Kingsport After COVID

I still remember the mood at Kingsport’s 1999 Economic Summit. Beneath the optimism, there was a persistent worry: we were aging, and some feared the city would slowly become a retirement community—comfortable, yes, but eventually aging out into economic drift. That kind of concern is easy to feel in real time, especially when the loudest signals are anecdotal: a business closes, a neighborhood changes, a school enrollment flattens, and suddenly “decline” feels like the only storyline.

That’s exactly why cities have to measure direction with data, not emotion. Moods aren’t metrics. Slogans aren’t trendlines. Each January, the American Community Survey (ACS) gives us an updated rolling snapshot—the closest thing we have to a “mini-Census” between decennial counts. It isn’t perfect, but it is consistent, comparable, and immensely useful as a compass. And the newly released 2024 five-year estimates—stacked against 2019—say something clear: Kingsport didn’t boom or bust after COVID. It rebalanced—and strengthened.

Start with the basics. Kingsport added nearly 3,000 residents and a five percent growth in five years, roughly the size of Blountville’s entire population. Housing units rose at almost the same pace. That balance matters. Growth didn’t outrun capacity. Instead, Kingsport absorbed change the way healthy communities do: steadily, quietly, and without disruption.

The age structure is where the story gets interesting. Kingsport actually got slightly younger: median age fell by about a year and a half—an uncommon outcome for many mid-sized Appalachian cities without a university magnet. The largest gains came from Millennials, especially ages 35 to 44—prime “work, school, community” years. Gen Z grew too, with noticeable increases among teens and young adults in their early twenties. This isn’t a demographic footnote; it’s the age band that fills classrooms, coaches teams, joins civic groups, and strengthens the long-term pipeline of local investment and leadership.

At the same time, Kingsport continued to age in a predictable way. Baby Boomers in their late 60s and early 70s increased, and the 75–84 cohort grew as well. What declined was the oldest group—85+—largely reflecting natural aging rather than people leaving. The result is not “young city versus old city.” It’s a community that is both older and younger at once: fewer at the extreme top end, more in the middle, and a stronger base of younger adults than the 1999 anxieties ever anticipated.

You can see that shift in civic life as well. Kingsport’s voting-age population increased, and the growth leaned slightly more male than female—still female-majority, but a bit less so. The adult citizen population also rose. In practical terms, Kingsport’s electorate is growing and gradually diversifying by age and life stage.

Other changes are quieter but important. Kingsport remains predominantly White, yet diversity increased—especially among residents identifying as two or more races, along with strong growth in the Hispanic/Latino population. The foreign-born share is still small, but it grew, and the number of non-citizens rose faster—too small to redefine the city, but enough to matter for employers, schools, and how we welcome new neighbors.

Households are evolving, too. The share of adults who are single and never married rose noticeably. That’s not a moral verdict; it’s a planning reality. Why do you think so many condos with one-car garages are popping up around town? It means more demand for smaller, attainable housing—and more importance placed on public spaces and amenities that work for singles, young families, and older residents alike.

So, back to that 1999 fear: Kingsport would age into decline. The data says that’s not what happened. Kingsport grew about 5% over the past five years—roughly 1% a year. If you believe, as many planners do, that a healthy local economy typically needs 5%–10% growth per decade to keep its workforce, housing market, tax base, and services in balance, then we’re landing right where you’d hope to land: not overheated, but steady. And the direction is encouraging: younger, more educated, more diverse, and more varied in household makeup. These aren’t headline-grabbing changes, but they’re lasting ones—and if we keep using data as our compass while making practical choices that widen opportunity and keep growth manageable, Kingsport’s future can be even brighter.

JUST THE BULLET POINTS:

Scale: Kingsport added people and housing at a moderate pace

Population

53,376 → 56,262 (+2,886, +5.4%)

Housing units

26,532 → 27,842 (+1,310, +4.9%)

Core takeaway: Kingsport didn’t just “shuffle” internally—there’s real net growth in both residents and rooftops over the period.

Age: the city got a bit younger in the middle, even as seniors grew

Median age

44.5 → 43.0 (–1.5 years)

Core takeaway: A falling median age over this period is notable: it implies the “center” of the population distribution shifted younger.

