In Franklin County, Young Adults Prefer Density

I’ve seen several articles across the internet lately questioning the idea that young professionals and Millennials really prefer urban areas or not. I decided to see how this played out in Franklin County overall. I first looked at the total population aged 20-34 in the year 2000 and the year 2015 by Census Tract.
Here were the maps for those years.

After looking at the numbers for both years, I came up with this map for how that age group had changed in the 2000-2015 period.

Unfortunately, some tracts, particularly in the eastern suburban areas, did not exist in 2000, and so I was not able to figure out the change for them during the period. The rest of the map, however, shows that the strongest growth in this age group was not only inside 270, but closest to Downtown and central corridors along Broad and High Streets.
These maps don’t tell us about the relationship between those changes and the population density of the census tracts. So I went further and broke the tracts into increments of density to see where the strongest growth was occurring.

With a few exceptions, there appears to be a correlation between average 20-34 aged population growth and the density of the census tracts it occurs in. This suggests that this age group, at least in Franklin County, prefers areas with moderate to high density, which typically translates to urban living.

Metro Population Density Comparison- 2016 Update

I originally posted some data on this subject back in March 2013, which included this information for 2011 and 2012. I have updated to include new information.

The Columbus Metropolitan Area resides within a group of metros between 1.5 and 2.5 million people. I wanted to take a look at population densities between that group of metros to see how different they really are and where Columbus might fall within them.

Metro Area Size in Square Miles (Land Only) in 2016
1. Las Vegas, NV: 7,891
2. San Antonio, TX: 7,340
3. Kansas City, MO: 7,255
4. Portland, OR: 6,683
5. Nashville, TN: 6,300
6. Pittsburgh, PA: 5,282
7. Sacramento, CA: 5,096
8. Charlotte, NC: 5,068
9. Columbus: 4,796
10. Cincinnati: 4,391
11. Indianapolis, IN: 4,306
12. Austin, TX: 4,219
13. Orlando, FL: 3,477
14. San Jose, CA: 2,679
15. Virginia Beach, VA: 2,089
16. Cleveland: 1,996
17. Providence, RI: 1,587
18. Milwaukee, WI: 1,455

Metro Area Population Census 2010 and July 1, 2016 (using 2013 updated boundaries)
2010———————————————————-2016
1. Pittsburgh: 2,356,285————————–1. Charlotte: 2,474,314
2. Portland: 2,226,009—————————-2. Orlando: 2,441,257
3. Charlotte: 2,217,012—————————3. San Antonio: 2,429,609
4. Sacramento: 2,149,127———————–4. Portland: 2,424,955
5. San Antonio: 2,142,508———————–5. Pittsburgh: 2,342,299
6. Orlando: 2,134,411—————————–6. Sacramento: 2,296,418
7. Cincinnati: 2,114,580————————–7. Cincinnati: 2,165,139
8. Cleveland: 2,077,240————————–8. Las Vegas: 2,155,664
9. Kansas City: 2,009,342———————–9. Kansas City: 2,104,509
10. Las Vegas: 1,951,269———————–10. Austin: 2,056,405
11. Columbus: 1,901,974————————11. Cleveland: 2,055,612
12. Indianapolis: 1,887,877———————-12. Columbus: 2,041,520
13. San Jose: 1,836,911————————-13. Indianapolis: 2,004,230
14. Austin: 1,716,289—————————–14. San Jose: 1,978,816
15. Virginia Beach: 1,676,822——————15. Nashville: 1,865,298
16. Nashville: 1,670,890————————-16. Virginia Beach: 1,726,907
17. Providence: 1,600,852———————-17. Providence: 1,614,750
18. Milwaukee: 1,555,908———————–18. Milwaukee: 1,572,482

Metro Area Population Density by Square Mile Census 2010 and July 1, 2016
2010—————————————–2016
1. Milwaukee: 1069.4—————1. Milwaukee: 1080.7
2. Cleveland: 1040.5—————-2. Cleveland: 1029.7
3. Providence: 1008.7—————3. Providence: 1017.5
4. Virginia Beach: 802.7———–4. Virginia Beach: 826.7
5. San Jose: 685.7——————5. San Jose: 738.6
6. Orlando: 613.9——————–6. Orlando: 702.1
7. Cincinnati: 481.6—————–7. Cincinnati: 493.1
8. Pittsburgh: 446.1—————–8. Charlotte: 488.2
9. Indianapolis: 438.4—————9. Austin: 487.4
10. Charlotte: 437.5—————-10. Indianapolis: 465.4
11. Sacramento: 421.7————11. Sacramento: 450.6
12. Austin: 406.8——————–12. Pittsburgh: 443.4
13. Columbus: 396.6—————13. Columbus: 425.7
14. Portland: 333.1—————–14. Portland: 362.9
15. San Antonio: 291.9————15. San Antonio: 331.0
16. Kansas City: 277.0————16. Nashville: 296.1
17. Nashville: 265.2—————-17. Kansas City: 290.1
18. Las Vegas: 247.3————–18. Las Vegas: 273.2

