New population estimates for 2018 have been released by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). The estimates differ from the annual census projections released last month ($), which date from July last year. OMF’s estimates are more current and look at population as of April this year.

The latest figures show Seattle topping 730,700 residents for the first time ever, growing 16,700 (2.34% growth) year-over-year, a considerably slower pace than the same timeframe a year prior of 26,900 (3.92% growth). It also happens to be slower than the July 2016-July 2017 period where the United States Census Bureau projected 17,500 new residents. However, if the overall trend continues, Seattle should be on pace to break 750,000 residents around this time next year.

Taking a wider lens, the state grew by 117,270 (1.60% growth) residents to 7,427,570. That rate was a little slower than the one-year period from April 2016 to April 2017 when the state added 126,000 (1.76% growth) residents. The data shows that growth in unincorporated areas–often rural areas–slowed significantly over the same period from 1.61% to 1.31% when cities only took a small step back in growth rates from 1.84% to 1.76%. However, counties like Pierce and Snohomish have major unincorporated pockets designated for urban-level growth and development. The data from the counties suggests most of the unincorporated growth is taking place within Urban Growth Areas as intended by the state’s Growth Management Act, rather than rural areas.

In comparing the three largest Puget Sound counties, King County continues to absorb much of the regional growth. The county drew a net increase of 36,500 (1.69% growth) residents to top 2,190,200 (about 29.5% of all state residents). The pace of growth was a bit slower than the prior one-year time period which added 48,600 (2.31% growth) residents.

Snohomish County followed further behind in the growth race. For the first time, the county crossed the 800,000 mark topping 805,120 by adding 15,720 (1.99% growth) residents. Incorporated cities just slightly edged out unincorporated areas by adding 7,965 residents compared to 7,755 new residents in unincorporated areas. This reverses a long-standing trend of the county’s unincorporated areas growing faster. Leading the way for this trend was Everett and Lynnwood, which added 1,400 (1.28% growth) and 1,310 (3.55% growth) respectively. The latter, Lynnwood, is particularly notable given that the city had been posting anemic population gains for years until the April 2016-April 2017 period when it grew by a meager 360 (0.98% growth) residents. The combination of extreme congestion and anticipation of light rail presumably are the primary causes for the burst of growth.

Pierce County was a bit more on auto-pilot with 12,820 (1.49% growth) additional residents, bringing the county total to 872,220. Tacoma saw the biggest population growth of any city in the county rising to 209,100, an increase of 1,000 (0.48% growth) residents. This is a new high watermark for the revitalizing “City of Destiny,” but the city lagged greatly behind the burgeoning suburbs compared to its peer city, Seattle. 

A notable nugget in the data set, too, is that King County posted essentially no change in growth for unincorporated areas (a minor increase of 180 residents was experienced), suggesting that land use planning policies are having a profound impact on directing residential growth away from rural, agricultural, and resource areas (the county has very little remaining urban unincorporated areas). In fact, it’s highly likely that rural areas of the county saw an overall decline in population while urban unincorporated areas like White Center and Fairwood grew. Past estimates in recent years have shown minor growth fluctuations and even heavy population losses for unincorporated areas as annexations have ramped up.

Collectively, the data shows that Washington and the Puget Sound is growing, but is the growth machine beginning to peter out? Other trends seem to point to a general slow down–and perhaps indicate we will soon hit the wall of an economic recession.

Blasting Past 700,000: Seattle Gained 20,847 People In One Year

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider supporting our work. The Urbanist is a non-profit that depends on donations from readers like you.

1 COMMENT

  1. Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.

    >> The combination of extreme congestion and anticipation of light rail presumably are the primary causes for the burst of growth [in Lynnwood].

    I really doubt that. Places like Kent and Renton grew by roughly the same amount. I think it is just a matter or land use policy and lower prices. Seattle has limited the amount of land available for growth, which has increased the cost of housing in the Seattle area, which has lead to more growth opportunities outside it. Shoreline, for example, will have better transit much sooner than Lynnwood, but has experienced less growth.

    Anyway, the big takeaway is still that Seattle is growing much faster than everyone else. Part of that is simply because it is a big city (there is more land). But even if you account for that, the city is growing much faster. It is tough to verify this, because the data is in such an weird format. I can’t find any way to copy it to Excel (if someone knows I would appreciate it) so that means all the math involves manually typing in numbers. But still, I think it is clear when you look at some of the places. Look at the cities in the Puget Sound area that grew by more than 1,000 people (rounded to nearest hundred):

    Auburn: 1,600
    Bellevue: 1,700
    Burien: 1,200
    Federal Way: 1,100
    Issaquah: 1,100
    Kent: 1,900
    Kirkland: 1,200
    Newcastle: 1,100
    Renton 1,900
    Seattle: 16,700
    Tacoma: 1,000
    Everett: 1,300
    Lynnwood: 1,300
    Marysville: 1,100

    Seattle has about half the growth, yet clearly has way less than half the area of all those cities. For all of our flaws in zoning, we are growing much faster (per area) than anywhere else in the state. That is remarkable, and likely due to the combination of high employment in the city as well as the desire to move in the city itself.

    Growth per area is really the most important metric. That compensates for the fact that some areas are bigger than others (by land area) while ignoring how many people used to live there. Percentage growth is interesting from an historic standpoint, but it favors areas that had few people to begin with (a tiny town might see a 10% increase in population just because someone new moved into town).

Comments are closed.