Biggest gains by age cohort (counts)

35–44: 5,815 → 6,857 (+1,042, +17.9%)
20–24: 2,724 → 3,397 (+673, +24.7%)
75–84: 3,953 → 4,554 (+601, +15.2%)
15–19: 2,787 → 3,359 (+572, +20.5%)
65–74: 6,764 → 7,231 (+467, +6.9%)

Biggest shifts in share of total population (percentage-point change)

35–44: 10.89% → 12.19% (+1.29 pp)
20–24: 5.10% → 6.04% (+0.93 pp)
15–19: 5.22% → 5.97% (+0.75 pp)
75–84: 7.41% → 8.09% (+0.69 pp)

Where Kingsport thinned out (counts)

85+: 1,712 → 1,347 (–365, –21.3%)
55–59: 3,289 → 3,028 (–261, –7.9%)
60–64: 3,916 → 3,603 (–313, –8.0%)

Interpretation (grounded in the numbers):

Kingsport added seniors (especially 65–84) and added noticeably in late teens, early 20s, and 35–44.
The decline in 85+ alongside growth in 75–84 is consistent with cohort aging + mortality effects (and sometimes late-life relocation for care).
The strong growth in 35–44 is one of the clearest “post-COVID era” compositional shifts.
Kids & working-age markers: under-18 grew, and the “prime adult” base grew
Under 18: 10,808 → 11,598 (+790, +7.3%)
18+: 42,568 → 44,664 (+2,096, +4.9%)

This is important: Kingsport’s growth was not exclusively older adults.

Sex composition: overall still more women than men, but senior men increased sharply

Total

Male: 24,939 → 26,050 (+1,111, +4.5%)
Female: 28,437 → 30,212 (+1,775, +6.2%)
Sex ratio (males per 100 females): 87.7 → 86.2 (slightly fewer males per female overall)

65+ (this is where the real shift is)

65+ male: 4,983 → 5,786 (+803, +16.1%)
65+ female: 7,446 → 7,346 (–100, –1.3%)
65+ sex ratio: 66.9 → 78.8 (a large move toward more men among seniors)

Interpretation: The senior population became more male-heavy—driven by a big rise in 65+ men in the estimates.

Race: still predominantly White, but meaningfully more multiracial + Hispanic growth

Race shares (of total population)

White: 48,671 → 50,741 (+2,070)
- Share: 91.19% → 90.19% (–1.00 pp)
Black or African American: 1,889 → 1,512 (–377)
- Share: 3.54% → 2.69% (–0.85 pp)
Two or more races: 1,674 → 2,921 (+1,247, +74.5%)
- Share: 3.14% → 5.19% (+2.06 pp) ← largest compositional shift
Some other race: 267 → 402 (+135, +50.6%)
- Share: 0.50% → 0.71% (+0.21 pp)

Smaller categories:

Asian: 636 → 575 (–61)
American Indian/Alaska Native: 72 → 33 (–39)

Hispanic/Latino origin (of any race)

1,154 → 2,049 (+895, +77.6%)
Share of total: 2.16% → 3.64% (+1.48 pp)

White alone, not Hispanic/Latino

47,629 → 49,536 (+1,907)
Share: 89.23% → 88.05% (–1.19 pp)

Interpretation:

The strongest “diversification” signal is growth in multiracial identification and Hispanic/Latino origin.
Even though the White count increased, its share fell slightly because other groups grew faster.

Nativity & citizenship: the foreign-born population grew, and the “not a citizen” count rose sharply

Foreign born: 1,284 → 1,567 (+283, +22.0%)

Share: 2.41% → 2.79% (+0.38 pp)

Not a U.S. citizen: 564 → 889 (+325, +57.6%)

Share: 1.06% → 1.58% (+0.52 pp)

Naturalized U.S. citizen: 720 → 678 (–42, –5.8%)

Interpretation: Suggests recent growth in the non-citizen population segment (small in absolute terms, but fast-growing).

Marital status: fewer “now married,” more “never married.”

Universe: Population 15+

15+ population: 44,379 → 47,050 (+2,671, +6.0%)

Counts + shares:

Never married: 10,642 → 13,493 (+2,851, +26.8%)
- Share: 23.98% → 28.68% (+4.70 pp)
Now married (except separated): 21,467 → 20,852 (–615, –2.9%)
- Share: 48.37% → 44.32% (–4.05 pp)
Divorced or separated: 8,232 → 8,966 (+734, +8.9%)
- Share: 18.55% → 19.06% (+0.51 pp)
Widowed: 4,038 → 3,739 (–299, –7.4%)
- Share: 9.10% → 7.95% (–1.15 pp)

Interpretation: The marital profile shifted toward more never-married adults and fewer married adults (as a share), consistent with a mix that includes more younger adults and/or later marriage.