Density Change Rank 2010-2016
1. Orlando: 88.3
2. Austin: 80.6
3. San Jose: 53.0
4. Charlotte: 50.8
5. San Antonio: 39.1
6. Nashville: 30.9
7. Portland: 29.8
8. Columbus: 29.1
9. Sacramento: 28.9
10. Indianapolis: 27.0
11. Las Vegas: 25.9
12. Virginia Beach: 24.0
13. Kansas City: 13.1
14. Cincinnati: 11.5
15. Milwaukee: 11.4
16. Providence: 8.8
17. Pittsburgh: -2.6
18. Cleveland: -10.8

Core County Population Census 2010 and July 1, 2016 by Rank
2010————————————————————-2016
1. Clark (Las Vegas): 1,951,269———————1. Clark: 2,155,664
2. Santa Clara (San Jose): 1,781,642————–2. Bexar: 1,928,680
3. Bexar (San Antonio): 1,714,773——————3. Santa Clara: 1,919,402
4. Sacramento (Sacramento): 1,418,788———-4. Sacramento: 1,514,460
5. Cuyahoga: 1,280,122——————————-5. Orange: 1,314,367
6. Allegheny (Pittsburgh): 1,223,348—————6. Franklin: 1,264,518
7. Franklin: 1,163,414———————————-7. Cuyahoga: 1,249,352
8. Orange (Orlando): 1,145,956———————8. Allegheny: 1,225,365
9. Travis: (Austin): 1,024,266————————9. Travis: 1,199,323
10. Milwaukee (Milwaukee): 947,735————–10. Mecklenburg: 1,054,835
11. Mecklenburg (Charlotte): 919,628————-11. Milwaukee: 951,448
12. Marion (Indianapolis): 903,393—————–12. Marion: 941,229
13. Hamilton: 802,374———————————13. Hamilton: 809,099
14. Multnomah (Portland): 735,334—————-14. Multnomah: 799,766
15. Jackson (Kansas City): 674,158—————15. Jackson: 691,801
16. Davidson (Nashville): 626,681——————16. Davidson: 684,410
17. Providence (Providence): 626,667————17. Providence: 633,473
18. Virginia Beach (Virginia Beach): 437,994—18. Virginia Beach: 452,602

Core County Population Density Per Square Mile Census 2010 and July 1, 2016 by Rank
2010———————————————————————— 2016
1. Milwaukee: 3932.5————————–1. Milwaukee: 3947.9
2. Cuyahoga: 2801.1————————–2. Franklin: 2376.9
3. Marion: 2279.6——————————3. Marion: 2375.0
4. Franklin: 2186.9—————————–4. Cuyahoga: 2733.8
5. Hamilton: 1976.3—————————-5. Mecklenburg: 2013.0
6. Virginia Beach: 1759.0——————–6. Hamilton: 1992.9
7. Mecklenburg: 1755.0———————–7. Multnomah: 1855.6
8. Multnomah: 1706.1————————8. Virginia Beach: 1817.7
9. Allegheny: 1675.8————————–9. Allegheny: 1678.6
10. Providence: 1528.5———————-10. Sacramento: 1569.4
11. Sacramento: 1470.2———————11. Bexar: 1555.4
12. Bexar: 1382.9—————————–12. Providence: 1545.1
13. Santa Clara: 1381.1———————13. Santa Clara: 1487.9
14. Orange: 1269.1—————————14. Orange: 1455.6
15. Davidson: 1243.4————————15. Davidson: 1358.0
16. Jackson: 1116.2————————–16. Travis: 1211.4
17. Travis: 1034.6—————————–17. Jackson: 1145.4
18. Clark: 247.3——————————–18. Clark: 273.2

The core counties of metros within the Midwest are clearly the most dense, with most hovering between 1500-2500 people per square mile. Columbus’ Franklin County moved up to 2nd most dense in 2016.

