suggests more suitable areas.

The index includes the percent of the population living in a family (inverse), the percent of the population that is Generation X (born 1965-1980), the percent of owner-occupied housing units within the area, and the percent of adults that have their first home mortgage in the area (inverse). By using the inverse of variables, this indicates that a lower value of the variable is more suitable in the analysis. For example, in this scenario, we are interested in the percentage of the population not living in a family (i.e., with children) and the percent of adults who do not have their first home mortgage. A value closer to zero suggests less suitable areas, while a value closer to one suggests more suitable areas.

This index considers the percent of the population over 65 years old, the percent of the population stating that it is very likely they will retire in the next 12 months, and the percent of owner-occupied housing units within the area. A value closer to zero suggests less suitable areas, while a value closer to one suggests more suitable areas.

As observed earlier in the Population section, the population of Sugar Land has experienced a decline in recent years, so it is necessary to inject the housing market with new dynamic policies. It is noteworthy that the population growth rate varies across different age groups within the city. Based on projected annual growth rates from 2022 to 2027, the older and middle-aged segments of the population are anticipated to continue increasing, while the youngest generation is expected to experience a decline in their growth rate. More specifically, individuals born between 1965 and 1981 and those born between 1981 and 1996 are projected to exhibit growth. Conversely, the age group born between 1997 and 2013 is predicted to decline. Overall, Sugar Land has a population that is much older and will continue to be much older than its surrounding cities, such as Richmond, Rosenberg, and Houston.

When taking a closer look at age group trends in Sugar Land, the population of individuals over 65 in Sugar Land is increasing at a rate that is seven times faster than that of individuals under 18. There are several negative implications for a rapidly growing senior population. First, growing elderly populations can strain Sugar Land's resources, especially regarding healthcare and social services. In addition, due to increases in the senior population, these individuals may need additional housing options to cater to their needs, such as accessible housing or retirement communities. With the dependency ratio increasing, additional pressure will be placed on the working-age population to support the needs of the senior population. Lastly, a declining under 18 population can lead to worker shortages, impacting economic productivity and growth.

Given the older composition of the city's population and the limited projected growth, Sugar Land's median household income and the number of owner-occupied housing units, based on the projections are expected to increase over the next five years. The projected annual growth of the population, however, for the next five years seems to be half of what the city experienced in the last decade.

As Sugar Land's population changes over the next couple of years, it is important to understand more about the people who live here and how that might change in the future. It is not just about understanding the people themselves but also how they connect with their surrounding areas, particularly Houston, where many of Sugar Land's residents work. This connection creates unique travel patterns that show how Sugar Land and Houston are linked while also emphasizing limited opportunities for Sugar Land's residents to develop employment-related communities. In the next section, we dive into these patterns and explore how Sugar Land and its surroundings are linked through daily commutes.

When examining the commuting patterns of Sugar Land's residents, it becomes apparent that over 50 percent commute more than 30 minutes to reach their workplaces. Notably, 75.9 percent of residents drive alone during these lengthy commutes. By developing communities that embrace mixed-use zoning, opportunities for building relationships among residents can be fostered, leading to improved carpooling options for commuting to jobs within the Houston city limits.

Although residents make practical choices concerning commuting to work in surrounding cities, it can have far-reaching negative effects on Sugar Land's own community. When people spend a significant portion of their day in another city, it leaves fewer opportunities for them to actively participate in local activities, events, and gatherings. This can weaken the sense of community, as the strong bonds that form through shared experiences and connections become harder to cultivate. To counteract these challenges, fostering local job opportunities is critical. By promoting businesses and industries right here in Sugar Land, we not only reduce the need for long commutes but also create a more vibrant local economy. This approach encourages residents to engage with their surroundings, participate in community initiatives, and build lasting connections, ultimately strengthening the bonds that make Sugar Land a distinct and prosperous place to call home.

Claritas PRIZM® Premier utilizes urbanicity class and affluence as key variables to create its segmentation classifying segments into four urbanicity class categories based on population density.

• Second City is a prominent consumer group composed of affluent families residing in satellite cities or higher-density suburbs surrounding major metropolitan centers, typically with far greater affluence than their smaller cities. This group comprises homeowners holding executive positions and living in spacious homes. They exhibit high purchasing power in various sectors, such as digital and wireless technology, business and cultural media, upscale retail, casual-dining restaurants, luxury cars, and international travel.
• Suburban centers are not the central population hubs of their surrounding communities. Their residents' lifestyle and commuting patterns are more closely connected to Urban or Second City areas. From a consumer perspective, suburbs are characterized by six-figure incomes, postgraduate degrees, single-family homes, and managerial and professional occupations.
• Urban centers are characterized by high population density. Urban cores might extend beyond city limits, often encompassing the earliest suburban areas. Regarding consumer consumption, urban centers consist of affluent urban consumers, typically without children and engaging in the arts, shopping at exclusive retailers, driving luxury imported cars, traveling internationally, and investing in computer and wireless technology.
• Town Centers encompass exurbs, towns, farming communities, and other rural areas. The town component of this category includes numerous small towns and villages, as well as low-density regions located far beyond the outer beltways and suburban rings of major metropolitan areas in America.

A comparison of the market segments in Sugar Land, Richmond, and Rosenberg reveals the unique characteristics of each city in terms of urbanicity and affluence. The Sugar Land market is predominantly suburban, with slightly over a quarter of households belonging to the second city category, while only a small percentage falls under urban centers. In contrast, the Richmond market consists mainly of second-city households, with nearly a third being part of suburban centers, and a small percentage residing in the town and rural segment. As for the Rosenberg market, it is primarily composed of second-city households, followed by town and rural households, with a small proportion belonging to suburban market segments.

Projections for 2026 and 2027 suggest no significant changes in terms of urbanicity and affluence between these cities given that there are no substantial changes in terms of population density, which is driven by economic opportunities that attract new industries and employers, housing availability and costs, land use planning (e.g., single vs. mixed-used zoning) and transportation and mobility infrastructure.

The following policy recommendations seek to respond to the challenges and opportunities facing the City of Sugar Land: slow housing and commercial developments due to land availability, increased aging population, transportation, and mobility.

1. To encourage the retention of younger residents and attract new ones, it is essential to carefully consider housing and development opportunities that cater to their specific needs maximizing to the possible extent "15-minute communities" in which residents can access most of their daily needs within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from their homes.
2. Long commuting times underscore the potential advantages of mixed-use zoning communities, as they can effectively reduce the need for excessive driving beyond daily work commutes. The presence of essential amenities like grocery stores, shopping centers, and recreational spaces in close proximity to residential areas significantly diminishes the reliance on cars for various needs.
3. Given the aging population, exploring the potential benefits of allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an alternative living arrangement is crucial, especially considering the limited availability and costs of assisted living facilities.
4. With the expansion of sister cities like Richmond and Rosenberg, Sugar Land may experience increased traffic and reduced mobility due to more land availability for development purposes, potentially turning it into a pass-by city. To maintain the city's livability, it is crucial to implement new transportation and mobility options and expand vital access roads, including US-90.
5. To gain a deeper understanding of the demographic challenges that lie ahead and the implications for the future of Sugar Land, we recommend conducting a public opinion poll among potential residents. This will aid in understanding the patterns highlighted in this analysis and help facilitate the evidence-based design, implementation, and monitoring of effective public policies for Sugar Land.