Education: Kingsport gained attainment at the top, and shrank in “HS or less”

Universe: Population 25+

25+ population: 38,868 → 40,294 (+1,426, +3.7%)

Counts + shares:

Bachelor’s degree: 6,299 → 7,841 (+1,542, +24.5%)
- Share: 16.21% → 19.46% (+3.25 pp)
Graduate/professional: 4,236 → 4,836 (+600, +14.2%)
- Share: 10.90% → 12.00% (+1.10 pp)
Some college/associate: 10,792 → 12,112 (+1,320, +12.2%)
- Share: 27.77% → 30.06% (+2.29 pp)
High school graduate: 12,936 → 11,721 (–1,215, –9.4%)
- Share: 33.28% → 29.09% (–4.19 pp)
Less than HS: 4,605 → 3,784 (–821, –17.8%)
- Share: 11.85% → 9.39% (–2.46 pp)

Interpretation: This is one of your cleanest “structural improvement” signals: higher educational attainment increased materially.

Individual income: distribution shifted upward; median rose sharply (in 2024 dollars)

Universe: Population 15+

Median individual income (inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars)

$24,502 → $31,301 (+$6,799, +27.7%)

Largest improvements at the top:

$75k+: 10.14% → 15.68% (+5.54 pp) and 4,500 → 7,376 (+2,876)
$50k–$64,999: 7.84% → 9.18% (+1.34 pp)
$65k–$74,999: 2.66% → 3.65% (+0.99 pp)

Largest declines at the bottom:

$1–$9,999 or loss: 17.11% → 12.50% (–4.62 pp) and –1,715 people
$15k–$24,999: 17.08% → 14.73% (–2.35 pp)

Interpretation: The income profile becomes more top-heavy in 2024—more people in higher brackets, fewer in the lowest brackets.

Poverty: mixed—more people below poverty, but also more people well above it

Universe: “population 1 year+ for whom poverty is determined”

52,028 → 54,769 (+2,741, +5.3%)

Counts + shares:

Below 100% poverty: 9,741 → 11,049 (+1,308, +13.4%)
- Share: 18.72% → 20.17% (+1.45 pp)
100–149% poverty: 5,804 → 5,332 (–472, –8.1%)
- Share: 11.16% → 9.74% (–1.42 pp)
150%+ poverty: 36,483 → 38,388 (+1,905, +5.2%)
- Share: 70.12% → 70.09% (essentially flat)

Interpretation: Data shows an increase in the population below poverty (both count and share), even while the income distribution also shifts upward. That combination can happen when growth is bifurcated (some higher-income in-migration + persistent or growing low-income needs), and/or when housing and cost pressures change who falls below the threshold.

Housing tenure: renters grew faster than owners

Universe: “population 1 year+ in housing units”

51,956 → 54,656 (+2,700, +5.2%)

Tenure:

Owner-occupied: 33,306 → 34,629 (+1,323, +4.0%)
- Share: 64.10% → 63.36% (–0.75 pp)
Renter-occupied: 18,650 → 20,027 (+1,377, +7.4%)
- Share: 35.90% → 36.64% (+0.75 pp)

Interpretation: Renting gained share modestly, consistent with many markets post-COVID (tight housing, higher prices/rates, and more households renting longer).

What’s “most noteworthy” across the entire data set:

Moderate growth: +5.4% population, +4.9% housing units.
Age mix changed: median age fell; biggest growth in 35–44 and 20–24, while 65–84 also grew and 85+ shrank.
Diversification: strong increases in two or more races and Hispanic/Latino origin (both counts and shares).
Human capital: higher educational attainment increased substantially (Bachelor’s+ grew in both count and share).
Income distribution moved up, but poverty below 100% increased—a “two stories at once” pattern that deserves attention.

Note: Key to Interpreting age data:

Silent Generation: 1928–1945
Baby Boomers: 1946–1964
Gen X: 1965–1980
Millennials: 1981–1996
Gen Z: 1997–2012
Gen Alpha: 2013–present

ACS age groups → Generation labels (approx.)

Under 5 → Gen Alpha
5–9 → Gen Alpha
10–14 → Gen Alpha (mostly)
15–19 → Gen Z (with the youngest edge of Gen Alpha in the last couple years)
20–24 → Gen Z
25–34 → Millennials (heavily), with some older Gen Z at the bottom end
35–44 → Millennials (mostly)
45–54 → Gen X (mostly)
55–59 → Gen X / Baby Boomer overlap (late Boomers + early Gen X)
60–64 → Baby Boomer / Gen X overlap (mostly Boomers; some older Gen X at the bottom end)
65–74 → Baby Boomers (mostly)
75–84 → Silent Generation / older Boomers overlap (mostly Silent; oldest Boomers)
85+ → Silent Generation (and older) (almost entirely Silent / Greatest Generation survivors)

Kingsport Spirit