Core County Population Density Change 2010-2016
1. Mecklenburg: 258.0
2. Franklin: 190.0
3. Orange: 186.5
4. Travis: 176.8
5. Bexar: 172.5
6. Multnomah: 149.5
7. Davidson: 114.5
8. Santa Clara: 106.8
9. Sacramento: 99.1
10. Marion: 95.5
11. Virginia Beach: 58.7
12. Jackson: 29.2
13. Clark: 25.9
14. Providence: 16.6
15. Hamilton: 16.6
16. Milwaukee: 15.4
17. Allegheny: 2.8
18. Cuyahoga: -67.3

Columbus’ Franklin County densified at the 2nd fastest rate 2010-2016 of any of its metro peers, indicating that it’s receiving a large portion of the total metro population growth.

To see other metro population data, go to http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=6139




2016 City Population Estimates




The Census released its annual estimates for cities yesterday, so here’s a look at the new numbers.

Top 25 Ohio Cities on July 1, 2016 and Total Change Since July 1, 2015

1. Columbus: 860,090 +10,046
2. Cleveland: 385,809 -2,003
3. Cincinnati: 298,800 +146
4. Toledo: 278,508 -1,168
5. Akron: 197,633 -611
6. Dayton: 140,489 -86
7. Parma: 79,425 -457
8. Canton: 71,323 -542
9. Youngstown: 64,312 -401
10. Lorain: 63,730 +62
11. Hamilton: 62,127 -135
12. Springfield: 59,087 -531
13. Kettering: 55,306 -153
14. Elyria: 53,715 -81
15. Lakewood: 50,279 -342
16. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,206 -134
17. Newark: 49,134 +392
18. Middletown: 48,813 +131
19. Euclid: 47,360 -283
20. Mentor: 46,732 -162
21. Mansfield: 46,678 -187
22. Beavercreek: 46,376 +204
23. Dublin: 45,568 +473
24. Cleveland Heights: 44,633 -298
25. Strongsville: 44,631 -1

The only change in the top 25 was that Newark moved up one spot to #17, knocking down Middletown. Columbus continues to add more people than all the other 24 combined.

Now all cities and places with the Columbus Metro Area.
Total Population on July 1, 2016
1. Columbus: 860,090
2. Newark: 49,134
3. Dublin: 45,568
4. Lancaster: 39,848
5. Grove City: 39,721
6. Westerville: 38,985
7. Delaware: 38,643
8. Reynoldsburg: 37,449
9. Upper Arlington: 34,997
10. Gahanna: 34,956
11. Hilliard: 34,905
12. Marysville: 23,406
13. Pickerington: 20,069
14. Whitehall: 18,736
15. Pataskala: 15,458
16. Worthington: 14,528
17. Circleville: 13,902
18. Bexley: 13,669
19. Powell: 12,810
20. Heath: 10,625
21. New Albany: 10,360
22. London: 10,158
23. Canal Winchester: 7,905
24. Grandview Heights: 7,628
25. Logan: 7,085
26. Granville: 5,771
27. Groveport: 5,552
28. Sunbury: 5,216
29. Johnstown: 4,970
30. Obetz: 4,811
31. New Lexington: 4,722
32. Plain City: 4,357
33. West Jefferson: 4,329
34. Ashville: 4,194
35. Mount Gilead: 3,671
36. Baltimore: 2,973
37. Buckeye Lake: 2,766
38. Crooksville: 2,497
39. Hebron: 2,402
40. Richwood: 2,316
41. Utica: 2,191
42. Cardington: 2,062
43. South Bloomfield: 1,864
44. Roseville: 1,848
45. Mount Sterling: 1,760
46. Commercial Point: 1,611
47. Ashley: 1,500
48. Somerset: 1,463
49. Bremen: 1,434
50. Lithopolis: 1,429
51. Minerva Park: 1,312
52. Hanover: 1,162
53. Williamsport: 1,061
54. Millersport: 1,049
55. Thornville: 997
56. Urbancrest: 984
57. Pleasantville: 958
58. Milford Center: 840
59. New Holland: 836
60. Junction City: 805
61. Shawnee Hills: 769
62. Amanda: 740
63. New Straitsville: 711
64. Ostrander: 695
65. Marble Cliff: 671
66. Galena: 665
67. Shawnee: 643
68. Valleyview: 628
69. Thurston: 597
70. Corning: 571
71. Riverlea: 565
72. Stoutsville: 558
73. Buchtel: 553
74. Kirkersville: 535
75. Alexandria: 530
76. Carroll: 521
77. Laurelville: 510
78. Edison: 446
79. Murray City: 438
80. Sugar Grove: 432
81. Hartford: 405
82. St. Louisville: 379
83. South Solon: 361
84. Marengo: 346
85. Harrisburg: 335
86. Midway: 328
87. Rushville: 311
88. Tarlton: 287
89. Magnetic Springs: 281
90. Orient: 277
91. Fulton: 261
92. Lockbourne: 248
93. Darbyville: 238
94. Unionville Center: 237
95. Chesterville: 230
96. Gratiot: 223
97. Glenford: 176
98. Sparta: 163
99. Hemlock: 156
100. West Rushville: 137
101. Brice: 121
102. Rendville: 36

Several large suburbs are on the cusp of the 40,000 population mark, and Newark is poised to be the first to exceed 50,000.

Total Population Change July 1, 2015-July 1, 2016
1. Columbus: +10,046
2. Hilliard: +1,255
3. Delaware: +615
4. Marysville: +575
5. Grove City: +509
6. Dublin: +473
7. New Albany: +459
8. Westerville: +450
9. Newark: +392
10. Gahanna: +372
11. Grandview Heights: +361
12. Pickerington: +337
13. Reynoldsburg: +258
14. Powell: +174
15. Pataskala: +134
16. Lancaster: +123
17. Sunbury: +114
18. Upper Arlington: +100
19. Heath: +89
20. Lithopolis: +82
21. Canal Winchester: +79
22. Granville: +62
23. Circleville: +56
24. Obetz: +46
25. Whitehall: +46
26. Richwood: +44
27. Johnstown: +39
28. Worthington: +39
29. Marble Cliff: +32
30. Ashley: +28
31. Hebron: +18
32. London: +17
33. West Jefferson: +17
34. Bexley: +16
35. Milford Center: +16
36. Shawnee Hills: +16
37. Hanover: +15
38. Ostrander: +15
39. Utica: +15
40. Ashville: +13
41. Buckeye Lake: +13
42. Groveport: +13
43. South Bloomfield: +12
44. Commercial Point: +8
45. Williamsport: +5
46. Magnetic Springs: +4
47. Alexandria: +3
48. Baltimore: +3
49. Bremen: +3
50. Kirkersville: +3
51. Minerva Park: +3
52. New Holland: +3
53. St. Louisville: +3
54. Carroll: +2
55. Harrisburg: +2
56. Hartford: +2
57. Plain City: +2
58. Riverlea: +2
59. Sugar Grove: +2
60. Tarlton: +2
61. Brice: +1
62. Darbyville: +1
63. Galena: +1
64. Gratiot: +1
65. Lockbourne: +1
66. Midway: +1
67. Millersport: +1
68. Mount Sterling: +1
69. Orient: +1
70. Rushville: +1
71. Urbancrest: +1
72. West Rushville: +1
73. Amanda: 0
74. Fulton: 0
75. Glenford: 0
76. Hemlock: 0
77. Marengo: 0
78. Pleasantville: 0
79. Rendville: 0
80. South Solon: 0
81. Sparta: 0
82. Thurston: 0
83. Unionville Center: 0
84. Valleyview: 0
85. Chesterville: -1
86. Edison: -1
87. Stoutsville: -1
88. Thornville: -1
89. Buchtel: -2
90. Murray City: -2
91. Somerset: -2
92. Corning: -3
93. Junction City: -3
94. Laurelville: -3
95. New Straitsville: -3
96. Shawnee: -3
97. Cardington: -4
98. Crooksville: -8
99. Mount Gilead: -8
100. Roseville: -8
101. New Lexington: -13
102. Logan: -19

Overall, the vast majority of places in the Columbus metro continue to add people.




Before and After April 2017

I haven’t done a Before and After installment for a while. This time around, I chose to not focus on any single neighborhood.

First up is a photo of the construction of the Columbus Interurban Terminal, looking northwest from 3rd. The photo was taken on October 5, 1911, about 3 months before the building opened. The interurban system was relatively short-lived in the city, and the terminal closed after only 26 years in 1938. The building survived as a grocery store through the mid-1960s before the building was demolished in 1967 as part of the construction of the Greyhound Bus Terminal across the street. The actual location of the building was not on the Greyhound site, but was used as an overflow parking lot. It remained a parking lot until the mid-1980s, when it became part of the City Centre Mall site. Today, plans are for the site to become the location for the 12-story, Two25 mixed-use project.

Here is the same place in September 2016.

And the near future.

The second historic photo is of the #57 streetcar on Kelton Avenue just south of the Oak Street intersection. The photo, which looks north, was taken on June 30, 1915 and includes 3 separate visible buildings as well. The house on the left actually survived until 1977, when it and the rest of the east half of the block was demolished. The building visible on the right is the surviving streetcar barn. Today, it is in bad shape, and while many would like to see it renovated and saved, time seems to be running out. The other surviving building, barely visible in the 1915 photo, is the tenement building on the northwest corner of Oak and Kelton.

And in November 2015.

Third in this list is a photo of the demolition of the old Franklin County Jail, once located at 36 E. Fulton Street in Downtown. Built in 1889, the structure survived until the fall of 1971, when the building, which by then had become outdated for its intended purpose, was torn down to make way for- what else- a parking garage. The parking garage remains to the present day. Columbus leaders at the time should’ve been flogged for such short-sighted thinking, something that was repeated over and over and over again during that era. Today, such a very cool, gothic building would’ve made an excellent candidate for mixed-use conversion.

And in August 2016.

Finally, this next photo isn’t really historic. It was taken a mere 15 years ago in February, 2002, looking northwest from the corner of N. High Street and 10th Avenue. At the time, this area had been made up of low-rise historic buildings that had long held bars for OSU students. All these buildings in the photo, and many more, were demolished not long after the photo was taken in order to make room for the South Campus Gateway, now more or less just called the Gateway. Similar large-scale demolitions are taking place to the north and south as the entirety of the High Street corridor around Campus is transformed. Whether that is good or bad depends on who you ask. What can be agreed upon, however, is that the corridor will be almost unrecognizable in the end.

And in October, 2016.

Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2015




**Note: This was originally posted on March 8, 2016. However, the data went to 2014 rather than 2015 and I actually posted it without adding all the maps and other information intended.

I saw this post (http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/03/mapping-the-resegregation-of-diverse-neighborhoods-in-4-us-cities/472086/) the other day about changing neighborhood demographics in certain cities, particularly when it comes to racial segregation and gentrification. Surprisingly, of all the maps and posts I’ve done on demographics, I hadn’t thought to do one like this. Well, now I have.

A bit of an explanation is needed for the color coding:
-For those categories marked “Steady”, the demographic listed has been the majority throughout the period, with little to no change of other demographics.
-For those mixed categories of one decline and one rise, it means that the majority demographic has declined at least 5 percentage points, while a secondary demographic has risen at least 5 percentage points.
-For the category of recent or steady integration, there are at least 2 demographics at 10% or more of the total population, as well as a 3rd demographic reaching at least 5% of the population.

A few things that stand out to me: The eastern half of the county is in much greater flux than the western half, and integration is respectable county-wide. These neighborhoods of demographic equilibrium are largely the result of increasing Hispanic and Asian populations, particularly on the Northeast and West Sides, as well as the Whitehall area. In the center core, almost all of the High Street corridor has remained Steady White, suggesting that other demographics have, so far, been unable to tap into the building boom along and adjacent to this corridor. One other thing I notice is that there are FAR more tracts with a growing black population than there are with a growing White population, suggesting that perhaps the idea of Whites moving into neighborhoods and displacing residents is not quite as big of an issue as some might believe.

Here are the integrated tracts by year, based the above criteria, and their racial breakdown.

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest White Population

1990
1. 7205: 99.6%
2. 98: 99.1%
3. 7207: 98.9%
4. 120, 9240: 98.8%
5. 7201, 7203, 80: 98.7%
6. 7922, 9440, 9752: 98.6%
7. 9751, 10601: 98.5%
8. 110, 8141, 8821, 9711, 9740: 98.4%
9. 9450, 9800: 98.3%
10. 6230, 7210: 98.2%
2015
1. 65: 98.7%
2. 6810: 97.4%
3. 6822, 9712: 97.0%
4. 98: 96.0%
5. 6721, 6950: 95.9%
6. 220: 95.8%
7. 9497: 95.6%
8. 66: 95.5%
9. 6330: 94.8%
10. 7394: 94.7%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of White Population
1990
95% or Higher: 80
90%-94.9%: 73
80%-89.9%: 64
70%-79.9%: 10
60%-69.9%: 11
50%-59.9%: 6
Total Majority White Tracts: 244
40%-49.9%: 7
30%-39.9%: 9
20%-29.9%: 5
10%-19.9%: 9
0.1%-9.9%: 9
0%: 0
Total Minority White Tracts: 39
2015
95% or Higher: 11
90%-94.9%: 35
80%-89.9%: 62
70%-79.9%: 52
60%-69.9%: 30
50%-59.9%: 19
Total Majority White Tracts: 209
40%-49.9%: 11
30%-39.9%: 17
20%-29.9%: 25
10%-19.9%: 15
0.1%-9.9%: 6
0%: 0
Total Minority White Tracts: 74

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Black Population
1990
1. 730: 94.2%
2. 5420: 93.4%
3. 15, 28: 92.3%
4. 36: 91.8%
5. 5410: 91.4%
6. 7551: 91.1%
7. 7512: 90.9%
8. 23: 89.0%
9. 2520: 87.4%
10. 29: 87.2%
2015
1. 7512: 88.1%
2. 9337: 87.7%
3. 730: 84.9%
4. 7511: 83.6%
5. 23: 82.2%
6. 15: 81.9%
7. 55: 81.4%
8. 5420, 9332: 81.0%
9. 29: 80.9%
10. 8813: 79.1%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Black Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 7
80%-89.9%: 10
70%-79.9%: 4
60%-69.9%: 8
50%-59.9%: 6
Total Majority Black Tracts: 35
40%-49.9%: 7
30%-39.9%: 10
20%-29.9%: 9
10%-19.9%: 32
0.1%-9.9%: 190
0%: 0
Total Minority Black Tracts: 248
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 9
70%-79.9%: 8
60%-69.9%: 28
50%-59.9%: 9
Total Majority Black Tracts: 52
40%-49.9%: 20
30%-39.9%: 17
20%-29.9%: 24
10%-19.9%: 44
0.1%-9.9%: 126
0%: 0
Total Minority Black Tracts: 231

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Asian Population
1990
1. 7820: 23.3%
2. 1122: 11.2%
3. 1110: 10.8%
4. 105: 9.0%
5. 1810: 8.2%
6. 6372: 7.6%
7. 6384: 7.3%
8. 1121: 7.2%
9. 6386: 6.9%
10. 6395: 6.8%
2015
1. 7820: 34.1%
2. 7721: 26.8%
3. 6230: 26.7%
4. 1122: 21.9%
5. 7830: 17.0%
6. 1110: 16.6%
7. 105: 16.2%
8. 6395: 15.5%
9. 6372: 15.3%
10. 6386: 14.9%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Asian Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Asian Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 0
20%-29.9%: 1
10%-19.9%: 2
0.1%-9.9%: 273
0%: 7
Total Minority Asian Tracts: 283
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Asian Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 1
20%-29.9%: 4
10%-19.9%: 17
0.1%-9.9%: 215
0%: 46
Total Minority Asian Tracts: 283

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Hispanic Population
1990
1. 7820: 2.9%
2. 1122, 7209: 2.5%
3. 1810, 30: 2.3%
4. 8163, 9323, 9336: 2.1%
5. 6352, 7830: 2.0%
6. 1110, 1121, 2750: 1.9%
7. 10, 32, 40, 42, 7533: 1.8%
8. 12, 17, 1901, 6353, 7041, 7199: 1.7%
9. 6, 1820, 6945, 7531, 7551, 7721, 9326, 99: 1.6%
10. 13, 2710, 6933, 7120, 7532, 8164, 8230, 8730, 103: 1.5%
2015
1. 8230: 39.3%
2. 8164: 28.7%
3. 8163: 26.4%
4. 26: 24.2%
5. 9321: 22.7%
6. 8210: 22.6%
7. 99: 21.4%
8. 9230: 21.0%
9. 7043: 19.8%
10. 6945: 18.9%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Hispanic Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Hispanic Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 0
20%-29.9%: 0
10%-19.9%: 0
0.1%-9.9%: 278
0%: 5
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Hispanic Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 1
20%-29.9%: 7
10%-19.9%: 33
0.1%-9.9%: 241
0%: 9

Integrated Tracts By Year
1990: 2
2015: 98

Most Integrated Tract by Year
1990
1122: White: 76.6% Black: 9.6% Asian: 11.2% Hispanic: 2.5%
2015
7721: White: 33.9% Black: 31.2% Asian: 26.8% Hispanic: 10.1%

All in all, the data shows that the county is much less racially stratified/segregated now than it was in 1990, and that it doesn’t appear that gentrification is really affecting many areas in terms of forcing out one racial group for another.